Open main menu

If you are here because you are upset that I reverted one of your edits, please do not take it personally. I have no personal vendetta against you, nor did I mean to attack or insult you in any way. The only reason why I reverted your edit is because I genuinely believed that your edit was damaging to the encyclopedia. If you have a legitimate query, please refrain from making personal attacks and write your complaint at the bottom of the page.

This talk page only displays recent conversations. If you are searching for old conversations, please consult the talk page archives, which are linked below.

A token of appreciationEdit

  The Writer's Barnstar
I've read some of your works (Hypatia, Sappho, Library of Alexandria and Pythagoras). Your writing is really outstanding! I would like to especially thank you for expanding Hypatia, because like many other people, I watched Carl Sagan's Cosmos and thought that Hypatia was flayed under Cyril's order [sic!]. Mimihitam (talk) 04:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mimihitam: Thank you so much! That is so very kind of you. I worked very hard on those articles I wrote and I am glad you at least are pleased with the results of my labor. Of the articles you listed, I wrote almost all of the articles "Hypatia," "Library of Alexandria," and "Pythagoras." The article "Sappho" is mostly the work of another user named Caeciliusinhorto, who has made many fine and outstanding contributions to Wikipedia, but who is now mostly, if not completely, retired. I did help with that one, though. I have not been writing much on Wikipedia lately, partly because working on Wikipedia seems to inevitably involve so much arguing and partially because I do not get my name attached to any of my work. Instead, I have mostly been writing on my own website and on Quora. —Katolophyromai (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm just being honest hehe. I've been digging into these articles quite deeply because I have translated Hypatia, Library of Alexandria and Sappho into Indonesian (if you don't mind!). I'm now also translating Pythagoras, and someone else is currently translating Mary Magdalene (I forgot to mention this article in the barnstar description). I've translated some other articles from the English Wikipedia before, and usually I'm very picky with the selection, because some of the articles here are quite horrendous (example: human rights, it's so bad that I decided to write it myself in Indonesian: id:hak asasi manusia). I remember some historians in /r/askhistorian were also complaining about Homer several years ago, but I notice that you have fixed this article. Really great job!
I understand the frustration. That's probably one of the reasons why I am reluctant to contribute to the English Wikipedia. The community here can be a bit harsh sometimes. But I have a suggestion: if you want your name to be cited, why don't you submit one of your articles to the WikiJournal of Humanities? That's one way to have your contribution recognized. The reviewers will also come from an academic background, so you won't have to be frustrated by comments that are not really substantive (like I'm really grateful Indonesians are not fussing over alt description!). Sure, it's not like a tier 1 journal, but at least you can have your name mentioned as the author in that journal. Mimihitam (talk) 06:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mimihitam: Well, most of the original improvements at "Homer" at least are the work of NPalgan2, who specializes in cleaning up bad articles, but I can certainly claim some credit because I wrote most of the current text of the "History of Homeric scholarship" section, which is currently the longest section in the article, and I also made substantial contributions to the other sections as well. According to the page statistics for the article "Homer," about 35.9% of the article was written by NPalgan2 and about 28.3% was written by me. Put together the two of us wrote 64.2% of the article, which is pretty much the entire body of the article. —Katolophyromai (talk) 06:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the mention, Katolophyromai! I am pretty inactive at the moment – real life has a distressing habit of getting in the way, and I don't have the motivation to really dig into rewriting any articles at the moment (though I made some notes on Praxilla the other day, so a rewrite there is possibly on the cards – keep your eyes peeled for that!) It doesn't help that the markup is so damn baroque and I'm not as fluent in it as I once was, either!
You'll still see me contributing on occasion (and you can always email me if you want me to have a look at something in particular!) but I'm not as active as I once was... Caeciliusinhorto ::(talk) 17:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


Hi K. Re this edit, did you see the previous edits by the IP there? The question is whether the qualifier "in early modern times" is adequately sourced. Burn, p.10 (cited there) says: "The strange facts that Herodotus reports at second hand, about the customs of barbarian tribes, from north Africa to south Russia and Afghanistan, used also, in early modern times, to be among the features that caused him to be called the father of lies rather than of history;". But it is unclear to me just what "in early modern times" is qualifying in that sentence. The other source cited, David Pipes (who? self published?) n. 21, says: "Herodotus has been called the "Father of History" since ancient times. For almost as long, detractors have referred to him as "Father of Lies." Can we find a better source for when "father of lies" is first used? After a quick scan of Evans, "Father of History or Father of Lies; The Reputation of Herodotus" in The Classical Journal, Vol. 64, No. 1 (Oct., 1968), pp. 11-17 JSTOR 3296527, while providing much useful information, I don't see where it provides a date for the first use of "father of lies". Paul August 15:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Paul August: My apologies. I believe the qualifier about "in modern times" is accurate, but, since it is unsourced, I have now removed it from the article with this edit. —Katolophyromai (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
No need to apologize, I think some kind of "modern times" qualifier is probably correct, too. Paul August 19:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to exactly answer the question, but in "Was Herodotus the 'Father of History' or the 'Father of Lies'?" there is "according to an essay of Momigliano it was not until the 12th century Francesco Petrarca (ironically dubbed the Father of Humanism) that an implicit contradiction was noticed in the two terms." Mind you The Mirror of Herodotus: The Representation of the Other in the ...,, François Hartog - 1988, brings up "When Vives declared that it would be closer to the mark to call Herodotus the father of lies than the father of history, that was ...". Presumably this is Juan Luis Vives (d. 1493), but I can't see the actual text. Ah, yes, here. And here we have Momigliano with the Latin. Johnbod (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

If I can break in to a discussion that's a bit old and doesn't concern me, I think the description of Herodotus as the father of history is a reference to the methods he used, not to his results. Of course, modern historians never lie...PiCo (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

It would helpEdit

if you gave a warning to the editor who made these edits.[1] I've had a bit of an unpleasant experience with him. Thanks Doug Weller talk 08:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I am not entirely sure what sort of warning I ought to give. Just so I know what sort of individual I am dealing with before I write the warning, may I ask what sort of "unpleasant experience" you have had with him? Has he been sending you harassing emails or been otherwise trying to target you off-wiki? —Katolophyromai (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: I left him a nice little message on his talk page. I respectfully explained to him what the word "mythology" means in an academic context and politely requested that he stop changed the word "mythology" to "history" in articles on Wikipedia. Here is a link to my edit. I hope what I wrote is helpful. —Katolophyromai (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
It's perfect, very appropriate. I really appreciate that. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: You are welcome! It is true that I have not been spending nearly as much time on Wikipedia lately as much as I used to, but I am glad that I was able to help. —Katolophyromai (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

You've got mailEdit

Hello, Katolophyromai. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 15:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I will not contest your deletion. However, you are preventing a truthful assessment of Quora, not helping. First it is not true that QUora is easy to delete. I tried and after a few hours I gave up. Second, the documentation of this fault is simple - one need only type into google "Searches related to how do I get out of Quora?" and the wide frustration is obvious. Finally, it is also noted that Quora inserts itself maliciously into our phone when we innocently google a question and thereby boosts its account base. I don't know why you support such spam, but I don't have the time to fight you.

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
I had a great time reading the articles you created. Thanks for your work. Puduḫepa (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Puduḫepa: Thank you so much! I am so glad you enjoyed reading the articles I wrote. I have not been very active here on Wikipedia for the past six months or so because I have been writing on Quora and on my own website instead, but, during the time when I was editing here most prolifically, I was writing two or three articles every month and bringing them up to "Good Article" status. I do still log in to Wikipedia every few days to check what changes have been made and sometimes I still rewrite sections of articles, but I am no longer rewriting whole articles, or at least not at nearly the pace I once was. Some day I may go back to writing whole articles here on Wikipedia, but I have not been doing it for a while now. In any case, I am very grateful for your appreciation. A lot of times I think I felt like my work here on Wikipedia did not get much appreciation. —Katolophyromai (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I have had a look to your talk page and have seen many possitive feedbacks regarding your contributions. You are one of the few content editor on Wikipedia, please keep it up. By the way, the website is interesting and many of its articles are within my area of interest. Thank you for the links. Happy editing. Puduḫepa (talk) 10:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Brothers PoemEdit

Can you keep an eye on this pls. The article seems deservedly, and likely, to pass FAC, but could do with shepherding from somebody with specialist knowledge. Also, the comments so far have mostly been about prose; it would be good to have a content review, lets face it - otherwise whats the point. I hope you are not too disenchanted by the FAC process by our earlier encounter there; I look back on that with some regret. Your work here is very much admired and appreciated; many of the articles you hve worked on I had already watchlisted, and it has been a joy to see them expanded / brought under control. Ceoil (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Robert E. Lee on TravellerEdit

On June 15th, I nominated Robert E. Lee on Traveller for DYK - I was wondering if you'd be kind enough to take a few minutes to review the nomination? That would be much appreciated.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: I have read the article and I believe it is ready for DYK, but, for some reason, I cannot find the nomination for the article at WP:DYKN. Has someone else already reviewed the article and approved the nomination? If that is the case, then I sincerely apologize for my lateness. I have basically left Wikipedia for the most part. I still log in every day or two to check up on what is going on and see what changes have been made to the articles I have worked on, but I am no longer writing articles. I used to spend hours writing on Wikipedia every day, but now I spend no more than half an hour on here each day at the most. Some days I do not even log in at all. Instead, I have been writing answers on Quora and articles on my website. I devote nearly all my time to writing on Quora and typically republish my best and favorite answers on my website as articles. —Katolophyromai (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Shortly before you responded to my question, someone reviewed the DYK nomination. Good to hear from an old collaborator! If/when I nominate the statue article for GA, would you be interested in reviewing it?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
@MagicatthemovieS: If I were still spending most of my time editing Wikipedia, I would gladly agree to review the article for you, but, since I have been spending less time on here, I doubt I would have time to review it. —Katolophyromai (talk) 07:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello friendEdit

Hello friend, I've returned to edit Wiki again. Glad to see you're still around. I'm just utterly amazed at the amount of work you've done since I've been gone. Nice job and keep it up. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Sacred prostitutionEdit

Given your 2018 edit on Aphrodite, adding "an idea which is now generally seen as erroneous" after the link to sacred prostitution in the lead, your informed input might be useful on Talk:sacred prostitution, in relation to the discussion in the last two sections, as to whether there is now an academic consensus on this point (and whether that consensus can be demonstrated). Jheald (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Jonah (talk page)Edit

What did you think of my reply to your suggestion? regards HuPi (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


Hi. In reverting my edit, you wrote:

reverting unexplained removal of sourced content and addition of unsourced content, which seems primarily motivated by a POV desire to portray Enlil in a more positive light (e.g. by removing the mention of the myth of him causing the flood from the lede; by removing the mention of the myth of his rape of Ninlil from the lede; and by defining him in the first sentence of the article as primarily a god of "uprightness," which is not how he is defined in the sources cited)

Firstly, I did not "remove" any information from the article; I trimmed down some of the introduction (content that was derived from the body of the article and never removed from it), and thus there was no information lost; I perceive your introductions as characteristically bulky and inconcise, as if you miss the entire point of an introduction. Secondly, I did explain the edit in question—and in greater detail than I just did when repeating myself. Third, your bizarre accusation of me having an ulterior motive to portray a mythical figure in any particular way (other than how these myths portray the deity) is not only off-putting, but it also violates the policy of Good Faith (I also never, as you claimed, removed anything from the lead or elsewhere concerning the rape of Ninlil, as there simply was no mention of that myth in the lead—how could I have removed something that wasn't there?). I also, as you claimed, did not remove all mention of the flood from the lead. Furthermore, you—as the author of the article—are the one who saw fit to mention in the lead that Enil was "himself so holy that not even the other gods could look upon him"; if you don't think that holiness is (at the least) synonymous with " uprightness", what word would you use to summarize that quality? And why, when seeking to summarize the said deity, would you believe that the basic character/defining personality of the subject is less relevant than his power over the elements? Or not relevant at all? I'm left scratching my head as to why you'd have reverted my legitimate and constructive edits without any discussion whatsoever, moreover making false claims and slander of me to justify your reverting of my edits. Since I'd like to have good faith concerning what you've done, can you please explain why you did all of these things? WikiEditorial101 (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@WikiEditorial101: This is a conversation we should really be having on the article talk page. Contrary to what you say here, you did, in fact, remove content from the lead. Also, I do understand the purpose of a lead, as Wikipedia defines it. WP:LEAD states a lead is supposed to "serve as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents," which is what all my leads for all the articles I have written do. In your edits to the articles "Ninurta" and "Enlil," you removed a number of sentences that were summarizing whole sections of their respective articles. Furthermore, my leads are not "bulky" relative to the leads you see in most articles at WP:FAC these days. Most Featured Article candidates about prominent or notable subjects tend to have leads composed of four lengthy paragraphs (e.g. "Leonardo DiCaprio"). Featured Article candidates about less prominent or less notable subjects tend to be about two lengthy paragraphs (e.g. "French battleship Brennus," "Soviet destroyer Nezamozhnik")
My comment about you seemingly wanting to portray Enlil in a more positive light was an observation based on the fact that many of your removals from the lead concerned myths in which Enlil was portrayed in a less-than-savory light. I have already listed examples in my edit summary. You may notice I used the word "seems." That was a very deliberate word choice. I was not stating it as a blank fact that that was what you were doing; I was just saying that was what it seemed like to me. I noticed something very similar in the article "Ninurta" where many of your removals concerned parts dealing with Ninurta's aspect as a warrior deity. For instance, you removed all mention of him as a warrior deity from both the first paragraph of the lead and from the infobox, even though his warrior aspect was an integral element of his persona for most of the history of his worship. Indeed, Ninurta was most prominent during the Neo-Assyrian Period, when he was primarily viewed as a warrior deity—almost to the exclusion of most other aspects.
Regarding the "rape" of Ninlil thing, I apologize for my wording, since I see it is characterized in the article as a "seduction," although consent is often ambiguous in these myths and other sources characterize it as a rape. I must have been thinking of some other source I had read that characterized the event in that story as a "rape" when I wrote that edit summary. Again, I apologize for that; I should have reread that sentence in the article more carefully. In any case, my point still stands, since "seduction" of Ninlil still doesn't exactly make Enlil look like a perfect role model.
As for the "uprightness" thing, I have two remarks: First of all, "holiness" in ancient Mesopotamian religion did not necessarily correspond with moral uprightness. The word "holy" only came to be associated with moral righteousness through the influence of the Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity. For the ancient Mesopotamians, as well as the ancient Greeks, Romans, and most other ancient peoples, holiness was about something being somehow ritually set apart. In any case, I actually agree with you that Enlil did have a role as a dispenser of morality in some sense. What this is really a problem of is, though, how Enlil is defined in the sources; none of the sources cited define Enlil as primarily a god of "uprightness." If you want to list "uprightness" as Enlil's primary attribute in the very first sentence of the article, you are going to need to provide a source that defines Enlil as a god of "uprightness."
I really hope this doesn't turn into another massive argument. These unpleasant arguments I keep getting pulled into are a large part of the reason why I have not been spending much time here on Wikipedia lately. —Katolophyromai (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Katolophyromai".