User talk:Katolophyromai/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Jonah

@Katolophyromai: I was reading the Jonah article - which is 10,000% better than it was before you set your sights on it- and I was wondering: which particular viewpoints found in the ancient Jewish community does the Book of Jonah satirize?

@MagicatthemovieS: I added a new sentence to the "Parodic elements" section describing some of the views that may be satirized in the Book of Jonah. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response! When you say "those outside of the Abrahamic covenant," I assume you mean Gentiles. If this is the case, perhaps it should be made clear, especially since most people have no understanding of biblical covenants. Thanks again for all your great work!

A barnstar for you!

		The Christianity Barnstar
		Thanks so much for your hard work on the Samson and Jonah articles, as well as your guidance regarding my work on the Delilah article! To many more biblical GAs in the coming months!

Pythagoras

Glad to see that you've taken on the project of cleaning the article up. It was certainly a mess, one that I, at least was too daunted to tackle. Deor (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Deor: Thanks for the appreciation! I have long been intrigued by Pythagoras. I wrote a very lengthy essay about him several years ago and another one just last year. The state of the article before I started working on it was well below our standards; it failed to adequately summarize his major teachings and relied heavily on a laughably ridiculous overuse of extended quotations from sources written in the 1800s. I have done a great deal of work on it and I hope my changes have all been improvements. I intend to eventually bring the article up to GA status. If you have any other feedback about aspects of the article that you think need improvement, feel free to tell it to me. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Eurycleia

Besides the case of Eurycleia, which you dismiss as not having any relation to the Gospel of Mark, how do you explain the "Feeding the Five Thousand" men-only (Gospel of Mark 6:30-44) if not as elaborating on the first paragraph in Book 3 of the Odyssey? Cordially, --Wkboonec (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Wkboonec: I do not even see the vaguest resemblance between the two accounts. The Odyssey III.1-10 is a fairly typical description of Greek sacrifice: The men of Pylos sacrifice eighty-one bulls to Poseidon and then the meat is divided up and they eat it. It does not sound anything at all like the description of Jesus miraculously feeding the 5,000 with five loaves and two fishes. The only similarity between them is that both stories involve people eating, which is such a vague similarity that it does not really count for anything. None of the details of the stories even resemble each other. The Greek story involves bulls and there is no mention of fishes or loaves anywhere. In the passage from the Odyssey, there are not 5,000 people; there are only 4,500. Furthermore, the story is not miraculous; you actually can feed 4,500 people with eighty-one bulls, especially if each person only eats a small portion. It does not take divine intervention to make that happen. The story from the Gospel of Mark, on the other hand, is about Jesus miraculously feeding 5,000 people with only two fish and five loaves of bread. There is no reasonable similarity between the two stories that would lead anyone to conclude that they might be related, except for someone like MacDonald who is just desperate to find parallels. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that detailed explanation. I am sorry that I did not make myself clear: men-only is the key point. Mark says 5000 men. Mathew adds that there were also women and children. Luke seems to asume Mark was mistaken and says 5000 persons. To my understanding, the only logical explanation for Mark's 5000 men is the hypothesis of MacDonald. Cheers,--Wkboonec (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Wkboonec: Um... no. The fact that Mark only mentions men does not in any way imply that he is relying on the Odyssey. Women were excluded from almost all activities in the ancient world. If anything at all, the fact that both stories only mention men says far more about similarities between ancient Greek and Jewish societies in general than it does about any possible connections between the two texts in question. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Talk:Pythagoras, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Improvements to Proverb article

Thanks! I've been doing multiple small edits to the "Proveb" article over the years, but you stepped in and kindly imposed a helpful structure. I'm not done with it, and I hope you are not either.Pete unseth (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Pete unseth: You are more than welcome; it was really no problem. I usually try to refrain from editing the articles I am reviewing too much, but I felt like it was necessary to intervene and add in some structure. Generally speaking, my view is that if an article has been nominated for GA and has potential, but is not quite up to standard, then it is my duty as the reviewer to try to make sure it makes it to that standard, since it is unlikely that the article will ever be nominated again, or, if it is, it will not be reviewed for a long time. On a side note, I looked at the "Noteworthy proverb scholars (paremiologists and paremiographers)" section you have been working on and it still feels too much like a list; you explain why the people are noteworthy, but you are still of kind of just listing them. I would recommend trying to turn it into more of a narrative history of paremiology. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Katolophyromai, Thank you for introducing me to the word Aniconism. It is new to me. Miistermagico (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hammurabi

Hi Katolophyromai. I don't understand this edition. I mean, why have you deleted the access date? and why have you add "harv", if it's unnecessary? (I use harvard citation when there are more pages, but in the website there are only one). Anyway, thanks for adding the author. Greetings. Tajotep (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tajotep: I removed the access date because I do not think the access dates are useful and I generally find them annoying because then every time I access the source I have to update them. I added the ref=harv parameter because it makes it easier if I decide to convert all the citations to sfns and move the sources to the bibliography because, for some reason, the links do not work sometimes if the sources in the bibliography are not in harv format. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

If you disagree with that change, feel free to undo it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

answer

Just answering your last comment here, most of the difficulty is that what someone will just observe is not currently sourced in the given subject area, but is elsewhere (unrelated topic). Some element of answer could be found in the fact that direct observations that anyone could deduce in a subject can not be authored so it will not be published in a journal of that given subject. It is similar to the case of a notable company (who sells softwares) just barrow codes from an open source software, if he use it in a software that remotely does the same task, he will get caught. He sure could barrow codes (and expect to get away for it) if it's to use it in a software which does a completely different thing (that's also called novelty). Authors will even not get published if they don't have any new novelty or newly derived constructs to offer in discipline specific journals. See, there sure are several published materials prior to the 1920s with minimal construction, which would just claim a crown is a crown... (with minimal constructs) no copyright on them... (but those will be discarded because of their dates) but will any author be notable to bring forth what was already published in that discipline (the more simple and obvious constructions?) They constantly need to update and work on already available data and revise the material to be authored. It's clearly different when the subject is indirectly covered in some other unrelated articles, there it might be published, foreign to the given discipline as no one already brought it there. I have encountered countless other examples in countless other disciplines while working on a masters... I am sure not against sourcing things, I just believe that that something could be sourced should not be sufficient inclusion criteria, it takes more. When a subject is recounted elsewhere in entirely unrelated disciplines, it means it is trans-disciplinary and therefor isn't just sitting on some few specific works in a subject area; because those will be relying on novelty, which will inevitably be replaced. This way we are pretty sure that such an interpretation doesn't solely rely on some authors who might be later discredited or replaced. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for assistance with ancient works

Sorry for that [1] "Thus it is evident that the potential constructions are discovered by being actualized..." - probably is fine.

The only 100% way is to actually 1. know Ancient Greek 2. know all false Plutarchs and false Aristoteles - I give up on this part. D1gggg (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Balaam and the Angel

Hi Katolophyromai, I wanted to email you, but seems you have not one set. I know that you probably know at least many of the stuff I am about to add (first paragraph only, second is probably unknown to the Western World), but since they're missing in the article.

I have seen you have added the painting in Satan article, it could be interesting to explain what it represents. The sword (authority, power) on his hand. The prophecies he (Balaam) makes (in the poems) about his conquests. Those conquests the Quran (Surah 7) describes as Worldly inclination (and his fall). It's the evolution described in the three monotheistic religions with the other prophets. The Devil depicted in The Temptation of Christ (1854) in that article. First time Jesus Barabbas (literal meaning: Jesus Son of the Father) appear ... Yeshua bar ʾAbbaʾ is presented during the passion and he is liberated at Passover (liberation of the Israelites from authority). I've encountered in literature that Yeshua as the son is free to go, having no authority (the father has), he therefor could not abuse a power which he does not possess.

I came across some reference to an Islamic text (I'll see if I can find a source for that) in the past, which mentions this argument to back up that Jesus did not die on the Cross. The reference to Judas (similar to Barnabas version) is mentioned elsewhere in Islamic literature (mostly not translated anywhere). Reason is that in the past they interpreted religious texts from the meaning of each names. In a patriarchal society authority is transmitted by the father (family name today), so they concluded that Judas was crucified, because Jesus the son was liberated. As you probably know Judas meaning is pride, and sacrifying his social identity (fathers name) which gave him authority would be the sacrifice of his pride (Judas). Muslims don't see Jesus without the mother, he's mostly referred as ʿĪsā ibn Maryam (Isa Son of Mary) and since like Christians they don't believe Joseph to be his real father (name), some Sufi writers used this to conclude the person behind didn't die. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Yahya Talatin: I am going to put this bluntly: Please do not add this to the Satan article. None of it has anything to do with Satan, the argument you are supporting looks like original research, and some of what you just said is blatantly wrong. Religious narratives are not usually determined by the names of the figures involved in them. Judas does not mean "pride" either; both Jude and Judas are English transliterations of the name Ὶούδας in the Greek original New Testament, which, in turn, is a Greek variant of the Aramaic name Judah (Y'hudah), a name derived from Hebrew Yəhūḏāh (יְהוּדָה‎‎) which literally means "thanksgiving" or "praise" and was an extremely common name among Jews living in Judaea during the first century. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Religious narratives for millenniums were determined by names. Would you even mind running a search on academic databases prior to negating this (even by this day, the Vatican use such naming lineage to decide who gets to be canonized!)? The region of Judea trace its lineage from Jacob and the Kingdom of Judah. It’s place in the World is even outlined today with the conflicts on the West bank (everyone can check that in the news, don’t need some book written by someone). Nazareth was a village of Judea… (and Bethlehem) Jesus ownership to the throne of Israel resides in the drawing of such a lineage. Why were there two different lineages from Mary and Joseph sides being drawn to attest him as heir? You are just throwing words here without a context. Pride, praise call it what you want, that’s directly linked to the Kingdom itself and the role of Judea. Does it even take a source for that? One would even wonder why Herod (as illegitimate heir) decided to get rid of all those children… if Jesus gets to negate his paternal lineage he could still defend his right for the throne from his mother. See what I was saying, sourcing and sourcing but no context and meaning, what 99% of readers want to know. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Once again, it is hard to tell what you are trying to argue because you keep rambling about seemingly unrelated subjects. (I am beginning to suspect you are not even sure what you are trying to argue.) I would like to point out, though, that the so-called "genealogies of Jesus" in Matthew 1:1–17 and in Luke 3:23–38 are both the genealogy of Joseph and if you actually read the texts, they both clearly state that they are giving the genealogy of Joseph. The excuse that Luke is giving the genealogy of Mary was invented in later times after the gospels were read alongside each other in order to explain the fact that the two genealogies completely contradict each other and the only the facts about Jesus's paternal ancestry that they agree on are that he was the son of Joseph and a descendant of King David. Your claim that the Vatican determines who they canonize based on their names is unsourced and I do not think that it is accurate. Regarding the name "Judas," I want to make it clear that "pride" and "thanksgiving" are not the same thing, despite what you seem to be suggesting.

In regards to my statement that "Religious narratives are not usually determined by the names of the figures involved in them," I would like to point out that I use the word usually; I am not saying that they are never determined by the names of the figures involved, just not usually. For instance, the story of Saint Christopher carrying Jesus across a river is clearly inspired by the fact that his name in Greek (Χριστόφορος) literally means "bearer of Christ." Most of the time, however, naming is irrelevant, especially in cases such as Jesus and Judas, who were both historical figures. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, please do not post what you suspect about what I am sure or not. That’s called cognitive (yours) bias. You’re tainting your answer.

As for my replies, those are not wholly unrelated; I was merely answering to the painting you have posted in the Satan article. In that painting the angel associated with Satan has a sword on his hand. See I gave context and wrote that it was relevant to add such a context. I directly made reference to the Hebrew poems and the Quran.

Also please do not present things which might be assumed but not directly there in my replies. I never wrote on Mary lineage having been drawn after or before. Only that they were drawn! For the Israelite previously their statue was transmitted by the father, it was later changed (rabbinic period) for the mother. That’s the reason why Mary lineage was considered relevant only later.

Regarding Judas name, you’re implying again more than what I have written. The relationship between pride and praise isn’t different than the relationship between crown and kingdom. I just simplified praise with the word pride in my first post to not have to bring the Kingdom stuff (someone suggested me to shorten my replies to be read, that’s the reason why I shortened the one in the serpent talkpage, you can check that for yourself).

As for the stuff about the Vatican, how can I even begin when you answer such a thing: Most of the time, however, naming is irrelevant, especially in cases such as Jesus and Judas, who were both historical figures. Even for historic figures can you just check the name transmitted by the paternal by profession? It was ingrained in the culture of all those societies and the myths they have created. It is even behind all those Christian publications regarding the transmission of original sin from parents to children and the fall of man. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I apologize if I am misunderstanding what you are saying and assuming more than what you actually have written. It is just rather difficult to interpret your words. I was not intending to offend you, so I apologize if anything I have said has been rather harsh. I do not intend to continue this conversation. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't offended... there was a reason I posted my comment in your talkpage and not in the talkpage of the article. Some of the elements might have been not directly related to be posted there but it was more forgiving to post them here. I'm really trying to shorten my replies and be more direct to the point. But see my reply in the serpent article, even then it does not give any results.

If I claim Kingdom means King, or power it is OR If I provide some physical constant and source it, it's OK

The first is a natural conclusion, does not rely on anyone (in a few centuries will still remain); the second only a few people conclusions (and those tools will change in few decades)...

I'd rather contribute in art or food related articles, this way I can challenge anyone who claims this or this can be sourced to prove it technically. About everyone has a kitchen and can try some mixes, about anyone can buy few tubes of paints... artistic notability can be established by popular acclamation (contrary to written published material) ... be it music or visual art. After establishing such a notability someone could go on adding my paintings and songs to simply highlight a king is a king, a cat is a cat. Anyway, I enjoyed this exchange and sorry for the inconvenience this might have caused you. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Katolophyromai. 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)

Oops

So about that.... An accidental click while browsing through the diff. I have given myself a stern warning. Haploidavey (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

It is perfectly alright. I understand that accidents happen. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Posted this on thw Abomination of desolation in response to your point

As a Christian it is a serious matter when you take the word of a normal (or mortal) man over the words of Jesus. Jesus refers to Daniel as "the prophet"

see the article in the link for reasons why Daniel was real and the Book of Daniel is nonfiction. http://tektonics.org/af/danieldefense.php

On the Sabbath, I invite you to look at any calendar and see which day is the first day of the week and which is last. I also invite you to go to google translate, and see what Saturday converts to in Greek, Italian, Spanish and Russian. Use the speaker option to see how the words sound. Does it sound a whole lot like Sabbath?771.174.127.2 (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Athena

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Athena 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 TonyBallioni -- TonyBallioni (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Herr Mannelig

Seriously??? There is no metre in that translation. The translation was apparently done by some people who wrote that that did it on the Mannelig talk page. Did you read that? And there are errors in the translation. Some of them are not just stylistic choices. I corrected them. It would be better if you reversed your reversal of my edit.84.51.156.163 (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.

The trouble with using the "thou" pronoun and archaic verb forms in the English translation is that English readers will not generally instinctively understand why this is being done. Yes it has been done that way in centuries past. But for me, people reading or hearing this will think one of the following: it is a mistake; or it is an attempt to sound old fashioned; or it is an attempt to sound old fashioned and therefore formal (the opposite of what is intended).

Plight is not too terrible a translation. I worry that it was chosen out of a mistaken belief that it was the cognate word, when it is not, and possibly better translations are available. The English cognate of the Swedish word plåga is plague. The swedish word plåga is used for plague, but also for more general suffering and torment.

The spawn of the devil is a ridiculous cliche in English --- there is no such cliche in the Swedish text.

Anyway, thanks for changing it.84.51.156.163 (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hypatia

Hi there, Hypatia was notable in her time because of her scientific work, and her teaching. And she was a living person, not just a 18th Century myth. It’s only a long time after her death at a ripe old age that her death became the stuff of legend, which is covered at length in the article. Either way, I don’t see how the article on Archimedes, Sappho and Pythagoras support the theses that Hypatia's death should chronologically come before her scientific work. Just saying. With that logic we would need to turn the entire article upside down. --Peabodybore (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Peabodybore: I was using the articles on Archimedes, Sappho, and Pythagoras as examples for the structural format I was describing; I was not in any way trying to argue that Hypatia conducted her scientific work after she died (which would be ridiculous). The standard structure for an article about a historical figure usually makes the first section about the person's life and the second section about the person's writings, accomplishments, discoveries, etc. The reason for this is because it would be inconvenient to interrupt the account of the person's life with a detailed analysis of their writings or discoveries, especially since these writings and discoveries are usually part of the person's legacy. Hypatia's death is a part of her biography, which is why it is not structurally suitable to skip her death, devote a whole section talking about her works, and then come back to her biography and describe her death - unless you are holistically advocating that the whole account of Hypatia's death is entirely a "18th Century myth" (which is wrong, since it is recorded by Socrates Scholasticus, who was one of her contemporaries, as I am sure you are already aware, considering that you recently rewrote the entire section). The bottom line is that, although the "Life" section should be in chronological order, the article as a whole is not necessarily; we can move some parts around for the sake of organizational convenience. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The legacy of her death, is a 18th Century development. It was publicised and noted at the time, but not to the massive extent it was in 18th Century Euope, and thereafter. The Life section ends with an account of her teaching and her students. As such I dont think the section on her works interrupts the flow when it is inbetween the Life and the Death section, especially because her work in astronomy seemed to have sparked the accusations of black magic. The works that can be attributed to her as per historic sources would now fit at the end of the career section.

When I rewrote the Life section I tried to find more sources on the nature of her philosophic teaching, ie Plotinism. I think it puts her "paganism" in context and Plotinism was a significant philosophic/theological rival to Chritianity at the time. The death sections mentions her scientifc work as a source for anger against her, ie. astronomy, but the context is only explained in the works section.

Also, if you dont mind, I will move the images that illustrate the Death section to the 19th Century legacy section, as they illustrate the romantisation and sexualisation of Hypatia. She was in her 50-60s when she was brutally killed. The images illustrate more than anything the artistic treatment she received in the 19th Century.--Peabodybore (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Peabodybore: I do not see anything wrong with having the images in the "Death" section, even though they are obviously later romanticized depictions of it. I trust that the readers will be competent enough to realize that fact, especially given the information in the captions. Besides, organizationally speaking, they fit better there, since there are no images whatsoever for the entire first half of the article and it does not make sense to try to cramp all of them into the "Legends and legacy" section at the end.

On a largely unrelated side note, dealing more with the implications of some of the things you have written rather than what you yourself have actually said, it is not accurate to say that Hypatia was murdered for allegedly practicing "black magic." Socrates Scholasticus, who was one of her contemporaries, makes it abundantly clear that she was murdered for political reasons because of false rumors circulated among some members of the Christian populace claiming that she was advising Orestes against reconciliation with Cyril of Alexandria. Socrates Scholasticus does not mention anything about anyone thinking that she was practicing "black magic."

Christians during Hypatia's time period, especially in Alexandria, were far more familiar with Hellenistic philosophy than modern readers might expect, simply because it was a part of the world they lived in, and they would have been unlikely to confuse Neoplatonism (which was indeed a major competitor with Christianity, though the two were not necessarily always seen as incompatible) with sorcery. In fact, the education of many priests and bishops was steeped in Platonism; Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus were both schoolmates of Julian the Apostate in Athens, where all three of them studied Greek religion and philosophy. Synesius of Cyrene was one of Hypatia's pupils and an enthusiastic Neoplatonist - but also a Christian bishop.

The only ancient source that mentions the notion of Hypatia practicing black magic is John of Nikiû, who lived roughly two hundred years after Hypatia in a very different historical context when actual paganism was largely a thing of the past and popular conceptions of paganism had been reduced to stereotypes. The idea that Hypatia was killed because the ignorant, backward-thinking Christians did not understand what she was teaching and thought she was a witch is anachronistic and, to a large extent, a notion promoted by the very eighteenth and nineteenth century romanticists whom you have already derided, who polemicized Hypatia's murder, changing it from the brutal political assassination it was into a witch-burning it was not. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I dont know if this solves anyting, but we could use Galileo Galilei as a guidance. His death had a massive legacy as well, though obviously we know more about his scientific work and theories. I still think it would be good to have an explanation on her scientifc work in the "Careers". Not sure how to solve this. Maybe rename "Works" writings, and move the "contributions to technology and mechanics" bit under:

"The surviving writings of two of her students have become authoritative sources on her life and scientific work. Synesius of Cyrene, who went on to become a bishop of Ptolemais (now in eastern Libya) in 410, continued to exchange letters with Hypatia. Another former pupil Damascius, who became head of the Platonic Academy, wrote about Hypatia in Life of Saint Isidore.[27][28][29] Two hundred years later, the seventh-century Egyptian Coptic bishop John of Nikiû identified her as a Hellenistic pagan devoted to magic.[30][31]

There use to be more on the letters to her from "Synesius of Cyrene", which comment on her technology work, but they were badly sourced and original research. So I removed them. But this historic source, and the secondary sources on them should probably be extended.

In the context of what you are saying it may be best to remove "Two hundred years later, the seventh-century Egyptian Coptic bishop John of Nikiû identified her as a Hellenistic pagan devoted to magic.[30][31]" it is explained at length in the Interpretations sections. And does according to what you are saying, set the wrong scene for the section on her death.

I do think that the pictures are better in the context of the legacy section, because they are so heavely dramatised and the legacy section discusses this. They illustrate how European thinkers saw her and her death at the time they were created. Ie a "helpless, pretentious, and erotic heroine".

I unserstand that it would be good to have pics at the beginning of the article. We can look for appropiate pics... I am happy to do so. In the moment I am looking for more public domain pics for the Mary Somerville article, I found public domain images of her first publication on astronomy. For the Hypathia article I will have a look if there are any historic images, such as the joint writings she did with her father. In recent years much more historic documents got digitized, so chances of finding something relevant to the first part of the article are good.

I am probably not on the same side of planet earth as you are, so I am going to sleep now.--Peabodybore (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Athena

The article Athena you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Athena 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 TonyBallioni -- TonyBallioni (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much!

Hi Katolophyromai,

I saw that you got the Athena article to GA status. It's amazing to see such a vital article promoted to GA status! Thanks you so much for your work for this website. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@MagicatthemovieS: Thank you for the congratulations! I worked hard on that article and I appreciate the recognition. I still have five more articles awaiting review in the "Philosophy and religion" category, which are: Inanna, Enlil, Anunnaki, Jonah, and Pythagoras. Obviously, you cannot review Jonah because you helped me write it, but any of the others are open if you would like to review them. I am also working on several more articles, including Satan, Proto-Indo-European religion, Aphrodite, Lucian, and, right now, Hypatia. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering: would you like the Satan article to mention depictions of Satan in film (e.g. Rosemary's Baby, The Exorcist) and Mormon views on Satan?

MagicatthemovieS (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I actually had not even thought of including Mormon views on Satan, but those would definitely belong in the article, probably in a short subsection under "Christianity." I had thought about including depictions of Satan in film and television, but I am actually still debating whether or not these are worth including. Satan has been represented countless times in all kinds of different media over the course of the past 2,500 years, nearly as many times as God Himself. Since movies and television are such recent innovations comparatively speaking, it is difficult to determine which ones will have long-term influence. Nonetheless, I think that it is fairly self-evident that movies and television have influenced modern views on Satan in developed countries to a large extent. It may be worth including a short section talking about broad themes: there are obviously horror films like The Exorcist, but also all kinds of movies about "deals with the Devil", and, especially more recently, there have even been somewhat positive portrayals of Satan, evidenced by shows like Supernatural and Lucifer. If we do include anything about movies and television, we would have to: 1) keep it short, 2) be careful to only talk about portrayals that have significantly influenced popular opinions on Satan, and 3) discuss those portrayals in terms of broad themes. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@MagicatthemovieS: I see you have already added a paragraph about Satan in Mormonism to the "Theology" section. Great work! (I am not sure if you read my remarks above regarding your proposal since I forgot to ping you and you have not responded; if you have not read them, they are right above this comment.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I saw your comments; I'm currently working to find a good source for the Mormon concept of Master Mahan. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds great! I was not sure if my talk page was on your watchlist or not. I suppose it is. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Good work

Good work in expanding Hypatia. I have had it on my watchlist for several months and planned to work on it at some point, though I evidently did not get round to doing so. There still may be improvements to be made before it is GA quality but I appreciate your efforts. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hrodvarsson: I know. I am still working on it. In my opinion, it actually still has a long way to go. I am just getting started. Maybe when I am finished and have nominated it for GA, you can review it! --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, she is an important historical figure and probably could have an article of closer to 100,000 bytes in size. I just wanted to let you know I appreciate the effort. I have not reviewed a GA before but I will consider it. Merry Christmas (Gleðileg jól)! Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hrodvarsson: Merry Christmas to you too! (I do not know Icelandic, but in German it is "Frohe Weihnachten!") I probably will not expand Hypatia to 100,000 bytes, especially since it is 66,044 right now, but I will probably be expanding it substantially. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I am open to discussion

Merry Christmas :) I appreciate your moderatorship, but might I suggest that sometimes, rather than removing something completely, maybe hide it for discussion instead? I have noticed your work, a lot of it good, but that doesn't give you the right to dismiss others work, especially when it falls in-line with the Wiki guidelines. I have amended what I published to remove any unintended conjecture. If you have any guidance, or would like to discuss further, let me know. I3R0K3N7FEET (talk) 07:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

snuck vs. sneaked

"Snuck" is most common in the U.S. and Canada, but "sneaked" still prevails elsewhere. (See Oxford Dictionaries, The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, Webster's New World College Dictionary.) Both must be regarded as correct. What you are trying to do is to destroy any alternative. I'm against that. Kostaki mou (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks

Many thanks for your response to my comments on the talk page of the article on Cinderella. Vorbee (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Ashurism

Hi Katolophyromai. Would you mind taking a look at the Ashurism article? It's been cleaned up a little since I first noticed it (ie it no longer claims a relationship between Ashur-worship and PIE religion), but to my untrained eye the second section looks like fringe material tucked away in a seldom-visited article. If so, the whole thing could probably just be redirected to Ashur (god), since there isn't really anything else in the one article that isn't covered in the other. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@165.234.252.11: I think I agree with you. The material in it seems to be oversimplified at the very best and fringe at the very worst. I have redirected the page to Ashur (god). --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Satan

No problem. I questioned it myself, but was moving a categorization that another editor had added to Category:Satan to the article. Editor2020 (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

HNY

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 14:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I really appreciate it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Satan

@Katolophyromai: After some thought, I agree with most of what you said here. It seems that we agree that the article needs mention of Jesus' parables, the stoning of the devil, Satan and music, Abaddon, and more on Pope Francis' views on the devil. The Satanic Verses , I think, still warrant some mention as the story was widely accepted by early Muslims; you could mention how modern Muslims tend to dismiss the narrative as ahistorical. I also wonder if the "allegations" section might warrant mention of the Salem witch trials, which allegedly involved Satan, or worship of Santa Muerte, which has been deemed Satanic by the Catholic Church despite the fact that her devotees do not view her as the devil. If not, we can certainly mention these articles in the "see also" section. By the way - Happy almost New Year! MagicatthemovieS (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

On the subject of not pronouncing 'Yahweh'

In regards to your most recent edit, IDK if this is the 'scholarly' consensus, but Jewish sources have always said that Yahweh's name became taboo to say following the death of Simeon the Just, the original source of it being Yoma; Tosef. Soṭah, xiii יבריב (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Satan

Hi Katolophyromai. I have great respwct for you, as you pretty much create articles-including this one- singlehandedly, and I believe you to be one of the funeat editora on Wikipeida. However I see only stuff about North American beliefs- which I did not remove-and nothing about rhe Wnlightenment.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 16:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@LittleDipper: I am assuming you have not read this paragraph:

"By the early 1600s, skeptics, including the English author Reginald Scot and the Anglican bishop John Bancroft, had begun to criticize the belief that demons still had the power to possess people. This skepticism was bolstered by the belief that miracles only occurred during the Apostolic Age, which had long since ended. Later, Enlightenment thinkers, such as David Hume, Denis Diderot, and Voltaire, attacked the notion of Satan's existence altogether. Voltaire labelled John Milton's Paradise Lost a "disgusting fantasy" and declared that belief in Hell and Satan were among the many lies propagated by the Catholic Church to keep humanity enslaved."

References

Origen‎

I apologize; you are correct, at least by most sources, my contention being in a minority. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Fish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Oannes

Fish in culture (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Oannes

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Satan

Hi Katolophyromai! I found an article about the percentage of Muslims by country who believe in jinn, and the Quran says that Satan is "from the jinn." http://www.pewforum.org/2012/08/09/the-worlds-muslims-unity-and-diversity-4-other-beliefs-and-practices/ Does this study merit mention in the Satan article? --MagicatthemovieS

I apologize for my late response. I did not have time to answer this when I saw it yesterday and I forgot about it. I do not think that this study should be included because it does not have statistics for belief in Satan specifically and it is quite possible that the number of Muslims who believe in Satan is different from the number of Muslims who believe in jinn generally, in the same way that more Christians believe in angels than believe in Satan. If you find a study that contains statistics for Muslim belief in Satan specifically, that would definitely be worth including. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Shahnameh

The Shahnameh (which is an extremely important poem in Muslim culture; it's as important to Muslim culture as the Odyssey is to the West) features a vignette that involves Satan. He is not a major supporting character in the text, however. Should his appearance in the Shahnahmeh be discussed in the "literature" section of the Satan article? --MagicatthemovieS

If he appears in it and his appearance is significant, we should probably discuss it. I must confess, however, that I have not read the Shahnameh and I do not know how important Satan's appearance in it is. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Inanna

Hey, I passed Inanna - in my opinion, it should be FA, excellent work! Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Why would you unilaterally merge the Ishtar article into the Inanna article? I still don't think it needed to be merged. You really should ask others before going and doing something like that. Loknar (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Satan

We seem to be getting of on the wrong foot, which is very unfortunate to me. I didn't mean to come across as being down on the existing text, more as challenging you in a positive manner, especially as you had asked for input on the talk. For my part, I respect the ongoing work, and in my perhaps blunt way, am trying to steer ye as it occurs. Have said before that its a real delight to see such ongoing focused and informed work. Ceoil (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ceoil: I do not necessarily see it as "getting off on the wrong foot." I just happen to disagree with a few of your changes. I really do appreciate your help and I apologize if I am making it seem as though I am upset with you. You do have a tendency to be a bit blunt, but I understand. Sometimes I can come across as more offensive than I mean to be also. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Its ok to disagree in my book, and the world would be a sorry and dull place of we didn't. To take a few points, and hash them out;

• The opening sentence of the book of Job section, I made actively about Satan, otherwise it seemed essay like
• Where I removed sentences at the end of paragraphs it was because they seemed extraneous to those not as well informed, though I see you have expanded most now, thanks
• I don't like popular culture sections in general, especially the Stairway file and mention of Mayhem rankled, though I have followed Back Metal for 20 years. Similarly, inclusion of 21st century tv rankles, given the overall time span we are talking about.
• There is an over-reliance on Blake miniatures. I am usually inclined to include as many images as possible so give me time suggest alternatives.
• Most of my edits were intended to tighten the prose, and not meant as otherwise. Ceoil (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ceoil: The idea for the "In popular culture" sections was originally MagicatthemovieS's idea. I am fine with including information about popular culture, but only if it is done in a professional manner: well-cited, in paragraph format, and focusing on broad themes and how those themes have impacted popular perception. I understand why you removed the parts you removed. I do not know anything about Black Metal; MagicatthemovieS pretty much wrote that whole section. The mention of the trend towards a more positive portrayal of Satan was written by MagicatthemovieS, but it was my suggestion that prompted him/her to write it and I do think it is worth noting, however briefly. I was the one who added the sound file, because everyone has heard so much about "Satanic backmasking" and I thought including the file would demonstrate that... well... the whole thing is essentially bogus. I completely understand the removal, however, and I will not attempt to restore it.

Regarding the Blake paintings, I have already provided replacements by other painters for the two you removed. I think it is acceptable to have a large number of Blake paintings in the article simply because Blake was so fixated on Satan and did so many paintings of him. Nonetheless, I definitely agree that we should have some diversity and try to include paintings by others (which I personally think we have done already, but you are welcome to disagree with that if you like). --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Katolophyromai. We seem to be on the same page. Just to warn you, I also don't like the Ary Scheffer image, which is a bit twee, and something I can work on. Re Blake, long ago I did a number of articles on individual miniatures by him, and a bit on his bio, but will see if I can add some more variety. Anyway, look forward to your ongoing additions and I hope no hard feelings, your work here has been outstanding. Ceoil (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ceoil: I personally like the Ary Scheffer painting, but that could just be because I have a certain fondness for nineteenth century Academic art. I am sure all the art critics will be thoroughly appalled and tell me I have to like Paul Gauguin, the Impressionists, and Picasso, but, frankly, I think Gauguin, Picasso, and their ilk are both terrible and pretty much all the artists after them are even worse. I mean, Duchamp literally made a toilet and somehow people today seem to think that is better than anything by Jacques-Louis David, Jean-Léon Gérôme, William-Adolphe Bouguereau, or Lawrence Alma-Tadema. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Ha, you may well be right and you got me there; my interest goes to about 1840 and I am a fan of neither Academic art nor Duchamp, though I dearly like Ingres and (secretly) much of David. Adolphe Bouguereau I can live without. Pinging User:Iridescent and User:Johnbod, who are far more up to date on 19th century art than I am, and might have views or suggestions for the gallery. Thank you for your frankness, and as you are the main author, will stand down from the Scheffer! Ceoil (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ceoil: David was really more of a precursor to the Academic movement than an actual member of it anyway. (He lived too early to have actually been a member.) I mentioned him mainly because I like his paintings. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

(With the disclaimer that I only really know British Isles and some French and German stuff.) Paintings of Satan in the 19th century have a fairly clean break pre- and post- the popularisation of Goethe's Faust in the 1830s. Before that, he's either the monstrous beast of the Middle Ages or occasionally the unrealistically beautiful anti-hero of Milton; after that, he's the Father of Lies and is usually shown as a somewhat foppish overly-friendly character. If you want what I'd consider stereotypical images of the three different images of him, I'd nominate Bartolomé Bermejo's Saint Michael Triumphs over the Devil or Pacher's Church Fathers Altar as the most bestial late medieval/early Renaissance Satans, either Blake's Satan Exulting (I agree that while you need to include Blake, more than one is overkill—despite his popularity in middlebrow pop-culture he really wasn't very influential or significant in the wider scheme of things) or Thomas Stothard's Satan Summoning His Legions for a pre-Faust Miltonian Satan, and Barrias's Temptation of Christ by the Devil as a stereotypical post-Faust 19th-century devil. (From this point on actually painting Satan drops out of fashion in the Western canon and his role tends to get taken by assorted female temptresses from classical and celtic/pseudoceltic mythology—I'd consider The Beguiling of Merlin and Leighton's Fisherman and the Syren the archetypes of that particular niche, but you can basically go to the 1848-1914 section of any gallery with a reasonable size British or French collection, pick three non-portrait paintings at random, and odds are at least one will fit the bill.) ‑ Iridescent 17:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Thank you very much for this information! I thought I would note that Stothard's Satan Summoning His Legions and Barrias's Temptation of Christ by the Devil are both already in the article, but the others suggestions you have offered may be helpful. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Iridescent's synopsis is far better than what we already have. I think the Leighton would be a good addition. Ceoil (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you so much for helping me on my David Meade article. I really appreciate it so much. LovelyGirl7 talk 01:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: You are most welcome. I am always glad to be helpful. I was the one who wrote most of the "2017 revival section" in the article Nibiru cataclysm, so I immediately took an interest when I saw that someone had created a separate article about David Meade. I do have a slight difficulty, though, which is that I am not sure if David Meade is really noteworthy enough to deserve his own article, since all he is really famous for are his apocalyptic predictions last year and I doubt he will become famous for anything else. Since his claims about the apocalypse are already dealt with thoroughly in the Nibiru cataclysm article, I am still trying to decide if having a separate article about him is really productive. I noticed that Nancy Lieder, the woman who invented the whole Nibiru cataclysm story to begin with, does not have her own article and I do not think David is more notable than she is. What do you think? Could you please explain some of your reasons for why you think he needs to have his own article? Perhaps you can convince me that the article is indeed necessary. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

He didn't just predict last year on September 23rd. He also predicted numerous nonsense about October as well. It's even in his book called "Will Planet X signal the Rapture". He predicted Obama would be president for third term, that Trump and Pence and other people get levitated in the air, that North Korea, China and Russia would launch a nuclear attack on US, that several magnitude 9.8 earthquakes would happen, that US gets split in half, and that earth's pole gets shifted by 30 degrees, all in October 2017. He also predicted the same thing in 2015 in his Rapture 2015 and Planet X and Comet Ison and Return of Jesus. I do think it's a good article. And those reasons are good reasons. Meade also has this book as well [2]. Another person debunked him here as well and say he is a pen name who is known as Jerry Grenough [3]. I think those are decent reasons there should be a separate article about him. --LovelyGirl7 talk 16:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: That sounds reasonable, though I am more concerned about his continuing significance than with predictions he has made in the past, since any predictions he made prior to last year's doomsday prophecy clearly did not cause enough stir to drive anyone to create an article about him based on them alone. We will keep the article for now and if he has still not done anything else notable within, say, ten or twenty years, future editors may feel welcome to merge the article into Nibiru cataclysm. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep and I'm glad it is a article. I hope it does get improved whenver. One day when it is improved, I would love this to be my first GA article as well. I might even request copy editing on it too. --LovelyGirl7 talk 21:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: I see. Well, good luck! I have brought two articles (Inanna and Athena) up to GA status already. I have also nominated the articles Enlil, Anunnaki, Jonah, Pythagoras, and Satan for GA, but all of them are still awaiting review. I am currently working on the article Aphrodite, which I expect to nominate very soon (probably sometime within the next week). I should warn you that there is quite a long backlog for GA nominations and, in my experience, it usually takes between six months to a year to find an editor who is willing to review an article. It is generally recommended that, for every article you nominate for GA, you should try to review at least two others, just to help keep the backlog from growing, but, unfortunately, most people pretty much just ignore that recommendation and the backlog just keeps growing. In the meantime, David Meade (conspiracy theorist) needs a lot more work before it will be ready for GA. Right now it is stub-class. If you have not done so already, make sure to familiarize yourself with the GA criteria. Also, look at current GA articles; Nibiru cataclysm is one of them, but there are plenty of others. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It has to be well written, no original research, good coverage, neutral, stable, and has to have good illustration as well. I didn't say now, I said in the future. I know it needs work. First I have to focus on getting it to C-Class, then B-class, then GA-class. For now, I have to focus on the article. I just read the C-Class criteria and it says this: The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance, or flow; or contain policy violations, such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective. It is most likely that C-Class articles have a reasonable encyclopedic style.. It doesn't meet B-class or GA at all and I know I have work to do on the article. As for the article, a guy who has the same name as the Plane X Nibiru guy David Meade received death threats after the phony 9/23/2017 prediction passed, and yes I did found a source by using Washington Post to prove that guy got death threats. --LovelyGirl7 talk 16:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you so much for correcting the paragraph of my statement I mentioned about the mind reader who has the same name as David Meade and moving it to where it should be. I really appreciate it so much. LovelyGirl7 talk 23:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Nostradamus

Hi Katolophrymai, in your edit to Nostradamus you justly asked "Why did you dump all of the images in the lead after the infobox? There is nothing about this in MOS:IMAGELOCATION; in fact, it says that images should go in the sections where they are most relevant and not far ahead of where they are appropriate."

Here's why I did so, Placing the references to images above the sections, which they illustrate, caused them to fall (at least on my screen) at the very sections that they are supposed to illustrate. Moving them into the sections that they belong as they are now, causes them to crowd other images further down the page out of their proper sections. Another solution to this problem is to place an image to the left, but this causes the beginning text of the section to be crowded to the right, something discourage in MOS:IMAGELOCATION.

There is no single right answer, but that seemed appropriate to me. I'll watch here, if you wish to reply. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 02:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for the explanation and I apologize if my tone in my edit summary sounded a bit harsh. Nonetheless, I still disagree with your placement. In your placement on my screen, the first image appears at the bottom of the lead paragraph, way above where it is intended. The second image of the plaque appears just where it ought to be at the beginning of the "Childhood" section, but the final image appears in the "Childhood" section even though it is intended to belong in the "Marriage and healing work" section, two sections beneath. Furthermore, it actually pushes down the entire "Student years" section, leaving a huge, gaping white space in the middle of the article. Perhaps you can understand why I do not like your placement of the images now. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. I appreciate your reply. It's difficult to predict where images will render on different viewers' screens on different devices. I trust your judgment on this matter. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 02:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Question about David Meade

@Katolophyromai: do you think it was a good idea that I divided the article into sections? --LovelyGirl7 talk 19:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: Yes. I think it was a very good idea. The only articles that are not divided into sections are stub-class. All the articles of any considerable length are divided into sections. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok good @Katolophyromai:. I just wanted to know. If you had to rate the article (in terms of assessment class), what would it be? --LovelyGirl7 talk 21:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: Right now I would probably rate it as either stub class or start class. It still needs a lot of work and probably quite a bit of expansion. I will say this right now just so you do not get your hopes up too high: I do not know if the article can be brought up to GA because, in order to qualify for GA, it needs to have a certain level of coverage and I am not sure if there are enough reliable sources available on David Meade to reach that level of coverage. Usually articles can only really be brought up to GA if there are extensive academic writings on the subject, or at least a very high amount of press coverage. There is a decent amount of press coverage of David Meade out there, but I do not know if it is enough that we could write a full biography based on it. On a side note, you do not need to ping me here because this is my talk page and it sends me a ping automatically whenever someone else saves an edit here. The reason I am pinging you is because this is not your talk page and I do not know if you have this page on your watchlist. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I know it needs a lot of work to go to GA. But I was referring to either stub class, start class or c class. But thank you for telling me though. --LovelyGirl7 talk 00:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: I would like to add an image of David Meade. But is "all right reserves" compitable with our license? This is the only image of Meade I can find [4]. If so, I'd like to upload it here. --LovelyGirl7 talk 16:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: Sorry, but "all rights reserved" is definitely not compatible with our license. In order to upload an image to Wikimedia Commons, the image must be either in the public domain or under a Creative Commons free use licensing agreement. "All rights reserved" means the image is copyrighted and we cannot use it. Sometimes we can use copyrighted images under "Fair use," but that will not be applicable in this case because we are only allowed to use fair use images of people if there is absolutely no possibility that anyone will ever produce a free image of the person, meaning the person has to be either dead or in prison. Wikipedia takes this policy so seriously that we actually do not have any photographs of Kim Jong-un because every photograph that has ever been taken of him is copyrighted by someone. The image that is used as the main image in the article is a highly realistic drawing that someone made of him. If you happen to see David Meade in public somewhere and you take a picture of him yourself, then you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons and we can use it in the article, but that is probably the only way we will ever get an image of him. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: I also found a source that David Meade used bible codes for his September 23rd prediction and I also added it in the article as well. Is there anything in the article you suggest I add about him so the assessment can change (not talking about GA, but to C-Class first)? --LovelyGirl7 talk 21:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hypatia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hypatia 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 Hrodvarsson -- Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you yet again

@Katolophyromai: Thank you so much correcting my mistakes I make, like on the Nibiru article and the David Meade article. Your like a mentor to my in my eyes. By the way, how do you think the David Meade article looks and what do you think I should add in the article next? LovelyGirl7 talk 17:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: While I appreciate your thanks, you do not need to thank me every time I make an edit. As far as the current status of the article, I would say it is probably best categorized as "Start class" at this point. Information that would be good to include would be facts like:

1. When and where he was born
2. More about his family, education, and background
3. Why he became a conspiracy theorist (Who influenced him? Did he just get up one day and decide to become one?)
4. How he became famous (assuming that he was already somewhat famous before his predictions last year)
5. The process of how his books were written and how they were published
6. What his occupation is (Aside from being a conspiracy theorist, how does he actually earn a living? Is it from his books?)

Once again, I am not sure if any of this information is publicly available and we can only use reputable news sources and possibly Meade's own statements, so it may be difficult or impossible to find this sort of material on him. As I have stated above, he is pretty obscure, so there is probably not a whole lot that has been written about him. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Thanks for telling me. I'm not sure of his own birthdate. I do know for sure he went to the University of Louisville, which he claims he did. His books were all published on Amazon [5]. Also, I did found out that one of his books, "Planet X - The 2017 Arrival" was plagarism (only 25% in his book is his own work), but it's from Quora (which I won't use because it's a web blog and Wikipedia is against using web blogs [6]). I also found out some more about him on eurofolkradio.com as well [7]. Also, he appeared on TV radio and did interviews there so I added it in the article. It was even on his website as well (not Planet X News but his other website). Thoughts? --LovelyGirl7 talk 02:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you think so far?

@Katolophyromai: I know I still have work to do on the David Meade article but do you think the article is only getting better? LovelyGirl7 talk 03:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hypatia

The article Hypatia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hypatia 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 Hrodvarsson -- Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aphrodite

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Aphrodite 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) 18:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Satan

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Satan 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) 18:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jonah

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jonah 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) 18:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I think your my mentor

@Katolophyromai: With you helping me with the articles and correcting any mistake I do (and even fixing sentences that needs to be fixed), I think your my mentor. As for the article itself, I do think it's only getting better. Do you think the article is getting better? --LovelyGirl7 talk 18:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aphrodite

The article Aphrodite you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Aphrodite 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) 22:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thank you for your constant contributions. You deserve this barnstar. JudeccaXIII (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@JudeccaXIII: Thank you so much! I really appreciate it. I see you have been following my work for a while now and I apologize if I am making things hard on you by leaving the long URLs for Google Books and by using hyphens instead of slashes. I am not trying to make it hard on you and I am only trying to be helpful and improve the encyclopedia. The problem is that I am not sure where to cut off the URLs at and I do not know how to insert a slash without using a hyphen.

I also see you have seen my most recent project, the article Origen, which I am planning to bring up to "Good Article" status. I have been meaning to work on it for several months now, but I only just got around to really working on it yesterday. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Katolophyromai I don't have any issues fixing your citations, just keep up the good work. Happy editing & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pythagoras

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pythagoras 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 Hrodvarsson -- Hrodvarsson (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jonah

The article Jonah you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jonah 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, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Peer review on David Meade

I have a peer review on my article here if you want to give feedback. LovelyGirl7 talk 16:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Another barnstar from me for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Another barnstar from me for you for the recent edit on my David Meade article. Thank you for correcting my mistakes and what I did on that edit. LovelyGirl7 talk 23:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: would you like to give feedback on the David Meade article on the peer review? --LovelyGirl7 talk 01:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: If I remember correctly, the peer review is usually for an editor who has not significantly contributed to the article. The idea is that it is supposed to bring in a new person who is unfamiliar with the article, so that he or she will presumably have a neutral opinion on the matter, and can also ask the nominator to explain things that may not adequately be explained or expand on parts that seem to require expansion. Since I have contributed to the article significantly, I would not make a very neutral reviewer.

By the way, while I am flattered by your appreciation, you really do not need to thank me constantly: every once-in-a-while is quite enough. Also, you do not need to keep asking me what I think of the article; I think you are doing a fine job and I have the page on my watchlist, so if I notice any problems, I will try to point them out as they come up. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: do you think my David Meade article is ready for as a GA nominee (do you think I should nominate it for GA status?)? --LovelyGirl7 talk 01:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: As I said above, I am probably not the best person to ask since I have been heavily involved in writing the article, so I may be biased, but I think it is definitely growing closer to GA quality. I do notice a few problems, though. The biggest problem is a problem of sourcing: the article cites a large numbers of sources that would not normally pass WP:RS, such as tabloids and certain news aggregate sites prone to sensationalist tendencies. I understand that these are being cited to provide information about David Meade's claims, but you may want to find more reliable sources to replace them, if possible. Another issue is that the article says very little about David Meade's life aside from his predictions, but I do not think this will be a problem during the GA review process since this information is simply not available and the article actually does do an impressive job of summarizing what little information there is that is known. You are the primary author, so you decide when to nominate it and I really do not think I ought to decide for you on that regard. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: btw, I found out David Meade and other conspiracy theorists say this year's blood moon is the start of the apocalypse, however he didn't came up with a date. I added that in the article. --LovelyGirl7 talk 01:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anunnaki

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Anunnaki 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) 12:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anunnaki

The article Anunnaki you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Anunnaki 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) 12:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pythagoras

The article Pythagoras you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pythagoras 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 Hrodvarsson -- Hrodvarsson (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

One GA after another

You're a remarkable asset! Haploidavey (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I really appreciate it. As you apparently have already noticed, I just had two articles become GAs today: Anunnaki and Pythagoras. Ironically, almost all of the articles that are just now becoming GAs I actually nominated months ago (I nominated Anunnaki back in September and Pythagoras back in November), but they have been languishing unnoticed this whole time. I think the reason why they finally started getting reviewed just recently is because it was not until this month that I started asking editors to review them. Until about a month ago, I just kept waiting for them to come along on their own; now I realize that finding reviewers requires active effort. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I've never dared to attempt a nomination for GA; or come to that, reviewed a GA candidate. Your approach to these promotions and reviews reflects very well on you -- or perhaps I should say, on your editing persona. Mine is too easily caffled up (a fine Welsh expression, that) with doubt and defensiveness. I seem to prefer that my own efforts go unremarked; all "languishing unnoticed" among the B class! Haploidavey (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

My final steps to David Meade being a GA nominee

Hi @Katolophyromai: if you had to evaluate my article, do you think it meets all criteria for GA status? I've went through the criteria (well written, veriable, no original research, broad in coverage, neutral, stable, and illustrated if possible by image) and I've addressed most of the comments on the peer review. If you were the reviewer, do you think it meets all the criteria? --LovelyGirl7 talk 00:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: It is hard to say; at first glance the article looks like GA-level quality, but there may be some sourcing or minor copyediting issues that I did not notice upon merely glancing at it. I think it is definitely worth nominating. If there are any problems with it, the reviewer will surely point them out. My first two GA nominations were both failures, but they were also learning experiences and they helped me improve my writing. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: I will nominate it (I just did) and I'm prepared for any scenario with the nomination. I'm also prepared to get comments on it as well, as even when nominated, I still have a chance to improve it. And when/if it passes and becomes a GA, I'm planning to shift gears to Revelation 12 sign prophecy and do the same thing. --LovelyGirl7 talk 02:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: That sounds like great news! I should warn you, however, it may be a while before you find an editor who is willing to review the article. I will probably help you with the Revelation 12 sign prophecy article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Sounds like a plan while David Meade's article is waiting. It isn't a guarantee though. It's a plan but I like that. If not Revelation 12, maybe this one. I'll think about it as soon as the David Meade article gets GA status one day. --LovelyGirl7 talk 03:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Saturnalia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Saturnalia 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Please don't strike my text! I use strike to indicate that I'm satisfied as GA reviewer that an item is closed. Could you please undo all your strikes now, thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kato

Krishna was never called a Rajput. Rajput word orginated in 9th century only, and Krishna born in Ancient Yadava, there is no Rajput word in Ancient history. Rajputs have started claiming Yaduvanshi origins only since 21st century. Rajput is a modern caste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnavlamba (talk • contribs) 15:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Arnavlamba: I have no idea why you are talking to me about this. I do not even know who the Rajputs are. I just corrected a grammatical error in the lead; it was a different editor who reverted your edit. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kato, I know, the other Administrator Utcuursh is biased and misusing his Administrator Privileges. Can you please let me know how to report Administrators? As in how do we complain about Administrators who are distorting facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnavlamba (talk • contribs) 22:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Arnavlamba: I am afraid I cannot help you, for two reasons. The first reason is because I do not actually know how to report an administrator who is "misusing" his or her administrator privileges. The second reason is because I am unfamiliar with this subject and I do not know which of you is correct. As such, there is no reason for me to trust your word over the administrator's. I have generally found that when a user complains about an administrator misusing his or her privileges, it is usually just because the user is upset about not getting his or her way. I recommend that you start a discussion on the talk page over this issue. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kato, the question is not being upset about anything. Filing an RTI will automatically force Wikipedia to release details. What I am asking if there is a process of becoming a Wikipedia Administrator then there should be a way of reporting them to the right authorities. Just need an article on that. Don't have to go through the pain of Sending a Postal Mail to Wikipedia Bangalore Office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnavlamba (talk • contribs) 22:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Your DYK nominations

A little thing: the article name needs to be both Wikilinked and bold. And another thing: the character count, including spaces, to be under 200. Otherwise you appear to be very good at getting articles to GA, which justifies submitting DYKs. A reviewer will take this on, and go through the checklist. You will need to address shortfalls. Non-reviewers may comment (as I did). Once approved, a DYK sits in the approved list until an Admin moves it into Prep. From there into Queue, and then published. There is a remote possibility that the Admin will ask for more work even though the original reviewer signed off. QPQ: Your first five DYKs are unencumbered, but beyond five, you will have to review one for every new submittal. David notMD (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

If you intend to supply images with your DYK proposals then you must insert (pictured) at the appropriate place in the wording of the hook. The image must appear in the article. David notMD (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Saturnalia

The article Saturnalia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Saturnalia 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Changing image of Satan

Do you believe this image is ideal for the Satan wiki page?

http://mysticinvestigations.com/paranormal/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/satan-the-devil1.jpg Edwin trinh14 (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

It is definitely not suitable for the main image. It reflects a very late twentieth-century western conception of Satan that is far removed from the historical perception. Also, it is not a particularly notable portrayal. The final issue, however, is that the image is copyrighted and I cannot imagine us being able to get it under "fair use," which means we could not use it, even if it was acceptable. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Satan

The article Satan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Satan 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) 15:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep it up

Congratulations on your GAs. Keep it up.

Btw: While I wait for the David Meade article to be reviewed, I’m planning to work on List of conspiracy theories (maybe even help it get to FL class; I’m not 100% sure). I did added that there are conspiracies involving the Pats in the Sports section and I divided the sports section into separate sections. LovelyGirl7 talk 16:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: List of conspiracy theories sounds interesting and I can definitely help you with that one. A few immediate thoughts are that the "Anti-Catholicism" section definitely ought to include mention of Alexander Hislop's book The Two Babylons and the "Extraterrestrials" section should definitely mention Zecharia Sitchin and the Anunnaki. I seem to recall reading about conspiracy theories during the Flavian Dynasty of the Roman Empire claiming that the emperor Nero had only faked his death in 68 AD and that he had really gone into hiding and was planning to return and overthrow the Flavians. That would definitely be worth including in the "Deaths and disappearances" section, if I can find sources for it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: I’ve added most of the stuff you told me and divided the space part in sections. For where it talks about Nibiru, I mentioned Lieder, Begley, and Croft. Also, I did added some parts of Meade's prediction in Apocalypticism under the section "David Meade". —LovelyGirl7 talk 17:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Saturnalia

Hello! Your submission of Saturnalia at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

I think I cannot help you on this one, but let's wait for a second opinion.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Satan

Hello! Your submission of Satan at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

Nothing you cannot fix, but it will take a bit of work if you want both hooks to pass.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Enlil

The article Enlil 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:Enlil for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of A. Parrot -- A. Parrot (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

What do you think about my recent edit?

@Katolophyromai: I made a paragraph about David Meade's 2018 predictions, like North Korea becoming a world-class superpower that year and Nibiru destroying Earth that year. How do you think the paragraph about his 2018 predictions look? I also mentioned Paul Begley because he did appear in a interview with him saying that Nibiru would destroy Earth. --LovelyGirl7 talk 20:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: I think it looks excellent. I was hoping that David Meade would just fade into obscurity along with the hundreds of other doomsday forecasters, but it does not bode well for that hope if he is still making predictions and the press is still reporting on them months after his initial failed attempt. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Thanks. I can't wait to hear his excuses when he's wrong again in 2018. I'm still waiting for my article to be reviewed though. Jim Bakker does seem like a interesting article as well to work on while I wait on the Meade article and I don't mind you helping me on the Bakker article either. I’m still figuring out which article I’m planning to work on to get to GA while I wait on Meade. --LovelyGirl7 talk 21:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: Maybe I can help you with that. What sort of article are you looking for? --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Either Jim Bakker, anything related to the Cassiopeia constellation (stars like 47 Cassiopeia), Harold Camping, any other astronomical object (name of exoplanet, rogue planet or asteroid) or another doomsday preacher/End Times conspiracy theorist. One of those Id work on and maybe my second GA nominee. —LovelyGirl7 talk 23:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: I decided I'm going to work on Jim Bakker (for now). It might be my second GA nomination but I'm planning to work on it. --LovelyGirl7 talk 20:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: That sounds great. I do not really know very much about him, but I will try to help you where I can. Right now, I have several other articles I am working on, mainly Origen and Dumuzid the Shepherd, both of which I am hoping to bring up to GA. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Good for you on those articles. As for Jim Bakker, I did notice that the "Career" section needs better citations. I changed some of their citations to better ones. Any other sources do you think I should add citations to (so I can do it)? --LovelyGirl7 talk 20:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Jonah

On 16 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jonah, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that many modern Bible scholars consider the story of the prophet Jonah a work of satire? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jonah. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jonah), 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) 00:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Precious

"We are all just human beings, plain and simple."

Thank you for quality articles about ancient history, religion, mythology, and languages, such as Jonah, Aphrodite, Sappho and Pythagoras, for expansions and reviewing, for "We are all just human beings, plain and simple." - Spencer Alexander, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you so much for the appreciation, but I do have a few corrections: "Alexander" is actually my middle name; my last name is "McDaniel." Also, although I did contribute to the article Sappho and I played a major role in selecting some of the images that are currently in the article, the vast majority of the article was actually written by Caeciliusinhorto. I can rightfully claim credit for all the other articles you have listed, but I would feel dishonest if I tried to claim complete credit for Sappho. (That is why I have it listed in the "Significantly contributed to" section on my userpage, rather than the "Wrote almost entirely" section.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! May I just say Spencer then? - I added Sappho for a personal touch, because it appeared with one of my DYK ;) - The better articles have several mothers and fathers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I see. It is fine if you call me Spencer. I initially did not reveal my real name at all because I was concerned it might make it easier for disgruntled editors (of which there have been several) to disseminate false or libelous information about me on the internet or otherwise try to damage my personal reputation, but I decided to go ahead and reveal it for two main reasons. The first reason was because I decided that revealing my identity would make it easier for people reading my articles to find out who wrote them and thereby be more capable of accurately evaluating their scholarly authority (or deficiency thereof). The second reason was because I write so much for Wikipedia that I decided that I wanted some credit for everything I was doing. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I understand. I am Gerda ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

My Jim Bakker edits

@Katolophyromai: I’ve been doing several changes on the Jim Bakker article by revising citations on the article. Do you think I should add more citations? Also while I add citations, I’d like to work on the lead section as well. Is there anything I can add in the lead section? I’m seriously considering (once it meets the criteria) this article as a second GA nomination after Meade (thats if I address everything) but I’m going to focus on the issues first. LovelyGirl7 talk 13:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: More citations to reliable sources are always good, especially in biographies of living persons (except when they become ridiculously excessive, which, in my opinion, is a very rare occurrence, though others might consider my own citation style "ridiculously excessive"). I would recommend that, if you have additional reliable sources on the subject, add them. They usually cannot harm.

The lead should be a summary of the content of the article, providing all the most basic information. Usually it is recommended to write the article and then expand the lead once you have finished. The leads for FAs are usually about four paragraphs, so that is the length I try to aim for. Shorter articles, however, can have leads that are much shorter than that and the size of the lead should generally be proportional to the length of the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: I did make some changes to the lead and added some stuff. And I agree it doesn’t hurt to add citations at all. The tag is still there, but any other sentences you think I should add citations to? —LovelyGirl7 talk 00:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)