User talk:Paul August

I'm sorry, you have reached an imaginary number. If you require a real number please rotate your telephone by ± 90° and try again.

Archives

Complete archive Individual archives: Jul–Dec 2004 Jan–Jun 2005 Jul–Sep 2005 Oct–Dec 2005 Jan–Mar 2006 Apr–Jun 2006 Jul–Sep 2006 Oct–Dec 2006 Jan–Mar 2007 Apr–Jun 2007 July–Sep 2007 Oct–Dec 2007 Jan–Mar 2008 Apr–Jun 2008 Jul–Sep 2008 Oct–Dec 2008 Jan–Jun 2009 Jul–Dec 2009 Jan–Mar 2010 Apr–Dec 2010 Jan–Dec 2011 Jan–Dec 2012 Jan–Dec 2013 Jan–Dec 2014 Jan–Dec 2015 Jan–Dec 2016 Jan–Dec 2017 Jan–Dec 2018

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

• Averroes (1953). Crawford, F. Stuart, ed. Commentariumin Aristotelis De Anima. Mediaeval Academy of America.
• Averroes (1953). Crawford, F. Stuart, ed. Commentarium Magnum in Aristotelis De Anima Libros. Mediaeval Academy of America. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The second, see this Google Books search. Paul August ☎ 11:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...Happy Chinese New Year! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK ■ 21:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ¬. Since you had some involvement with the ¬ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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/Antisemitism in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 15:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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! Mjs1991 (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo indeed ;-) Paul August ☎ 10:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 Peter 2:4.

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]

Dear Paul, Examining this further I see I made an error. Thanks for catching it. Miistermagico (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. Paul August ☎ 10:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Paul,

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]

		The Barnstar of Greece
		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]

@Katolophyromai: How very nice! Thank you for your kind words. I'm glad you appreciate my work. I miss your contributions, and seeing you around. Paul August ☎ 00:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am still writing obsessively, but I am no longer writing on Wikipedia as much. Nowadays I mostly write answers on Quora and articles on my personal website. Here is a link to my Quora profile and here is a link to my personal website. —Katolophyromai (talk) 06:06, 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]

Thanks, I think I've fixed things now. Paul August ☎ 20:18, 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. I think I'm starting to get the hang of things, and am engaging on the article Talk page. HudPix (talk) 00:33, 18 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]

Thanks. Paul August ☎ 12:29, 29 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.

ICE77 (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I can try. Paul August ☎ 12:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The birth of the Milky Way[edit]

Thanks for the help Paul August!

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?

ICE77 (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Milky Way I see:

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]

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) ISBN 978-0-19-871698-3

Specifically: pp. 132-135, p. 150, for what Aratus, Eratosthenes, and Hyginus have to say. Paul August ☎ 12:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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?

ICE77 (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

For Constellation Myths by Eratosthenes/Hyginus and Phaenomena by Aratus I would need to go to a library since pages 133-135 and 150 are blocked.

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.

ICE77 (talk) 07:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

So the story that the Milky Way comes from Hera’s spilt milk (usually while suckling Heracles) is well attested in ancient sources. Paul August ☎ 13:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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?

ICE77 (talk) 06:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no doubt that what the Greeks referred to as the "Milky Circle" is what we call the "Milky Way". Paul August ☎ 11:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

ICE77 (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theseus and the Minotaur[edit]

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?

ICE77 (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not offhand, no. When I get a chance I will look into it. In the meantime you could add a: ^{[citation needed]} template, or simply remove it. Paul August ☎ 12:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul August, thanks for the feedback. I added a citation needed tag for the missing source that claims Theseus used a sword to kill the Minotaur.

ICE77 (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul August, have you been able to look into the source of Theseus that use as sword to kill the Minotaur?

ICE77 (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. Paul August ☎ 12:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

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

@Llywrch: Thanks! Happy Holidays and Saturnalia to you too ;-) Paul August ☎ 17:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You must know my friend the librarian. She used to write Saturnalia carols. -- llywrch (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I'd love to hear one. Paul August ☎ 18:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I wish I could remember one of hers. And not guess at how they went (e.g, "Hark the herald druids sing...") -- llywrch (talk) 16:35, 23 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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:BRD WP: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]

@Bitwixen: Please listen to what P Aculeius says. You have made some useful contributions, I would hate to see you blocked. Paul August ☎ 14:06, 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]

@P Aculeius and Sweetpool50: Bitwixen now blocked for 31 hours: User talk:Bitwixen#December 2019. Paul August ☎ 19:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as if you too have a dragon-slayer up your sleeve! I only hope it doesn't tip him over the edge again. Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No dragon-slayer up my sleeve, it would hardly be big enough. It's rather more likely I'd find myself in the pocket of a certain fire breathing destroyer of Japanese cities. Paul August ☎ 21:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome in pocket, little Paul! Feel free use catflap! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 21:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks ... but you're going to scare my guests. Paul August ☎ 21:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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're very welcome. Paul August ☎ 12:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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/Kudpung. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 28, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 04:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If that counts as a challenge to deletion then the definition of challenge is meaningless. Anyway I think the article is not notable and I don't have an account. 2604:3D09:417F:DEB0:4C7D:ACD:5A4A:C5E3 (talk) 05:45, 15 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]

I know you meant well, Paul, but my son informs me it's "hueg" now. Compare Urban Dictionary. Admittedly that definition is from 2004, so it's probably something completely different by now. Bishonen | talk 21:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

;-) Paul August ☎ 21:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to sign it, you might want to do that.LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Paul August ☎ 15:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul August, its kinda amusing given the topic. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:38, 20 February 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'm not the admin who last protected the article. Paul August ☎ 19:58, 29 March 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. EEng 04:39, 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. EEng 03:37, 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]

P.S. I wish I had an appropriately funny image and caption with which to lighten the mood. Paul August ☎ 10:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]

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/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What was the reason for the removal of the last edit on the Wikipedia page Patroclus, about his intentions? Nawel Laakel (talk) 06:29, 24 April 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]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

• Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
• Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
• A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
• A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

• The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
• Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

---

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.

Benediximus, Paul August ☎ 11:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Good. Paul August ☎ 10:51, 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]

Paul August ☎ 20:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth

Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
• 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.

---

;-) Paul August ☎ 19:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I've blanked that page and left an explanatory message on their talk page. WP:COI or WP:NOTHERE don't yet apply. Paul August ☎ 12:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadat has reversed the blanking. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've now blanked and protected the page. Paul August ☎ 14:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thoas (king of Aetoila), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nestor and Meriones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rhexenor is categorised as a DAB page.

It might be better to move the mythological stuff over Rhexenor (mythology), or to return it to an SIA and hatnote the millipede. Narky Blert (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that page is now a mess. I think somebody tried to merge a dab page and set index article. Paul August ☎ 14:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've now made that page a SIA, with a hatnote for the millipede genus, as suggested. Paul August ☎ 20:09, 19 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]

Thanks, and I agree. Paul August ☎ 10:49, 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]

Well, presumably it was named after one of these, but which one? And whatever for? Paul August ☎ 09:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The taxon authority just says "mythological", and gives no reason. Narky Blert (talk) 13:17, 22 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]

Good. Paul August ☎ 22:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.

Technical news

• Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
• 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]

I didn't note the discussion on any portal, rather I mentioned the discussion at the Wikiproject: Classical Greece and Rome's talk page. For information on Wikiprojects see Wikipedia:WikiProject. An appropriate project might be Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels, you could mention the discussion on that projects talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. As for WP:portals, I don't know much about them, other than that most apparently attract little traffic. Paul August ☎ 14:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, I'll follow it up there. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:21, 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]

Please see WP:MOS which says:

"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."

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! Chris Troutman (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ;-) Paul August ☎ 23:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

• There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
• Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
• Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
• There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

---

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]

Oh, and, just for clarity: my issue is not THAT my translations were removed, but WHY; rules are unclear. Untitled50reg (talk) 18:03, 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:

κακῶς φρονοῦντες: ὡς τρὶς ἂν παρ᾽ ἀσπίδα

στῆναι θέλοιμ᾽ ἂν μᾶλλον ἢ τεκεῖν ἅπαξ.^[1]

Where "Kovacs, p. 306" might refer to the following entry in a "Bibliography" section of the article:

• Euripides, Medea, translated by David Kovacs in Euripides. Cyclops. Alcestis. Medea. Edited and translated by David Kovacs. Loeb Classical Library No. 12. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1994. ISBN 978-0-674-99560-4. Online version at Harvard University Press.

I hope this helps. Regards, Paul August ☎ 14:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@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]

Dear Mr August.

My name is Moutzouris Ilias, i am a medical doctor Microbiologist in Agios Dimitrios, Messinia, Greece. If you have some avaliable time, can we please discuss about the deleted text https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Helen_of_Troy&oldid=972989910 ?

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.

The famous professor of Archaeology Dr. Petros Themelis, who is the leader of excavations for over 30 years of the city of Ancient Messene ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messene ), combined those sources and concluded that since Dioscuri were born on the Pefnos islet and since Helen and Disocuri were born from the same egg, then the birth place of Helen is Pefnos islet in Messinia. In order to verify this, he created some days before a statue of an egg with engraved the union of Zeus/swan and Leda, as it is shown on the ancient statue stored in British Museum ( https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1973-0302-1 ). You can see more photos and info of the statue at a facebook page created: https://www.facebook.com/Η-γέννηση-της-Ωραίας-Ελένης-στη-βραχονησίδα-Πέφνο-614729455848919 and a drone video of the construction at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fYLr6Nqa14

In 22 of August the municipality of West Mani ( https://www.dimosdytikismanis.gr/en/home-english/ ) has a ceremony on the Pefnos islet, with the unveiling of the statue. The presentation of the statue will be done by 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 ) and Dr. Petros Themelis. I will send you the verifications of all this after the 22th of August, from various newspapers and tv stations.

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.

Please let me know of your opinion

Best regards

Dr. Moutzouris Ilias Medical doctor of Microbiology --Kavouras55 (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]