User talk:Minerviades
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Minerviades! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking  or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. |
|---|
|
|
Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Belated thanks @Peaceray! (: Minerviades (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Women in Red
Hi there, Minerviades, and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to see you intend to help us improve Wikipedia's coverage of women. When you fell ready to create your first biography, you might find it useful to follow the guidance in our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks @Ipigott for the welcome and for the work you're doing. -Minerviades (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Women in Red June 2025
Announcements:
Progress ("moving the needle"):
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
- Fantastic newsletter @Lajmmoore. Thank you for sharing. -Minerviades (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Omphalos: how do we verify
Does the National Museum of Greece not describe it? Or any other Greek RS? It is ok to provide a Greek language citation if there isn't a convenient source in English. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you @JMF for raising those points. I concur: the existing Greek references in the article were the basis for my replacement of "original" with "A version ... once used in the temple". (Any chance you know which of the Greek sources would be best to cite for that?) I also added the link to the museum's wikipedia page for context and cross-pollination. If I understand you correctly we agree that it might help to access, research, and cite the museum's own website to improve the article.
- So, good catch! I templated myself for no reason... must have added the tag before taking a stab at resolving the issue and forgot to remove before publishing. Clarity of meaning was raised in the talk page and I took note of the "confusing to readers" template from March 2024. The concern I wanted to raise about verifiability was regarding the word "original"; mightn't there be an earlier undiscovered original, or what if the original "navel" site was elsewhere? Original is a bit loaded here; might some readers (or hallucinating AI) misinterpret "original" as implying the historicity of Zeus? (Pardon the blasphemy... ⚡)
- I was simultaneously working on replying on the Talk page but I ran out the clock exploring links and gaps between various wikipedia pages. Hope to submit my reply at talk:omphalos soon; feel free to tag me there to further discuss, or you're always welcome to post here. (: -Minerviades (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- (PS: I meant Talk:Omphalos of Delphi)
- Minerviades (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- I guessed (perhaps incorrectly?) that you can read greek. Google translate does an acceptable job.
- Most fundamentally, we follow the sources. We don't make an assertion and then search for a source that agrees. (Well that's the principle: of course if something is widely known, you can draft it first on that basis and then collect the supporting evidence.)
- Assertions like "the first" and "original" should be deleted on sight unless supported by a high quality wp:RS because, as you say, that is unknowable. But "first recorded" is ok, with a citation.
- I have a near-apopleptic allergy to phrases like "It is believed". Who believes? Why? To me, text in passive voice is always a red flag for WP:weasel-wording ahead.
- Anyway, it seems like you are half way there because you know what it is you need to do. The most entertaining part of being a Wikipedia editor for me is in searching for evidence to confirm or deny such assertions. Si good luck with your research! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm disoriented but excited to find myself seeking the world navel of Western antiquity in Greek with you, @JMF, to the extent of my limitations. Please continue to feel more than welcome to talk about your thoughts as well as your strong feelings right here, of course, with one caveat: please consider your word choices thoughtfully. Your mentions here of googling, of my being "halfway there", and of your allergic, "near" apoplectic rage concern and affect me. I am not comfortable with the way it encroaches on the borders of respect, even if presumably unintentional. I will stand up for you and other editors as much as myself on that, and I submit myself to accountability on that myself. Moving forward:
- Please help me understand what you're saying better:
- I agree that the norm isn't to make an assertion then find a source. Do you see that happening here? Happy to course correct.
- Correct me if I'm wrong: I think I hear you suggesting that I fully check all references before assuming that they do not hold verification for the "original" issue; I go back to the fact that after initially copy-pasting that tag, (which I forgot to remove) I went back and rewrote that sentence to link to the museum and replace the word "original" with "was used", relying on sourced info in the article below like leads sometimes do. But...
- Should a footnote to an extant reference (the Greek one you highlighted on the talk page?) go in the lead since that section is being discussed in the talk page and may be considered "material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged"? Is that what you were suggesting when you said "you know what it is you need to do"? (Intentionally gentle reminder: none of us "need to do" anything.)
- Is my use of "was used" the trigger connected to your mention of your feelings about the expression "it is believed"? If you feel thwarted consider being more specific in feedback, which I welcome. I respect and concur with your sentiment that "it is" (passive voice) often raises (or begs) important questions that are often left unresolved. It often calls for better info or clearer writing, including active voice and plain language. (I'm emphasizing areas of agreement - and shamelessly promoting plain language.) Who sourced, crafted, claimed, used, or found the artifact/relic referred to as "the original"; how was it "used"? At the same time, (foot) note:
- The passive voice is inappropriate for some forms of writing, but it is widely used in encyclopedia articles, because the passive voice avoids inappropriate first- and second-person constructions as well as tone problems. The most common uses of encyclopedic passive are to keep the focus on the subject instead of performing a news-style shift to dwelling on a non-notable party. Contrast The break-in was reported to police the next morning, versus Assistant manager Peggy Plimpton-Chan reported the break-in to police the next morning." -WP:MOS#cite note-passive-28
- I appreciate your contribution (and Googling) on the talk page; I will pick this convo up over there and look forward to collaborative navel-gazing. ☮️ Minerviades (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Cheat code
This at your talk page because I am too embarrassed to admit it at the article talk page. I asked Google's AI (Gemini) what sources exist and in reply got an information overload. All good stuff but my interest is in ancient Greek sculpture, not archaeology. So I don't intend to purse it but you might? I pasted it at User:JMF/sandbox#Omphalos. Feel free to take it away, use it or ignore it as you wish. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing! Interest is precious. I cannot recall how I stumbled onto these sacred ruins. (Goddesses bless this mess.) The navel is also a point of detachment; completely understandable if sculpture beckons... -Minerviades (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Women in Red July 2025
Announcements:
Progress ("moving the needle"):
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 09:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
- Thank you so much @Lajmmoore! Minerviades (talk) 06:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Women in Red August 2025
Announcements:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
- Much appreciated @Rosiestep (: Minerviades (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Women in Red September 2025
 Recognized as the most active, topic-based WikiProject by human changes.
Announcements:
Tip of the Month:
Progress ("moving the needle"):
Other ways to participate:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red | October 2025, Vol 11, Issue 10
 Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes.
Announcements:
Tip of the Month:
Progress ("moving the needle"):
Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever.
Other ways to participate:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red - November 2025
 Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes.
Announcements:
Tip of the Month:
Progress ("moving the needle"):
Other ways to participate:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Women in Red - December 2025
 Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes.
Announcements:
Tip of the Month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red - January 2026
 
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red February 2026
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 22:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red - March 2026
Announcements from other communities: Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red – April 2026
Announcements from other communities: Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging