User talk:A. Parrot/Archive 5

Nyuserre Ini
Hello Parrot, Nyuserre Ini is now at FAC, if you have some time, could you possibly spare a comment on it? Thank you!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Greetings,

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


 * In ordinary Egyptian temple ritual, the type that was performed at Philae, priests gave offerings of food, clothing, and other goods to the temple deity every day. Only priests were allowed to perform or witness these rites. Temples also celebrated periodic festivals. The exact activities in each festival varied, but they usually included a procession where the cult image of the temple deity was carried to some important site near the temple. The public could watch processions and some other public festival events, but their participation was never necessary. Egyptian temple ritual was all about serving the gods, and that was the priests' job.


 * Mystery rites were a Greek innovation. There were many kinds of mystery rites dedicated to different deities, but the major thing they have in common is that they were designed to stir the emotions of the participant and often to make him or her feel close to a deity. That contact with the deity gave the participant some kind of special status. The mysteries' focus on the individual worshipper is not an Egyptian tradition. The mysteries dedicated to Isis developed sometime after Greeks began to worship Isis in the Hellenistic period. We don't know where the mysteries started, and Alexandria is one possibility. But Greece, Italy, and Asia Minor are the only places where we know for certain that the mysteries of Isis were practiced. It's possible that the mysteries of Isis were never practiced anywhere in Egypt.


 * Philae operated at the same time as the mysteries of Isis were practiced, but it was a very traditional, Egyptian-style temple with Egyptian-style rituals. There are no signs of the mysteries there. It did have a close relationship with the peoples of Nubia, especially those in the region just south of Philae. In fact, it may have been Nubians who maintained the cult of Isis at Philae after all other Egyptian temple cults died out. (I can suggest some excellent sources on that topic if you're interested.) So the image of Nubian worshippers fits perfectly well in the article on Philae, just not at mysteries of Isis. A. Parrot (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your detailled answer and sorry for my delayed response. I understand the difference now and therefore will use my image for other entries. On a side note, I own a book that discusses a shrine discovered in Qasr Ibrim, Lower Nubia, which the author ascribes to the Isis mysteries cult. Mentioned shrine would prove that the Isis mysteries were indeed practiced in Nubia (Nobadia) and therefore probably in Egypt as well. Source: William Y. Adams: Qasr Ibrim: The Ballana Phase. (2013)


 * LeGabrie (talk) 01:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Strange that I haven't heard that claim before. It looks like the book is hard to obtain, but I'm trying to understand Isis and the mysteries as thoroughly as possible, so I may need to get it somehow. I'd like to see exactly what Adams says. I'd be very grateful if you could quote some of it to me—not the whole section of the book, but maybe just a sentence or two that sum up why Adams thinks the mysteries were performed there. A. Parrot (talk) 07:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure. The related place of worship was "only for the initiated few, not a public monument", which is why Adams calls it a "shrine" instead of "temple" (p 60). Futhermore, "(...)the contents of the shrine at Qasr Ibrim make it clear that this relatively small building was devoted to celebration of the esoteric Isis mystery religion."(Ibid.) Mentioned contents consist of horned altars, decribed as "one of the recognised features of the Isis cult", offering basins and also well preserved wooden votive plaques, which all depict animals "connected to Isis in some way", among other hints (p. 129-130, 155). It is concluded that the Isis mysteries cult is "almost certainly the cult that was practiced in the little shrine at Ibrim, while 'official' religion was carried on in the big Ptolemaic stone temple (I think Adams refers to the one in Dakka) or at Philae" (p. 155). Hope that helps.LeGabrie (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Personally, I'm a little skeptical of what Adams says. Even at temples where the mysteries were performed, it's hard to relate the archaeological evidence with the text that describes the rites, so how can we identify a mystery cult site just through archaeological remains? But making that argument is not my job as a Wikipedian, so I suppose I'll have to find the book and incorporate it into my work somehow.


 * If you ever want or need to study the relationship between the Nubians and the worship of Isis at Philae, good sources are Philae and the End of Egyptian Religion (2008) by Jitse Dijkstra and this study by Eugene Cruz-Uribe, which is a direct reply to Dijkstra's book. A. Parrot (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I scanned page 155, which offers the most information on that matter, and uploaded it on Google Drive (Sorry for the not perfect quality). Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mn4tZj54CXcVlBVC0zM01iVnc/view?usp=sharing LeGabrie (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! If you ever need to know something about ancient Egypt or its religion, let me know. I have piles of sources on the subject, and I'll be happy to return the favor. A. Parrot (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Doesn't have that much to do with Ancient Egypt (Only like 10%), but I would be happy if you could review my entry on the Nubian Kingdom of Alodia at some point. I want to get it featured, but I still have some things to do, like fleshing out chapters and eliminating typos and original research. LeGabrie (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm very busy and will be for at least the next couple of months, but if you're still working on it after that, I'll do a review. A. Parrot (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Seven years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you today for Decipherment of ancient Egyptian scripts, "of which hieroglyphs are the most famous, was a much longer process than it is often thought of as being. I've made an effort to give credit to everybody who contributed to the process of decipherment, and to give an impartial account of the controversy between the two who contributed the most, Jean-François Champollion and Thomas Young."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you today for Hathor, "the party girl of the ancient Egyptian pantheon; love, sex, music, booze, and fancy foreign jewelry are all part of her job description. She also has udders and a tail. ... Joking aside, Hathor was probably the most important goddess in ancient Egypt for most of its history."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for December 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Isis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Apis and Drawing Down the Moon ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Isis check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Isis?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

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

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ancient Egypt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punt ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ancient_Egypt check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ancient_Egypt?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

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

Neferefre at FAC
Dear Parrot, the wiki article on Neferefre has reached FAC, see here. Could you possibly comment on the nomination ? This would help the article get enough reviews. Thank you! Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll look through it this weekend. A. Parrot (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

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


 * Um, that wasn't a test edit. I was removing some strangely placed italic formatting, which, now that I look into the page history, were put in place as part of this big edit. Did you perhaps misread the diff of my edit? Your reversion put the weird formatting back. A. Parrot (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that response. I don't understand it; I must be thick. Please explain why you think you were removing some weird formatting. You actually removed some comments; see here. Perhaps you had some reason for doing so. Could you explain, please? AWhiteC (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm really confused. I didn't edit the article on Samuel Finer, which is the diff you just gave me. That was an IP editor. I edited Age of Enlightenment and removed some misplaced italics in an image caption there. A. Parrot (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Apologies. I've restored your edit to Age of Enlightenment. AWhiteC (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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

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


 * Thank you very much. You haven't overstepped at all. FAC stresses me out, so I'd rather hear criticisms now rather than then. The article is very long (about 10,000 words is the maximum recommended by WP:Article size, and Isis is around 9900), so if I can make it shorter without sacrificing comprehensiveness, I certainly want to. My guess is that the repetition comes from three sources: a desire to make absolutely sure a lay reader understands the societal context, a desire to bridge the divide between the Egyptian and Greco-Roman sections (to justify putting all this information in one place rather than splitting the article), and my instinct to write with lots of transition, so that ideas flow from one to another rather than being stated without introduction. It's possible to go overboard with any of those things.


 * Regarding your specific examples, I'm not sure about the first. I think of the lead sentence as a "lead within the lead" that defines the significance of the topic, and Isis' G-R phase is as much a part of her significance as her Egyptian phase. That's a matter of Wikipedian house style, so maybe I'll ask some MOS or FAC people about whether my view of the lead sentence is correct. Your second example is valid, and I'll have to look out for similar stuff throughout the article (while consulting with my resident lay readers—i.e., family—to make sure too much of the context isn't lost).


 * If your main criticism is repetition and padding, I assume you find the substance of the article accurate? A. Parrot (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * FAC is a horrible, nerve-jangling business; as a habitual snowflake, I've managed to avoid it. So far. But more to the point, I seem to have forgotten my primary reason for posting here (a common problem for old geezers like me). So yes, the sections relating to G-R seem substantively accurate; indeed very well and clearly written, barring the occasional blip; and they gave me a few surprises. I didn't know (or perhaps had forgotten) anything much about the enclosed, walled courtyard form and layout of Isaean temples; very like Bona dea's walled precincts.


 * I forget who said it, but Roman officialdom was exceedingly suspicious of any secret cult - or other organisation - that might pursue its own, potentially subversive interest, rather than openly seek to benefit the established state. Religious enthusiasm, unofficial "clubs", mystes, "magic" and any form of superstitio were equally suspect; I think this needs a little further clarification. While the official adoption of such cults meant their more effective control, the apparent lack of an authoritative, state-subsidised priesthood in this instance is surprising to me.


 * My Mum used to act as my domesticated proof-reader. She was very good at it, and merciless; she'd done it professionaly for some years, and knew nothing about ancient Rome. An ideal combination!


 * I noticed that in the lede, you now have "Some of her devotees said she encompassed all the other divine powers of the ancient world." This is presumably a late syncretic development. It doesn't need "of the ancient world" (that's implicit); "said" would be less accurate than "believed", and "all other" would mean male deities as well, which seems unlikely. I've been trying to come up with an alternative, such as "all-goddess" - but that's far from self-explanatory. Unfortunately, our Mother goddess article has been well and truly hijacked by a determined POV warrior. Haploidavey (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * All good points. I knew about the Roman suspicion of secrecy, but I'm not sure if my sources directly connect it to the spasms of hostility toward the Isis cult. The problem is that the sources that address this issue most directly are experts writing to other experts and don't always state the context as extensively as they should. It's one of my perennial frustrations on Wikipedia, where NOR prevents us from going beyond the sources. I'll see if I can wring anything more out of Takács, Versluys, or Orlin; Witt or even Alvar might mention this point, though I don't think they do.


 * Isis' priesthood hasn't been covered all that extensively, either, but I saw no sign of state sponsorship in my sources. The next conference volume of Isis studies, which was originally expected in 2017 but will probably be lucky to come out in 2018, is supposed to focus on priests, and I think I saw somewhere that it will be a two-volume whale of a book. I can't use it (or be faulted at FAC for not using it) if it hasn't been published yet. When I do get it, perhaps I can satisfy your curiosity. A. Parrot (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, please do keep me posted (here, if you wish) on what's new in scholarshio on G&R priesthoods. I completely concur with your observations regarding OR - or rather, NOR. I've been "accused" of it 'nuff times... and have had to plead guilty on several counts. The more rarified the accademic source, the less explicit they tend to be on what would seem (to me and thee, by the looks of it) the minimal requisite context and background. Mainstream can be so very cautious and dull... Haploidavey (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

Isis 2
FA! Yay! I hope you're pleased with yourself. I would be. :-) Haploidavey (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Indeed I am. Five years' work finished! A hundred academic authors cited! (And yet so much more left to do, including Osiris someday, though I'm a bit burned out on that family at the moment.) Thank you very much for your suggestions. There may be a few bits of redundancy lurking in there, but overall I think the information-to-words ratio is pretty high. And, of course, if there's anything you're working on that I can help with, let me know. Cybele, perhaps? There's some overlap in the sourcing, though of the three main books I drew upon for understanding mystery cults, one is rather general and another only mentions Cybele in passing. A. Parrot (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I just noticed your "Things that made me tired"! Well yes. Five years... amazing how slowly/quickly they pass (take your choice). Isis is good and dense, as it should be. But now that you mention it, I'd really welcome any kind of attention at Cybele. Other articles too, but she's a particularly mysterious and difficult critter (even more than Attis, if such a thing can be). I was also going to ask your opinion on how best to approach the wall-of-text-hefty, wholesale editing/overwriting by a single editor at Pompey, but I've a hunch you might not want to touch it with a bargepole. Nor might I, but it still bugs me like ringworm. Let's just pretend I didn't ask... Haploidavey (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Pompey, ye gods. Just added it to my mental list of articles-that-are-just-way-too-long-no-really-there's-no-justification-for-that. (Obligatory link to the script that tallies article text length, in case you don't have it.) Except on really huge topics, I look askance at anything over 10,000 words, although now I see that the passage in WP's guidelines that recommended 10,000 as a maximum length was recently deleted for being based on "dubious claims". Anyway, Pompey is 20,000 words. At least 020amonra isn't likely to resist the necessary trimming, unlike the editors of certain other bloated articles. But how to go about it, I wouldn't know, except that your cutting tool should probably be a machete. And, obviously, images should fill some of the holes so as to break up the wall of text.


 * I hope to examine Cybele in detail sometime, but, as usual, I have a great deal else on my plate and don't know when I'll be able to concentrate on it. However, I can recommend you one or two sources that may be helpful. My main sources on mystery cults were Romanising Oriental Gods by Jaime Alvar,  Mystery Cults of the Ancient World by Hugh Bowden, and Initiation into the Mysteries of the Ancient World by Jan Bremmer. I know only Alvar is cited in the Cybele article right now, and then only once, so I don't know if you're familiar with it.


 * Bowden is rather general but pretty extensive. The book might not tell you anything you don't already know, or it might give you some useful details and background information that other sources gloss over, as it did for me. Bremmer's book isn't likely to help with Cybele despite being available for free—it only mentions her in passing. Alvar's book is quirky and opinionated—possibly the snarkiest academic work I've ever read—but it's very extensive and generally pretty incisive. For whatever reason I didn't read much of the portions dedicated to Cybele, unlike those on Mithras, but I still have all three books on hand and can bring myself up to speed when examining the article on Cybele, when I have the time. A. Parrot (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping! For some reason, it didn't work as a ping; but it nudged your talk-page to the top of my very badly managed watchlist. I've been preoccupied with several small, poorly sourced articles on Rome's material culture, dotted about the place. I should have learned by now that scratching an itch produces a rash; and that rashes, once their cause is known, need stringent cleansing and ointment. You seem to be doing the same at Osiris and elsewhere (your edit summaries are spot-on, btw). Big rewrites ahoy? I'm putting Pompey aside - maybe permanently, because, to be honest, I don't find him all that interesting. Certainly not interesting enough to shift mountains on his behalf; I'm not even sure I'm capable of that. I started editing his article because I noticed it was just a dump for Plutarch, and needed good-quality secondary scholarship. Now it's become a dump, source-wise, for Plutarch and Dio. Anyway, I've a vague plan to work on some very long, intimidating topics - and some very short, deceptively "easy" ones - which I actually care about.


 * Thank you for the sources. My old PC died a few weeks ago, and I had to transfer its resources to my annoyingly titchy MacBook Air. That didn't work very well - I can't find the greater half of it, which (iirc) included at least some of Alvar's work; so thanks for jogging my memory. (If you enjoy quirky and snarky; try Skutch. Such an assassin! I'd hate to have been on the receiving end of a Skutch critique.) I'll look up the others over the next few days.


 * Some of the deficits (as I see them) at Cybele might be structural; perhaps I tend to employ excessively precise, thematic sub-sections. And maybe that represents a personal, rather irritable "reaching after certainties" when all that's needed is representation of the scholarly narratives - notwithstanding their mutual contradictions and uncertainties. I'm not quite sure what I'm saying here, but one of the things I really like about your rewrite at the Isis article is how you've handled the "vague and impenetrable" essentials. Lynne Roller's "Cybele" book (I've a paper copy), undoubtedy ambitious in scope, is broadly drawn. It was my central resource for the Cybele article, partly because it includes sober, skeptical reviews and re-evaluations of previous scholarship. It left me very few certainties. Very modern. Haploidavey (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Disambiguation link notification for September 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hathor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Early Dynastic Period ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Hathor check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Hathor?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

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

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


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

GA review for Library of Alexandria?
Hello! I recently nominated the article Library of Alexandria for "Good Article" status and I was wondering if you might perhaps be willing to review it, since your main area of interest is ancient Egypt, you have past experience bringing articles up to GA (and even FA) status, and you have expressed willingness to review articles in the past. If you are not willing, that is perfectly acceptable; if that is what you decide, then I will try to find someone else to review it, but my current knowledge leads me to believe you are probably the best suited user I know to review that particular article at the moment. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * If nobody turns up to do it by next weekend (which they probably won't), I will do it then. A. Parrot (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent! That sounds great. Thank you so much! --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

"Lot No. 249"
I nominated "Lot No. 249" for GA; would you like to review it?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS


 * I hope to do a lot of GA reviewing over the next few months, as a way of "paying my debt" for a GA nomination I plan to make sometime soon, so I suppose I should. I'm new at reviewing articles on literary works, but I do know something about this particular story. I can probably do it over the Thanksgiving weekend. A. Parrot (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:History of Egypt
Hi A. Parrot. Please, you can help? The template contains errors. I corrected them but they have reversed. The errors I explain here Talk:History_of_Egypt Greetings, JMCC1 (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you A. Parrot. Totally agree with your comments. JMCC1 (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

GOCE 2018 Annual Report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Userkaf
Dear Parrot, thank you for your precious help with the Userkaf article especially as I was away from wikipedia at the worst of times. Thank you for your copy-editing in particular. I have responded to all comments and improved the article further. As Sarastro has indicated that the review needs to be wrapped up, the article might not pass because the other commenters have failed to respond since about 1 month (my fault since I was away just after posting the FAC). Would you consider indicating whether you support the article promotion or not ?Iry-Hor (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. I'm reluctant to support because I keep noticing awkward bits in the prose, and I'm sure I haven't caught everything because I'm not the most observant of copyeditors. But I certainly don't want to oppose, because if it's not FA-worthy, it's very close. I think I've done as much copyediting as I have time for today; let's see if the other reviewers come back and give a verdict. A. Parrot (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you I understand. It is clear that my lack of wikipedia time has impacted the reduced quality of this article. I will take more time in the future to polish the articles before FACing them.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

And people say you can't correct an edit summary
. I was annoyed by the redlink I made here, but you fixed that. Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

March GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Moses candidates
You've made your point on the talk page for Moses. Not much I can do without sources for those possible candidates. I admitted I didn't know you needed citations for inclusion in the 'See Also' section. If that is the case, then you are correct. Thus, such a list of possible candidates is probably better to be shown at Sources and parallels of the Exodus. I only kept discussing on the talk page to reply to other users' comments who seem to not know that the majority consensus is now that the narrative has some historical basis, and the extent of this historicity is of ongoing research, varying depending on the scholar. It is a narrative that is a mixture of historical elements, including actual events and tribes, mythology and religious teachings. To be honest, this is the case for much of the Torah in general, even large parts of Genesis. The Noah/Utnapishtim flood narrative was almost certainly based on an actual event in ancient Uruk, during the Ubaid period, that spawned the migration and differentiation of the proto-Semites. Semitic languages have been found to have begun to split off around this date somewhere in Mesopotamia, circa 3750 BC, coincidentally when there were also known to be periods of massive flooding in the Tigris-Euphrates basin. And at the time, there was also a major ethnological splitin he region between Semitic pastoralists and Sumerian agriculturalists, which is also mentioned in the flood story itself. The Canaanites, including the Israelites, were Semites, and thus some of their ancestors also originated from a dispersal after these events and would have carried traditions about it.Epf2018 (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not that one necessarily needs citations for the see also section, but that in this case there's a serious danger of WP:Synthesis—implying something to the reader that is not explicitly supported by the sources. I think you're also misunderstanding the other commenters in that section. I'm familiar with them and think most are at least as well informed about the subject as I am. They just don't want the article to imply that Moses-of-the-Bible was a historical figure or that we can identify an HHIFM behind him with any certainty. I think the general public is too willing to seize upon a particular figure as the Moses, or whichever other major biblical figure you care to name, because they don't understand the nuances involved in legend and cultural memory. Those identifications are the stuff of bad cable history documentaries, Ahmed Osman books, and silly Wikipedia discussions like WP:Articles for deletion/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person. I'm not saying that you're a crackpot like that, or that the other editors think you are, but that there's an appetite for this type of thinking among the people who will read Wikipedia, and we have to take care not to feed it. A. Parrot (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it depends what you mean by "Moses of the Bible" being a historical figure. Most scholars agree there could have been a historical Moses or a Moses-like figure it was based upon. That is my point. What relation it has to the Moses of the Bible is a forever ongoing discussion, and the extent of the relation between the two is impossible to prove. I do not find it helpful to label scholars or even outlandish figures you mention as "crackpots". King David for a long time was denied as being historical by many people, but now he is almost universally accepted as being a historical person, with the extent to which the Biblical narrative of him correlates with the actual historical figure again of ongoing discussion. The Trojan War was thought for a long time to be purely mythical, but now is accepted to having been based on an actual historical conflict of some sort, and Troy was an actual city. Atlantis may have been in reference to the Minoan civilization destroyed by the Thera eruption. Even Vinland was forever thought to be purely mythical, until l'Anse aux Meadows was discovered and it was proven that the Vikings did discover North America. Most nations have foundation myths and narratives of migrations which are a mix of history and legend, even the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. The Exodus and the origin of the Israelites to me isn't different, other than it being attacked by minimalists because of its religious importance to Jews, Christians and Muslims. Epf2018 (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My point is that Wikipedia text on this subject needs to be exceedingly careful because readers' preconceptions are so strong. Say "Moses", and people reflexively picture the Moses of the Bible, the character in the text. Suggest some historical figure as an inspiration for Moses, and people will project that character onto the figure, unless explicitly told what the distinction is. That's why we shouldn't suggest or even imply any figure as a HHIFM candidate without explaining the distinction. A. Parrot (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long!
Hello! I would like to apologize. I feel really terrible about this, but I have, to date, only translated the first half of the first section of those passages in German you wanted me to translate. I have been busy doing other things outside of Wikipedia and have unfortunately put off working on those translations, even though I really do have enough time that I should have gotten them done by now and, consequently, I have hardly worked on them at all, even though it has been nearly two full months since you first asked me to translate those. I really ought to work on those, but I have not. I will try to work on those at some point, although it is possible that I may not have much time for another week and a half, since I am a college student and next week is finals week. —Katolophyromai (talk) 06:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem—finals are more important! A. Parrot (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Book of the Dead, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Book_of_the_Dead check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Book_of_the_Dead?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for not translating those passages...
I feel really bad about this, but I have barely worked on translating those passage you gave me to translate from German into English at all. I translated about half of the first passage around a month or so after you sent me them and I have honestly not worked on them at all since then. Part of the problem is that translating that much material is such a massive undertaking and you really gave it to me at just the wrong time, since my interest in Wikipedia is waning. I have basically left Wikipedia for the most part. I used to spend nearly all my free time on here writing articles, but now I mostly just log in every few days to check up on recent changes. Instead of writing on Wikipedia like I used to, I have been writing answers on Quora and articles on my website. Again, I feel really guilty over this because I know I told you I would translate those passages for you months ago, but I do not think I am going to get them translated at this point. I have delayed admitting that I am not going to get them translated for months now because I keep thinking, "Oh, well, I will get them translated eventually," but the truth is I have not been working on them. I am sure this reflects very poorly on my personal character. —Katolophyromai (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, I can't say I'm not disappointed, but I knew it was a lot to ask. I'm not sure how to get the excerpts translated, but I suppose I'll figure something out. I'm actually more unhappy to hear that you're drifting away from Wikipedia, because Wikipedia needs knowledgeable editors like you, and there aren't that many involved in topic areas related to mine. As much as I tend to work on my own, it makes things Wikipedia easier, and friendlier, when there are other knowledgeable editors you can call upon, or even just casually talk to about shared interests. A. Parrot (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Decipherment of ancient Egyptian scripts, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Thomas Young, Demotic and Francesco Colonna ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Decipherment_of_ancient_Egyptian_scripts check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Decipherment_of_ancient_Egyptian_scripts?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Decipherment of ancient Egyptian scripts at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much. A. Parrot (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Prep 5
Hi, just FYI, you're not allowed to edit your own hook in prep. If you have a problem, please bring it up at WT:DYK. IMO either a comma or colon is needed before the quote. Since you didn't like the comma, I put in a colon. We could discuss it more. Best, Yoninah (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * My apologies. I wasn't aware of the rule. It's not a problem of a comma or a colon, but of the structure of the sentence. If it said "Champollion shouted and collapsed", one wouldn't have a comma there (or a colon). If it said "Champollion shouted, 'I have it,' and collapsed", there would be two commas enclosing the quotation and setting it apart from the rest of the sentence, so that the underlying "Champollion shouted and collapsed" would be effectively undisturbed. But when there's an exclamation point, there's no room for that second comma, so it felt to me like the underlying sentence said "Champollion shouted, and collapsed". I'm not sure what to do in this situation. On reflection, the second comma is sort of invisibly present: folded into the exclamation point. Maybe you should restore the hook to the way it originally was; that would in any case be better than a colon. I'm sorry my persnicketiness got in your way. A. Parrot (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As an editor in real life, I can tell you that the exclamation point is serving instead of a comma, so it's fine at the back end. I will remove the comma in front, but keep an eye on the hook as it moves through the queues and you may well see someone else restore some kind of punctuation there. Best, Yoninah (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ankh
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ankh 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 Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Sahure (Fifth Dynasty genealogy)
Do you by any chance have any articles or what have you that discuss the developments regarding early Fifth Dynasty genealogy? I'm working on Sahure's pyramid complex (see User:Mr rnddude/Research), and I've found out that some blocks discovered near his causeway – published by Tarek El-Awady The royal family of Sahure, new evidence in Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2005 – have caused a shift in the perception of Sahure's and Neferirkare's relationship. Most sources pre-2005 list Neferirkare Kakai as a probable brother to Sahure. Instead, the discovered blocks suggest that Neferirkare Kakai was the eldest son of Sahure, by the name of Ranefer, and that Netjerirenre, previously believed to be Sahure's eldest son, is in fact a twin to Neferirkare. A new hypothesis has it that Netjerirenre may be the ephemeral ruler Shepseskare. Unfortunately for me, recent sources I've been able to view just state plainly that Neferirkare is Sahure's eldest son, without so much as a passing mention of how we've gotten to this idea. I do have one by Verner, but he's a little vague on how the conclusion that Neferirkare is Ranefer has been arrived at. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid royal genealogies aren't my specialty. My go-to reference on the subject is The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt, which is from 2004 and still treats Neferirkare as Sahure's brother. I don't think I have any sources that are likely to help. Sorry. A. Parrot (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's all right. They're not my specialty either, heh. I'd ask Iry-Hor, since this is their area, but they haven't edited in several months. That reminds me, how is the decipherment of ancient Egyptian article coming along? Mr rnddude (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See for yourself; it's on the main page right now as a DYK. I hope to nominate it for FAC, after a few tweaks, but its biggest problem is that it has tables of hieroglyphs, and WikiHiero doesn't seem to work on the mobile version of Wikipedia. I don't know what people at FAC will think of that. A combination of images and Unicode hieroglyphs could work for displaying the hieroglyphs instead of WikiHiero, but it would be clumsier, and Unicode hieroglyphs aren't widely supported anyway. A. Parrot (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks at main page. "Oh! Indeed it is". I haven't looked at the main page today. I don't know what you can do about hieroglyphs displaying on mobile, but if there's a solution someone at FAC will mention it (if you don't figure something out before then). In any case I'll see it a FAC when it gets there. Good work and good luck. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC) (It's mentioned below my comment too... just saw it Mr rnddude (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)).

DYK for Decipherment of ancient Egyptian scripts
valereee (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ankh
The article Ankh 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:Ankh for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ankh
The article Ankh you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ankh 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 Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

On the decipherment of hieroglyphs
I see that your FAC on this article is still lacking a source review. I would be ready to do one to help the nomination however I first need your opinion on this since I have already done a review for the article. Do you think it is appropriate if I do a source review as well ?Iry-Hor (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm leery of that. It's one thing to review both prose and sourcing, but to do a source review after supporting promotion is questionable. I often do the source reviews for articles you nominate, and I don't want it to look like we're simply passing each other's articles through FAC. On the other hand, there aren't many other Wikipedians knowledgeable about this subject, which is why we review each other's work in the first place. The article has already received the minimum three supports, so it won't simply fail for lack of attention. Most likely a coordinator will ask for a source review if no one else supplies one. In that case, go ahead and do it, but I'd prefer you to hold off until then. A. Parrot (talk) 05:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes that is what I thought too, hence I prefered to ask first. I will keep an eye out for the evolution of this article. You are also missing an image review I think. Perhaps we could ping Nikkimaria, althought he/she must be quite busy already with other FACs.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

RE
Hello buddy, thank you for your thorough review of the Roman temple of Bziza article. I left you a reply. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 11:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

GOCE December 2019 Newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Nuwabian nation
See this discussion about Massimo Introvigne. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Ugh, what a mess. I won't touch that issue again, then, but I have to say it's a bit frustrating because RSes on the Nuwaubians are in such short supply. A. Parrot (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Decipherment of ancient Egyptian scripts scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Decipherment of ancient Egyptian scripts article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 24, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/January 24, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  12:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I see the article was promoted to FA while I was away. Congratulations! Andrew Dalby 16:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2020
Hi A. Parrot. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2020. Thank you for your help. Best regards from Madrid, JMCC1 (talk) 09:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year A. Parrot!
Happy New Year! Hello A. Parrot: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Djoser
Hello, taking into account your impressive library, could you suggest me some reading in this regard? Khruner (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Deuterocanonical books
The Deuterocanonical books are all written in Koine Greek and their canonicity is based on the Septuagint. The Septuagint is an Egyptian translation of the Bible. "The full title in Ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα, derives from the story recorded in the Letter of Aristeas that the Hebrew Torah was translated into Greek at the request of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–247 BCE) by 70 Jewish scholars or, according to later tradition, 72, with six scholars from each of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, who independently produced identical translations. The humoristic character of the Aristeas legend might indicate both esteem and disdain in which the translation was held at the time. Greek translations of Hebrew scriptures were certainly in circulation among the Alexandrian Jews." Dimadick (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I know that, but it feels like overcategorization to me. A. Parrot (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Decipherment of ancient Egyptian scripts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ramesses ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Decipherment_of_ancient_Egyptian_scripts check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Decipherment_of_ancient_Egyptian_scripts?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hathor scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Hathor article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 2, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/April 2, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted in recent years, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  11:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Respond to "Your Additions to Ancient Egypt"
To write rapidly about Egypt is impossible.

—Amelia Edwards

Hello, A. Parrot. I've found this quote on your wiki page and it's worth mentioning that it's the first time I read it yet I 100% agree with it, so as you I guess. Ancient Egypt's long history and rich culture can't be briefly told. And this explains my point of view. I want you to check The Wikipedia article of Ancient Rome. The history of Rome just begins at the 8th century b.c. and ends at the 5 century A.d. Ancient Egypt's History is much longer than Rome and that's why I thought we had to upgrade the Ancient Egypt article and I was planning to add even further details in the History of Ancient Egypt article in the upcoming days.

Anyway, I really appreciate your hard work and your awareness of the changes made to this important article as a member of the WikiProject Ancient Egypt, and I hope I can be a member too one-day. I hope that you send me a message regarding your approval or your refusal about me adding more details to the article on Ancient Egypt.

Written by Strik3. Time: 01:37 Saturday 6 May (UTC)

Apep's symbol (infobox)
In the article on Apep, you removed his symbol from the article's infobox. Since one of Apep's major symbols was definitely a snake, it wouldn't leave that part completely blank. The question is only whether it was a specific type of snake (e.g. a cobra). I have created a new section in the article's talk page, asking for clarification and additional sources. For now, I would like to revert to my previous edit, with the "Citation needed" template attached, although with a different formatting. TucanHolmes (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick clarification! TucanHolmes (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Qibla
Thank you for your very helpful tweaks to Qibla over the past few days! The article is being nominated at FAC, if you're interested. I would appreciate your opinion on it, and it looks that you've read the article in detail HaEr48 (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've been looking it over and making small edits, while writing down my comments about larger issues for the FAC. You'll see my remarks shortly. A. Parrot (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Sock?
Could this guy obsessed with Faust be a sock? It seems odd that a relatively new editor (3 months) is suddenly going to dispute resolution and quoting wiki policy at us. Has there been another editor with this POV before?—Ermenrich (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Epf2018 cited reliable sources, including Faust, and used boldface and caps excessively. A. Parrot (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donal Cam O'Sullivan Beare, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Philip III.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

WP Phoenicia
~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 10:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Pepi I Meryre
Dear Parrot, Pepi I Meryre is currently at FAC. I would be most grateful if you had time to spare for a review of this article, otherwise no problem, thank you anyway (for your already numerous past reviews in particular) ! Iry-Hor (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I plan to give it a source review when I have time. I hope to do it this weekend, but there are a couple of other FACs that I could help with, and that need attention more urgently. A. Parrot (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

 * Thank you! A. Parrot (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Biblical criticism
Two years ago you participated in a FAC review of Biblical criticism. It did not pass at the time due to problems with the sources and because I left WP before I could fix them--for other reasons. I have returned and believe all the sources have been fixed now. I went through the entire article. I deleted superfluous references, I narrowed page numbers so things are easier to find, and I went and reread every reference to check that it said what is claimed. I would like to renominate for FA and wondered if you would be willing to do a spot check to see if I missed any. If you run the copyright violation detector on it you will find a violatio for. This is a backwards violation. The date they typed on the front page says 2010, but that is untrue. I have friends who know computers attempting to help me prove this is another 'clickbait' but all I can do right now is show that the detector never detected its existence before today. Please don't let that interfere with your willingness to review this article. I am very distressed by it and am doing what I can but apparently copying from WP without acknowledgement is a common occurrence. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you kept working on the article! I worried that you'd left Wikipedia because of your FAC experience; I know all too well what it's like to feel overwhelmed by a mammoth article, but I've never had an FAC as difficult as yours. I'd be happy to do the source review for a second attempt. I won't have time for it this month—lots of other things on my plate—but I should be able to do it in October. Try not to be too upset by the copyright hitch, and I wish you good luck. A. Parrot (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Bless you! Thank you so much.  I will wait to renominate till you have had a chance to give it the once over.  I did not leave WP because of the review.  It was stressful, but it was stress for a good purpose. I had faith in the good will of the people working on it with me as well, so it was also a weirdly  encouraging growing experience. No, it wasn't that.  I left because I was being harassed and had been for quite awhile.  Writing BC was a constant battle--writing anything really. I was also working on Ethics in the Bible at the same time, and this guy called for an opinion about deleting it entirely and no one voted for it but him--so he went in and blanked the entire content. I just couldn't take anymore. For my own mental health, I had to get away. Then a few months ago I was notified about an arbitration involving the guy who had harassed me.  He had harassed someone else--and then it was discovered he had harassed several someone else's--and he was banned from WP. Some of the other editors here were kind enough to encourage me to return, and I decided to give WP a second chance.  It's been wonderful.  I had no idea WP could be such a rewarding hobby.  My harasser can reapply to have his case heard in a year, and if he is allowed to  return, I will probably be gone again, but in the meantime, I am hoping to get BC through its qualification--one good thing I can leave behind. Thank you again, thank you thank you, Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * So-o-o, it's October, and I don't mean to nag--well I do of course--but nicely I hope.  How is your plate these days?  Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I haven't forgotten. Today I've been working out my schedule for the week, and barring some unexpected emergency, I'll get to the spot-check on Wednesday. A. Parrot (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you!!!Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It is now at FAC and apparently I should have taken it through peer review first and didn't know that, so I could be in trouble. Please come and tell me what needs doing.  I am going back through them myself but I need a tough reviewer.  Also, I love that quote from Ling.nut, may I steal it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll try to do a review this week. Don't worry too much about the peer review; it's better for an article to have gone through a review before FAC, but the peer review process is so moribund that there's no guarantee that a reviewer will turn up, so a lot of nominators skip it.


 * Re: the quotation from Ling.Nut, it's not my property to steal. I didn't ask permission to quote Ling.Nut, but as it's part of a larger essay on how Wikipedia writing should work, I doubt would object to spreading it around. I'm reluctant to recommend the entire essay to other editors because it can come across as a bit of a rant, but it makes a critical point that I always keep in mind when writing: that an article shouldn't just collect a bunch of well-sourced facts about a topic but convey its most fundamental points. Unfortunately, I find it a lot more difficult to apply that principle to other people's work when reviewing it, but I try. A. Parrot (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you ahead of time for the review, thank you now for the encouragement, and thank you in the past for saving the jist of the essay in an easy to steal quote! I so completely agree - perhaps I will quote you as well - your statement is a nice concise summary. I will endeavor to always live up to those standards. It's extra difficult in some ways to write on a topic you know, and difficult in other ways to write on something you don't. I imagine reviewing is similar. I hear my old college mentor's voice in the back of my head on everything I write.  I hope that produces good things! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey! You got a precious from Gerda too!  That's awesome.  Gerda's awesome.  Congratulations on hanging in with Wikipedia for so long.  You inspire me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Interpretation of the texts
You wrote: “That is your interpretation of the texts”, but that is not correct. Mine is just one more interpretation of the texts. Below I am quoting the interpretations of the term mHt-wrt, occurring in Utterance 254 §289c of the Pyramid Texts.

Mercer: mH.t-wr.t-cow

Faulkner: heavens

Allen: Great Immersion

Topmann: Great Flood

Trimijopulos: Seashore

Now, neither the rules governing Wikipedia were divinely inspired nor the interpretations of the mainstream Egyptologists. Your duty is to provide information to your readers and my suggestion is to create, at the end of every article relating to ancient Egyptian civilization, a section titled “Independent interpretations” or “Independent opinions” or whatever title you may deem to be appropriate. Mainstream Egyptologists have been mistranslating the texts in their attempt to be politically correct and this is a state of affairs that cannot last forever.

All the best!

Dimitrios Trimijopulos (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * That isn't the way Wikipedia works. Egyptological interpretations of the texts are based on nearly two centuries of detailed analysis of ancient Egyptian culture. That doesn't make its interpretations divinely inspired, but it does mean they're built on a great amount of knowledge and experience. Those interpretations can be overturned — one of the characteristics of a scholarly field is that scholars have to produce novel hypotheses, which are then tested against the established body of knowledge. A new hypothesis with sufficient support can reshape a field; I've seen it happen at least once, in the realm of afterlife beliefs, in the twelve years I've been studying the Egyptological literature. But most Wikipedians don't have the qualifications to assess novel hypotheses, which is why Wikipedia relies on the scholarly literature. If your ideas come to be accepted by a large segment of the Egyptological community, they can be represented here. If not, they won't. A. Parrot (talk) 06:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * After two centuries of detailed analysis of ancient Egyptian culture, mainstream Egyptologists keep translating bA as ba, kA as ka, an ax as akh, so do not tell me of the marvelous achievements of the Egyptologists.

I am 78 years old and I have been studying the texts in the original for the last 15 years at least. Can you be so kind and bring my case to the attention of some administrator or guide me on how can I contact one? Best regards Dimitrios Trimijopulos (talk) 06:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I can, but you'll get the same answer. (The most relevant Wikipedia policy is No original research; I strongly advise reading that page.)


 * Do you feel like handling this? For reference, this conversation started at Talk:Anubis. A. Parrot (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure. Dimitrios, I'm a very experienced editor and Administrator. I can tell you with absolute assurance that your knowledge/experience cannot be used in Wikipedia. A. Parrot has referred you to one key policy, the other is WP:VERIFY. Finally, another policy, What Wikipedia is not. Read that if the other two policies don't convince you. Doug Weller  talk 16:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Help. if you can please
I hate to put you on the spot but I am in real need. I put Biblical criticism up for FA review a month ago. It is its second time being nominated. I failed to complete the process the first time because of leaving WP so suddenly, and now it is getting little response. I am putting out a call to everyone I know because the coordinator has said if it doesn't get more interest he will archive it. It needs a source review - someone willing to randomly check sources to be sure they actually say what the text says. There are too many for anyone to do alone, but doing any at all, even just one, would be deeply appreciated. Post it here. If it fails again I'm afraid that will be the end of it. Please help if you can. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Apotheosis in ancient Egypt
Hello, is there any hope that in your personal library there is something concerning the deification of Ahmose-Nefertari? Khruner (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look like the sources I have say much about her, but some mention a monograph about her: L’épouse du dieu Ahmes Néfertary: Documents sur sa vie et son culte posthume by Michel Gitton, originally published in 1975 and apparently with a second edition in 1981. A. Parrot (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion! Khruner (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

December 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Translation
Hi A. Parrot, I just wanted to let you know that I will attempt to do your translation this week. Best wishes,--Ermenrich (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and thank you for letting me know your timeframe (but if it ends up taking longer than you expect, no worries). A. Parrot (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your help. I apologize for all the transcription errors I apparently made. The meaning of most of the passages I need is clear, but because of the importance of this one, I'm just making absolutely sure. The passage on page 11 of Bommas says "Die drei Voraussetzungen, die notwendig sind, um von Mysterien sprechen zu können, sind: Eingeweihte, deren Verwandlung und deren Gottesnähe. In Ägypten kommen diese drei Punkte niemals zusammen vor", which you render as "The three conditions that are necessary in order to be able to speak of mysteries are: initiates, their transformation, and their nearness to the god. In Egypt, these three points never occur together." So the "their" refers to the initiates, correct?


 * By the way, I belatedly followed Bommas's footnotes to the passage about the priestly initiation ritual he writes about on page 27, and I'm in the uncomfortable position where the sources seem to be assuming something dubious—I have a translation of the text in question, and it doesn't seem to clearly be what Bommas (following another scholar) believes it to be. The trail leads me to another German-language source that I may need you to translate in the future, though fortunately I can access most of the relevant section online and it's not very long.


 * I owe you a favor, so let me know if there's any way I can help with anything you're working on. A. Parrot (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi A.Parrot. Thank you and yes, "their" refers to the initiates. Let me know if you need me to translate some more and I'll save that favor for a rainy day!--Ermenrich (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)