User talk:Katolophyromai

If you are here because you are upset that I reverted one of your edits, please do not take it personally. I have no personal vendetta against you, nor did I mean to attack or insult you in any way. The only reason why I reverted your edit is because I genuinely believed that your edit was damaging to the encyclopedia. If you have a legitimate query, please refrain from making personal attacks and write your complaint at the bottom of the page.

This talk page only displays recent conversations. If you are searching for old conversations, please consult the talk page archives, which are linked below.

Your GA nomination of Lucian

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lucian you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Satan

Hi, I just promoted your hook to the prep set at DYK. I read through the whole article and just want to say that you did a fantastic job. My particular knowledge is in Jewish sources, and I found that you expounded on the scriptural and rabbinic sources thoroughly and impartially. I'm sure people with expertise in Christian and Islamic sources will find the same. Amazing work! Best, Yoninah (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Thank you so much! I am really glad you liked the article and I plan to continue to work here at Wikipedia, improving articles and providing people with accurate and verifiable information. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ancient Greek literature

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ancient Greek literature you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Origen

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Origen you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dumuzid

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dumuzid you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Dumuzid

Hi. I'm able to review articles in English, but mostly regarding the topic and the references, not the writing, I'm not fluent enough in English. So feel free to contact me if you need an advice about an article dealing with ancient Mesopotamian mythology, I'll be glad to help, but I don't think I can be a reviewer for a Good Article nomination in English. Good luck for the review of Dumuzid. Zunkir (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lucian

The article Lucian you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lucian for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Another article I’m working on

@Katolophyromai: Outside of Jim Bakker and David Meade (author), I do have another article I’m working on, Heritage USA. I’ve been busy adding citations to the article. Feel free to help me on the article any time. LovelyGirl7 talk 17:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dumuzid

The article Dumuzid you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dumuzid for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Origen

The article Origen you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Origen for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Anunnaki

On 22 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Anunnaki, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in Sumerian mythology, a group of gods known as the Anunnaki put the goddess Inanna on trial for her attempt to conquer the Underworld? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anunnaki. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Anunnaki), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Satan

On 23 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Satan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Satan frequently appeared as a comic relief figure in late medieval mystery plays, in which he "frolicked, fell, and farted in the background"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Satan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Satan), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Question

How would you rate the article Jim Bakker assessment wise? Ive requested copy editing and it has been done by another user, not to mention citations as well. I’m familiar with GA criteria and once I think it meets them, it will be my second GA article nomination. LovelyGirl7 talk 14:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: It looks good, though I noticed that the "Beliefs" section is out of chronological order. It states that he has renounced his "prosperity theology" without first stating that he ever held it to begin with. I would recommend rearranging this section to describe the shift in beliefs in chronological order; that way it will be less confusing. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC) Katolophyromai (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It might also be a good idea to add an explanation of what "Heritage USA" is the first time it is mentioned in the lead, since, right now, it is not clearly stated and might be confusing. It may also be a good idea to add a sentence or two about his beliefs to end of the lead. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: I made several changes to “Beliefs”. I added information about one of his other books he published in 1980 and even mentioned a quote he said in that book. For the lead, I mentioned that Heritage USA is a former Christian Park and I also mentioned when it closed. Feel free to make changes to the section and correct my edits if needed to. —LovelyGirl7 talk 16:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The Birth of a Nation

Hi, Katolophyromai. We have worked well togehter in the past. With that in mind, would you be interested in reviewing The Birth of a Nation which I nominated for GA? It is one of the most important films ever made (and you are very interested in articles on important subjects), as well as one of the most infamous.--MagicatthemovieS

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Enlil at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Jim and Tammy Bakker 1986.jpg

I had to remove the image from the Jim Bakker article. I did upload it on commons, but it's under Public Domain Mark. It will be deleted in seven days so thats why I had to remove the image. --LovelyGirl7 talk 19:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: This is perfectly fine. Do not panic. Remember: an article does not necessarily need to have a picture of the person in it to become a good article and, many times, a public domain photograph of the person is simply not available. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I am also working on St. Xavier High School (Louisville) and maybe God's Not Dead (film) as well. Those 2 may be my fourth and fifth GA nominees after David Meade (author), Jim Bakker, and Heritage USA (not a nominee yet but will do so once copyediting is done on the article). Also @Katolophyromai:, I’ve noticed you reviewed Sophia Parnok as well. I’m totally ready for David Meade to be reviewed if you want to review it (even when reviewed, I will address the concerns on the review page, like if it a sentence needs to be changed or so). —LovelyGirl7 talk 03:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: I cannot review David Meade because I have significantly contributed to the article and I helped you write it, so I would not be able to give an objective evaulation. I might be able to get away with reviewing one of your other articles (maybe), but I already have a DYK review open and another GA review of The Birth of a Nation for another editor and I really should finish both of those both opening any more reviews. I am also rewriting the article Jesus in comparative mythology and I am probably going to be very busy for about the next month or so in my personal life, so I am not sure if I will have time to review anything for you. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Would you like to review Heritage USA instead once I nominate it for GA? I’m still waiting on copyediting for the article, but once someone does copyediting on the article, I’m going to nominate it for GA status (since I’ve did several edits to it and added citations to it). —LovelyGirl7 talk 19:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: I could review it, but I will tell you right now that I would not be able to pass it in its current state because there are numerous statements in it that lack necessary citations. Every single statement needs to be cited to a reliable source in order for the article to be passed. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC) Katolophyromai (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: I will do that. Which sentences do you think I should add citations to (list)? I will cite the sentences that you believe should be cited. —LovelyGirl7 talk 21:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Concerning The Censoring Vandal at Inanna

The edit history of IP07.15.84.128 from this month suggest it has some sort of agenda of censorship, in that, in addition to being hellbent on expunging all mention of androgyny, hermaphrodites and LGBT topics from Inanna for no (logical) reason, it's also been replacing "religion" with "belief" for no logical reason, either. I gave it a level 4 warning because of those, and its trying to edit war at Inanna to preserve its vandalism there, as its actions strongly suggest it has neither the mood nor ability to discuss its edits.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Apokryltaros: I suspected as much, but I have recently gotten in trouble for being too harsh towards new editors. Apparently an editor I reverted in good faith at the article Thucydides wrote an angry blog post about how Wikipedia is so unwelcoming and downright spiteful towards new editors and how he never plans on editing again. As a result of this I had to be chastised on account of the severity of my edit summaries, which I honestly did not think were very harsh at all and one of them was not even directed towards the new editor. I was therefore trying to be as kind and welcoming as possible in this case, because I did not want to have another angry blog post written about me. --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I read that blog post, the person, in my opinion, came off as a hypersensitive dilettante. I have a bad habit of biting newbies, too: in one case, an (anonymous) editor even tried to start a campaign to rein in my biting problem. That plan fell through, though, when when the editor outed itself as a wikistalking troll through its using brand new IPs to canvass other editors, and using years-old misdemeanors as "evidence" of my wikisocial failings, in addition to its reverting my reversions of what otherwise should have been blatantly egregious vandalisms just to scold me.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Apokryltaros: Just out of curiosity, how did you find the blog post? I only know about it because another editor told me about it. I have tried searching for words in Google, but I cannot find it. I was kind of curious what it actually said. It seems like everyone else has been able to find it except me. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I did a bit of snooping after the situation, myself but, last I checked, the petulant dilettante appears to have since deleted the aforementioned blog post.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Heritage USA

I’m still making progress with adding citations. Once I finish adding citations to the article, I might nominate it for GA and you can review it. Even when you review it, I’m willing to fix the concerns (like sentence revision). LovelyGirl7 talk 01:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Also @Katolophyromai: I'm working on St. Xavier High School (Louisville) and planning to nominate it for GA as well. Like Heritage USA, I would love to see you review that one as well (once it is a GA nominee). I added several citations to the article and I'm still working on the article. Anything I should add in the article besides citations? --LovelyGirl7 talk 05:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I chose to put Heritage USA for peer review as well. —LovelyGirl7 talk 20:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Jesus main image

Hi Katolophyromai! I started a discussion about the main image at Talk:Jesus#Main image. Please weigh in, if you'd like! St.nerol (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Katolophyromai. I've seen you editing recently and you seem like an experienced Wikipedia editor. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I really appreciate the offer, but, unfortunately, I am too busy already as it is and I do not think I will have time to become a new page reviewer. Besides, my interest is in writing articles and I do not really care so much for the more bureaucratic elements of editing. Thanks for the offer, but no thanks! --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

lol. Based on your editing, I thought you might find this interesting. Becoming an NPR is good for knowing about new articles, and improve one's own skills. And as evsrything else with enwiki, it is not mandatory. Let me know if you change your mind in future. And tahnks for replying. It is very much appreciated. See you around :) —usernamekiran(talk) 01:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Enlil

On 6 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Enlil, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Enlil, the chief god of the Sumerian pantheon, was regarded as so glorious that not even the other deities could look upon him? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Enlil. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Enlil), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer review for Heritage USA

Hi @Katolophyromai:, not only I will allow you to review the article Heritage USA once I nominate it for GA, I will also allow you to give feedback on the peer review for the about the sentences I should revise or remove as well. Take care my friend. --LovelyGirl7 talk 01:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Bibleverse links

The links are not lost, they just appear as footnotes, like all other references. I don't see why an exception should be made for bible verse references. In fact policy is quite clear on this (see With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article). Can you please stop adding them in the middle of the prose. AIRcorn (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Aircorn: First of all, the very sentence you quote from says "with rare exceptions" and there clearly seems to be a consensus for using these links; they are used in virtually every article relating to the Bible and, so far, you are the only user I have encountered who has any objection against using them. Secondly, is there any logical reason for why we should not use them? You keep complaining about them because you say they are so awful, but I do not see any logical reason why we should not use them. About moving the links to the citations, it makes far more sense to simply have the link with the verse, so all the reader has to do is click on the verse and it will take them to it. Having a whole new reference just for a link that would fit much better in the text simply does not make sense. It also reduces verifiability because the reader is far less likely to be able to find the link in the reference than with the verse number that the link corresponds with. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

If you look at the original quote it has a footnote that lists the rare exceptions. It says Wiktionary and Wikisource can sometimes be useful and includes templates like {{external media}}. If you think that bible links should be part of the rare exceptions then it will need a WP:rfc to say so. I will admit that the problem with {{bibleverse}} is widespread, but that does not imply consensus. It could just mean that nobody has fixed it yet, something I am doing now. The major concern with having external links in the prose is that readers are used to clicking on the blue links and being taken to another wikipedia page. They do not expect to be taken to an external site. Every other reference requires editors to go through the footnotes to find the external link and I can't think of a valid reason why an exception should be made for the bible. Can you imagine how messy it would get if all references were a link to the source instead of a footnote. If you want to start a rfc to make bibleverse an exception to the external link rule let me know and I will stop removing them until it is decided. Otherwise I will continue to clean up these articles and would ask that you add this template as a footnote if you use it in the future. AIRcorn (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Katolophyromai, could you let me know how this is resolved. Editor2020 (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

"Quotes" from Lucian

I regularly patrol "mermaid", and noticed your reversion of today's edit adding the article "a" to the passage from Lucian of Samosata, on the ground that the edit changed a direct quotation from Lucian. Now, if a particular translation is being quoted, that would be more-or-less true, although it would be the translator's rendering. But Lucian's words aren't being changed by this; he wrote in Latin, and Latin doesn't use articles this way, but it's conventional to add them in translation where they would normally appear in English; it doesn't matter that Lucian didn't use it. That said, it's a matter of style whether to say something one way or another—but in this case I would use the article—unless the quotation can be attributed to a specific translation, in which case it's the translator's words that are being translated directly. P Aculeius (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: Yes, I know Lucian did not write in English. What I meant was that we cannot change what the translator wrote; I just said "Lucian" as shorthand because I did not want to go into the complexities of who translated that passage and I assumed everyone would understand what I meant. The passage is a direct quote from Harold W. Atridge and Robert A. Oden's 1976 translation of Lucian's treatise On the Syrian Goddess. Also, Lucian did not write in Latin; he wrote exclusively in ancient Greek. On the Syrian Goddess is actually unusual because it is written in the Ionic dialect rather than Lucian's usual Attic dialect. (I happen to be the almost sole author of our article on Lucian, which is now a GA, thanks to my efforts.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Greek, by the way, does have articles, unlike Latin. (Although it only has the definite article, not the indefinite article.) This is not really relevant here, though, because I was talking about the translation, not Lucian's original Greek text. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK of David Meade

I’m so excited the David Meade article’s DYK appeared on the main page yesterday. I nominated it for DYK status and it passed. I’m very excited. If that’s not enough, it will be even more exciting when it passes GA status. Regards my friend! LovelyGirl7 talk 12:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Origen

On 10 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Origen, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Church Father Origen drew heavily on the teachings of Plato and tried to harmonize Greek philosophy with Christian teachings? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Origen. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Origen), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Your concern at David Meade (author)

Your fine. I appreciated the edit you did. I’m still working on the article and trying to address the concerns at the GA review page. Feel free to help with some sentences if you have to. Thanks! LovelyGirl7 talk 22:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Cerberus

Re your revert at Cerberus, the problem is not that the assertion: "In some stories he has a snake for a tail" is uncited, but rather that it is already covered in the well-sourced fourth paragraph of that section. Paul August ☎ 20:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Paul August: I figured it was probably mentioned somewhere, but I did not bother to check, since the addition was uncited anyways. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Quoting Bible

Did you know that we have internal quotation of the Bible? See Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125#Readings, hymn and cantata text. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: That is precisely the link that I have been using and that Aircorn has been removing. I previously used links to a different website, but I replaced them all (or at least all the ones I could find) with links to WikiSource after someone pointed out to me that that was possible. Aircorn has been removing those links from the texts of various articles and moving them into references because he says that they are still external links, which he says are strictly forbidden in the text of articles. --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Aircorn, please explain why you think a link to a Wikimedia project is an external link. You do use images, or not? - As the example shows, these links have caused no problems in featured article reviews, which is about as critical as we get here. - Perhaps you confuse using the Bible as a reference (which we should not) and making reference to something in the Bible, which is more convenient next to where it is needed than in some ref section? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I started converting internal links to {{bibleverse}} after seeing how they were used in Genesis creation narrative. The template mostly provided links to external sites[1] and says in its documentation that it provides external links and should not normally be used in the body of the article (version pre my edits to it[2]). I see that it uses wikisource for some text, which I did not realise until just now. I personally don't like the use of wikisource as internal links for the much the same reasons as I don't think we should use links to other sites internally (mentioned in the above discussion). I don't think the comparison to images is completely fair as they have a completely different look so a reader is not likely to mistake them for another feature and they usually don't require going to a new page to get use out of them. However I will accept that the community allows them and appologise for removing the ones that link to wikisource. Now that I know this I will be more careful to check where the link goes before proceeding. I see from your linked article above that there is {{Sourcetext}}, which would probably be a better template to use as it just draws information from wikisource. AIRcorn (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Pythagoras

On 18 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pythagoras, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Greek legends claim Pythagoras (pictured) had a golden thigh, could fly thanks to a magic arrow, was greeted by name by a river, and when bitten by a snake, bit it back and killed it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pythagoras. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pythagoras), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ancient Greek literature

The article Ancient Greek literature you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ancient Greek literature for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

K2-146b

@Katolophyromai: I just created the article K2-146b. I will allow you to help me with the article as well. If you would like to do edits on it, feel free to do so. LovelyGirl7 talk 15:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hausos Article Rewrite

Since you've spent a significant time editing in Wikipedia's Indo-European studies sphere, would you be interested in collaborating on a rewrite of Hausos? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: I agree that Hausos (and all the other articles about PIE deities) need to be rewritten; I may consider rewriting it later, but right now I am working on several other articles. Presently, I am hoping to bring the article List of Mesopotamian deities up to Featured List status and I am also still in the middle of rewriting the articles Dragon and Jesus in comparative mythology, both of which I hope to eventually bring up to GA status. Articles about Proto-Indo-European religion are not really at the top of my priorities list right now because they generally do not receive very much traffic and most of my low-traffic article improvement effort for the moment has been aimed at ancient Mesopotamian religion, which is much better attested and easier to write about. I do hope to eventually come back around and clean up the PIE religion articles, but right now I am just too busy. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you know what, I think I will work on it a little bit; I do not want to spend too much time on it, but I can afford to spend a little. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Aristotle

Well, I've blitzed the article - it's cited, the OR is I hope all gone, it's better illustrated, and slightly better structured. What I'd really like is if you could check it over, especially the philosophy? Some of it is still pretty obscure and I suspect still too detailed for an overview, but I've done what a biologist can. I think you'll detect a biological flavour, but then, it did form 1/3 of his work, perhaps more, so why shouldn't the article be like that. All comments and suggestions very welcome. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: I will try to go over it. I have already started, but it may take me a few days to finish. I added a paragraph about Aristotle's Rhetoric and am planning to do a some more work later. I will admit that Aristotle is not my main area of expertise, but I do know a reasonable amount about him. My knowledge tends to be more over his "practical philosophy," rather than his biology. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Then we should complement each other well. I think the biology is well in order now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I've made a Government diagram, and one for Memory/Dreams/Senses. What d'you think? If you're happy with the article I'm about ready to go for GAN really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: I think the diagrams are helpful. Right now I do not see any major problems with the article, but I still have not had time to read through the whole thing. You can go ahead and nominate it for GA if you think it is ready, but I may make a few more edits here and there. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll wait for you, and do a bit more checking to see if we've missed anything else. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, his physics of motion had been entirely omitted! The prejudices of centuries are hard even for Wiki-editors to shake off. And Galileo was wrong, too. On the Influence on medievals, I think the images are becoming, er, baroque. I suggest one painting for each period - given this is just influence, we shouldn't be going into so much detail on art, though there's plainly scope for a subsidiary article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm finding that every other article that mentions A. is wrong, scrappy, out of date, or poorly-cited (can the encyclopedia really be in that much of a mess, or am I always looking at a biased sample, hmm?). I seem to have rewritten most of the article now, and completely revamped the examples and illustrations. I'm having a go at the paintings as it seems we should at least mention them. I'd be very glad if you could take an eagle's eye view (from a great height) to answer the question 'does the article now hang together and tell the tale of A's life and work as a coherent story, describing at least the main points?'. Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: The observations you have made about the other articles about Aristotle are applicable to the vast majority of articles about ancient history. (In fact, many of them are even worse; most of the ones about ancient Mesopotamia are especially garbage.) I have been trying to improve some of the more important ones that receive more page views, but I am just one person and there are not very many people working on articles in this subject area because, sadly, I have found hardly anyone knows anything at all about ancient history. I do not know how things are in other countries, but, here in the United States at least, ancient history (and really history in general, for that matter) is barely even glossed over in our education system. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I've worked on the Islamic side of things as that was very poorly covered (nearly absent, often). At least that's tied in here with A. I'm about ready to take A. to GAN and would appreciate any final comments, including single-word ones like STOP!!! if need be. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: I think the article is probably ready . --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. Do you want to be co-nom for the parts on rhetoric, etc? Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: I would be fine with that. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Aristotle GAN

On the GAN, I've replied to all the small comments. On the refs, I need your help, as quite a few page numbers are missing, so we have vague citations to whole books! You'll see that Tim has quite rightly asked for full refs with Author, Title, Date, Place, Publisher and ISBN-13/OCLC, which will need to be in the {{cite book|author=Surname, Forename ...}} or equivalent cite journal format. I'll do what I can and will try to mark up problems with comments like this: page=<!--page!-->. If you could look up the OCLC for anything that needs it, that would be great. Alternatively, we can replace any ref with a fresh, full citation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb again. Here are the key comments from Tim: Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

"Ref 1 lacks an ISBN. We also need either OCLC numbers or ISBNs (13-digit ones, please) for 4, 5, 6, 10, 15, 17, 18, 21, 25, 29, 30, 38, 61, 62, 69, 73, 85, 87, 91, 110, 111, 127, 133, 165, 168, and 174.

Useful tools: WorldCat for OCLCs/ISBNs, and ISBN converter to turn 10-digit ISBNs into 13-digit ones as requested by the MoS.

More generally, the references range in thoroughness from 109 (Author, Title, Date, Place, Publisher and ISBN) to 87 (Author – surname only – and Title and nothing else). You need to go through all the citations to books and add any of the six elements of bibliographic details that are currently omitted. For websites you should add any missing site names, e.g. 13."

Thanks for adding the ISBNs. I've managed to do the OCLCs.

We are almost there ... there are two books missing page numbers, one in Epistemology, and one in On 19th Century Thinkers. Neither is my thing... If you could do those, Tim can make his final checks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I've found alternative sources for most of the missing bits, and have commented out Knight as it just says passim - if you have the pages to hand, feel free to put him back (2 places). I've asked Tim to check it all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yay! We made it. There is scope for quite a bit of polishing, but also a gentle celebration. Congratulations all round. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: I am glad to see that the article has finally made it to "Good Article" status. It was definitely one article that really needed to be brought up. I apologize that I was only able to help a little bit, but I was away from home for most the past three days and only really had time to edit in the mornings and evenings. I hope I was at least some help. Just out of curiosity, are you planning on trying to bring the article up to "Featured Article" status? --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Not yet, I think. The refs need a lot more polishing, and the philosophy text would need more development and refs, probably. There is some hidden text that you might like to rescue (needs reffing). Feel free to continue to discuss the article with me: it is a 'big' article and it would receive very careful attention at FAC, so we'd need to be extremely ready with everything shining, polished, reffed in all directions, and totally defensible. I think GA is quite an achievement with an article of this scale. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Question about K2-146b

Hi @Katolophyromai: I created the article K2-146b. I would love to improve it; anything I can do? I will also allow you to help me with it as well. LovelyGirl7 talk 11:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: I would help you, but I do not really know anything about asteroids; my main area of expertise is the ancient history of the eastern Mediterranean, so I do not know how much help I can be. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: I like it but you can if you want to help feel free to do so. Your still my friend no matter what. —LovelyGirl7 talk 13:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I created another article K2-155d, but I’m just curious, what do you think about the article? I know your not an expert in asteroids, but just curious though. —LovelyGirl7 talk 21:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Jesus in comparative mythology

Per WP:BRD, please discuss on the talk page. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Your edit summary at Jesus in comparative mythology

Re your edit summary here, which mentions the removal of "this sentence" by Daask, note that Daask actually removed two sentences:

Although virtually all New Testament scholars and historians of the ancient Near East agree that Jesus existed as a historical figure, most secular historians also agree that the gospels contain large quantities of ahistorical legendary details mixed in with historical information about Jesus's life.

and

The birth narratives of Matthew and Luke are usually seen by secular historians as legends designed to fulfill Jewish expectations about the Messiah.

Both of which were added to the lead about a month ago. Regards, Paul August ☎ 16:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Paul August: I see. I did not realize Daask removed the second sentence. I cannot think of why he or she removed it, though, since it directly relates to the subject of comparative mythology. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Can't say I see a good reason for the removal of either sentence. I will be interested to see if a reason is forthcoming on the talk page there. Paul August ☎ 16:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Lest We Forget: The Best Of

Hi, @Katolophyromai: you might remember me from our previous collaborations. I recently nominated the (short) article for Marilyn Manson's album Lest We Forget: The Best Of for GA and I was wondering if you might like to review it. Let me know --MagicatthemovieS

Yes, @MagicatthemovieS:, I remember you. (How could I forget when we have worked on so many articles together by now?) I would be perfectly willing to review the article, but I am not sure that I am really the best one to do it. I know nothing at all about Marilyn Manson. (I know a decent about about ancient and medieval music, but, generally speaking, I know hardly anything at all about any music composed later than the Northern Renaissance.) Furthermore, there were several complaints after my premature passing of The Birth of a Nation, which also concerned a subject that I, admittedly, know very little about. If you would still like me to go ahead with the review, I will, but I am just warning you that I do not know if I am the best person for the job. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Unlike Birth, this article is uncontroversial and concerns a very simple topic; I don't think that you require any knowledge of Manson or any other modern musicians to review this article. Thanks for your prompt response!--Magicatthemovies

@MagicatthemovieS: Very well. I will try to review the article, then. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@MagicatthemovieS: Since I am reviewing this article for you, would you be willing to review my article Anu, which I have recently nominated for GA? It is about the main ancestor deity of ancient Mesopotamian religion. I imagine you probably do not know very much about Mesopotamian religion, but there is no one else who really does, so I do not reckon I am likely to find anyone better suited to review it. You do not have to review it if you do not want to, but I would appreciate it if you would. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: I will review that article for you; I will not be able to start reviewing it today. --MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: That is fine with me. I will probably not be able to start my review today either. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: I am trying to curb my Internet addiction, so I will not review the aforementioned article. I you no longer want to review Lest, let me know.--Magicatthemovies

@MagicatthemovieS: I am still fine with reviewing the article for you. I may be rather busy in the coming days, so it may take me a while to review it. Another reviewer has already opened a review for Anu, so that review is ongoing right now. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@MagicatthemovieS: Oops! Sorry, someone else just opened a review on it. Nevermind. --Katolophyromai (talk) 10:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

What’s up!

What’s up @Katolophyromai: . I’m working on K2-155d and I’m also doing improvements to the article as well. When I nominate it for GA once it meets the criteria (so far it doesn’t yet), would you like to review it? I’m still working on it and I believe I have more work to do, but when I do nominate it, I don’t mind if you improve it. LovelyGirl7 talk 11:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goat people

I've added sources, does this change your opinion at the AfD? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Valoem: While I appreciate the addition of sources, I am afraid that it still does not change my opinion; I think it is better to deal with different goat-person hybrids of various kinds separately. Lumping them all under the collective label "goat people" is not a proper, encyclopedic way of treating the issue, in my view, especially since satyrs, for instance, were not considered goat people at all originally, but rather woodland spirits with horselike features. It was only through later syncretism with the Roman fauns that they became seen as "men with goat legs" as most people think of them today. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Vocative of Dyeus

Hi. In order to make that change, you really need a citation to defend a claim about PIE declensions, because they are not known and are only theoretical. Also the article does not explain the sudden change of case endings which makes your edit more confusing than informative even if it is accurate. More importantly the sentence does not call for the vocative: "addressed as" does not necessitate the vocative case. In Sanskrit prayers, for example, the gods are frequently if not generally addressed in the dative case (om namaḥ śivāya, gaṁ ganapataye) and the accusative (vande guruṇam, tryambakaṁ yajāmahe). To address someone does not require the vocative unless the specific sentence is shown as vocative. The undeclined or nominative case would be used here to stand for all other potential declensions. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, it appears that the vocative of Zeus is Zeusie, so I really do not know where this dropping the -s makes it vocative theory would come from as it does not show up in the big three IE languages. Comparative philologists would have a hard time defending that reconstructed case ending. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Iṣṭa Devatā: No, the vocative of Zeus is definitely not "Zeusie." I have no idea where you are getting that from; it is definitely Ζεῦ (Zeũ) and he is referred to as Zeu pater nine times in the two Homeric poems, always when one of the heroes is praying to him ([3], [4], [5], [6]). Perhaps "Zeusie" may be some bizarre aberrant later form, but the earliest attested vocative form is Zeũ. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

HAHA. Yeah, I don't know Greek. I'm a Sanskritist. That's the declension the wiktionary gave [7]. Zeusie does seem like it would be a big divergence from other IE languages. My point is more that there is no reason to make this vocative here as I explained above with examples. And putting a specific declension is problematic especially because the PIE roots were not static, there are competing theories as to their appearance, and reconstruction shows there were probably declension changes happening even during the hypothetical worship of Dyeus. How can we claim here that he was addressed in just the one specific way? I understand the instinct, but as it stands it is problematic in ways further edits could potentially solve. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Iṣṭa Devatā: I see. That explains it. You were looking at the modern Polish inflections of the word. That article does not give the ancient Greek inflections. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Um, Polish inflections? Where are you getting that idea from? I don't doubt wiktionary has an error there, but does Polish even have a comparable declension system? And why would it be on the English language wiki? Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind I see it. Weird. You would think it would start with the classical greek endings. That's a page you could probably help out with your skill set.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

In reference to your edit summary: addressed does not mean vocative. Vocative is the more specific direct address. When I address a crowd of people, it could be in any number of cases. By the dictionary, to address is:

To speak to (a person or an assembly), typically in a formal way.

"she addressed an audience of the most important Shawnee chiefs"

synonyms: talk to, give a talk to, speak to, make a speech to, give a lecture to, lecture, hold forth to; preach to, give a sermon to;

"Rev. Lally addressed a crowded congregation"

In this example, congregation is not vocative, it is accusative. If you want to change it to "addressed them as royalty", then royalty is still accusative where they are the direct object of the action of addressing and all their noun endings and accompanying adjectives in such a clause will all still be accusative case. If I say, "I address you as God", then God in that sentence is still accusative. If I say "Hey, God" then it is vocative. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Iṣṭa Devatā: I know what "vocative" means. I think we were just operating under different assumptions of what the person is doing when they are "addressing" Dyeus; my view is that the "address" in question would refer to the person's actual words when he or she is directly speaking to him, like this: "Oh, Father Dyeus, please grant my prayer..." I think you took it to mean merely the act of addressing him.

Regarding all the weirdness surrounding the vocative of "Zeus," there is a different Wiktionary page about the classical Greek word: [8]. (You can tell it is about the classical Greek form because the title of the article is written in Greek letters.) That one does have the classical Greek inflections on it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I know you understand vocative. I know you also understand that to address a deity in prayer (as I showed with four real world examples), even when directly speaking to the deity, would not necessitate the vocative. When I say "I worship you God" in any language, it is still an accusative address. I understand why "address" could suggest the vocative, just like you understand that it does not require it. Changing the verbiage the way you did eliminated the issue anyways which was probably the right call. Also the Zeus page you sent does not seem (maybe I'm missing it) to show the declensions. Perhaps you could add them? Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Iṣṭa Devatā: The table with the declensions is collapsed. You have to click the button that says "Show" in order to see it. It is under the subsection marked "Inflection." --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Oops, and here I was scanning the page for the word declension...word choices! Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anu

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Anu you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Farang Rak Tham -- Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Rather than my own re-phrasing...

I really like the idea of seeing what was written before the text got stepped on. I often find the older text was better. Especially as so many occasional editors are just tweaking to their taste, like that editor, and so easily making it worse. Shenme (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Lucian

On 3 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lucian, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Hellenized Syrian satirist Lucian wrote the novel A True Story, sometimes regarded as the first work of science fiction, in the second century AD? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lucian. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lucian), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

You are amazing. I just had my Jim Bakker article passed and thank you so much for your efforts you did to help me with getting it to become a GA article. I totally appreciate you a lot and your always my friend. LovelyGirl7 talk 15:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: Well thank you. That is very kind of you. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I always love doing this. I do believe you care about how I edit here. That's why your my friend here. --LovelyGirl7 talk 18:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources on Themistocles

See my comment there, but I also wanted to point out that you should refrain from making your arguments in your edit summaries. That's not the place for discussion. If you feel strongly, comment on a talk page or a userpage. Either way, I feel you are wrong to blank a section simply because it is unsourced. That is not helpful. Tag it and see if others can find the sources or find them yourself. That is of more use than simply removing something. It's also correct Wikipedia policy. If no one sources the items after a reasonable amount of time (say a few months), it can always be removed then. 128.151.71.16 (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Not really a question, but what do you think?

Do you think I should consider trying to help get Jim Bakker and/or David Meade (author) to FA class? I know the FA criteria but I'm just curious as to what you think? --LovelyGirl7 talk 03:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: It is up to you. I do not either of them are ready for "Featured Article" status in their current states, but I am sure, with quite a bit of effort, you could probably improve them to that level. "Featured Article" means that the article is one of the absolute best ones we have and should be used as a model for other articles. Obviously, that demands a very high standard of quality. I have not brought any articles up to "Featured Article" status, although I do have several I hope to bring up to that status eventually. --Katolophyromai (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I respect you @Katolophyromai: and I agree it's up to me. However, I wanted to ask since I wanted to see what you think if I should or not. I have another GA nominee, K2-155d. Anyways, thank you for your help. --LovelyGirl7 talk 18:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Western world

Hello. If you want something to edit, Western world (~2,000 views per day) is in great need of attention. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hrodvarsson: Thank you very much for the suggestion, but I already have my hands full. Right now, I am working on the articles Anu, Dragon, List of Mesopotamian deities, and Jesus in comparative mythology, which leave me with little time for anything else. I am also considering working on the article Royal Game of Ur and possibly also Mary Magdalene at some point. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anu

The article Anu you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Anu for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Farang Rak Tham -- Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

My new draft

What’s up @Katolophyromai:. I just wanted to let you know I created my new user draft regarding TalkGold and MoneyMakerGroup owner Ed Krassenstein, brother of Brian Krassenstein. I’m not going to move the draft to main space just yet, but what do you think so far with my draft so far? I will allow you to edit my draft and fix sentences and citations. LovelyGirl7 talk 19:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I heard Ed Krassenstein is a proposed deletion article. Feel free to help keep it from being deleted. LovelyGirl7 talk 16:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: I would help you, but I honestly have no idea who Ed Krassenstein is, other than what I could gather from the brief description of him in the article you wrote, which rather makes it sound like being critical of President Trump is the most significant thing he has ever done. Obviously, there are a lot of people who have criticized President Trump, so being critical of him is not enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. I am assuming there is probably more information out there about his business scandals, but I can hardly find any information about him on the internet, so I am not really convinced that he is notable enough to need a Wikipedia article about him. If you are hoping to save the page, I would recommend giving an explanation of why he is notable enough to require encyclopedic coverage here. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Ed Krassenstein was also accused of being involved in a Ponzi scheme and he was also accused of wire fraud. He also had his house raided in 2016. He also wrote a children’s book being critical of Trump. I do agree I have work to do on the article in order for it to be saved. Being a critic of Trump isn’t the only thing. I hope it’s saved and improved. —LovelyGirl7 talk 22:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: I heard the PROD tag was removed from the article (I'm glad as long as its not there again), but still, it does need improvements. I will edit the article as if it were to be deleted in 7 days. --LovelyGirl7 talk 03:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: I noticed there are some serious neutrality issues with the article. An anonymous user recently removed this statement from the article, which I had previously overlooked on account of not bothering to read all the way to the bottom of the page: "After the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, he was seen joining the leftist circus advocating for gun bans and the dismemberment of the Constitution." I do not understand what could possibly have compelled you to think this was neutral wording, because everything about it is clearly overtly negative towards Krassenstein and, really, for that matter, all advocates of gun control in general. Please refrain from using loaded language like this in article space in the future; you are welcome to think whatever you want about gun control activists, but you cannot allow those opinions to influence the way you say things in a Wikipedia article.

I think part of the problem may have its roots in the sourcing. The article you cite from Medium (which happens to be the source cited for the aforementioned statement) does not appear to be reliable. For one thing, it appears to be a self-published blog post. (Medium is a blog-publishing platform, not a reputable news source.) Also, I could not find a place where the article gave its author's name. Both of these issues raise immediate red flags before we even look at what the source says.

Once we look at what it says, however, there are even more problems. The title of the article is "Is Failed Writer Ed Krassenstein the Most Soulless Man on Twitter?" This title pretty obviously shows that this is not a neutral article about the subject, but rather a heavily-biased polemic. The very first two sentences of the article are: "Let's face it. Donald Trump is so successful at creating jobs that an entire industry has formed around spamming replies to all of @POTUS's tweets." This statement is, well, so perversely counterfactual that, especially combined with all the other problems, I do not see any reason to take this source seriously. Trump's success at creating jobs is debatable at best and hardly anything on the massive scale that this source makes it sound. Furthermore, people do not criticize Trump because they are mad at him for creating jobs; that would not even make sense: why would anyone ever be mad about that? The reason people criticize him is because they firmly believe that he is incompetant and corrupt. The article from Medium, seems, to me at least, to be little more than a rather peculiar effort from an anonymous blogger to write pro-Trump (and anti-Krassenstein) propaganda. I would strongly recommend searching for a better, more reputable source to replace this one. Some of the other sources currently in the article may be similarly problematic. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Katolophyromai:, I have a couple things in response to your reply:

• Regarding Trump, he gets criticized a lot by liberals/Democrats. Liberals/Democrats also criticize him because they believe he’s racist, that he colluded with Russia, that Russia helped win the 2016 elections, that he would start World War III with North Korea, that he’s Hitler, and that he’s similar to George W. Bush. Not to mention they glorify Robert Mueller as well.
• Regarding Ed Krassenstein himself, just as how David Meade was known as a false prophet on one article and a fraud on another, the article Medium published does say Ed is a troll, Twitter spammer, along with his website (sorry if I brought up Meade). The article does have a point though about Ed stalking Trump on every tweet each day, because he actually does, along with Brian. Regarding the Vegas shooting, when Trump visited Vegas, Ed bashed him for it and he also stated that impeachment and imprisonment would be better. That sentence mentioning his gun control view, I don’t like talking negative, not even about gun control advocates, and I’m really sorry if I did.
• I will allow you to comment on the AFD page to voice your concern, however, I do hope we work together to save the article. Your my mentor and friend and I have faith in you that we can make the article better. I’m praying that the article doesn’t get deleted and that we all work together to fix the problems and keep the article. —LovelyGirl7 talk 05:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: As I said above, I do not really know anything about Krassenstein, but I am sure that, if he really is encyclopedically notable, you should be able to find better sources about him. If you cannot find reputable news sources, it might be an indication that he lacks encyclopedic notability, and you may want to consider working on a different article.

Now, a piece of further advice: Assuming that Krassenstein is indeed notable and you can find better sources about him, we do (obviously) have to report criticism of him, but we should, firstly, try to find the most notable critics; if a person has encyclopedic relevance, a self-published blog probably is not the most notable criticism of him or her. Secondly, we should describe criticism in a neutral tone, carefully attributing all statements to others rather than stating them in Wikipedia's own voice. Wikipedia is not supposed to have opinions; all we are supposed to do is report what others have already written. On news networks, in newspaper opinion articles, and in blogs, people are allowed to voice their own opinions; we just do not do that here because we are an encyclopedia.

Oh, and random interesting fact: I do not want to get into a political debate or anything, but I just thought you might find it ironic that Robert Mueller is actually a Republican and has been for at least the past seventeen years. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: I don’t like to get political here either but I did also heard Mueller was one of the people who lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction [9]. Back to Krassenstein, I understand I can’t be biased against him, even if he’s a annoying Trump stalker. We could try to rescue the article together before the AFD closes. If we can’t, I could accept that it’s deleted and that it’s not notable. I know you don’t know about Ed or Brian but at least I told you who he is though (ponzi scheme, anti-Trump stalker, house raided in 2016, journalist for IR.net). I do respect your thoughts on Ed though. There’s still a chance to save the article and I know that if nothing is done, it’ll be deleted. —LovelyGirl7 talk 13:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Articles for creation

Hello Katolophyromai, I have a few article ideas that might interest you. List: Authoritative Teaching, Excerpts from Theodotus, Interpretation of Knowledge, and Valentinian Exposition. I had previously created these articles a few years back, but at the time, I was only thinking about the amount of articles I could create and ignored the qualities of articles entirely . Subjects of the articles listed are entirely associated with some form of Gnosticism. A subject I can’t interpret. Further, let me know if you become irritated of me for following your contributions. Just ask and I’ll stop. Also, keep up the good work. You’re doing an excellent job. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@JudeccaXIII: I have no problem with you following my work. I do not consider you to be a nuisance in any way. In fact, I appreciate you cleaning up after my edits. Thank you very much for the suggestions. I do not know if I will have a chance to create any these articles, though, because I am fairly busy working on several others right now. I am still working on the articles Jesus in comparative mythology, List of Mesopotamian deities, and Dragon. Additionally, the articles Royal Game of Ur and probably also Mary Magdalene are both on my task list for future articles to work on. I usually try to avoid creating new articles and spend most of my time improving articles that already exist. Nonethless, I will see if I have time. --Katolophyromai (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The Trouble with "Cryptid"

Since you regularly edit articles that fall within the area of folklore on Wikipedia, you may be interested in my observations on ongoing problems I'm encountering with the pseudoscience of cryptozoology on Wikipedia and also this discussion regarding a proposed merge over at this article. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: I read your observations and I agree with them wholeheartedly; it is absolutely ridiculous that we give so much undue credibility to cryptozoology. In fact, I myself had been noticing how disturbingly common cryptozoological explanations are in many of our articles. Our article Bigfoot lists the subsections "Gigantolopithecus" and "Extinct hominidae" under the same heading as "Misidentification" and "Hoaxes." Nonetheless, I suspect our problems may be merely symptomatic of how pervasive this sort of nonsense has become throughout society. In an era where blatantly pseudoscientific shows like Finding Bigfoot, Ghost Hunters, and Ancient Aliens receive millions of viewers and consistently high ratings, where, according to The Washington Post, more than sixty percent of Americans believe "advanced civilizations like Atlantis once existed," but only around twenty-two percent "are confident the universe began with a Big Bang," where the only thing many people "know" about the pyramids is that aliens built them, is it any surprise at all that even Wikipedia has been infiltrated by such viral nonsense? People have always believed in legends, but now, in our modern age, where everything has to be "scientific," believers in legends have adopted the veneer of a scientific methodology. Philosophers since the Enlightenment have assumed that science would bring an end to what they call "superstition," but, in fact, all it has done is pressured those very "superstitions" to appear more like science, a pretension which has only made them all the more seductive. I love myths and legends and I think life would be very dull without them, but I certainly do not believe in them and I understand the danger posed by pseudoscientific garbage like cryptozoology. I think we must discuss cryptozoology where necessary and appropriate, we should treat it in a way that does not award it any measure of credibility or scientific validity. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

To say nothing of the fact that List of Cryptids constantly attracts both well-meaning editors and vandals who insert nigh-identical nonsense about their favorite cryptids. --Mr Fink (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that we're on the same page about these problems. They've been going on for far too long. I'd like to convert the write up to an essay (WP:ESSAY, that is) that we can quickly reference when cleaning up problem articles. I expect the essay might turn out to be an important tool for dispelling some of the confusion on Wikipedia surrounding this topic. Please feel free to add to it, edit it, or weigh in on the talk page. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Heartily concur with both of you. The essay-to-be seems to already offer the essentials. Anything that helps foster encyclopedic, intelligent, policy-based editing in a particular topic area is a valuable asset. But of course, its advice needn't be restricted to that particular topic area. There are several such, particularly subject to enthusiastic, opinionated editing by folk unable or unwilling to distinguish credible scholarship from thrilling, seductive disinformation or jaw-droppingly vacuous gloop. Or the serious study of literalist gloop from the gloop itself. Several of my otherwise intelligent, perceptive friends and colleagues choose to believe that mainstream science and scholarship represent a systematic suppression of the Truth. And so it goes. Wikipedia reflects the state of society at large, well-meaning gullibility included. Surely, 'twas not ever thus. Haploidavey (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Meade is back

I heard David Meade is back again, this time he thinks it’s April 23rd for Planet X and rapture. I’ve added it in the article. LovelyGirl7 talk 12:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: Oh joy. I was hoping he would just vanish into obscurity. I guess he has other plans, though. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Yep and I’ve added it in the article. —LovelyGirl7 talk 13:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Feel free to give your opinion on the David Meade featured article review page. --LovelyGirl7 talk 22:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Katolophyromai whats up

Hi @Katolophyromai: would you like to review my GA nomination of K2-155d? I am willing to solve every problems, even whenever you review it or even if its being reviewed itself. I will solve all concerns you give on the nomination as well. --LovelyGirl7 talk 04:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Christianity Barnstar
		For the assiduous services which you have rendered to the Christian faith on Wikipedia. - Conservatrix (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Conservatrix: Thank you very much! I am grateful for your appreciation. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Interview request

Hi Katolophyromai,

I'm a journalist who's been working a series of stories about interesting Wikipedia articles and editors. For example, I recently wrote for the NY Times about two teenagers behind the pages for the subway. If you're interested, you can read some of my work here: stephenharrison.com

I'm working on a story about the people behind the "Jesus" Wikipedia article. I think you might have an interesting perspective as a Protestant Christian who believes the Bible is not completely infallible. It's really interesting to me how people of faith as well as atheists are working together on that article.

Would you be willing to participate in an interview? My email is stephenbharrison at gmail dot com. We can schedule the discussion whenever works for you--no immediate rush.

Thanks for considering. Stephenbharrison (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Stephenbharrison: I would be more than happy to provide you with information about my work here at Wikipedia! I doubt that an in-person interview will be possible, but I would be more than willing to answer your questions here on my talk page or via email. My work on the article Jesus itself has been largely confined to the talk page, since that article became featured long before I started editing here and the actual content of the article has been mostly stable since I first started editing. Nonetheless, I have almost single-handedly written a large number of other articles, including ones related to Jesus, such as Satan and Origen. I am still working on the article Jesus in comparative mythology, the current version of which is entirely my work. I am also currently in the midst of completely rewriting the article Mary Magdalene in hopes of bringing it up to "Good Article" status. At this point, I have rewritten roughly everything in that article up to the middle of the "Early Middle Ages" section.

I have also written numerous other prominent articles, such as Pythagoras, Hypatia, Athena, Aphrodite, Lucian, and pretty much all the articles about major ancient Mesopotamian deities, including Inanna, Enlil, Dumuzid, and Anu. A more complete list of some of my most significant contributions can be found on my userpage. My goal in writing for Wikipedia is to accurately reflect the assessments of mainstream, academic historians, and I try not to let my personal views interfere as best as I can. I am always very meticulous (some might say obsessive) about citing my sources and providing references to works written by respected scholars. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

This is great detail - thanks very much! It might be better to transition to email simply because I was wondering if you'd be willing to go on record with your real name and some biographical details. Let me know if you have a preference.

To start: what are your thoughts on the value of these other Jesus pages such as Jesus in comparative mythology? Do you think there's a balance between having a single page for Jesus (consensus) versus exploring these different critical lenses?

Shoot me an email if you'd like to make a transition to email (my address is above). I might also about your personal background and how you got so interested in Christian topics. Stephenbharrison (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Stephenbharrison: I apologize for my belated response; I have been very busy and what little time I have had I have spent working on articles. My real name is Spencer Alexander McDaniel, but you did not really need to ask that, since it is the first sentence on my userpage, which also explains, for instance, why I chose my username. In response to your question, I think that it is necessary to have the other articles examining Jesus through different lenses because we could not possibly hope to cover it all in one article. That is why pages such as Jesus in Christianity, Jesus in Islam, Historical Jesus, Jesus in comparative mythology, and such are necessary.

I have been interested in the history of religion in general and Christianity in particular for many years and I have studied the subject quite relentlessly, but, when I first started editing here, I actually made a conscious effort to avoid articles about Christianity, because I assumed that working on those articles would be far too controversial for my liking and that my efforts to improve them would be indefinitely hindered by constant squabbling and arguing. This attitude of avoidance may have been partially a result of this rather heated discussion I was involved in very early in my time here at Wikipedia after I added one brief and seemingly innocuous paragraph to the article Biblical Magi about how the birth narrative in the Gospel of Matthew never describes them as kings and the idea of them being kings is actually a later development.

Instead, I focused on writing about ancient Greek and Sumerian mythologies, which still remain the subject areas in which I have made the vast majority of my contributions to date. I will try not to burden you by telling you too much about my work on those articles since they are not what you seem to be interested in at the moment. Eventually, as a consequence of trying to bring my articles up to "Good Article" status, I became involved in the process of reviewing articles for that status. One of the articles I reviewed happened to be the article Samson. In the course of this discussion here, MagicatthemovieS (the user who had nominated Samson for GA to begin with) and I came up with the agreement that we would each work on rewriting an article about a major biblical figure and try to bring those articles up to GA status. I took on the article Jonah and MagicatthemovieS took the article Delilah. Both of those are now GAs.

Later, I rewrote the article Satan, mostly on my own, although I did have some help from MagicatthemovieS, as well as VenusFeuerFalle and a few others. I rewrote the article about Origen because the original version of the article was inadequate and poorly-cited and I have long admired Origen as a great scholar and theologian. (I had already rewritten the articles Pythagoras and Hypatia, so I figured I had a decent impression of how to write articles about famous philosophers.)

The article Jesus in comparative mythology had been on my watchlist for a long time before I ended up rewriting it, which I did in response to a massive numbers of complaints on the talk page insisting that the article was biased and that it was nothing more than a Christian apologetics piece. One user even called it "the single worst article I've read on Wikipedia". I personally did not think that assessment was entirely accurate, but I did agree that there was a problem of emphasis; the article focused too much on refuting fringe theories and speculation and did not devote nearly enough attention to comparisons made by actual scholars on the subject. Once I was finished with the articles Lucian, Dumuzid, and Origen, which I had been working on, I took it on and started rewriting it. I am still not finished with it because I still have not decided how to deal with the issue of the various fringe theories on the subject, of which there are many.

Most recently, I have been working on the articles Anu, List of Mesopotamian deities, Dragon, and Mary Magdalene. I started working on Mary Magdalene after I saw how many views that article received over Easter and decided it needed to be much higher quality to be receiving views like that each year. I am now about third quarters of the way finished with that article, but I still have much work left to do. This has not been a comprehensive history of my work here at Wikipedia by any means and it contains many notable omissions, but I believe it does answer your question about how I started writing articles about Christianity. I would be happy to answer any further questions you might have. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I did sections on David Meade

What's your thoughts on the sections I did with David Meade, regarding predictions. I also added a new section called Calculations to mention the codes and claims he got the things from. What you do think? --LovelyGirl7 talk 19:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dragon

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dragon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Squeamish Ossifrage -- Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dragon

The article Dragon you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Dragon for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Squeamish Ossifrage -- Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

GA nominee K2-155d

Hi @Katolophyromai: I hope you don’t mind me asking but would you like to review K2-155d (which I nominated)? I will work on any concern given when it’s reviewed and I’m prepared. LovelyGirl7 talk 15:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: I will definitely not have time to review it for probably about the next two weeks, but, after that, I may have time. I cannot make any promises, though. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: I hope you do. I can handle two weeks, so after that, you can review it. I will address all concerns you give me on the review page. --LovelyGirl7 talk 18:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

New WikiProject

Hello! Would you be interested in participating in a new WikiProject, WikiProject Folklore? I understand that many WikiProjects have grown moribund over the years, but it also so happens that Wikipedia never had a WikiProject Folklore, and that it would be. valuable resource for articles that both you and I regularly edit. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: I would be happy to join WikiProject folklore. I am a member of several WikiProjects, but I must confess I do not really take part in them that much and I mostly just do my own thing. Nonetheless, I have been wondering for a while whatever happened to WikiProject Mythology. Maybe WikiProject Folklore can take over the work that project left off. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Great to hear it and, yeah, I think you're right. I'm also a long-time member of that WikiProject, and I always wondered why they went with the narrow scope of myth versus the much broader supercategory. I generally have little involvement with all WikiProjects because they all seem to essentially be dead, so I know what you mean. If you know of anyone else who might be good to bring on board, please extend an invitation to them. With the right crew in place, I suspect that we can make a big difference in turning our coverage around. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

By the way, as this relates our general editing interests, you'll probably be interested in the discussion regarding Hel, Krampus, Encyclopedia Mythica, and National Geographic over here. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Magdalene

Just to let you know, some commentators believe that Mary Magdalene may be referenced (though not by name) in Acts 1:14. That should probably be mentioned in the MM article. Thanks for improving the article!--MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: Thank you for the recommendation, but I actually already knew that. I was not going to have it in the article because the passage does not mention her by name and, so far, I do not believe any of my sources have devoted much, or really any, attention to it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Should we at least mention the fact that Lady Gaga plays MM in the video for "Judas"? Interestingly, the video ends with MM getting stoned to death. Also, should we make it clear in the article that Gnostic texts are generally viewed as ahistorical by scholars?--MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: I have restored the sentence you added about the Lady Gaga song to the Mary Magdalene article. I still think it should have a better source than the Huffington Post, which is basically just a blog conglomerate with no fact-checking. I am also concerned about whether the Lady Gage song is really notable enough to warrant mention in the article. Nonetheless, I am willing to leave it there for now. In response to your other question, the article actually already states that the Gnostic texts are not considered to be historical; check the first paragraph of the "Apocryphal early Christian writings" section. If you do not think it is clear enough, I can reword it for you, or you can reword it yourself. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: The Lady Gaga song has sold well over a million copies, making it at least as successful (if not more so) as "I Don't Know How to Love Him" which is discussed in the article. The video of the song is an example of pop culture's fascination with an unlikely Jesus/MM relationship, and conflates MM with Mary of Bethany as it shows MM washing Christ's feet, making it a prominent example of such conflations.--MagicatthemovieS

Sophocles' lost plays

Notice that user DanMDO1, apparently following your suggestion, has started writing credible drafts of some of Sophocles' lost plays: Draft:Akrisios, Draft:4. Aikhmalotides, Draft:Aithiopes, and Draft:Aigeus. I do think that there is probably enough known about these plays to warrant articles. (He may need some shepherding though). Paul August ☎ 11:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

إليك وساما!

	وسام مكافحة التخريب
	Thank you for everything you do Egy writer (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

hello

Please take a look at this page Template:Coptic saints I think that the modifications made to this page by User:Tahc, classified as sabotage? Thank you 👍 for the last modification of Jesus page about Christian church. finally I found one support what I think about the subject and I think this is right .Egy writer (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Please see my comments here. tahc ^chat 21:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Katolophyromai

Since it’s been almost two weeks, would you like to review K2-155d as a GA nominee? I can work on the issues you give to me in the nominee. LovelyGirl7 talk 23:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I’ve saw most of your concerns at the GA review page. I’m still working on fixing sources but I’m just curious as to what you think with the changes I’ve made to several of the citations. LovelyGirl7 talk 16:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to take a look at the GA and check if anything was addressed. If I didn’t address it I can do so. LovelyGirl7 talk 13:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Hopefully you can check the updates on the review page. LovelyGirl7 talk 15:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Folklore templates now available

Hello, Katolophyromai. Please note that we now have templates at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Folklore#Templates. I also welcome you to add yourself to the roster. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	This is to thank you for your incredible and tireless work on improving Dragon. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@OhKayeSierra: Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. It is just a shame I know so little about mythologies outside of Europe and the Middle East. Then maybe my nomination of the article for "Good Article" status would have succeeded. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

On Dragons...

If you decide to make another push at improving Dragon, please do let me know. I have to be the bad guy when I evaluate articles for curated content levels; collaborative editing is an entirely different experience. I don't have access to everything, but I do have a fairly tolerable talent for source identification and a growing network of library contacts. At least when I have the time to do so, I wouldn't mind joining in on any future collaborative effort to get that article up to shape. I suspect the best approach is to try to divvy the topic up into more manageable categories and research from there; some of that will wind up getting spalled off to other articles due to summary style, but it's probably saner than doing the whole thing all at once.

In any case, I can't do much with this right away, certainly; I've currently got my article-research hands full with some silent-era Russian filmography stuff. But please do let me know if you're still interested in development on this one. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to second these comments. I'm impressed with what you've done there, Katolophyromai. You've immensely improved a high-traffic, wide-ranging article, and I think you should be proud of the work you've done there. This is a particularly tough article to approach. As always, I'm glad to help where I can when and if you need it. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Squeamish Ossifrage: and @Bloodofox: I think I did an excellent job on the "Middle East" and "Occident" sections. If the rest of the article was like those sections, I think that the article could have easily passed. The biggest problem is simply that I do not know enough about East Asian, pre-Columbian American, African, Polynesian, or Aboriginal Australian mythologies to write sections on those subjects. That is why, if I make a second attempt on that article, I will make sure to enlist the help of editors who are knowledgeable about those subjects areas. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

If there winds up being a handful of editors who really want to make a push on this thing, I think the best first step would be grabbing some collaboration space in Userspace or attached to one of the eleventy-seven relevant Wikiprojects, and starting be fleshing out an outline of what we'd ideally like the article to depict. No prose, no images, just the structure. And use that to figure out what we're missing and where the dig for sources is going to need to focus. Then collaborators can start work on areas they're most comfortable with before ultimately proofing each others' work. This won't be fast and it won't be pretty, but it's just about the only way to get big, broad (that is, vital) articles into GA/FA shape. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dragon

The article Dragon you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Dragon for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Squeamish Ossifrage -- Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

List of repitalian humanoids

Do you have list of reptilian humanoids on your watch list? As it's related to dragon, you might want to keep an eye on it — I've just cleaned it up, and I've noticed that it's something of a fringe magnet. Seems to be sparsely patrolled. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: I did not have it on my watchlist, but I have added it now. It looks like quite a mess. I generally do not have very many list articles on my watchlist, although the article List of Mesopotamian deities, which I wrote almost entirely myself, is currently a "Featured List" candidate. So far it has received extensive comments from one editor, but no !votes yet. If it makes it to "Featured List" status, it will be only the second mythology-related Featured List, after your List of valkyrie names. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey, that's great news! We definitely need more of these. I'll take a look at the list now. What do you think of List of Germanic deities? That one is also pretty far along and might be ready for nomination (it's been a while since I've looked into the featured list requirements). :bloodofox: (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Osiris-Dionysus

Thank you for cleaning up the mess that was Osiris-Dionysus. Osiris and Dionysus had a genuine syncretic relationship in Hellenistic and Roman terms, and I thought someday the term could redirect to Osiris. I never made the redirect because the article didn't discuss the relationship, and I didn't have the sources to describe it properly. The title might still be better redirected to Osiris, but I'm no longer sure about that. After looking it up in Google Books and Google Scholar, I get the impression that the hyphenated name "Osiris-Dionysus" isn't used very often outside the work of Freke and Gandy or people influenced by them. A. Parrot (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: That is exactly the reason why I redirected it. The syncretism between Osiris and Dionysus goes gack to at least Herodotus in the late middle fifth century BC, and it was apparently well-known enough by 405 BC that the Athenian comedic playwright Aristophanes was able to parody it in his comedy The Frogs; in one scene of the play, Dionysus is portrayed watching as the recently-deceased poets Aeschylus and Euripides weigh the value of their verses on a scale in the Underworld, clearly imitating Egyptian depictions of the Weighing of the Heart. As far as I could tell, however, Freke and Gandy are the only ones who seem to speak of a god named "Osiris-Dionysus."

I stumbled across that article as I was adding more categories to my articles Dumuzid and Gilgamesh, the latter of which I am planning to nominate for "Good Article" status within the relatively near future, once I have finished expanding it, a task I am still in the process of. I was honestly quite shocked that the article had managed to stay around so long in such pitiable condition; it must not have received hardly any traffic. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed it didn't. Less than 600 page views per month, and only ten edits in the past five years. Now that I dig into the edit history, I see the article was redirected to The Jesus Mysteries before, all the way back in 2005, until CheeseDreams/Ril restored it. That's a name I see whenever I look at articles on Egyptian gods. I've been removing Ril's misinformed work from articles for years, and I'm still not done. Not aggressive enough, I suppose. A. Parrot (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yahweh

Hello spencer You edited a small edit i made on the “Yahweh” page

To start, id like to say, it was almost a joke, i had previously made an edit and it was taken down within 1 min of posting, so i sent a talk to that editor and changed the edit to in defiance of his too quick response

What i was telling him is this

“Canaanite” is a term that finds its source, primarily in the bible, its most frequently used biblically and i also believe its oldest use is biblical, and its a genealogical term, not a geographical term, the geographic region in which the Canaanites lived is the Levant and biblically the terms refers to the descendants of Canaan, a son of Ham

So, if the primary source for the term “Canaanite” is biblical, what else does the bible say about them

You mentioned that “Hebrew” finds it etymology in the Canaanite language, which biblically is correct, and the term has different ideas of translation, but essentially it can be boiled down to “wanderer, foreigner, or nomad”

So, we’re starting to get a picture of how, etymologically, the idea that “Israelites” are “Canaanites” is just false

The Israelites also make it a point to distinguish themselves by listing the 11 generations of seperations they have, from Shem (Canaan’s uncle) to Jacob (Israel)

Fianlly, you can google the word canaanite and the first page to populate is about the Canaanite Pantheon Which brings us to the third distinction, if Wikipedia is to be believed, the defining factor that makes up the group “Canaanite” is the religion But the very next sentence on the “Yahweh” page illustrates that “Yahweh” is not a canaanites deity

Read the wiki pages on Canaanites and tell me, how in any measurable way, “Israelites” were “originally Canaanites”

They are two, seperate, distinct people groups who happened to occupy the same geographical area at the same time, which more that explains their similar live arrangements But the similarities end there

Boiled down, uou could take the first idea The term “Canaan” is a primarily biblical term, and the Bible says they are different people groups

I hope the other differences help lead you to the same conclusion

Fellow hoosier, fellow christian Caleb Hart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B44B:AD60:457C:442F:6AA7:BB34 (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)