User talk:A. Parrot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Nyuserre Ini[edit]

Hello Parrot, Nyuserre Ini is now at FAC, if you have some time, could you possibly spare a comment on it? Thank you! Iry-Hor (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

Hello everyone, and welcome to the February 2017 GOCE newsletter. The Guild has been busy since the last time your coordinators sent out a newsletter!

December blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 11 through 17 December; the themes were Requests and eliminating the November 2015 backlog. Of the 14 editors who signed up, nine editors completed 29 articles. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all who took part.

January drive: The January drive was a great success. We set out to remove December 2015 and January and February 2016 from our backlog (195 articles), and by 22 January we had cleared those and had to add a third month (March 2016). At the end of the month we had almost cleared out that last month as well, for a total of 180 old articles removed from the backlog! We reduced our overall backlog by 337 articles, to a low of 1,465 articles, our second-lowest month-end total ever. We also handled all of the remaining requests from December 2016. Officially, 19 editors recorded 337 copy edits (over 679,000 words).

February blitz: The one-week February blitz, focusing on the remaining March 2016 backlog and January 2017 requests, ran from 12 to 18 February. Seven editors reduced the total in those two backlog segments from 32 to 10 articles, leaving us in good shape going in to the March drive.

Coordinator elections for the first half of 2017: In December, coordinators for the first half of 2017 were elected. Jonesey95 stepped aside as lead coordinator, remaining as coordinator and allowing Miniapolis to be the lead, and Tdslk and Corinne returned as coordinators. Thanks to all who participated!

Speaking of coordinators, congratulations to Jonesey95 on their well-deserved induction into the Guild of Copy Editors Hall of Fame. The plaque reads: "For dedicated service as lead coordinator (2014, 1 July – 31 December 2015 and all of 2016) and coordinator (1 January – 30 June 2015 and 1 January – 30 June 2017); exceptional template-creation work (considerably streamlining project administration), and their emphasis on keeping the GOCE a drama-free zone."

Housekeeping note: We do not send a newsletter before every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your watchlist.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdslk.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Mysteries of Isis reversion[edit]

Hey, I hope this is the right place to ask. You just reverted my image on the Mysteries of Isis entry, therefore deleting the image of the Nubian pilgrims depicted on Philae. I am not that fit in Polytheistic religions, therefore I must ask: What exactly is the difference between the Mysteries of Isis and the Isis cult how it was practiced at Philae?

Greetings,

LeGabrie (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

LeGabrie: In ordinary Egyptian temple ritual, the type that was performed at Philae, priests gave offerings of food, clothing, and other goods to the temple deity every day. Only priests were allowed to perform or witness these rites. Temples also celebrated periodic festivals. The exact activities in each festival varied, but they usually included a procession where the cult image of the temple deity was carried to some important site near the temple. The public could watch processions and some other public festival events, but their participation was never necessary. Egyptian temple ritual was all about serving the gods, and that was the priests' job.
Mystery rites were a Greek innovation. There were many kinds of mystery rites dedicated to different deities, but the major thing they have in common is that they were designed to stir the emotions of the participant and often to make him or her feel close to a deity. That contact with the deity gave the participant some kind of special status. The mysteries' focus on the individual worshipper is not an Egyptian tradition. The mysteries dedicated to Isis developed sometime after Greeks began to worship Isis in the Hellenistic period. We don't know where the mysteries started, and Alexandria is one possibility. But Greece, Italy, and Asia Minor are the only places where we know for certain that the mysteries of Isis were practiced. It's possible that the mysteries of Isis were never practiced anywhere in Egypt.
Philae operated at the same time as the mysteries of Isis were practiced, but it was a very traditional, Egyptian-style temple with Egyptian-style rituals. There are no signs of the mysteries there. It did have a close relationship with the peoples of Nubia, especially those in the region just south of Philae. In fact, it may have been Nubians who maintained the cult of Isis at Philae after all other Egyptian temple cults died out. (I can suggest some excellent sources on that topic if you're interested.) So the image of Nubian worshippers fits perfectly well in the article on Philae, just not at mysteries of Isis. A. Parrot (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailled answer and sorry for my delayed response. I understand the difference now and therefore will use my image for other entries. On a side note, I own a book that discusses a shrine discovered in Qasr Ibrim, Lower Nubia, which the author ascribes to the Isis mysteries cult. Mentioned shrine would prove that the Isis mysteries were indeed practiced in Nubia (Nobadia) and therefore probably in Egypt as well. Source: William Y. Adams: Qasr Ibrim: The Ballana Phase. (2013)
LeGabrie (talk) 01:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
LeGabrie: Strange that I haven't heard that claim before. It looks like the book is hard to obtain, but I'm trying to understand Isis and the mysteries as thoroughly as possible, so I may need to get it somehow. I'd like to see exactly what Adams says. I'd be very grateful if you could quote some of it to me—not the whole section of the book, but maybe just a sentence or two that sum up why Adams thinks the mysteries were performed there. A. Parrot (talk) 07:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure. The related place of worship was "only for the initiated few, not a public monument", which is why Adams calls it a "shrine" instead of "temple" (p 60). Futhermore, "(...)the contents of the shrine at Qasr Ibrim make it clear that this relatively small building was devoted to celebration of the esoteric Isis mystery religion."(Ibid.) Mentioned contents consist of horned altars, decribed as "one of the recognised features of the Isis cult", offering basins and also well preserved wooden votive plaques, which all depict animals "connected to Isis in some way", among other hints (p. 129-130, 155). It is concluded that the Isis mysteries cult is "almost certainly the cult that was practiced in the little shrine at Ibrim, while 'official' religion was carried on in the big Ptolemaic stone temple (I think Adams refers to the one in Dakka) or at Philae" (p. 155). Hope that helps.LeGabrie (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
LeGabrie: Thank you. Personally, I'm a little skeptical of what Adams says. Even at temples where the mysteries were performed, it's hard to relate the archaeological evidence with the text that describes the rites, so how can we identify a mystery cult site just through archaeological remains? But making that argument is not my job as a Wikipedian, so I suppose I'll have to find the book and incorporate it into my work somehow.
If you ever want or need to study the relationship between the Nubians and the worship of Isis at Philae, good sources are Philae and the End of Egyptian Religion (2008) by Jitse Dijkstra and this study by Eugene Cruz-Uribe, which is a direct reply to Dijkstra's book. A. Parrot (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I scanned page 155, which offers the most information on that matter, and uploaded it on Google Drive (Sorry for the not perfect quality). Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mn4tZj54CXcVlBVC0zM01iVnc/view?usp=sharing LeGabrie (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
LeGabrie: Thank you very much! If you ever need to know something about ancient Egypt or its religion, let me know. I have piles of sources on the subject, and I'll be happy to return the favor. A. Parrot (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't have that much to do with Ancient Egypt (Only like 10%), but I would be happy if you could review my entry on the Nubian Kingdom of Alodia at some point. I want to get it featured, but I still have some things to do, like fleshing out chapters and eliminating typos and original research. LeGabrie (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
LeGabrie: I'm very busy and will be for at least the next couple of months, but if you're still working on it after that, I'll do a review. A. Parrot (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Egyptian temple scheduled for TFA rerun[edit]

This is to let you know that the Egyptian temple article has been scheduled to be rerun as today's featured article for September 19, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 19, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Here is a barnstar which I felt compelled to bestow upon you after reading your article on Egyptian temples. Great work on a vast and complicated subject! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for today's Isis, "the ancient Egyptian deity with the greatest impact outside her home land. She lies near the center of many puzzling questions about Greek and Roman religion and still shows up in odd places in modern Western culture"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, A. Parrot. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

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

A barnstar for you![edit]

Egyptian Jackal Barnstar.jpg The Egyptian Jackal Barnstar
I just saw your edit to the article Isis, in which you rewrote the entire article in one fell swoop. I checked your userpage and saw that you had written the articles Egyptian temple, Osiris myth, and Mysteries of Isis, articles which I have admired for a long time but never knew who wrote them. I wanted to show appreciation for all your hard work. You have made some truly awesome and admirable contributions to this encyclopedia. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Katalophyromai: Thank you very much. I was a low-activity editor for most of the past four years, as real-life obligations took up most of my time and I poured most of my energy into Isis, which for a while seemed like a never-ending project. I'm relieved to be done with it, and I intend to be busier on Wikipedia from now on. I might even work on some subjects outside ancient Egypt, as researching Isis and her sprawling influence has given me more grounding in other ancient Mediterranean religions and, to some extent, the Western esoteric tradition. A. Parrot (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I have worked mostly on articles about ancient Mesopotamian deities and ancient Greek deities. Some of the articles I have worked on include: ancient Greek literature, Inanna, Enlil, Anunnaki, Athena, Jonah, Pythagoras, Ishtar, Aphrodite, Proto-Indo-European religion, and Satan, the first seven of which are currently GA nominees awaiting review. The others are ones that I intend to eventually bring up to GA status. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Wow. And I thought I was ambitious! I know I should be reviewing other people's work a lot more, so I might drop in on one or two of those GANs, but the religions of Mesopotamia and pre-Hellenistic Greece still aren't my strong suit. In any case, I wish you luck. A. Parrot (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
As I understand it, the GA process essentially assumes that the reviewer probably will not be an expert. I apologize if I am promoting my own articles too much and I did not mean to strong-arm you into anything. I am just anxious to find reviewers for them since, currently, I seem to be the only one reviewing articles in the "Philosophy and religion" category and I have nagging suspicion it is going to take years before all of the articles I have nominated have been reviewed and passed, by which point I will probably have nominated even more. --Katolophyromai (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm just always nervous when reviewing topics I'm not expert on. You're not strong-arming, though; I feel like I have an obligation to help out with the reviewing backlog. A. Parrot (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Space Jam[edit]

Thanks for helping out on Space Jam. Little did I know I stumbled into a vandalism battle. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 06:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Isis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Apis and Drawing Down the Moon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

Hello copy editors! Welcome to the December 2017 GOCE newsletter, which contains nine months(!) of updates. The Guild has been busy and successful; your diligent efforts in 2017 has brought the backlog of articles requiring copy edit to below 1,000 articles for the first time. Thanks to all editors who have contributed their time and energy to help make this happen.

Our copy-editing drives (month-long backlog-reduction drives held in odd-numbered months) and blitzes (week-long themed editing in even-numbered months) have been very successful this year.

March drive: We set out to remove April, May, and June 2016 from our backlog and all February 2017 Requests (a total of 304 articles). By the end of the month, all but 22 of these articles were cleared. Officially, of the 28 who signed up, 22 editors recorded 257 copy edits (439,952 words). (These numbers do not always make sense when you compare them to the overall reduction in the backlog, because not all editors record every copy edit on the drive page.)

April blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 16 through 22 April; the theme was Requests. Of the 15 who signed up, 9 editors completed 43 articles (81,822 words).

May drive: The goals were to remove July, August, and September 2016 from the backlog and to complete all March 2017 Requests (a total of 300 articles). By the end of the month, we had reduced our overall backlog to an all-time low of 1,388 articles. Of the 28 who signed up, 17 editors completed 187 articles (321,810 words).

June blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 18 through 24 June; the theme was Requests. Of the 16 who signed up, 9 editors completed 28 copy edits (117,089 words).

2017 Coordinator elections: In June, coordinators for the second half of 2017 were elected. Jonesey95 moved back into the lead coordinator position, with Miniapolis stepping down to remain as coordinator; Tdslk and Corinne returned as coordinators, and Keira1996 rejoined after an extended absence. Thanks to all who participated!

July drive: We set out to remove August, September, October, and November 2016 from the backlog and to complete all May and June 2017 Requests (a total of 242 articles). The drive was an enormous success, and the target was nearly achieved within three weeks, so that December 2016 was added to the "old articles" list used as a goal for the drive. By the end of the month, only three articles from 2016 remained, and for the second drive in a row, the backlog was reduced to a new all-time low, this time to 1,363 articles. Of the 33 who signed up, 21 editors completed 337 articles (556,482 words).

August blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 20 through 26 August; the theme was biographical articles tagged for copy editing for more than six months (47 articles). Of the 13 who signed up, 11 editors completed 38 copy edits (42,589 words).

September drive: The goals were to remove January, February, and March 2017 from the backlog and to complete all August 2017 Requests (a total of 338 articles). Of the 19 who signed up, 14 editors completed 121 copy edits (267,227 words).

October blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 22 through 28 October; the theme was Requests. Of the 14 who signed up, 8 editors completed 20 articles (55,642 words).

November drive: We set out again to remove January, February, and March 2017 from the backlog and to complete all October 2017 Requests (a total of 207 articles). By the end of the month, these goals were reached and the backlog shrank to its lowest total ever, 997 articles, the first time it had fallen under one thousand (click on the graph above to see this amazing feat in graphical form). It was also the first time that the oldest copy-edit tag was less than eight months old. Of the 25 who signed up, 16 editors completed 159 articles (285,929 words).

2018 Coordinator elections: Voting is open for the election of coordinators for the first half of 2018. Please visit the election page to vote between now and December 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Thanks for participating!

Housekeeping note: We do not send a newsletter before (or after) every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your watchlist.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Corinne, Tdslk, and Keira1996.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Neferefre at FAC[edit]

Dear Parrot, the wiki article on Neferefre has reached FAC, see here. Could you possibly comment on the nomination ? This would help the article get enough reviews. Thank you! Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Iry-Hor:I'll look through it this weekend. A. Parrot (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Age of Enlightenment[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm AWhiteC. An edit that you recently made to Age of Enlightenment seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! AWhiteC (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

AWhiteC: Um, that wasn't a test edit. I was removing some strangely placed italic formatting, which, now that I look into the page history, were put in place as part of this big edit. Did you perhaps misread the diff of my edit? Your reversion put the weird formatting back. A. Parrot (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that response. I don't understand it; I must be thick. Please explain why you think you were removing some weird formatting. You actually removed some comments; see here. Perhaps you had some reason for doing so. Could you explain, please? AWhiteC (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
AWhiteC: Okay, I'm really confused. I didn't edit the article on Samuel Finer, which is the diff you just gave me. That was an IP editor. I edited Age of Enlightenment and removed some misplaced italics in an image caption there. A. Parrot (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
A. Parrot: Apologies. I've restored your edit to Age of Enlightenment. AWhiteC (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Jesus, Mary, Joseph, etc.[edit]

Please see WP:ARARAT if you're not familiar with that hobbyhorseman. General Ization, you may have an interest in that too. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Drmies: I'm well aware of him. I was the one who originally figured out that the Osiris-Orion obsessive was Ararat arev. What's amazing is that he's still stuck on the same schtick, three years later. A. Parrot (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Ha. Thanks. I keep forgetting these jokers and their names; they popped up yesterday, and Khruner pointed me in the right direction. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Isis[edit]

Hello... I know I said I'd post at the article talk page but having read through the article several times, and checked some of the content against sources, with particular attention to G-R material, I thought it better to post here. You've evidently done a lot of heavy lifting throughout. My major concerns are to do with the article structure, and the organisation of material within it. The essentials seem to be in place, but there's some strictly unnecessary padding, mostly in the form of generalised observations, and some repetitions which, with care, can be avoided. If it were "my" article (oh the heresy!) I'd mercilessly excise anything not essential, and any repetition. An example, from the lede:

Isis was a major goddess in ancient Egyptian religion whose worship spread throughout the Greco-Roman world. Isis was first mentioned in the Old Kingdom (c. 2686–2181 BCE) as one of the main characters of the Osiris myth, in which she resurrects her slain husband, the divine king Osiris, and produces and protects his heir, Horus. Her relations with humans were based on her behavior in the myth. She was believed to help the dead enter the afterlife as she had helped Osiris, she was considered the divine mother of the pharaoh, who was likened to Horus, and her maternal aid was invoked in healing spells. Originally, she played a limited role in royal rituals and temple rites, although she was more prominent in funerary practices and magical texts.

The spread of the cult into the Greco-Roman ambit is dealt with below; to introduce this before the description of her original cult and its dissemination confuses the chronological narrative, so I'd take it out. "Her relations with humans were based on her behavior in the myth" is accurate but probably redundant; "She was believed... healing spells." says exactly the same thing through concrete, cultic example. Concrete is good... less is often more.

I must stress that you've done excellent and essential work on the article, and I hope my criticisms haven't overstepped the boundaries. Sincere regards, Haploidavey (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Haploidavey: Thank you very much. You haven't overstepped at all. FAC stresses me out, so I'd rather hear criticisms now rather than then. The article is very long (about 10,000 words is the maximum recommended by WP:Article size, and Isis is around 9900), so if I can make it shorter without sacrificing comprehensiveness, I certainly want to. My guess is that the repetition comes from three sources: a desire to make absolutely sure a lay reader understands the societal context, a desire to bridge the divide between the Egyptian and Greco-Roman sections (to justify putting all this information in one place rather than splitting the article), and my instinct to write with lots of transition, so that ideas flow from one to another rather than being stated without introduction. It's possible to go overboard with any of those things.
Regarding your specific examples, I'm not sure about the first. I think of the lead sentence as a "lead within the lead" that defines the significance of the topic, and Isis' G-R phase is as much a part of her significance as her Egyptian phase. That's a matter of Wikipedian house style, so maybe I'll ask some MOS or FAC people about whether my view of the lead sentence is correct. Your second example is valid, and I'll have to look out for similar stuff throughout the article (while consulting with my resident lay readers—i.e., family—to make sure too much of the context isn't lost).
If your main criticism is repetition and padding, I assume you find the substance of the article accurate? A. Parrot (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
FAC is a horrible, nerve-jangling business; as a habitual snowflake, I've managed to avoid it. So far. But more to the point, I seem to have forgotten my primary reason for posting here (a common problem for old geezers like me). So yes, the sections relating to G-R seem substantively accurate; indeed very well and clearly written, barring the occasional blip; and they gave me a few surprises. I didn't know (or perhaps had forgotten) anything much about the enclosed, walled courtyard form and layout of Isaean temples; very like Bona dea's walled precincts.
I forget who said it, but Roman officialdom was exceedingly suspicious of any secret cult - or other organisation - that might pursue its own, potentially subversive interest, rather than openly seek to benefit the established state. Religious enthusiasm, unofficial "clubs", mystes, "magic" and any form of superstitio were equally suspect; I think this needs a little further clarification. While the official adoption of such cults meant their more effective control, the apparent lack of an authoritative, state-subsidised priesthood in this instance is surprising to me.
My Mum used to act as my domesticated proof-reader. She was very good at it, and merciless; she'd done it professionaly for some years, and knew nothing about ancient Rome. An ideal combination!
I noticed that in the lede, you now have "Some of her devotees said she encompassed all the other divine powers of the ancient world." This is presumably a late syncretic development. It doesn't need "of the ancient world" (that's implicit); "said" would be less accurate than "believed", and "all other" would mean male deities as well, which seems unlikely. I've been trying to come up with an alternative, such as "all-goddess" - but that's far from self-explanatory. Unfortunately, our Mother goddess article has been well and truly hijacked by a determined POV warrior. Haploidavey (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
All good points. I knew about the Roman suspicion of secrecy, but I'm not sure if my sources directly connect it to the spasms of hostility toward the Isis cult. The problem is that the sources that address this issue most directly are experts writing to other experts and don't always state the context as extensively as they should. It's one of my perennial frustrations on Wikipedia, where NOR prevents us from going beyond the sources. I'll see if I can wring anything more out of Takács, Versluys, or Orlin; Witt or even Alvar might mention this point, though I don't think they do.
Isis' priesthood hasn't been covered all that extensively, either, but I saw no sign of state sponsorship in my sources. The next conference volume of Isis studies, which was originally expected in 2017 but will probably be lucky to come out in 2018, is supposed to focus on priests, and I think I saw somewhere that it will be a two-volume whale of a book. I can't use it (or be faulted at FAC for not using it) if it hasn't been published yet. When I do get it, perhaps I can satisfy your curiosity. A. Parrot (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, please do keep me posted (here, if you wish) on what's new in scholarshio on G&R priesthoods. I completely concur with your observations regarding OR - or rather, NOR. I've been "accused" of it 'nuff times... and have had to plead guilty on several counts. The more rarified the accademic source, the less explicit they tend to be on what would seem (to me and thee, by the looks of it) the minimal requisite context and background. Mainstream can be so very cautious and dull... Haploidavey (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Enlil[edit]

Hello! I remember you said you might be willing to help review some of the articles I nominated for GA. I have been asking for reviewers and I now only have one GA nomination left in the "Philosophy and religion" section, which is the article Enlil, which I nominated back in August of 2017. Unfortunately, so far, no one seems willing to touch it. I was wondering if you would be willing to review it. (If not, I have another editor who has expressed potential willingness, but that user also has some reservations, one of them being the fact that he or she is not a native English-speaker.) I have noticed that the articles I nominate dealing with Mesopotamian mythology seem to always go ignored for months on end; whereas more "big name" articles like Athena, Aphrodite, and Satan all got reviewed relatively quickly. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Katolophyromai: No problem. I'll review it over the weekend. A. Parrot (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
That sounds excellent! Thank you so much. I guess I will tell that other editor not to worry. Just to warn you, though, if you do too good of a job I might ask you to help me in the future. I have had an idea in my head about possibly trying to bring all of the articles about the major Sumerian deities up to GA, but I am not sure if I am going to do it yet, since I know it would be a massive effort and I already spend way too much time editing on Wikipedia. I am especially anxious about taking on the article Enki, which is complete mess right now and I have been trying to avoid working on it ever since I first started editing. In any case, I am probably at least going to try to bring the article Anu up to GA, since I have been working on it for a few months on-and-off and I think it is starting to approach a level where I might be able to consider nominating it within the next few weeks perhaps. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

GOCE February 2018 news[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors February 2018 News
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

Welcome to the February 2018 GOCE newsletter in which you will find Guild updates since the December edition. We got to a great start for the year, holding the backlog at nine months. 100 requests were submitted in the first 6 weeks of the year and were swiftly handled with an average completion time of 9 days.

Coordinator elections: In December, coordinators for the first half of 2018 were elected. Jonesey95 remained as lead coordinator and Corrine, Miniapolis and Tdslk as assistant coordinators. Keira1996 stepped down as assistant coordinator and was replaced by Reidgreg. Thanks to all who participated!

End of year reports were prepared for 2016 and 2017, providing a detailed look at the Guild's long-term progress.

January drive: We set out to remove April, May, and June 2017 from our backlog and all December 2017 Requests (a total of 275 articles). As with previous years, the January drive was an outstanding success and by the end of the month all but 57 of these articles were cleared. Officially, of the 38 who signed up, 21 editors recorded 259 copy edits (490,256 words).

February blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 11 through 17 February, focusing on Requests and the last articles tagged in May 2017. At the end of the week there were only 14 pending requests, with none older than 20 days. Of the 11 who signed up, 10 editors completed 35 copy edits (98,538 words).

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Corinne, Tdslk, and Reidgreg.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Cleopatra FAC[edit]

Hi, A. Parrot! I was wondering if you had made any progress or found any more problems with your source review of Cleopatra at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cleopatra/archive1#Source_review_by_A._Parrot. I responded to you there and have even amended the article with a footnote based on that insightful review of Roller's book by Josiah Osgood that you shared with us. Thanks for that! Please let me know if there are any glaring issues that could be fixed right away. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 18:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

List of Mesopotamian deities[edit]

Hello! I was wondering, since you were the one who brought the article ancient Egyptian deities up to "Featured Article" status, I thought you might be interested in commenting on the nomination page for my article List of Mesopotamian deities, which I have nominated for "Featured List" status. I know it is a different culture than you usually write about, but I thought I would let you know about it just in case you had any input. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Imhotep[edit]

I saw your reversion of my deletion of the word 'ironically' in this article. You are correct - I had looked in the source, and just plain missed the word because I scanned it too quickly. I'll take a break to rest my eyes, and then will be more careful. We need more people who are as attentive as you.

Ira Leviton (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Ira Leviton: Thanks. We all slip up on occasion. The gods know I've had far more serious slip-ups than that one! A. Parrot (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you![edit]

BoNM - Egypt Hires.png The Egypt Barnstar of National Merit
For your contributions to articles about Egyptian history and culture, and for your eagle eyes!

Ira Leviton (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Glad to see Isis nominated as a "Featured Article"![edit]

I wanted to say that I am really glad to see that Isis has finally been nominated as a "Featured Article." You were waiting so long that I was beginning to wonder if you were ever really going to do it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Katolophyromai: For one thing, I work slowly but doggedly. For another, I kept working on other, unfinished Wikipedia projects rather than concentrating on the handful of refinements I wanted to make to the Isis article before nominating. I haven't forgotten the list of Mesopotamian deities, by the way. I'll have to familiarize myself with the featured list criteria, as I haven't reviewed a list before, but I can do it this coming weekend. A. Parrot (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
That sounds fine by me. Just so you know, I meant no offense with my comment about the Isis article; I think you have done an absolutely fantastic job with it and I hope it makes it to "Featured Article" status. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 GOCE newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors June 2018 News
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

Welcome to the June 2018 GOCE newsletter, in which you will find Guild updates since the February edition. Progress continues to be made on the copyediting backlog, which has been reduced to 7 months and reached a new all-time low. Requests continue to be handled efficiently this year, with 272 completed by the end of May (an average completion time of 10.5 days). Fewer than 10% of these waited longer than 20 days, and the longest wait time was 29 days.

Wikipedia in general, and the Guild in particular, experienced a deep loss with the death on 20 March of Corinne. Corinne (a GOCE coordinator since 1 July 2016) was a tireless aide on the requests page, and her peerless copyediting is a part of innumerable GAs and FAs. Her good cheer, courtesy and tact are very much missed.

March drive: The goal was to remove June, July and August 2017 from our backlog and all February 2018 Requests (a total of 219 articles). This drive was an outstanding success, and by the end of the month all but eight of these articles were cleared. Of the 33 editors who signed up, 19 recorded 277 copy edits (425,758 words).

April blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 15 through 21 April, focusing on Requests and the last eight articles tagged in August 2017. At the end of the week there were only 17 pending requests, with none older than 17 days. Of the nine editors who signed up, eight editors completed 22 copy edits (62,412 words).

May drive: We set out to remove September, October and November 2017 from our backlog and all April 2018 Requests (a total of 298 articles). There was great success this month with the backlog more than halved from 1,449 articles at the beginning of the month to a record low of 716 articles. Officially, of the 20 who signed up, 15 editors recorded 151 copy edits (248,813 words).

Coordinator elections: It's election time again. Nominations for Guild coordinators (who will serve a six-month term for the second half of 2018) have begun, and will close at 23:59 UTC on 15 June. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are eligible, and self-nominations are encouraged. Voting will take place between 00:01 UTC on 16 June and 23:59 UTC on 30 June.

June blitz: Stay tuned for this one-week copy-editing blitz, which will take place in mid-June.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Corinne, Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Reidgreg and Tdslk.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hecate and Colchis[edit]

I do not know off the top of my head if there are any ancient Greek sources that directly link Hecate herself to Colchis, but the Greeks definitely associated Colchis with witchcraft and black magic, along with Thessaly. Sources that immediately come to mind linking Colchis with sorcery are Apollonius of Rhodes's Argonautica and Euripides's Medea. In any case, the statement you removed was uncited, so it should not have been there anyway, and it is unlikely that the people of Colchis themselves thought they were worshipping Hecate, but it is possible that the Greeks may have associated them with the worship of Hecate. It is also possible that the Greeks may have interpreted one of the Colchian deities as a form of Hecate through interpretatio graeca. Whichever the case, we would need a reliable source to support it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Katolophyromai: All true, of course. The sentence about Colchis was added without support or context by an IP editor who never did anything else, so I thought it most likely that it wasn't based on any specialized knowledge of the subject. A. Parrot (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

BedrockPerson[edit]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BedrockPerson. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Isis 2[edit]

FA! Yay! I hope you're pleased with yourself. I would be. :-) Haploidavey (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Haploidavey: Indeed I am. Five years' work finished! A hundred academic authors cited! (And yet so much more left to do, including Osiris someday, though I'm a bit burned out on that family at the moment.) Thank you very much for your suggestions. There may be a few bits of redundancy lurking in there, but overall I think the information-to-words ratio is pretty high. And, of course, if there's anything you're working on that I can help with, let me know. Cybele, perhaps? There's some overlap in the sourcing, though of the three main books I drew upon for understanding mystery cults, one is rather general and another only mentions Cybele in passing. A. Parrot (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed your "Things that made me tired"! Well yes. Five years... amazing how slowly/quickly they pass (take your choice). Isis is good and dense, as it should be. But now that you mention it, I'd really welcome any kind of attention at Cybele. Other articles too, but she's a particularly mysterious and difficult critter (even more than Attis, if such a thing can be). I was also going to ask your opinion on how best to approach the wall-of-text-hefty, wholesale editing/overwriting by a single editor at Pompey, but I've a hunch you might not want to touch it with a bargepole. Nor might I, but it still bugs me like ringworm. Let's just pretend I didn't ask... Haploidavey (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Haploidavey: Pompey, ye gods. Just added it to my mental list of articles-that-are-just-way-too-long-no-really-there's-no-justification-for-that. (Obligatory link to the script that tallies article text length, in case you don't have it.) Except on really huge topics, I look askance at anything over 10,000 words, although now I see that the passage in WP's guidelines that recommended 10,000 as a maximum length was recently deleted for being based on "dubious claims". Anyway, Pompey is 20,000 words. At least 020amonra isn't likely to resist the necessary trimming, unlike the editors of certain other bloated articles. But how to go about it, I wouldn't know, except that your cutting tool should probably be a machete. And, obviously, images should fill some of the holes so as to break up the wall of text.
I hope to examine Cybele in detail sometime, but, as usual, I have a great deal else on my plate and don't know when I'll be able to concentrate on it. However, I can recommend you one or two sources that may be helpful. My main sources on mystery cults were Romanising Oriental Gods by Jaime Alvar, Mystery Cults of the Ancient World by Hugh Bowden, and Initiation into the Mysteries of the Ancient World by Jan Bremmer. I know only Alvar is cited in the Cybele article right now, and then only once, so I don't know if you're familiar with it.
Bowden is rather general but pretty extensive. The book might not tell you anything you don't already know, or it might give you some useful details and background information that other sources gloss over, as it did for me. Bremmer's book isn't likely to help with Cybele despite being available for free—it only mentions her in passing. Alvar's book is quirky and opinionated—possibly the snarkiest academic work I've ever read—but it's very extensive and generally pretty incisive. For whatever reason I didn't read much of the portions dedicated to Cybele, unlike those on Mithras, but I still have all three books on hand and can bring myself up to speed when examining the article on Cybele, when I have the time. A. Parrot (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping! For some reason, it didn't work as a ping; but it nudged your talk-page to the top of my very badly managed watchlist. I've been preoccupied with several small, poorly sourced articles on Rome's material culture, dotted about the place. I should have learned by now that scratching an itch produces a rash; and that rashes, once their cause is known, need stringent cleansing and ointment. You seem to be doing the same at Osiris and elsewhere (your edit summaries are spot-on, btw). Big rewrites ahoy? I'm putting Pompey aside - maybe permanently, because, to be honest, I don't find him all that interesting. Certainly not interesting enough to shift mountains on his behalf; I'm not even sure I'm capable of that. I started editing his article because I noticed it was just a dump for Plutarch, and needed good-quality secondary scholarship. Now it's become a dump, source-wise, for Plutarch and Dio. Anyway, I've a vague plan to work on some very long, intimidating topics - and some very short, deceptively "easy" ones - which I actually care about.
Thank you for the sources. My old PC died a few weeks ago, and I had to transfer its resources to my annoyingly titchy MacBook Air. That didn't work very well - I can't find the greater half of it, which (iirc) included at least some of Alvar's work; so thanks for jogging my memory. (If you enjoy quirky and snarky; try Skutch. Such an assassin! I'd hate to have been on the receiving end of a Skutch critique.) I'll look up the others over the next few days.
Some of the deficits (as I see them) at Cybele might be structural; perhaps I tend to employ excessively precise, thematic sub-sections. And maybe that represents a personal, rather irritable "reaching after certainties" when all that's needed is representation of the scholarly narratives - notwithstanding their mutual contradictions and uncertainties. I'm not quite sure what I'm saying here, but one of the things I really like about your rewrite at the Isis article is how you've handled the "vague and impenetrable" essentials. Lynne Roller's "Cybele" book (I've a paper copy), undoubtedy ambitious in scope, is broadly drawn. It was my central resource for the Cybele article, partly because it includes sober, skeptical reviews and re-evaluations of previous scholarship. It left me very few certainties. Very modern. Haploidavey (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

August GOCE newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors August 2018 Newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Hello and welcome to the August 2018 GOCE newsletter. Thanks to everyone who participated in the Guild's June election; your new and returning coordinators are listed below. The next election will occur in December 2018; all Wikipedia editors in good standing may take part.

Copyeditors progress.png

Our June blitz focused on Requests and articles tagged for copy edit in October 2017. Of the eleven people who signed up, eight editors recorded a total of 28 copy edits, including 3 articles of more than 10,000 words. Complete results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Thanks to everyone who participated in the July drive. Of the seventeen people who signed up, thirteen editors completed 194 copy edits, successfully removing all articles tagged in the last three months of 2017. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are here.

The August blitz will run for one week, from 19 to 25 August. Sign up now!

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Tdslk.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Nubian etc[edit]

I don't believe he is able to contribute usefully, so I've blocked him as not here. Doug Weller talk 14:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller: No surprise. I just prefer to give troublesome newcomers the welcome message and a chance to educate themselves on what Wikipedia requires, even if they seem unlikely to take that chance. A. Parrot (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)