Thanks for undoing on Titanomachy (epic poem). I'm a bit curious, based on the references, shouldn't it be known that Zeus comes from outside Greece and not Greece?
Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leger Agrippa (talk • contribs) 17:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorizedfor all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
Materialscientist is not a bot. Why do you think so? The edit to Row hammer that you reverted, removed some questionable and unsourced text. That's not vandalism. What makes you think it was? Materialscientist reverted your edit because you failed to provide a reliable source for the content you were adding back. There is nothing inappropriate about that. The other edit was perhaps a mistake, you should just ask Materialscientist on their talk page. As for the posts on your talk page, you can just remove them. Paul August☎21:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Greek mythology for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look. However, a thorough review of that article would be an enormous job. And I am just qualified to know that we have few (if any) editors qualified to do it. Paul August☎12:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
Hello Paul August--you have access to JSTOR, right? I typed in the name and got plenty of hits; if you don't and you'd like me to email you some material, please let me know. Have a great day, Drmies (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do have access to JSTOR, thanks. Will check there (eventually). I'd be interested in knowing any particularly useful titles you've found. Paul August☎15:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.
Technical news
When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cepheus (father of Andromeda), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Argos.
@Deepfriedokra: Hmmm ... Unfortunately I don't remember the cirmcumstance here. The "warning" was apparently in response to this edit, which is primarily pro Albanian POV pushing. What that edit does is to add the unsourced statement that:
"genetic links between Albanians and Pre-Indo-Europeans are fairly strong"
and at the same time essentially delete, in the subsequent note, the following:
"Stephanie Schwandner-Sievers and Bernd Jürgen Fischer, editors of Albanian Identities: Myth and History, present papers resulting from the London Conference held in 1999 entitled "The Role of Myth in the History and Development of Albania." The "Pelasgian" myth of Albanians as the most ancient community in southeastern Europe is among those explored in Noel Malcolm's essay, "Myths of Albanian National Identity: Some Key Elements, As Expressed in the Works of Albanian Writers in America in the Early Twentieth Century".
replacing those two senetences with the sentence fragment:
which deletes some opposing (apparently sourced) POV, misnames one of the editors (intentionally?), and mangles the note.
However, unless the name change was intentional, this isn't really vandalism, so that particular warning now looks inappropriate to me. Paul August☎10:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.
Arbitration
The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.
I was about to ask you if severe pruning of the final section of Cyclopes might not be in order, but you have already stepped in. I've cut it down even further so that it remains focussed on the proper subject. Hopefully Madreterra won't make an issue of it, but his editing history doesn't look reassuring. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you have done here is very strange. Neither of the titles is "accurate" (see the scan here, for example), and "PH.D. in two volumes" is meaningless anyway. Plus, besides these two titles where I had slightly edited punctuation (this by itself is generally perfectly allowed), that edit included many more legitimate changes, so reverting it completely was at least not polite. So I'm restoring my edit. If you have any concerns, please edit only what is needed (which we can discuss, if you want). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikhail Ryazanov: I'm sorry I didn't mean to be impolite. You changed the title of four works in the references section (incorrectly in my view) and correctly added three periods to the end of three of the works. So the easiest thing to me seemed to be to revert your edit, and add back the three periods, which is what I did. So in effect I did change "only what is needed". As for the titles:
Hard's book, has "H.J. Rose" in the title not "H. J. Rose". This is how it is printed in the copy of the book I own which I used as a reference, see also: WorldCat. So I think that should be changed back. Do you disagree?
Normalizing punctuation and formatting to conform to the house style is in fact recommended. English Wikipedia generally uses spaced initials with periods. For the Murray books, I have inserted links to their scans (at the Internet Archive) to the article, so you can check how these titles actually look in these books. For the Hard's book, look carefully at its title (I did at Google Books, already linked in the article) – it, for example, does not have the quotation marks and the colon, but does have a space between the initials (on the cover, although not on the title page – however, in the text they also don't space any initials, so this is their house style) and very different capitalization and italics. So there is no reason to copy titles verbatim from the books themselves or from any third-party catalogs, because if we do so, the references section will be a crazy mix of incompatible formats. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pleisthenes, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Porphyry and Hellanicus.
I just want to come clean now and admit I shamelessly copied the ascii code unicode for your telephone talk icon. --- Possibly☎03:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.
Technical news
IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.
Arbitration
The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.
An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.
Technical news
Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)
I am in no way making light of the broader situation. But I just wanted to let you know, when I saw your response, I was laughing out loud. You well hoisted me by my own petard, and I well-deserved it. I was sitting there, waiting to see when "someone" would propose actual text so we could dive in an see if we could get something to work. I hadn't even thought that that someone could/should be me...lol
I'll go wander around some policy pages and see if I can figure out something. Thank you btw.
I've recast the table of offspring and mothers in Hermes much as I did at Ares and now I may I understand your concerns at Talk:Ares#Kids' table a bit better. I found what seems to be really poor use of poor primary sources and began to see how widespread it might be. I've described a couple of examples at Talk:Hermes#Offspring, mothers and sources but I'm still wondering if we might need a centralised discussion at say Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome or similar, because cleaning this up could take a lot of tagging and/or deletion, and I don't fancy trying to produce long forensic explanations for each one. (To be honest, I don't fancy making a career of it at all.) I haven't been editing in this area long and I don't know what current attitudes are to what seems to be long-established use of primary sources for classical mythology and even history. Do you see a way forward? NebY (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look at Talk:Hermes. Using untranslated primary sources is useful, but never sufficient. However using translations of primary sources is sufficient for citing what the primary source says, but not for what the primary source means. So, for example, if the translation says that A was the father of B, then citing the translation for that assertion is fine. Paul August☎11:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look forward to your comments, here or there. There are issues with translation (in the cases I examined. I found Brimo well-translated as Hecate, but another translation might leave it as Brimo and give an editor the impression that was a different goddess; likewise I'd have liked to be pointed to the translation of Tzetzes and I wonder if the editor should instead have cited the secondary source in which they found a mention of Tzetzes on Hermes) but they're not the biggest problem for me. It's the use of bad sources such as the pseudo-clementine Homilies for a claim that may not be found in most secondary sources, for good reason, or the misunderstandings and consequent synthesis on Brimo, or what might be a thorough misreading of Tzetzes. Behind that sits a process of cataloguing in Wikipedia every primary-source mention rather than relying on modern scholarship, leaving the poor reader with a mixture of "mainstream" and distinctly outré mythology. NebY (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I essentially agree with all that. If a translation of a primary source containing "Brimo", leaves it untranslated, then it would be WP:OR to cite that translation as a source for some assertion about Hecate. And many citations in Wikipedia to such things as Scholia on such and such, where no secondary source (translation or not) is cited, are coming from non WP:RS sources (e.g. other Wikipedia articles, or various web sites such as Theoi.com). I will try to add some comments at Talk:Hermes, when I find the time. Paul August☎14:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.
A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.
Miscellaneous
Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)
The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.
Hello. I noticed you edited one of my more recent edits at Selene, specifically the page number in Keightley from 62 to 56. As I have been informed by Haploidavey, there are several edition of his work; the page I linked (62) is the correct page in Thomas Keightley, Second edition, 1838, though elsewhere in the article the expanded version (paper?), 1877, with Leonhard Schmitz is used (which I did not notice when I first added the link to the other edition), where the correct page is presumably 56 (as this particular edition is not searchable on Google books, so I cannot verify myself). When you edited the article, you changed the page number from 62 to 56, but not the link itself (to the edition where p. 56 is the correct one that is), so it led to a page with irrelevant information for Selene. So that's why I edited it back. Best regards, Deiadameian (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Deiadameian: Hi and thanks for your note. When I changed your page numbers I didn't notice that they were referring (and linking) to a different edition than the one used elsewhere in the article (I should have checked but didn't ;-) As you note, the edition used elsewhere is the fourth edition 1877, edited by Leonhard Schmitz and published by G. Bell and Sons, 1877, and that's the edition listed in the "References" section of the article. I think we should, of course, cite (and link to) the same edition throughout which I think should be the more recent fourth edition. Google Books has versions of the 1877 printing, as well as a 1902 reprinting of the fourth edition); are you able to see the relevant pages using the Google links given above? Very best regards, Paul August☎13:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Paul August! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk ~~~~~
Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.
The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
You left this comment on Deiadameian's talk page regarding an alleged fragment of Pamprepius. You seem to be planning on using: "... while, in a possible Pamprepius fragment, she is called ..."; I assume you're using the word "possible" because you can't see the book in question that lists it as a Pamprepius fragment. However, I've had a look and I apparently have a 2018 De Gruyter reprint of the 1979 Teubner edition[1] of fragments of Pamprepius. The 3rd fragment in that book (p. 16 contains the relevant passage) is the same as what is in LCL 360, pp. 566, 567. I don't know how (or if?) you'd want to cite it, but I thought I'd let you know, as with this we should at least be able to justify calling it a Pamprepius fragment. Regards, Michael Aurel (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this (please tell me you don't look at all my edits). However the reason for the "possible" is not to express doubt that this fragment has been listed somewhere as Pamprepius fr. 3 (which you apparently have confirmed, could you send me a copy of the relevant passage in the Pamprepii Panopolitani carmina?), but doubt, as described on LCL 360 pp. 564–564, as to whether the fragment is actually from a poem by Pamprepius or not. Paul August☎02:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, that makes sense. Regarding the book I'm looking at, there isn't really anything to send as it doesn't contain a translation or anything other than the text in Ancient Greek, which (I've checked) is all the same as what is in the Loeb volume (i.e. the relevant passage is no different to what you're looking at), meaning it should be fine to cite it as "Pamprepius, fr. 3 Livrea" or however you want. (And don't worry, I wouldn't be able to keep up with all the edits you make each day, I just checked to see what you were planning on using.) Michael Aurel (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.
I noticed that you reverted a stray "</ref>" on the article Kouros, restoring the "</ref>" that appears in the text. Your comment on the reversion was "not stray".
At this point, I can only see it as time for harsh words:
Your reversion was an incompetent edit. You did not look carefully before acting, and presumably did not look afterwards to see what effect your action had. If you are going to do something as drastic as reverting other editors changes, you are obliged to do so thoughtfully and carefully. The re-appearance of the un-paired "</ref>" shows that you were neither thoughtful nor careful.
Shape up: Change your mind, change your actions.
And no: you do not get a "free pass" to treat anonymous editors with less consideration.
You are absolutely correct. I was wrong, you were right, that was a stray "</ref>". I made that edit in haste. I should have been more careful, and I should have checked the result of my edit. So I'm sorry and I offer the sincerest of apologies. I respect editors who wish to edit anonymously, and although my long experience has taught me to have less confidence in the edits of "IP editors", I know that, nevertheless, such editors can and do make good contributions, and I strive to treat all edits on the merits of their content and not on what I may think about the editor. Certainly I meant no disrespect to you personally (as far as I know everyone makes mistakes, so my thinking you might have made one does not mean anything in particular). Regards Paul August☎16:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your well-thought-through apology was very well done, and kudos to you for leaving the post up. Thank you. I definitely respect preserving evidence of a personal error within your own bailiwick. Especially since it is a mild indicator of probable change in mind and action that was the goal of my scold. Reciprocal regards. 71.94.235.196 (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"This remark by Macrobius is historically noteworthy, if nothing else. And, of course it's an opinion, that is all we every have in such contexts."
You said this in regards to your revision. But this isn't really noteworthy, that is just in your opinion.
You acknowledge that the Marcobius quote is just an opinion, and so is everything else in contexts apparently. But this specifically stands out as it makes the least amount of sense, because unlike every thing else being said about the race, this one doesn't add up at all. It again: is just in theory.
Searching the words "Saturn and Satyr" on google leads you to just see that one dumb phrasing by the wiki that isn't even accurate saying something about "Saturn + Satyr = Penis". This is the only place that says this in theory. Think about it. In comparison to the other connections there, this one doesn't even matter nor really contribute to anything. Please see reason so that it isn't a thing people try to use for themselves when it comes to other media when people google this. Unlike before, as of now when you google it, you get the general information instead of the whole "Saturn + Satyr = Penis" irrelavancy: https://files.catbox.moe/2063nr.PNG
@Netero10: Hello! That Macrobius, a 5th-century Roman poet, thought that the words "Saturn" and "Satyr" were derived from the Greek word for penis is a fact (based upon the cited source: Riggs 2014, p. 234). There is no way to know for certain how any words were derived, but Macrobius's opinion on this—even if incorrect—is noteworthy (and that's not just my opinion, but also the opinion of the cited source, and now another Wikipedia editor Haploidavey, who has also reverted your edit). Your statement that the article is saying that "Saturn + Satyr = Penis" is simply not true!
Wikipedia is a collaborative process, and content is achieved through consensus. Since two editors now disagree with your removal there is currently no consensus for your proposed change to the article. If you still think you are right, then you can begin a discussion about this on the article's talk page: Talk:Satyr, where all editors can discuss this issue and we can try to build a consensus for any appropriate changes to the article. Please don't insist on your version of the article, by simply repeating your edit after being reverted by other editors, doing so can lead to your editing privileges being removed (See WP:EDITWAR).
@Paul August: How is it noteworthy when it does not really pertain to anything? It's not even correct information, but something speculatory. Thoughts. There's no benefit from that when learning about the lore of Satyr. All of that being said, even it being in favor of Marcobius, its just hypothetical and like I said (as you may have ignored) when you google Saturn and Satyr, that's exactly the impression both of you and Haploid's edit is going to give. Because there are other iterations in media. If it wasn't saying "Saturn + Satyr meant Penis" or was drawn from the word Penis vice versa, then sure I don't really mind it staying there and won't just continue to edit it. Perhaps you should just make it more specific and say that it was in theory and was just an opinion being made. This really shouldn't be something to be so attatched to. This isn't about Marcobius after all, it's about Satyr. Netero1015:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.
Technical news
The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)
Sorry to trouble you, but I've just had a report at the 3RR noticeboard booted back for insufficient formatting. I'm helplessly untechy and went next to their specimen report and made an even greater hash of that, which I haven't dared post. I wonder if you could guide me thru my failed attempt -
Page:A. E. Housman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User being reported:Galileeblack
@Sweetpool50: Hi Sweetpool50, sorry I'm only just now able to look at this. Is this still current? It looks to me like you tried to "roll your own" report rather than clicking on the button "Click here to create a new report" at the top of that page (WP:AN3). Consequently your report was declined by Bbb23 as "malformed". If you still want to pursue this you should try clicking on the button and:
1. Replace "<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->" with "Galileeblack" (there are two instances of this).
2. Replace "<!-- Place name of article here -->" with "A. E. Housman".
3. Replace the various instances of "[diff]" and "[link]" by the appropriate diffs and links.
4. Add any comments after the "Comments" section, and sign your name.
Note: I'm replying here (with a ping) to keep the discussion all in one place (I'll also put a pointer to this reply on your talk page). Paul August☎15:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sweetpool50: No what? Your second attempt still had several errors. In particular the field "User being reported:", also no link in the field "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:" You could see this by comparing your report with, for example, the one right above it. Paul August☎02:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your Edit summaries mentioned WP:lINKSPAM not WP:LINKVIO. Did you check to see if the links to the works removed are under copyright? I doubt that they all are. If you did check then you can go ahead an remove them. As for links to demonax home page, since there are no copyrighted texts on that page, there would be no violation of copyright. Paul August☎23:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The main ones I noticed were links to Demosthenes' Speeches and a few fragment collections that were published after 1927 from Loeb Classical Library. I think they are in that ambiguous zone for copyright, but I think we generally err on the side of caution there (?) while a lot of sites don't. Also my main motivation for removing the links is that they were all added by one user, User:Fredmond4 back in 2013, which made me very suspicious about the purpose of adding them - it looked very promotional.
It seems to me that if the website stores copyrighted material though, we probably shouldn't link to it at all? I'm not sure what the official policy there is, but given it appears to be somebody's personal web page I figured linking to it wasn't the best either way. - car chasm (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, the policy on WP:LINKSPAM that I was following was "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." - car chasm (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe many of the works you've removed links to are in the public domain, so OK to link to. (I think that it probably true for most of the works on Demonax). Not linking to any website which might contain copyrighted somewhere on it, would mean not linking any websites, including Wikipedia. As for spam regardless of the motives of the original linker, these links are not spam, they are extremely valuable links. Paul August☎23:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm - I see your point on the copyright there that we would be too exclusive there. I wonder about the value in every case: it looks like it's just linking to plain text versions of the texts? I suppose that is valuable if we don't have any links to wikisource, etc. though. Before I considered the copyright angle I did think also that they'd get added back (by someone other than the WP:SPA) if they were needed - I went directly from that user's contribution to find demonax links so any that were added by someone else weren't touched. But if you want to revert any of the others that don't link to copyrighted material, I don't have any concerns anymore now that we've discussed it. I'll also stop removing them entirely. :). - car chasm (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.
Arbitration
Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.
Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.
The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
First Macedonian War has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog FarmTalk15:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Paul for your contribution. I undid your edits on the archived talk page because we can have the history. I restore your edits in the original talk page after the reverting of Gwinn. Emryswledig (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Emryswledig: A given discussion should occur only once, either on the talk page itself, or in the archives, not both at once. Since I had copied the archived discussions from the archive to the talk page, I deleted them from the archive. But since my edits were reverted I don't intend to take further action there. Regards, Paul August☎20:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that our new information on Castus is frowned upon by some users. I think our theory is worth being mentioned. Thanks. Emryswledig (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"I think our theory is worth being mentioned" - That's not up to you to unilaterally decide! This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work - otherwise we would have complete chaos here. Linda Malcor's books and papers have received many scholarly reviews, almost universally negative; a smattering of the more notable ones have been posted to the Lucius Artorius Castus Talk page and are available to view in the Archive. Your co-authored paper with Linda, "Missing Pieces...", thus far has received only one scholarly review (by Bradley Skeen, Journal of Indo-European Studies, 48, 2020, p. 61ff.) and it is devastating. The fact is, you and Linda are fringe authors pushing fringe theories on Wikipedia, which is not allowed, per WP's policies on FRINGE THEORIES and UNDUE WEIGHT. 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:FD0A:F611:3ED1:3529 (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right Paul. I'm sorry for this insane anonymous user who doesn't want to log in. Please delete this section. Thanks again. Emryswledig (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the article Echidna (mythology) I took off the picture named "Echidna - Furia alata" because is not an Echidna but a Fury, the name of the picture is wrong, it's only correct the "Furia alata", not the "Echidna". The Echidna in Parco dei Mostri, in Bomarzo (Italy), is near a group of lions, it's for that I changed it. Enric (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Enric: Ah ... I see. If you are sure that photo captioned "Echidna - Furia alata" is not Echidna then you should remove it (giving an edit summary saying so) But I don't think the photograph you replaced it with is needed in the article since a better photo of the Echidna, from the Parco dei Mostri, already exists there, and we don't need two. Paul August☎20:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK! I removed it. Since there are no more images of Echidna in the commons category but the one in Parco dei Mostri, I think it's the better option. Best wishes! --Enric (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the archiving edit war on that talk page has, despite your efforts, continued. I came across it while doing RCP and noticed what seems to be several blatant instances of WP:OUTING being thrown from all sides? I would start an ANI thread but I am currently in no state to try and to process the sheer chaos being strewn across that talk. PadgriffinGriffin's Nest16:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Padgriffin: Yes that situation needs dealing with, but I hate taking things to WP:ANI. The WP:OUTING, the edit war, the deleting of other editor's comments, are all serious concerns, not to mention the non-consensual editing and edit warring on the article itself. I am reluctant to administer editorial sanctions myself, for several reasons, but if this keeps up I likely will take some action, or, of course, some other administrator may decide to intervene in the mean time. Hopefully, before then, some editorial consensus will emerge (e.g. see just below). Paul August☎10:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have made a proposal on the talk page that I hope might resolve the issue. I think the proponents of Malcor's theory just want to have their paper and up coming book referenced. Allowing it in the 'Identification with King Arthur' section may placate them. Keeping the main body of the article for mainstream academic opinion and consensus should placate the other posters.
Thus I've suggested their paper followed by Skeen's rebuttal is placed in that section.
Any reference to their up-coming book, or mine, could follow that.
I've tried to simplify the issues in a previous talk section and the proposed new paragraph is concise and avoids long winded explanations.
@TonySullivanBooks: Thanks for attempting to resolve things there. It is to be hoped that this, or something like it, will succeed. Otherwise (see just above) some administrative action will probably be required. I would really like to avoid that! Paul August☎10:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paul,
How can I delete my account on wikipedia or make it inactive?
The user 2603:8000:cf40:2edb:1cf5:d166:9aae:6c70 aka (Redacted) (blocked) is stalking on my user talk page and he 'spams' everywhere.
Please delete my account since I'm not interested in editing Wikipedia since it is controlled by this user and his friends. Thanks. Artoriusfadianus (talk) 06:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Artoriusfadianus: I'm very sorry that you want to stop contributing to Wikipedia. Perhaps there would be a way to resolve the problems you've been having instead. If you think another editor is harassing you, there are ways of dealing with that, see WP:HARASS. And please note: no editor (or group of editors) "controls" a Wikipedia article, see WP:OWN. If you think any editors are violating this Wikipedia policy, then there are ways of dealing with that too. However it is not possible to delete an account, see WP:UNC. Your account could be blocked so that it could no longer be used, see WP:BLOCK. But I don't see the need for that, since you can simply stop using it. Regards, Paul August☎11:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.
Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)
Arbitration
The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
The above-named person states his birth-year is wrong in the article. I realize that is not a reason to change it, but it's also unsorted, so shouldn't be removed.
I'm banned from editing user-facing pages in Wikipedia for, IMO, refusing not to note that I was being bullied. I'm pretty sure this post is not in violation of my ban.
Sorry about the delay. Someone claiming to be Jan reported, on a Facebook thread related to a Wikipedia article, that his birth year was reported incorrectly on Wikipedia, and he was (he said) unable to correct it. Obviously, he might not be able to verify it was him, but I rechecked the guidelines, and WP:BLP (I can't find the specific NOTFAMOUS link) suggests that personal information about a non-famous living person should not be listed unless he gives permission. — Arthur Rubin(talk)03:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Arthur Rubin: Well, meanwhile, someone did change the birth-year to 1950, trying apparently, to link to the Facebook thread you refer to, but the link given does not work, and I am not certain this would be considered to be a reliable source anyway, so I've removed the date altogether. Paul August☎10:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aeolus (son of Hellen), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Locrian and Amphissa.
A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.
Technical news
The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please emailMadalina Ana.
Arbitration
An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
Hi. By "editorial consensus" do you mean it's rape if the majority say it is, and not rape if the majority say it isn't? People don't know what rape is anymore to the point that we have to be at the mercy of the internet court to say if a person sexually assaulted without their consent because they were unconscious was raped or not? --FábioScorpio (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the links provided by JayBeeEll above. Editorial consensus does not determine if something is true or not, rather it is used on Wikipedia as the best way to determine whether the weight of expert opinion has determined that something is true or not. In this case the weight of expert opinion does not seem to support describing Selene as having raped anyone. So even if a majority of Wikipedia's editors thought that Selene ought to be called a rapist, without a supporting expert consensus, we are not allowed to assert such a thing in any article. Paul August☎12:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.
Arbitration
Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
I don't see how it misrepresents the source: the gloss is tentative at best given our modern understanding of PIE, and Kerenyi assumes it's Ionian too. Hesychius isn't infallible. Zagreus99 (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way Zagreus has a Hellenic origin based on our now very precise understanding of IE phonology. I won't comment that without a source, however it is still the case that Kerenyi is simply interpreting the gloss as Ionian Greek. Zagreus99 (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zagreus99: I'm sorry I haven't had the time to reply to this sooner. I still have some questions about how you've represented what Kerenyi is saying. I will (when I get a chance) open a discussion about this on the talk page. Regards, Paul August☎15:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.
Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.
Technical news
A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)
Arbitration
Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.
Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Hi Paul, it looks like you undid a set of my rollbacks about 25 times with the edit summary "Why did you revert this apparently good edit?" The answer is that these were all done under WP:ROLLBACKUSE #4, "To revert edits by banned or blocked users in defiance of their block or ban", related to a range block that is visible in my action log. I did leave edit summaries under the first few uses in this set, but the total number was prohibitive to do manually. In general, many of the block-evading edits have been/continue to be simple examples of fixing WP:NOTBROKEN links while ignoring all efforts to be dissuaded from doing so, which was also what resulted in the original block that's being evaded here, in which case these are not actually good edits either. This example of your reversion, for example, simply consisted of changing wikilcnks from Titan (mythology) to Titans and Gaia (mythology) to Gaia; Gaia (mythology) and Titan (mythology) already redirect to the right article, and I think we can also imagine a case in which the mythological figures are not considered the primary topics of the terms, in which case the link would have to be fixed again in the future. If you have a chance to reinstate the rollbacks, I would appreciate it. Best, Dekimasuよ!01:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to make the change, but rather to restore the page to its original form; the intention is to prevent an indefinitely blocked user from systematically evading the indefinite block to continue to institute changes like "[[Gaia (mythology)|Gaia]] to [[Gaia]]" across a large range of articles. The reverted edits are generally in violation of WP:NOTBROKEN (and have the potential to create additional links to disambiguation pages in the future). Dekimasuよ!03:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but since having "[[Gaia]]" is clearly better than having "[[Gaia (mythology)|Gaia]]", I don't want to make the change either, and so I don't intend to. Regards, Paul August☎13:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.
Technical news
Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.
Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.
Technical news
Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.
Arbitration
The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.
Are you somehow under the impression that the article for Keres does anything at all to cover the topic of Ker, in addition to covering the distinct personifications known as the Keres? And if so, how did you come to that conclusion? - Burner89751654 (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. As far as I'm aware there isn't really that much to cover concerning Ker, and that article covers all of it. What more do you think could be said? And if there really is a lot more to say, then feel free to create a separate article. Paul August☎00:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Attalus I for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the changes I made here were problematic? I'm happy to discuss any of them of course, if you disagree. Perhaps it was an accident? I can't quite tell. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, what now? Do you really think it's helpful or in the best interests of the project to impose a block on BrownHairedGirl when a) there's an AN/I ongoing for several days now, which involves her, and sanctions due to behaviour have been requested for other users in that dispute, which you're aware of; b) the AN/I case has been referred to ArbCom; and c) you have not bothered to inform the AN/I thread, or the blocked user? It's not like there aren't any admins well aware of what BHG (and the other involved parties) have written over the last week. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!13:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW has been closed, and the final decision is viewable at the case page. The following remedy has been enacted:
For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, AlisonW's administrative user rights are removed. She may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.
OK thanks, and of course apology accepted. Out of curiosity, why do you say this? I didn't think you said anything which needed to be apologized for. Paul August☎15:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this revert, you restored the word "Greek" (from Macedonia incorporates most of the territories of ancient Macedon to Greek Macedonia incorporates most of the territories of ancient Macedon (emphasis added), but your edit summary stated The topic of this article is about the geographic region of Greece, so "Greek" here is redundant and misleading. I'm confused. Do you believe the word "Greek" should be in this sentence or not? (For the record, I believe it should be there, at least in this first instance, to differentiate from North Macedonia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!11:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiDan61: Sorry yes, I (lacking sufficient coffee) misunderstood the edit I was trying to revert! And yes that edit summary did reflect my then view. But after I read the article more carefully and thought about it some more I realized that "Greek' was probably better there. So I've restored the original version. Sorry for the confusion. Paul August☎11:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, would you happen to be aware of what it is that happened to our article on Chaos? You seem to have been the main author of that page, though it is now a redirect to Chaos (cosmogony), where that article's information is accompanied by some other (in certain cases, perhaps questionably related) examples of "Chaos". I was somewhat confused by this recently, but I thought asking you directly might be a good idea, as I think the Greek Chaos is deserving of its own page. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well as you can see from the revision history of that article, that article was merged into Chaos (cosmogony) by Dbachmann. I don't think there was any discussion about this (at least I don't remember any). I did (and do) think that that the Greek Chaos is deserving of its own page, but for whatever reason I chose to go along with the merge. But if you want to recreate a separate article, go ahead, I would support that. Paul August☎13:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I had mostly been confused that no one (particularly yourself) had opposed the merge. As a separate article seems the sensible course of action, I will hopefully create one soon. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.
The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
You reverted a minor edit that I did for Zelus (Zeal), while you changed it to Zelus (Glory). What is the reason for that change? Zelus or Ζήλος, in greek means literally zeal while Kleos or Κλέος means glory. Please do not change it again. Alkiviadis (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alkiviadis: In ancient Greek ζῆλος, in addition to meaning fervor or zeal, can also mean pride, honor, or glory (see LSJ). In particular, as the corresponding note in the text explains, the translations being use there are Gantz's. Gantz's translation are perfectly fine and there is no need to change them. But even if we were going to use a different set of translations, they would need to be sourced, and we would also have to change what the note says about whose translations we are using. I'm changing it back. Paul August☎11:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not need a translation to speek my native language. If you need a reference, you can always check the article for Zelus on wikipedia. Glory was represented in the greek pantheon by Aglaia, one of the Charites, Clio the muse and also by Eucleia, of the younger Charites. I will move this chat to the article talk, so that we reveive another opinion. Alkiviadis (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alkiviadis: You, of course, may not need a translation to read ancient Greek, but most of our readers do. And, by policy, when we provide a translation we need to also supply our readers with a reliable published source; our own private knowledge is not enough (see WP:VERIFY). Paul August☎12:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So zeal does not give any hint that is directly connected to Zelus. The word for both in greek is Zelos or Zelus if you will. Also I do reference the article from wikipedia. Please check it, Zelus. The word for glory in ancient greek is cleos or kleos. As a reference to cleos, you can take in mind all the names of ancient or modern greeks finishing with -cles, like Heracles, Pericles, Androcles etc. It is a reference to cleos or glory. Alkiviadis (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Timothy Gantz is a well regarded scholar, and his book is a quality source. If he thinks that "glory" is the appropriate translation to give in this context, then there is no problem with us presenting things in the same manner; I don't see that there is any reason to not follow Gantz here. Checking another source, I notice Robin Hard's Routledge Handbook of Greek Mythology gives "Emulation or Glory". – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
English and Greek words don't correspond one-to-one, words often have many meanings, more than one word in one language can be appropriately translated as the same word in another, and words often have meanings in modern Greek that they didn't in ancient Greek. The new Cambridge Greek Lexicon shows some of the variety and shifts in the meaning of ζῆλος and associated words, beginning with ζῆλος as "1. competitive feeling of jealousy, jealousy, envy" followed by "2. spirit of emulation, admiration, emulation... (personif., son of Styx, brother of Victory, Power Strength) Emulation Hes." and three other meanings (bold emphasis per lexicon). Later of course we had Simon the Zealot as an eager servant, epitomising a shift which eventually gave us English's "zeal" but which we should not read back into Hesiod. NebY (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem like you should be an experienced enough editor to know that it is improper to remove a merge tag that has just been added to an article. If you object, use your words on the talk page. Thanks. Skyerise (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.
Technical news
Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)
Hi Paul. I wonder if you would (or if you know anyone else who would) be interested sometime in the foreseeable future on collaborating on making a better article about the Hindu–Arabic numerals and their history. There are a few editors who have diligently worked over the past few years to minimize or eliminate any mention of India from Arabic numerals, usually in a series of salami-slice edits spread out over time. I'm not quite sure what the motivation is, maybe ideological? Here's a subset of them so you can see what I mean:
A while back I started a complaint about this at talk:Arabic numerals but after getting a couple of links inserted I stopped pressing for more significant changes.
However, the current article at Arabic numerals does not do a very good job serving a broad audience of readers, because it has been artificially constrained to a very narrow scope of only discussing the development of the numeral glyphs in N. Africa and Europe from the 10th–17th century (that part of the content is okay), and eschewing any broader context, broader historical analysis/comparison, or description of how the numerals are practically used. The anti-Indian editors for a long time prevented the page from even linking to Hindu–Arabic numeral system or History of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system (because of "Hindu" in the name??), and any time someone tries to add material about how the number system works (arithmetic, etc.), jump in with weird wikilawyering about how that is out of scope for the title "Arabic numerals" because it isn't about numerals per se.
Anyway, I think before trying to actually make some kind of broader community appeal about this, it would probably be a good idea to write up a draft proposal for a merged article so there is something concrete to compare, which means actually doing the research/writing. But I don't feel like I have the expertise or bandwidth to tackle it as a project by myself (and have a bunch of other Wikipedia articles I'd also like to work on). Maybe with a few editors we could come up with some kind of outline, list of high quality sources, and start at filling in the details, then solicit broader help filling out a more complete draft, making diagrams, etc., before finally taking the matter to the broader Wikipedia community for discussion.
@Jacobolus:Hi. As I have no particular expertise on this topic, and my current interests lie elsewhere, I'm afraid I not going to be of much help here. Here's one thought. Even though I'm sure that many people use the term "Arabic numerals" to refer to the "Hindu–Arabic numeral system", they are really two different things and probably warrant two different articles. I think the navigational issue can probably be effectively ameliorated by appropriate linking between the two articles (e.g. see this edit), and rewriting both articles a bit, to make them more appropriately aware of each other.
I will continue to follow edits and discussions related to these topics, and try to give some more thought about the issues you've raised here, and at Talk:Hindu–Arabic numeral system and Talk:Arabic numerals.
Fair enough. I don't have significant expertise either, I just think it's worth Wikipedia covering thoroughly and not politicizing. –jacobolus(t)09:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been swamped elsewhere and haven't kept up well enough at FAR. Attalus I needs a Featured Article Save Award nomination, and because I didn't follow closely enough, I'm unsure who to nominate, and don't want to leave someone out. The original writers/FAC nominators are not eligible for FASA; I'm not sure how to handle this in your case, as the article's FAC was in the days when the original writer usually wasn't the nominator, although it was done on your behalf. So I could squeak in a FASA for you if that seems the right thing to do, even though you're basically the original writer. But more importantly, who helped bring it over the line? Was there anyone whose work was crucial in saving the star other than SnowFire, who I should add to the FASA nomination? Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.
Miscellaneous
The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
As an administrator active at WT:SPOILER, I wanted to ask your input on a matter. Please forgive me if I'm out of line.
CNNsOneViewer (talk·contribs) has been editing Drop the Dead Donkey explicitly to remove spoilers (I've removed the appalling spoilers for the character endings, which have stood here for too long; Last spoiler removal). Adakiko (talk·contribs) reverted the first bout of edits, citing WP:NOTCENSORED. CNNsOneViewer replied by edit-warring and alleging Adakiko of bully[ing] me because I'm a so-called 'newbie'.. so stop; a "newbie" whose very first edit was editing their common.js. Seemingly an SPA and experienced editor, I wonder if they're evading a ban, sock-puppeting, and/or just disruptively editing. Unaccustomed with such, I didn't want to overreact and begin any of the formal processes, but though I'd check with somebody whose mop might signify experience with something similar. Thanks for your time! — Fourthords | =Λ= |03:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether something is or is not a "spoiler" is irrelevant. So no, I wouldn't revert them on that account. The only relevant question is whether their edits have, in your editorial opinion, make the article better or worse. Paul August☎11:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
Technical news
Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.
A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 18 March 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I "bothered". What do you me take me for? However your edit summary didn't help me understand why you think that statement needs a source. Each of the sources given in the note 2: Jost, s.v. Styx; Antoni, s.v. Styx; Grimal, s.v. Styx; Tripp, s.v. Styx; Parada, s.v. Styx; Smith, s.v. Styx, says that the mythological Styx is both a river and a goddess. Do you dispute this? If you agree that "River Styx" is a name for the river (and I've been assuming you do, am I wrong?), then you must agree that River Styx is also a name for the goddess. I'm really trying to understand your position here. Paul August☎11:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)
Arbitration
An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
Miscellaneous
Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Socking is pretending to be two different people by using two different accounts. Using two different IP addresses is not socking. Depending on how one connects, you might have a different IP every time you log on. Paul August☎02:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
Can you help me with the section you erased? I can give you the links to the sources but I can't format because I lost my WP password, so I can't edit on my desktop.
Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Twenty Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for twenty years or more.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Plouto (mother of Tantalus), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Smith.
Hello Astrid, I'm sorry for your loss. I'm assuming this is about adding a death date to Friedwardt Winterberg. According to Wikipedia policy, we can add this information if we can find a published source for this, please see WP:VERIFY:
"Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it."
Flat Earth, Appolo Moon landing denials, Young Earth Creationism etc are well known Fringe theories and are also categorised as Fringe theories in Wikipedia. What are the procedures in English Wikipedia to categorically deem a claim as Fringe theory if a new claim is raised as science in the future?
I am not familiar with all the platforms that are available in Wikipedia, so I am unsure where to raise this discussion. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Paul, I have been going around splitting my time with other projects and have notices that some articles that I have been watching like Hecatoncheires, you have significantly expanded. I am curious if you plan on expanding the article on the Minotaur. I am starting to create a separate userspace for edits, so if you are you can always add them to that. If not, that is fine. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Your skills in Greek myth is currently unmatched so I thought I would ask about the Minotaur. I will look at Hecatoncheires and see what is needed. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to collab and expand the article on the Minotaur, I feel you are better skilled at adding and writing those older sources and texts that I. Not yet sure I am gonna try that.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Paul, sorry to bother you. I have started a separate revision draft for the Minotaur and have come across a minor problem. I am currently citing sources through sfn format so as to make things less messy for me and other editors out there. I am not sure how I would do sfn for the ancient greek texts that I shall be citing and also am confused as to why they cite page numbers in decimals on other pages. Paleface Jack (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jack. Ancient Greek texts are not divided into "pages". For example Homer's Iliad is divided into "books" and lines numbers, so for example "Iliad 4.233" means the 233rd line of book 4. Paul August☎14:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. There is a problematic IP that is 24.54.16.215 they have their edits reversed and in edit summaries they are not assuming good faith by calling reverts made to their edits as vandalism. I have gave them a final warning for vandalism. But after that, I read the problematic edit summaries. I wanted to bring this to your attention. Thanks, Felicia(talk)13:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Felicia777: All the recent editing to Sine qua non is an edit war, and all of the editors making those edits are WP:edit warring. So all of these editors could be subject to sanctions for that. However none of the edits, including the IP's, qualify as WP:vandalism. What this is is a typical editorial dispute about article content. Such disputes should be resolved through discussion not by edit warring. Please read WP:RCD, on how to resolve such disputes. Such resolution will require that editors listen to each other, and try to see the other editor's point of view. Being willing to try to find a suitable compromise. Usually when another editor feels strongly that something is wrong with an article, then the article almost certainly could be improved. For example in this case, perhaps a better exemplar of the use of sine qua non could be found. I hope this helps. Paul August☎15:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
Hello Paul August, Matticusmadness has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
Miscellaneous
Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
The person who reverted edits have removed sourced content, the user who deleted the sourced content needs to discuss which points of disagreement with parts of the content in the talk page without removing the entire addition. I am not certain why you reverted edits after you have noticed verifiable sourced content being removed which is a violation of wikipedia terms.
@Potymkin:. Hi. You are a new editor and may not understand how things work here. That something is true does not mean it should be in an article. The content of an article is decided by the consensus of its editors (please see WP:consensus). Right now there is no consensus for the inclusion of your content. It's fine to make changes to an article, but when another editor reverts your changes you shouldn't just reinsert them, instead you should discuss your proposed changes with the other editor as well as any other interested editors (please see WP:BRD). What you've been doing, by repeatedly adding your proposed changes, is called "edit warring" please see WP:editwar. Your editing privileges can be removed if you continue to do this, see WP:block. What you should do is make the case for the inclusion of your edits on that article's talk page, and see what other editors have to say. I'm going to revert your additions again. Please don't add them again without an editorial consensus. Thanks, and best regards, Paul August☎18:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, Potymkin has continued by reinstating without consensus their edits of Hyperborea (that "The Greeks proceeded to write of Hyperborea as a place that existed in ancient Libya")[9] and Atlas (mythology) ("Atlas is a Libyan god")[10], now asserting in edit summaries that reverting their edits to the prior stable version is "attemping WP:ADVOCACY". NebY (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Atlas is a Libyan god and a Titan in Greek mythology, this statement is supported by modern scholars and is verifiable [1][11] Atlas endures punishment in North africa in Greek mythology is also a common belief among greeks and is verifiable (Hesiod, Theogony517–520) he is also commonly known locally as the first ruler of Mauretania in north africa [2] as the lead states:
he is commonly identified as the local god of Atlas Mountains in northwest Africa and was said to be the first King of Mauretania (modern-day Morocco and Algeria, not to be confused with the modern-day country of Mauritania)
Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068
Hi Paul, it seems you can't attach PDFs using the "Email this user" feature. Would you perhaps be able to shoot me a quick test email using that feature, and then I'll reply with the PDFs? Best, Michael Aurel (talk) 05:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.
A happy end of year to you, Paul! A merry Christmas, a happy New Year, and a rowdy Rural Dionysia... Here's a very pretty Apulian lekane depicting Persephone's abduction to keep you company over the holidays. – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
Technical news
The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.
I don't know if you know, but Ceto (the mother of the Gorgons) is a goddess, not a monster (this one called Cetus), no matter what "typically" explanation you gave. I searched and found no ancient source calling her a "sea monster", only a "mother of monsters". --Fábio Aquiles (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ceto is not usually referred to as a "goddess" (can you cite any WP reliable secondary sources who do this?). In my experience, when she is described at all it is as a sea-monster (or creature). For example Crowell's Handbook of Classical Mythology by Edward Tripp, p. 158, has:
Ceto. The sea-monster daughter of Pontus and Ge. Ceto, whose name means any large denizen of the sea, was ...
As for no ancient source calling her a "sea monster", since her name means "sea-monster" you wouldn't expect any Ancient Greek source to say explicitly that Ceto is a sea-monster, it would be like saying "Sea-Monster is a sea-monster" ;-)
So I'm going to undo your change again. If you would like to further dispute this, please do so on that article's talk page where other interested editors can join the discussion. Thanks, Paul August☎19:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... if you had any thoughts on our article List of Greek mythological figures, and its current organisation and scope. It's apparently one of our most viewed articles on Greek mythology (no. 66 at WP:CGR/Popular pages), and could probably be reworked into a more helpful resource without too much trouble. Per WP:SPLITLIST, I think it might make sense to split the "Mortals" part of the article into its own list article ("List of mortals in Greek mythology", perhaps?), and rename the page to "List of Greek deities", given the vast number of names which a comprehensive list of "figures" would need to include; it's worth noting that we also have List of Greek mythological creatures and List of minor Greek mythological figures (both of which are fairly neglected). (If we were to restrict the page to deities, then the figures in the "Giants" section would probably need to be incorporated into List of Greek mythological creatures, though perhaps a List of Giants in Greek mythology article might also be justified, for the "Giants" of the Gigantomachy specifically?) It's possibly worth referring to List of Mesopotamian deities, which is a WP:FL; perhaps images and descriptive summaries could be included a bit more widely through the article. I considered leaving a message at Talk:List of Greek mythological figures, though I figured you would be the editor most likely to respond. This is a slightly jumbled set of ideas, ;) so don't feel obliged to respond to everything, but any thoughts or recommendations would be appreciated. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List of Greek mythological figures ... could probably be reworked into a more helpful resource: Indeed.
without too much trouble: Hmmm ...
Per WP:SPLITLIST, I think it might make sense to split the "Mortals" part of the article into its own list article ("List of mortals in Greek mythology", perhaps?), and rename the page to "List of Greek deities": Seems reasonable.
it's worth noting that we also have List of Greek mythological creatures and List of minor Greek mythological figures (both of which are fairly neglected): Thinking globally about all these lists together is a good thing, and is probably something which hasn't been much done. One thought I had is that an article List of lists of Greek mythological figures might be a good thing.
(If we were to restrict the page to deities, then the figures in the "Giants" section would probably need to be incorporated into List of Greek mythological creatures, though perhaps a List of Giants in Greek mythology article might also be justified, for the "Giants" of the Gigantomachy specifically?): Either seems reasonable. In any case the lists of Giants given in List of Greek mythological figures should be harmonized with the list of Giants in List of Greek mythological creatures. Also note the section Giants (Greek mythology)#Named Giants of Gigantes.
It's possibly worth referring to List of Mesopotamian deities, which is a WP:FL; perhaps images and descriptive summaries could be included a bit more widely through the article: Yes.
Global organization (lists, categories, templates, etc.) is both very important and something I've not given much thought to. I'm more the bottom-up type.[1] In any case I see no good reason for you not to WP:Be Bold, so I encourage you to jump right in! Paul August☎16:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all of this. I think I'm more the top-down type of person, with the "structure first, fill in the gaps later" sort of attitude. On the point of global organisation, most of our templates (I'm thinking here of the sidebars, in particular) were created around 20 years ago, and probably need to be overhauled. A restructured List of Greek deities page, however, could serve as a good guide there, and perhaps a discussion at WT:CGR could sort out such an overhaul.
A "list of lists" would certainly be a good idea, as would approaching the three (or four) separate lists in an integrated manner. Regarding the Giants, my thought would be that they aren't really "gods" in the strict sense, and so would be better listed at List of Greek mythological creatures rather than List of Greek deities? (As an aside, this makes me think we should have a page on Divinity in ancient Greece; see, eg., [12][13].) Also, in your view, is the list at Giants (Greek mythology) § Named Giants relatively comprehensive? Vian and Moore provide a list with over seventy entries led me to think it wasn't, though now I'm considering that the figures listed at Giants (Greek mythology) § Named Giants (of which there are around forty) may be the only ones really worth listing, if the others are little more than scholarly attempts to decipher inscriptions, or something of the sort. Anyway, I'll leave the usefulness (or lack thereof) of a stand-alone list of Giants to your judgement.
One thought on List of Greek mythological figures is that it seems a shame that gods with important cults such as Pan or Hecate are given the same prominence as fairly inconsequential figures such as, for example, Hecaterus or Acratopotes. Maybe there should, behind the list of the Twelve Olympians (and, currently, Hades and Persephone), be a longer list of deities of significance in Greek religion, with images and longer descriptions, similar to, for example, the list at List of Mesopotamian deities § Major deities. This would allow important deities to be given a place of prominence, while still allowing them to be found sorted according to their domain (eg., "Sky", "Sea", etc., in the current article). – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the point of global organisation, most of our templates (I'm thinking here of the sidebars, in particular) were created around 20 years ago, and probably need to be overhauled. A restructured List of Greek deities page, however, could serve as a good guide there, and perhaps a discussion at WT:CGR could sort out such an overhaul: Sure.
approaching the three (or four) separate lists in an integrated manner: Or five, or six, or ...?
Regarding the Giants, my thought would be that they aren't really "gods" in the strict sense: Well that's an inherent issue with structure first isn't it? Edge cases. Is Heracles mortal or divine? Are the descendants of the Titans Titans? Are the The Gigantes god's or creatures, or can they be both? I have informed opinions on all this ... but, I don't know that I could find adequate sources supporting them.
we should have a page on Divinity in ancient Greece Yes, please read those two books (and a few others I can think of, and several I can't) and write one. Ambitious much ;-)
is the list at Giants (Greek mythology) § Named Giants relatively comprehensive?: Well it was meant to be, in the sense that I tried to list every name for which I could find adequate sourcing, beyond just being named by Vian and Moore. I suppose this amounts to the same thing as me thinking they are the only ones really worth listing.
Maybe there should, behind the list of the Twelve Olympians (and, currently, Hades and Persephone), be a longer list of deities of significance in Greek religion, with images and longer descriptions Maybe. But I come back to the issue of sourcing. My main demur in all this is sourcing. Frankly, none of our current attempts at presenting a classification scheme are, in my opinion, adequately sourced. And maybe not even sourceable. Various classification schemes are given by various sources, for example Burkert's Greek Religion pp. 119–182 presents one. So we could adopt Burkert's, and source it. But there are other such presentations all different from one another. There is no canonical taxonomy. So ...? Nevertheless, we have all these lists and attempting to improve them, however we can, is a good thing.
As you say, foresight is going to be required for a page like this, lest we unleash future problems for ourselves... (The difficult part about the "structure first" mentality is that you have to get that structure right, otherwise everything from there doesn't work too well.)
I share your concerns around sourcing here – as you probably realised (or suspected), the structure of the current list is derived mainly from Theoi.com (from here in particular, I would guess). I like your suggestion to use Burkert here; of course, as his main concern is with deities who played some role in Greek religion, there are some gods who won't easily fit into his classification scheme (eg., a number of abstract personifications, cosmogonic deities, etc.). Given this, we could perhaps use Burkert as the basis for one section of the article (ie., a section which lists the gods who played a substantial role in Greek religion); that part of his book could determine the section's structure, and (quite crucially) could determine which deities would be included in such a section (rather than determining that ourselves).
If we were to do the above (and perhaps that's a very big "if"), my instinct would be to follow the first sections of Gantz, Hard, and Kerenyi for the structure of another part of (or the rest of?) the article (that structure being, roughly speaking: cosmogonic deities, then the Titans, then their descendants/other pre-Olympian gods). As to the rest of the deities on the page, I'm very much unsure; they are currently organised by domain/association/type ("Sky", "Chthonic", "Agricultural", etc.), a structure for which I can't really find a reliable source (the closest I can see is this). We also have the list of personifications, most of which are minor, though I think they probably ought to be kept listed separately, as I'm not sure how easily they could be spread across various other sections. All of this of course raises the question of whether it's ok to list the same deity in more than one section (eg., Helios had a relatively significant cult, and is of course an immediate descendant of the Titans as well); I think I would lean towards the answer "yes", though possibly that opens a can of worms...
And, by the way, thanks very much for your helpful and reasoned commentary here! Probably I should put a bit of this into action, lest I give an even longer response than this one... – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of the above. You know I'm sure all these lists are for the most part substantially "correct". And they have considerable value. But they need to based upon sources. Trying to use the structure used by Burkert, Gantz, Hard and Kerenyi, would be a good start. Also Carlos Parada's classification scheme in his Genealogical Guide to Greek Mythology might be extremely useful. He gives a list of "Divinities" (pp. 187–188), with the following sub-lists: 1. Abstract personifications, 2. Sidereal and natural personifications, 3. Major divinities, 4. Waters and landscapes, 5. Monsters, demons and other creatures with unusual attributes, 6. Other deities, and 7. Immortals. There is much more structure here which we could adopt, for example, in addition to having entries for individual figures, in his "Genealogical Guide" proper (pp. 1–186), he has many entries for "groups" of figures. His list of such group entries (p. xiv) has more than 100 entries e.g.: "Abstractions, Achaean leaders, ... Bestiary, ... Cabiroi, ... Centaurs, ... Giants, ... , Nymphs, ... Servants, ... Winegrowers, ...Zeus' Nurses, Zeus' offspring". Plus other lists (pp. 189–225: "Personifications", "Constellations & Stars", "Objects", "Conditions to take Troy", "Greek-Latin correspondences", "Places and Peoples", "Authors and Works"), many fold-out genealogical tables, and two fold-out maps. Paul August☎16:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, all of that indeed looks very helpful – I had wondered about Parada, but I unfortunately haven't ever been able to find a copy of his book (and so haven't seen more than Google Books snippets). I'm quite curious: where in those seven sections does he place the Titans, and the early figures from the Theogony (Gaia, Chaos, Tartarus, etc.)? From the above, his book looks as though it would be especially helpful for sorting personifications and other minor figures, which is valuable, as those are probably going to be the figures left over if we organise our first sections after Burkert, and Gantz, Hard, and Kerenyi.
Also, I'd be interested to hear your view on the edge case of the Gigantes being either gods or creatures; I would incline towards the latter (implying their exclusion from List of Greek deities), though you're of course much more familiar with them than anyone else. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
where in those seven sections does he place the Titans: In 3. Major divinities.
the early figures from the Theogony (Gaia, Chaos, Tartarus, etc.)?: Gaia (with Nyx, Pontus, and Uranus) in "Sidereal and natural personifications"; Chaos (with Erebus and Eos) in "Abstract personifications"; Tartarus in "Major divinities". So he doesn't make use of a "primordial" category, and, as far as I can tell, does not use the term. Which should give us pause about our using the term.
Gigantes: Creatures (but I' not a reliable source). However Parada includes them in his "Monsters, demons and other creatures with unusual attributes" category.
Ah, I'd forgotten about the Greek Mythology Link – it seems (looking at Google Books snippets) to contain a very similar structure, and the same lists of deities. I think Parada's distinction between "abstract" and "sidereal and natural" personifications is good, and worth using. I too have issues with how we use the term "primordial gods"; the way it's used on Wikipedia is as though they're some group with specific members (probably membership badges, newsletter subscriptions, and all...). (I've noticed that we also tend to use "chthonic deities" in somewhat the same way.) It's fine to talk about the "early deities" or "primal elements" in the Theogony, but matters become a little more problematic when figures from Orphic cosmogony, or, worse, the genealogy from the Fabulae, are mixed in.
Given our above discussion, and the sources which have been brought up, here's a draft of a structure I think could work, with the sources we would follow (or roughly follow) in each case:
Major deities in Greek religion (Burkert)
Twelve Olympians
Lesser deities
Nature deities
Foreign deities worshipped in Greece
Early deities (Mostly Gantz, also Hard & Kerenyi)
Primal elements
Descendants of Gaia and Uranus
Descendants of Gaia and Pontus
The Titans and their descendants
Groups of minor divinities and nature spirits (Gantz, Hard, also Parada)
Personifications (Parada)
Abstract personifications
Astronomical and natural personifications
Other deities
We're avoiding the domain/assocation organisation, which means we don't have to decide upon what constitutes, for example, a "rustic" deity, or a "sky" deity. We obviously aren't without edge cases, though – for example, do the children of Nyx go in the "Primal elements" section, or in the "Abstract personifications" section? On one edge case you raised earlier, I think we would probably include Heracles (and a few similar figures, such as Aristaeus, Glaucus, Palaemon, etc.), but I'm not sure that we necessarily need to include all immortals, at least not all the figures listed by Parada (eg., stellified mortals, underworld judges, etc.). One other point is that I don't know that we need to, as we currently are, list all of the various members of groups such as the Charites or Muses, lest we give the reader the idea that there are fourteen canonical Charites! (these lists would be better off at the respective pages, probably as prose). "Other deities" may also need splitting up, or we may need further sections. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like this, it finesses many of the potential problems we've discussed. Some questions:
Where will you put Hestia? Burkert includes her as the first god he mentions in his "3.1 Lesser Gods".
Where are you putting gods mentioned in Burkert's "3.2 Societies of gods" (pp. 173-174), and "3.5 Daimon" (pp. 179-181)?
Are you planning to source "Major deities in Greek religion" to just Burkert?
For the parts being sourced to multiple authors, have you thought about how you will deal with any disagreements?
I assume "Groups of minor divinities and nature spirits" corresponds to Hard's "Chapter 6: Lesser deities and nature-spirits", Gantz's "Minor Divinities" (pp. 135-151) correct? But where exactly is the correspondence in Parada?
Other responses:
We're avoiding the domain/assocation organisation, which means we don't have to decide upon what constitutes, for example, a "rustic" deity, or a "sky" deity.: Yes. Good.
do the children of Nyx go in the "Primal elements" section, or in the "Abstract personifications" section?: Good question ;-) Do they collectively have to go in the same place? Can they individually be in more than one place? (I seem to be resorting to the Socratic method here and above) Ok, fine. For Parada, the answer to the first question is no, for example he puts Aether in "Sidereal and natural personifications", and Moros in "Abstract personifications", and for Parada, since he's trying to partition his set of "Divinities" his sub-lists are disjoint, so the answer to the second question is also no. But I don't think we need (or want?) to do this (there I've given an opinion!)
I think we would probably include Heracles: Fine, where?
I don't know that we need to ... list all of the various members of groups: Fine. But some clarifying prose might also work.
"Other deities" may also need splitting up, or we may need further sections.: Possibly, if sourceable!
Great! We're on the right track, then. Addressing these questions:
In the Twelve Olympians section, I think, doing something similar to Twelve Olympians#List. This is technically a departure from Burkert, though it's a fairly minor one, and I think it's worth using the "Twelve Olympians" grouping ("Individuals gods" is a little vague).
Good question. From Burkert, I think the three groups of gods worth mentioning (Others enjoy important cults...) would be the Muses, Charites, and Cabeiroi, and the only figure worth mentioning from the "Daimon" section would be Agathos Daimon. I think we should also include the figures from his "Figures who cross the Chthonic–Olympian Boundary" section (ie., Heracles, the Dioscuri, and Asclepius). Where to put these is a little tricky, but splitting these seven figures across three different sections would probably be clunky, so perhaps we just have some sort of "other" section (within "Major deities in Greek religion") for these.
Probably, as doing so gives a fairly clear criterion for inclusion. That said, we could also look here to Larson's Ancient Greek Cults, which is structured not too differently to Burkert's discussion. In particular, after sections on (most of) the Twelve Olympians, she has "11. Dear to the people: Hermes, Pan, and nature deities", "12. Divine specialists: other Panhellenic deities", "13. Strangers and indigenes: latecomer and regional deities", and "14. Anomalous immortals: hero-gods and heroine-goddesses". The deities listed are relatively similar, with those not mentioned by Burkert being the Erinyes, Bendis, Britomartis, Dictynna, Aphaea, Themis, Nemesis, Damia, and Auxesia. So using Larson would allow us to list these deities, at the expense of being entirely faithful to Burkert (and we would need to decide where we would put them in our/Burkert's structure). We would also, at that point, not really be talking about "Major deities in Greek religion", though probably that title is a tad problematic to begin with.
For the "Early deities" section, I think it would be best to simply follow Gantz, as his section looks comprehensive (at least as far as the Theogony is concerned, which is the basis for his structure). (I'll address the "Groups of minor divinities and nature spirits" section in answer 5.)
^Top-down seems harder to me to get right, with more negative consequences if gotten wrong. One of the issues with autodidacticism is one not knowing what you don't know. An under appreciated value of formal education is that it provides a curated overview of what is known and important in a field, and gives one the comprehensive knowledge required for doing top-down right. By contrast, detailed knowledge about a specific narrow topic, required for bottom-up is relatively easy to acquire safely on one's own.
Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145
You've been stating opposition to any sort of recursion self-reference in the Recursion article talk page for like a decade - a good portion of the article's entire lifespan. Why so hellbent on this? It doesn't have to change the main article text in any way - it could just be a mention/link in "See also".
It's not doing any real harm when it's just a link in that section. And in response to how you characterize Wikipedia as not being about this kind of humor, ignore all rules - if it is a tangible improvement. And I firmly believe that it can be helpful to a small extent: it has the effect of showing via demonstration, rather than just describing via text, how recursion can work. It's beneficial, while not being a big deal, so I don't get why you're adamant about the killjoy attitude towards this.
You said throughout the years about the consensus against adding any recursive link for recursion, but that supposed consensus is ill-representative. It seems to stem from a vocal minority that includes you. If you actually survey a wide audience of people that read and use this article, it is entirely possible that people may be in favor of adding a recursion link within the article. (And this is not the only case of a self-reference link in a Wikipedia page; many article pages have links that redirect to a section within themselves. Perhaps a Recursion link could do that, linking to the recursive humor section of that article.)
And let me ask you this: if we did have such a survey and the consensus does seem to be in favor of having such a link, would you still be opposed and unilaterally remove such links anyway? Even with a clear agreement? If the answer is no, perhaps this isn't as important and a hill worth dying on as your insistence made it out to be. 2600:1012:A021:52EC:58F:844:67FE:47B1 (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re: insistent ... hellbent ... adamant ... killjoy; these descriptors seem to me to be inappropriately and unnecessarily pejorative on your part, and more importantly inaccurate. I'm not and haven't been insisting on anything. I've just been consistently expressing my personal editorial opinion.
Re: [no] real harm ... can be helpful to a small extent; so I read this as saying, that while yes there might be some harm there might be some benefit. Which I agree with. But you also seem to be asserting (without saying why) that the likely benefit outweighs the likely harm. Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and perhaps you are right. But I happen to disagree. (We could discuss reasons why either harm or benefit might outweigh the other if you like, but you can read my reasons on that talk page.)
Re: it is entirely possible that people may be in favor of adding a recursion link within the article; I agree.
Re: if ... the consensus does seem to be in favor of having such a link, would you still be opposed and unilaterally remove such links anyway?; No, of course not.
A request for comment is open to discuss whether AI-generated images (meaning those wholly created by generative AI, not human-created images modified with AI tools) should be banned from use in articles.
A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. T378488
Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. T376378
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of a group of Wikipedians to better understand their experiences! We are also looking to interview some survey respondents in more detail, and you will be eligible to receive a thank-you gift for the completion of an interview. The outcomes of this research will shape future work designed to improve on-wiki experiences.
We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this survey, which shouldn’t take more than 2-3 minutes. You may view its privacy statement here. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, Sam Walton (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm consulting your expert knowledge, along with a couple other people: The lines beginning "Therefore one can also write ncl_G(S)={...}" looks incorrect to me because s_a*s_b needn't be in S, so why should some (g_i)^-1*s_i*g_i necessarily be s_a*s_b? And besides that, if i indexes the elements of S, shouldn't some other index be a subscript for the elements of G? I also asked this on the article talk page, but no one seems to look at the talk page.Rich (talk) 05:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC was closed with consensus to allow editors to opt-out of seeing "sticky decorative elements". Such elements should now be wrapped in {{sticky decoration wrapper}}. Editors who wish to opt out can follow the instructions at WP:STICKYDECO.
An RfC has resulted in a broad prohibition on the use of AI-generated images in articles. A few common-sense exceptions are recognized.
An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in June 2025, with over 1,600 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
Hello! Hope you are well. I sadly don't have time to look into this, but I happened upon the dual existence of Aëdon and Procne. Are these really discrete figures, or variants of the same myth? Given that Aëdon is an on-the-nose descriptive name. Just thought I'd put it on your radar. As so often, Ovid's version became canonical, with Procne turning into a swallow and Philomela the nightingale to compensate for her loss of speech. But there are Greek variants on which sister turns into the nightingale, as I recall. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Redesigning the featured, good, and article assessment icons. Pbrks (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Odeum. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 20#Odeum until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Bureaucrat changes
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. The section is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#BrownHairedGirl_blocked. Black Kite (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
NaomiAmethyst (overlooked last month)