User talk:Akhilleus/Archive 17

Constitution of the Athenians diagram

Hi,

Zeus has picked you, of all the administrators, to be the one who will help me out. I need to have a Wikipedia image deleted so that the Wikimedia image with the same name will take its place. You can read this for the background: [1].

Thank you/Merci!

-- Mathieugp (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops.

Hey Akhilleus, I just wanted to thank you for the warning you gave me yesterday. I didn't realize that the 3RR applied to the entire article. I thought it was only on a per incident basis. Since I want to remain a "virgin" with regards to being blocked, I think I will lay low (no pun intended) for a little while. At any rate, I very much appreciated you pointing that out to me. Have a good day. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

you do know ...

that my remark about vehemence was not directed at you, I hope? Cynwolfe (talk)

We'll see if it flies. The template's there for editing, sincerely. I'm fiercely committed mainly to the literary sources section and to including some female characters. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Bruce

Hi Akhilleus, I was out for a bit on vacation. It seems that while I was away Bruce slipped back into his old ways. I noticed you said you were getting a RfC/U together. Has it been posted yet? I'd like to contribute to the conversation as needed. Eugene (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Cyrus cylinder

Hi Akhilleus, you provided useful input to Cyrus cylinder a while back. You might be interested to know that I've done a lot more work on the article since then and have nominated it for featured article status - see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyrus cylinder/archive1. Any comments would be most welcome. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Some Questions

Hi Akhilleus:

I noticed that a user named Baseball Bugs make what I think is an uncivil comment on Eugene talk page. I deleted it and then he added it back in again. So, here are my questions:

1. Is Eugene allowed to edit his own talk page while blocked, in order to respond to such uncivil comments (or for any other reason for that matter)?
2. Does one have to be an admin to undo uncivil comments?
3. Do you think BB's questioning of Eugene's faith is uncivil as defined by WP:Uncivil?

Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Eugene is allowed to edit his page, but since it's unlikely that he will be unblocked at this time, I don't think he should waste his time editing his talk page; it would simply be a source of irritation with no reward. As for BB's comment, I find it uncivil, and basically taunting. The comments can be removed, but it's not worth getting in an edit war over. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Question about RfCs

Hi Akhilleus:

I've been discussing William Lane Craig with a couple of people on the the WLC talk page. I'm either not being clear that WLC is equally a philosopher as well as a theologian or there is some POV pushing going on. The two people seem to think that WLC is mainly a theologian with his philosophical background being minor. I think that he is both, but I'm tired of writing long dissertations explaining myself. Also, I honestly don't have a lot of time on my hands and I've already spent more time than I wish to spend on this article. Can you please suggest some places on Wikipedia where I can go and request a RfC for this article? Thank you. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bill, have you looked at WP:RFC? There are detailed instructions there, but I find that Wikipedia pages don't always clearly explain how you're supposed to go about things. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Doh!!! Thanks. I'll keep that in mind for the next time, since I conceded the point. Swallowing one's pride leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, but only for a little while. More importantly, it was the right thing to do. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

New sockpuppet of Davesmith33

I see you were the admin who handled the original sockpuppet case for Davesmith33. He appears to have rejoined our ranks yet again, using User:Looneymann, a variation on the name of an editor who both regularly contributes to Top Gear (2002 series) and was instrumental in some phases of the sockpuppet case for this serial sockpuppeteer. I'm not sure how to proceed with this one; I've left a comment on User:Looneyman's talk page alerting him, but don't know how to reactivate a sockpuppet case, so I thought I'd turn to you. Drmargi (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

General sanctions

A tempting notion, but it would require widening to a new subject and a new behavior, so not yet. I left a post for his mentor, and will look in at the current ArbCom case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that didn't work. The mentor proceeded to threaten Cynwolfe for her patient efforts to deal with an editor who believes the Roman Empire existed two to five centuries before it was founded. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

the etiquette of watching

Could you as an administrator advise me on the etiquette of watching other editors' talk pages? I usually only put an editor's talk page on my watchlist if I've left a message, and remove it after the dialogue ends. Recently, however, I learned after the fact that two editors for whom I have great respect were subjected to undue harassment on bogus civility charges. (They refused to suffer fools.) In one case, the editor was blocked for a period. I don't recall exactly what happened with the other, but she had been helpful and generous with her time on more than one occasion. Her use of language is characteristically graceful, witty, and friendly. I would've liked to have asserted their value as editors in the official tribunal into which they were dragged.

My understanding is that a formal complaint — which I take to be any kind of complaint outside article and user talk pages — must be accompanied by a notice on the accused's own talk page. Therefore, the only solution I've thought of is to watch the talk pages of editors whose work I value. This seems, bleah, like setting yourself up to be a guardian angel. These editors are perfectly capable of defending themselves. But if they have only one voice to offer against even a few others, the mob is likely to rule. And this is my primary concern: in the last few months, as the MSM report a precipitous and quite possibly related decline in WP editing, there seems to be an increasing use of "civility" as a club against serious editors by users without a scholarly leg to stand on. Of course I have some recent experience of this that got me thinking. Wikipedia's real and only purpose — to create a free online encyclopedia that's actually useful — is not served by protecting game-players or sloppy thinkers or POV-pushers who manipulate (and usually misrepresent) policies at the expense of those who have the courage of intellectual convictions. Those who show no respect or courtesy toward others seem to demand an awful lot of "civility" toward themselves.

But I digress. Is it creepy to watch somebody's talk page all the time? Is there a better way to address the problem? Please feel free to answer whenever you have time. It isn't urgent. As far as I know. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's creepy only if you are watching MY talk page and you are not a good-looking woman. LOL. Just kidding. It's perfectly fine to watch another person's talk page, especially if you have something in common with them, as you indicated above. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Cynwolfe, just a quick answer for now: I don't think it's creepy to put other editors' talk pages on your watchlist. (Is this the wrong time to say that your talk page is on my watchlist, and has been for awhile?) Also, I would like to apologize for alerting PMAnderson to Mark nutley's sourcing parole, because this indirectly led to an unpleasant situation for you, which I don't think you deserved in the least. You raise an interesting and depressing point about the strategic use of "civility", but I'll have to reserve my thoughts on that until I have more time for Wikipedia. Cheers. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you pointed out something that was relevant. You don't owe me any apologies whatever, and neither does PMA. Far from it. (His first reaction when his query had unexpected results was priceless, a model of economic expression.) WP sociology has its own fascinations. I was taken aback at first, but it isn't news to me that I can sound more strident than I mean to, and other than not adopting a faux-smarmy tone I know I didn't do anything wrong. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Christ Myth theory

I think Michael Grant's book on Jesus might be considered a good source on the historian's view of the potential historicity of Jesus, if the book discusses that topic. I won't be able to access that source myself for the next few days, but, in the event that people question his credentials, his biography of Saint Peter is considered, according to books on Google Books and Google Scholar, considered the best historical work on the subject of the past century, and possibly longer. John Carter (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You'd think so, especially since Grant directly addresses the Christ myth theory. But if you look at the talk page archives there have been strenuous efforts in the past to discredit Grant and claim he's not a good source for the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC Teeninvestor

Please comment on what I have posted here. --Tenmei (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the support on Aorist. It amazes me that people who don't read Greek have such strong opinions on its semantics. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Perfect of "eat" in Greek: Iliad 17.542. If the meal has left you dramatically smeared with blood, it definitely qualifies as perfect. Wareh (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Your opinion would be appreciated at Talk:Aorist#Protected II. — kwami (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Bertil Albrektson

First, sorry I don't have much time for Wikipedia recently, and I've lost interest (patience) with some longstanding disputes. I was about to post on Talk:Historicity.. something along the lines of "Let's all take a minute and read what Bertil Albrektson wrote about the false dichotomy of theologian vs. historian". Then I saw your posts mentioning that response. Reading Albrektson really reminded me of the positions some hold in our dispute, and I thought his response was quite applicable and poignant. Anyway, good luck! -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

If you get a chance...

Hi Akhilleus if you can spare a few minutes I'd appreciate your input on this[2].--Cailil ^talk 22:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Emailed you. Dougweller (talk) 07:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Help with Classical Articles

As stated on 78.146.132.102's discussion page, which is mine, you said that there are other articles on classics that need help. If you want me to look over them and then edit them accordingly, then my Classics colleagues and I are at your disposal. 78.146.132.102 Classics (talk) 08:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Callimachus

Dear Akhilleus, we're trying to figure out whether to refer to Callimachus' main work as the Aitia or Aetia over at Talk:Callimachus and Cynwolfe suggested that you might be able to help. Could you pop over when you get the chance? Thank you, The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

IP user you have looked at before

Hello. I think you might be the last person with admin rights to have posted warnings on this IP talk page, so I thought it worth mentioning a new incident, not yet resolved: [3]. Edits include repetively reverting attempts to clean up tagged citations for example.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Capture Bonding

In this discussion you argued that the article on Capture bonding should be deleted because there were no academic sources that "discuss capture bonding as a concept that's distinct from Stockholm Syndrome." One issue with that requirement is that there are multiple medical manifestations of the evolved psychological mechanism known as Capture bonding. One of these is Battered person syndrome another is Stockholm syndrome. These are not mechanisms. The current Stockholm syndrome article makes this very clear: "This syndrome is considered a prime example for the defense mechanism of identification."

Here are a few official sources that mention capture bonding:

• Traumatic entrapment, appeasement and complex post-traumatic stress disorder: evolutionary perspectives of hostage reactions, domestic abuse and the Stockholm syndrome.

"In hunter-gatherers women have been remarkably frequently kidnapped by opposing tribes, with little likelihood of rescue. From an evolutionary perspective defiance in such circumstances carries the prospect of death and the non-transmission of such defiant genetic traits. Defection by way of submission may promote genetic survival. This has been described as 'capture-bonding' (Henson, 2002). Thus the transmission of genes for appeasement may have been facilitated."

• Becoming a Sadomasochist: Integrating Self and Other in Ethnographic Analysis (Mirror: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wchriste/357/Newmahr.pdf)

"On an emotional level, I found my response both unexpected and bizarre. I would not have been surprised to feel anger, catharsis, resentment, victimization, turmoil of one sort or another, all of which I had been prepared to explore in a participant-observation study of SM. I did not expect gratitude to be a salient and profound part of my experience. My first impulse was to pathologize my response; was this, I wondered, something similar to “capture-bonding,” the psychological explanation for Stockholm syndrome? Knowing little about Stockholm syndrome, but doubting that a forty-minute consensual flogging scene would have produced it, I moved beyond the discourse of pathology."

• Sex, Drugs, and Cults. An evolutionary psychology perspective on why and how cult memes get a drug-like hold on people, and what might be done to mitigate the effects.

"In the aggregate, memes constitute human culture. Most are useful. But a whole class of memes (cults, ideologies, etc.) have no obvious replication drivers. Why are some humans highly susceptible to such memes? Evolutionary psychology is required to answer this question. Two major evolved psychological mechanisms emerge from the past to make us susceptible to cults. Capture-bonding exemplified by Patty Hearst and the Stockholm Syndrome is one."

• The Social Complexity of Immigration and Diversity

"About 1980 John Tooby, then in graduate school, discussed the concept of capture-bonding with various other students--reportedly reaching the same conclusion as the author about its evolutionary origin and widespread effects on humans and human societies. (Personal communication with Leda Cosmides.) Astonishingly, neither he nor anyone else known to the author has published on the subject." ಠ_ಠ

• Human Chemistry (Volume Two)

"Capture-bonding theories are used to explain various relationships, such as kidnapping or tribe takeover, in which a person seems to be 'caught' unhealthily or abnormally in a bond, even when given many chances to escape. The general explanation is that a sort of reverse-psychological mechanism or perspective develops in which, after a traumatic event, the captive person willing desires or stays in the bond. In abnormal psychology, battered women syndrome, where a woman stays bonded to a man who beats her is an example of an activated capture-bond. In evolutionary psychology, capture-bonding is understood as an evolved response to inter-tribe 'capture' and takeover, which has been a prominent feature of human existence during the last few million years, such as infanticide, which occurs frequently in the animal kingdom."

• Psychology Behind Ragging © Harsh Agarwal, 2010

"According to evolutionary psychology, capture-bonding, or social reorientation after capture, was an essential survival feature for millions of years. The captives who reoriented survived, and those who did not form social bonds with captors were killed. Psychologists say that anyone can become a victim of Stockholm Syndrome if the certain conditions are met: (i) Perceived threat to survival (ii) The captive's perception of small kindnesses from the captor (iii) Isolation from perspectives other than those of the captor (iv) Perceived inability to escape. And it is said that it takes as little as 3-4 days for this psychology to take hold of the victim."

Slartibartfastibast (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you, we appreciate the academic skills and your input on Classical Antiquity. Anaktoria (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks :) Amaltash (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Akhilleus,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Wishing Akhilleus a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 20:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Akhilleus. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"Greek love"

The move was suggested from a GA review, it sat with no objection and was made. How would you like to move forward now?--Amadscientist (talk) 08:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You can make a request at WP:RM. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Christ as myth page

I think it's a waste of time to continue to debate with some editors there and I was wondering is there a way to bring this to a head? I'm not much into wiki procedures I'm afraid.Jobberone (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we both know there is a way to deal with this. You adnim - I adnim too. I'm fairly sure we both know the relevant processes, even though in this case we are both hesitant to apply them. I honestly think that the subject is almost certainly notable enough to receive the page, even though, so far as I have seen, that hasn't been conclusively demonstrated by references. I also hesitate to initiate proceedings against the editor in question, even though his other recent edits on Josephus on Jesus, as per the accompanying talk page, show the same inability to understand and apply WP:SPS that has often been displayed on this article.

You've been more involved in this matter than I, so I think it is legitimately better your call than mine.

Also, as a P.S. I was wondering whether you might be interested in maybe reading Barrie Wilson's book How Jesus Became Christian. It is a book written by an Anglican who converted to Judaism, and won a Canadian Jewish book of the year award, and seems to give a name to the assertions of Robert Eisenman and others regarding the possibility of James the brother of Jesus as the legitimate heir of Jesus. Outside of that book, I have seen no such linking of the theories, but think that having any article dealing with them collectively, in some form, might help. Also, I have been for some time involved in that topic and think it might be best if a previously uninvolved editor were to work on it.

Anyway, thanks for your attention, and for your continued valued work here. John Carter (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

There are multiple processes that might be pursued, but I'm pessimistic that they'll help. The step that's usually recommended in a case like this is to create a request for comment on user conduct. RfC/Us take a lot of effort and time to put together. They usually attract very little comment, and what comments they do attract are often uninformed. They're also non-binding, so unless the editor is receptive to outside input, the RfC/U is basically checking a box on the list of prerequisites for a request for arbitration, and arbitration usually turns out to be an unpredictable nightmare.

Another option is simply to request a topic ban on one of the administrative noticeboards, but this is also unpredictable and in my opinion unlikely to succeed. My preferred option is simply to have a critical mass of editors on the article who understand the importance of following the core policies of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and who will actually look at the sources in question to see whether editors are accurately representing what they say. That's been pretty rare on this article, but maybe it's happening now.

John, I won't be able to get to Wilson's book for awhile, but it looks worth reading. I'm not familiar at all with Robert Eisenman, though, so I'm a bit hesitant—it seems like I would need to do quite a bit of reading before I could do a responsible job here. Is there a particular trouble spot you could point out on the Eisenman article, or any related articles? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there are tons of problems with that article and related articles, including the fact that I had unilaterally recused myself from editing them when unfounded and unsubstantiated claims of my faking sources were raised, and the fact that the other involved editors are operating from rather transparent POV problems and show little interest in getting the articles to meet encyclopedic quality, rather than putting forward their own positions. But in a sense that is possibly less important than maybe having an article going into detail about the various "James as true heir of Jesus" theories and authors supporting them. There have been a number of them put forward, and only a few have been discussed here yet. The Wilson book seems to include most if not all of them within a "Jesus Cover-Up Thesis", and if it could serve as a basis for a list type article on the various versions of the James as true heir/Dead Sea Scrolls are Christian theories out there, I think that would be possibly most useful.

P.S. One way I think we might be better able to deal with such problems in the future is to have a clear manual of style for religion articles in general. Draft input is currently being welcomed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. Two questions which I have yet to address in my own rather excessive input there are (1) how to deal with articles on figures like John the Baptist, who is most important to one small religious group, the Mandaeans, but best known for his associations with larger groups, Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the like, and (2) how to deal with statements made by religious bodies who do not have the authority to speak conclusively and absolutely for their groups. The Dalai Lama, Catholic Pope, Watchtower Society, and a few other groups qualify in the former, but other groups like Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, and others don't. In some articles, like Messianic Judaism, the only people from one such group, Judaism, who have only spoken recently on the unacceptable unorthodoxy of the MJs, it can be hard to figure out exactly how to phrase the rather total rejection of the other group. It couldn't be rejected before it existed, the current speakers do not have authority to speak for the entirety of the group over history, that sort of thing. If you have any ideas with how to deal with such matters, I personally would be greatly appreciative. John Carter (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hey, you're still around! Always good to see a familiar name from long ago. Hope things are going well. :) MastCell ^Talk 18:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello Administrator User:Akhilleus! Thank you for reviewing the case here. I left a message for you towards the bottom of the thread. Thanks for taking the time to read the thread. I hope you have a nice day. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Your 3RR complaint about JCAla

Hello Akhilleus. You have recently filed WP:AN3#User:JCAla reported by User:Akhilleus (Result: ). Your evidence would justify a 3RR block of JCAla, because he did make four reverts on May 5 and he continued the edit war on May 6, showing that the dispute was not stale. However his opponent in the edit war was Future Perfect throughout. Hence a 'simple' 3RR block is not possible without sanctioning both parties. It seems that FP is claiming falsification of sources to justify his own reverts. So, if JCAla were to be sanctioned an FP not sanctioned, we would have to be convinced that FP is right about the source falsification. Would you read the ANI thread as supporting that conclusion? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that another admin dealt with this already, but for the record I do think the ANI thread supports the conclusion that JCAla has been falsifying the content of sources. I also agree with Nyttend that this is a "edit warring on JCAla's part and complete innocence on FPAS's part, since all reversions by JCAla were of different edits by FPAS." --Akhilleus (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Puppets

Maybe this is just my paranoia coming out again, but I note that the recently appeared IP seems to have a similar writing style to BG at Talk:Christ myth theory. Personally, I always thought that Bruce might be getting some of the information he included from some website, maybe a noticeboard, used by individuals with similar opinions. He did seem to have access to a lot of self-published books and the like. If I was right in that, then it seems to me possible that, perhaps, he might have contacted one or more of his fellows from that site and asked them to run information into the article for him, or done something similar. The fact that the IP is from Chicago, not a place that comes to mind with BG, leads me to think that something like this might have taken place. Maybe. It is still a bit early to tell, but I think we might want to maybe, in the future, see if there might be basis for some sort of action. John Carter (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the back up, John. Just probing. Ok, maybe a little push. Watchful waiting here, IMO. Hope I'm not intruding too much.Jobberone (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any cause for alarm or suspicion here. The IP editor isn't pushing any of BG's pet theories, and, to my mind at least, has made some good suggestions about the article content. There's no sign that s/he's interested in edit warring. So there's no need to be worried at this point. Also, having looked at some of the internet fora where this theory is discussed, I don't think that we need to worry about the meatpuppetry scenario John describes above—BG's ideas are unusual even among supporters of Jesus' nonexistence. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. At this time I do not think it is BG. I do see an agenda but he's not pushing it. He brings something do the table as well. Cheers!Jobberone (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

On a related matter, Akhilleus, because of your interest in this topic area and classical expertise, I wanted to make sure you knew about the existence of the following articles: Pliny the Younger on Christians, Tacitus on Christ, Suetonius on Christ, Lucian on Jesus. Elsewhere I've stated my view that an encyclopedia should provide an overview for understanding the cultural context and scholarly methodology for interpreting this kind of "evidence" from Greco-Roman sources. An encyclopedia article should not be an exegesis or commentary of the primary texts. But this isn't something I want to invest more time in. Just FYI. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ventoux

Hi Akhilleus, Thanks for your work on the Petrarch Ventoux page. I'm not sure why you reverted the pic back to the one of an anonymous slope that could be any mountain in the world (within reason!), so I've reverted it back to the one taken from Avignon that shows the whole recognisable mountain. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

View of Mont Ventoux from Mirabel-aux-Baronnies

Ericoides, when you moved the page, you did what's called a cut-and-paste move (see Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#Fixing_cut_and_paste_moves). The page history was left behind at the old title, which is undesirable, so I fixed this by reverting the changes you made and then moving the page (along with its editing history) to the new title. In that process I unintentionally reverted back to the old picture. I agree that the picture you've chosen is better, so I'm glad you restored it, but I wonder if the view of Mt. Ventoux from Mirabel-aux-Baronnies might be a better choice—this picture has more detail of the mountain. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I didn't know that about c'n'p, and I didn't think I could move a page to one that was already a redirect page (ie to a page with a name that already existed). Yes, you're right; that's a better image, so I've gone ahead and replaced the old one. Ericoides (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting another topic ban for User:BruceGrubb. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted your reversion of his reversion of the warning related to reversions

I reverted your re-addition of a warning template to User talk:WP Editor 2011 per WP:OWNTALK. In addition, he reverted exactly 3 times, the first was the initial change of content which wasn't a revert. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you notice I added a comment the second time? 3 reverts is certainly worth a warning, and users who make an initial edit which is strongly opposed on the talk page and 3 subsequent reverts could easily find themselves blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I did notice, and it was worth the warning. However, the first edit was made before any opposition existed on the talk page and removal of a warning signifies acknowledgement. Re-adding the warning doesn't do any good. That being said and after noticing this a trip to ANI might be in order, now or sometime soon. I'm interested in seeing if he tries to game the system by reverting again 24 hours after the first revert. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your edit war

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC))

Ryan and I have both responded there. Dougweller (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3x4XxWXPV8 Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This was a funny surprise to wake up to. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Troy Era reversion

If you re-read the guidelines at WP:ERA you may find you are not correctly following policy. It seems to me that I am the one following policy and finding it violated. Can you explain your reversion? Tanath (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Tanath, your edit is being discussed at Talk:Troy#Era notation - note that my preference would be BCE/CE, but I try to follow our guidelines, which you seem to have misinterpreted. Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure... but...

I am not sure about this, but I knew that there are only that many users who own Loeb, etc.... So I just ran that. Your talk page showed up on it... So I will just leave it here for what it may be worth, or not ... History2007 (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Most probably not a puppet. The more recent arguments presented could not be by PMA, who knows policy much better than this. History2007 (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Catullus 16/GA1

Hi there, could you please revisit Talk:Catullus 16/GA1, as the GA Nominator has worked to try to address points raised there? Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Bedson

See my talk page. RfC/U underway. Dougweller (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Notification of user conduct discussion

You may wish to comment on a user conduct discussion regarding Paul Bedson, which can be found here. If you comment there you may wish to review the rules for user conduct comments first. You are receiving this notification because you commented at one of the articles or AfDs that are cited in the discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

E-Mail

Hi, can you look at your e-mail? Thanks.. --78.183.17.79 (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Why? Did you send me a message in Turkish? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep.. I'm waiting your answer, have a nice day. --78.183.199.199 (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The answer is...I can't read Turkish! --Akhilleus (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

..

Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Early greetings for the new year

Best Wishes for a Happy New Year! May 2013 bring you rewarding experiences and an abundance of everything you most treasure. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Victory, Janus, Chronos, and Gaea (1532–34) by Giulio Romano

It's always a relief to see your name in a discussion. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

IPs at Christ myth theory

Just blocked one for editwarring - the one you reverted today is also Comcast from the same area, I'll watch. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review

This article has been nominated for a GA review. Could I encourage beg you to skim through it and open a review with a couple of broad comments? I have reasons for not doing so myself, though at a later time I would be willing to act on suggestions others have made. Two to four sentences would probably be enough to say whether it meets GA standards. If you don't have time the world won't come to an end, but if Dougweller is in the neighborhood, the more the merrier. The article displays erudition, but fearful of canvassing or committing some other sin, I won't go into my several concerns. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:SPI

Given that you had filed this, you should probably know about this one now, given the Julian context in this one too. History2007 (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Bedson

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson and [4]. Dougweller (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

WP Classical Greece and Rome in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Christ myth theory

Sorry about not having checked the recent sources here. I raised the question pretty much because we do seem to have some significant, if not particularly notable in reliable sources, questions regarding all sorts of religion-related topics, including the new form of Deism, which based on what I can see is only referred to in any signifcant way at Examiner.com, in articles/blog entries which don't even remotely qualify as independent reliable sources, and evidently barely if at all qualify as reliable sources at all. The post was part of a broader effort to maybe call attention to some of these signfiicant, if perhaps not particularly independently notable, matters, to see how if at all we try to deal with them. Many or most of these marginally independently notable topics, like the new forms of deism, may well qualify for some discussion here somewhere, but where and to what degree is something that hasn't yet been determined. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW, not sure if you've been looking lately, but there seems to be renewed "discussion" regarding the notability of the topic, the scope of the article, and on and on and on. You indicated some sources earlier which apparently you've accessed, and I think your input based on that information you might have might be very useful. John Carter (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Christian sources

Thanks for your help. Regards John D. Croft (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Good to see you materialize. As you know I'm not really active at Wikipedia at present (so any need not to quibble or go through bureaucracy myself on such a point would be most welcome), but I hate to see defensible content go. I'm not saying you have to adopt those illustrations as your cause, but I do appreciate not being all on my own against these official-sounding reprimands (perhaps you saw the threat to block me?). Wareh (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I noticed that most uncollegial "warning". It seems that Mr. Werieth is patrolling fair use images, and is ruffling feathers at other articles as well. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, you're a real mensch. Wareh (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Christ myth theory again

Hi, thank you for your help on the CMT article and for keeping an eye on the page. I hope you will continue to do so!Smeat75 (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)15:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

A content dispute resolution process has been started at [5]. Please participate and contribute to a resolution. Wdford (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Christ myth theory". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

New Testament Scholars are Unreliable and biased

Regarding Christ Myth Theory - this article has the Papal Seal of Approval - an article about the Christ Myth Theory that is obviously written by believers in the New Testament - the New Testament that is steeped in mythology and made-up history. The Christ Myth theory article is awful. "Oh yes, let's write a critical article about the historical Christ, and while we're at it, let's endorse the Word of God found in the Holy Bible and discredit the false disbelievers". Dickie birdie (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced information

I mentioned over at Socrates that

There's a general feeling at V — I can't say that there's consensus on it, unlike what I've said above [i.e. that it's acceptable to merely remove unsourced material simply because it's unsourced] — that editors who make a practice of going from article to article deleting unsourced information as a routine or habitual matter may be subject to sanctions (at least those editors who don't do much else), but that's more for not routinely following best practices and thus not being here for the benefit of the encyclopedia than it is for removing unsourced material in any individual case.

Just for the sake of being pedantic thorough let me also mention that there's also some feeling, far less discussed there, that mass removals of large amounts of unsourced information from a single article on the mere grounds that it is unsourced may also be sanctionable, at least if done disruptively. What I've seen in practice on that point is that when a well-thought-of, generally neutral, experienced editor does it, even reducing an article from a fairly lengthy one to a stub (generally referred to as "reworking an article"), he or she is likely to have it stick, even over some objection. When that's done by a newcomer or a SPA or an otherwise-disreputable editor (generally referred to as "slash and burn" or — ahem — a "hatchet job"), it's not. The difference, of course, is that in the first case the community is willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that his or her motive is doing what's best for the encyclopedia; but not so much in the latter case. If I was going to go all theoretical on that, I'd further say that it's because the community is willing to AGF on the reputable editor and presume that he's actually given serious consideration to whether the material is sourceable before removing it, but that they're not willing to do that — and are in violation of AGF and/or BITE for not being willing to do so — in the case of the less-reputable editor.

I make no bones about this: At the discussions over at V on this subject I'm one of the advocates for the can-delete-just-because-it's-unsourced position. Here's the reason why: Since we have no editorial board or other oversight to insure reliability of the information we present, that information is only as reliable as the sources we present for it. Except for information which is blindingly obvious or which is unquestionably verifiable with every piece of unsourced information we have here we're putting the reliability of the encyclopedia a little more into question. Now does that mean that I routinely go around removing unsourced information? No, but I do so on occasion when I find stuff that I think is highly unlikely and occasionally I do so without looking for sources if I think that it's unlikely to be reliably sourceable. But we need to retain the ability to do just that to preserve the the reputation for reliability of the encyclopedia, even if best practices suggest that most of the time there are better ways to handle it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back

It's good to see you active again. As you can probably see, there aren't many sane people left, so I'm glad you're still around. I hope you're well. MastCell ^Talk 18:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Me too. Bishonen | talk 23:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC).

Me as well. John Carter (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I was afraid you were staying away because you were angry about something, like your notoriously petulant namesake. MastCell ^Talk 23:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Socratic problem

The article was just horrendous to read and I listed some reasons on the article's talk page. Thought I'd let you know, you seemed interested in the article. Psychotic Spartan 123 07:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. I added a comment there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Advice on English language

Excerpt from Suetonius on Christians Talk page:

Thanks. That is all clear to me. But what you seemed to say (twice) is to dispute the English phrase "prompted by Chresto". Now, you have still not quoted me the pertinent discussion section as requested (reminiscent of Cynwolfe's behaviour, by the way - work on it please). I continue doubting that such a discussion line exists. My working hypothesis is that you have simply misphrased your complaint. No problem. Anyway, I am shifting your section and my reponses into the section where it belongs. This is to unclutter the section dedicated to Smeat75, which is about a different topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.172.13 (talk • contribs)

Actually, here's a few things you can "work on": 1) sign your posts by typing four tildes at the end of your comment. It's hard for people to follow discussion when comments are unsigned. I have been adding your signature, but if you are interested in constructive discussion, surely you can learn this small component of Wikipedia etiquette. 2) Pay better attention to what other people are saying. I am not disputing anything about the English phrase "prompted by Chresto", I am talking about the meaning of the Latin phrase impulsore Chresto in Suetonius 25.4. It cannot mean what Slingerland wants it to mean, as both Cynwolfe and I have already stated. 3) Stop demanding that other editors look up or quote posts that you are perfectly capable of finding on your own, especially because you have already made reference to them in your previous posts. The post where Cynwolfe quotes Gruen is on this very page, I have trouble imagining that you are unable to find it. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Then let me help you out of your trouble. What you did say was: "The reason why impulsore Chresto cannot mean "prompted by Chrestus" has been explained in detail above." What you evidently meant to say was: "The reason why impulsore Chresto cannot refer to expulit has been explained in detail above." Hence you inadvertantly started off a wild goose chase for a discussion that does not exist. (Now pause for thought - if you and I can make such a complete communicative mess in English, what hope do we have of ever being sure about a Latin author's intentions?). No reply needed, we have both wasted enough time on a mare's nest. Such is the human condition.81.135.37.136 (talk) 09:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Hermann ze German

Extended confirmed protection

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

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

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

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

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Akhilleus.

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

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

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Akhilleus. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)