User talk:Akhilleus/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Akhilleus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

User:Populares continues to make personal attacks on the Talk:Francesco Carotta page. I have been active on Wikipedia for too long to bother about this sort of thing usually, but I do not much appreciate being called a liar, especially by an editor whose approach seems to be to make personal attacks on all who disagree with him. Can I draw your attention to this, and suggest you follow up your threat to block him? --Rbreen (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

He's now indirectly accused at least one admin, and maybe me also, of being dishonest. Dougweller (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And now accused another editor of making libellous remarks. Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Akhilleus. Regarding this comment at Talk:Macedonia, you may or may not be aware that the Macedon article was recently moved to Macedonia (ancient kingdom). If "Macedon" is the more common term, one would assume that should be the location of the article. The discussion there might be of interest to you. Cheers, BalkanFever 05:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That's an unfortunate page move, but I don't have the time to get involved in the discusion. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I am a little involved in this and have to be careful, but it seems to me that Popularus is almost deserving as ban - a SPA who has limited himself mostly to tendentious and at times libelous and threatening talk on a talk page. I see you have blocked him several times. May I suggest the following: consider under what circumstances you would ban him. Make very clear to him what the conditions are and what policies they are linked to, and give him ample warning. Or take it to AN/I - these multiple blocks are getting tedious. But he needs the appropriate warning before any indef. block. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I am requesting a rename on Commons. My current Commons name is Akhilleus in Skyros. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I was under the impression that tit for tat was an accepted practice. I will be more careful in the future. Joshua Ingram 00:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I just wanted to bring to your attention this edit which looks very much like a block evasion (the same kind against which you warned Populares). I'm starting to doubt if this editor can ever learn to abide by the rules of Wikipedia. Cheers!--Ramdrake (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you know how this happened? You can see that there were edits, but they aren't accessible. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

From WP:OVERSIGHT it appears that edits can either be removed entirely ("oversighted") or they can be "suppressed", which means that the edits can't be seen by most users, but they still are noted in the page history. Only editors with oversight privileges can suppress edits.

As for how this happened, I'd guess someone emailed oversight--they usually don't oversight edits unless they're asked, and I assume the same thing is the case with suppression. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support last night in the discussion on my talk page. It was greatly appreciated. Horologium (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and the same from me, of course. A voice of reason such as yours is always very much appreciated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What the hell's going on at this ArbCom? I'm looking at the Proposed Decision and I can't believe my eyes. --Folantin (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like an apology from you for your baseless and apparently sour accusation against me of sockpuppetry, which incidentally it seems caused two people's accounts to be suspended. Such behavior doesn't reflect well on you. When you don't like what people say to you, do you usually make such false accusations? -- spin^control 20:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I did not demand an apology, as you can see from my comment above. I asked for one on what I considered reasonable grounds. Do you think that the terms "unhappy puppy" and "disgruntled editor..." were out of place for someone who didn't show the decency to inform me that they cast aspersions? Is it alright to make false accusations, but not to be angry about someone doing so? -- spin^control 09:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's your choice to be angry or not. You certainly display anger in your "request" above. But when you do so, it's not likely to encourage friendly responses, is it? And yes, I do think "unhappy puppy" and "disgruntled editor who lacks the ability to put a coherent case" are inappropriate. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ak, if you have falsely accused people, which you have, why not give an unreserved apology to those several people, as any decent person would? You make yourself seem like a tosser otherwise, and I know you aren't one of those of course, so why not prove your true character, no doubt lovely as all my fellow editors are, by your actions? If I have been wrong ever I apologise to those I have falsely wronged, because I care about my public reputation; I'm sure you too are so mature that you do likewise. Hence, demonstrate your good character etc etc. Sticky Parkin 16:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Sticky Parkin. I disagree with the idea that I "falsely accused" Doktorspin of anything. "Falsely accused", to me, implies an action taken in bad faith--that is, something done maliciously. I don't care that much about my reputation on Wikipedia, but I care enough that I'm not going to agree with an accusation that I acted in bad faith.

I opened a case at WP:SPI because it seemed like there was sockpuppetry at Talk:Julian the Apostate following the last move discussion--nor was I the only editor who thought so. In other words, at the time there was credible suspicion that there were sockpuppets, and the administrators who evaluated Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doktorspin/Archive also thought so--although they did not think there was credible evidence against Doktorspin.

I've already said on Doktorspin's talk page that there's no evidence he's engaged in sockpuppetry. So I'm happy to say that I was in error in suspecting Doktorspin of being a sockmaster, and filing the case against him was a mistake. Doktorspin also is upset that I didn't inform him of the case, so I'm also happy to apologize for not informing him. In fact, it looks like this is a requirement of the WP:SPI process--this page says it's step 6 in filing a new case. I don't think I even saw that page of instructions when I was filing the case, but even so I'm sorry I didn't do it. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes you did falsely accuse him of being a sock/imply he was. Regardless of your good faith, your belief that he was a sock was false. You caused him stress and annoyance incorrectly, as you have to others over the years with incorrect accusations of sockpuppetry. So apologise- where's the harm in it? :) If someone falsely accused you and then found out they were wrong, wouldn't you expect them to apologise for their error? Sticky Parkin 23:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sticky, it's often true to say that "wrong=false", as your edit summary does, but I don't think that's the case here. If Doktorspin was only asking for an apology because I was mistaken, I'd be happy to give him one. However, it doesn't look to me like that's exactly what he's saying. "When you don't like what people say to you, do you usually make such false accusations?" implies that because Doktorspin and I were in a content dispute at Talk:Julian the Apostate, I filed an SPI case against him in bad faith. That's not true, and I won't apologize for something I didn't do.

But, as you said, my belief that he was using sockpuppets was incorrect, so I can apologize for that: Doktorspin wasn't using socks, I thought he was, and I was wrong about that. Sorry for any inconvenience, especially since I failed to inform him of the WP:SPI case. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Respect to you for apologising- perhaps you could now apologise to User:Coldmachine for the grief he had when he was a new user. A sense of shame is the foundation of a heroic disposition, demonstrate it even further and I will give even greater honour to you, fellow editor, brother-in-arms, by giving you the spoils of a blingy barnstar.  :):). Sticky Parkin 15:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your participation, Sticky. I've thought about the dialogue regarding false accusations and think that an individual usually construes situations in such a way that what they are doing is correct. This is why in many disputes that are not about substantive matters everyone is right. Perspective is all. So it would be better that, if an accusation such as sock-puppetry gets made, it's not done by a disputant. -- spin^control 07:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Pardon the delayed response (I'm preparing for some traveling), but thank you, Akhilleus. I've had plenty of time to cool down and I appreciate your statement above. Internet in its anonymity can have the effect of separating people rather than bringing them together. Getting angry at someone at the other end of the internet doesn't help either. I hope we will be able to work together wherever possible in the future. -- spin^control 07:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the gracious response. I too hope that we'll be able to work together cooperatively in the future. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

As the GAR reviewer, I am informing you that Pythia, an article that you worked on, was delisted in GA sweeps process. My suggestions are available on the GAR page. Hope they are useful for article improvement.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The other user is removing referenced material. This is against Wiki policies. I will continue to restore the initial version, as I consider his actions to fall under the category of vandalism. Also, please refer to Talk:Library_of_Alexandria#Muslims_.26_Christians for more info about the current dispute. --Lanternix (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to bother you in your talk page, but I don't understand which specific part of my comment was considered personal attack so I can refrain from doing it in the future. If you see the discussion in that particular talk page, you can see dab using expressions such as Albanian patriot, patriotic Albanian kids etc not less in the discussion in his talk page refering me as moron, just because I was asking him sources for his edits. I never intended nor to report dab for his vocabolary but at the end that expression patriotic Albanian kids (does he knows how old are we, what we do in life, or we can have kids about his age etc) was becoming unsupportable that was my comment to stop using that kind of vocabolary. If that can be considered personal attack and his vocabolary is fine by your opinion, it's fine for me to, from now on I can use that too (but I don't think so it is not right to do so). As I understand wiki, we should collect information and then put it here, that was what I have done so far, maybe my sources can be discussed, I don't pretend to have read all the books in the world and to know everything about everything but at least I try to use as much as ref as I find and I have always talked in the relevant talk pages about the article for the changes and you can see that in all my contributions history.

Returning to the specific article that was much noise for the mention of the Albanians regarding Illyrians (as Int said wiki is the only encyclopedia not mentioning them regarding possible Illyrian descendance, if that it's not weird in your opinion I can assure that in mine and many others it's weird enough) First we agreed with fut another admin (who although we had discussions sometimes has my greatest respect for his work so far here) about a sentence in the lead mentioning Albanians (Illyrian-Albanian theory). This kind of sentence then brought some issues which was to be used as reference, until dab came and began editing his own version, with the excuse this article is about Illyrians not other populations imposed his wiev that this was not to be put in the lead (although if the lead is a short summary of the article and below albanians are mentioned in the language, archaeological and legacy section) and misquoted the references presented so far (the famous EB:)). His imposed version on Illyrians brought that situation. My questions for references for these edits were always neglected (see talking page) and make fun of (see dab talk page). In the end the complain about my last edit was that i used verbatim words of EB (see dab version of EB) and why I put Greek mythology (was there before, but only for Illyris not Illyrians, I only expanded it including relations between Illyrian tribes, with references always). At this status the article is mentioning in the lead Slavs assimilated Illyrians (what about some other tribes? Dalmatians were romanized while many historians maintain Illyrians of the south were not assimilated) although none excepting Illyrians was to be mentioned (according to dab) and the rest of the article, well you can see the quality.

I can understand the decision on the Balkan edits, and I think it is right (at a certain point, I don't like censure) but is another thing I would like to bring your attention. There were (still they are very few) almost no Albanian editors in the articles regarding Albanians when they were created (late internet etc) this has affected their quality and every step made for improving the article finds difficulties in editing since there are clearly POV users (you can see the edits yourself) who always revert even sourced and well referenced articles regarding Albanians and it looks like their greatest pleasure is when these contributors get a stop on 3RR.

Said that I would like to have a clear answer for a the vocabolary and expressions free to be used here as in the first part of this long:) comment. Apologising for the time taken. Regards Aigest (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding, however I want to clarify that if you see my last edits of the article I was complying with their requests because 1. I didn't include this topic in the lead (wasn't this the dispute, no matter how controversial?) and 2. I only expanded the Greek mythology (as for the citation from EB that was put by dab but in a controversial manner certain amount, plausible since that was not correct I used verbatim words of EB reference, which I repeat wasn't me who put that reference there but dab). Even complying with their own requests, I can not understand why they were reverted without a reason (though well referenced and not connected to the dispute) and the later block of the article. I don't want to engage in any edit-war (look at my long (annoying :))comments on the talk page before making any change to the article), I wish to do smth more constructive than vasting time in it, but also to be respected in the manner that if I bring the sources and others don't bring them but only their personal knowledge (no offence to anybody) that doesn't mean that they are right and I am the troublemaker. If I read in 1, 2, 5, 10, books the same thing and I try to bring it here that doesn't mean that this is my POV because it contradicts what others "know" (again no offense to anybody). We should be treated equal here in wiki, if you look at the history of the talk page my annoying request was "bring the sources for your edits". This request was never accomplished by others because they already "knew" the topic. And although complying with their requests (as I clarified above) and was the only among them who participated in the debate who actually brought (or tried, I am not perfect) some references for the edits, I was laughed, insulted and even accused of stalling the article and even proposed for ban. That gives me a sense of injustice in this matter. Quoting a famous guy I would ask you if "Is it true that some animals are more equal than other animals(here in wiki)"? Apologising on more time for the time taking. Regards Aigest (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

How can we work in here when they even delete our own sentence [1] [2] How can we deal with these users when all the southern cities of Albania are turned in a mess of Greek nationalistic propaganda. I give Aigest (talk) a lot of credit for trying to find a common language with them and bringing reliable sources specially in his latest work the Illyrians.His work is to be admired.In the other hand users like me are avoiding editing this pages and giving up on Wikipedia.Best regards --Taulant23 (talk) 05:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment at Talk:Sophocles/GA1 if you object to a delisting.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Given your expertise on historical issues, do you suppose you could possibly have a look at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Cyrus cylinder and let me know what you think? I'd be very grateful for any advice you can offer. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

We're holding a preferential vote to decide what proposals should go forward to the community and narrow down the vast selection that we currently have. Since you've expressed interest in the above discussion, I thought you would appreciate the opportunity to participate. BalkanFever 13:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Thank you.--Caspian blue 03:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated on the relevant section of that articles talkpage. Thanks.--Xenovatis (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As this edit shows, Interestedinfairness (talk · contribs) has changed the description of Kosovo to a country, despite the fact that there was NO consensus about it in previous discussions and that people were already getting tired of his continuous POV pushing. Since there is zero tolerance on this article, I propose a permanent Kosovo-related topic ban to the above mentioned user. There is just no use discussing with someone who refuses to take all different POVs into account and, in the end, just edits how he wants on this article that is under probation. --Cinéma C 02:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is undergoing a Featured Article Review here. You will see there, and on the talk page, that my opinion is not favorable; am I being a snobby classicist again? ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a mess of an article. I don't have time to do anything more than show up at the FARC and vote "delist", though...maybe someone will clean it up before that happens... --Akhilleus (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Gilbert Griffin yet another Sock of Muntuwandi The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't he be blocked? Dougweller (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[3]. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, would you have a review of the discussion at User_talk:Durova#Bluemarine_unblocked? About six weeks ago you lifted his indef for copyvio. During the discussions about his copyvios I was on the fence about whether to mention this discussion, where a few weeks beforehand he took an unusually hard line on copyright regarding another editor. Held back from mentioning that in the hope of bringing a reconciliation (or at least a measure of mutual respect and polite distance between those two editors). Now it's time to revisit the other editor's editing status and Allstarecho is making exactly the same oddly stringent demands, which are unlikely to be accepted by the community and would more probably reflect very poorly on Allstarecho if his own conduct comes up at ANI in future. It's a 'people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones' situation. Allstarecho mistakes me for a partisan in his content dispute, which makes it difficult to convey the message. It's going to be necessary to take a proposal to AN soon. Perhaps your good judgment and diplomacy would help here. If you think I'm out of line, please say so. If you agree with me, perhaps he'll listen to you. Durova²⁸⁵ 01:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The article Atlantis is undergoing a review as part of the good article sweeps project. You are listed as "actively involved with this article". The article does not seem to meet current requirements for a good article. It has been put on hold for a week; if these issues are addressed satisfactorily within that period the article will be kept as a GA, otherwise it will be delisted. Lampman (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Akhilleus, If you're up for some fun and a challenge, I invite you to participate in a discussion of Atlantis at HallOfMaat.com (home of Doug Weller). -- Rich

First, my disclaimer: while I'm an old sociocultural anthropologist, -call me Dybs-, and I can't read classic Greek ... I have adopted this fellow as a hobby, but have had to rely on secondary sources. (I'll submit my bibliography for a much appreciated, more learned critique, if there are any takers.)

My reading, from my compilation, amalgamalation of contradictory secondary sources, of the Eratosthanese succession is that as Erato' became increasingly enfeebled, while the Apollonius / Callimachus 'pair' seemed to have been developing as equal candidates, rising stars, for 'sucessor', and while Eratostho' held on, Callimachus assumed increasing 'organizational' responsibilities (e.g. the cataloging, the copying - the over-all organization, and general curation, of the growing body of knowledge), and eventually there was a professional (&/orlovers?) quarrel which Callimachus likely 'politically/ professionally', won. - Hence Apollonius went into a self-imposed(?) exile, but Callimachus, while serving as (we'd say) 'de facto' or 'ex officio' Librarian and High Priest of the Muses, was never (could never have been within then-cultural conventions) formally awarded the Title. ... hence, upon his death, Apollonius returned and accepted his bitter-sweet reward as the official 2nd Librarian.  ???

The things that Callimachus accomplished in that interim are my real, albeit speculative, interest.

Thanks for your tolerance and patience with this self-introduction ...

'Dybs' ( my complete ID/ref. on request) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.114.203.19 (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know much about the Hellenistic era, and can't answer your questions authoritatively. But as I remember our sources for Callimachus' life are fairly poor, and not a safe foundation for constructing a chronology of his work. If you have access to Alan Cameron's Callimachus and His Critics that might be a good source to turn to on the supposed rivalry with Apollonius. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

perhaps you can warn-block this chap? just stale revert warring. I could file a checkuser, but that would probably be giving too much honour to a throw-away account. --dab (𒁳) 09:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you've been dragged into the Persian Empire nonsense but it was kind of inevitable given one of the users involved. --Folantin (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm your meatpuppet this had to happen eventually! (Note to anyone else reading: the previous sentence was sarcasm. So don't think you've caught me red-handed or anything.) --Akhilleus (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm your meatpuppet too, and I didn't even edit the article. Something on Wikipedia is stinking, but I'm sorry I lack the power to fix it. Bullies and their IRC-buddy enablers seem to have the upper hand at the moment. Concisely put, I think we can say it is a loss of integrity. Cheers, but don't lose heart, there are some good people left. Antandrus (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you know that "The 'Persian Empire' refers to a series of dynasties between 600 AD until the Ottoman Conquest. No more, no less"? [4] And that the Mughal Empire was one of the aforesaid dynasties of the Persian Empire? [5] Thanks to the magic of Wikipedia you soon will. Fight the vandals and meat puppets who claim otherwise.--Folantin (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this guy should be making too many claims about meat puppetry. Look at WP:Wikicup Pool A. There are a few names there with little or no previous interest in Iranian history who suddenly appeared on Talk:Persian Empire. --Folantin (talk) 08:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

But of course that wouldn't be meatpuppetry--just people who have encountered each other elsewhere on Wikipedia finding a discussion they want to participate in through each other's talk pages, contrib histories, postings on noticeboards, etc. That's the way a collaborative project is supposed to work. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Ponte_Vecchio#Undoing_the_compromise? ... it has been suggested that the article be returned to a more standard format, as it has been a year since the compromise. Your participation may be helpful. ++Lar: t/c 12:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the 3RR reminder. Also thanks for keeping a sane head and occasionally explaining my points better than I would myself! Davémon (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Official recognition that Ottava Rima's behavior has been problematic. Jehochman ^Talk 13:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That worked well! --Akhilleus (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[6] Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anyplace OR is accusing me of sockpuppetry. But if he does, there will be hell to pay. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the source! Sounds like German gives you about as much happiness as it does me. I have supposedly learned to read it twice; six weeks after taking an exam it drains utterly from my head, and I'm back to painful deciphering instead of reading. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's my experience too. I'm sure I could attain some measure of fluency if I read German regularly, but somehow I never find the time... --Akhilleus (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Trying to continue a discussion on Kathryn's talk page, I've posted a question about a 3RR report that you filed. It would be interesting to have your thoughts. EdJohnston (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see an article on the Athenian Treasury at Delphi created, so I decided to start working on it myself under my userpage. I noticed you are an editor, and was wondering if you have time to take a look at the rough draft I have going on. It's my first article so any comments would be appreciated! Thanks (and sorry if this is posted in the wrong place... it seemed as good as any at the time), Kpetrole (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Kpetrole

The usual suspects are pushing again for the Cyrus cylinder to be promoted as the world's first human rights charter, this time in Human rights. Given your involvement in the discussions on this issue last time it came up, your views would be welcome at Talk:Human rights#Cyrus Cylinder. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Nepaheshgar, who you will recall from the Battle of Opis article and mediation, has been indefinitely blocked. Given your involvement in that mediation, you may have a view on whether he should be unblocked - see WP:AN/I#Block of Nepaheshgar. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, all of this seems to have played out while I was offline. If you decide to file a request for arbitration or some other formal step, please let me know, and I'll try to keep an eye on Cyrus cylinder in the meantime. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Responded on my talk. Nice to see ya! Tvoz/talk 03:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you clue me in please? [7] See my talk page. Email is fine if you don't want it public. Toddst1 (talk) 05:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Just looked at the last remarks between you and Picatrix on the talk page of the H article. Trying to avoid more confrontation, so let me place my suggestion here. I agree with Picatrix that the lead section should be streamlined; remember, school kids working on projects come here. I like the current first sentence — quick, let me record it before it goes away: "Hecate or Hekate (English pronunciation: /'hɛkə-tiː/, /'hɛk-ət/; ancient Greek Ἑκάτη, "far-shooting") was a popular chthonian Greco-Roman goddess, often associated with magic, witches, ghosts, and crossroads." — so why can't all the other issues of naming be placed under the "Name and etymology" section? Seems like it would be good for the article to make that the battleground section. And now I'm going to go away and not care anymore. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I noticed you've been involved, to a greater or lesser extent (yes, this is a form message), on the Iliad article. I'm planning a bit of a reorganisation, and would appreciate any thoughts on the talk page (topic is at or near the bottom). Cheers! --Quadalpha (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You added protection to the article. A note to admins: Please see Talk:Wendy_Doniger#Attention_to_admins:_Blatant_NPOV:_The_disappearance_of_Criticism. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

A discussion about the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks.2C_copy_vio.2C_removal_of_scholarly_material_at_Wendy_Doniger--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a notice to all who participated in the recent AfD of Human suit, here, that resulted in a consensus for delete. This article has been recreated as "Human disguise", and has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human disguise. Thank you. Verbal chat 21:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't like me saying you meat puppet. Fine. No one is supposed to like being labeled with anything negative. I will stop saying it publicly and keep it restricted to evidentiary proceeding if it ever comes up (such as ArbCom) if you can do one of the following:

1. Provide a diff showing where you had a major disagreement with Folantin, Dbachmann, Antandrus, or Moreschi.

2. Provide one individual that I go around and always support and I have never had a major disagreement with them.

- Ottava Rima (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't intend to do either of these things. By calling me a meatpuppet, you're essentially saying that I don't think for myself and my opinion is worthless. I'm not going to bother to respond to that charge; it's enough to point out that you're accusing me of a major (and blockable) policy violation without ever once providing credible evidence. If you would simply stop spouting such drivel, the chances are I would ignore you almost completely as our interests are different enough that we rarely cross paths. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't believe you speak for yourself only because I have never seen it and I go by what I am able to see for myself. If you can provide some examples of it, you will earn my respect. I have a reputation for not going with the crowd. I have stood against the bans of those who have attacked me, I have supported at RfA those who were opposed to me and opposed those who were my friends, I put my neck on the line for an individual at an ArbCom case who has not once ever supported my FAC habits, and when I disagree with people I work with I have made it clear. If you can show anything in the same manner, even something small, it would verify that you are far better than how I have described you, and I will be wrong and strike my comments about your actions accordingly. If I refuse to do that, then you can use this post as evidence that I deserve to be blocked. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"I honestly don't believe you speak for yourself only because I have never seen it"--I'm sorry, but I don't want to have a conversation with a person who is being this disrespectful. Please don't post here anymore. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if I came across as disrespectful. I was hoping that the sentence would read as revealing my own flaws and inabilities as opposed to saying that you were flawed. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You were mentioned (though not named) in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_4, because you were involved in the discussion at User talk:Dbachmann#Telugu. You may be interested in commenting or endorsing at some point. I'm letting all of those who took part in the earlier discussion know about this, regardless of position.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

At last: there I am! I was getting way lonely over here... a one-woman conspiracy is a sad thing. [/me shelters pathetically under Bishzilla's marquee-size tinfoil hat.] Tell me, are you my meatpuppet, or am I yours? Bishonen | talk 00:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC).

It doesn't really matter, because "ArbCom has already ruled that when there is meatpuppetry, the individual actions apply to the whole". We're all the same--a univocal collective. By the way, this brings up something I've been meaning to talk to you about--you are way behind on your disruption quota. I don't think you've done anything to destroy Wikipedia this whole month. Please start abusing the wiki again, or we may have to kick you out of our meatpuppetry group. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha. You think not? You must have missed where I had my friends actively trying to get rid of Jennavecia! [8] And where I actively (the new favourite word, I think) harassed people defending--enter dark horse contestant--ta ra: Malleus Fatuorum! Add these excellent exploits to your "plots to destroy the wiki" if you wish, and, above all, bow down to my superior corruption! Bishonen | talk 17:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC).

I am sorry for anything I have said that may have hurt you. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have struck the section dealing with you from the proposals - in retrospect, no matter what perceived offenses I may have seen, none of them are great enough to continue pursuing them to this date nor would it be better to dwell on the past in that manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please join the Christ Myth Theory discussion here Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Vandalism_by_User:Eugeneacurry_.28Relating_to_Holocaust_comments.29. Is it about the comments Eugeneacurry made regarding the holocaust, which you have previously undone (like many editors have). I would appreciate it if you could state your reasons for your undo (you said the holocaust was not relevant to this article) to help resolve it. That user has repeatedly vandalized the article with his own opinions, and it definately needs fixing. –  TigerTails  talk  14:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at [AFD] for Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, since you have participated in the last AFD. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd love your help here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugeneacurry (talk • contribs) 00:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I'm not entirely sure how this works, but it seems like Haldraper has violated the the three revert rule. He deleted the critical comparisons in the lead of the Christ Myth article at 13:07, 29 December 2009; restored his deletion at 21:16, 29 December 2009; restored it again at 22:31, 29 December 2009; and restored it again at 09:10, 30 December 2009. Is a temporary block in order? Eugeneacurry (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I only have time for a cursory look at this, but it looks like he might have violated 3RR. You can report this at WP:AN3, but the procedure for making a report is confusing; if you have difficulty figuring out how to make a report, you can probably post at [[9]] for help. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There are also conflict of interest issues for Eugeneacurry to answer, not only in relation to Christ myth theory but also California Southern Baptist Convention which he has been editing despite holding a paid position in the organisation.Haldraper (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a noticeboard for that too--WP:COIN--but I can tell you right away that there's no conflict in editing Christ myth theory, since no one is a paid adherent of the theory. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It would help if you actually read WP:COI: "Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors", Eugeneacurry is clearly a paid adherent of Christ. Haldraper (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Complete nonsense, Haldraper. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Akhilleus. The editing climate on this article leaves much to be desired. I notice you mentioned the idea of an RfC. The discussion at Talk:Christ myth theory#Dec 5th poll was not likely to go anywhere because of the lack of specificity. What would you think of an RfC that addressed itself to what sources should be included? Mediation is also a possibility. If these options go nowhere, the only thing left to try could be a long period of full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ed, thanks for your attention to this matter. I dislike RfCs except for the simplest of matters, because the editors who respond generally spend very little time investigating the issues and reading the sources. In my experience, they often don't lead to a lasting solution to disputes. I'd be fine with trying mediation. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Stuff like this doesn't help. I've been involved with this article for years now, and we never get anywhere, because various parties seem to have very passionate feelings about the article. Par for the course with religion articles, I guess... --Akhilleus (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

At User talk:EdJohnston#Christ myth Jbolden1517 has indicated he would agree to mediation. Do you think that the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal would be worth trying, or how about some interested individual who would take it on? If you support this idea, do you want to propose it on the article's talk page? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, how are you? I wanted to ask for your help on fixing this problem. There was recent edit war on question of Montenegrin language. Until now, articles had written "Montenegrin language" on every Montenegrin articles, but now Serbs reverted it and adding Serbian. Their argument is that Montenegrin doesn't have ISO code. Montenegrin is official language of Montenegro, therefor is used in Government, school, TV etc... ISO standard is expected in one or two months. There are a lot of admins who reverted for them without knowing anything about Montenegrin language. Here are e.g. of articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulcinj http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podgorica

Not to mention that battle was won a lot of times before with Admins agreement, but ever few months appear some clone to remove it.

Best regards!

Rave92^(talk) 17:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Akhilleus. I'm sort of frustrated that the Christ myth theory page was stable for weeks until the GA review process began and then, all of a sudden, a bunch of editors piled on with tags and objections, almost as if to derail the GA process (Dbachmann almost admits as much). I've tried to prevent this by working out compromises regarding the "Methodological concerns" section and removing the specious tags. I noticed though that you restored the tags; I greatly respect your contributions to this article but I'm a little confused by this latest turn. At what point can an editor remove a tag as unjustified? Do the objections of a single editor (Ttiotsw) against the agreement of three others (Bill the Cat 7, Eugeneacurry, ShotgunFrank) really constitute a controversy? Does Dbachmann really have the power to single-handedly prevent the article from achieveing GA status simply because he'd prefer the Christ myth theory article not exist at all? Eugeneacurry (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Given your interest in classical topics, you might be interested in this discussion here Talk:Sparta#Lead. Cheers, Athenean (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I know you have noticed some of the latest at Africa (Petrarch), and I realize that you yourself may not want to attempt anything heroic any more than I do. So could I ask you for a different kind of help? In my years here I really haven't found my way among all the administrative forums and response systems. Is there a place where you can simply post a notice that User:Wareh has asked you to communicate the issues in my latest talk contribution in the appropriate place, for the due consideration of anyone who may share my concerns? If so, would it be fitting or useful to give such notice? Or am I kidding myself to think the continued pattern of making weird hobbyist pages in the article space that mysteriously line up with demonstrably crazy stuff in his userspace can be explained to any functional enforcement mechanism around here? If this is just rehashing the same correct but fruitless insights we've shared before on this, just tell me, and I'll accept that & quietly give up, though with my confidence in Wikipedia sinking. Wareh (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick response for now, I'll try to be of more assistance later. As you've noticed, there isn't a good structure through which to address the oddball problems Doug causes. Wikipedia has some (mostly ineffective) enforcement mechanisms for dealing with editor behavior, but none for problematic content (the distinction between behavior and content isn't as simply as Wikipedia claims, of course). Perhaps the best place to get some wider attention for the problems at Africa (Petrarch) is at the Fringe theories noticeboard. If I have time later today, I'll try to put a note up there, if you don't do so first. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've taken your advice re the FTN. Wareh (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Christ myth theory. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help at the RefDesk.

On the basis that this is hopefully non-controversial routine Latin/Greek translation, I've drawn on your linguistic notes in the article, and attributed to you in the article history (thanks!). Would you be okay casting an eye over my various edits in situ and checking they're technically sufficiently accurate?

If you happen to have any other comments on the article generally, I'd like to hear them. I'm still working on it though. I hope to submit it for GA review when I'm done drafting so anything you spot will be taken care of.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(Cross-posted to Akhilleus, Adam Bishop and Haploidavey (at AB's suggestion):

I have just finished my first attempt at a rewrite of Ave Caesar, morituri te salutant. I would not consider myself a classicist nor a linguist. Before I submit the article to peer review, would you be willing to review it carefully and let me know any views and comments on its talk page?

Thank you! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've hesitated to roil things further, but because you're an administrator I decided to go ahead and mention this. Recently, as you know, there has been discussion pertaining to deletion in certain Greece & Rome topics. I'm an advocate of not deleting info unless it's demonstrably false. I understand the difficulties of determining what's "common knowledge," but I find it particularly unhelpful to delete info that's, yes, common knowledge within a given topic.

The point is, on Feb. 2, someone deleted the entire section on "Literary Works" from the article Julius Caesar. You may see remarks pertaining to that deletion here. Included in the deletion was a simple list of the various Commentarii, each of which was linked to its respective article. I found this jaw-droppingly mindless at the time, since it was a bloodless little section with perhaps one mildly dubious sentence, and the list of works was crucial to the article. I have never attempted to "hunt down" an editor, as I prefer to concentrate on the content itself, but I now see that the edit was made by the same person whose wanton deletions were recently at issue.

This kind of editing really is deleterious to an article, especially such a high-trafficked one as "Julius Caesar," and it's a perfect example of what I meant by lazy editing. It does in fact border on vandalism. If this person is still habitually doing this under various names, it's a worse problem than I realized. Since I normally toil away generating obscure content and delivering my impromptu lectures, as I was justly chastised, I'm not sure what good it does for me to mention this egregious example to you, but … here 'tis. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Cynwolfe, sorry not to respond to your thoughtful post earlier. I agree with your assessment of the situation, but it is depressingly common to see editors with very little background in a topic delete valid information on the grounds that it's "unreferenced"--sometimes, even when there are ample references provided. Very few of the editors who carry out this sort of editing seem inclined to go out and learn about the topics they're editing.

There's not much to be done about this, actually--the way policy is currently interpreted, any sentence can be questioned unless it is footnoted, preferably to a reference that says almost exactly the same thing as the Wikipedia text. This encourages all sorts of terrible writing habits and outright plagiarism. And really, if you want to say that the ancient Greeks believed Homer was the author of the Margites, what are you supposed to cite? Aristotle?

BTW, being an administrator is more or less useless. There's too much that needs to be done, and most of the tasks either a) are incredibly boring or b) attract too much criticism to be worth doing. And of course, you can't use administrative tools to "win" a content dispute, which in practice means that you can't use administrative tools in relation to articles or topic areas you know well. But if I can only use my tools in areas where I don't edit, how can I truly know which editors are being problematic? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I'm finding it very hard not to ascribe psychological motivations to the many-named nihilistic editor who just loves to delete stuff, but who declines to do work that would require quiet effort. You're also right, very very right, about terrible writing and a misunderstanding of OR, the avoidance of which evidently means writing something that is deadly dull and painful to read. But I find that almost every time somebody throws a Wiki-policy at me, they're wrong about its import: the policy itself is almost always reasonable, and allows for discretion and the intelligent exercise of judgment. For instance, there's a suggestion somewhere that there should not be too many blue links before the boldface subject of an article; point taken, but recently in an edit to an article I posted, an editor thought this meant "no blue links" before the boldface — a dictate that can result in contorted syntax, not to mention failure to orient the reader with a phrase such as "In Greek myth, Geryon is … ". I just assume these rules-lovers are the descendants of people who invented things like priestly tonsures and foot-binding, and not of the people who discovered transhumance or circumnavigation. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you please lock (semi-protect) this page:

Stevan Jovetic, it is getting vandalized by one IP user as you can see on "history".

Thanks. Rave92^(talk) 16:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

NW (Talk) 17:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Your input is sought here. I'm hoping in particular that you will provide links to the relevant WP policies. Nowhere does a policy forbid quotations from primary sources when generated and framed by secondary sources; this is a bizarre tactic toward an aim I've long ago stopped understanding. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Christ myth theory and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Come on Akhilleus, these issues have been simmering for years. And sure, we haven't gone through a bunch of lesser DR steps in this particular instance, but SlimVirgin is just the latest "spiritual successor" to jbolden1517, who was the successor to "BruceBrubb" and so on forever. These problems are perennial and I think it's time to settle them. Would you please reconsider your post to the ArbCom page? Eugene (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, Eugene, but I won't be changing my post. Also, you need to reconsider your opinion of SlimVirgin—she's a long time editor and has made substantial contributions to Wikipedia. I think her edits to this article so far have been mistaken, but you need to take her seriously. You aren't going to get what you want by filing an arbitration case. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of SlimVirgin's impressive editing career. My point is that SV is just the latest in a long line of editors who have edited tendentiously on this particular page--not always and everywhere. Earlier it was BruceGrubb, then it was Jbolden1517, now it's SlimVirgin; assuming she can eventually be made to see reason, I have no doubt that in a week or two it will be someone else--Jiggius Caeser, or TyRaNnOsAuRuS FlEx, or Ra-ma-la-ma-ding-bong. This is a serial issue in which some new malcontent always ends up replacing the old. Should we repair to a week-long formal mediation every single month to address the new-comers?

The fact of the matter is that SV isn't just editing tendentiously, she's editing disruptively... and she knows it! It was only after I notified her of my request before the ArbCom [10] that she suddenly adopted a more conciliatory tone.[11]

I understand and (quite frankly) admire your patience and willingness to pursue an exhaustively procedural course here, but doesn't it seem like that is no longer adequate? Wouldn't it be better to have an ArbCom decision to point to in the future to quickly sober any would-be disruptive editors? I'm not looking to have SV banned or topic blocked or anything, a warning would be fine; wouldn't that be helpful--both now and in the weeks to come? Eugene (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually just a point of information: my post under the Suggestion header was one of the first I wrote today when I came online, and it was before I saw your request for arbitration, which you probably posted as I was writing it. Eugene, I think you need to stop assuming the worst of everyone just because they disagree with you. I appreciate this is a frustrating article, but even so. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Akhilleus, I've started a page where we can describe the sources we're using (or want to use) in the article, with an overview of their background, academic positions, relevant publications, arguments etc. I'm thinking that might help us to focus on who should be used, and for what. Please feel free to add to it. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually that page of sources also started being disputed, so I'm going to develop it for now at User:SlimVirgin/Christ myth theory sources until I've got a fairly comprehensive list. Your help with it would be appreciated if you're willing. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

hello sir,from last 2 months an administrator spaceman spiff is blocking my account,whenever i make any new account she block it.sheis using his rights in a wrong way.i was simply edited indian epic article first.she blocked me because she cannot see improved indian epic articles.she made a trick that she blocked my 1 account and after it whenever i made any new account she blocked it for sockpupettry.she now doesn'tallow me to talk on discussion page,this is not fair we all give donation to wikipedia not for giving admin priviledge s to user like spaceman,wikipedia is for all not for her only —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.111.235 (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Akhilleus, can you delete the redirect Park Chung-hee that Bak Jeong-hee can be moved to the more common version Park Chung-hee? At least in the western media, the Korean dictator is commonly known as Park. I was confused when I saw that move. Sincerely yours --Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking for an administrator to take a look at a brewing content dispute for an article I contributed that's outside my usual subject area: womb veil, a recent DYK. I've been arguing with another editor that the article is narrowly focused on the device introduced in 1864 under this name, which began to be used for similar device in the 19th and early 20th centuries, until contraception was medicalized. It is not a history of barrier contraception for women. All the sources, even when giving background on social attitudes, were chosen because they specifically discuss the womb veil, which is peculiar to the 19th-century U.S. This is the sole topic. I don't understand the other editor's reasoning; I've suggested that he should write the broader history. Could you take a dispassionate look? Maybe I'm missing something. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be awhile before I can take a look, but when I have a spare moment I will. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There's now another editor looking at it who's interested generally in the topic and is taking a calm and objective approach, so the crisis may pass. I didn't want to introduce a formal dispute process, and because of my usually limited interests, I don't 'know' a lot of editors to seek out a third-party opinion. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Cynwolfe, I just read through the article, and I think it's very well done; I'm impressed by the research and the quality of the writing. I do wonder if there needs to be quite as much material in the "moral and racialist aspects" section, since this section largely deals with attitudes towards contraception generally. Of course, since there doesn't seem to be a history of contraception article, there's really nowhere else for this material to go...

From looking through the talk page, it looks as if matters have calmed down a bit, so aside from the question I just posted there, I probably won't participate much. I'll keep an eye on the talk page, though. I think this article could easily qualify for good article status if that's something you're interested in. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I left a comment on the talk page noting that if there were an article on "Contraception in the 19th-century United States," a lot of the background would be redundant; in fact, "womb veil" could probably be just a section of such an article. On the other hand, except for the very last paragraph, all the general comments on contraception (both from the period, and from scholarship of the last 20 years) were chosen because the womb veil was explicitly included as an example of the kind of stuff that attracted these comments and attitudes. Thanks again for taking time to look. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for getting the transliteration by Alster/Westenholz. Would it be possible to e-mail the article to me? I'm on paul@edentourism.com - Thanks so much for your productive debate and sources. Kind Regards, Paul Bedson (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if the article doesn't come through. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I've found an excerpt and linked it to Barton cylinder. Is this also the cylinder called the Nippur cylinder? I've also edited Christian O'Brien with the translation (and there's a reference there that should perhaps go in the new article), and I'd like to figure out if the '1st Kharsag epic" is this or another text, and if it is we should add the new version. As I've said, I think whatever is relevant from Kharsag belongs in Sumerian religion. I've also created a talk page and some categories for your new baby, adding appropriate Wikiprojects. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's called the Nippur Cylinder, although I think it's only popular books/websites that use this name (probably worth mentioning in the article, though); I think it also gets referred to as Nippur 8383. I'm pretty sure this is O'Brien's 1st Kharsag epic.

Thanks for the improvements to the talk page and the article; I definitely don't feel proprietary about the article, so please add any improvements you can think of! --Akhilleus (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Kramer - "Nippur+cylinder"&as_brr=3&ei=JfHVS4vIDoa8zAT3heWMCQ&cd=1#v=onepage&q=%22Nippur%20cylinder%22&f=false "To judge from the script, the Nippur cylinder illustrated on this plate (8383 in the Nippur collection of the University Museum) may date as early as 2500 B. C. Although copied and published by the late George Barton as early as 1918, 20 its contents, which center about the Sumerian air-god Enlil and the goddess Ninhursag, are still largely unintelligible. Nevertheless, much that was unknown or misunderstood at the time of its publication is now gradually becoming clarified, and there is good reason to hope that the not too distant future will see the better part of its contents ready for translation." That's about all. I know you don't mind my working on the article, can you send me a copy of the full Alster article please? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I had read that in Kramer and forgotten about it. Article's on its way. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Christ myth theory has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Christ myth theory and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Eugene (talk)

Remsburg is cited in at least 4 scholarly works regarding CMT. See talk page. Please do not remove that reference again; alternately, please provide a better example for that section, as it is austere of real-world example regarding the subject at hand ("silent historians"). Thank you. 98.117.210.223 (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you for the post, 98.117.210.223, but I have been discussing whether the sources support Remberg's inclusion on the talk page. So I'm wondering whether you've read the discussion, or you're just a drive-by editor. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)