User talk:MinorProphet

This is (unsurprisingly) my talk page MinorProphet (talk) 06:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Been here for a while, astound me. MinorProphet (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Ich grolle nicht, aber meine Schlang' ist noch unruig :) MinorProphet (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

language mediator, I need help with the second part - I should say "ich grolle nicht" to a few editors, only they wouldn't understand it - what is it in English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I'm sure you remember the talk page where we became acquainted. I quoted a line from Dichterliebe, "Ich grolle nicht..." It could be rendered as "I don't complain" or "I'm not complaining". You could think of it as a reverse compliment, meaning I am honoured that you remember at all. The standard poetical metrical attempt is "I blame thee not", but that's horrible. The poem continues with "Und sah die Schlang', die dir am Herzen frißt", the serpent which gnaws at the lover's heart. My external life away from WP has been a complete mess recently, and I was merely projecting a lot of snake-like internal discomfort onto your precious jewel. I also notice that I meant "unruhig". Perhaps "My serpent is still restless." Sorry, happily WP:DRUNK. Mit besten Grüßen, MinorProphet (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. "Ich grolle nicht" spoke to me immediately, and now I understand the other half better. Happily drunk is a good condition, fighting serpents ;) - Best photo of me is when I was happily drunk, commenting song "Segne, Vater, diese Gaben". The photo is too private, of course. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Back to the question: English seems to have no equivalent in a few words to: "What you did to me was horrible, but I try to avoid being resentful". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Often German needs more words than English in order to express a thought, idea or concept, but in this case it seems more concise, more gnomish: man musst vollständig Deutschsprechen, mich zu begreifen. Wenn ein auslander Deutsch spricht und versteht, ist es veilleicht viel leichter einanderzusammenkommen. I hope you were more in tune than this lot when you sang Segne, Vater...

Different song ;) - ours is simpler listen, it's the shortest of my songs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit summary

I think that your edit summary here was inappropriate and insulting. Wikipedia should be a supportive environment. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @Verbcatcher: Thanks for your concern. The user in question has been active on en:WP since September 2011; your first edit was in August 2012; and mine in August 2008. Therefore we must all unquestionably know how to create a fully-formed decent WP reference in a number of valid ways. (I also acknowledge that a bare url is allowed—although not recommended—under what pass for 'The Rules' on WP.) I may well be guilty of having done the same thing once or twice in the past, but to make a ref consisting of a bare url when you know exactly how to create a fully-formed one is rather like letting your dog shit on the pavement and walking away while rustling the unused poo-bags in your pocket. WP should indeed be supportive, especially of those who know no better, but I believe that experienced editors should receive short shrift where necessary. My edit summary was indeed insulting, it was meant to be, and I do not retract it. The edit in question was instantly fixed here, for which I have thanked the editor. MinorProphet (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I sympathise with your frustration, and I have spent hours cleaning up other editors' poor citations. I encourage you to leave a note on the offending user's talk page, possibly linking WP:BAREURLS. I can't see a suitable template in Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace – perhaps one should be added. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher: You appear to be considerably more concerned about the matter: and I, alas, am very busy atm. Perhaps it should be you who takes the aforementioned steps. MinorProphet (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Poetry

... poetry is better, - will return to that! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Walter Elmer Schofield, Across the River (1904), Carnegie Museum of Art.		Best wishes for a safe, healthy and prosperous 2021.
		Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 13:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC) Oneupsmanship: This painting turned the friendly rivalry between Edward Redfield and Elmer Schofield into a feud. Schofield was a frequent houseguest at Redfield's farm, upstream from New Hope, Pennsylvania, and the two would go out painting together, competing to capture the better view. Redfield served on the jury for the 1904 Annual Exhibition of the Carnegie Institute; at which, despite Redfield's opposition, Across the River was awarded the Gold Medal and $1,500 prize. It was not until a 1963 interview that the 93-year-old Redfield revealed the painting as the cause of the 40-year feud between them. Schofield may have painted it in England, but a blindsided Redfield knew that it was a view of the Delaware River, from his own front yard!

Happy New Year & a question

Re:HMS Kingfisher (1804). You added the line that Thomas Sutcliff was captured but managed to escape. However what is not clear is what vessel he was on: Kingfisher or one of the French frigates? And in either case, how had he come to be captured, and when was that? It does not appear to have occurred in the action. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @Acad Ronin: both the article and ref show that Sutcliffe was on the Kingfisher in 1809. A little more research shows that Sutcliffe relates - in a leisurely anecdote - the tale of his capture and escape, in his book Sixteen Years in Chile and Peru, from 1822 to 1839 London and Paris: Fisher, Son & Co., 1841. pp. 173ff. He mentions two of Kingfisher's officers, Mr. Weeks the purser and B. Festing, midshipman who went to Yannina, while Kingfisher was in the port of Preveza in late 1809, at the time part of territory ruled by the Albanian despot Ali Pasha of Ioannina.

The incident happened after the capture of Zante, starting on the 28th October. I'm sorry for putting the sentence in the wrong place.

" Blockading Squadron, off Corfu, 1809. We had just arrived on our station off Corfu, after having accompanied the expedition that had, under the command of General Oswald and Commodore Spranger, captured the islands of Zante, Cephalonia, Ithaca, Santa Maura, and Cerigo, when we fell in with several vessels from Brindisi and Ancona, bound to Corfu, laden with Wheat and assorted cargoes. I was sent with one as prize-master, with orders to take her to Cephalonia. I left the Kingfisher on the 28th of October, off Fanu, and, on the 30th, when in sight of the port I was bound to, it began to blow a gale from the S. E. I had the misfortune to lose my rudder, and during the gale to be driven in among some small islands near to Corfu, where I had every expectation of being wrecked ; luckily, as we neared the coast, the wind changed, and, to prevent my being driven on some rocks that were still to leeward, I let go both anchors, which brought us up close to the small island of Melira. Next day it became more moderate, and I began to prepare a temporary rudder ; but just after sunrise, one of my men informed me, that two boats were approaching us from Fanu. I soon observed they were full of soldiers, and immediately lowered down my boat, secured my clothes, and some provisions, &c, scuttled the prize before I left her, and pulled into a small creek, where we landed, for I fancied the island had been uninhabited ; however, we were made prisoners by some Greeks, who were hid amongst the rocks ; they treated us well, and did not deprive us of a single article we had brought on shore." etc. The title page has an engraving of Sutcliffe making his escape in a jolly-boat.

Happy New Year, MinorProphet (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Super. Thanks for clarifying. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Referencing

Reffing is obviously very personal, but I do feel that the lack of a single referencing style detracts from WP's overall effect. Britannica has its own, and every single other worthwhile journal has its own house style, but imo WP appears as a shoddy free-for-all in this department, despite the better individual articles maintaining a consistent style. RS is one of the pillars of WP; but you are allowed to refer to these prized sources with nothing more than a bare url, which seems a slight kick in the face. I realise that it takes considerable effort just to grasp the idea of referencing, let alone master any particular style. Although I have reservations about the displayed output of {{cite book}}, which tends towards scientific journals rather than a literary "Oxford" style, at least every source is displayed in a consistent way. What's your particular gripe about sfns? It's always good to hear the opposite POV. MinorProphet (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Simply put, it causes me more typing. And when you're as prolific as I am, that matters. Articles should be consistently formatted and you can impose that without running afoul of WP:CITEVAR, although you really should conform to the first format used to be the most correct. I've had to redo entire articles at FAC occasionally because I didn't remember to go back through the history and see what was used first. And since I know the sources as I'm expanding the article, I don't need to jump down to the bottom to see what they are and don't much care about a reader needing an extra keystroke or two to page down to the bottom to see the book that's being referenced. (Not to mention, I'm set in my ways ;-) )--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair play. I'm often not in hurry. When I'm attempting to draft an article, I will tend to start with the bibliography, making cite books and make a hidden sfn within each one. As rough notes with just page numbers become paragraphs and sections, I find it easy to copy the pre-formatted sfn and paste it into the appropriate place in the text. I also prefer the complete consistency of cite book, it's a doddle once you know it. I like the ease with which sfns and harvs can be linked with cite book, and be reused with the same page numbers with reflist. The whole ref name="Frank 1996 p36" to create an individual reusable ref for each cited page seems so longwinded, that's mostly why I use sfns. Each to their own. MinorProphet (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I generally don't bother with the year unless I need to disambiguate multiple works by the same author, so that saves me 5 whole key strokes! I do like to use cite book as well, but there are an awful lot of people who don't and that has to be respected.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that those long-ass ref names are created if you use the cite creation tool. Personally, I don't bother and keep my ref names down to 2 or 3 characters whenever I need them, which usually isn't all that often.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

If we are both OK with cite book, I'm happy to to convert the Bibliography section of the 12-tonner article. MinorProphet (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Only if it's a mix of formats.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Further thoughts on referencing

Continued - perhaps - from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Further thoughts on refs (Will be in Archive 187 or 188) MinorProphet (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's the very stimulating conversation in Archive 188 Source has no page number on crucial page. MinorProphet (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

And a link to various thoughts on "What format for footnotes is best?" at the Teahouse. MinorProphet (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Calydonian Boar hunters table

Hi. Many moons ago you added members to the table of Calydonian Boar hunters given by Apollodorus, 1.8.2, which were not already in the table. The table had a column for each of the sources from whose lists the table was derived: Pausanias, Hyginus and Ovid. But when you added Apollodorus, to the list of sources, you didn't add the corresponding column for Apollodorus, with the appropriate checkmarks. Someone should do that. I thought I'd let you know, in case you were interested in doing this. (If not, then I might do this myself ... someday ;-) Paul August ☎ 15:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Paul August:, I imagine I thought that a mere three ticks (Cepheus, Eurypylus, Iphicles) in a whole column was a waste of space. Plus, a picture of Meleager has constricted the column by 2/3, making it 6 screenfuls long. The image could be moved up a bit, but that would cut the dividing line between the sections which might easily irritate some OCD types (there's plenty of them around). Even further, although the ticks (√) display correctly in my revision which you reffed above, they appear as mysterious boxes with tiny letters (✓) in the current article. This is almost certainly something to do with the fonts installed in my ancient browser (FF 47), especially if some other editor has substituted the ticks for something else. I wouldn't be confident that the correct character would be displayed if I edited it. I'll ask at the ref desk first, and get back to you. Cheers, >MinorProphet (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Not just three "ticks", Apollodorus, 1.8.2 gives the following list:

Now the men who assembled to hunt the boar were these:— Meleager, son of Oeneus; Dryas, son of Ares; these came from Calydon; Idas and Lynceus, sons of Aphareus, from Messene; Castor and Pollux, sons of Zeus and Leda, from Lacedaemon; Theseus, son of Aegeus, from Athens; Admetus, son of Pheres, from Pherae; Ancaeus and Cepheus, sons of Lycurgus, from Arcadia; Jason, son of Aeson, from Iolcus; Iphicles, son of Amphitryon, from Thebes; Pirithous, son of Ixion, from Larissa; Peleus, son of Aeacus, from Phthia; Telamon, son of Aeacus, from Salamis; Eurytion, son of Actor, from Phthia; Atalanta, daughter of Schoeneus, from Arcadia; Amphiaraus, son of Oicles, from Argos. With them came also the sons of Thestius.

And by the way, what you are calling a "tick" i.e. "√", is really the square root symbol (more technically what mathematicians (like myself) would call the "radical sign"), which yes, someone replaced with the "✓", i.e. the Check mark. Paul August ☎ 16:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I got a B in my maths O-level aged 16. We were the last year allowed to use only a slide rule and log tables (ow, feeling old now). The check marks were added in in this revision. I asked at the Village Pump about it, awaiting an answer. Since there are that many people involved in the hunt, I'll probably have a go myself. Aargh, tables... >MinorProphet (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Paul August: Well, the helpful people at the Pump sorted me out, and now being able to see the check mark I had a go at the article. Yes indeed, bloody tables, but I think I got everything right. After about three hours I couldn't face checking every single entry against the old table, perhaps you could do that. Cheers, >MinorProphet (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look. Paul August ☎ 13:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

It all looks pretty good. I made a few fixes regarding Thestius' sons according to Apd. 1.7.10, which says:

Thestius had daughters and sons by Eurythemis, ... the males were Iphiclus, Evippus, Plexippus, and Eurypylus.

So I've removed the checkmark under Apd. for Prothous, added a row for Evippus, and added a checkmark under Apd. for Plexippus.

But there are still issues regarding Thestius' sons (working on this). Notice Iphiclus (son of Thestius, according Apd. 1.7.10) vs Iphicles (son of Amphitryon, according to Apd. 1.8.2), our article on Iphicles says that he was "also called Iphiclus", but I think we probably will need a row in the table for each name, since at least for Apd. they are distinct. More later. Paul August ☎ 15:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

It's as if you went on a sea voyage and a sailor from Portugal called you Paulo "Nelson" Agosto because you reminded him of his cousin; and someone from Crete overheard him making up jokes about your name and randomly wrote it down, although he was much more interested in the GPS navigational aids and the coastline and history of the islands you were threading your way around; and then you became famous. Then, 2,500 years later someone tried to make sense of it all from a decayed parchment found in an Egyptian library translated into an obscure dialect of rural Maltese which no-one had spoken for several centuries with not even a glossary or word list to help them... MinorProphet (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Paul August: It's looking much better, with your succinct notes. I really wanted to tidy up the messy mix of ||✓ and |✓ on various separate lines, but since the table works it didn't seem worthwhile. I believe that in some cases it can make a difference, but I've never been bothered enough to find out. Thanks for involving me - there would have been a reason why I edited it in the first place, but I certainly can't remember now. Cheers, >MinorProphet (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Inspired by your good work, I decided to check each of the other columns. I discovered many errors (none by you as far as I can tell), but I think I fixed them all. And I of course got sucked into other edits as well. Yes I toyed with regularizing the table rows as well. For the edits I did, I decided to use the " ||✓" on a single line. For me that makes it easier to see where each check mark belongs. I suspect that most of the errors were as a result of confusion in that regard (as opposed to confusion over which source said what). In any case, I think having all the entries be consistent would also help a bit, but ... Paul August ☎ 11:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Although I am ignorant of the coding ramifications involved, I would tend to go for four separate "|✓" on four successive lines. What, however, happens if there is just one pipe followed by a blank? The very idea drains my intellectual and emotional ability. There are only 4 authors involved, and unless you can count faultlessly sideways with double pipes separating a tick - or not - then perhaps one |✓ per line might suffice, and I personally find it easier to count down than across. MinorProphet (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Fields starting on a new line start with a single pipe, subsequent fields on the same line are separated by double pipes. So:

| A || B || C

is equivalent to

| A || B

| C

is equivalent to

| A

| B

| C

While

| A | B | C

will not give the desired result.

As for fields all on one line vs each on a separate line, counting horizontally vs vertical seems all the same to me. But I guess I don't actually count, rather I simply visualize, comparing the single horizontal line of fields in the file, with the intended horizontal row of the displayed table. Each to his own. Paul August ☎ 15:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes I completely agree, it is v. simple to visualise 4 vertical fields, and I also suspect that

| A || B || C || D should work.

I also imagine that...

|Hero name

|✓

|✓

|✓

|✓

|Notes

...would work, but what about

|Hero name

|✓

|✓

|

|✓

|Notes

...? PS Not feeling bold tonight... MinorProphet (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Moo

What sort of mathematician are you? If I were to mention Archimedes, what would you say? NB Loaded question... (ie would you happen to speak mathematical German?) MinorProphet (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Not a contradiction

An "inline-V" engine isn't a contradiction in aviation, but is generally used for non-radial engines including V engines. See Inline engine (aeronautics). I'm not going to revert your edit here, however, because changing "inline" to "inverted" is a good change. Cheers. BilCat (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@BilCat: Thanks for your message and the link. MinorProphet (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Re Categories from BrownHairedGirl

Thanks MinorProphet for your answer to my question on categories in BrownHairedGirl. Something bizarre has happened to that talk page. I cannot get it from the original link and another page of BrownHairedGirl has crossouts and question marks all over the place. Anyway, I just wanted to thank you for the time and trouble you took to answer me and I will follow through your suggestions.Gladiator-Citizen (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gladiator-Citizen: Thanks for your message. Your post is still at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Roger Pryke. On her user page User:BrownHairedGirl is complaining about losing her System Operator rights which were removed by WP:ARBCOM (the dreaded Arbitration Committee) after a dispute about her language towards other editors. Thus all the question marks, crossings-out etc., just a display of annoyance. I'm glad you found my reply useful. I made a similar reply to another editor at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#@BrownHairedGirl which may be slightly more comprehensive. If you need any assistance at all with any aspect of editing WP I would be happy to try to help. Some things are just complicated here. Best wishes, MinorProphet (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Missing cite in Alfred Karney Young

Back in 2013, you added a short cite to "Adams 2011" but no such source is listed in the bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @Renata3: Thanks for pointing out the error. I have been using the script for some time, very useful. I got the date wrong in the {sfn}, is all.  Done in the end. MinorProphet (talk) 11:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Miscellanea

EMG

Got one, perhaps a Model 10x (plus about 1,500 discs). Although externally in appalling disrepair, it still functions as designed. MinorProphet (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I'm envious! I've never even seen one in the flesh. I came across a brief reference to E.M.G. Hand-Made Gramophones, went hunting in Wikipedia for more information and found there wasn't any, so authored an article on them. Some spoilsport nominated it for speedy deletion, but by that time I'd accumulated sufficient well-referenced copy, plus photos, that I was able to have ii withstand the attack. My favourite quote in the article is "[W]hat could be more nostalgic [for British colonial officers] than an E.M.G. playing Elgar under the black velvet of a night on the African Veldt?". Which leads on to your fourth miscellaneum ... -- Jmc (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jmc: It is impossible to describe the stunning sound which emerges from the horn of this amazing instrument. Although it is around ninety years old, and the oldest recording I own was made in c1903, it still raises the hairs on the back of your neck: for example, the original Othello, Francesco Tamagno, singing his farewell on a green label single-sided G&T; or the late great yellow-label Decca FFRR recordings eg first recording of Walton's 1st Symphony with Harty and the Hallé. Everyone who I demonstrate it to never fails to be astounded.

Velikovsky

Bought/downloaded and read everything. MinorProphet (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

My interest in Velikovsky began when my father brought home from the library a copy of Worlds in Collision. Heady stuff for a young lad! I can't say I've read everything, but I have purchased and read lots from both sides of the controversy, including a number of issues of Pensée, some of whose arguments had a superficial plausibility. Nowadays, I tend to regard Velikovsky as a fervent Zionist who twisted history and science in the service of the cause. -- Jmc (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jmc: Well, I ploughed my way through the talk page archives, oh dear. Much the same attitudes at Talk:Ipuwer Papyrus. There are still many {{cn}}s in the V article which could be easily fixed, but the vast majority of my books are in store and I'm not sure that I could find the time anyway. I came across V's books in the mid-80's, and to a complete layman they seemed very persuasive. I found his writing style very accessible. Although pretty much everything he wrote has been fairly comprehensively debunked, I wondered if you thought any of his ideas on either ancient history or cosmology were valid or useful in any way. [Probably not.] V's reception by the scientific community seems to have been somewhat similar to that doled out to the unfortunate Wilhelm Reich, a pupil of Freud who also talked with Einstein about his ideas. MinorProphet (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Do I think any of his ideas on either ancient history or cosmology were valid or useful in any way? I took down my copy of Francis Hitching's World Atlas of Mysteries, which has a comprehensive chart of V's predictions and Hitching's assessment of their proved/unproved status. He finds 28 to be proved (14 unproved) but I consider some of those of dubious validity (e.g. Mars: moon-like surface) and the rest merely lucky hits (e.g. Mercury: electromagnetic field). As for the usefulness, of V's ideas, I can't see that any of them has contributed to the advancement of human knowledge. But as for V's reception by the scientific community, I do think the the story of the publication of Worlds in Collision is a shameful episode in academic history. And yes, there are similarities with the reception by the scientific community (particularly in Norway) of the rather strange Wilhelm Reich. -- Jmc (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jmc: A very long time ago (quite possibly prompted by V), I sat down with the two lists of the kings of Israel and Judah as related in (I think) Kings and Judges [or Chronicles], and did some adding up. The resulting discrepancy was one of the reasons I lost any faith I might have had in the Bible. I wish I had come across Julius Wellhausen's Prolegomena at the same time. I found V.'s attempts to shorten Ancient History by 500 years, including the 'Dark Ages' of Greece very entertaining - I wish I had some expert knowledge. I seem to remember reading that Reich made some experiments with uranium in an orgone chamber in Rangeley, where the Geiger counter levels went through the roof; and that his behaviour afterwards became increasingly erratic. The fate of Giordano Bruno (probably my all-time hero) in an earlier age springs to mind. MinorProphet (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Just some random comments: I note that a recent article about changing approaches to the history of Ancient Israel quotes Wellhausen on the construction of history and remarks, "L’histoire d’Israël est nécessairement une reconstruction, mais toutes les reconstructions n’ont pas la même valeur." I'm sure V's construction is amongst those of lesser value. As for poor deluded Reich, that's an intriguingly plausible explanation of his increasing delusions. One can feel sorry for Bruno, too, but for entirely different reasons - a hero indeed and well ahead of his time. -- Jmc (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no hesitation in reproducing this passage from Prolegomena. For me it has no equal except in the most passionate verses of Isaiah from ch. 40 onwards, and knocks most the rest of the into a cocked hat:

"The element in which the prophets live is the storm of the world's history, which sweeps away human institutions; in which the rubbish of past generations with the houses built upon it begins to shake: and that foundation alone remains firm, which needs no support but itself. When the earth trembles and seems to be passing away, then they [ie the prophets] triumph because JHWH alone is exalted. They do not preach on set texts; they speak out of the spirit which judges all things and itself is judged of no man. Where do they ever lean on any other authority than the truth of what they say;where do they rest on any other foundation than their own certainty? It belongs to the notion of prophecy of true revelation, that Jehovah, overlooking all the media of ordinances [or, laws] and institutions, communicates Himself to the INDIVIDUAL, the called one, in whom that mysterious and irreducible rapport - in which the deity stands with man - clothes itself with energy.

"Apart from the prophet, in abstracto, there is no revelation; it lives in his divine-human ego. This gives rise to a synthesis of apparent contradictions: the subjective in the highest sense, which is exalted above all ordinances is the truly objective, the divine. This it proves itself to be by the consent of the conscience of all, on which the prophets count, (just as Jesus does in the Gospel of John), in spite of all their polemic against the traditional religion. They are not saying anything new: they are only proclaiming old truth. While acting in the most creative way they feel entirely passive: the homo tantum et audacia which may with perfect justice be applied to such men as Elijah, Amos, and Isaiah, is with them equivalent to deus tantum et servitus. But their creed is not to be found in any book. And it is barbarism, in dealing with such a phenomenon, to distort its physiognomy by introducing the Law."

W.'s English version differs slightly from the original German, being slightly expanded to amplify his first thoughts. MinorProphet (talk) 07:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for sharing this powerful reminder of the inspired and impassioned mission of the Major Prophets. -- Jmc (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I chose my username before I realised that my namesake was one of the so-called 'major' prophets, who are only termed thus because more of their scribblings have been preserved. Mind you, if only a single chapter of my mate Izzie the 2nd had made it through the centuries, what would they think? I once shared a house with a man called Dan; if I were to choose another name, I would go for Zeke (with its connotations of 'seek'). Jonah is my fave, for (like Job and that Thomas bloke) he doubted; and even so got to cast imprecations—like Nahum—on the naughty inhabitants of Nineveh. Tsk tsk. MinorProphet (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Chapter 10.

What the Philosophers, and what sort of Nature they would have: where the spirit is said to be the ethereal chariot of the soul.

"The stone which the philosophers do seek is an invisible and impalpable spirit; it is a tincture and a tingeing spirit: which indeed another visible and palpable spirit has hidden in its innermost bowels. Even so the Philosophers have left us the same spirit undiscovered, under the veil of Ænigmas that the stone is a fifth separated from four. It is the bond of the elements, the medium and the chain, which has made the elements of God agree, and which in the womb of the earth [ie salt], conglutinated Sulphur and Mercury into a metallic body."

Attrib. Marsilio Ficino, On the Alchemical Art. MinorProphet (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The true purpose of alchemy is to discover that spiritual gold: and neither is the bread of heaven edible. MinorProphet (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Atheism

There are many gods of the older variety, most not currently in general favour. MinorProphet (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. IMHO, WP articles on atheism are disappointingly skewed towards monotheism. I like your use of "gods forbid" on your user page. -- Jmc (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

One of my mates (who has a well-earned chemistry degree from Manchester Uni) is a genuine agnostic. He knows that when he shuffles off this mortal coil, there will be absolutely nothing; and he is determined to live this unique life to the max. He has already achieved quite a lot. I, on the other hand, know that death is just a door which we have not opened yet, down a long corridor of similar doors: and that makes me rather lazy, since I am certainly a believer [in multiple deities and various chtonic beings], and my soul will live for ever. MinorProphet (talk) 05:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

"Gin and chtonic please, barman."

"How about a whisky and soda-off, sir?"

"Maybe a vodka and tunic...?"

"I'm sorry sir, the hilarious pun festival left town last week."MinorProphet (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Elgar

What's your favourite piece/conducted by...? I've sung most of the choral orchestral works, and heard Boult (sitting on a stool) conducting 2nd Symphony with the LSO? in the Royal Festival Hall c.1976. See also British Symphony Orchestra. MinorProphet (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I once read that you're either a 1st Symphony Elgarian or a 2nd Symphony one. I started out as a 1st Symphony Elgarian (that quintessential nobilimente theme!) but for some years have definitely been in the 2nd Symphony camp (more deeply felt) and would nominate that work as my favourite Elgar. Conducted by? Well, here in New Zealand, we don't have the embarras de choix that you have in the UK (further cause for envy) but James Judd (standing) conducted the NZSO in a fine reading a few years ago.

The initial article on Elgar is the contribution to Wikipedia of which I'm most proud. When I first encountered Wikipedia in its first year of existence, I thought the absence of an article on Elgar was a serious deficiency and so remedied it. -- Jmc (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The first is much more easily comprehended, rather like Brahms 1 compared to 4, say. I still haven't found the essence of E's second. I think that 'Owls' is one of the quirkiest things ever, but 'Sospiri' Op. 70 for strings and harp is easily my fave. There is also a stunning HMV LP recording of Boult conducting the Triumphal March from 'Caractacus', which gets me every time. Plus naughty things like the arrangement of Handel's 'Overture in D minor'. Oh, and the very late Piano Quintet, possibly his best work.

When I imagine an E.M.G. playing Elgar under the black velvet of a night on the African Veldt, it's Sospiri that it's playing (followed by Chanson de Nuit). The Piano Quintet is indeed amongst Elgar's finest, though seldom heard in concert; I consider myself fortunate to have once heard it live. (And thanks for drawing my attention to the British Symphony Orchestra, previously unknown to me). -- Jmc (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Maureen Wroblewitz

Hello. Help improve and copy edit. Thanks you. Kolpb (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. MinorProphet (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kolpb: Tell you what, I'll help improve it if you can help me with Sir Joseph Beecham. MinorProphet (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh. You may not exist any more. Never mind: no matter, as my Zen masters insist on reminding me. MinorProphet (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Various drafts

Hi again, SV 66. I hope you are well. As a result of our lively and worthwhile discussions at Talk:Sd.Kfz. 8 some six months back, I started a draft article at User:MinorProphet/Draft subpages/WW2 ZF gearboxes in an attempt to consolidate and expand the info we found. Although it is still very much a draft, I wonder if you could have a swift glance at it and let me know what you think. I still haven't discovered the actual type of gearbox used in the 12-tonner, by the way.

Following on from the 12-tonner article and general half-track info, I also started User:MinorProphet/Draft subpages/Panzer Artillery Regiments, just for my own interest: it's not much more than a specialised subset of Panzer division - is it even worth publishing?

Lastly: a couple of years ago as a result of randomly coming across the Jeddah massacre of 1858 article, I started a draft of User:MinorProphet/Draft subpages/HMS Cyclops (1839). There are a still a number of incomplete refs and sources which it would be trivial to sort out. At the time didn't exist. As the draft grew I became aware that there was a considerable amount of background information which wouldn't fit too well into a standard WP article on a Navy vessel, although the Oriental Crisis of 1840 covers some of the ground. Then I discovered that someone had published the current Cyclops article. I personally feel that my draft is considerably more complete. I have proposed some sort of merge with the current live article on its talk page (no-one has replied as of November 2021), but I'm not quite sure whether or how to proceed. As you know, I prefer ref & cite templates (hah!) and am not particularly willing to change my whole reffing scheme to suit. Again, I wonder if you could perhaps spare the time to run through my somewhat lengthy draft and give me your opinion. I'm not looking for a FA review or anything, although I hope that it meets some sort of standard. Best wishes, >MinorProphet (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I've kind of burned out on Wiki and have mostly stepped away, probably only temporarily, but I'll take a look at your drafts. Without looking at the ZF article, I think that you're going to run afoul of the notability guideline about significant coverage. What I suspect that you've been able to put together is a collection of passing mentions from RS's like Spielberger, Jentz, and Nuts & Bolts. What I'd think that you'd need to fully establish notability is a book, or at least a decent-length monograph, on German transmissions that has significant coverage of the various ZF AFV trannys. You might be able to get away with one that's on trannys from multiple countries. A company history of ZF that covers its transmissions would probably also work.

I'm not aware of any such books or articles, but I hope that you can find something as I would like more details about the impact of the trannys on tank development. One sees disparaging comments about overloaded transmissions, etc., in the standard sources, but I'd really like more details.

I built stubs for the various Nebelwerfer regiments many years ago, so I think that you can manage at least that much for the Panzerartillerie Rgts. As regiments they meet the basic standard for Mil Hist's notability guidelines, although they might be attacked for failing WP:GNG's coverage requirements. Tessin will give you the basic info on formation, redesignation and reorganization dates and you can probably add in material on Wespe and Hummel deliveries from the usual sources. I think that there's only a single dedicated unit history for any of them, but the divisional histories should have some operational information, although extracting that and putting it in Wiki terms could be a challenge.

As for Cyclops, I'd just merge your draft into the existing article without standardizing cite formats. I do that as a matter of course for my stuff, but it's not actually a requirement until you put it up for an ACR or higher. One final point is that it's quite possible for obscure subjects like your first two drafts to languish in obscurity for years, so no one will find them to challenge them once you have unrestricted article creation rights.

I'll try to get to these tonight and will post comments here for each one as I do them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Gearbox article: It's in better shape than I expected. I added a couple of page #s for you. The development of the Kätzchen is considerably more complex than the stub article reflects or is shown by Chamberlain & Ellis. Doyle, Friedli and Jentz say that two prototypes were completed with different suspensions. The Kätzchen I had a torsion-bar suspension from Auto-Union was initially fitted with a Horch 724 engine, but it was later replaced by the HL 66 P. It may have initially been fitted with a Renk transmission, but was definitely equipped with a ZF SMG-51 transmission. The Kätzchen II had a modified version of the Pz 38(t) suspension with the SMG-51 tranny and HL 66 P engine from the beginning, but the transmission was later replaced by a SSG-48 tranny taken from the third Luchs prototype for comparative testing. The Kätzchen program was apparently absorbed by Auto-Union's proposal for a Vollketten Aufklärungsfahrzeug with a AK5-55 transmission either fell victim to component shortages by Sep. 44 or was replaced by BMM's proposed Kätzchen vehicle which was derived from the Pz 38(t) n.A. which was cancelled in favor of additional Hetzers in November.

The note about the Tatra Type 103 engine is confusing. AFAIK the designation only applied to the engine, not any vehicle. I wouldn't be surprised if the Czechs redesignated it after the war and got some use out of the design.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

You've got a good start to the Panzerartillerie Rgt. article, but your sourcing needs a great deal of work. The Tessin to which I was referring is Tessin, Georg. Verbände und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939–1945 in 16+ volumes. Email me for more details. I would not rely on the stuff from the CARL as those are collations of material by George Nafziger who donated his stuff to them upon his death. It's only so-so accurate in my experience. Niehorster's stuff is a known RS, but I'm pretty sure that those French m/32 guns that he mentions are actually ex-Norwegian 12 cm felthaubits/m32. Niehorster's periodic OBs are useful for tracking the composition and assignments of the flak abteilungs, which sometimes had 37mm guns assigned as well. IIRC the Heeres-Flak-Abt. were formed after the victory of France and loosely attached to individual Pz Divs or Corps.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm really grateful for the time and effort you're spending on these drafts - many thanks. I'm well aware of the shortcomings in reffing of the Artillery Rgts., it's been a question of starting from nothing and slowly becoming aware of the worthwhile RS. I'll be in touch by email later. I remember making lots of Tamiya 1/35 models of various bits of German kit many moons ago, and wondering about all those strange insignia on the mudguards - now it all starts to make sense... :>MinorProphet (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

ZF Gearboxes: Just to recap what I know about tanks and "disparaging comments about overloaded transmissions." The term 'transmission', as I state in the draft, can mean several things - the gearbox, the final drive, or the entire drivetrain. As far as I can work out, most of the tank designs up to around 1939 basically worked. Several Ausführungen of the Panzer IV from around that time used the much-maligned Maybach pre-selector box (not the one in the Sd.Kfz 10 and 250) before returning to a proven ZF box: and then the Panthers and Tigers, oh dear. From what I have gathered, it was the often the final drive units to the front wheels which gave the most trouble - they just weren't robust enough to cope. In the majority of tales of disaster I have come across, the ZF AK-200 gearboxes (designed by von Soden himself - his last major project before his early death - and his chief engineer) weren't generally at fault - but almost everything else about the vehicles took ages to fettle, including the engines. This is not surprising.

As I have discovered at Talk:List of WWII Maybach engines#Maybach '2nd generation' and other experimental engines (note a), a 600 PS V-12 engine for a 30-ton tank had been proposed as far back as 1935. The resulting experimental HL320 (32 litres) of 1937 was not a success. The 300 PS V-12 HL120 appeared in 1936 and powered most of the Pz IIIs and IVs plus derivatives until the end of the war. It was only when the Germans encountered the T-34 in 1941 that the need for a much more powerful engine became really pressing and the HL210 and 230 actually made it into production. These tended to be overstressed and frequently failed; crankshaft bearings and conrods were often the cause. The Panzer Tracts on the Panther detail what what went wrong, and the ZF AK-200 barely changed throughout the rest of the war. The Maybach pre-selector in the Tiger only had one major change (types A and B) and was also chosen for the Tiger IIs (essentially upgraded Panthers) - since they all used the same engine (the HL230) the choice seems to have been somwhat arbitrary.

I think most people agree that the German military and industry just wasn't ready for an extended war. As an aside, A re-assessment of the German armaments production during World War II contains some interesting findings, showing that the huge costs involved in developing super-heavy weapons like the Tiger II, the Graf Spee, the V-2, plus the Atlantic Wall far outweighed their effectiveness, and were a massive drain on the war effort. As late as 1943, many factories were only working a single daytime shift. MinorProphet (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Oversight

Just so you know, if you need to remove personal info, it's best to remove it and send it to Oversight where they will make it so no one will see it if they deem it necessary to be oversighted (if you think something should be oversighted, send it to them just in case and if they deem it not oversightable then it's fine). ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. WP:Oversight seems to deal with heavy-duty deletion of entire revisions etc. I think what I did is sufficient, my edit summary makes it clear what I did, and I have no desire to get involved with Arbcom. Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)