User talk:Thanatos666

Note to self: New personal record (I think) on correcting oldest present error in an article
This, present since then. Yay me! Now if I could only find some good sources on the left coin inscription... Thanatos|talk|contributions 17:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Another one: this since this first inadvertently removed the text by placing it inside a category and second this placing the category itself outside the section. Thanatos|talk|contributions 05:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

About the transcription of "Paean" in Linear B
Hello, I was aimlessly browsing the wiki, and after reading Paean (god), List of Mycenaean deities, I was wondering something about the linear B transcription you added some years ago for Paean "pa-ja-wo-ne" : 𐀞𐀊𐀍𐀚. Shouldn't the syllable "wo" be transcribed as 𐀺 rather than 𐀍 which is "jo" according to Linear B? Is it a typo or am I missing something else? After checking the picture of the Knossos tablet V 52 in "The Mycenaean World" of John Chadwick, the symbols for "pa-ja-wo" might indeed looks more like 𐀞𐀊𐀺, don't you think so? Have a nice day! -- FoeNyx (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct, wrong semivowel., thanks! Thanatos|talk|contributions 19:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Easter Chronicle) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Easter Chronicle, Thanatos666!

Wikipedia editor Domdeparis just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"please do not create redirects that do not meet WP:RPURPOSE. If the subject is not mentioned in the target please add it before creating the redirect. I have just done this for you."

To reply, leave a comment on Domdeparis's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Dom from Paris (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Planetes asteres - note to self
Classical planet:. Present since. Thanatos|talk|contributions 18:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Parthian Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nike ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Parthian_Empire check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Parthian_Empire?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:HellenicOeconomy(inCurrentEuros).jpg


The file File:HellenicOeconomy(inCurrentEuros).jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "orphaned image, information is dated"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks
...for your improvements to Khalili Collection of Aramaic Documents. It's much clearer now. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

"Zosimus Historicus" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Zosimus Historicus. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 29 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Avilich (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Dionysius Exiguus
Not too sure what purpose you edit serves; there was definitely contrast between Arians and Monophysites vs. official Imperial Christianity in the 6th century A.D. AnonMoos (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Not sure either on what's your objection to my edit. The dogmatic constrast couldn't have been against the Catholic Church, with a capital C (or the Orthodox Church, with a capital O, etc), because it hadn't come/evolved into existence yet. People of Catholic/Protestant/Western-Christianity-dominant backgrounds (pretty much the default in the English Wikipedia) usually and erroneously call the ancient mainstream (or anyway an imaginary image thereof) Church Catholic; people of Orthodox background call it Orthodox (put in another way try e.g. calling the pre 1054 Church Catholic in front of a religious Greek (i.e. most probably an Orthodox Christian) and see what that would get you... ;-) ), and so on and so forth. I'm just pointing out and removing the anachronism(s) based on the dogma historically prevalent in culture(s). Thanatos|talk|contributions 02:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * If the term "Catholic" is anachronistic in reference to Dionysius Exiguus, the degree of anachronism is only about 50 years (the amount of time between Dionysius' death and the papacy of Gregory the Great). However, Colin McEvedy's "Atlas of Medieval History" has a map of Christian realms by the religion of their rulers in 528 A.D. which distinguishes "Catholic-controlled territory" from "Arian-controlled territory".  The lower-case word "catholic" means "universal", so I don't see how lowercasing helped. AnonMoos (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The irony is that you're only proving my point... Before the Great Schism and even then only as a conventional cutoff point, THERE WAS NO Catholic (or Orthodox) Church therefore there was no "Catholic-controlled territory"; or put in another way, an Orthodox-biased-background historian would have written "Orthodox-controlled territory" in the place of your Western-Christian-biased-background historian's "Catholic-controlled territory". ;-) Using, instead of either of the above, catholic Church, or Imperial State Roman Church, or whatever, is an (imperfect) way to avoid playing games of asserting dogmatic superiority with respect to a historical issue. Thanatos|talk|contributions 12:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I should have clarified before that "Catholic" has by no means always been synonymous with Roman Catholic. In the 6th century A.D., it could mean Imperial or supposedly "universal" Christianity (as opposed to the localistic heresies of Arians, Monophysites, Nestorians etc). The 1054 definition of Roman Catholicism is formalistic and basically useless -- it's a semi-arbitrarily-chosen marker of the final schism between Western and Eastern Christianity, but Western Christianity had been a somewhat autonomous and Byzantine-independent entity for centuries before 1054. In any case, lowercasing on its own resolves nothing and solves nothing... AnonMoos (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. I doubt the relevant term was spelled in capitals in late-antiquity/mediaeval Greek or Latin and differed from a small c one; among other things because letter case distinction probably hadn't been a thing yet. 2. Yes many churches assume they own the Four Marks of the Church, therefore catholicity, so what? 3. Or put in another way, doesn't e.g. the Catholic Chruch also think that her dogma is the orthon one? So let's all call the ancient Church Orthodox, OK? Catholic Christians wouldn't have a problem with that. Right??? ;-) 4. This is not just academic or hypothetical: In my country, when I was a child in school and being taught history, the history books when dealing with pre Great Schism stuff taught us students about the Orthodox Christian Church versus the various haeresies... 5. Catholic in English, spelled with a capital c has, at least at the present time, a specific definition, specific connotations, and use. Like in our case the fact that it wikilinks to the article about a specific church. 6. Western Christians (Protestants and Catholics alike and even non Christians raised simply in a Western Christianity culture/background) have not historically referred to the pre-Reformation Church as Catholic without assuming continuity about them and discontinuity about others etc.; they were at the time, in a dominant position world-wide, conquering and colonizing the world, the Eastern Churches were for a long time subjects of Islamic Empires (and the only Orthodox Great Power to eventually come to existence, Russia, wan simply an...exotic place somewhere far to the East and itself mimicking the West), they only had to deal with themselves, in Reformation and CounterReformation wars and stuff, so Eastern Churches-related stuff were until...the internet, if at all present, usually and at most an afterthought (even now I doubt many western christians know, ever heard of about eastern ones). Well not any more... 7. Yes there had been differences present already before the conventional poing of divergence of the Great Schism, more or less paralleling the on-the-way divergence between the Greek speaking Graeco-Roman world and the Latin speaking one. So what? If you think these differences are so importantly relevant, while also advocating calling the ancient church Catholic, then how could you also cite a map whereon mainland Greece is Catholic-controlled and mainland Italy Arian-controlled? 8. All or most terms are problematic (including the following ones, see 9.) in one way or another. There are inter alia simplifications. But C vs c (or whatever) solves at least one problem, the one I have explained to you. 9. You think catholic with a small c does not solve any relevant problems? OK, then use e.g. Nicene Christianity, Imperial State Roman Church or whatever. Thanatos|talk|contributions 17:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I have come here from your edit in Gothic language. You definitely have a good point, which in IMO is hardly solved with a c (most people simply don't know the difference). As for the workaround using "Nicene Christianity", I see two problems: for some reason there seems to be no target article that neutrally covers the entire orthodox church body between Nicaea 1 and the Great Schism (or let's say I haven't found one). Unfortunately, Nicene Christianity redirects to an event, which might add more confusion to the reader than leaving "Nicene Christianity" unlinked. Another – rather minor – point is that the term "Nicene Christianity" leaves the two smaller schisms of Ephesus and Chalcedon out, and clearly, the Visigoths converted to the majority confession in 589. In have no idea how to capture this in a single term that comes with an informative wikilink that helps our readers to understands what is meant. All this is actually pretty marginal for Gothic language, but certainly of relevance for many articles that need to link to the church historical background of events spanning over seven centuries. –Austronesier (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Quoting myself replying to AnonMoos: "All or most terms are problematic (including the following ones, see 9.) in one way or another." Yes (focusing on this one following term but my point applies to other relevant terms and articles also, mutatis mutandis), Nicene Christianity does not have a dedicated article, yes using Nicene Christianity leaves out the ...minor issues of the other great Synods, yes ..., etc, etc. I simply don't have a solution to all problems; I'm only trying to solve a single albeit huge one, at least from a non Western Christian perspective, that is Western Christian use of Catholic to describe virtually everything Church-related-not-clearly-regarded-by-them-as-haeretical pre-Reformation. Thanatos|talk|contributions 22:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Keti Chomata for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Keti Chomata, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Keti Chomata until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)