User talk:Katolophyromai/Archive 1

December 2016
Hello, I'm Wtwilson3. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you unlinked one or more redlinks from Athena. Often redlinks can be helpful, so we don't remove them just because they are red. They help improve Wikipedia by attracting editors to create needed articles.

In addition, clicking on the "What links here" special link (in the Wikipedia Toolbox at left) on a missing article shows how many—and which—articles depend on that article being created. This can help prioritize article creation. Redlinks are useful! Please, only remove a redlink if you are pretty sure that it is to a non-notable topic and not likely ever to be created. Thanks! —&#160;&#160; &#160;&#160;Bill W.&#160;&#160;  &#160;&#160; (Talk)&#160;&#160;(Contrib)&#160;&#160; (User:Wtwilson3) &#160;&#160;— 03:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for telling me this. I was not aware of this fact until now. I apologize if I caused any annoyance. I was only trying to be helpful. I had noticed that the red link had been there for quite a while and no one had created an article for it to link to. I deleted the link because I assumed that, by this point, it was essentially just an annoying distraction detracting from the overall flow of the article. Once again, thank you very much for informing me of this. I am new to Wikipedia and I am relatively unfamiliar with the manner in which it is appropriate to modify articles.—Katolophyromai (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * No worries. Everyone was new once.  A red link might just entice someone to write the article.  Or at least create a stub.  So if the person is/was notable in some way, it's just best to leave the red link.  It's really not that disruptive for most people.  Also, please remember to sign your posts using four tildes ( ~ ) so everyone knows who wrote the post.  Thanks and welcome!  —&#160;&#160;  &#160;&#160;Bill W.&#160;&#160;  &#160;&#160; (Talk)&#160;&#160;(Contrib)&#160;&#160; (User:Wtwilson3) &#160;&#160;— 22:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Katolophyromai! Thanks for adding Nilsson as a reference for Athena-as-bird, which had gone wanting for more than nine years. Not meaning to bombard you with technicalities, but I wanted to point out the Cite book template, which helps keep the formatting of references consistent. I converted your citation as you can see. Note that the punctuation and styling is all rendered automatically. You can either copy-paste the parameters from the template documentation and add the data manually or use one of several tools with a fill-in-the-blanks interface. I don’t think that particular article is a model of consistency, but wherever there seems to be a prevalent style we try to emulate it. Feel free to drop me a line or ping me here if you have any questions. Thanks again for your improvements to the article, and happy editing!—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  07:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining this to me. I was unsure of what the proper citation format was for Wikipedia (or if there even was one) because I had seen many different styles of citations used throughout various articles. I was unaware of the Cite book template, but now that you have told me about it, I will try to make sure to use it in the future.—Katolophyromai (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I shall be looking
for more references for Green Man and will try and remember about the formatting. Since I am doing this "live", as it were. rather than after much thought, planning and those sorts of things, there will be the occasional slip-ups. I am likely to shift things around a bit when my source only covers a couple items on a list. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Chthonic
Hello, Katalophyromai - I was just looking at your recent  to Chthonic. I'd like to compliment you on all your excellent edits. I just wanted to share a thought that maybe the heading "Difference between chthonic cults and Olympian cults" is a little long, and that "Chthonic cults and Olympian cults" might be sufficient. What do you think? – Corinne (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the heading should probably be shortened up a bit, but I do not think that "Chthonic cults and Olympian cults" by itself would be entirely sufficient since the passage really seems to be specifically describing the differences between the two. Since the article itself is about chthonic cults, it may be a good idea to simply have the heading be "Differences from Olympian cults." Using the phrase "chthonic cults" in the heading may be superfluous since the article is already talking about chthonic cults. What do you think of that idea? Katolophyromai (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC
 * I'm no expert, but just from reading (and copy-editing) many Wikipedia articles, I don't recall seeing headings with the word "Difference" or "Differences" in them. Possibly "Comparison to", but that's all. More commonly, section headings are quite short, with differences explained within the text. I have just skimmed several articles to see how this is treated. You might look at Orphism (religion), Cybele, Attis, Dionysus, Dionysian mysteries, Eleusinian Mysteries, Celtic polytheism, Gnosticism, Buddhism and Gnosticism, and Western esotericism. I'm sure there are others. Just a thought. – Corinne (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You appear to have a very good point. I think you are right. We should probably just change the heading to "Chthonic cults and Olympian cults." I think that may have been what it was originally before I changed it. Katolophyromai (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * O.K.! Perhaps just "Olympian cults"? – Corinne (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That might work. The only problem I have with it is that just saying "Olympian cults" makes it sound as if the passage is only talking about Olympian cults, rather than the relationship between chthonic cults and Olympian cults. We could try having it just say "Olympian cults" and see if it works. Katolophyromai (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems somewhat confusing to me; it might be misunderstood to describe Olympian cults of chthonic deities, despite that being a rather self-contradictory notion. I would prefer “Comparison to O. cs.“, “Distinction from O. cs.”, or something like that. Or what about “Chthonic versus O. cs.“?—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  19:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In my own opinion, "Distinction from Olympian cults" sounds like the best option right now because it makes it clear that the passage is talking about what makes a chthonic cult different from an Olympian cult. I think that it is definitely much clearer than simply saying "Olympian cults," which could easily be misinterpreted. As an important side note, I think it is probably worth mentioning that, despite all our discussion regarding what to call the section, the section itself does not cite any reliable sources whatsoever and contains numerous statements of rather dubious accuracy. In other words, the section desperately needs someone to supply it with reliable sources. I have been searching for sources to back up some of the statements in the section, but so far I have not found anything. -Katolophyromai (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Adoneus
Per your edit summary and cite tag removal at Dionysus, it seems that Adoneus might simply be an obscure and self-conscious archaism (in Catullus, at any rate) for Adonis. Perhaps. Or perhaps not. Just thought you might enjoy the possibility. Haploidavey (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The Cn might well have been for the interpretation of the name; is that from Ausonius, or just its attachment to Dionysus? Or the tag might have been placed just because the existing reference is to a primary (ancient) source; we generally prefer to rely on secondary sources for contextualizing and interpretation.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  07:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So we do, but most of those epithets are also cited to primary sources and remain untagged. Who knows? Anyway, I've found and added a secondary source equating Adonis and Adoneus as epithets of Dionysus, used by Ausonius and Catullus, amongst others. No translation is offered, but it seems clear that in terms of meanings, "Adonis" would be key. Haploidavey (talk) 11:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sappho
Katolophyromai, I noticed that you plunged into the Good Article Nomination space with a bang a few hours ago with two reviews separated by a nomination. I think you moved a bit too quickly without fully understanding what you got into. I recommend that you take more time to familiarize yourself with the various ways the GAN process works, from when to nominate, what a review consists of, and how to apply the criteria.

Your review of A Christmas Carol did not adhere to the stability criteria, and you failed the nomination when it was actually stable. (Two vandalizing edits several days ago doesn't count as instability, and a 24-hour series of edits from over three weeks prior certainly don't.)

You then went to nominate Sappho, an article that you have never edited. The GA nomination instructions are quite clear about this: Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination. Because you did not follow the process, I have reverted your nomination. You are welcome to consult per above. If there are no objections registered within seven days of asking, you have done due diligence and can then nominate the article; the significant contributors may be aware of issues with the article where it falls short of the criteria, and may not have nominated it at GAN for that reason. Also, as nominator, do be aware that you will be expected to help work on any issues that come up during the review.

Which brings me to your final review, Talk:The Fountainhead/GA2, which you opened at 00:01 and passed at 00:38. This is a huge article: 5044 words and 150 references. To read every word to make sure the article is clear and concise and holds together and is neutral, check a selection of references against the prose they support to make sure the prose accurately reflects the source without closely paraphrasing it—that all takes quite a bit of time, more than seems to have been allotted here. The article does appear to be a likely GA candidate, but like all GA nominations needs to be thoroughly reviewed.

Please be more thorough in any future reviews. Thank you, and I'm sorry if this has been discouraging after your first venture, but I know you want to do your best by the articles you're reviewing and that GA process itself. Best of luck in the future. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * For those concerned about this issue, please read my apology and explanation on User talk:BlueMoonset. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Take heart... we've all been there! Haploidavey (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Katolophyromai, you might want to try requesting a peer review for the article you've been working on, Ancient Greek literature, with a view to getting it ready for GAN. Even if you're not sure how to apply the GA criteria, a peer review is designed to have other people take a look at an article and make suggestions on what work should be done prior to beginning the nomination process. Once the article is ready, then nominating it and going through the process as a nominator should also help to give you a better idea of what qualities a GA should have. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That sounds like a good idea. I think I will probably do that. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer review
Hi! When I gave suggestions on Ancient Greek literature in PR, I didn't realize it was already archived. It was still on this list of active requests. I wasn't trying to push my ideas on you. Psychotic  Spartan  123  19:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly alright. I understand completely. In fact, I greatly appreciated your advice and found it extremely helpful. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear that. Also, let me know when you're ready to take the article to FAC and I can rewrite the references to make them compliant with FA requirements. Unfortunately, although the way they are now is perfectly fine, it needs to be written in Harvard style to become Featured. I'm offering, because I don't know enough about Greek literature to really help out writing the actual article, but I do know how to style the references which is time consuming. That way you can focus on the content of the article without having to take hours messing with the references. Psychotic   Spartan  123  21:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! That would be really helpful. I have worked really hard trying to get this article into shape and I cannot wait to finally see the fruit of my labor. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There’s no requirement for any particular reference format; although reviewers may have their preferences, the criterion says “consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes … or Harvard referencing”.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  22:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The EN.LIL
I'll bet you'd enjoy Zecharia Sitchin's The Lost Book of Enki—it's another good source for what the fragments of the Sumerian tablets that we do have say; EN.LIL lobbied for a new "tool" or technology to be developed rather than to resort to the genetic engineering of a livng thing. And according to the tablets, the flood was caused by a continent-sized chunk of one of the polar icecaps falling into the ocean due to them melting because of a global warming that occurred.WikiEditorial101 (talk) 06:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:WikiEditorial101, Sitchin is a pseudohistorian whose views have absolutely no influence on mainstream Near Eastern scholarship. Samuel Noah Kramer is the most widely-respected of all Assyriologists (he practically invented the field of study). By the way, my version of the story was not from memory. I went back to Kramer's original book and wrote the paragraph with the book actually open. I am reverting your edits because, quite simply, Sitchin is not a reliable source. --Katolophyromai (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Other editors concerned in this matter should consult my more in-depth explanation at User talk:WikiEditorial101. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Editing
Thank you for the insights about my editing about greek myths. I am really new to this work and I'm really happy for your suggestions. I will keep it in mind and you might reconsider some of my works. My sources for my works are the http://www.library.theoi.com/ and http://www.maicar.com/GML/index.html. These are really good sources and I really put an effort in citing the said information in the its original sources (Greek and Latin texts). For the pictures I have no idea about it and for the infobox I wanted to include other contents so I used the general template because I can add some contents not included in the Greek deities template. My sequence in editing a section about my work are as follows: facts, etymology, titles and epithets, roles or function, genealogy, myths, cult, other uses (pop culture, in arts, interpretations and etc.), gallery, see also, notes, references, sources and external links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markx121993 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Editing
Thank you for the insights. Can I ask what can you recommend for me as a good references or references in editing Greek myths? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markx121993 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Editing
Thank you for the suggestions and it is very informative. I will keep your pointers in mind. Just feel free to comment on my works, the best that suites the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markx121993 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ancient Greek art
Thanks for adding extra citations, though I am not sure they are necessary, but please stick to the established referencing style. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Adding Genealogical Table
Thank you for the input! I will keep it in mind — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markx121993 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Ishtar
Hello. I have confirmation of ancient manuscripts and ancient documentation that makes correspondence between the Goddess Ishtar and the Virgo Zodiacal Sign! This sign appeared in the Zodiac derived from Ishtar. This is a fact of Astrology and it is this complementary information that I add to Ishtar's page on Wikipedia to enrich the information and provide it to the public. Only that, but ok I'll do the bibliographical reference. Thank you

p.s: I am the student that changed today the page of Ishtar... I read your message but I dont know how I can talk with you, responds to you... so I talk the information by here... Sory! When you read this erase this... Sory! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.90.140.221 (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Images on Theogony
I've been appreciating the images you've been adding to Theogony. Paul August &#9742; 12:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Lerna
I was trying to wikify the article on the dragon, and I noticed a strange misspelling added by you: "Lernea" to refer to the area of the Lernaean Hydra.

The area is called Lerna and is located in the Peloponnese. We have a detailed article about the archaeological findings there, indicating settlement from c. 2500 to 1200 BC. Lake Lerna itself no longer exists, as its last remnants were drained in the 19th century. Please familiarize yourself with basic geography before adding terms relating to Greek mythology. Dimadick (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Heliopolitan Triad
Hi Katolophyromai. The wikiproject on mythology seems dead. The triad article seems to be both wrong (no Greek god Adon, Adon isn't another name for Adonis) I believe and obsolete. I'm not sure if you're interested. It's not really within my expertise, I just happened to run across it while looking at another editor's edits. Doug Weller talk 18:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * (Eavesdropping) According to Fergus Millar, there's no evidence for a Heliopolitan Triad; see also Kropp; and a syncretised "Heliopolitan Venus" is not secure (am copying this to both article talk pages). Haploidavey (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that both articles should probably just be deleted entirely. The "Heliopolitan triad" article only has one citation, which seems to be to some Lebanese tourism website, which is probably not a reliable source. I have never heard of any "Heliopolitan triad" and since you have three sources that directly state that there is no evidence to support them, I see no point in keeping the article around. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank You Again
Thank you again for all your hard work and monumental efforts in improving Innana and other Mesopotamian deity articles.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ^ Seconded. This topic is raising a lot of interesting questions and tempting me to plunge into Mesopotamia as well. :-) (Articles like 𒃲 and 𒆠 could really use some love, though meanwhile 𒂍 is kind of impressive.) I see from your contribs you are doing a lot of good stuff in the realm of mythology and beyond. As far as research goes, maybe you would like to backchannel and we can put our heads together. Cheers, groupuscule (talk) 03:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC) In other words, if we can get in touch over email maybe I can help with some articles. Very interesting discovery about Inanna's cuneiform name. Do you think the real name is 𒊩𒌆 - 𒀭 - x, or something else? Maybe there's more than one... groupuscule (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Born and borne
I'm so sorry about the to-and-fro. I had rapidly fluctuating confidence. But I checked Merriam Webster (US) and ODWE (UK) and they both support the IP with "born" to do with babies and "borne" to do with carrying or enduring. Apologies for the confusion. If you're not happy with this (the change, not the confusion!) then maybe the article Talk page? Apologies again and happy editing DBaK (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Head>desk. Sorry. DBaK (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

YouTube
"YouTube isn't a reliable source." Generally speaking, I agree. But in the Yahweh article that YouTube video means a Yale professor teaching a Yale course in a video published by Yale. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Tgeorgescu, I understand your point completely, but, since Yahweh is an article that is highly controversial and any information on it that is not thoroughly cited is likely to be contested, I think that it would be best to try to find a written source of some kind from a reputable academic publisher. I do not doubt that the information given in the newly-added section is true, but I think it definitely needs a strong citation to support it. Ideally, I would like for the person who added the information in the first place to come back and cite his or her sources. Furthermore, if we let YouTube pass as a reliable source this time, other people may start trying to use it in other instances. I need not remind you that there are a lot of crackpots on YouTube. This may sound like a camel's nose argument, but, in my opinion, it would be best for us to avoid YouTube like the plague simply so that we do not encourage other people to try citing it as a reliable source. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Apologies
Hello, I'd like to apologize for reverting some of your edits recently. It was only the image placement that I disagreed with. While a color image would be good for the introduction, I don't think those two are good options, but your accompanying edits were very helpful. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , the edits you reverted actually were not mine; they came from the other users who had edited the article shortly before me. I just restored them because I thought they were productive. In any case, your apology is accepted. I would like to apologize if my edit summary sounded too upset. I was just slightly frustrated by the fact that you have a tendency to do these "deep reverts" where you go back to a much earlier version of the article, undoing many constructive edits along with the ones you disagree with. I noticed you did something similar at Baldr a few weeks ago. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing
Thank you for the suggestions. I will keep it in mind. Do you have any online source for the books published by Robert Graves or Karl Kerenyi? They are good authors of Greek myth with interpretation but I cannot find anything related to the articles they published.--Markx121993 (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , thank you for listening to my advice. I really appreciate it. I would recommend avoiding Robert Graves. He was primarily a novelist and his scholarly pursuits were only secondary to his literary aspirations; he takes a very poetic approach to the myths rather than a historical one and his interpretations of them have been widely rejected among mainstream scholars. Károly Kerényi, on the other hand, is widely respected and I would recommend using him as a source. Unfortunately, I am not currently aware of any free online editions of any of his works. There are plenty of print copies of his writings available, though. If you have access to a university library of some kind (I, unfortunately, do not), you can probably find his works there. Otherwise, you can perhaps find them at your local bookstore or, if it comes down to it, I know they are available on Amazon. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

About WP:RM
Hey, just stepping by to let you know how exactly Requested moves works. Its meant to discuss moves which could be possible controversial. The thing about page moves is that many people could disagree over some silly reasons. As such, technical moves is meant only for clear cut cases. I moved your technical request for discussion because I fealt that some other editors could have some concern (like exact spellings) and turns out I wasn't wrong entirely. Just to remind you again, A RM remains open for 7 days and then is meant to be closed by an uninvolved editor. For the record, WP:RM is highly backlogged, which means, this move could take some time to complete even after it has run its full course. Chaers, Yashovardhan (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I was not aware of the procedures. This is the first time I have ever been involved in a requested move of any kind. I only just started editing Wikipedia last November, so I am still not completely filled-in on all of the policies and regulations here. I assumed that the requested move discussion would be essentially the same as any other discussion. I had no idea that there was a seven-day minimum discussion length or that the discussion needed to be concluded by an editor who had not been involved in the discussion. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise. We all learn something new everyday! Yashovardhan (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Sumer
I apologize for my edit, I thought whatever is on the lead (aside from the dictionary definition) had to be in the body as well, even if it had to be pointless repetition.Saronsacl (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * At least that was the impression I got from Jytdog's edit on the Sumerian religion article.Saronsacl (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Saronsacl, I think you may have misunderstood. The lead is generally supposed to be a general summary of the contents of the rest of the article. The idea is that, if a person wants a general, basic knowledge of the subject, he or she just has to read the lead. Then, if he or she is interested in a more in-depth explanation, he or she can read the remaining portion of the article. This does not mean that the contents of the lead should be copied word-for-word in the article body; it just means that, if something is mentioned in lead, it should also be mentioned somewhere in the article. For instance, if the lead mentions ancient Sumerian views on, say, divorce, then the article itself should say something about this subject also in different words and usually in greater depth. Repeating the exact same words in both the lead and in the body is pointless and counterproductive because any reader who is reading the body will have already read the lead.


 * Another important point I want to make regarding your recent edits to Sumer is that a term should only be wikilinked if there is a genuine possibility that the reader does not know the meaning of the term. This is why it is pointless to link common, everyday words like love, death, ocean, or face. Since everyone presumably already knows what a tree is, providing a link to tree is just distracting and provides a link that is highly unlikely to actually be clicked on. At the very least, a link should only be provided if there is a possibility of the reader having a curiosity in the subject. If you still have questions on this, please consult WP:OVERLINK. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Question
If someone were to start talking nonsense about the Sumerian Moon Goddess, would they be speaking "Inannanity"? (rimshot)--Mr Fink (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha, ha! Very punny. The problem, of course, is the fact that Inanna was not really the goddess of the moon. She was associated with the planet Venus. Her only real connection with the moon was the fact that, in most stories, her father was Nanna, the god of the moon. If you are looking for a moon goddess, you would be better off examining Inanna's mother Ningal. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a pun to attach to Ningal, but, um, it's not appropriate for mixed company. So, I'll just stick my fingers in my ears and go Nanna Nanna Nanna...--Mr Fink (talk) 04:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Daniel
I provided a reliable source that contained opposing information to what you believed. It's okay for you to believe what you want but censoring information because you disagree with it is not acceptable. I have the right to express my own views and provide opposing sources. I have a source with various evidence and want to present it. I will share the page with your viewpoints and sources. If you continue to censor the sources that you disagree with, You are violating my freedom of speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.216.7 (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Apologetic sources are still valid sources. To get a fair viewpoint on Biblical information - evidence from both sides should be presented.

I'm only asking for fair representation here. I added a little comment with a source tthat people who are interested can look at. I feel that giving this source makes the article more fairly represented. May I keep this one blurb on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4BA:6830:393E:6800:2F3B:C86B (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not "censoring" you. The reason why I reverted your edits is because Wikipedia has a strict policy that only opinions supported by reputable scholars should be given representation; fringe views should only be mentioned if they are notable and, if they are mentioned, they are to be treated as fringe views. The source you provided was an apologetics website, which is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. Reverting your edits is not violating your freedom of speech; it is merely preventing you from expressing unsupported theories on Wikipedia. It would only be violating your freedom of speech if I told you that you are not allowed to say those things at all. All I have done is prevent you from using Wikipedia as a bully pulpit for expounding your own views. If you provide a source written by a reputable scholar and published through a reputable publishing house that argues for Daniel's historical existence, then I would have no problem with letting you include it in the article. The problem is that you are unlikely to find any such source because the only major groups who insist on a literal, historical interpretation of the entire Bible are die-hard fundamentalist organizations masquerading their thinly-veiled apologetics as "scholarship."
 * Please do not feel like I am attacking you; I am genuinely only trying to be helpful and instructive. If it helps any, I am a Christian myself; I am just not a fundamentalist. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * According to xckd.com, "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express." Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Inanna
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Inanna 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 Seraphim System -- Seraphim System (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Inanna
The article Inanna you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Inanna 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 Seraphim System -- Seraphim System (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the GA Review
Thank you,, very much, for your GA Review. Thank you also for saying about my WP:NPOV article writing work on Wikipedia: "Despite the controversy surrounding the subject of the article, the article is surprisingly neutral. The "Reception" section covers both positive and negative reactions to the book.". Sagecandor (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Black people and Mormonism/GA2
Thank you for an honest analysis of the article. I did the second GA nomination looking for that, as the middle paragraph of the first GA nomination was in my Opinion massively out of line. that is: "This appears to be the official line of the Mormon church, which the (paid) nominator was no doubt instructed to promote, in contravention of policy". Again, thank you for your work..Naraht (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I was happy to review the article for you. I just hope my feedback turns out to be useful; I tried to list specific examples for all my criticisms. I have no idea if you are really a paid editor or not and I do not know what the original reviewer's reasons were for calling you that. In any case, it is clear that the POV issues are not the only problems the article has; many other, unrelated issues, particularly those dealing with sourcing and organization, need to be addressed as well. I wish you luck in your future work improving the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not personally a paid editor (See Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_22#Bad_Faith_rejections.3F for my original response). My objection wasn't to calling the original GA proposer a paid editor (which they were as an intern at BYU and their user name ended in (BYU) so very open), it was the "no doubt instructed to promote". I just wanted a fair shake for the article, which I feel you have given.Naraht (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. If you are looking for another article about a similar topic that does a very good job, you may want to consider examining Critical appraisal of the Book of Abraham, which I have not fully inspected yet, but which, from what I have seen so far, looks like a very promising candidate for GA. From a casual glance-through, it appears to be well-written and well-organized, with lots of citations to secondary sources and plenty of insightful images. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

About moirai
I just reverted your edit, and my finger slipped as I tried to write the edit summary, which (ha!) I can't edit afterwards. I think you are wrong: this is the meaning of "desert" (defn. 1 in SOED) which means "a merit" or "reward", as in "just deserts". Nothing to do with sandy places or sweet dishes. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I had never heard that "deserts" as in "just deserts" was a different noun; I had always assumed it was just an ironic spin on the word "dessert," but I looked it up in Merriam Webster online and they seem to say that you are right. Apparently "desert" as in "just desert" is, in fact, a word of its own, totally unrelated to "desert" (as in a dry place) or the word "dessert." In any case, I still do not think we should use this word here to define meritum for several reasons: 1. Merriam Webster refers to "desert" as a "rarely-used noun." I did not even know it was a separate word until tonight. Therefore, it seems safe to assume that almost everyone reading the article will assume that the word is referring to a "desert" as in the Sahara Desert. 2. We do not need a second word to define it, since we already define meritum as meaning "reward," which I think is adequate enough. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding using "desert" to define meritum, I agree with Katolophyromai that it is unnecessary and potentially confusing. Paul August &#9742; 09:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A much more common word from the same root is the verb deserve. I can’t recall ever seeing this desert used in the singular, or indeed anywhere other than in the cliché mentioned above. I wouldn’t say dessert is totally unrelated, though: the stem of both is ultimately from the Latin servire (to serve) but the prefixes are different. The other desert words derive from sero (to bind).—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  08:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The Merriam Webster entry describes desert as "a completely unrelated word that happens to be pronounced like the word for sweets and spelled like the one for a dry place: desert, meaning “reward or punishment deserved or earned by one’s qualities or acts." That is why I called it "totally unrelated." --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I may have overreacted; I tend to agree this ("desert") doesn't really help the article, but it seemed to me that your reason was wrong. Indeed, my (Collegiate) Merriam-Webster doesn't say anything like you quote; it agrees with the SOED that the deserving "desert" (noun) is from OF deservir, which the entry for "desert" (verb) says comes from Lat. deservire. Whereas "dessert" is from an unrelated form "des(-)servir", to take the plates away. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

"Discussion forum"
Okay, issue resolved. But still, why do you think I was "treating it like a forum" just because I was questioning the mainstream sources? That's not forum discussion; that's discussion with the intent of improving the article. I wasn't just chatting it up over there just to talk about it, like some users may, but was actually trying to find consensus to improve the article. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I understood that what you were asking was pertinent to the subject of the article; that is the reason why I bothered to give you an explanation at all. The reason I made the comment about it "not being a forum" was not because of what you had already said, but, rather, because of what you might have said after I posted my response. These discussions, particularly about controversial subjects such as religion, often tend to become hopelessly sidetracked. People often (unfortunately) use the talk pages for soapboxing about their own personal beliefs and I was concerned you might turn out to be one of those people. It does not seem like you are, though, but I also made that statement partially to protect myself in case one of the other editors objected that my explanation was off-topic. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The user page is where opinions on Wikipedia go. Elsewhere, all things said must remain as neutral as possible. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Harumph
So you didn’t like my minor edits, did you? You with the funny name? Well, it is, of course, largely a matter of taste. I do worry about this article — I worry that it is too good, and too well done, and frankly too virginal-like to be squandered and slumming around in this Kingdom of Trolls, when, with a little extra polish, it might deserved to be published in some classier less democratic production. So, if you don’t appreciate what I have to offer, I won’t object, instead I will consider that you are only giving this article a nice touch of “distressing”, which looks so good on blue jeans these days. However you go too far when you accuse me of “inadvertantly introducing a few grammar errors”. First of all, if I ever introduce anything remotely like that, you should assume it is on purpose. Secondly, I demand that you either prove that cheap comment, or take it back, you pussy. Or else I challenge you to an edit war. On top of that, if I find that you in your reversions have introduced a usage flub of your own, in other words exactly what you accuse me of doing (and I have found such an example!) you will have to eat raw crow, or the equivalent in some manner to be determined by me. Gaustaag (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your personal insults here are completely inappropriate. Nonetheless, I will enumerate the grammar errors I noticed in your edits. In this edit, you wrote "...are mentioned in the Brothers Poem; a poem discovered in 2014." There should be a comma here, not a semicolon. Semicolons are used for joining sentences or independent clauses; they should not be used prior to an appositive phrase. In this edit , you changed "Sappho was a prolific poet, probably composing around 10,000 lines." to "Sappho was a prolific poet, she probably composed around 10,000 lines." This sentence, however, contains what is known as a comma splice, which is where a comma is incorrectly used to join two sentences. Ironically, this error could have easily been remedied by simply replacing the comma with a semicolon. The original sentence was correct, since "probably composing around 10,000 lines" is a participial phrase.
 * If you really have found any grammar errors in what I have written, I would be more than happy to hear about them so that I may correct them, if they are indeed actual errors. I do not wish to engage in any form of edit warring and I would like to remind you that the purpose of Wikipedia is build an accurate and insightful encyclopedia; attacking other users and engaging in edit wars is considered disruptive editing. It may also be helpful for you to read WP:NOTHERE. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Katolophyromai, forgive me if you truly think that I insulted you personally, as you say I did. I’m not sure exactly which thing I said that bothers you most.  Perhaps it was when I said you had a funny name.  If that’s it, then I take it back. Katolophyromai doesn’t sound that funny, at least not anymore.  It sounds like somebody threw a box of pencils down some stairs.  When you say I used a semicolon and should have used a comma, I concede that you’re right about that. Of course, the difference between a comma and a semi-colon is a TINY mid-high interpunct speck, for lack of a better word.  I’ve since given my computer screen a scrubbing, so I hope that won’t happen again.  When I corrected a minor error of yours I didn’t take the time to point it out to you (as you did to me) or attempt to embarrass you for being less than perfect.  I didn’t — at least not until I was goaded.  I simply made the correction and described it as a “minor edit”.  But I suspect you were being partly rhetorical in your announcing my error, because you had the ulterior motive of wanting to protect your article by discouraging any one else, such as me, from getting their grubby hands on it.  Which I certainly understand, and forgive you for.  You are clearly an excellent editor, and have contributed meaningfully.  You’re not perfect though.  I should thank you for that correction, because, as perhaps you know, editors nowadays seem to consider the use of semicolons as a kind of red flag of stylistic stodginess, which probably explains the ascendant use of the dash.  However, and forgive me, but I don’t agree with your suggestion regarding the use of a “comma splice.”  The tying together of independent clauses without a semi-colon or a conjunction (asyndetic parataxis) was a feature of Old English, and it has been a part of the language ever since — it precedes the invention of the semi-colon, and also precedes the coining of the term “comma splice”. My use of the comma is honored in present-day English even in the WP article that you yourself linked to, but that perhaps didn’t read.  That article says: “Most authorities on English usage consider comma splices appropriate in limited situations.”  The English language has almost always evolved in the direction of simplicity, and the invention of the semicolon demonstrates that there are regressive exceptions to that progress. The diminishing prospects of the semicolon may be an example of the evolution of language happening under our noses, and as that happens the phrase “comma splice” begins to sound like a trend that has a whiff of mothballs about it. Your taste on all this may be different from mine, but I don’t think anyone should be a fascist about that particular rule, which you only partially state, and try to steamroll other’s opinions. I think I have a different idea of “edit warring” than you do, but if you’re too chicken to go along, I won’t insist. Sorry I was a bit delayed in responding, but I had to deal with some stuff.  Some really important stuff.  All very best wishes and sincere respect to you, Katolophyromai.   Gaustaag (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was not trying to embarrass you by pointing our your mistake; I was simply trying to explain why I was reverting your edit. As for your claim that comma splices are now generally considered acceptable, that is not true, at least not in formal writing, and the article I linked to very clearly states that "...comma splices are usually considered style errors in English." Since Wikipedia is encyclopedia, it should use standard grammar conventions for formal English. Also, I cannot take full credit for having brought Sappho up to the quality that it currently is; the vast majority of the work was put in by Caeciliusinhorto. I will admit that I did make a few contributions, but he or she was the one who did most of the work. Finally, I was not trying to discourage you or any other editor from contributing to Wikipedia. If you or another editor make changes to that article that are genuine improvements, I certainly will not oppose those changes. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Katolophyromai, my esteemed fellow editor, au contraire! Formal writing does indeed sometimes allow two independent clauses to be connected with nothing but a comma.  The proof of that is found in the tons of examples that can be found.  For example, I think you are forgetting one of the most admired and celebrated passages in all of literature, one that I’m sure you read when you were a kid: The first sentence of The Tale of Two Cities alone contains a dozen examples.  Not only that, but this usage appears to be accepted in the “house style” over at the Oxford University Press, because I found examples in the first two books I opened: in Rhetoric: A Very Short Introduction, published by Oxford in 2013; an example occurs on the fifth page (v) of the introductory essay.  And in The Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language, also published by Oxford University Press, there are three or four examples, the first one occurs in the short article “E — the fifth letter of the alphabet”.  The Handbook of Composition published by Heath & Co., on page 199, has an example that’s used to demonstrate a compound sentence.  And the Loeb Library translation of Euripides Orestia, published by Harvard University, has this:  “I weep, I weep for you.”  It’s from the “Katolophyromai Katolophyromai” stasimon. I could name more examples: Don Quixote, a history book, a book about Horace, another one on Suetonius, a novel based on Cleopatra, a math book, a book on neuropsychology, etc.  But I only should need a few to demonstrate that independent clauses are sometimes connected by only a comma in formal writing.  If it’s good enough for Oxford University Press, than it should be good enough for this thing that you and I are contributing to.  I hope you don’t mind me correcting you, but I don’t want you to go through life with a misconception. But are you the type that will admit when you’re wrong?  I’m not sure.  We'll see.  On another topic, you refer to User:Caeciliusinhorto, as a “he or a she”.  I’m pretty sure she’s a woman, just like you.  But I have to say, it’s very nice of you to give her credit the way you did.  She probably deserves a lot, you might also, but neither of you own this article.  Though I still think it’s an excellent article.  Gaustaag (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that comma splices are sometimes used in certain writings (particularly poetic writings) does not necessarily mean they are generally considered acceptable in formal English. Most grammar handbooks condemn them and, in school, I was always taught that they are wrong. The Purdue OWL website labels them as "incorrect" and gives advice on how to avoid them and so does the Oxford English Dictionary website, which also states that comma splices "make your writing seem careless or amateurish." One grammar advice website I found remarks that:
 * "'Occasionally, someone brilliant intentionally bucks the rules and still succeeds, but it's much more common for writers to have consistent errors like comma splices in their manuscripts not because they are brilliant renegades, but because they actually don't know the rules. I've talked to many editors who do look at the grammar and usage in manuscripts and don't look kindly on errors. Unless you want to make it more difficult to get your ideas across to editors and readers, stick with traditional punctuation'."
 * If you want to use comma splices in your own writing, go ahead, but I still I do not think they should be used here on Wikipedia. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your definition of the phrase “comma splice” has shifted, or changed during the course of this discussion. The first definition you offered, was the one you found in the Wiki article “comma splice”.  You also quoted from the article.  That article defines a “comma splice” as “the use of a comma to join two independent clauses."  It also says that “most authorities on English usage consider comma splices appropriate in limited situations”.  I accepted that definition (that you offered to me) in good faith.  But now you’ve found a definition that apparently, according to what you say, contradicts your first definition.  Your second definition is something quite different and opposite, because now, suddenly, a comma splice is never appropriate!  And you’re using the second definition to make it appear that I am mistaken.  May I respectfully object to that kind of “surprise switcheroo" of the definitions that you employed; it’s considered equivocation.  When you change the definition during a discussion, without letting the other know, it’s considered fallacious, and can have a damaging effect on a discussion.  Gaustaag (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have not changed my definition of a comma splice. My original statement (from my very first response) defined a comma splice as a place "where a comma is incorrectly used to join two sentences." If you do not believe me, you can check right there; I have not changed it at all. Also, that definition was my own; it was not quoted from the article comma splice and the only reason I linked to that article to begin with was so that you could read more on the subject if you were interested. Furthermore, I do not believe that my definition in any way contradicts the definition offered in that article. As I have stated before, the article directly states that "comma splices are usually considered style errors in English." The apparent contradiction seems to be entirely of your own invention. In any case, this whole discussion seems to be entirely pointless since really all we are doing at this point is arguing back and forth. I see no purpose in continuing this. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the video is from 2011.
See it on Youtube. The earlier video he's talking about was this one from 2009 (or possibly earlier; the original seems to be gone).  Serendi pod ous  09:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I see you are clearly right. Thank you for sharing this with me. I suppose I must have misinterpreted what he said to assume that the video was created this year. The NASA site did not give the date of the video and the reference to the other video made several years before must have misled me into thinking that the other video he referenced was from before 2012. --Katolophyromai (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Aesop
I've also undone your addition of "legendary". It's a very confusing usage since it appears to be puffery along the lines of "the great", We clearly discuss the issue of whether he actually existed in the very next sentence of the lede, so there is no need to add a qualification (even if done in a less confusing way) on his historical existence. Per WP:BRD either discuss this on the talk page or leave it alone. Meters (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not see it as puffery; it is merely a simple statement of the fact that Aesop's life is more legend than history. I do not see it as "confusing" either, but, since there are two editors who both clearly seem to be adamantly opposed to the inclusion of the word "legendary," I will desist and refrain from attempting to re-insert that word in the future. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand that you did not mean it to be taken as hyperbole, but to many English speakers "the legendary Aesop" has the connotation of  greatness (remarkable enough to be the subject of legend) rather than questioning his existence.  Meters (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There’s a long series of words that have been ‘skunked’ because fads of vernacular & journalistic usage have obscured (or virtually driven out) the original sense. The most relevant include legendary, with fabulous, awesome, brilliant, & many others, where a generic superlative function replaced the specific meanings. Others, like fulsome and enormity, are so often misused (or, from a more descriptivist POV than mine, extended in sense) that hardly anyone will understand when they’re used correctly (with their original sense).—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  04:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My objection was to editorial bias. Saying in the lead that Aesop's "existence remains unclear" does not mean that the person never existed at all, which calling him "legendary" implies. The WP article on Robin Hood is phrased far more tactfully: "Robin Hood is a heroic outlaw in English folklore who, according to legend, was a highly skilled archer and swordsman." In both his and Homer's case, legends now obscure the details of someone who undoubtedly existed to serve as their basis. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Eurycleia
Wow! Good for you! What about “Nobody is my name" (Odyssey) and “My name is Legion” (Gospel of Mark; and later on, also in Luke); are these also mere coincidences? Cheer up; the end is near but all is not yet lost. Saludos cordiales desde Coyoacán, CdMx ("Land of Earthquakes"). --Wkboonec (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would not even call them "coincidences"; they are totally unrelated statements. The first statement is a lie that the hero Odysseus tells to a one-eyed, man-eating giant, who has trapped him and members of his crew inside a cave and intends to eat them. The second is a statement that a man possessed by many demons says to Jesus on the beach in the country of the Gadarenes. The only thing the statements have even remotely in common is that they are both statements of a person's name. The two statements have just as much in common with the statement "My name is Bob" as they have with each other. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, looking at the entire episodes (1) Odysseus and the cyclops vs (2) Jesus and "Legion", I consider the parallel word-plays to be apalling evidence. I first heard both of these stories when I was a small child, some 60 years ago, never establishing a connection. But then, recently, ... ¿pigs and sheep?! You may want to watch the YouTube videos by Truthsurge, based on the work of Dennis MacDonald. If you watch just one of these videos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy-4iS1qfRo) with an open mind, it may just blow your mind as it did mine. Cordially, --Wkboonec (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S. You must be in agreemeent that "Mark", writing in Greek in the 1st century CE, must have been quite familiar with the Homeric Poems (A-number-one, top of the list in "required reading"), particularly the story of how Odysseus escaped from Polyphemus' cave - as I was since age ten, growing up in a small town in Veracruz. Have I been lured by MacDonal into a "conspiracy theory" trap? Perhaps I have; but I would still bet by bottom dollar that "Mark" had Odysseus on his mind when he made up the story about Legion. And on that note, my friend, I bid you farewell and take my leave.

Oh, wait! Let me not leave the stage without presenting you with a gift, another rare jewel of a literary nature, not yet widely accepted or even known, that I am sure you will appreciate: much evidence suggests that Cervantes started his Don Quijote as a literary excercise, building on the real-life weird history of the two biographies of Ignacio de Loyola. See http://www.donquijoteliberado.com/ (albeit, in Spanish). Enjoy, --Wkboonec (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence from Smuckola

 * Thank you very much for the barnstar! I really appreciate it and I am glad that you think I have been making worthy contributions to the encyclopedia. If you have seen any of the articles I have worked on, you can probably tell that I tend to cite my sources rather obsessively, which I think is a good thing. The articles ancient Greek literature, Inanna, Enlil, and Anunnaki are all currently GA nominees, but they are still awaiting review. Athena, Ishtar, and Proto-Indo-European religion are all getting close to being ready for GA nomination, but they are not quite ready yet. I have also put Ishtar up for peer review. If you really want to help, you could try your hand at reviewing some of them. If not, you could just read them and give me feedback on what you think I could do to improve them, or try to make improvements yourself. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah right on. I just started learning about the Anunnaki as an extension of the ancient megalithic world which I followed (with a detour at Coral Castle) from the great pyramids of Egypt. It's quite a network of rabbit holes. I'm just not a legit scholar, but rather an intense enthusiast. I'm trying to really understand it and so I live on youtube and wikipedia. The archaeology that I *am* particularly adept at is that of dead computer technologies of the 1980s and 1990s lol.


 * Yeah I'm obsessive on wiki metadata, especially citations. Hopefully someday the Wikimedia engineers will upgrade cite.php to have a properly unified sitewide citation infrastructure, so we won't have to replicate and manually propagate them throughout the site in each article. It's hard enough to reference the same citation throughout an article, and I'm just baffled as to which method is best, and each one has its own quirky weirdo look to how they are invoked and rendered.


 * I always use which is slightly ugly but concise, and I can kinda tolerate  which is particularly nonsensically strict and extremely confusing to actually utilize in an article. The latter method will litter the References section with countless redundant page instances, and it so stupidly allows only one author and allows the author to write one book per year lol.  I don't know what these people are thinking. It's like one hack after another. But that's what we have.


 * However we do it, the most important thing is that we standardize away from the infinitely stupider method of manual paper-based citations and their randomly obscure formats like which (because they're formatted randomly and unexplained, by whatever unknown ad hoc format) may as well say.


 * As long as we use a standard format (data normalization) like, they can be automatically converted in the future. Ok I'm rambling, keep in touch, email me if you want, thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 00:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, the "sfn" format does allow for multiple authors; you just put a | between the authors' names. In fact, there are several places where I use it to cite multiple authors in some of the articles I have been working on. I am pretty sure there is probably also a way to cite multiple works written by the same author in the same year, but I have never encountered that issue, so I have not bothered to find out what it is. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok cool, well it's still hard in practice because I can't make a single unique reference name for the citation, right? I normally do a named reference like  but with "sfn", I have to constantly wrangle with looking up the two separate generic references of the author's last name and a year. That's been very clumsy and tedious in my experience. And then the resulting citation is a blob of name and year which is pretty much totally meaningless on sight -- unreadable. And the more you have (which is why we were using these organizational templates in the first place), the more meaningless of a mess it is. The result is that both the editor and the reader have to relentlessly reference what they're even citing (looking up the author name and year to see what book the citation is citing), thus kinda defeating the purpose of citations lol. It's all so dumb. Wikitedious. lol — Smuckola(talk) 01:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * What are some more articles that you have already nominated or want to nominate for Good, upon which I can run my wikignoming routine? I think you said you had a bunch. Oops I see them up at the top of this thread. — Smuckola(talk) 03:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries
This was a good idea, and very nicely written - even the edit summary was finely wrought as ever. Your edit summaries are surely among Wikipedia's best). Haploidavey (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! I always try to be very detailed with my edit summaries and, if the change I am making could be controversial, I generally like to give an explanation for why I am implementing that change. The way I see it, the edit summary is my only opportunity to explain my line of thinking to a person who might be reviewing the article history; if the edit summary is inadequate, it will leave people confused regarding why I made the changes that I did. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, very well done. And the writing and citations are very thorough and clear and simple and readable on Anunnaki. That's why I haven't contributed more to that one, because unless I get a degree in the subject, I can't even touch it. lol. Usually I'm copy editing articles that are already 'GA' because they're full of broken English and WP:TRIVIA and junk citations. Oh btw would the Notes section I added to Gilgamesh be applicable in other Sumerian-related articles like at Anunnaki? At least I can do mechanical wiki tasks like formatting that. — Smuckola(talk) 23:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * On Anunnaki, I added an infobox although it's normally meant for a single deity instead of a family of them. Would we want to use as seen on Baal and  as seen on Anu? Let me know if I did this correctly. — Smuckola(talk) 08:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope you do not mind, but I reverted your addition of the infobox and the "Mesopotamian myth" template. The problem with the infobox is that, since it is normally used only for individual deities, there is not really any information about the Anunnaki as a group that can really go in it. (I think you may have discovered this yourself, since you only had one of the information brackets filled out.) Furthermore, since the usage of the name "Anunnaki" evolved greatly over time, any information we could put in the infobox would end up being oversimplified. For instance, would we call them "Heavenly deities" (as they were for the Sumerians), or would we call them "Underworld deities" (as they were for the Babylonians, Assyrians, and Hittites)?
 * The "Mesopotamian myth" template is also problematic because it messes up the image placement and pushes the first image in the article down into the section beneath where it is supposed to belong. I generally dislike the sidebar navboxes and usually prefer the ones that go at the bottoms of the articles. (There are currently two of them at Anunnaki.)
 * On a minor side note, I thought I would point out that "Sumeria" is not a real name; the correct word is actually "Sumer." This is a frequent point of confusion, which may be result of the fact that there are quite a few non-academic writers who incorrectly use the name "Sumeria" because they are conflated Sumer with Samaria, which is an entirely different location. The fact that the people of Sumer are known as "Sumerians" may also contribute to the conflation. All the academic works I have seen use "Sumer." --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Right on. I submitted those templates on Anunnaki basically for your review because I didn't know if they worked or could be made to work. Thank you for your detailed explanation, which is enlightening for my personal learning and my Wikipedia contributions, because I am academically illiterate. I am, however, dependent upon a 'thanks' buttonpress and your verification for Gilgamesh here. :D  And please see my question above, about whether we can reuse my Notes pieces on Gilgamesh anywhere else like maybe Annunaki or Epic of Gilgamesh etc.
 * Next, regarding Anu, I am wondering how we can properly cite the tablets like "Tablet I, 38ff". I don't know what those are from, but Wikipedia policy says that we have to cite where we read it and where someone else can verify it. So it would need to not be cited directly from an original ancient artifact but some reprinted text, which is probably available online, right? — Smuckola(talk) 19:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am actually working on rewriting the article Anu right now. It currently has some major issues. I intend to replace any citations to primary sources with citations to secondary ones, which has generally been my policy. I think that the primary sources should be mentioned in the article, but not cited directly. I just rewrote much of the first section of the article and I will continue to revise it in the coming days. Regarding the "Notes" section at Gilgamesh, I am not entirely sure where else those particular notes could be reused. The one about Gilgamesh's name in ancient Sumerian could possibly be reused in the article about the Epic of Gilgamesh. The note about the Tummal inscription needs a citation, since even what is written in the notes needs to be verifiable. I appreciate your continued feedback and criticism. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You know, being a citation fanatic (an encyclopedia fanatic, duh), I would never ever want to delete a reference as long as it's reliable. One option is to create subheadings under References, and make them ===Primary=== and ===Secondary=== .  How about that?  You don't just want the article being sealed to some hypothetical legalistic standard; you want it to be everything that's fit to publish, right?  People (and the subject) still need the full benefit of your research. I mean we are including some that may not be the strictest RSes, such as websites and other encyclopedias, as long as we know it's authoritatively useful and the content already has overall coverage from a strict RS. — Smuckola(talk) 23:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * (Stalker comment ) Separation of references under "primary" and "secondary" is not an optimal solution. We use (or should use) only secondary references; but we can and should include the primary and secondary sources cited by our secondary sources. The system used at Gladiator -- for almost all the article's references -- is an example of this method: "Futrell 2006, pp. 144–145. Futrell is citing Suetonius's Lives, "Augustus", 45, "Caligula", 30, "Claudius", 34." It helps ensure that primary references are easily traced, but are also used in a form that's been filtered through the evaluative "fine sieve" of secondary scholarship, reducing the possibility of intrusive editorial voice and misinterpretation. I should also add this: there's an awful lot published in paper and online, and some of it is very far from representative of mainstream scholarly opinion. It's very easy to distort a topic by giving undue weight to a non-mainstream argument or enthusiastic theory, simply because it seems of interest, or persuasively written, or has received positive media attention. Haploidavey (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with your statement that we should include "everything that's fit to publish." There is a lot of seriously disreputable garbage that is published on just about any topic. If we mentioned everything that was published about ancient Sumerian religion, we would end up talking about Zechariah Sitchin and his crackpot conspiracy theory that the ancient Sumerian gods were actually reptilian aliens from the imaginary planet Nibiru, who came to earth to mine gold and genetically engineered humans to serve as their slaves. Obviously, that is complete rubbish and it does not belong in an encyclopedia article about Sumerian mythology. I believe that all the sources I have used qualify as reliable sources according to Wikipedia's standards. The websites I have cited in Anu, Anunnaki, and the other articles I have been working on lately, are ones which I believe to be reliable. If you think that I have made a mistake and that one of the sources I have used is, in fact, not reliable, please name which one you are referring to so we can discuss it specifically. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear sir, I'm sorry for the confusion but I meant to say "everything that's encyclopedically fit to publish on Wikipedia". So agreeing with you. So anyway the point of my proposal/inquiry was to simply denote the difference between primary and secondary sources rather than just delete valid and helpful reliable sources as per your ostensibly superlative research. And when it comes to Sitchin, I've barely heard of him except sitchiniswrong.com and stuff, but I'll read up on him after a while. — Smuckola(talk) 06:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with, I’d also like to point out that primary sources in millennia-dead languages are particularly problematic, as without benefit of scholarly apparatus it’s easy to jump to false conclusions from the wording of a translation, and some degree of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR is hard to avoid. Let alone the difficulty of interpreting myths that can contain allegorical elements, ritualized language, and some mixture of history & legend, for all of which we often lack detailed cultural context. Anyway, IMO the best place for “rescued“ primary sources (preferably annotated editions), where not available under secondary commentaries’ citations, would be in either the Further reading or the External links section.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  07:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Do not bother reading up on him. It would be a complete waste of your precious time; he is just a crazy conspiracy theorist and, although his views seem to be popular with the general public, they have absolutely no traction whatsoever in scholarly circles. I was only using him as an example to demonstrate that there are some seriously deluded people who have managed to get their deluded ideas published. My point is that the quality of sources is just as important as the quantity and that we need to make sure that we only use sources that reflect the views of mainstream scholars. --Katolophyromai (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should clarify what my plans are for dealing with primary sources. I think that what I am doing is essentially what Haploidavey has described above; I am planning to describe what the primary sources say in the article, but, in the citations, I am going to cite all the information to reliable secondary sources describing those primary sources. For a sample of what I am planning to do at Anu, you can look at the articles Athena, Inanna, and Enlil, which I think have some good examples of how this works. --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen. Thanks for the insight. Now that you mention it, yes tablets and scrolls in ancient dead languages are a special breed of primary source. And yeah I'll read about all the stories and hypotheses and legends out there for mind expansion and nonconformity and whatnot, and maybe occasionally to check that Wikipedia doesn't give WP:UNDUE weight to extreme academic conformism in the occasional case where I'm qualified to evaluate such a thing, but I won't give the alternative WP:UNDUE weight here in these main articles because his stuff is well covered on his own article. :) — Smuckola(talk) 18:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Typhon's Near Eastern influences
Hi Katolophyromai. As you've noticed, in our article on Typhon, I’ve just rewritten and expanded the section “Near Eastern influence”. As the mythology of the Near East, is well outside my usual areas of expertise, and as I know you have made some contributions there, I would appreciate any thoughts you might care to share regarding these edits. Regards, Paul August &#9742; 13:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. this of course applies to any of your talk page readers as well. Paul August &#9742; 14:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was just looking over what you added. From what I have seen, it looks like you have done a great job. I will have more time to review it later, though. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Paul August &#9742; 14:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Samson
Do you think we could get Samson's article to FA status? MagicatthemovieS MagicatthemovieS 13:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I honestly have no idea. I have no experience with promoting articles to FA and, until now at least, I have solely focused on bringing them to GA, but that is partially because none of the articles I have nominated for GA have passed yet. I do not exactly know how the process of promoting an article to FA status works, but, from what I gather, it is much harder than simply bringing them up to GA. Frankly, I am content with the article as GA like it is currently. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , since you and I are both interested in religion, would you be interested in working together to promote the articles of other biblical figures to GA status?
 * Possibly. Right now, though, I am working on trying to bring articles relating to ancient Sumerian religion and ancient Greek religion up to GA status. I have already nominated Inanna, Enlil, and Anunnaki. Ishtar is waiting on a peer review, and Athena and Proto-Indo-European religion are almost ready to be nominated. Nonetheless, I may have some time to work with you; I have previously considered trying to bring Bible-related articles up to GA, but have largely avoided that urge until now because they are often so controversial that I imagine trying to work on them would only result in a mess of arguments. Adam and Eve, Daniel (biblical figure), Esther, Job (biblical figure), Jonah, David, and Solomon are a few articles that I think really ought to be brought up to GA status, but their current quality is generally variable. Yahweh is generally of good quality, but it is hopelessly unstable and has been the subject of constant edit wars, persistent sock puppetry, and unending squabbles over theology. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in getting the Delilah article to GA status. If we could get Samson to GA status without squabbling, we could certainly do it with Delilah. I'm going to be working on her article over the next few weeks and if you'd like to join in it'd be much appreciated. Or perhaps I could work on it until it's good and then you could review it once I nominate it for GA status.
 * That sounds fine with me. I may pitch in with some contributions of my own, but, in the meantime, I will continue polishing up the articles I have been working on. The articles Athena, Proto-Indo-European religion, and Lucian are ones I have been meaning to improve enough that I will be able to nominate them. I may do some work on the article Daniel (biblical figure), which I have been watching for a while now, but scarcely contributed to. Perhaps you would be willing to review some of the articles I have nominated, or at least look at them? My current nominees are ancient Greek literature, Inanna, Enlil, and Anunnaki. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to look into one of these over the next two or three weeks, and I'd definitely be willing to help you out with Daniel's article, as I am much more interested in biblical subjects than pagan ones.
 * Actually, I changed my mind; I think I am going to work on the article Jonah instead. It needs a lot of work. I started adding a bibliography this morning and will continue working on it later. I may work on Daniel (biblical figure) at a later date. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Jonah sounds good to me! Tell me ways that I can help and I will.
 * Delilah's article is now 799 words long; keep in mind that she is mentioned only in Judges 16:4-20. Keturah is a woman also mentioned in the Bible very brielfy; her article is a GA and is 608 words long. Should Delilah's article be longer or is it OK? If it should be longer, how long do you think it should be?

I would worry less about how long it is and more about how well it covers the subject in question; we want the length to be proportional to the amount of material that the article needs to cover. I think that we should incorporate more scholarly sources; right now the article seems to rely rather heavily on online sources and other encyclopedias. Whether or not adding more scholarly sources results in the text of the article itself growing longer depends on whether or not there is more material not mentioned in the article that needs to be covered. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you think replacing the "In the Bible" section of the Delilah article with the seventeen Bible verses about Delilah's narrative would be a good idea? The article for Samaritan woman at the well does something similar for a woman who is barely mentioned in the Bible.
 * My view is that it is generally better to summarize the source than quote the full text directly because Wikipedia is supposed to an encyclopedia, not a repository of quotes. For very short quotations, on the other hand, it may occasionally be better to quote the text, but only if quoting the text itself would be briefer and more effective than trying to summarize it. I personally think that seventeen verses is too many to quote, but, if you think otherwise, go ahead. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What are your thoughts on the current state of the Delilah article?

Missing source for statue story
I saw your edit summary, where you cut a paragraph from Athena, about the source being in an Asian language: actually it appears the domain has expired and is now occupied by somebody selling cosmetics—either that or it’s been hacked to that effect. The Wayback Machine’s search engine seems to be down at the moment, but I was hoping to find a backup there.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  01:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , if you know of a reliable, English source on the Boucher statue, I would be happy to see that information restored; it is slightly tangential, but it is interesting and it does illustrate Athena's modern associations with intellectual free thought. I went digging for sources, and I found quite a few sources that appeared to be talking about it, but they were all in French and, unfortunately, I do speak a word of French.
 * I am also concerned about the information about Athena's role as the patron of universities, which is currently uncited. I could not find any mention of her in association with any of the colleges mentioned in that paragraph except for Bryn Mawr, and even then, the sources I found were college guidebooks about the school, not academic works about Athena's cultural influence in modern society, which means they will probably work in the article, but they are certainly not ideal. I am still looking, but, so far, the results for the others do not look not promising. More sources about Athena on modern coinage may also be somewhat difficult to track down. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I found the archived page, and unfortunately it doesn’t support much of the content you deleted. It‘s only three sentences, the first two being general remarks on the function of monumental sculpture, and the third saying Boucher created more than fifteen monuments, naming three examples including his statue of Ernest Renan at Tréguier. No description of any of them, nor any mention of a controversy. However, our article on Renan includes a reference to a different page from the same site, with considerably more information. I read French reasonably well, although I don’t consider myself a fluent speaker, so could e-mail you a rough translation if you’re interested. (Likewise for any other French sources you may come across.)—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  23:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

DRN notice: Jesus
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtrevor99 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Some recently removed text at Cerberus
Hi Katolophyromai. Regarding this edit which you partially reverted here (thanks), I've now restored a revised version of the removed text, with an explanation here. Comments there welcome. Paul August &#9742; 12:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your perseverance
Hi Kat. Thank you for your perseverance in the face of bullying and harassment which you had to endure from the now blocked account. I saw the comments while I was investigating the incessant edit-warring at Thales and I incorporated them in my 3RR report. No Wikipedian has to endure this type of vicious PAs and incivility. If this happens in the future, please report it to any admin, at ANI or, if you prefer, you can contact me. Thank you. Dr.  K.  10:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I greatly appreciate your sympathy. I have been attacked like that plenty of times before; it was a little incendiary at first, but, by now, I have just gotten used to it. I have never tried to contact an administrator or another user outside of the discussion because I figured that would qualify as canvassing. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Kat. Reporting this type of ΝPA/CIV violations is no canvassing at all. The statements this account directed at you are gross violations of NPA and CIV. They are also blockable offences which should be reported as soon as they are made. Don't hesitate to contact me, or any admin, or even file a report at ANI, if you see anything like that in the future. As you know, I have seen your excellent work for some time now, and I have already thanked you multiple times, through the "thank" button. Keep up your excellent work. Take care. Dr.   K.  17:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Jonah
Hey Katolophyromai, thanks for all the work you are doing on Jonah, it is certainly improving the article. You'll notice I've restored one section about locations with a comment in the edit summary that some of them may not be well sourced or notable, but that removing them all seemed to me to be too much. Reading the article after your edits, the picture presented is one I personally would mostly agree with, but I do wonder whether there are alternate views that are not being represented? I don't propose to spend the amount of time on the article you are (what a huge undertaking!) but I might consider adding a few bits and pieces here and there - happy to discuss if you see things differently. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There were several reasons why I deleted the section about "places associated with Jonah." One reason is that several of the more notable locations, such as Gath-hepher, Jaffa, and the shrine at Nineveh are already mentioned in earlier sections. Another reason is that the section is poorly cited and I cannot find reliable sources to support most of the entries, and many of them do not appear to be noteworthy. For instance, is it really important that Jonah has one street named after him in Jaffa? I am pretty sure that Saint Paul and the Virgin Mary have hundreds of cities named after them, but the articles about them do not list every single one of them. Some of the information was also unrelated, such as the mention of the fact that the Nebbi Yunes sanctuary appears in photographs taken by German pilots during World War I. I do not think that having a whole section devoted exclusively to locations associated with Jonah is really due; if the locations are truly noteworthy, they will end up being referenced and described throughout the article.
 * In regards to your other remark, what perspectives do you think are missing? If you think there is noteworthy position that I have overlooked, I would be happy to add it in, provided that there are reliable sources to support it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I added in a brief comment at the end of the historicity section sourced to a commentary already in the bibliography, that's the kind of thing I meant. With the locations, I'm not sure what the problem is with having it as a separate section, which seems to be common in other articles, but if we can work out which are notable and they are mentioned elsewhere that's fine. The street in Jaffa is likely mentioned because Joppa/Jaffa is mentioned in the biblical story, so it's not quite like any other random street or city named after him :) Melcous (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Delilah
What are your thoughts on the current state of the Delilah article? - MagicatthemovieS
 * The general state of the article looks to be quite good, in my opinion, but you may want to proofread it for grammar errors; while you were editing, I noticed a few typos, but did not want to correct them because I was worried about possible edit conflicts. I have no idea if you have already corrected the ones I saw, but you may want to read over it just in case. I think you have done a great job. I am still not sure about quoting the full text of the biblical passage about Delilah, since the text seems too little long to quote the whole thing directly. Nonetheless, I think it works, at least until the reviewer says otherwise. You may want to add mention of the fact that most scholars consider the story of Samson and Delilah to be a legend, not a historical account. Even though this might seem rather obvious, I think it would be important to mention. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"citing Aristotle hismelf directly would actually be contrary to policy"
This is direct opposite what Verifiability says.

Secondary and tertiary sources are impossible without "primary sources". D1gggg (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:PRIMARY, which clearly states that Wikipedia should rely on contemporary secondary sources written by reputable scholars on the subject, and that any primary sources should be interpreted through those secondary sources. Quoting primary sources directly without secondary interpretation is a form of original research. In any case, this should no longer matter, since I happened to notice that the source cited to support that particular statement was published in 1726, which means it is egregiously outdated and should not be used. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY: does not says we are allowed to mis-attribute statements using secondary and tertiary sources
 * WP:PRIMARY: does not says we are allowed to reject that text is missing in primary sources
 * WP:PRIMARY: allows to quote primary source without interpretation (and not "Quoting primary sources directly without secondary interpretation is a form of WP:OR")
 * WP:LISTEN: we should not refer to "bazillions" scholars who studied Aristotle works but only those who can quote Aristotle works especially those who can read his language (Greek) D1gggg (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It is nearly impossible to comprehend what you are thinking to say because your grammar is so convoluted, but, from what is intelligible, you seem to be misunderstanding what I am saying; I am not denying that Plutarch discusses the problem of the chicken and the egg. What I am merely saying is that we need a source for this information other than just Plutarch himself. Here is a direct quote from WP:PRIMARY: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "we need a source for this information other than just Plutarch himself"
 * This is wrong reasoning to remove correct statements at appropriate article.
 * Back to Aristotle: Aristotle should state it his book first WP:PRIMARY and only then we can consider WP:SECONDARY WP:TERTIARY sources.
 * We have strange situation where everyone states "X", but we cannot find direct connection in his works.
 * If Aristotle said something different we should stop citing strange secondary sources no matter how numerous, recent, "academic" they are. D1gggg (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

please refer to Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch if I cannot formulate "accurately represent the opinions of the source". D1gggg (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have tracked down the exact passage where Aristotle discusses the "chicken or the egg" problem, which is Book IX (Theta) Chapter 8 of his Metaphysics. I have provided a citation to this passage in the article, as well as citations to several scholarly sources to support the attribution. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * please provide full quote what with answer to "chicken or egg question" {{diff2|809227401}

I have http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.9.ix.html in my browser in case we have different translations.

Metaphysics (Aristotle) has no words about "egg" in 1-9 chapters. Very strange "reference" to a typical "chicken or egg" question. I can see that Aristotle reasons about causation and related things, I don't see that he cares about "chicken or egg" question. D1gggg (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Aristotle discusses the question using abstract terminology; he does not actually use the word "chicken" or "egg." Instead he speaks using the abstract terms of "actuality" (the metaphorical "chicken") and "potentiality" (the "egg") As the article already states, Plutarch "was the first person to put the question into its modern form." I have provided a quote from the relevant passage in Aristotle for verification. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * two questions are not the same.
 * "chicken and egg" is more complicated and silly and about evolution
 * WP:LISTEN Aristotle is nohow close to explain evolution of chicken and egg D1gggg (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are completely misunderstanding the subject here; the question of the "chicken and the egg" is not about evolution at all. The concept of biological evolution would have been completely foreign to Plutarch, since Plutarch lived in the second century AD, but the Theory of Evolution was first formulated in 1859 by Charles Darwin in his book On the Origin of Species, roughly 1,700 years after Plutarch's death. In the passage we are discussing, Plutarch is using the "chicken" as a metaphor for the actualization of thought; whereas the "egg" is representative of the potential for that thought to exist. The "chicken" and the "egg" are metaphors. The question itself is a philosophical dilemma, not a scientific one, and it has nothing to do with biological evolution. The question discussed by Plutarch is fundamentally the same as the one posed by Aristotle; Plutarch's version just uses concrete terms rather than abstract ones. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:LISTEN what Plutarch says: do you still insist that all of usages are strictly metaphors? About "thought"? I would prefer academic paper which states that all of above quotes are metaphors. D1gggg (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was tainted with Orpheus’s or Pythagoras’s opinions, and refused to eat an egg
 * Which was first, the bird or the egg?
 * small things must be the principles of greater, it is likely that the egg was before the bird; for an egg amongst sensible things is very simple, and the bird is more mixed, and contains a greater variety of parts
 * but let us look upon the various kinds of animals, and we shall find almost every one beginning from an egg — fowls and fishes; land animals, as lizards; amphibious, as crocodiles; some with two legs, as a cock; some without any, as a snake; and some with many, as a locust
 * For we never see an egg formed immediately of mud, for it is produced in the bodies of animals alone; but a thousand living creatures rise from the mud
 * Besides, birds build nests before they lay their eggs; and women provide cradles, swaddling cloths and the like; yet who says that the nest is before the egg,
 * Then question from Plutarch/Aristotle has little to do with literal answers to Chicken or the egg
 * It should be clear that Chicken or the egg is discussed by evolutionists nowadays and philosophers of time and it is different from potential for that thought to exist and actualization of thought
 * WP:LISTEN I said two questions are different. D1gggg (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The "metaphor" description was my own and there is every possibility that I was wrong. I will freely admit that I am not an expert on Plutarch and I honestly had not read very much about the "chicken or the egg" question until today. It does not matter, though, because the reliable sources clearly identify Aristotle's question and Plutarch's as the same. (Please consult the sources cited in the article, which clearly delineate this identification.) Wikipedia reports what the reliable sources tell us and we do not add our own interpretations to articles.
 * On the other hand, however, I can definitively tell you that the question has nothing to do with the idea of biological evolution because that concept did not exist during Plutarch's time, or at least not in its modern, scientific form. I would rather not continue arguing over this because I think that at this point arguing is pointless, since both of us have already stated our cases. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate honestly, I spent considerable portion of this day in Aristotle works.
 * I think that that Plutarch and Aristotle should live at Potential of thought to exist and actualization of thought
 * Whereas modern scientists should grouped after "evolutionary" publications.
 * It doesn't make sense to pretend that ways to answer literal answer to "chicken and egg" are the same in 100 AD and 1859-2017 AD D1gggg (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)