Excellent work at Nyx. Sorry to have stepped on your toes a bit, easily done when two editors are editing the same article at the same time. I had been getting ready to add Fowler 2000, and cites to Fowler 2000's Acusilas frr. 6b, 6c, when you beat me to the punch! I think it's all straightened out now ;-) Paul August☎12:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul August: Thankyou! Yes, I saw the massive removal and (for a moment) went "oh no, have I done something wrong?". I'll go through and finish sourcing that section (some cites missing in the middle paragraph), then I'll hopefully get to writing the rest of the page. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a small bird came to me and told me that you are thinking of rewriting the pages of *all* of Nyx's children ;-). It will be good to see, some of those articles leave a fair bit to be desired... – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes well, if you consult that same "bird", you will realize I've been thinking about working on lots of things for a long time, so feel free to think about any of these yourself. Paul August☎13:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to garner a consensus on the talk page of the Beethoven article to be inclusive of these facts. They are present on every single other biography of a person born after about 1750 with any kind of notability. Please refer to the note I left on my first edit. Nikolai Gennadievich Nazarov (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikolai Gennadievich Nazarov: there is, because, as the two invisible comments which you removed state: "ATTENTION EDITORS, do NOT add anything here without finding consensus on the talk page. It is intentionally concise". If you want to make such a change, you need to have first gained a consensus on the article's talk page. You've already been reverted by another editor. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has no clear origin. It was likely placed by an older editor with no certification to set such parameters. Unless there is a new reason presented, I will keep the edit up per the aforementioned reasons. Nikolai Gennadievich Nazarov (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you just say the same thing on the Beethoven talk? Regardless of what led to it. (It was debated for a long time if Beethoven should have any infobox, and when implemented, to keep it concise. Consensus may have changed since, but you need to establish that.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Recently you seem to have contributed to the article Zeus. Since I am working on the article draft Indian sceptre which has a small mention to Zeus. Requesting your visit to the article and share your inputs if possible.
Unfortunately, I have little to no knowledge of such a topic, which sits quite outside my field of interest. I don't think there is anything I can add. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No issues, such reach out was part of my usual effort to make my article drafts thorough and neutral as much possible. Wish you happy editing and cheers. thanks - Bookku (talk) 10:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you mean from infoboxes. I would recommend reading WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE; infoboxes should be a summary of key pieces of information which are in the article, meaning something contained there should both be mentioned in the article, and significant enough to be considered a key fact about the article's subject. Infoboxes are designed to allow readers to identify key facts at a glance, and, if the infobox contains 4 or more parentages, for example, this is made more difficult; it is better to keep just the one or two most significant ones. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As has been explained to you numerous times, you are blocked from editing Wikipedia. This means that, if you want to edit, you need to log back into your account and appeal your block. I don't plan on keeping any more messages which you post here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... to be impressed by your work at Nyx, particularly the section on the Orphic theogonies. As I'm sure you are discovering, Orphism is a vague, controversial and tangled mess of a subject, and often avoided for this reason.[1] So good work! Paul August☎14:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul August: Thankyou, that is very kind of you. I am indeed enjoying the knotty and tortuous nature of Orphic literature, though I am noticing shortcomings in our coverage of Orphism overall, likely because few (other that yourself) have been willing to tackle the area. Pages such as Phanes and Ananke could do with some work (not to mention Orphism itself...), and I think we would benefit from having articles on the four theogonies (plans for the future!). – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. And thank you for describing my remarks and me as being kind. I would describe my remarks as being well-deserved, and me as being grateful. As for our coverage of Orphism, saying that it has "shortcomings" is something of understatement. So go to, go to. Paul August☎10:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Plato famously described Orphic literature as a "hubbub of books". Martin West describes Orphism as having attracted a "motley crowd of romantics and mystics, of imposters and poetasters, of dizzy philosophers and disoriented scholars" and having become "all things to all men". Radcliff Edmonds compares the term 'Orphic' in its vaugeness to 'New Age'. Dwayne Meisner writes "in order to research this bizarre ancient phenominon we call Orphism, one must stand upon the shoulders of some of the biggest giants in Classical scholarship, and at the same time dive into the midst of one of the biggest debates on Greek religion. No wonder many shy away from it."
hi, Michael
but it was the other guy who started removing my edits for no decent reason! but ok i'll pass the information on to another party as the other works Dinosauro47 (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dinosauro47: My purpose in reverting you was simply to stop the edit war. I understand that your edits were sourced, though, and the content can be added back assuming it is reworked in a more suitable manner. I would be happy to discuss the matter at Talk:Hades now; just please don't revert again. – Michael Aurel (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is no reason to copy and paste the same message and insert it into old discussions here, I have seen what you have written. I have removed those duplicates. – Michael Aurel (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I promised to prepare some more of the offspring tables for you, then got busy off-wiki and haven't caught up yet. Sorry – I haven't forgotten! Your great work on Ares shows again how worthwhile it is. NebY (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's of course just if you have the time (or inclination). I will get around (very slowly ;) to adding the full tables myself. – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
Re this edit, I haven't thought much about that article since I wrote most of it six years (or so) ago. In particular, since there was at that time an ongoing debate surrounding the sparagmos, the anthropogony and Orphism, I would not be surprised if an update of that part of the article was warranted. For example Meisner's book was unavailable at the time, and would be a very useful source. It's a very interesting subject, and I would encourage you take a look at our article with an eye to updating it as you think needed. Paul August☎14:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zagreus of course represents a very tricky and complex topic for an article, but I think the sentence However, when and to what extent there existed any Orphic tradition which included these elements is the subject of open debate essentially covers the debate of the last 20 or so years. The main possibility for expansion would probably be elaborating on this and presenting the views of a few of the more prominent scholars in recent times (such as Edmonds, Bernabé, and Brisson), and, as you say, implementing a few sources which have been written since your work at that article (e.g. Meisner, Chrysanthou, Heinrichs). I don't think there is anything at that page which is actually out of date in any way, mostly because your work there is a very faithful representation of the ancient sources, but there are probably places where older sources (e.g. Guthrie, Linforth) could be phased out a bit, and we could also add Bernabé's edition alongside Kern for the fragments. It is a very interesting subject, and it would make a good project.
To get your opinion on this, would you agree that an article on Orphic literature would be a good idea? I think it represents a sufficiently distinct topic from Orphism (religion) to justify a separate article, and I am dissatisfied with the current section at our page there, particularly because the word "religion" in brackets in the title seems to imply the notion that the theogonies are the "texts of the 'Orphic religion'", or something to this effect (a largely outdated view), though moving the page to just "Orphism" might also solve this issue? – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, a separate article on Orphic literature would be warranted, if for no other reason than to distinguish that topic from "Orphism" as a religion or whatever else it might be or have been. As for the disambiguator "religion", I agree it is misleading, but I can't think of a better one. So I would be in favor of moving it to just "Orphism", but given Orphism (art), we would have to have a convincing argument that this Orphism is the primary topic first. Otherwise I think we may be stuck we Orphism (religion). Paul August☎14:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume that Orphism constitutes the primary topic, though I can't claim to know a whole lot about modern art, and those who do might disagree, so accepting the current title is probably the easiest solution. I'm glad you think a page on Orphic literature is a good idea; it will be a big project, but it will hopefully fill a noticeable gap in our coverage here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
Yes I inadvertently reverted your second edit there. When I noticed that, I was going to redo your edit, but then I thought that a link to that page needs to be somewhere. And I was undecided about where. Probably not in an otherwise empty section, in which case it should probably go in the "See also" section. But possibly the best solution would be in a non-empty "In popular culture" section (I hate to say this since I generally despise such coat-rack sections). But since I'm dithering I'll let you decide ;-) Paul August☎13:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As much as it pains me to, I've added a link back in the "See also" section, as it probably should be linked somewhere, as you say. A full section is certainly possible (probably ideal I suppose), though I suspect neither of us will be rushing to write one all too soon. While "in popular culture" pages irritate me by virtue of their existence, I guess at least you have to commend the determination for completeness; you never know when someone might want to find out about the New York lacrosse team (occasionally I wonder if someone was maybe trying to emulate the xkcd comic...). – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Memnon
Hello Michael, Re: (Greek) Memnon and Etruscan Memnun edits; It has been suggested by Wikimedia Safety & Trust that I work with you in what is likely a shared interest to provide readers authentic and accurate information about Memnon from this mythical tradition. My concern is that volunteer editors are not respecting the skills learned when one studies the classics in original source documents. If there is something about how to annotate here that I need to learn -I am happy to edit the style. That being said, the mythological tradition is what is being disputed when the work I have accomplished has been reverted with no explanation. It seems sketchy with some kind of motive beyond mythology and that is why I am asking for a transparent discussion. Magistracraig (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some very recent secondary sources to help bring editors up to speed with this black, Aethiopian King very clearly celebrated in the Ancient world but some one overlooked in our time:
Review: ‘Memnon’ restores a forgotten African hero to the Classical pantheon at the Getty Villa
@Magistracraig: You seem to be misunderstanding how we use primary sources on Wikipedia. The relevant guideline for this is WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which says that [a]rticles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible and [w]hen relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Please read and take in that guideline; this was the main issue with your edits. We also don't use parenthetical referencing any longer on Wikipedia (see WP:PAREN), and we generally shouldn't refer back to the article's subject in section titles (see MOS:NOBACKREF), though these are comparatively minor points.
Also note that the job of Wikipedia is to convey what reliable sources already say about the topic, not to present new research of your own (whether or not this research is correct). On Wikipedia, we call this "original research" (see WP:OR). In addition, news articles are generally not considered reliable sources in the context of articles on Greek mythology (see WP:RS).
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "Wikimedia Safety & Trust". Are you referring to the WP:Teahouse? Or are you involved in a Wiki Ed program, maybe? Whatever the case, the relevant location for this discussion is Talk:Memnon, and I will start a discussion there. – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
No worries at all, I find those sorts of titles as irritating as you do. I'll occasionally go on an editing "spree" across our minor pages on Greek mythology, trying to fix as many of these sorts of errors as possible. If you keep looking, you always seem to be able to find more... (Recently I've been removing the links to this [1] AI-generated Tzetzes translation which has been propagated across various pages.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, re I once went looking for them all, I've had a go at trying to filter for these pages, and I've managed to get the search down to 376 results [2] (unfortunately there doesn't seem [3] to be a way to exclude redirects). It would just require one of us being willing to sift through all the pages in those search results. – Michael Aurel (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... excellent contributions over the last two months (or so), including substantial rewrites of Orphic Hymns, and Amalthea (mythology), as well as your industrious gnomic work correcting page names and Apollodorus links, and Infobox cleanup—although unacknowledged—has not gone unnoticed by me. I've been continually impressed by your work, and particularly so lately. So thank you and well done! Paul August☎15:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou Paul! That certainly means a lot, coming from you. Orphic Hymns really was an odd lapse in our coverage, and it's a truly fascinating topic (a fun fact: they make Heracles a Titan and a solar deity!). (Another fun fact, because I can't help myself – one Daniel Heinsius, in the 17th century, put forward one rather interesting "theory" as to their authorship: Est autem totus ille liber vera Satanae ipsius liturgia.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
