User talk:Katolophyromai/Archive 6

Methuselah
Just wondering if you have any other concerns about the Methuselah article or if it can be passed. I am putting this question here because you didn't seem to notice my comments on the Methuselah talk page. Thanks so much for your help and time!MagicatthemovieS (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)MagicattthemovieS
 * Give me some more time to look at it. I have not had a chance to re-read the whole thing since I last contacted you. Please try to be patient. I will try to respond by the end of today. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I'm being a pain; a close relative recently passed and I'm in a bad mood. Thank-you so much for putting up with me during this time.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * I am very sorry for your loss and would like to convey my deepest and most sincere condolences. I completely understand why that would put somebody in an unpleasant mood. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much; I'm here if you want to finish up the article.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * I have a lot of spare time tonight so if you're free we could definitely finish the Methuselah article.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * Although this is unnecessary for GA, I'm willing to hear your remaining critiques of the article. Thanks so much for your help.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * I saw your ping on the GA review page and I am going to respond to it. Give me time. You just pinged me a few minutes ago. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

FA Issues
Don’t let them get you down. I’ve been there myself! &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the encouragement! The FA standard is just so high and, frankly, interpretation of the criteria seems to be somewhat subjective. I think what I will try to do in the future is try to bring all the articles I work on up to a quality that I would feel comfortable nominating them for FA, but then only actually nominate them for GA. That has already been somewhat my de facto policy, but now I have a better idea of the FA standards, so I will be better equipped to implement it. Who knows, maybe some day I will attempt an FAC again. For now, though, I think I will stick with bringing articles up to GA status while still maintaining the highest standard I can possibly muster. There are certainly plenty of articles out there that need to be brought up to GA status anyway... --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, you were unlucky there, but FAC can be very picky on small issues. Johnbod (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Apologies
Hi Katolophyromai, I wanted to more personally expand on the apology I left at the FA nomination for Pythagoras. I was rude to you, and that this (reading the section above) has turned you off of the process is even more upsetting because I believe that's also a loss for the project. I should have been more forthcoming about the positive aspects of your article, focusing too much on my own opinions on what I thought needed to be fixed, and using links and criteria as a bludgeon to intimidate and win rather than as a way of helping you improve the content you've generously created and bravely offered for critique. I have been having a tough couple of days and this was clearly not the time to take on this review. I should have known that, and the repurcussions of my lapse in judgment are obvious. I mean it when I say that I don't believe the article is far away from FA quality, and I am sorry that my personal issues spilled over and blinded me of the need to be constructive rather than combative in conveying that. Whether you forgive me or not, I hope you reconsider withdrawing as well as participating in the process in the future. I really am sorry for how I treated you. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 05:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As I replied on the review page, I do not blame you at all. I actually did not think you were very rude. It is just that, with every article I write, I tend to get set in how I want things and do not like making major changes. That is all. It is a problem with me, not with you. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't see your response there until after I had posted this unfortunately. If anything, I think this is the better venue to discuss it anyway. I do think I was rude, and whether or not it was a factor in your decision, I still feel like I was not acting the way I should have been. I don't think it has to be a problem with you, though perhaps we can both be at fault, I'm sure there's enough blame to share! I am happy you're reconsidering, I think it is already a wonderful contribution, regardless of the outcome of the nomination, and you deserve to be proud of it. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 05:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Brownie (folklore)
Vanamonde (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Satyr
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Satyr 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 Alarichall -- Alarichall (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Retirement from Wikipedia?
Per this edit summary, I see, you have "decided to retire from Wikipedia". That would be a shame. You have done outstanding work here. I hope you will please reconsider. Paul August &#9742; 18:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel the same. I miss so many already, please don't make it harder. Thanks for all you did, however you decide. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I suspected you and a few other editors would probably object to this. I have to be honest, this decision is really hard for me and I do not know if I will be able to keep it, since I have spent the vast majority of my time for the past two years editing here on Wikipedia and this site has become an inextricable aspect of my identity. I have talked about leaving before on several occasions over the course of the past few months, but, until now, I had not actually made any move to do so. A large part of what has kept me around this long is that I feel a need to watch over the articles I have written and keep them up to standard. I also feel the urge to work on and improve other articles to GA status. Even now, I have a large number of articles that I have started working on and still have not finished. I also love to think that I am actually doing something good in this world and giving people access to accurate and comprehensive information on various subjects that they might not otherwise be able to find information about.
 * The unfortunate truth, though, is that Wikipedia and I have never really been temperamentally suited for each other. I must admit that, even though I really try to remain open to criticism from others, I do not have very thick skin and it has hard for me to stomach all the constant arguing and criticism that working here seems to inevitably entail. I have never had problem with either of you, of course, but there are others who I will not name that I have not always gotten along with. The biggest problem, however, is that what I really want to do to is write extremely detailed, well-written, high quality articles more-or-less according to my own standards of quality, which I have discovered do not always align with those of other editors, and the very nature of Wikipedia prevents me from doing that here. Wikipedia also takes up an ungodly amount of my time and interrupts my personal life.
 * Once gain, I do not know if I will be able to quit and I am not sure how complete my proposed "retirement" will be; it is possible that, even if I do manage to mostly retire, I may stay around a little bit to watch over the articles I have worked on most extensively. If I do manage to quit, I do not entirely know what I will do with all the time I will have open, but I think I will try to devote that time to my own writings, which have gone sorely neglected these past two years, since I have instead devoted most of my time to editing here. I still have hopes to one day publish writings under my own name. I have a book I have been trying to write about the history and development of classical mythology and I also have that novel I was writing, although that project seems to be more-or-less dead right now. Regardless of what ends up happening, my time here at Wikipedia has definitely impacted me, the way I write, and the way I think about the world. I will always remember the kindness that you and other editors have shown me here. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Relief! Because what you describe - staying around and watching - is not "retiring" which is someone you appreciate is gone. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with the others. Not that we want to keep you from other projects, but I hope you will return after a break. All best wishes, Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You know I have been feeling much the same lately--yet thanx in part to encouragement from people like you--I am finding a way to struggle through. The irony would be truly terrible if I ended up staying and you ended up leaving. We have just started to be friends.  Sometimes real life interferes here whether we like it or not, and getting on with your own work would certainly be a valid reason. But I would miss you if you go.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I also appreciate your work here, thanks for that. About your own writing, I can understand and do encourage that.  I've authored software and a few books, stuff that would not be suitable for an encyclopedia, yet it's very worthwhile work (that also doesn't get vandalized :).  Pursue your projects by all means, but we'll always be glad to see you active here, whenever you are.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I must admit that it is hard to even talk about leaving when I have five other users on my talk page asking me to please stay. Now I feel guilty for having even suggested leaving. I did not think so many people would notice or care, especially since I only voiced my desire to leave in a single edit summary on my own user page, which I did not think so many other users had on their watchlists. I would like to give a big thanks to all of you for being so eternally kind and appreciative! Your responses here are more than I could have asked for. Part of the reason I suggested leaving to begin with may have been a knee-jerk reaction on account of how horrible I felt after making a complete fool of myself on my FAC for Pythagoras. Now that I have had a chance to calm down, I think complete retirement may be too extreme. Nonetheless, I really do think I should drastically cut back on my editing, because Wikipedia can be so stressful and I feel like it has kind of taken over my life. -Katolophyromai (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I also have this page on my watchlist. I do not think the Pythagoras FAC was going that badly, or that you embarrassed yourself. (The final comment by one of the commenters was very uncollegial towards you.) But if Wikipedia is causing stress, remember that this is all voluntary and had you not registered an account in the first place Wikipedia would still be operating the same (though with lesser quality articles!). Hobbies should not be causing stress, so consider dialing back contributions to a point where you still find editing to be enjoyable/worthwile as this is sustainable and generally a healthy way of approaching non-essential activities. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't know me, but make it six, or seven, Katolophyromai. Quality work will remain as quality work, with or without the various badges. Outriggr (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * makes a good point. Not that my work would necessarily qualify, but I've never thought it worth my time to submit any of it for GA or FA (my lone FA was submitted by someone else, back when people actually submitted other peoples work). Paul August &#9742; 13:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to echo the voices here. Don't let the processes and bickering get you down. Not only is Wikipedia a valuable learning tool (I invariably learn something new every time I embark on a project here — and just when I thought I knew it all!) and we're all doing a lot of good by producing accurate, well-researched material for everyone to read from anywhere.


 * You're especially doing a lot of good stuff in circles that I had all but given hope on, and it would be a real shame for you to leave. Perhaps consider reducing your edit load, looking into more systemic changes, or just taking a break. Whatever the case, I hope you don't hang up your Wiki-coat any time soon! &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate all this kind attention. I must admit that it is going to be extremely difficult for me to try to stay away from Wikipedia, because I really enjoy writing articles. Nonetheless, I think I really ought to focus on trying to write and publish articles under my own name. Of course, part of what deters me from leaving is that I know that far fewer people will ever read any articles I write under my own name than will read the articles that I have written here on Wikipedia. Likewise, I do realize that I still have a number of articles here that I have started on that I have been meaning to bring up to GA status but never have. A large part of me really wants to bring those articles up to GA status before I start dialing back my Wikipedia editing, but another part of me thinks that I will always have unfinished work here and, if I am afraid to cut back my editing until after all my work is done, then I will never get around to actually cutting back. I do not know; maybe I will bring a few more articles to GA status before I really start dialing my work down. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hostile audience
I don't think that a hostile audience is the same as one's enemies. Teachers, comedians, actors can all deal with audiences hostile to them who are not necessarily their enemies. On a more important note, I'm saddened by the news that you will be less involved on Wikipedia. You are the best editor ever and you did so much here! MagicatthemovieS (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you notice, Kelly also refers to the audience in question here as "his Jewish enemies" on the same page. He uses both phrases. As for my plans to reduce my involvement here, that is a plan (and, indeed, one that I have been thinking about for several months now), but I have no idea how well it will work out in practice. For better or worse, this site has become part of my identity at this point. I am rather ashamed to admit that I spend virtually every spare moment I have editing here. I have no idea how effective my attempts to limit my activity here will end up being in the long run. Part of the problem is that I have a persistent and implacable itch to keep improving articles and to look after the articles I have already improved. Nonetheless, I really ought to focus more on trying to write something under my own name that I can actually receive credit for having written. I also hate getting caught up in all the arguing and bickering. I also have begun to encounter the problem that other users and I do not exactly always agree on what makes a quality article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit summary
Hi. It is kind of annoying to be reading discussions in edit summaries as opposed to talk pages. Edit summaries probably should be used to write... edit summaries. Thanks for your attention. Thinker78 (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Dealing with vandals
When you discover that an article has been vandalised, you can simply revert instead of replying to the vandal. See: Deny recognition. Dimadick (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I normally just use "reverting apparent vandalism" as my edit summary in cases where it is relatively obvious that the edit I am reverting was intentional vandalism. In the case of the edit I recently reverted to the article Samson, however, I think that the person who made that edit was probably acting in good faith, or, at any rate, I was willing to assume such. I therefore saw fit to provide an explanation for why I was reverting it. I figure that, in cases where it is unclear whether an edit was intended as vandalism, it is better to provide an explanation for reverting, at least for the simple sake of avoiding confusion. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Pythagoras
Katolophyromai, I am uneasy, to say the least, as to how this was left. My role, as I though, was as a light weight copy editor, wrongly I was off-put when I saw the lengths of you replies, and having been around the process for a very long time, reflexively saw a red flag and thought oh no here we go again. Turns out I may have been in error. To say, as I was reading through at the time, I was constantly thinking...this is very excellent and way above par. I reacted to the reversions without looking closely at the editor, which is a pity. My honest hope is that you will not be too off-put by process and will renominate - many of the concerns I had, in the cold light of day, have been rebutted, and I am now decided on a support. Your editing is certainly impressive, and I share a large number of your interests. I hope maybe we could make truce, and you will reengage, certainly you've had a hard deal here. I hope you renominate. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your apology. I am more than happy to make peace; it was never my intention to frustrate you and I was simply acting in what I saw as the best interest of the article. Unfortunately, as I have discovered on many occasions before, communication over the internet tends to be very clunky and the lack of ability to hear another person's tone or see the person's face makes it extremely easy to misinterpret another person's intentions or fail to predict how the other person will react to a situation. I will consider renominating the article, but I will not do it right away. I still need to time to think and mull over whether I want to try this again. The process went quite differently from how I was expecting it to and part of the problem may have been my inexperience with handling FACs, since this was my very first one and I was expecting it go more like a GA review. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and take you time with this one, and, I hope, see you there often in the future. My own opinion is that if you cross over into FA, will add considerably to the projects credibility, and, given the breath of your range, make life more interesting. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Epicurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enlightenment ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Epicurus check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Epicurus?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The Hills Have Eyes
I just nominated a film based on European myths called The Hills Have Eyes for GA. Would you be kind enough to review it?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

If you are not interested in the subject, just tell me. I won't be offended. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

If you are not interested in the subject, just tell me. I won't be offended. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize; I was meaning to reply to your response here, but I forgot. I am still trying to decide if I want to review the article. I will look it over and let you know by midnight (EST) tomorrow night. If I do not reply back here by then, feel free to harangue me for it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I thought you might be interested in the film, given its origins. You are the best!MagicatthemovieS (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * Thank you. That is very kind of you. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, another user has decided to review the article.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Important Notice
TonyBallioni (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the template, we have to use one. I'm just alerting anyone who was involved on the Rise of Macedon dispute about this. It really has no implication of wrongdoing. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Return of The Hills Have Eyes
The article failed its GA nomination, so I greatly altered it. If you are interested in reviewing the re-nominated article, let me know!MagicatthemovieS (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS


 * You told me to remind you of my offer if you did not reply by midnight tonight, and I'm doing as you asked :) MagicatthemovieS (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * I apologize; I caught that another editor had reviewed it and that it had failed its nomination, but I had missed the part where you said you had renominated it, so I did not think that I needed to concern myself with the article. Now, reading your comment above again, I see that you have renominated it. I would be willing to review it, but I cannot make any promises about the pace at which I will do so. In the meantime, I would strongly recommend looking back over all the previous reviewers' comments and making sure that all of the criticisms that user raised have been adequately addressed. I feel rather uncomfortable taking over review so soon after the same article was immediately failed by another user, because I have serious doubts that an article can go from an immediate failure to second GAN in less than a day. I will have to take a look at the review page, though, and see what the other user said about the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! The article was not failed immediately. Another user was just angry that I cited a documentary, as he thought that if I did so I had to cite it by minutes and seconds, and a Google Book because it lacked numbered pages. The user who had actually agreed to review the article was fine with the use of those sources, he was just upset by the "drama" this buy other user was causing and decided to fail the article based on this drama and not because of the article's merits; he told me this via a ping. To alleviate the issue, I removed all references to the contentious sources after the article was failed. That's my summary of the situation, but feel free to check it out for yourself!MagicatthemovieS (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * I still have no problem with reviewing the article, but, if the situation is indeed as you have described it, and the reviewer failed the article based on drama going on as part of the review rather than based on the article, it may be a good idea to contact the original reviewer and find out if that reviewer would willing to do a second review of the article, since that reviewer will be already familiar with the article's merits and failing points and will probably be the person who best understands what changes need to be made. I honestly have no prior knowledge of this film whatsoever, having never even heard of it until you contacted me, nor do I have prior experience with this article. I am concerned that, if I were to try to take up a new review on it so soon after the article was failed, I might miss something important that was brought up as part of the initial review. I hope it does not sound like I am equivocating here and, if it does, then I apologize. I consider you one of my friends here at Wikipedia and I always like to help people when I am able, but I am just concerned that I may not be the best person for the job. If you contact the original reviewer and he or she is not willing to review the article, I will gladly take on the review myself, as I have already agreed to do above, but I am just trying to make sure that the first and second reviews are conducted according to the same standard and by someone who hopefully has at least some background knowledge of the subject. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * He has told me he is not willing to review the article again due to the drama he had to deal with.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * Well... at least I know what sort of mess I am delving into. I will open up a review on the article straightaway, but, if it gets too dramatic, I cannot promise that I will not follow his lead and close the review, because I do not enjoy dealing with drama either. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that I removed the contentious sources, I doubt there will be much drama this time around.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * Good! I have just opened a review on the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom)
I'm so glad you reverted that last IP edit before the article was frozen. At Rise of Macedon, the admin froze the non-consensus version. I have a feeling that the admins were waiting for someone to revert the IP version before freezing the text. Thank you. --Taivo (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Homer Question
Hello! Since you've been working on Homer, I was hoping you might also have a look at Homeric Question. Particularly the last section "Current Status of the Homeric Question" seems to be privileging a fringe view (by a reputable scholar though) that Homer was the inventor of the Greek alphabet.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for making me aware of this. I have now replaced that paragraph with a version of the paragraph on the subject from the article Homer. Barry B. Powell is a real scholar with real credentials and he genuinely knows a low about Homer and early Greek history, but, unfortunately, he remains ridiculously committed to the traditional idea of a real blind bard named Homer in the early eighth century BC being the author of both the Iliad and the Odyssey, despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and is willing to resort to some rather bizarre arguments to support that view.
 * The paragraph I have added mentions Powell's arguments that the Homeric poems date to the early eighth century BC, but also describes a number of other significant scholarly perspectives on the Homeric poems. It is entirely plausible—perhaps even probable—that some prototypical versions of the Homeric poems may have existed in oral forms in the early eighth century BC. (After all, some of the oral traditions behind them certainly date much earlier.) However, the poems were almost certainly not written down until the seventh or even the sixth century BC. (I am personally inclined to agree with the ancient reports that they were probably first written down during the reign of Peisistratos.) Likewise, the evidence for the historical existence of the legendary figure known to us as "Homer"—and, by that, I mean the blind bard from Chios that we hear so much about in the romances and Lives of Homer from late antiquity—is virtually nonexistent. Certainly someone was responsible for composing the Iliad and someone else the Odyssey, but there is no reason to think that either of those people were named "Homer," that either of them were blind, or that either of them possessed any of the other attributes commonly attributed to "Homer." --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Request modification to page "Greek alphabet", the Ancient pronunciation about stop consonant
Hi, actually, English native speakers can realize /k/ in two instinct ways, aspirated one [kʰ] (such as kiss)and [k](after s). This is true for all the stop consonants in english. But in ancient greek, voiceless stops(κ, π, τ) were completely not aspirated. But the letter table says κ is just as k in english, π like the p in top, τ like t in coat. I think it's totally misleading, especially for english native speaker.

reference:
 * I am already fully aware that κ, π, and τ were unaspirated and that χ, φ, and θ were the aspirated forms of those consonants respectively. This is, in fact, explained in footnote #2 underneath the table. Unfortunately, with κ, none of my sources gave any more specific pronunciation examples than simply "English k." I would have been more specific, giving an example such as "k as in English ris k " or something like that, but, since my sources were not more specific, that would have been original research, which is strictly forbidden here on Wikipedia. Looking back at the sources, I notice that Mastronarde 2013 (which, incidentally, is the same source you link to above) does add afterward "but completely unaspirated," so I have added this specification to the table. Unfortunately, Mastronarde does not give an example in English of an unaspirated k, which would be more helpful for those readers who do not understand what "aspiration" is, who I suspect will make up the vast majority of readers.
 * Also, k, p, and t are usually mostly or fully unaspirated in English when they occur in the middle or at the end of a word and are normally only aspirated when they occur at the beginnings of words, so "p as in top" and "t as in coat" are actually adequate approximations of the sounds made by π and τ in ancient Greek. Obviously, exact pronunciations of English words vary regionally, but the main purpose of the English examples given in the table is to supplement the IPA values of the letter for those readers who do not understand IPA. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Rise of Macedon. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. MPS1992 (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Disambiguation link notification for October 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Heaven, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enoch ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Heaven check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Heaven?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Rise of Macedon --> HELLENIC KINGDOM
New WP:CONSENSUS Building. "Greek" or "Hellenic" precedes "kingdom" in the first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragao2004 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much! I really appreciate you taking the time to do this review. I found your comments and criticisms very insightful. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Satyr
The article Satyr you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Satyr for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Alarichall -- Alarichall (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! I am genuinely happy for you.  It is especially gratifying after a time of discouragement which I am so glad you persevered through!  This would not have happened if you had left!  Well done.  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I greatly appreciate your kind and thoughtful sentiments. Thank you very much for your congratulations. I should probably point out, though, that, if you actually read the original edit summary in which I said I was planning to leave, what I actually said was: "I have decided to retire from Wikipedia as soon as satyr becomes a "Good Article," if indeed it does." I never had any intentions to leave Wikipedia until after this the GA review for this article was fully completed. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. My bad. Does that mean you are still planning on leaving? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No. I currently have no plans on leaving. Honestly, I do not think I could leave if I wanted to; as unhealthy as this probably is, I think this site has become more-or-less a permanent fixture in my life. I may try to cut back on how much time I spend here, though, but I think I am going to try to bring some more articles that I have already started working on up to GA status first. --Katolophyromai (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Good. I am glad to know one of the good ones will still be around. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I really like your editing
Hello, Katolophyromai! I'm a big fan of your editing - you create and expand articles, making them richly detailed and interesting to read about. Just wondering what you think of this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encratites - it seems a bit short to me, but I could be wrong. Hope you're having a fantastic week, I'm going to bed so have a good day or night! Lolifan (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well thank you for your compliment. Regarding the Encratites article, I think it is definitely not currently up to our standards of quality. Unfortunately, there are literally thousands of articles that are in similarly poor condition that ought to be improved. Articles about ancient history and religion are often especially neglected, since these are subjects not many editors are knowledgeable of or interested in. I try to do my part to improve articles and make sure they are as informative, factually accurate, and useful as I can possibly make them. I am working on other articles right now, so I will probably not have time to work on the one about the Encratites, but I may come around to it eventually. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Satyr
I have reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Satyr. Since you have more than five DYK credits, QPQ is required. Please comment on the nomination page when you have completed that. Cheers! Flibirigit (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I will try to have that taken care of before tomorrow evening at the very latest. I do not have time right now, though. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Satyr at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hypatia
Thanks for all your work! As a fellow Wikipedian, I'm writing to see more information about this section that you edited out of the Hypatia article. The reason you gave was "This seems very fringe and speculative. Also, none of the other sources mention anything about it, even to refute it, as far as I am currently aware. Berenkiy is also a mathematician, not a historian, so I question whether the role of astronomy in the politics of early fifth-century AD Alexandria is really an area in which he is qualified to speak as an expert." I don't know but to me that seems to be an ad hominem attack on mathematicians and your edit is in violation of NPOV. I refer you to the notion of "strong inference" for why it would be important to present several plausible hypotheses when a question is being explored. The reasons you cite for removing Belenkiy's hypothesis are: (1) your impression that the position is speculative; (2) an absence of other scholars engaging with Belenkiy's hypothesis; (3) Belenkiy being a mathematician. In response, please note that (1) all the hypotheses regarding Hypatia's death are speculations; (2) Belenkiy's contributions are recent, and some scholars may have engaged with the hypothesis he presents, though I don't know of any either, notwithstanding that the hypothesis that she was making astronomical observations to help fix the date of Easter seems to me a much better match to her location of death and the detail of the high chair, as well as a real reason for discord—as the date of celebration would impact the perceived legitimacy of various factions—in fact a better speculation than jealousy since it takes more facts into account; and (3) being a mathematician doesn't disqualify someone from publishing in the academic literature on the history of science or the history of math, as Belenkiy as done. In short, the Belenkiy hypothesis is a critical piece to the discussion about her death, and it is a disservice to the community to have removed it, and also violates NPOV. What thoughts? Again, thank you for your work!!

Here's the text that had been edited out:

Ari Belenkiy describes Hypatia's astronomical work as pivotal for the politics of the region, focusing on controversies related to observations of the equinox and the timing of festivals, ultimately serving to highlight errors in Ptolemy's work and the need for independent observation. In two consecutive works (2010, 2016) Belenkiy proposed an astronomical-calendrical paradigm for Hypatia's murder. Comparing two principal sources on Hypatia, of Socrates Scholasticus and Philostorgius, Belenkiy suggests that Hypatia carried out equinoctial observations in 414-415, initiated on the request of governor Orestes. This could have been the litmus test of who was right in the conflicts over the 414 Easter day waged by Cyril, the Bishop of the Alexandrian Church, with the local Jewish and Novatian communities. Hypatia's success in establishing the correct day of the vernal equinox could undermine the Alexandrian Church's authority in the timing of Easter, as it used equinoctial computations based on Ptolemy's Syntaxis (Almagest). 101.53.37.52 (talk) 08:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I wonder whether you could comment on the latest entry to this thread, which is a few days old. I'm copying it here.101.53.37.52 (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your thoughtful response Katolophyromai and for your efforts to make Wikipedia usable and wonderful. I appreciate the engagement. Let me point out a few things related to our discussion here in the talk page, but first let me address what seems to be your primary point at this time, namely whether or not the Belenkiy Hypothesis is notable. This is germane, as if it is not notable, then there is no reason to assert editorial bias nor violation of NPOV.
 * You had first asserted that the Belenkiy Hypothesis was not taken up by any scholars, and then I had found reference to it in Watts and Cameron. You had suggested that if it could be found that a reputable scholar has supported the hypothesis, you would agree that its inclusion is warranted. I found a play that includes the hypothesis, and you suggest that this is perhaps not notable either so not supportive enough. At this point I was perhaps convinced that you were correct. I decided to look at the two articles wherein Belenkiy has stated his hypothesis, and see how they were cited, and what their impact has been via the Altmetric website. I figured if there were no citations listed and that Altmetric gave it a score that was not in the top 50% I would concede the point, and suggest that indeed the hypothesis might not be notable and your edit is correct.
 * Notwithstanding, the 2010 article "An Astronomical Murder?" had been cited three times according to Google Scholar. One is a self-citation, so one could count two citations. One is Watts, and the other is this year, a Russian scholar. You may see the Google Scholar page here.
 * https://scholar.google.com.vn/scholar?cites=9807196193258333320&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en
 * The 2010 article by Belenkiy also has an Altmetric page. It has a score that is "in the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric" and thus a reasonable reader would consider that the Belenkiy Hypothesis meets the standard of notability.
 * https://www.altmetric.com/details/3814661?src=bookmarklet#twitter-demographics
 * I had mentioned previously the examples of two types of speculations in the article. The Belenkiy Hypothesis is most closely related to the type of speculation that is plausible in that it has textual support in other documents. The example I gave of a reasonable, plausible speculation that is included in the article is the following: "According to Watts, this was in line with the traditional manner in which Alexandrians carried the bodies of the "vilest criminals" outside the city limits to cremate them as a way of symbolically purifying the city.[104][105]" It takes extant text and deduces some historical context from it.
 * For the Belenkiy Hypothesis: There is support of the Belenkiy Hypothesis in the form of Hypatia having been an astronomer, her death having been attributed by Hesychius to her "profound wisdom in astronomy," the having more than passing familiarity with Ptolemy's Syntaxis on which the techniques of observation described in the Belenkiy Hypothesis are described, and in the historical basis for calendrical disputes leading to religious strife. All of these place the Belenkiy Hypothesis within the category of plausible speculation, much like Watts' plausible speculation that her body being carried outside the city limits was as a sign of disrespect for her and of symbolically purifying the city. Such plausible speculations are valuable to the history so long as they are described as they are, i.e. qualified as plausible speculations.
 * I have demonstrated that removing the Belenkiy Hypothesis is a violation of NPOV as it introduces editorial bias into the article. When it was thought that the Belenkiy Hypothesis was wildly speculative, I was happy to show that it falls into the category of plausible speculations that are consistent with the editorial practice of the article. When it was thought that the Belenkiy Hypothesis was not notable, I was happy to show that it is notable, having been cited by other scholars of repute and having made an impact as seen on the Altmetric website. Am I wrong? Is there something yet missing? Please advise! Thank you! 101.53.37.52 (talk) 07:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear Katolophyromai and AstroLynx (thanks for chiming in!)—sorry for the delay in answering! I searched on the email of the Russian paper and found the author's name in Roman letters to be I.V. Zaitseva (or Zaytseva) who has a PhD in history. Thus the author is (1) not Belenkiy, and (2) a reputable scholar. You can see another paper by her here.
 * http://en.vestnik.nvsu.ru/arhiv/54/?st=625
 * For (3): I have confirmed (both with my rudimentary Russian skills and via Google Translate) that Zaitzeva does not include the Belenkiy Hypothesis in the paper to dismiss it, but rather includes it as an additional source of information about Hypatia's death. Thanks! 36.84.227.201 (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.53.37.52 (talk)

DYK for Satyr
Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Satyr
Hi Katolophyromai,

I don't think I've had the pleasure of crossing paths with you yet, but I wanted to recognize you for all that you've contributed to Wikipedia's content surrounding classics and mythology.

It seems you've felt disillusioned lately, but you should be proud of what you've accomplished here. It seems you are quite a star at producing excellent, comprehensive articles! Best wishes,  ceran  thor 21:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

P. S. I can't say I know a ton about mythology and the classics, but if you are at all interested in taking Pythagoras back to FAC, I would be happy to help out!  ceran  thor 21:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! I always really appreciate it when other users say such kind things about me! I really do try to be helpful and to make a difference. Most of the "disillusionment" of which you speak has been simply because I have to put up with so much arguing, insult-hurling, and general disagreement among editors, and all I really want to do is write articles so other people can read them and learn more about those subjects. I see my role here is that of an educator and a public servant. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I prefer to keep my head down and work - and I've been here off and on for more than 10 years now, so I must be do something right... (or very wrong). Hope we can work together in the future! :)  ceran  thor 23:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do let me know if you want help with bringing Pythagoras back to FAC. I know the process seems daunting, but FAC is usually easier if you take time to get lots and lots of pre-nomination feedback (and try to keep in mind that reviewers ultimately want the best for the article)! I'd also recommend reaching out to PericlesofAthens, who has a lot of experience writing FA-level classics content.  ceran  thor 14:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Your website
Kato, old boy, I have to give you a complement. I somehow managed to come across your classics website, and it's so brilliant -- I loved it. You have a great talent for finding things that are fascinating and interesting, and presenting them in a sharp and lively manner. I was surprised, congratulations. I definitely look forward to keeping an eye on that. You need to write a big fat book, if you haven't already (assuming websites don't totally replace books in the future). Madisonesque (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! That is so very kind of you. That unexpected complement really made my day. I am so glad you like it. I put a lot of time into the articles I publish there, but sometimes I feel like no one actually reads any of them. I have another article I have been working on about the presumed relationship between Halloween and pre-Christian Celtic holidays that I intend to publish soon. I also have a large number of articles saved as drafts that I am still waiting to publish, either because I have not completed them yet or because I am waiting for a specific time of year to publish them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I noticed that you seem to have an interest in Shakespeare's sonnets. You may find this article I wrote back in January of this year about misconceptions about William Shakespeare interesting. I thought I would point it out since it is old enough that it is no longer on the main page of the website. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Katolo, I have done a lot of searching about Shakespeare, and I happened to come across your article on misconceptions regarding Shakespeare on my own a while ago. I was glad to see it again. It's interesting and attractive. You might go further than I would about what's known of Shakespeare's reputation in his day, which is a good topic, and in spite of all the bios there are things that few seem to notice, for example nobody's really bothered to mine or untangle all the innuendoes in Pierce Penniless or in the Parnassus plays. If I don't respond or don't edit, it may be because I'm withdrawing from participating on this WP platform. All the best Madisonesque (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Library of Alexandria
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Library of Alexandria 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 A. Parrot -- A. Parrot (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Satyr
Just want to leave a thank you for your article Satyr. I saw it as DYK on the main page, and do not regret reading it, as I learned a lot. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! That is so very kind of you! I am sincerely glad that you enjoyed the article and I am certainly glad that you learned a few things from it. My goal here is always to educate people and to help spread knowledge. The article "Satyr" is just the most recent of the twenty-five articles and counting that I have currently brought up to "Good Article" or "Featured List" status. I think that my article-writing abilities have vastly improved over the course of my time here at Wikipedia and that the articles that I have worked on more recently generally tend to be of much higher quality than the articles I worked on when I first started out editing nearly two whole years ago.
 * If you are interested, here is a list of articles I have written and that are currently awaiting GA review that you might be interested in reviewing (if you have time and are willing, of course). The article "Library of Alexandria" is already being reviewed by another editor and a different editor has expressed willingness to review "Contra Celsum," but the other three ("Bull of Heaven," "Udug," and "Epicurus") are all still awaiting reviewers. "Bull of Heaven" and "Udug" are fairly short and should not take very long to review. "Epicurus" is quite a bit longer, though, if you want to review that one, since it is about one of the most significant Greek philosophers of the Hellenistic Era. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I had an eye on your other articles already (you got me interested in Greek Mythology, I have to say), but wasn't aware that some other of your articles are currently awaiting review at GAN. It will be a pleasure to review one or two of them – I will start with the Bull. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Library of Alexandria GA review
Hello. You're probably waiting for me to work more on the review for Library of Alexandria. I was hoping to work on it today, but stuff has come up and I won't be able to do it until Friday evening, my time (which will be Saturday in Wikipedia time). Anyway, I do hope to wrap it up over the weekend. A. Parrot (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That is perfectly fine. I can wait a few more days. The GA review for "Satyr" lasted over a month! Thanks for telling me in advance so that I will know the time plan for the days to come. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I've passed the article, but I'm not sure which good article category to put it in. Some libraries, primarily but not exclusively college libraries, are listed in Good articles/Social sciences and society, while others are listed in Good articles/Art and architecture. Libraries in the latter category seem to be mainly architecturally notable ones, and because so little is known about the Library of Alexandria's design, I'm not inclined to put it there, but what do you think? A. Parrot (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually nominated the article in the "World history" category, since the Library of Alexandria, to me at least, seems to be of far more historical interest than societal or architectural. I think it would definitely be a mistake to put it in the "Art and architecture" category, because we have no idea what the Library actually looked like in terms of a physical structure. You might be able to justify putting it in the "Social sciences and society" category, but I think that "World history" would be a better categorization. Ultimately, these categorizations are often really quite subjective, I have found, because, quite frequently, the subject of an article could really go under several different headings and it can be difficult to know which one suits it best. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Duh, I should have seen that. OK, it's done. A. Parrot (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your willingness to review this article for me. I really appreciate it. If you ever need me to review a "Good Article" nomination for you and I am available, I will be perfectly willing to do that for you. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bull of Heaven
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bull of Heaven 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 Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Elton John
Hi Katolophyromai, I'm sorry if some of my edits on Satyr have been daft. I'm thinking of getting the article for Elton John to GA status; would you be willing to review it once I nominate it?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * Sorry, but I think I do not think I am the editor who is most qualified to take on a review of that article. I honestly do not know very much about Elton John and I generally try to avoid articles about famous people who are either alive or recently deceased. Given how famous Elton John is and how many fans he has out there, I am sure it should be quite easy to find plenty of other editors who will be willing to review that article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bull of Heaven
The article Bull of Heaven you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bull of Heaven for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Library of Alexandria
The article Library of Alexandria you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Library of Alexandria for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of A. Parrot -- A. Parrot (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Cool article
Hello there, I'm improving an article related to Egyptology (and Egyptomania) and the supernatural, and I was wondering if you would be interested in reviewing it once it's done. It's the article for "Lot No. 249". Let me know & thanks again for tackling so many vital articles. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would definitely be willing to review that article! It sounds fascinating. Let me know when you are ready for me to review it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is ready for review. If you feel like backing out for whatever reason, feel free; another editor is also interested in the job. If you're still interested, it's always a pleasure to work with you :)MagicatthemovieS (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Would you still like to review the article? MagicatthemovieS (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Would you still like to review the article? MagicatthemovieS (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Athena
RE: Your edit on August 7 to Athena (switching to better "notes" style). If you look at the Genealogy section, you will notice red cite errors you created with your edit (those cite errors weren't previously there). Could you take a look at your edit and see if you can fix it, I looked and was going to fix it, but I don't see any "ref tags without content in them". I did notice however, that at least two of the notes, j and k, are displayed in the notes section, so it appears it is just two of the efn|templates that are causing the cite errors. The article has been listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting since August and I'd hate to see the page lose it's good article status over cite errors that can be fixed. I've ran into problems on other articles listed in that category I've tried to fix with those efn, sfn, refn templates, and sometimes it's just easier to return the article to the state it was in before those templates were introduced, creating those cite errors. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk)  10:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I found the two cite errors you were referencing. I did not see them before because they hidden inside the collapsed "Genealogy" section at the very end of the article. These cite errors are caused by having equals signs in the note. It is a really weird glitch that I cannot explain, but, for some reason, if there is an equals sign in the note, it causes the cite error. Both of the notes with the cite errors had URLs with equals signs in them. I have now removed the equals signs from the URLs and now the notes should work as normal. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You know, I mentioned above that Athena had been in that category for some time, and I've been working on clearing out the backlog in that category for several weeks. I had looked at that article over and over again, never finding any cite errors, and it suddenly dawned on me to "open" the Genealogy section, and there it was, hidden away all this time. I traced it back to your edit and thought you could offer some insight. It is now gone from that category, and I will remember your trick to get rid of that cite error if it appears in future articles with that efn template. Thank you so much, and my OCD thanks you as well. Isaidnoway (talk)  16:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Epicurus
This is not an interpretation but a direct quote, "it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living pleasantly." This applies not only to one deciding how to live but to others, too, with whom he interacts. He benefits by others treating him better than they would if they did not live pleasantly. Kolyvansky (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It takes minimal thinking to see it. Others do. Kolyvansky (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

It's been awhile
It's been awhile since we've worked together - is there an article you'd be interested in taking on with me?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * I do not really know. I have actually been trying to cut back on how much time I spent editing Wikipedia recently. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Library of Alexandria
Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

"Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues"
I just nominated the article for an obscure, but interesting, Bob Dylan called "Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues" for GA; the article is short. We've worked together well in the past. Would you like to review it for GA?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Your GA nomination of Epicurus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Epicurus 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 Gug01 -- Gug01 (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Epicurus
The article Epicurus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Epicurus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gug01 -- Gug01 (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Contra Celsum
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Contra Celsum you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Farang Rak Tham -- Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Contra Celsum
The article Contra Celsum you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Contra Celsum for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Farang Rak Tham -- Farang Rak Tham (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey!
Happy belated New Year! You seem to be more active on Wikipedia lately. When you're done with Contra Celsum, would you like to work on another article together?MagicatthemovieS (talk)MagicatthemovieS
 * I apologize for my belated reply. Please see my explanation below. I am sorry, but, as of right now, I do not think I would interested in working on another article in the near future. I still have to finish out the review for Contra Celsum and do some more work expanding the article Adonis, which other editors are expecting of me. Those tasks will probably take me a while on their own, especially since I am also doing things outside of Wikipedia. For those reasons, I would rather not take on another project here on Wikipedia right now. –Katolophyromai (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you have an issue with me?
Hi Katolophyromai,

Since you've ignored me the last few times I've contacted you, I'm wondering if you have an issue with me. If this is the case, just tell me and I won't contact you again.MagicatthemovieS (talk)MagicatthemovieS
 * No. I absolutely do not have an "issue" with you personally. I just have been growing less interested in Wikipedia lately. As I am sure you have already noticed, I have not really been on here much. I have not been checking on Wikipedia to see if I have any notifications nearly as frequently as I used to and I have not been responding to as many things as I used to either. You may notice that I still have not even fully responded to Farang Rak Tham's comments at Talk:Contra Celsum/GA1 yet, which is something I really ought to do. I also have not really done much work on the article Adonis, which I was planning on trying to clean up and expand. Lately I have been more actively involved on Quora than I have on Wikipedia. I do not have any issues with you personally; I have just been less responsive in general lately. –Katolophyromai (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey!
Hello there,

The articles you wrote are very good. Congratulations! I will try to translate them into Turkish in the next few days. I've even translated the Udug article. Thanks and good day!

--Hedda Gabler (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Epicurus
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you so much for your complement! I really appreciate it. –Katolophyromai (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Dumuzid
Apologies, I must have been sleepediting!Rich (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is fine. I understand. –Katolophyromai (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Attribution?
I'm puzzled by "without even providing attribution for his quote." Could you explain?--Brett (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you quote someone directly, you must state who you are quoting in the text. It is not enough to just give a citation at the end of the quote, because not everyone will read the citations. Both an attribution and a citation are necessary. You fixed the problem with this edit when you moved the quote to the section on Aristotle's modern reception and added the words "The Dutch historian of science Eduard Jan Dijksterhuis observes..." I did change the word "observes" to "writes," since "observes" implies that what he is saying is correct and undisputed, which is not the case here. I think now everything is fine; the quote is much better suited in its current location and now it has proper attribution. –Katolophyromai (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. In future, if you run into another such situation, I suggest that you use this wording "state who you are quoting in the text", since a citation is also attribution.--Brett (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Greco-Roman mysteries
Hey Katolophyromai. I wanted to direct your attention to the page on Greco-Roman mysteries. You, by no means, need to stop what you're currently doing on it, however I thought you'd be the perfect person to help thoroughly expand this page (to whichever degree you like). It's extremely short and often shorter than Wiki pages on individual mysteries, like Eleusinian mysteries. Given the lack of content on the page, I thought I'd leave this as a possible project you could take up to help expand Wiki.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Contra Celsum
The article Contra Celsum you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Contra Celsum for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Farang Rak Tham -- Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reminder. That feels like forever ago, back when I was much more active here on Wikipedia. Lately I have been writing far more on Quora and on my own website, talesoftimesforgotten.com. The article I worked on last fall, Contra Celsum, however, did just become a "Good Article."–Katolophyromai (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

A big request
Hello, Katolophyromai. Hope you're doing well. I know you've said you're much less active on Wikipedia and this is a big favor, but I'm not sure who else to ask. I have a couple of German-language sources that I think need to be included in mysteries of Isis in order for the article, and especially the "origins" section, to fully cover the subject matter. If I can incorporate what they say, I will nominate the article at FAC. But I don't speak German. Although I can and have typed up the most relevant-looking sections of the sources into Google Translate, I don't think a machine translation is good enough to be accepted at FAC, and Google Translate renders one crucial passage in an unclear way. The text that I think needs to be translated in order to make the context clear comes to about six pages. Would you be willing to translate it for me? There's no time pressure, and I would be greatly indebted if you did. A. Parrot (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the belatedness of my reply; this is the first time I have been on Wikipedia in several days. I am willing to help you with your German-language sources, but, unfortunately, I cannot make promises regarding how quickly I will be able to produce the translations, since I have other things I am doing outside of Wikipedia, nor can I make absolute promises regarding the accuracy of such translations, since, although I would say I am reasonably conversant in German, I am not fluent and, as you already know more than well enough, scholarly articles usually have very difficult language. –Katolophyromai (talk) 09:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm just glad you're willing to do it. Because of Wikipedia's rules about copyrighted content, it's not a good idea to paste the text here. If your Wikipedia account were connected to your email—the instructions for how to set that up are at WP:Emailing users—I could send it to you. Or you could send an email to me, through the "Email this user" link on my pages, that gives me your address. I promise I won't use it to spam you! A. Parrot (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So do you want to link your email to your WP account, or send me an email with your address? A. Parrot (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe I have my email set up for my Wikipedia account now. You should be able to email me, I believe. I apologize for taking so long. —Katolophyromai (talk) 05:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sent. A. Parrot (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Dragon

 * See Talk:Dragon for my reasons for making the change. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)