A Golden Handmaid of Hephaestus for you![edit]

A Golden Handmaid of Hephaestus for you!
Thanks for helping with the Hephaestus automatons section!

And the part about the Minoan civilization, I found it already there, I had doubts too but I didn't want to interfere so i simply rearranged it. Xclamationmark (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello sir. I know what I edited and It's true.Zuijin have been described as guardians and protectors of people. Also what I added was from the Japanese wikipedia, you can check it if you want. You could also replace what I added in history just by saying the same with other words but please don't always say that I make vandalism 2A02:587:1E69:6839:DD81:488E:4225:FA00 (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To edit Wikipedia, log in to your account and appeal your block at User talk:Akaora. NebY (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I don't remember my Akaora account, can you send me the password. Also I said that Persephone isn't the goddess of life.She didn't gave birth to humans. Also since she is the queen of the underworld it's ruler.Every god according to different mythologies can destroy anything what does goddess of destruction mean??? 2A02:587:1E69:6839:287D:F948:66AD:5390 (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I do not have access to your password - see Help:Reset password for instructions. In order to be unblocked, you will have to address the issues that caused you to be blocked and convince the administrator that you not only understand what you were doing wrong but will also take steps to avoid repetition. Your attempts to reason about religion and mythology rather than relying on reliable sources indicate that you do not understand the fundamental principles of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. You would need to read Wikipedia:No original research, understand it and show that you understand it and would edit in accord with it. NebY (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Stop following and hunting down my edits to revert them. You do not get to remove sourced content and keep only what YOU desire. I had already come to consensus with Skyerise. Rote1234 (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Our policy is described at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I recommend reading that page in its entirety to work towards a well-rounded understanding of how we build this encyclopedia, but Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Encyclopedic content, shortcut WP:NOTEVERYTHING, is particularly pertinent: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." NebY (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you allow mention of Aristotle, Elagabalus, Alexis Bela and King George but no one else because you are the authority? Rote1234 (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As Skyerise said on your talk page, "Encyclopedias are not built by inserting little bits of trivia." If you wish to argue that the description of Tostig Godwinson's rule as "despotic" is so significant it belongs in our articles on Despotism and Enlightened absolutism as beneficial to our readers' understanding of those subjects, make that case on the articles' talk pages and gain consensus for your insertions there. NebY (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Caius Titus (senator)[edit]

Hello NebY. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Caius Titus (senator), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not sure this is obvious enough to fall under G3. Thank you. BangJan1999 00:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I've never had occasion to use that tag before and was quite unsure what we'd regard as sufficiently blatant. There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Caius Titus (senator)?; I guess one of us can write it up at AfD but I've run out of time for now. NebY (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Verba volant[edit]

Hello there! Thanks for your help with the Caius Titus/Verba volant issues. I realize you're busy IRL (I read the top here), but I wonder whether, if you have the time in the next few days, you could look over/help with verba volant. I've tried to improve it a little given what little I could find—I was unsuccessful finding it in any of my printed Latin texts, although some of them are unindexed, but I found a few instances online and cited them, and tried rewording the parts I thought could use it—though the last paragraph remains unsourced (but pretty obvious). I thought perhaps Black's Law Dictionary might have it, but evidently not.

I cited three books of proverbs, of which the last, from some group called S.O.M.A. (but titling their book "SOMA") that I couldn't identify, may be the least useful. The third one I found, from 1893, seemed important to include, since it predates the others considerably. I cited Turretin, since it was the oldest and most authoritative use of the full phrase in context that I could find, and quoted the passage in which it occurs in a footnote, but you found partial matches that were older still—I didn't cite them as they were partial, aside from being in sources that looked difficult to cite correctly (and I'm not even sure I cited Turretin properly, given that it was an 1848 printing of a 1687 collection of previously-published works that I couldn't date individually).

I also tried to provide clear guidance on how to translate/interpret the phrase, being slightly less literal than the article previously implied, as it's hard to do so literally (for instance, no version says "spoken" words, although it's implied in all of them; littera is "letter", not word; various translations give "fly, fly away, are fleeting", "remain, endure"). I'm afraid I've made a bit of a muddle of it all, just trying to clean it up and make it a little clearer than it was, with some kind of citations. Any help you can provide—or advice you can give—would be welcome! P Aculeius (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@P Aculeius: I don't think I've got anything to hand but I'll see if there's anything I can contribute - I'm hoping to catch up with a few things! NebY (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. I'm noticing User:Sleyece is specifically reverting several of your edits on two articles. I have left a warning on his talk page about edit warring in the Alexander the Great article. Have they been targeting other articles that you work on? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for asking. Not that I've noticed, and as Ifly6 (with whom Sleyece had the arguments at Talk:Julius Caesar#Sleyece 1 and Talk:Julius Caesar#Sleyece 2) has recently done so much good work on Julius Caesar, S might have expected the first response to be from them, not me. NebY (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello mr NebY. Why did you deleted my asking for help??? I just wanted only to find more informations why did you delete it? 2A02:1388:208D:C1CC:0:0:DA3B:B756 (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not try to get other editors to proxy for you. You're blocked and if they make edits for you, they can wind up blocked too. If you want to edit Wikipedia, do it on your account: appeal your block at User talk:Akaora. NebY (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reasons why deleting Content[edit]

Hello again mr NebY. Give me a good reason why you deleted my informations about the agathodaemons. I said where I add the informations from. Also I can't be logged in my account because they don't let me. Any Time I try to get inside my account even if I write correct both the password and my username they say incorrect username or password. Please stop deleting my work because that't unfair 2A02:1388:2181:46B3:0:0:DBF8:6F19 (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You repeated your copyright violation - see WP:COPYVIO. That alone is grounds for maintaining your block but if you wish to appeal your block, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Until you have successfully done so, you are blocked from editing Wikipedia. NebY (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Account[edit]

Hello mr NebY. Can you please delete all of my Wikipedia accounts like Akatora, Fuyujin, Greatgeo and Akaowl please??? I don't want them anyomore and I don't know how to add more informations on the pages of zuijin and agathodaemon. So please delete all of my accounts. 2A02:1388:14A:5D22:0:0:47FF:7C45 (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WP:DISAPPEAR - but Akatora, Fuyujin, Greatgeo and Akaowl are not your Wikipedia accounts anyway. NebY (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes they are. I made those accounts. Besides most of them have the same password 2A02:1388:14A:5D22:0:0:47FF:7C45 (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, most of those have not been registered, let alone edited any article. NebY (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

interpretatio graeca[edit]

hi i tried to fix interpretatio graeca by making thoth the right gender, but i accidentally made him phoenician. can you fix it? Ghost_Cacus (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just revert yourself. But do beware of that table. Nothing in it is sourced, and the impression it gives that many gods across multiple belief systems are equivalents of each other is grossly misleading. Casaubon wasted a lifetime and cruelly neglected his marriage in his attempt to compose The Key to All Mythologies; aligning superficialities in that table, filling gaps and determining genders could consume anyone likewise. NebY (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i made a bunch of edits on it trying to fix it. Ghost_Cacus (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So revert them all. If you're ever tempted to work on that table again, do remember that These are not necessarily gods who share similar traits (as viewed by modern scholarship or readers, at least), and rarely do they share a common origin (for that, see comparative Indo-European pantheons); they are simply gods of various cultures whom the Greeks or Romans identified (either explicitly in surviving works, or as supported by the analyses of modern scholars) with their own gods and heroes. In other words, unless the Greeks or Romans themselves knew of those gods and saw them as equivalent, either writing about the identification directly or (according to the analyses of modern scholars) clearly alluding to the identification, those other gods and goddesses should not be included in the table. NebY (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Keep the faith! Oh and it looks like the game is up - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Exnihilox 10mmsocket (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh good report! Enough detail but not too much. I did not expect them to auto-destruct like that, and I see they now "intend to get the user removed from Wikipedia!"[1] so that'll be interesting. :) NebY (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. Any idea which user? You? Me? I'll get my bag of popcorn. I hope you're OK b.t.w. that once both are properly blocked I'll look to work with [[@PamD to restore the article back to where it was before all the shenanigans. Thanks for your help so far. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I thought it was me but you may be on the list now. Yes, I'm fine, thanks; hope you are too. I'll happily leave the article to you and PamD to sort out - just as long as that one-day workshop in 2015 and the "broader initiative" that is "also relevant" and "it should be noted" don't last long! NebY (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should be noted and is also relevant that Pam and I will take a broader initiative, possibly via a one day workshop, to see how to restore the article back to normality. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
bwahahaha! NebY (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 11:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sabine deities[edit]

You didn't answer yet, so:

Thanks, Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 15:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Such discussion must be at an article talk page or project talk page; an editor's talk page is not the place to establish WP:CONSENSUS among all editors interested in the matter. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology is virtually moribund and this is a matter of ancient religions rather than mythology, so you could raise your questions at the considerably busier Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome and link to it from the talk pages of the 15–20 articles. NebY (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine, thank you for the project suggestion. I will move the topic to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome then, but before that I would like to know your personal idea on how to include that info. How would you personally integrate it into the articles? Based on the WP:LEAD page you linked, I suppose you would expand the info in the body of the articles first and then add it to the lead, correct? Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 08:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you have been told at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Sabine deities / User:NebY (edit-war, potential vandalism), this is the wrong place. NebY (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thank you so much for working on that troubled section and for changing the heading! I did not know the tag for maintaining links when the heading changes.

I have become obsessed with that article and ultimately it's all so horrible. I hope the following is not too much unwelcome verbiage spilled on your talk page.

The "glue" that for me is missing in the article is something I remember reading a decade ago that I have yet to stumble back upon. To cut to the chase, it's that a privileged verna is rather like Jon Snow, if GOT references make sense to you. Or Jon Snow when the pretense that he was Ned Stark's bastard was operational. It's often mentioned that the vernae might have actually been the children of males in the household; that's been conjectured for that sweet little fellow in the bust under "Vernae". But in terms of origins, the thing I can't locate but have seen is that in earliest Rome, what you're really talking about is something like concubinage or even polygamy, when the clan leader fathered children with multiple women, one of whom was the head wife. (This existed still for some of Rome's neighbors; according to Caesar, Ariovistus had two wives.) For whatever reasons, the Roman legal mind evolved and all that became too messy; for clarity of inheritance and alliances between families, the Romans became distinctly monogamous (serially, though—look at how many wives Caesar and Pompey had).

So the point is that the potestas exercised by the "hand" of the paterfamilias was in essence the same over his sons and his slaves—hence emancipatio and manumissiomancipium actually being the logical opposite of emancipatio, a point of legal history that will probably come up when this section is fully developed. We often underestimate the extent to which a freeborn male under the age of thirty was not considered a full adult if his father was still alive, and legally in some ways was still a minor, constrained as to what kind of business decisions he could make because he didn't actually own property. Like those privileged slaves who conducted business, he could get stuff done, but the res was still not really his but his father's. (And by curious not-coincidence, thirty is the standard age for manumission in the imperial household.) So technically in earlier times, the father had the same right to kill his own son or sell him into slavery as he did slaves. That's the point that I find hard to get my modern head around. While the term emancipatio is not used elsewhere in the article, it is implicit in the "Origins" section as part of the father's potestas, the power of life and death he held over both his offspring and his slaves (mostly vernae in relatively small numbers before the wars of conquest). But the paths of legitimate sons and bastards diverge after being released from the "hand"—Rob Stark gets to succeed his father, and the Jon Snows of the Roman world have to go make their own way. Now, obviously only a limited number of vernae in the best-attested periods are the biological children of the pater or of his legitimate sons. But if you treat some vernae too differently, you have to admit who they really are. (Peripherally, Ronald Syme loved to conjecture who among the late Republican elite had fathered children with women of their same class married to someone else, children left politely unacknowledged.)

Anyway, I didn't want to seem to be barking ownership, beclouded by my current obsession with understanding this repulsive institution (I've concluded that I would undoubtedly be a slave in ancient Rome)—but this is why I didn't want to imply that emancipatio and manumissio are unrelated, because they are both manifestations of the same paternal potestas to control the people of his house. And in terms of social history, the nature of that potestas in relation to both family and familia is one thing that makes the institution of slavery among the Romans functionally different from that of the US Confederacy, arguably the most notorious manifestation. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not unwelcome at all, or too much; it's just enough to set my mind to reshuffling its fragments. Thank you! The GOT references are unfamiliar but classicists are used to reconstructing from very little. I don't think I've come across the idea of concubinage in early Rome, and now I'm trying to imagine the consequences; for example, if warlords/patricians and their officers practiced polygamy, would that leave lots of single men to fight and die for Rome?
I too have had trouble with potestas, eased a little when I read more about Roman law; how fundamental potestas was to it and how clear potestas was within it; how contract and commercial law was thoroughly conditioned by potestas, from loans to sons in potestas being not merely not lawful but downright prohibited by Vespasian, to the institution of peculia leading to a complicated limitation of the father's liability in commerce, because anyone in potestas might have a peculium, not just slaves. Aha, you're right - there's a lot more to it than the superficial similarity of the emancipatio process, to which I wasn't paying attention anyway.
It may not be surprising that vernae weren't acknowledged as children of the owners (or their sons) but I've been mystified that moderns don't consider it more often; I suppose it's not obvious in the sources and Victorian scholars wouldn't want to admit it of their role models, but still. Your section on vernae is a revelation, especially concerning their privileges, and it's been a pleasure to see you creating the beautifully sourced and terribly difficult section on sexual ethics and attitudes, but I remain very surprised that the use of female slaves by their owners isn't taken for granted; not "the done thing", perhaps, but it's not as if there'd even be a question of having to send the pregnant maidservant away. We have Martial on slave boys; it's a mystery to me there aren't more traces of the use (abuse) of women and girls - or is it hiding in plain sight?
I could go on, but it's late here, and I want to think some more too! NebY (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Citing journal articles[edit]

Hi, yes, thanks, it helped me, I didn't know that, thanks. A greeting. --LukeWiller (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]