User talk:Katolophyromai/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Your GA nomination of Anu

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

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

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

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

My new draft

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Katolophyromai: I don’t like to get political here either but I did also heard Mueller was one of the people who lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction [1]. Back to Krassenstein, I understand I can’t be biased against him, even if he’s a annoying Trump stalker. We could try to rescue the article together before the AFD closes. If we can’t, I could accept that it’s deleted and that it’s not notable. I know you don’t know about Ed or Brian but at least I told you who he is though (ponzi scheme, anti-Trump stalker, house raided in 2016, journalist for IR.net). I do respect your thoughts on Ed though. There’s still a chance to save the article and I know that if nothing is done, it’ll be deleted. —LovelyGirl7 talk 13:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Articles for creation

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

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

The Trouble with "Cryptid"

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

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

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

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

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

Meade is back

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

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

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

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

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

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

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

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

Hi Katolophyromai whats up

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

Barnstar!

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

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

Interview request

Hi Katolophyromai,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did sections on David Meade

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

Your GA nomination of Dragon

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

Your GA nomination of Dragon

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

GA nominee K2-155d

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New WikiProject

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

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

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

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

Magdalene

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

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

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

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

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

Sophocles' lost plays

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

إليك وساما!

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

hello

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

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

Hi Katolophyromai

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

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

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

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

WikiProject Folklore templates now available

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

On Dragons...

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

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

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

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

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

Your GA nomination of Dragon

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

List of repitalian humanoids

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

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

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

Osiris-Dionysus

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

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

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

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

Yahweh

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

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

What i was telling him is this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Caleb. I will explain further; the most important thing here at Wikipedia is making sure that our encyclopedia reflects the consensus of mainstream scholarship, so, in the case of the Bible and its origins, that means Biblical scholars. Now, the source cited in the article, as well as most other scholarly sources on the subject, agree that the Israelites originated from within Canaan, a fact, which, as I briefly alluded to in my edit summary, is supported by strong linguistic and archaeological evidence. As I noted, Hebrew is closely related to Ugaritic, Phoenician, and other Canaanite languages and it is actually possible for a speaker of one language to understand and converse with a speaker of one of the others. Since language is typically the strongest indicator of shared cultural heritage, this by itself strongly indicates that the Israelites were of Canaanite origin. From an archaeological perspective, the material culture of the early Israelites is fundamentally Canaanite; in fact, the only clear distinction between an early Israelite settlement and a Canaanite one is that Israelite settlements do not contain pig bones; whereas Canaanite settlements typically have them in abundance. Aside from this, there is really no cultural distinction between them. Now, as the Pentateuch suggests, the Israelites did eventually try to separate themselves from their Canaanite neighbors, but that does not alter the fact of their Canaanite origins. An excellent distillation of the archaeological evidence of Israelite origins can be found in the chapter "Who were the Israelites" on pages 97 through 122 of The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts (2001) by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, which, despite initially ruffling a few feathers at the popular level, does not really say anything that academics have not known and, for the most part, accepted for decades.

The definition of the word "Canaanite" can be a bit slippery at times, but it is best to stick with the usage found in the sources. William G. Dever, one of the scholars cited in the article to support the statement in question, defines the standard scholarly usage of the term "Canaanite" as "the indigenous population of the Bronze Age (and Early Iron Age) Canaan... A generic term, it denotes the West Semitic peoples of what is now southern Syria, the Lebanon coast, Israel, the West Bank, and Jordan." By this definition, the Israelites clearly qualify as Canaanites. When the article says that Yahweh was not originally a Canaanite god, it means that he appears to have been originally worshipped outside of Canaan and, unlike the Israelite people themselves, was probably introduced to the region from elsewhere. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply Though i still adamantly disagree, luckily i have some science on my side as well

I will now refer you to this study on the DNA of skeletons found in ancient Lavant cities associated with te Canaanites

It traces the genetic marker to modern day Lebanon A distinct, though similar marker from Israelites These were different people groups, the fact that Wikipedia wont admit to the fact that its highly contested (and factually false with this study) is ridiculous Its a simple word change Even without the genetic study, to state things as assuredly as the page states the position is false confidence on a contested position http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/ancient-dna-reveals-fate-mysterious-canaanites

Im not sure the link to the article about the study posted, let me know if it didnt

Reorder of the history sectiion in Joke article

Dear Katolophyromai,

You asked why I wrote the history section in Joke in reverse chronological order. I was not planning to respond, but then I thought maybe you could both learn from this writing technique. I did it to make the section more interesting. More thought-provoking. More entertaining. Sometimes doing the unexpected invites new perspectives. That was my intention. I am sorry that you re-arranged that section back in chronological order. I found it more engaging written backwards. However it is not worth my time and energy to rewrite your rewrite. I am too busy researching new topics to add. Your time might be put to better use by doing the same.

sincerely, charleen

@Smithriedel: I did not find it "more engaging" at all; I just found it really confusing and unnatural. You cannot chronicle the historical development of something in reverse, for several reasons. For one thing, each stage in the development builds on the stages that came before it. If someone tries to write a history of something backwards, then each element of that history will be introduced without background information; if I tried to write a biography like this, I would end up telling the readers (in a completely imaginary, made-up scenario) that the man I am writing about was devastated by his wife's death before telling them that he married her, telling them that his son was released from prison before telling them why that son was in prison or that the man even had a son, and telling them that he ran away from his parents before telling them that he had parents and they were abusive towards him. It is the same reason why no classicist ever writes about the Seleucid Empire before going back and talking about the Wars of the Diadochi, followed by the conquests of Alexander the Great; one event naturally leads to the events that come after it and following the chain backwards breaks up the order of events and ruins the natural progression.

Furthermore, chronological order is the way time naturally progresses, so, when reading a history of something, that is the order that any sane reader will expect the history to be written in; if it is not written in that order, the reader will just be bewildered trying to make sense of it. Regardless of whether you thought it was "more engaging" backwards (a notion which I disagree with entirely), an encyclopedia should always try to present information in the clearest, least confusing way possible and if trying to make the information "more engaging" interferes with a reader's ability to keep track of what is going on, clarity should always take precedence over "engagingness." --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gilgamesh

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gilgamesh you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Farang Rak Tham -- Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Northwestern High School (Indiana). Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

Content is not decided on WP:V, although it is required. Content is decided on WP:CONSENSUS. Without consensus, new disputed content stays out. You are required to WP:AGF and assume that I believe I've removed your addition for the valid reasons I've stated. You don't have to agree, but you are required to work out the differences prior to your addition in any form going back in. See you at the talk page. Please make your argument dispassionately, and base it on sources and policies. I've given you policy based reason to oppose your addition already, I'd suggest you address them. Please note that argument based on anything other than sources and policy will be discounted (WP:ILIKEIT), as will argument based on what is in other articles (WP:OSE). Thanks John from Idegon (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: I know what edit-warring is for Pete's sake; I have been editing here for almost a year and half and have written fourteen "Good Articles." Most of my edits, however, have been on the subject of ancient history and I have not written much (or, indeed, hardly anything at all) about schools. Furthermore, for the record, I only reverted your edit once, followed by attempts to modify the passage to make it more suitable to the article in light of your concerns; that is not edit-warring, it is nowhere close to violating the three-revert-rule, and it is certainly no reason to leave intimidating messages on my talk page. Now, could you please explain why you think that the content I added is against policy, as I have already requested from you on the talk page, rather than chastising me for not understanding what you are trying to say. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Matthias Blübaum‎

Matthias Blübaum‎, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus

I agree with what you have stated at Talk:Jesus, their belief was genuine that Jesus was raised from the dead. Whether Peter was executed for being a Christian instead of causing uproar or advocating sedition cannot be known. Romans in the beginning did not understand that Christianity is different from Judaism, so they had little reason to persecute Christians for being Christians. As Ehrman states in his TTC courses and Moss agrees, for most of the first 300-400 years of Christianity it wasn't illegal to be a Christian. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

We could use your wisdom

Katolophyromai, you seem to be a respected editor around here. I think the article Origins of Christianity would benefit a lot if you were to join my and Joshua Jonathan's discussion "Using reliable sources to support fringe theories." We might not be able to work this out in the most proper way, so we could really use your help.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gilgamesh

The article Gilgamesh 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:Gilgamesh for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Farang Rak Tham -- Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Ninurta

Sorry, I was truly in error by removing those tags. Thank you for replacing them and explaining. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gilgamesh

The article Gilgamesh you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gilgamesh 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) 23:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

E.P. Sanders (1993), The Historical Figure of Jesus

Do you have, maybe, a copy of E.P. Sanders (1993), The Historical Figure of Jesus? If so, could you check if p. 213 says something like

Jesus was a Second-Temple rabbi who, consistent with Jewish beliefs and practices of the time, as recorded by the rabbis, commonly associated illness with sin and healing with forgiveness.

Thanks, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I do, in fact, have a copy of the book. The one I currently have is checked out from my local public library, but I am planning on buying my own copy of it soon, because I have found it to be immensely helpful, particularly with the articles Mary Magdalene and Jesus in comparative mythology, which I have devoted a lot of time and effort to rewriting. Throughout the course of the book, Sanders talks a great deal about Jesus's beliefs being consistent with those of other Second Temple Jews. On pages 212-214, he specifically discusses the incident in Mark 2:1-12, in which Jesus heals a paralytic, saying "Your sins are forgiven." Sanders does this as part of a section describing "A series of conflict narratives" in the Gospel of Mark. The meat of the discussion is found on pages 213-214, where he argues that Jesus's actions described in this passage would not have been perceived as controversial by the Jewish authorities, despite the statement in Mark 2:6-7, which claims that the Jewish authorities accused him of being a blasphemer. Instead, Sanders argues that Jesus's actions reflect a very typical first-century Jewish understanding of Divine forgiveness; Jesus uses the passive tense, implying that God is the one doing the forgiving, not him. Furthermore, Sanders argues that Jesus would not have been accused of blasphemy for claiming to know the mind of God either, since other Jewish preachers, such as Honi the Circle-Drawer, made statements like these all the time. I do not think Sanders directly says that "The Jews associated healing with forgiveness," but it is an inference which is very self-evident from the passage he quotes and becomes increasingly obvious from Sanders's dissection of it, so I think that this can be very much taken as implied. Overall, I would say the statement in question is supported by the source cited, though, if you wanted more literal accuracy, you could say something more along the lines of "According to E. P. Sanders, Jesus's ideas on healing and forgiveness were in line with Second Temple Jewish thought and would not have been likely to provoke controversy among the Jewish authorities of his day." --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Royal Game of Ur

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Royal Game of Ur 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) 22:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Royal Game of Ur

The article Royal Game of Ur you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Royal Game of Ur 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) 00:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

"Rock Is Dead (Marilyn Manson song)"

Hi Katolophyromai! I was wondering if you would be interested in reviewing the article for "Rock Is Dead (Marilyn Manson song)", which I nominated for GA. Thanks for your work on this site!--MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: I would like to apologize; I saw this notice earlier and meant to respond to it, but I ended up forgetting about it, probably because I was busy working on some other article. I see another editor has already opened a review on the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible Wikipedia-integrated academic publication

Hi Spencer,

I came across the articles that you helped to write on Hypatia.

Would you be interested in putting any/all of them (or any other article) though external, academic peer review for publication in the WikiJournal of Humanities? It's an academic journal in the same format as the medical journal www.WikiJMed.org.

It couples the rigour of academic peer review with the extreme reach of the encyclopedia. It is therefore an excellent way to achieve public engagement, outreach and impact public understanding of science. Peer-reviewed articles are dual-published both as standard academic PDFs, as well as directly into Wikipedia. This improves the scientific accuracy of the encyclopedia, and rewards academics with citable, indexed publications. It also provides much greater reach than is normally achieved through traditional scholarly publishing.

Anyway, let me know whether you'd be interested in putting an article through academic peer review (either solo, or with a team of coauthors). Alternatively, if you would prefer to write on a different topic, we may be able to accommodate you.

Further information at v:WikiJournal_of_Humanities/Publishing. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 12:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: I may be interested in this, but I have never put anything through academic peer review for publication before, so I am not entirely sure how it works. I am guessing it is probably extremely difficult and complicated. This could be a good learning experience, though. The idea sounds interesting and I may want more information. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem it's actually a lot like the featured article review article, except by outside experts rather than other Wikipedians. There's an outline of the process here, and information for authors here. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 03:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Royal Game of Ur

Hello! Your submission of Royal Game of Ur 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! Droodkin (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Amphisbaena

Do you have Amphisbaena on your radar? Cleaning up a bunch of related articles, I figured it might be of interest to you. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: It was not on my watchlist before, but I have added it now. I saw your recent edits there. Ironically, right before adding this reply, I just reverted an edit to the article Mušḫuššu, in which the other user attempted to insert a large amount of cryptozoology nonsense claiming that it could be a real animal. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yikes! I had no idea about this. The topic seems to have attracted a significant amount of fringe attention, if the external links I just removed are any indication. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Gilgamesh

On 13 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gilgamesh, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that historians generally agree that Gilgamesh (pictured) was a historical king of the Sumerian city-state of Uruk? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gilgamesh. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gilgamesh), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations! Your hook placed #3 on our June 2018 stats! Yoninah (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Mary Magdalene

Such splendid work has been done by you on the Mary Magdalene page. Have you considered nominating the article for elevation to GA or FA status? – Conservatrix (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Conservatrix: Yes. I am definitely planning on nominating it for GA status, but I do not feel it is quite ready yet. There are still some parts of the "Religious views" section that are uncited or need work. I and going to try to find citations for those parts and, once I have cleaned up that section, I will nominate it for GA. I do not think it is ready at all for "Featured Article" status because that one requires consistent formatting and citation style, which the article currently lacks. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Excellent work, Kato! Great article!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Dhammakaya movement as good topic

I would appreciate your opinion on the nomination of this topic as a good topic. Thank you.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mary Magdalene

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mary Magdalene 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 Display name 99 -- Display name 99 (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)