User talk:MinorProphet/Archive 7

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ich grolle nicht, aber meine Schlang' ist noch unruig :) MinorProphet (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * language mediator, I need help with the second part - I should say "ich grolle nicht" to a few editors, only they wouldn't understand it - what is it in English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you remember the talk page where we became acquainted. I quoted a line from Dichterliebe, "Ich grolle nicht..." It could be rendered as "I don't complain" or "I'm not complaining". You could think of it as a reverse compliment, meaning I am honoured that you remember at all. The standard poetical metrical attempt is "I blame thee not", but that's horrible. The poem continues with "Und sah die Schlang', die dir am Herzen frißt", the serpent which gnaws at the lover's heart. My external life away from WP has been a complete mess recently, and I was merely projecting a lot of snake-like internal discomfort onto your precious jewel. I also notice that I meant "unruhig". Perhaps "My serpent is still restless." Sorry, happily WP:DRUNK. Mit besten Grüßen, MinorProphet (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. "Ich grolle nicht" spoke to me immediately, and now I understand the other half better. Happily drunk is a good condition, fighting serpents ;) - Best photo of me is when I was happily drunk, commenting song "Segne, Vater, diese Gaben". The photo is too private, of course. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Back to the question: English seems to have no equivalent in a few words to: "What you did to me was horrible, but I try to avoid being resentful". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Often German needs more words than English in order to express a thought, idea or concept, but in this case it seems more concise, more gnomish: man musst vollständig Deutschsprechen, mich zu begreifen. Wenn ein auslander Deutsch spricht und versteht, ist es veilleicht viel leichter einanderzusammenkommen. I hope you were more in tune than this lot when you sang Segne, Vater...
 * Different song ;) - ours is simpler listen, it's the shortest of my songs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit summary
I think that your edit summary here was inappropriate and insulting. Wikipedia should be a supportive environment. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thanks for your concern. The user in question has been active on en:WP since September 2011; your first edit was in August 2012; and mine in August 2008. Therefore we must all unquestionably know how to create a fully-formed decent WP reference in a number of valid ways. (I also acknowledge that a bare url is allowed—although not recommended—under what pass for 'The Rules' on WP.) I may well be guilty of having done the same thing once or twice in the past, but to make a ref consisting of a bare url when you know exactly how to create a fully-formed one is rather like letting your dog shit on the pavement and walking away while rustling the unused poo-bags in your pocket. WP should indeed be supportive, especially of those who know no better, but I believe that experienced editors should receive short shrift where necessary. My edit summary was indeed insulting, it was meant to be, and I do not retract it. The edit in question was instantly fixed here, for which I have thanked the editor. MinorProphet (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I sympathise with your frustration, and I have spent hours cleaning up other editors' poor citations. I encourage you to leave a note on the offending user's talk page, possibly linking WP:BAREURLS. I can't see a suitable template in Template index/User talk namespace – perhaps one should be added. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You appear to be considerably more concerned about the matter: and I, alas, am very busy atm. Perhaps it should be you who takes the aforementioned steps. MinorProphet (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Poetry
... poetry is better, - will return to that! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year & a question
Re:HMS Kingfisher (1804). You added the line that Thomas Sutcliff was captured but managed to escape. However what is not clear is what vessel he was on: Kingfisher or one of the French frigates? And in either case, how had he come to be captured, and when was that? It does not appear to have occurred in the action. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, both the article and ref show that Sutcliffe was on the Kingfisher in 1809. A little more research shows that Sutcliffe relates - in a leisurely anecdote - the tale of his capture and escape, in his book Sixteen Years in Chile and Peru, from 1822 to 1839 London and Paris: Fisher, Son & Co., 1841. pp. 173ff. He mentions two of Kingfisher's officers, Mr. Weeks the purser and B. Festing, midshipman who went to Yannina, while Kingfisher was in the port of Preveza in late 1809, at the time part of territory ruled by the Albanian despot Ali Pasha of Ioannina.

The incident happened after the capture of Zante, starting on the 28th October. I'm sorry for putting the sentence in the wrong place.
 * " Blockading Squadron, off Corfu, 1809. We had just arrived on our station off Corfu, after having accompanied the expedition that had, under the command of General Oswald and Commodore Spranger, captured the islands of Zante, Cephalonia, Ithaca, Santa Maura, and Cerigo, when we fell in with several vessels from Brindisi and Ancona, bound to Corfu, laden with Wheat and assorted cargoes. I was sent with one as prize-master, with orders to take her to Cephalonia. I left the Kingfisher on the 28th of October, off Fanu, and, on the 30th, when in sight of the port I was bound to, it began to blow a gale from the S. E. I had the misfortune to lose my rudder, and during the gale to be driven in among some small islands near to Corfu, where I had every expectation of being wrecked ; luckily, as we neared the coast, the wind changed, and, to prevent my being driven on some rocks that were still to leeward, I let go both anchors, which brought us up close to the small island of Melira. Next day it became more moderate, and I began to prepare a temporary rudder ; but just after sunrise, one of my men informed me, that two boats were approaching us from Fanu. I soon observed they were full of soldiers, and immediately lowered down my boat, secured my clothes, and some provisions, &c, scuttled the prize before I left her, and pulled into a small creek, where we landed, for I fancied the island had been uninhabited ; however, we were made prisoners by some Greeks, who were hid amongst the rocks ; they treated us well, and did not deprive us of a single article we had brought on shore." etc. The title page has an engraving of Sutcliffe making his escape in a jolly-boat.
 * Happy New Year, MinorProphet (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Super. Thanks for clarifying. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Referencing
Reffing is obviously very personal, but I do feel that the lack of a single referencing style detracts from WP's overall effect. Britannica has its own, and every single other worthwhile journal has its own house style, but imo WP appears as a shoddy free-for-all in this department, despite the better individual articles maintaining a consistent style. RS is one of the pillars of WP; but you are allowed to refer to these prized sources with nothing more than a bare url, which seems a slight kick in the face. I realise that it takes considerable effort just to grasp the idea of referencing, let alone master any particular style. Although I have reservations about the displayed output of, which tends towards scientific journals rather than a literary "Oxford" style, at least every source is displayed in a consistent way. What's your particular gripe about sfns? It's always good to hear the opposite POV. MinorProphet (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Simply put, it causes me more typing. And when you're as prolific as I am, that matters. Articles should be consistently formatted and you can impose that without running afoul of WP:CITEVAR, although you really should conform to the first format used to be the most correct. I've had to redo entire articles at FAC occasionally because I didn't remember to go back through the history and see what was used first. And since I know the sources as I'm expanding the article, I don't need to jump down to the bottom to see what they are and don't much care about a reader needing an extra keystroke or two to page down to the bottom to see the book that's being referenced. (Not to mention, I'm set in my ways ;-) )--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair play. I'm often not in hurry. When I'm attempting to draft an article, I will tend to start with the bibliography, making cite books and make a hidden sfn within each one. As rough notes with just page numbers become paragraphs and sections, I find it easy to copy the pre-formatted sfn and paste it into the appropriate place in the text. I also prefer the complete consistency of cite book, it's a doddle once you know it. I like the ease with which sfns and harvs can be linked with cite book, and be reused with the same page numbers with reflist. The whole ref name="Frank 1996 p36" to create an individual reusable ref for each cited page seems so longwinded, that's mostly why I use sfns. Each to their own. MinorProphet (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I generally don't bother with the year unless I need to disambiguate multiple works by the same author, so that saves me 5 whole key strokes! I do like to use cite book as well, but there are an awful lot of people who don't and that has to be respected.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that those long-ass ref names are created if you use the cite creation tool. Personally, I don't bother and keep my ref names down to 2 or 3 characters whenever I need them, which usually isn't all that often.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If we are both OK with cite book, I'm happy to to convert the Bibliography section of the 12-tonner article. MinorProphet (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Only if it's a mix of formats.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Further thoughts on referencing

 * Here's the very stimulating conversation at Village pump (technical) in Archive 188 Source has no page number on crucial page. MinorProphet (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Continued at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Further thoughts on refs (Archive 188) MinorProphet (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And a link to various thoughts on "What format for footnotes is best?" at the Teahouse. MinorProphet (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Updated links MinorProphet (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Calydonian Boar hunters table
Hi. Many moons ago you added members to the table of Calydonian Boar hunters given by Apollodorus, 1.8.2, which were not already in the table. The table had a column for each of the sources from whose lists the table was derived: Pausanias, Hyginus and Ovid. But when you added Apollodorus, to the list of sources, you didn't add the corresponding column for Apollodorus, with the appropriate checkmarks. Someone should do that. I thought I'd let you know, in case you were interested in doing this. (If not, then I might do this myself ... someday ;-) Paul August &#9742; 15:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I imagine I thought that a mere three ticks (Cepheus, Eurypylus, Iphicles) in a whole column was a waste of space. Plus, a picture of Meleager has constricted the column by 2/3, making it 6 screenfuls long. The image could be moved up a bit, but that would cut the dividing line between the sections which might easily irritate some OCD types (there's plenty of them around). Even further, although the ticks (√) display correctly in my revision which you reffed above, they appear as mysterious boxes with tiny letters (✓) in the current article. This is almost certainly something to do with the fonts installed in my ancient browser (FF 47), especially if some other editor has substituted the ticks for something else. I wouldn't be confident that the correct character would be displayed if I edited it. I'll ask at the ref desk first, and get back to you. Cheers, >MinorProphet (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not just three "ticks", Apollodorus, 1.8.2 gives the following list:
 * Now the men who assembled to hunt the boar were these:— Meleager, son of Oeneus; Dryas, son of Ares; these came from Calydon; Idas and Lynceus, sons of Aphareus, from Messene; Castor and Pollux, sons of Zeus and Leda, from Lacedaemon; Theseus, son of Aegeus, from Athens; Admetus, son of Pheres, from Pherae; Ancaeus and Cepheus, sons of Lycurgus, from Arcadia; Jason, son of Aeson, from Iolcus; Iphicles, son of Amphitryon, from Thebes; Pirithous, son of Ixion, from Larissa; Peleus, son of Aeacus, from Phthia; Telamon, son of Aeacus, from Salamis; Eurytion, son of Actor, from Phthia; Atalanta, daughter of Schoeneus, from Arcadia; Amphiaraus, son of Oicles, from Argos. With them came also the sons of Thestius.
 * And by the way, what you are calling a "tick" i.e. "√", is really the square root symbol (more technically what mathematicians (like myself) would call the "radical sign"), which yes, someone replaced with the "✓", i.e. the Check mark. Paul August &#9742; 16:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I got a B in my maths O-level aged 16. We were the last year allowed to use only a slide rule and log tables (ow, feeling old now). The check marks were added in in this revision. I asked at the Village Pump about it, awaiting an answer. Since there are that many people involved in the hunt, I'll probably have a go myself. Aargh, tables... >MinorProphet (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the helpful people at the Pump sorted me out, and now being able to see the check mark I had a go at the article. Yes indeed, bloody tables, but I think I got everything right. After about three hours I couldn't face checking every single entry against the old table, perhaps you could do that. Cheers, >MinorProphet (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll take a look. Paul August &#9742; 13:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It all looks pretty good. I made a few fixes regarding Thestius' sons according to Apd. 1.7.10, which says:
 * Thestius had daughters and sons by Eurythemis, ... the males were Iphiclus, Evippus, Plexippus, and Eurypylus.
 * So I've removed the checkmark under Apd. for Prothous, added a row for Evippus, and added a checkmark under Apd. for Plexippus.


 * But there are still issues regarding Thestius' sons (working on this). Notice Iphiclus (son of Thestius, according Apd. 1.7.10) vs Iphicles (son of Amphitryon, according to Apd. 1.8.2), our article on Iphicles says that he was "also called Iphiclus", but I think we probably will need a row in the table for each name, since at least for Apd. they are distinct. More later. Paul August &#9742; 15:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It's as if you went on a sea voyage and a sailor from Portugal called you Paulo "Nelson" Agosto because you reminded him of his cousin; and someone from Crete overheard him making up jokes about your name and randomly wrote it down, although he was much more interested in the GPS navigational aids and the coastline and history of the islands you were threading your way around; and then you became famous. Then, 2,500 years later someone tried to make sense of it all from a decayed parchment found in an Egyptian library translated into an obscure dialect of rural Maltese which no-one had spoken for several centuries with not even a glossary or word list to help them... MinorProphet (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's looking much better, with your succinct notes. I really wanted to tidy up the messy mix of ||✓ and |✓ on various separate lines, but since the table works it didn't seem worthwhile. I believe that in some cases it can make a difference, but I've never been bothered enough to find out. Thanks for involving me - there would have been a reason why I edited it in the first place, but I certainly can't remember now. Cheers, >MinorProphet (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Inspired by your good work, I decided to check each of the other columns. I discovered many errors (none by you as far as I can tell), but I think I fixed them all. And I of course got sucked into other edits as well. Yes I toyed with regularizing the table rows as well. For the edits I did, I decided to use the " ||✓" on a single line. For me that makes it easier to see where each check mark belongs. I suspect that most of the errors were as a result of confusion in that regard (as opposed to confusion over which source said what). In any case, I think having all the entries be consistent would also help a bit, but ... Paul August &#9742; 11:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Although I am ignorant of the coding ramifications involved, I would tend to go for four separate "|✓" on four successive lines. What, however, happens if there is just one pipe followed by a blank? The very idea drains my intellectual and emotional ability. There are only 4 authors involved, and unless you can count faultlessly sideways with double pipes separating a tick - or not - then perhaps one |✓ per line might suffice, and I personally find it easier to count down than across. MinorProphet (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Fields starting on a new line start with a single pipe, subsequent fields on the same line are separated by double pipes. So:
 * A || B || C

is equivalent to
 * A || B
 * C

is equivalent to
 * A
 * B
 * C

While
 * A | B | C

will not give the desired result.

As for fields all on one line vs each on a separate line, counting horizontally vs vertical seems all the same to me. But I guess I don't actually count, rather I simply visualize, comparing the single horizontal line of fields in the file, with the intended horizontal row of the displayed table. Each to his own. Paul August &#9742; 15:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes I completely agree, it is v. simple to visualise 4 vertical fields, and I also suspect that
 * A || B || C || D should work.

I also imagine that...
 * Hero name
 * Notes
 * Notes
 * Notes
 * Notes
 * Notes


 * ...would work, but what about
 * Hero name
 * Notes
 * Notes
 * Notes
 * Notes
 * Notes


 * ...? PS Not feeling bold tonight... MinorProphet (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Moo
What sort of mathematician are you? If I were to mention Archimedes, what would you say? NB Loaded question... (ie would you happen to speak mathematical German?) MinorProphet (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Not a contradiction
An "inline-V" engine isn't a contradiction in aviation, but is generally used for non-radial engines including V engines. See Inline engine (aeronautics). I'm not going to revert your edit here, however, because changing "inline" to "inverted" is a good change. Cheers. BilCat (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message and the link. MinorProphet (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Re Categories from BrownHairedGirl
Thanks MinorProphet for your answer to my question on categories in BrownHairedGirl. Something bizarre has happened to that talk page. I cannot get it from the original link and another page of BrownHairedGirl has crossouts and question marks all over the place. Anyway, I just wanted to thank you for the time and trouble you took to answer me and I will follow through your suggestions.Gladiator-Citizen (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. Your post is still at User talk:BrownHairedGirl§ Archives. [ NB now archived MinorProphet (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)  ] On her user page User:BrownHairedGirl is complaining about losing her System Operator rights which were removed by WP:ARBCOM (the dreaded Arbitration Committee) after a dispute about her language towards other editors. Thus all the question marks, crossings-out etc., just a display of annoyance. I'm glad you found my reply useful. I made a similar reply to another editor at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#@BrownHairedGirl (now archived) which may be slightly more comprehensive. If you need any assistance at all with any aspect of editing WP I would be happy to try to help. Some things are just complicated here. Best wishes, MinorProphet (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Missing cite in Alfred Karney Young
Back in 2013, you added a short cite to "Adams 2011" but no such source is listed in the bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: User:Svick/HarvErrors.js to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thanks for pointing out the error. I have been using the script for some time, very useful. I got the date wrong in the {sfn}, is all. ✅ in the end. MinorProphet (talk) 11:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

EMG
Got one, perhaps a Model 10x (plus about 1,500 discs). Although externally in appalling disrepair, it still functions as designed. MinorProphet (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm envious! I've never even seen one in the flesh. I came across a brief reference to E.M.G. Hand-Made Gramophones, went hunting in Wikipedia for more information and found there wasn't any, so authored an article on them. Some spoilsport nominated it for speedy deletion, but by that time I'd accumulated sufficient well-referenced copy, plus photos, that I was able to have ii withstand the attack. My favourite quote in the article is "[W]hat could be more nostalgic [for British colonial officers] than an E.M.G. playing Elgar under the black velvet of a night on the African Veldt?". Which leads on to your fourth miscellaneum ... -- Jmc (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to describe the stunning sound which emerges from the horn of this amazing instrument. Although it is around ninety years old, and the oldest recording I own was made in c1903, it still raises the hairs on the back of your neck: for example, the original Othello, Francesco Tamagno, singing his farewell on a green label single-sided G&T; or the late great yellow-label Decca FFRR recordings eg first recording of Walton's 1st Symphony with Harty and the Hallé. Everyone who I demonstrate it to never fails to be astounded.

Velikovsky
Bought/downloaded and read everything. MinorProphet (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My interest in Velikovsky began when my father brought home from the library a copy of Worlds in Collision. Heady stuff for a young lad! I can't say I've read everything, but I have purchased and read lots from both sides of the controversy, including a number of issues of Pensée, some of whose arguments had a superficial plausibility. Nowadays, I tend to regard Velikovsky as a fervent Zionist who twisted history and science in the service of the cause. -- Jmc (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I ploughed my way through the talk page archives, oh dear. Much the same attitudes at Talk:Ipuwer Papyrus. There are still many cns in the V article which could be easily fixed, but the vast majority of my books are in store and I'm not sure that I could find the time anyway. I came across V's books in the mid-80's, and to a complete layman they seemed very persuasive. I found his writing style very accessible. Although pretty much everything he wrote has been fairly comprehensively debunked, I wondered if you thought any of his ideas on either ancient history or cosmology were valid or useful in any way. [Probably not.] V's reception by the scientific community seems to have been somewhat similar to that doled out to the unfortunate Wilhelm Reich, a pupil of Freud who also talked with Einstein about his ideas. MinorProphet (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Do I think any of his ideas on either ancient history or cosmology were valid or useful in any way? I took down my copy of Francis Hitching's World Atlas of Mysteries, which has a comprehensive chart of V's predictions and Hitching's assessment of their proved/unproved status. He finds 28 to be proved (14 unproved) but I consider some of those of dubious validity (e.g. Mars: moon-like surface) and the rest merely lucky hits (e.g. Mercury: electromagnetic field). As for the usefulness, of V's ideas, I can't see that any of them has contributed to the advancement of human knowledge. But as for V's reception by the scientific community, I do think the the story of the publication of Worlds in Collision is a shameful episode in academic history. And yes, there are similarities with the reception by the scientific community (particularly in Norway) of the rather strange Wilhelm Reich. -- Jmc (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A very long time ago (quite possibly prompted by V), I sat down with the two lists of the kings of Israel and Judah as related in (I think) Kings and Judges [or Chronicles], and did some adding up. The resulting discrepancy was one of the reasons I lost any faith I might have had in the Bible. I wish I had come across Julius Wellhausen's Prolegomena at the same time. I found V.'s attempts to shorten Ancient History by 500 years, including the 'Dark Ages' of Greece very entertaining - I wish I had some expert knowledge. I seem to remember reading that Reich made some experiments with uranium in an orgone chamber in Rangeley, where the Geiger counter levels went through the roof; and that his behaviour afterwards became increasingly erratic. The fate of Giordano Bruno (probably my all-time hero) in an earlier age springs to mind. MinorProphet (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just some random comments: I note that a recent article about changing approaches to the history of Ancient Israel quotes Wellhausen on the construction of history and remarks, "L’histoire d’Israël est nécessairement une reconstruction, mais toutes les reconstructions n’ont pas la même valeur." I'm sure V's construction is amongst those of lesser value. As for poor deluded Reich, that's an intriguingly plausible explanation of his increasing delusions. One can feel sorry for Bruno, too, but for entirely different reasons - a hero indeed and well ahead of his time. -- Jmc (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no hesitation in reproducing this passage from Prolegomena. For me it has no equal except in the most passionate verses of Isaiah from ch. 40 onwards, and knocks most the rest of the into a cocked hat:


 * "The element in which the prophets live is the storm of the world's	history, which sweeps away human institutions; in which the rubbish of past generations with the houses built upon it begins to shake: and that foundation alone remains firm, which needs no support but itself. When the earth trembles and seems to be passing away, then they [ie the prophets] triumph because JHWH alone is exalted. They do not preach on set texts; they speak out of the spirit which judges all things and itself is judged of no man. Where do they ever lean on any other authority than the truth of  what they say; where do they rest on any other foundation than their own certainty?  It belongs to the notion of prophecy of true revelation, that Jehovah, overlooking all the media of ordinances [or, laws] and institutions, communicates Himself to the INDIVIDUAL, the called one, in whom that mysterious and irreducible rapport - in which the deity stands with man - clothes itself with energy.


 * "Apart from the prophet, in abstracto, there is no revelation; it lives in his divine-human ego. This gives rise to a synthesis of apparent contradictions: the subjective in the highest sense, which is exalted above all ordinances is the truly objective, the divine. This it proves itself to be by the consent of the conscience of all, on which the prophets count, (just as Jesus does in the Gospel of John), in spite of all their polemic against the traditional religion.  They are not saying anything new: they are only proclaiming old truth.  While acting in the most creative way they feel entirely passive: the homo tantum et audacia which may with perfect justice be applied to such men as Elijah, Amos, and Isaiah, is with them equivalent to deus tantum et servitus.  But their creed is not to be found in any book.  And it is barbarism, in dealing with such a phenomenon, to distort its physiognomy by introducing the Law."

See also in German Prolegomena, p. 406

W.'s English version differs slightly from the original German, being slightly expanded to amplify his first thoughts. MinorProphet (talk) 07:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for sharing this powerful reminder of the inspired and impassioned mission of the Major Prophets. -- Jmc (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I chose my username before I realised that my namesake was one of the so-called 'major' prophets, who are only termed thus because more of their scribblings have been preserved. Mind you, if only a single chapter of my mate Izzie the 2nd had made it through the centuries, what would they think? I once shared a house with a man called Dan; if I were to choose another name, I would go for Zeke (with its connotations of 'seek'). Jonah is my fave, for (like Job and that Thomas bloke) he doubted; and even so got to cast imprecations—like Nahum—on the naughty inhabitants of Nineveh. Tsk tsk. MinorProphet (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Chapter 10.

 * What the Philosophers, and what sort of Nature they would have: where the spirit is said to be the ethereal chariot of the soul.


 * "The stone which the philosophers do seek is an invisible and impalpable spirit; it is a tincture and a tingeing spirit: which indeed another visible and palpable spirit has hidden in its innermost bowels. Even so the Philosophers have left us the same spirit undiscovered, under the veil of Ænigmas that the stone is a fifth separated from four. It is the bond of the elements, the medium and the chain, which has made the elements of God agree, and which in the womb of the earth [ie salt], conglutinated Sulphur and Mercury into a metallic body."
 * Attrib. Marsilio Ficino, On the Alchemical Art. MinorProphet (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The true purpose of alchemy is to discover that spiritual gold: and neither is the bread of heaven edible. MinorProphet (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Atheism
There are many gods of the older variety, most not currently in general favour. MinorProphet (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Indeed. IMHO, WP articles on atheism are disappointingly skewed towards monotheism. I like your use of "gods forbid" on your user page. -- Jmc (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * One of my mates (who has a well-earned chemistry degree from Manchester Uni) is a genuine agnostic. He knows that when he shuffles off this mortal coil, there will be absolutely nothing; and he is determined to live this unique life to the max. He has already achieved quite a lot. I, on the other hand, know that death is just a door which we have not opened yet, down a long corridor of similar doors: and that makes me rather lazy, since I am certainly a believer [in multiple deities and various chtonic beings], and my soul will live for ever. MinorProphet (talk) 05:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * "Gin and chtonic please, barman."
 * "How about a whisky and soda-off, sir?"
 * "Maybe a vodka and tunic...?"
 * "I'm sorry sir, the hilarious pun festival left town last week." MinorProphet (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Elgar
What's your favourite piece/conducted by...? I've sung most of the choral orchestral works, and heard Boult (sitting on a stool) conducting 2nd Symphony with the LSO? in the Royal Festival Hall c.1976. See also British Symphony Orchestra. MinorProphet (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I once read that you're either a 1st Symphony Elgarian or a 2nd Symphony one. I started out as a 1st Symphony Elgarian (that quintessential nobilimente theme!) but for some years have definitely been in the 2nd Symphony camp (more deeply felt) and would nominate that work as my favourite Elgar. Conducted by? Well, here in New Zealand, we don't have the embarras de choix that you have in the UK (further cause for envy) but James Judd (standing) conducted the NZSO in a fine reading a few years ago.
 * The initial article on Elgar is the contribution to Wikipedia of which I'm most proud. When I first encountered Wikipedia in its first year of existence, I thought the absence of an article on Elgar was a serious deficiency and so remedied it. -- Jmc (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The first is much more easily comprehended, rather like Brahms 1 compared to 4, say. I still haven't found the essence of E's second. I think that 'Owls' is one of the quirkiest things ever, but 'Sospiri' Op. 70 for strings and harp is easily my fave. There is also a stunning HMV LP recording of Boult conducting the Triumphal March from 'Caractacus', which gets me every time. Plus naughty things like the arrangement of Handel's 'Overture in D minor'. Oh, and the very late Piano Quintet, possibly his best work.
 * When I imagine an E.M.G. playing Elgar under the black velvet of a night on the African Veldt, it's Sospiri that it's playing (followed by Chanson de Nuit). The Piano Quintet is indeed amongst Elgar's finest, though seldom heard in concert; I consider myself fortunate to have once heard it live. (And thanks for drawing my attention to the British Symphony Orchestra, previously unknown to me). -- Jmc (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * A belated interloper here. I cannot subscribe to the view that one is either a 1st or 2nd symphony Elgarian. That's a black vs white paradigm that Elgar himself would have abhorred (I know, I asked him once). Me, I love the 3rd; and I'm in contact with Rosemary Brown to persuade Elgar to give us at least his drafts of the 4th and 5th symphonies, and his 2nd Violin Concerto, 2nd Cello Concerto, and his Rhapsody for Barbed-Wire Harp and Velvet Xylophone. Watch this space. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, you are obviously in good spirits: courtesy ping . I imagine that Elgar's long-awaited Rhapsody would need to be played with these and these. A very long time ago I read a number of Doris Stokes' books before realising that she was merely very sensitive and not in fact in touch with the dear departed. I find Beethoven's 10 and Mahler 10 interesting but somehow not wholly convincing. In a similar vein, the orchestration of Elgar's Organ Sonata is curious but not a symphony: the arrangement for clarinet of Beethoven's violin concerto is quite beguiling, and I find Schoenberg's orchestration of the Brahms G minor piano quartet is persuasive and really thrilling in the last movement.
 * I have some experience in completing works from sketches myself: my ggf Frederic Austin left an unfinished set of theme and variations for 2 pianos which he had only partly orchestrated (6 complete numbers out of 13). It was a whole load of fun weaving the remaining piano MSS (some very fragmentary) into a cohesive form and orchestrating them, often from indications in the piano score, eg wind, brass, strings only, etc. I haven't managed to get them performed yet...
 * I hadn't realised quite how good a pianist Dudley Moore was, especially in the lesser-known works of Beethoven. MinorProphet (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * . Dud was no dud. He was a gem, in all sorts of ways. I heard the Beethoven Clarinet Concerto once some years ago, and had forgotten how lovely it was. Yes, reimaginings of standard works for alternative instrumentations by other hands has a long history, sometimes successful, sometimes not. Category:Arrangements of classical compositions has some, but there are many others. Maybe we need a proper list. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Maureen Wroblewitz
Hello. Help improve and copy edit. Thanks you. Kolpb (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. MinorProphet (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Tell you what, I'll help improve it if you can help me with Sir Joseph Beecham. MinorProphet (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh. You may not exist any more. Never mind: no matter, as my Zen masters insist on reminding me. MinorProphet (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Various drafts
Hi again, SV 66. I hope you are well. As a result of our lively and worthwhile discussions at Talk:Sd.Kfz. 8 some six months back, I started a draft article at User:MinorProphet/Draft subpages/WW2 ZF gearboxes in an attempt to consolidate and expand the info we found. Although it is still very much a draft, I wonder if you could have a swift glance at it and let me know what you think. I still haven't discovered the actual type of gearbox used in the 12-tonner, by the way.

Following on from the 12-tonner article and general half-track info, I also started User:MinorProphet/Draft subpages/Panzer Artillery Regiments, just for my own interest: it's not much more than a specialised subset of Panzer division - is it even worth publishing?

Lastly: a couple of years ago as a result of randomly coming across the Jeddah massacre of 1858 article, I started a draft of User:MinorProphet/Draft subpages/HMS Cyclops (1839). There are a still a number of incomplete refs and sources which it would be trivial to sort out. At the time HMS Cyclops (1839) didn't exist. As the draft grew I became aware that there was a considerable amount of background information which wouldn't fit too well into a standard WP article on a Navy vessel, although the Oriental Crisis of 1840 covers some of the ground. Then I discovered that someone had published the current Cyclops article. I personally feel that my draft is considerably more complete. I have proposed some sort of merge with the current live article on its talk page (no-one has replied as of November 2021), but I'm not quite sure whether or how to proceed. As you know, I prefer ref & cite templates (hah!) and am not particularly willing to change my whole reffing scheme to suit. Again, I wonder if you could perhaps spare the time to run through my somewhat lengthy draft and give me your opinion. I'm not looking for a FA review or anything, although I hope that it meets some sort of standard. Best wishes, >MinorProphet (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've kind of burned out on Wiki and have mostly stepped away, probably only temporarily, but I'll take a look at your drafts. Without looking at the ZF article, I think that you're going to run afoul of the notability guideline about significant coverage. What I suspect that you've been able to put together is a collection of passing mentions from RS's like Spielberger, Jentz, and Nuts & Bolts. What I'd think that you'd need to fully establish notability is a book, or at least a decent-length monograph, on German transmissions that has significant coverage of the various ZF AFV trannys. You might be able to get away with one that's on trannys from multiple countries. A company history of ZF that covers its transmissions would probably also work.
 * I'm not aware of any such books or articles, but I hope that you can find something as I would like more details about the impact of the trannys on tank development. One sees disparaging comments about overloaded transmissions, etc., in the standard sources, but I'd really like more details.
 * I built stubs for the various Nebelwerfer regiments many years ago, so I think that you can manage at least that much for the Panzerartillerie Rgts. As regiments they meet the basic standard for Mil Hist's notability guidelines, although they might be attacked for failing WP:GNG's coverage requirements. Tessin will give you the basic info on formation, redesignation and reorganization dates and you can probably add in material on Wespe and Hummel deliveries from the usual sources. I think that there's only a single dedicated unit history for any of them, but the divisional histories should have some operational information, although extracting that and putting it in Wiki terms could be a challenge.
 * As for Cyclops, I'd just merge your draft into the existing article without standardizing cite formats. I do that as a matter of course for my stuff, but it's not actually a requirement until you put it up for an ACR or higher. One final point is that it's quite possible for obscure subjects like your first two drafts to languish in obscurity for years, so no one will find them to challenge them once you have unrestricted article creation rights.
 * I'll try to get to these tonight and will post comments here for each one as I do them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Gearbox article: It's in better shape than I expected. I added a couple of page #s for you. The development of the Kätzchen is considerably more complex than the stub article reflects or is shown by Chamberlain & Ellis. Doyle, Friedli and Jentz say that two prototypes were completed with different suspensions. The Kätzchen I had a torsion-bar suspension from Auto-Union was initially fitted with a Horch 724 engine, but it was later replaced by the HL 66 P. It may have initially been fitted with a Renk transmission, but was definitely equipped with a ZF SMG-51 transmission. The Kätzchen II had a modified version of the Pz 38(t) suspension with the SMG-51 tranny and HL 66 P engine from the beginning, but the transmission was later replaced by a SSG-48 tranny taken from the third Luchs prototype for comparative testing. The Kätzchen program was apparently absorbed by Auto-Union's proposal for a Vollketten Aufklärungsfahrzeug with a AK5-55 transmission either fell victim to component shortages by Sep. 44 or was replaced by BMM's proposed Kätzchen vehicle which was derived from the Pz 38(t) n.A. which was cancelled in favor of additional Hetzers in November.
 * The note about the Tatra Type 103 engine is confusing. AFAIK the designation only applied to the engine, not any vehicle. I wouldn't be surprised if the Czechs redesignated it after the war and got some use out of the design.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You've got a good start to the Panzerartillerie Rgt. article, but your sourcing needs a great deal of work. The Tessin to which I was referring is Tessin, Georg. Verbände und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939–1945 in 16+ volumes. Email me for more details. I would not rely on the stuff from the CARL as those are collations of material by George Nafziger who donated his stuff to them upon his death. It's only so-so accurate in my experience. Niehorster's stuff is a known RS, but I'm pretty sure that those French m/32 guns that he mentions are actually ex-Norwegian 12 cm felthaubits/m32. Niehorster's periodic OBs are useful for tracking the composition and assignments of the flak abteilungs, which sometimes had 37mm guns assigned as well. IIRC the Heeres-Flak-Abt. were formed after the victory of France and loosely attached to individual Pz Divs or Corps.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm really grateful for the time and effort you're spending on these drafts - many thanks. I'm well aware of the shortcomings in reffing of the Artillery Rgts., it's been a question of starting from nothing and slowly becoming aware of the worthwhile RS. I'll be in touch by email later. I remember making lots of Tamiya 1/35 models of various bits of German kit many moons ago, and wondering about all those strange insignia on the mudguards - now it all starts to make sense... :>MinorProphet (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * ZF Gearboxes: Just to recap what I know about tanks and "disparaging comments about overloaded transmissions." The term 'transmission', as I state in the draft, can mean several things - the gearbox, the final drive, or the entire drivetrain. As far as I can work out, most of the tank designs up to around 1939 basically worked. Several Ausführungen of the Panzer IV from around that time used the much-maligned Maybach pre-selector box (not the one in the Sd.Kfz 10 and 250) before returning to a proven ZF box: and then the Panthers and Tigers, oh dear. From what I have gathered, it was the often the final drive units to the front wheels which gave the most trouble - they just weren't robust enough to cope. In the majority of tales of disaster I have come across, the ZF AK-200 gearboxes (designed by von Soden himself - his last major project before his early death - and his chief engineer) weren't generally at fault - but almost everything else about the vehicles took ages to fettle, including the engines. This is not surprising.
 * As I have discovered at Talk:List of WWII Maybach engines (note a), a 600 PS V-12 engine for a 30-ton tank had been proposed as far back as 1935. The resulting experimental HL320 (32 litres) of 1937 was not a success. The 300 PS V-12 HL120 appeared in 1936 and powered most of the Pz IIIs and IVs plus derivatives until the end of the war. It was only when the Germans encountered the T-34 in 1941 that the need for a much more powerful engine became really pressing and the HL210 and 230 actually made it into production. These tended to be overstressed and frequently failed; crankshaft bearings and conrods were often the cause. The Panzer Tracts on the Panther detail what what went wrong, and the ZF AK-200 barely changed throughout the rest of the war. The Maybach pre-selector in the Tiger only had one major change (types A and B) and was also chosen for the Tiger IIs (essentially upgraded Panthers) - since they all used the same engine (the HL230) the choice seems to have been somwhat arbitrary.
 * I think most people agree that the German military and industry just wasn't ready for an extended war. As an aside, A re-assessment of the German armaments production during World War II contains some interesting findings, showing that the huge costs involved in developing super-heavy weapons like the Tiger II, the Graf Spee, the V-2, plus the Atlantic Wall far outweighed their effectiveness, and were a massive drain on the war effort. As late as 1943, many factories were only working a single daytime shift. MinorProphet (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Oversight
Just so you know, if you need to remove personal info, it's best to remove it and send it to Oversight where they will make it so no one will see it if they deem it necessary to be oversighted (if you think something should be oversighted, send it to them just in case and if they deem it not oversightable then it's fine). ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. WP:Oversight seems to deal with heavy-duty deletion of entire revisions etc. I think what I did is sufficient, my edit summary makes it clear what I did, and I have no desire to get involved with Arbcom. Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, MinorProphet!


Happy New Year! MinorProphet, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Abishe (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

MinorProphet/common.css
Heya! Did you mean to create MinorProphet/common.css in the mainspace?  Bsoyka  ( talk &middot;  contribs ) 02:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Aaargh, no. I'll SD it unless you can get rid of it, Soz. MinorProphet (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it's all up to you here, I assume G7 should cover it.  Bsoyka  ( talk &middot;  contribs ) 03:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Done already, trying again with User:MinorProphet/common.css. Thanks for the heads up. MinorProphet (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem, just spotted it on the NewPagesFeed and thought it looked off!  Bsoyka  ( talk &middot;  contribs ) 03:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Escadrille Spa.112
Hello,

I do not understand why you did not use the info on the webpage to update the article. Why is it the responsibility of a monolingual editor (me) to somehow translate a French website?Georgejdorner (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I wasn't actually expecting you to translate the article, I just posted the link for future reference and drew your attention to it. Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 06:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I wanted to thank you again
…For your encouragement with the Culture series. I’m now about to start book three because of you! I really enjoyed The Player of Games, and it was interesting to see how Banks dialed back the cruelty in a big way, much more so than the first book. One question that did come up for me: I’ve noticed people talking elsewhere about how Banks is an anarchist and that this is expressed in how he talks about the Culture and its structure or composition. Without ruining the next seven books for me, I was wondering if you could comment on this. I’ve deliberately prevented myself from reading anything about him or the series so as to not encounter any spoilers by accident. Again, thanks for the encouragement to keep at it. Viriditas (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you are finding Banks's books rewarding. I've never been much interested in writers' biographies or their beliefs, and I wasn't aware of him being an anarchist. The WP article describes The Culture as a post-scarcity anarchist utopia - but for me anarchy didn't come across as a main aspect of any of the books. Thinking about it briefly, I suppose that the AI minds/spaceships of Excession do exhibit anarchistic tendencies - they are essentially petty warlords (although on a gigantic scale) who profit from a general lack of control. When you get to read it, make sure to make notes on which AI is messaging which, the alliances they make and break, or you may become very confused. Other than that I don't recall Banks making any specific political points in that direction, but it's some time since I read them all. If you are interested in anarchy you might enjoy identifying similar strands in the novels, but I wouldn't say that the Culture series is any sort of Anarchist's Cookbook. I agree with you, it's better to leave the theory and anaylsis until after you've finished the series. The non-Culture SF books are just as good, can be read any time, perhaps between the Culture books. Happy reading, I find his books intellectually really satisfying. MinorProphet (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but I finally finished the third book and I’m about to start the fourth one. I was wondering what you thought of Bank’s use of the unreliable narrator, as all three books I’ve read so far make use of this device. This is not something I’ve encountered in the genre of science fiction before. Is this part of Bank’s style, or is it something he brought to the genre from his work in other genres? Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Glad you are making your way through them. I have never read any of Banks's non-SF work except The Bridge and The Crow Road, and I really wasn't attracted to either, so I have no idea whether unreliability is a thing with him. Although I enjoy reading SF and Fantasy, and know a whole load of poetry in several languages, I have very little interest in what you might call literary criticism or literary devices. I have read very few standard English novels either classic or modern, I am much more familiar with French literature - but I simply read novels as stories, I have never gone into any depth about how books are constructed. As I may have mentioned, I haven't read any of the earlier Culture series for around 20 years, and at the time I just approached them as straightforward if complex tales. If you would like to give me some specific examples of the unreliable narrator in the Culture books you have read I would be happy to tell you what I remember (if anything), but if you are trying to analyse various underlying motives or techniques in Banks's writing I am probably not the right person to be asking. I might tend to consider browsing online forums or essays which discuss his work in general terms. Hope you are keeping well, MinorProphet (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your well wishes. Thinking about it further, I think the use of the unreliable narrator may be Banks's signature style.  In the three books I've read so far, we find it in the character of Horza in Consider Phlebas, in Mawhrin-Skel in The Player of Games, and in Zakalwe in Use of Weapons.  That's a significant pattern, and it tells me that Banks is fond of the device.  It's interesting to me because I can't think of any science fiction that uses it.  I hope you are staying warm this winter.  Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Relying on my increasingly fallible memory, all of the characters you mention, Horza, Mawhrin-Skel and Zakalwe (what names!) are just that - merely characters in books written from a third-person point of view. Having just looked at the Use of Weapons article (have you read any of Ken Macleod's stuff?) I realise that I recall almost nothing at all of the book except the intensely memorable descriptions of the characters, their actions and emotions. In other words, Banks writes sentences like eg "Zakalwe glanded some calm, performed a swift acrobatic pirouette and sliced the droid's head off in mid-leap." I seem to remember that all the books are written like this. I don't remember a first-person narrator in the manner of "My name is Zakalwe. I did this, and then later I said that, which was inconsistent with what I did earlier, and then I sliced the droid's head off." That's what I would call unreliable narration, but I've never really thought about it before. I certainly don't remember realising that Zakalwe turns out to have been Elethiomel all along. I can't forget that ghastly chair, however, which is certainly cruel in the extreme.
 * Just because a 3rd-person character doesn't know who he is, does that make him an unreliable narrator in the strict sense of the article? I would say that Banks is the 'narrator' as the novelist - does that make Agatha Christie "unreliable" for introducing red herrings as a writer of murder mystery novels? I am reminded of PK Dick's We Can Remember It for You Wholesale filmed as Total Recall: neither the protagonist nor the reader/viewer knows who he is until right at the end - those bulging eyeballs! What about Memento as an extreme example? Banks's Excession is just crawling with players who don't reveal their true natures until the end: they are not 'unreliable' as such, more like 'dark dissemblers'. Most people simply won't or can't tell the simple truth. Hence unreliabilty. Banks just heavily involves you in the mystery of who wants what, keeping you in suspense as it were. Just some ideas. I really suggest you seek out some discussion forums with contribs from people who are really into the book: I g**gled  and found 10 likely websites straight away.
 * My flat is modern and well-insulated and my energy supplier has considerably reduced my bill thanks to some government help, so I am warm and comfortable for now at least. Read on. MinorProphet (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Knights for the body
Hello, MinorProphet. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Knights for the body, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Did some more editing on said vast, unwieldy draft. MinorProphet (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Axel Auriant/Archive x


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Talk:Axel Auriant/Archive x, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 18:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * MinorProphet, I noticed that there is a huge manual archiving instruction at Talk:Axel Auriant. You may want to copy-paste that somewhere in your userspace, because that things aren't really suitable to be put on a reader-facing talk page and I intend to remove it. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 18:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * , thanks for the heads up. I went ahead and deleted the offending section to save you the trouble: temporarily pasted here. Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC) ✅
 * Thank you very much, much appreciated! &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 22:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops, I guess I got my message wrong. I've no issues with the below section, it is a talk page after all. I was referring to the  section at the top. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 22:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you wanted to revert my previous edit which deleted the section below, and then deleted the hidden text you first mentioned, that would be fine by me. Although quite why you are worrying about something unbelievably trivial as hiddden text in an archived talk page escapes me. I can almost guarantee that no reader of the general public would ever find it. It's hidden so that only experienced editors will come across it. Most general readers aren't even aware of the talk pages. Hell, around 50% of the population of the USA actually thinks that Biden stole the presidential election from the orange clown, who now wants to dismantle the US Constitution. I doubt that they could even find their own ass in an emergency. MinorProphet (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Creating an archive - to be moved somewhere else...
NB: Added to Talk:Axel Auriant/Archive 1 by MinorProphet (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Archiving Instructions:

There are various ways to create an archive, but in my limited experience they tend to lead right up your own fundament. This is my personal method which I never attempt unless blindly drunk. There's always tomorrow/the day after for a revert.


 * 1) ) Open (for example) this link in two separate tabs: Talk:Axel Auriant
 * 2) ) Whatever happens: In the first tab, in the WP search box, type eg  where , etc., and boldly create that red-linked page. Save/Publish it, with an edit summary of "Creating Archive  " although it consists of nothing. It will complain that the page is blank: save it anyway. The resulting title should be eg   Then click the 'Edit' button. There will be nothing.
 * 3) ) In the second tab, click the 'Edit' button to edit this current—or any other—Talk page. Cut everything [except these hidden instructions, plus the translated page, and Archives, and any other existing templates etc.]: and paste the lot into the new [Archive x] page that you just created in the first tab: and boldly save it again.
 * 4) ) If this is your first time creating any similar archive: at the top of the current (and now almost empty) talk page, add  (which I just did for you here.)
 * 5) ) Save this now empty-ish second tab, except for these templates, instructions etc., which can now be hidden thus : and you should be done (hah!) There's always the 'Undo' button, but if you have got this far without mishap, splice the mainbrace.
 * 6) ) Next time you want to create another sequential archive page, search the talk page edit history for "Creating Archive page ", (or whatever you typed the first time - was that really 18 months ago???) and repeat these instructions where   and so forth ad. inf. More experienced editors may show you how to do this automatically. MinorProphet (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * :> MinorProphet (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, it all seems to have worked, and I seem to have briefly reversed time as well, judging by my s. MinorProphet (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for archiving this - I will be sure to use this method in the future. Though, for me to have any hope in hell of doing it right, I'll need to do it sober! You must give me a hyperlink to where you bought your time machine, EcheveriaJ (talk) 13:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Some bloke named H. G. Wells gave me the idea, I built my own version from scratch a few years ago. MinorProphet (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

February songs
you made my day today -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

My story on 24 February is about Artemy Vedel (TFA by Amitchell235), and I made a suggestion for more peace, - what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

today: two women whose birthday we celebrate today, 99 and 90! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Request edit
Good evening, could you make a change similar to the one you made on the Torta Barozzi page also on the Gabellotto page? JackkBrown (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Single versus double quotes
Please provide supporting evidence, or least the relevant passage from MOS, for the claim you make about the proper use of single and double quotes in this edit. —Epipelagic (talk) 06:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, From MOS:DOUBLE: "Glosses that translate or define unfamiliar terms take single quotes;" and from Gloss: "In linguistics, a simple gloss in running text may be marked by quotation marks and follow the transcription of a foreign word. Single quotes are a widely used convention." Best wishes, MinorProphet (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks — Epipelagic (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Smart gardening
Now, I have to set this thing up just to show you I can do it! I'm currently stuck on Matter. Only half way through. Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems like you definitely enjoyed Excession. I don't remember a single thing about Matter - try skipping a chapter or two, and if you get confused, go back and try again. I certainly remember Surface Detail being a whole load more gripping, another level of involvement. There's no need to plough through something for the sake of having read it - many's the book I have thrown into a dark corner, never to be picked up again. Not everything is a masterpiece. Glad you are still sticking with Banks, he's one of my favourites. Have you ever tried Philip K. Dick, epecially the short stories (4 vols.)? Really intense - or Alfred Bester? You'll deffo have to get that garden going now. The Flawed Genius sends warm greetings. Best as always, MinorProphet (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I’m kind of weird when it comes to dropping books. I always take it as a challenge and start over, thinking that might work, and usually it does.  I think what slowed me down with Matter is that of all of his books in the series up to this point, it has the most complex plot and number of characters, and there’s a lot to keep track of, in terms of the usual palace intrigue, special circumstances objectives and subterfuge, and alien machinations and allies.  It’s not a book you can just sit back and relax with.  So I think I’m just going to start over and give it a second try.  As for PKD, I read all of his works decades ago.  The one story of his that I keep coming back to reread is "Second Variety" (1953), which was famously adapted as Screamers (which I’m not a fan of).  There’s something about that story that I really enjoy.  If you haven’t done it, the next time you’re stuck inside on a dark and stormy night, turn the lights down low and listen to the audiobook version on headphones.  It’s amazing.  Anyway, as the smart garden goes, I’m very serious about it. I’ll give you an update once I get it going. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Re: No answer required
Just wanted to let you know, I appreciated this comment. As can be expected, Baseball Bugs did not.  In honor of your musings, I give you (in a most unrelated development) the saddest sentence ever written on Wikipedia. Are you ready for this? Fasten your seat belt. Here we go: "It is estimated that sometime after July 1983, the iceberg eventually worked its way to the outside of the Arctic ice pack, where it caught a southern current, drifted off into the Atlantic Ocean, and finally melted away." The fountain of truth is refreshed. Viriditas (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Www.           Jjnbkiuiyuhiyjjrsxssdfftreasvdhhnjuuiiuuuiiijiji
 * bikini
 * exawaAz wzazwrdtwiibijojkjljk
 * drcrwaRdraadgdsrf de 197.157.218.196 (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)



The Loch Ness Monster's Song by Edwin Morgan

Sssnnnwhuffffll? Hnwhuffl hhnnwfl hnfl hfl? Gdroblboblhobngbl gbl gl g g g g glbgl. Drublhaflablhaflubhafgabhaflhafl fl fl – gm grawwwww grf grawf awfgm graw gm. Hovoplodok – doplodovok – plovodokot-doplodokosh? Splgraw fok fok splgrafhatchgabrlgabrl fok splfok! Zgra kra gka fok! Grof grawff gahf? Gombl mbl bl – blm plm, blm plm, blm plm, blp.

MinorProphet (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Courtesy ping Viriditas. I suddenly realise that the IP poster above may have been referring to the atomic bomb tests at Bikini Atoll. So, along with the bombs tested and dropped during WWII, how much of an effect did they (and later tests) have on the atmosphere, melting glaciers, & thus climate? Is this now a conspiracy theory? One for the ref desks, perhaps. MinorProphet (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Knights for the body


Hello, MinorProphet. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Knights for the body".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 01:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Duly restored on request. Now, what to do with this vast, unwieldy monster? MinorProphet (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Film
I saw a documentary on The Ten Commandments, maybe it was on youtube, and one actress said something like "Filming the golden calf party scene was great fun... days 1 and 2. After that, it wasn't fun anymore." In The Story of David (1976), Jane Seymour plays Bathsheba. The "I have to kill her husband, it's only logical." reasoning is quite understandable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I see I'll have to watch David now. If it's particularly good or bad, I might do another film review. As to the 10 Commandments: I don't think I've been quite so bowled over (considering) by a film for quite some time. Re Tharbis, see below § Translation of Getty Ms. 33. Have you ever watched She (1965 film)? If you happen to have it to hand, after 00:45, there's a sequence including a tribal/voodoo/shaman, who somehow reminded me of a dancer in the (not so fun) golden calf scene you describe. The cast includes the irrepressible Bernard Cribbins and the soundtrack includes one of my favourite atmospheric film tunes ever: but it's candyfloss compared to 10 Commandments. I idly wonder how many later similar film sequences echoed it in some way? MinorProphet (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have not seen that film. Ah, Mr Hutchinson in Fawlty Towers. David has Brian Blessed as well, which usually is an added reason to watch something.
 * Speaking of good sort of Bible stuff, I can recommend Kings (American TV series). Early in first episode, reverend Samuels "anoints" the young David Sheperd, you can see a fraction of the scene here c. 0:18. Loved that scene. And Goliath is a tank. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Some films are still available... MinorProphet (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 10C documentary: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * David turned out to be one of those super-slow trickles taking several days, worthy of eMule... "Saddle up the war-donkeys, we ride against Ramoth-Gilead in several hours! Or maybe tomorrow!" Best line concerns Goliath in part 1: "What are you going to do? Sing him to death?" Brian B. later became a parody of himself, here he is just about palatable. I'll attempt a review: but if you are going to make a film about the psalmist, make sure the star can actually sing, preferably in tune... Or maybe the director wanted to portray D as an average singer, like he was just an average king. Solomon was no better. Thinks: did Anthony Quaile ever play King Lear? Yep: Jstor if you have access. MinorProphet (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Link to Vicifons
Like this:
 *  De uxore Moysi Aethiopissa ,

displayed as
 * De uxore Moysi Aethiopissa.

--Lambiam 14:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Cheers, much appreciated. MinorProphet (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft
Done. § ✅ <!--
 * Proposed draft for WP:RDH:

If anyone is interested in the sources of the text in Getty MS.33 fol. 67v, I had a long and informative chat earlier today with Graeme Dunphy, who was incredibly helpful in sorting out the sequence and sources of the all the chronicles involved here. As I was beginning to suspect, the text in our image from the Getty manuscript comes from a straightforward copy of large chunks of the Christherre-Chronik, as transcribed in. The reason is as follows:
 * At some point someone came to make a MS copy of the Ems Weltchronik, but there was a lacuna in the particular source he used which left out quite a lot of the story of Moses. But the copyist happened have to hand a copy of the Christherre-Chronik (which deals with the same subject matter as Ems) and simply interpolated the relevant sections to fill the gap. This version was then copied three more times, making a total of four source MS which differ in this way from Ems. The Getty MS. 33 is one of those four, (out of a total of 30 main sources): the other three are in New York, Vienna and somewhere I can't remember.

So we have been puzzling over one of four out of a total of thirty MS.

Professor Dunphy explained, with various references,<!- "Rudolf von Ems" in ''Med. Encl. Chron. vol 2 -> how this interpolated section (contrary to what I wrote earlier) was taken directly from the Latin prose of Comestor's Historia scholastica, and translated into rhyming couplets in MHG by the original compiler of the Christherre-Chronik''. He said that Comestor would have been very familiar to the writer of the Christherre-Chronik (and to his readers) since it was one of the few Latin texts taught from an early age to the small minority of German boys who went to school, along with the Vulgate Bible. It is written in simple and plain language, free of contorted poetical word order.

As Graeme Dunphy explained further: All except the first two lines in Getty MS. 33, fol. 67v (our page), relate to the right-hand picture of Moses killing the overseer. He took me through the process of rendering a mere four lines or so into English, and it is not straightforward at all: it's medieval poetry, which often demands more effort to make sense of the word order.


 * He has generously made a transcription of the whole of the text on fol. 67v, (which is closely but not exactly reproduced at ), and has also offered to translate it.

The story of Tharbis appears on the previous page or so, from lines 12257 to 12293. This passage has more info on the story of the rings: Apparently Aaron and Miriam, Moses' brother & sister, were very unhappy indeed about Moses and Tharbis (because God was displeased with him). It was Miriam who put pressure on Moses, forcing him to craft the rings, one of which would make Tharbis forget she ever loved Moses. He [thus freed from the bondage of her love which he will always remember], returned to the "Egypten lant" to free his people from their bondage under Pharaoh. Again, this will likely be in Comestor (perhaps in a quite close translation of the sense) as one of the direct sources of the Christherre-Chronik.

There may not be an English or modern German translation of any of the four variant MS sources, but there is an ongoing project to translate its source, Comestor's Historia Scholastica.

|editor1-last=Gärtner |editor1-first=Kurt |editor2-last=Plate |editor2-first=Ralf |editor3-last=Schwabbauer |editor3-first=Monika |title=Die Christherre-Chronik V. 7161-12450 der in den 'Deutschen Texten des Mittelalters' erscheinenden Ausgabe: nach der Göttinger Handschrift Cod. 2° Philol. 188/10 (olim Gotha, Membr. I 88) |place=Trier |publisher=(Publisher not stated) |date=1998 |url=https://manuscripta.at/Ma-zu-Bu/DissertationRoland/10Cgm5.pdf}}
 * {{cite book <!- {{sfn|Gärtner|Plate|Schwabbauer|1998|p= ->

MinorProphet (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC) -->

Translation
Los Angeles, The J. Paul Getty-Museum, Ms. 33, fol. 67v.

Parallel transcription and translation into English. Abbreviations are expanded in square brackets.

MinorProphet (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Is "she" Tarbis? And is that a legit spelling of Tabris? There's an image description on Wikipedia that has it both ways. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

"She" is Tharbis, Moses' first wife. The main part of the text relating to Tharbis and Moses is on the previous one-and-a-bit folios, and as far as I know hasn't been transcribed or translated. The first two lines on this folio are the very end of the Tarbis story. The rest tells of Moses killing an Egyptian overseer. There's also Tabriz, a city. As to spelling, which particular image description are you thinking of? MinorProphet (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. File:Ms. 33 (88.MP.70) Moses Leaves Tabris, Moses Killing an Egyptian.jpg uses "Tarbis" and "Tabris". I used to know how to pipelink a file, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Eureka! The old colon trick. I also see now that Tabris led to Tharbis there all along and I could have clicked that (but then I wouldn't have relearned how to pipelink a file or said hello to you). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Same applies to categories in draft articles. This image is definitely catalogued by the J. Paul Getty Library as "Moses Leaves Tabris" (fol. 67v) and "Moses Killing an Egyptian" (fol. 67v), here, p. 117, rh column. She is called 'Tharbis' by William Whiston in his 1737 translation of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews. but her name in Latin is 'Tarbis', and in Middle High German 'Tarbas'. All the variant spellings in the Wikimedia file description were mine, because I think of her as Tharbis, as in our article:  This was dicussed in full in this Humanities Ref Desk thread. Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Applies to categories elsewhere, too. I suppose the spelling mixup just comes with the whole centuries of translation deal and isn't directly connected to anyone's acceptance of a "forgetting ring" somewhere down the line. Cheers to your elucidation today and to the eternal magic of misremembrance! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

David Irving
I've started a discussion about the use of David Irving as a source here.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)