User talk:Haploidavey/User's Archive 3

Angitia

There seem to be some chunks of info in the article Angitia that aren't very well understood by the editor(s). The entry from Smith's, which is the only source cited, says nothing about the Bona Dea, but that's why I'm dropping this here. (I'm trying to work some on the List of Roman deities, but it's a daunting task — lots of Neo stuff going on there.) Cynwolfe (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've barely cracked the surface of A–C at the List. One of the things I want to get to is a merge of all the birth and childhood deities into one article (an idea I got while doing di nixi). All that is known of these as individuals can be summed up in a single sentence; they are much more interesting if discussed together in one place, so the reader can see that each is an aspect of the overall process of gestation, parturition, infancy, and transition to that stage of childhood where the Romans recognized the child as a person. (Beryl Rawson's book on childhood in ancient Rome deals with this and would be the basis of the article.) I'm still nibbling around the edges of Mars, though. Pluto is missing a paragraph on that supposed importation in 249 BC, when he becomes Dis (except that some sources place the Altar of Dis earlier), which takes me back to the Campus Martius, the Trigarium (note what Isidore said about the trigarius, taken with the close collocation of an altar to Dis and Proserpina to the nixae where the October Horse was sacrificed — Pascal in the article you sent speaks of the layering here). Anyway, culling the List of Roman deities requires checking each entry, whereupon one realized how badly sourced most of these articles are. LittleJerry is right, however, that some might major deities require triage. And WP desperately needs an article on the classical tradition, and called that. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

But the thing about grouping the birth deities isn't mine — they appear in the ancient and patristic sources in lists or groupings, almost exclusively, and this is the way they're treated in B. Rawson's book. Just to clarify that this is in no way OR. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I've only just got around to dealing with Angitia, and an article re-write seems in order. The Bona Dea connection's made at Thalia.com., and seems not to hold water. Danaid enough, eh? Haploidavey (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

deletion vs. redirect

What an odd painting (click to read info)

I've left a note at Talk:List of Roman deities. (BTW, one reason I say this is because AfDs are time-consuming, and the redirect would seem to solve the problem more efficiently.) Cynwolfe (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

So not true, what you just said about yourself. (As a side note, I can't seem to learn how to do anything new here, because the instructions have become unduly complex — one is tempted to say deliberately mystifying. It seems to me that it used to be simpler.) You didn't exactly ask, and I'm not sure exactly what you meant, but:

If a page is already set up as a redirect, and you want to replace it with content or a better redirect, you just edit the page as you normally would. To get there, you type in the name of the page you want to edit; if it's set up as a redirect, it will take you to the page to which it redirects, but at the top, under the article title, the redirected term will be bluelinked. Click there to go to the redirect page to edit it. Create a new redirect page the same way you'd create any other new page; type in #REDIRECT [[page name]] and replace "page name" with the name of the page to which it should redirect. You can also redirect to a section, as you know, by articletitle#sectionheader.

O Imporcitor magnanime!

If you're doing this for all the little godlets associated with Ceres, I'd think you'd want a section toward the bottom of Ceres (mythology) in which you discuss these in general in a paragraph, then list them with their blurbs. You could redirect the page on the divine Pollen-Disseminator to the section header. Just thoughts (this is my plan eventually for all those little birth deities, anyway). And probably unneeded directions to do stuff you know how to do. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Imporcitor? Seriously? Reminds of the old joke that if the Romans had bicycles, they would've had a goddess Punctura. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. That turned out to be TMI, so gone now (I mean what I had you check, and you'll probably get what I mean if you think about it), and not the info I was hoping to show. Will explain via telepathy. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

But whatever you do, don't take a redirect from Pardus (a short article on a band sadly lacking in notability) to List of obscure heavy metal bands and rewrite it as an article on Jeremiah 13v23 (“si mutare potest Aethiops pellem suam, aut pardus varietates suas”. I hate doing history splits. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I had completely forgotten about the lizard boy. Ovid uses the word lacerta for the lizard he was changed into. In Book 33 of Marcellus Empiricus's pharmacological manual, which covers fertility drugs and contraception, the lacerta is an ingredient in two recipes for ancient Viagra. I now give you one free of charge, for as far as I know, Marcellus has never been translated into English.

Do you know the lizards — or geckos, you may call them — that creep in and out of garden walls? The short ones that the Greeks call scalabotae. Soak four of these in medicinal-grade wine for three or four days, until they start to turn to pulp. Pound them in a mortar and assemble the following ingredients:
9 scripulae galbanum
12 scripulae abrotonum
12 scripulae beaver musk
12 scripulae active sulphur
12 scripulae terebinth resin
12 scripulae saffron
6 scripulae juice of euzomon, which is also called canola
6 scripulae green-mint juice
6 scripulae stavesacre
6 scripulae Illyrian iris
6 scripulae fissile alum
3 scripulea myrrh
3 scripulae seeds of the dried henbane plant
Prepare ingredients by grinding each separately, then mix them all together and grind again.
Make a plaster or patch and put it on the big toe of your right foot when you want to use your Venus, and when you want to take a break, transfer it to the big toe of your left foot.

I translated the whole chapter one winter, it was so entertaining. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that's a whole new twist on the birther thing. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Duenos inscription

I finished editing, more or less. I would appreciate your feedback.Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I found a link to the article by Gordon on the French WP. It is very good and objective to the date of his writing: why not putting the link? I am a dummy at this, could you please do it for me? Thank you. I also found Breal's article that gives other details on the find: he says Dressel reported the find happened in a place considered to be a graveyard by workers who were digging near V. Nazionale (Gordon says near the church of S. Vitale). It looks his interpretation was decisively influenced by this notion: he read it as a funerary inscription. He also considered the object of poor quality contrary to Gjerstad, Peruzzi etc.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpfulness. Both the links you give not the one I mean. If you look at the French WP sv. Duenos you shall find the link to the UCLA PDF in the bibliography.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. The article was written in 1975, not in 1889.Aldrasto11 (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I checked but there is just one Gordon who is concerned with Duenos. I do not see the link in the WP. en, I think it would useful to add it. It is available on WP.fr.

Curious detail: every WP which has an article on Duenos gives Eichner's word division and interpretation...I do not think it to be worth being given as a standard (since its absurdity e.g. particularly in the reading PAKA RIVOIS) even when compared to other readings in the same thread e.g. Gjerstad's.Aldrasto11 (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your patience. Me I should learn how to do these jobs. BTW with a google search I found the PDF at page 5 or 6. I had already downloaded it from WK fr. Conway is so interesting for his original interpretation...

I am now editing Iuno, it will take some days to finish. Comments appreciated!Aldrasto11 (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ga

Diligent copyeditors

You and I both missed this egregious bit. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a Danaid kinda day. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I think I should git me one of them thar museum jobs. Check out the photo at Ludus (ancient Rome) — this is of a museum display. I just noticed the seats are turned the wrong way. To face the gameboard, you'd be sitting with your legs over the uncomfortable wooden frame, when your behind should in fact be positioned as in a swing seat. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Gladiator

I didn't think it was over-linking since I did it once for BCE and once for CE in the article. No biggie though. jlcoving (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Jan Sviták

Hi Davey. It's nice to see that you are still here, contributing tirelessly to this gigantic web :) I hope you and your family are well. Today I created the article Jan Sviták, a really sad story of Czech (and human) history and culture. Would you mind to look at it and possibly fix my repetitive misdemeanours against the English language? I believe the fate of this man could be interesting for you. Don't hesitate to ask me whatever and ... no problem if you are not interested :) Best regards. Antonín Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Bona Dea

Nicely done on rewriting the introductory section of Bona Dea! Eminently readable. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Anglicization of Names

Dear Haploidavey,

I read the sections cited in your message, and it does strike me that the names of historical, non-American figures would fall into the category of "content with a local focus or where specific localized grammar or spelling is appropriate." As for the more specific page regarding Roman names, I would like to know whether that decision is the result of a vote of some kind, and whether it is subject to referenda or to periodic re-approval. If this is the case, I would very much like to know what the relevant processes are.

Thanks, Venomlord99 (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Iuventas

While editing Iuno I realised the link directs to Hebe. In this case it is not appropriate as Iuventas was an ancient Latin entity (at least this is what most scholars think) as her presence on the Capitol before the building of the Capitolium shows.

I am also realising the article could grow out of proportion if I pursue a too analytic approach: however Iuno is very important, much studied and indeed complex.Aldrasto11 (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Juvenile me

This is fucking hilarious. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I know what you mean about researching the Roman omen. Google Books has gotten impossible to search anyway, you get so many duplicate results and misdated books (because of so-called presses republishing public domain books). That's why I keep adding to my vast personalized library, from which I offer the following, if you don't have them (I'm sure you have many) [2]; [3]; on wedding omens; [4]; our friends at Roman and European Mythologies; an odd thing that I've found strangely enjoyable to dip into, maybe not directly relevant but interesting background from the perspective of Babylonian astrology; [5]; no longer available in preview, but a must; IE etymology; Linderski in ANRW. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll tell you what, start reading Epilepsy in Babylonia anywhere at random and tell me if you don't get hooked on it. It's where I learned about the Demon of the privy. Apologies for my gutter-mind and -mouth today.Cynwolfe (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jan Sviták

Thanks again for your help, Davey. It is always better to see things from a different perspective. Your help at this article was invaluable. Take care :) Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Query

Are you following me? I don't mind my edits being found, just leave them for other people a little longer. It's difficult enough to try and add 10 easter eggs into wikipedia without over zealous admins on my back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portahack9001 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Juno

Thanks for your message. They are in fact one and the same, Latin usage prefers T. S. but S. T. is also possible. I am trying to research the topic as is much controversial. I incline to think it is just a purification ritual for the milites who come back from war, the story of the Horatii has clearly a symbolic value:Janus Curiatius and Juno sororia hve to do with this passage, not with the curiae or the swelling of girls' breasts, but many scholars have argued it has to do with initiaitioninto adult life, either military or wifely. I find such interpretation quite phantastic. Than k you for the links.Aldrasto11 (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Two issues on editing on Juno which bear on more general ones:

1. Somehow it should be made clear that Roman gods do not relate to Roman mythology, but to Roman religion, even though this may be a quite general misconcenption.

2. Someone has the habit of eliminating the subheadings theology either by adding worship first, or by eliminating the word straightaway. I think this problem should be adressed too. Roman religion as all other should be understood and respected for what it was. It had its own theology and all what concerns a god cannot be termed otherwise than theology. Sorry for the rant...Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. A propos of the article Sororium Tigillum: why not changing the title to T. S.? It is known as such in all primary sources and scholarship.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

While editing Juno (finished, feedback welcome) I met with issue of the Lupercalia. The WK.en article defines Wiseman as the most complete study of the rite: I read it through the link with googlebooks, but 2 pages are not on preview.(81-82 if I am right). Could you please give me a summary of their content, if you have the book on hands? Thank you. BTW I do not see the relevance of the historic development of the rite in Rome: it is significative for history of religions in its most ancient state and as it is attested in numerous other places in Latium and Etruria...the significance of the rite must lie in something general.Aldrasto11 (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I already raised the issue of the quality of the secondary sources. If the sources are all acceptable it will be easy to prove that the Lupercalia are a rite connected to the universally known theologic complex of the divine king, scapegoat and dying god. Plenty of material from Frazer etc. Now if these sources are not usable then I cannot see how in other articles they are pushed forward and left alone: (founding of Rome, Janus...). I probably shall edit Janus but of course I shall leave alone the section on Ganesha. But if Ganesha is acceptable to WK so must be Frazer (and Dumezil) on the Lupercalia, with their theories of the scapegoat and divine king .Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Marriage proposals and other stuff

Hello Davey. I hope my response to the user wasnt too harsh ... I don't like bad faith sarcasm and ridiculing (both in real life and here on Wikipedia), I just want to explain my opinion as clearly as possible. It isn't easy to distinguish the line, you never know to whom you are speaking to :) Okay ... Well, it wouldn't be me to not ask you for your help again. Would you mind to look at this article? It is a completely different topic than our previous collaboration (I'm jumping like a little half-literate monkey in the jungle of Czech history, society and culture), but I believe it could be interesting reading for you. What do you think about it? No problem if you are busy - I plan to nominate the article for DYK and someone there usually helps out .. But, you know, your help is not a simple copy edit :) Best regards. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

AdamWimborne

Sorry, missed his vandalism, glad you added that. I doubt he'll be back. Dougweller (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

He was probably only here to report a pterosaur. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Muriel a oranžová smrt

Thank you Victuallers (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Mattocks pickaxes and spades, oh my!

A "difficult" article, impenetrably over-written, overfilled and disorganised. Where d'you start? Do you even try? Time for the dump? Most "difficult" topics can be simply explained.

Thanks for my second WP laugh of the day, which I reproduce here.

I think this should be made a template for placement on certain articles. This is why the legionaries carried shovels in their kits. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, BTW (or rather, apropos of nothing), I checked out three hefty tomes — yes, physical books! — this weekend. One and two, the oddly jocular recent translation of Natalis Comes, in dual volumes (because somewhere recently PMA posted a stern list of what some mythological article lacked, and NC stared at me from the top, unloved, unused even in the endless Pluto article), and three, TP's near-coffeetable-beautiful The Myths of Rome, which, to my pleasure and dismay, is almost unusable as a source! It's actually meant to be read and enjoyed as a whole (or maybe that should be "read" and "enjoyed," as if by a human being), rather than mined for information. The nerve. I don't know where to go with Roman mythology. Oh, but that just reminded me of another place our friend could list his list. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Janáček

Hi Davey, and thanks for your intervention. The claims in the edit summary of that IP were completely incorrect: Janacek considered himself Moravian, not Czech. At the time of the Austrian Empire Bohemia (Czech) and Moravia were seperate with no ties to each other. This was discussed ad nauseam on Czech Wikipedia (with bad and uninformed arguments on both sides:)) and Janáček's page had to be protected. By coincidence, recently I bought an old book containing memoirs of his contemporaries and collaborators, and one person (I can't remember who but I'll find the name) explained in detail Janáček's approach to Czech/Moravian question. The result was clear: Janáček considered himself Czech composer, and he explained the matter simply, from linguistic point of view: Czechs and Moravians speak the same language, with minor variations (my vague recollection). Of course, the testimony could be biased, but it is probably the only information I found about this problem. I'll add a brief summary of the passage to the article as a footnote. What do you think about it? Best regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is that people consider the situation from today's perspective. Just imagine Janáček's Brno at the beginning of the 20th century, it was mainly German city, almost all important companies and institutions were German and young Czechs/Moravians fought in the streets with Germans (see 1. X. 1905). Janáček was a supporter of independence and after the establishing of our state he devoted a lot of his energy to the creation of musical education in Brno. He worked hardly and was in love. I don't think he spent much time thinking about Czech/Moravian nationality. It would be interesting to find out whether the Czech and Moravian nationality was an important topic of public discussion during his lifetime. Today it seems to be very important and we, proud Moravians must protect our national hero! It doesn't matter that we don't know a single note from his works :) I'll look at the book. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

International Women's Day

Do you recall months, possibly years ago when an admin (don't remember which one) posted a notice to the G&R Project asking for help with Women in ancient Rome, because a new and enthusiastic editor lacked skills and needed some mentoring? You and I both responded. I've continued to drop by now and then, and in honor of the occasion I'm spending all my WP editing time there today. Or as much as I can stand. To me this should be a readable article that gives a picture of women's lives. You know, if my teen-aged daughter said "What was it like to be a woman in ancient Rome?" I could recommend the article. I was wondering whether you could drop by again with ideas for restructuring. My feeling after picking at it for a long while is that it duplicates a great deal of material from Marriage in ancient Rome, while omitting important aspects such as women's religious life and gynecology (though I started a section on that this weekend).

It was not unusual early in WP history for articles to suffer from the same biases as SMIGRA — not only the cultural biases of the British Empire, but a doggedly historical approach that often managed to treat early Rome as the "real" Rome from which everything after the 2nd century BC was a mere departure. Most of these articles, the major ones, have been thoroughly reworked. But the obsession in the article in question with the archaic status of women (and a frequent lack of chronological sense) obscures the lives of women during those periods of Roman history in which the vast majority of readers are most interested: the late Republic, the Julio-Claudian era, and the later empire as represented by Marcus Aurelius, thanks to Gladiator.

Really I'm just thinking aloud.

SS sometimes reappears, so I don't know whether I'm justified in trying to minimize all the legal history (or rather, divert it to its appropriate place) and bring in other kinds of content. Perhaps I'm just frivolous, but I'd rather read a paragraph on cosmetics than one on the legal details of forms of marriage, which are/should be treated in the marriage article. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Latin in Genius (mythology)

What is it you want checked in Latin there? I saw all the stuff (my finger itched to engage the Dump template) and feared to tread, since I broke all my shovels the other day trying to rescue the women. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

See note on the article's talk page. You were right to raise the question: the chapter is all about spiritus, and I don't see the word "genius" at all (though I only skimmed it hastily). Cynwolfe (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your taking time from more important stuff to help out. See ya 'round Tiderolls 17:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Gaia

Could you check the accuracy of statements pertaining to Ceres in Gaia (mythology)? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I would've had the heart to revert this if I'd seen it first. So much more buoying than the usual. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for checking up on Gaia (she needs all the help she can get these days, poor thing). I started to open a discussion on whether J.C.'s personal finances were really sufficient explanation for his drive to annex Gaul (see article, which has no secondary source at all to support this statement, and only a citation from Cicero's prosecution of Verres — as if Julius Caesar were quite the same as a figure who would've left no mark on history at all were it not for Cicero's speech), but what with the world coming to an end and all I decided I had better things to do. Like write articles on obscure mythographers and clergymen. And d'ya know, I've spent months, months, now on Pluto, not the planet, and still haven't managed to run into the answer to the question I actually care about, which is: Is Dis pater just a "translation" of Pluto? If so, how to explain Numa's riddle about substituting onions for Dis's demanded heads? Cynwolfe (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't miss this one. I'd have thought J.C. would get more vandals today. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Let this be a warning to submit blindly

I'm feeling exceptionally surly about WP at the moment. Rainy days and Mondays and burning heretics always bring me down. By the way, have you ever seen the 1928 silent film about the trial of St. Joan?[6] I saw it on Turner Classic Movies the other night. WP article here. So much with so little! Astonishingly expressive faces, like allegorical paintings or great portraits. I think I was particularly struck by this because of online facelessness, and on social sites all these people posting "candid" photos of themselves that reveal absolutely nothing. One of the reasons I got unexpectedly sucked into Pluto (mythology) was the art (the Caravaggio was bizarrely compelling, though not for the faces so much as … whatever). Sorry, I've blurbled all over your page again to keep myself from spewing things I'll be horsewhipped for elsewhere. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

… You are very wicked, to have entirely rewritten the content of that article and in the process to wantonly use your new-fangled era system. It is particularly important to make sure that direct quotations either use a different era convention from the article text, so the reader thinks the copyeditors are napping (we like to sit in the Wiki-clouds and have a laugh over that!), or even better, change the era convention in a direct quotation. Blind obedience to arbitrary rules is always the best way to produce an article or any piece of writing. For instance, real writers never split an infinitive, or end a sentence with a preposition, because they live to please their 10th-grade English teacher. If you have any honor, you should request a block for yourself. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As for beating this dead wooden horse, I find the link to Tory a particularly useful addition. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message

I used that one because I knew Fæ would understand it - as would many Brits who really read. I wouldn't be sure how well Gormenghast is known over the pond, though. (Your skip tells me which side you're on...) You're welcome to use it. I like being quoted. I once looked for a reference for something I was posting (not here), and found an ideal one - then found I'd written it and couldn't use it. I suffer from ethics at times. I love your pterosaur link - I'm sending that to a friend who comes from a very creationist background but who is now starting to see that it ain't necessarily so. One of the three best laughs I've had this year. I see the chappie at the top of the page is a teacher of Theobiology - shouldn't that deal with the internal workings of gods? I also liked the idea of an objective .... perspective. Peridon (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Concerns about tendentious editing

Hello, Haploidavey. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Bahudhara (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, when I saw the word "tendentious," I wondered whether you'd been deleting perfectly reasonable content like "The relationship between Galatea, Celtus and Achilles is an irrefutable piece of evidence that Homer's epics are of Celtic origin." We all know Heracles fathered the race of the Gauls when he rustled Geryon's cattle. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Of such splendours are nations built. And from Tin, of course; bet you didn't miss that - it's a clincher, if ever there was. I particularly enjoyed the irresistible scholarly conclusions drawn from the Trojan horse's lack of toilet facilities. As for Hercules Heracles; oh yes. One of his casual doings en route to Atlantis, prob'ly. We can argue the toss on whether Gauls = Celts but I believe mine sources are mightier than thine. Haploidavey (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Alas, at this remove from Atlantis I'm not permitted to glimpse your link. I can come up with some mighty kooky sources, though. I was once crushed when I thought I'd invented my own goofy genealogy for the Remi (for a fiction), and then found that Flodoard of Reims had beaten me to it a thousand years ago. Nothing new under the sun. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

But how splendid of you to reinvent it. Fancy my link getting swallowed in the Pond; I guess those pesky Atlanteans are down there still, feeding on our transmissions. You just got the empty husk. The link was to one of Ignatius Donnelly's masterworks, Atlantis: the Antediluvian World. Let's see if it comes up this time. [7]. Oh dear. Don't click on the first one. It's got an annoying wobbly thing inside. Haploidavey (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm just posting a comment here to keep myself from going ballistic elsewhere. Spillway. You said I could. AAAAAAAAAAAAArrrrrrrrrrggggggggggghhhhhhhh. (Wonder if a bot will read that as vandalism?) Cynwolfe (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Alas! Troy is English no more. Haploidavey (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Funny, I was just coming here to point out the edit summary there, which tickled me. I started to leave the editor a welcome note to the club of Danaids. It's probably some kind of diversion: keep us busy arguing about the military conflict box while slipping in links to sites claiming that the Trojan Horse was actually a ship full of little green men. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Credo accounts

Hi Davey. Have you noticed this offer? I think it could be interesting for your work/specialisation here. Check their list of reference titles. Regards. Antonín Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

votum

I finally moved votum from the Glossary to its own page — then realized I've frequently linked to [[Glossary of ancient Roman religion#votum]]. If you see any of these in your articles, could you change them to the simple link votum? Thanks. I will try to take care of some of this later myself. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Will do, and nice work. In my own wee clutch of articles, I'm not sure how many links there are - but there should probably be more. Haploidavey (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead?? The one bound shut on all sides? Weird. Lead is always bad news in Near Eastern and Mediterranean magic. Good stuff is inscribed on gold, silver, tin, iron — anything but lead. This is very curious. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. A very odd choice of metals, a most peculiar binding and if the news article's anything to go by, a definite penchant for reading much into little. All very enthusiastic. Anyhow, everything else aside, patina's no more a guide to age than is style, and fakery's really not that difficult, especially with metals. I've spent the last skeptical hour or two trying to track down a more cagey and disciplined report or summary from scientific/scholarly sources. No success. I hereby undertake to swallow these words and do severe penance if this comes up trumps. If you happen across anything useful on metals in magico-religious systems of the ancient world, I'd much appreciate a note. Haploidavey (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I know I've seen discussions in books on ancient magic, but I'd have to check. Is this viewable for you? It's Betz's Greek Magical Papyri, and says if lead is prescribed in a magic spell, "the tablets usually intend malicious or harmful magic," though it might be more accurate to say "restraining or binding". Even if these little books could be dated beyond dispute, I'd still be flummoxed by the use of lead and sealing the book all the way around, which seems like binding magic. But I do remember the fuss over the ossuary. Archaeologists need to get funded, so they present their findings to the public without scholarly nuance. Not to say hype. I don't blame them, and I think journalism is an OK source for the announcement of a find — but not for declaring the find as fact. To me, there's a WP difference between using Reuters as a source for the sentence "In 2007, archaeologists announced that they had discovered blah blah," and "Blah blah was discovered in 2007." Former OK, latter not. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The Betz link's top hole, thanks. My fruitless search yesterday turned up a couple or more exceptions - casual workaday jottings on lead, which these are patently not. What an odd combination of objects. The last sealed from human eyes - surely, as you say, this is meant to restrain or bind - those rings seem grimly functional. But the first reminds me of a filofax. Handy for looking things up. Identical (?) technologies, completely different purposes.

Circulation and funding, yes. And good luck to them, but such high profile, headline projects tend to divert ever-limited public and private funding from humbler stuff - "routine" pre-development spadework, protection, maintenance and what have you. I guess it was ever thus, and ever shall be; but anyway, I don't think it helps in the long run (on this, I'm a shameless snob). On WP using news sources, well yes, but one tends to spawn another, and before you know it... Anyway, I briefly toyed with the idea of joining the hoo-hah at Bosnian pyramids some time back, then saw the edit history and talk-pages, and changed my mind. Life being so very short, and all. Haploidavey (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I want more vandalism like this. Just say not to inserting random dirty words! Give it some thought, people. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Classics Articles and Lectures

With regards your previous message on Dalek's page, Dalek and myself have realised that most of the articles we're editing have been covered in lectures for our degree. If it is okay, we're going to be incorporating our lecture notes and further reading into the Wikipedia articles to ensure that there is an academic viewpoint which can be referenced and checked by other Wikipedians who are specialists in the Classics. Regards 78.146.132.102 Classics (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Roman religion

In your absence (ha, that'll teach you), I'm afraid I've been mucking around with Religion in ancient Rome. I think some of these changes were discussed on the talk page, and when I started I'd only meant to move one or two sections. Fraid it got out of hand. I'm sure this screws up the refs. I'll eventually try to repair the damage. Please don't be overly civil in commenting about the changes. I won't hale you into a tribunal.

I want to add two sections, one on children in religion (for which I have a nice little article that focuses solely on that), a paragraph or two in length, I'd guess; and another on religion and philosophy, which I mentioned on the talk page. Someday. I move Vestals under priesthoods, because (I admit) I find it rather galling to ghettoize the Vestals as "women's religion," which it wasn't (vir / virgo, and all that). It was central to public religion. But I'm only soapboxing on what you already know. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Aaaach, another effing vandal headed for the Hot Place. Actually, I can't quite figure out what carnage you've wroke where upon that unassailably perfect article (har har). The funeral section's much better for its introductory brief foray into after-life beliefs; course, the main article on funerals needs rewriting and expansion, plus we need an article on afterlives - and I see each of us has both topics as to-do lists. You seem to have swapped a couple of sections, maybe retitled one or two, yes? - and on the Vestals, who could argue otherwise? All round, there's a deal more mincing and chopping to be done but as far as I can tell, you've left the refs (predictably) intact and mangled none of their substance or sense. Or am I missing something? I'll take a closer look.

(After the promised look). I hate to say this, 'cos you might be secretly after a good tongue lashing, but I see nothing amiss. 'N fact, it's muchly improved, and especially by your removal of that embarrassing pre-adolescent post-scriptum essay. Haploidavey (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Kind as always. I added only one sentence on afterlife beliefs at the beginning of that section, which is superior to the article on Roman funerals. Had forgotten about the deletion. (If I wanted to pick a fight, I'd hang around MOS discussions.) Cynwolfe (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I just made the mistake of reading Theatre of ancient Rome. Utter disaster. (I deleted half of it, I think.) The blood would shoot out of T.P. Wiseman's ears if he read it. Well, except he seems too genial for such a wolfish response. I tell you this because I think I've seen you redlink ludi scaenici, which ought to redirect to Theatre of ancient Rome. It now does, but I'm going to have to dash off something from Conte's literary history. Roman comedy currently redirects there too — criminally, as Roman comedy ought to have its own article. And a delightful one it would be. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

A completely remarkable person has jumped in and done triage there. Splendid! Cynwolfe (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

A blossoming! I just love these rare, overnight transformations. Oh, and you've done marvelously vivacious work on the Roman Festivals bit. Haploidavey (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

"Grave relief showing the deceased and his widow in a funeral feast where they are depicted in a godlike manner. Roman marble work, 1st century AD"

Hades (not, according to Kevin Clinton, Pluto) and Persephone

Och, not so much. But looky here … when I can get some info on the Roman relief, it'll make a nice illustration for something like Roman funerals. At first I thought Parentalia or such, but then it dawned on when I'd seen the scene before. I want to see what anyone says about its possible Eleusinian character. (The caption here is from Commons. Dig the serpent on the Tree of Life to the far right.) Cynwolfe (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Then you'll really like this one from Pompeii

Oh yes, well found. Cripes, the serpent and tree... that's almost out of nowhere, and almost too much, and gave me quite a jolt. I'm going to take a look through jstor. Who knows? And by the way, I love the comfortable but somehow rather scandalised Pompeian matrons consulting the wizened but also quite comfortable-looking witch - you know, over at that Big Article - you can betcha life they're up to no good. You've a very good eye, anyhow, and I'm only recently beginning - duh, shame on me - to see (yes, actually see! not just read!) the value of that - worth a thousand words and blah blah. Plus what you're doing everywhere else. I don't know how you do it. I guess if I did, I'd do it too. I think I've two quite different minds, one for writing, one for images. They hardly ever meet. Hm. Haploidavey (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Joan is in the Zeitgeist. This little video appreciation will give you a sample, if you can block the jarring insertion of A.O. Scott's mug. I think I neglected to mention the music.Cynwolfe (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphic world egg

That's splendid. I really must get hold of the film. I assume Scott's not in it. (Hm, the so-called queue at my dvd rental service just means they don't have it, don't plan on having it, and hope their subscribers will plump for something else on a list of "alternatives" which include "The Gospel according to St Matthew" and "Pope Joan". Truly Boolean.

And thanks for the fig-Tree (!) and serpent bonus. The picture seems somehow underpopulated. I wonder why?. Haploidavey (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

And Happy Easter to you. What a grand rabbit he is; one forgets how full of character those drawings are till it pops up in such an expected place. This is a not very pretty egg, and not as I'd picture the Orphic world egg, but there's what we have in the article. Must run, daughter is making breakfast: Irish potato bread, local quail eggs and sausages! Then to the museum for a special exhibition on Greek, Roman, and Etruscan art that depicts heroes, I think it is. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

file this

Here's a piece of useful policy: Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor (WP:STABILITY). Or rather, I'm sure one could wiki-lawyer the hell out of that "major". But I would think this applies to era convention? Cynwolfe (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

imagines

I see you have Imagines on your to-do list. I've been dragged into the woefully inadequate Roman funerals and burial by, of all things, Cardea (you'll see why eventually). While I'm doing the sections pertinent to what I need there, I'm of course coming upon other useful things I can throw into the article for now, including a quick section on the imagines. For now, therefore, I'm going to turn the utterly unsourced Imagines into a redirect to the section in funerals. When you're ready to make an actual article of it, you can just open the page and start from scratch. I'm also changing the page links, so when you do start the article, let me know and I change them back to direct page links, since you shouldn't need to correct something I fiddled with. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I added bits and pieces from A Companion to Roman Religon (edited by Rupke) to Roman funerals and burial, which made for some weirdness of balance and so on. But it's a start, and pointed toward an outline. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good. I'm scrabbling through a couple of general sources, with hopes for further pointers and expansion. Haploidavey (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

funerals

There's a nice section on funerals in this book but I'm not given a look at the contributors' page (p. 673) to see who J.B. is. Any chance your access is different? Cynwolfe (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be John Bodel, an excellent scholar. I'm getting that from Google books (searching for "J.B." and looking at the OCR snippet of the unavailable p. 674), and his CV confirms him as the author of “Religious Personnel: Rome” and “Death, Afterlife and Other Last Things: Rome.” Wareh (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

My access is the same as Cyn's (probably); the section looks good. I'd not have thought of OCR snippets - so thank you both for the Easter gift. Haploidavey (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Wareh. Have to ask, Davey: why is the Circus Maximus article on your page called User:Haploidavey/Spirits of the dead in ancient Rome? Cynwolfe (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's just somewhere to bigger it. I've random tendencies. Chariots of the dead? Haploidavey (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ha, you may be getting your own Snooki. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Psoriasis

Thanks for the props. I'm happy to spread my brand of pith throughout Wikipedia. ChrisB 24.69.174.26 (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

oops

Dear dear, what did you do to attract that obscene outburst? Back with a bang. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you been following the fun at my talk and user pages? What a contagion you brought from your attempt to suppress the Bacchanalia at Dionysus. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a bad idea, O King Pentheus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Poor Pentheus, templated to death by maenads. Haploidavey (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Moves

Moving articles is not difficult. All pages not specially protected have a "move this page" button next to them; click on it and you get to a screen with two blank spaces, one for the new title and one for the edit summary; and a couple of check boxes which you usually want to check.

This will work almost all the time: it will work if the new title doesn't exist or if it is a redirect to the old title which has never been edited. (If you are undoing a move, the second case will usually apply.)

If it does fail, you can sometimes backtrail successive moves, but you can always use the {{Move}} template (in the form subst:move|New title) which will start a discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I extend this so I can copy to Cynwolfe. !!!!

Mm, that's an excellent clear "how-to". Haploidavey (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Rediculus

Thank you for the encouragement! There are times I've wondered if anyone reads what I write here. — AlekJDS ^talk 04:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Atticusattor Replying to Haploidavy

I received your messages but couldn't figure out how to reply to them. So I posted a reply on my own talk page. Please go there.

Meanwhile, the article I'm edited focuses on minor stuff. It omits what is significant and important. Also, much of it is poorly written. Therefore, I'm still working on it. Although you want me to provide an "editing summary," I can't do that until I'm done. And I'm not done.

Meanwhile, I need advice on exactly what to click on to get to wherever an edit summary belongs.

I find it hard to believe you meant what you implied -- that Atticusattor (talk) should go after edit posts. I tried that and found that it put my username within the article. My name doesn't belong there. Atticusattor (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

:Responded to, severally, at user's page. Haploidavey (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Africa.com

Hi. I'm just letting you know that whether this article should be deleted or not, the rationale you provided is not a sufficient reason for deletion. You must base your arguments on policy after searching for references. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Spaeth

Is Spaeth understood correctly here? Something about the first paragraph doesn't quite match the rest of the picture. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"It was the only public priesthood attainable by Roman matrons" doesn't seem to be true unless we mean "independently attainable," since there are the regina and flaminica who were very visible. Also, in "your" article, the section on priesthoods places male priests first, and while it says that women are more numerous, the public priests whose duties are described are male. So I'm confused about what this means in practical terms. The Aventine cult is Roman and led by men, and the existence of a flamen for Ceres attests to male precedence in terms of antiquity; the rite that comes through Sicily is from the Greek religious milieu not originally Roman.Cynwolfe (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I've rearranged the section, but am not sure I have the whole ritus graecus business right, since I know that some doubt "Greek rite" is Greek. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Further ramblings on my talk page. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I place this here as if it's related. It isn't, but I finally pulled devotio out for an independent article. It awaits a section on the ritual gestures, other instances, etc. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

My native irascibility rears its ugly head. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Have I said sufficiently had glad I am you're working on Circus Maximus? It's surprising to me that such a peachy, guy kind of topic has remained relatively underdeveloped. Also, I'm not going to look at That Page where I ranted yesterday, so if anything needs to be addressed/answered, I won't be the one to do it. Until I'm sure I'm not riding my high horses. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Back to Spaeth: I just added a bit to Ordination of women#Ancient Rome that again raises questions about the assertion that being a sacerdos Cereris was the only public priesthood for matrons. Evidently the Magna Mater had female sacerdotes, and even a sacerdos maxima. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Cyn. The assertion's obviously wrong and I've amended the passage. I'll cite the sources you've used in your article (which is looking very fine, btw). A hidden note on the matter might also be a good idea. Haploidavey (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's just kind of baffling what Spaeth meant, isn't it? Though you and I both get why the business with sacerdotes of Ceres is indeed baffling, since there seem to be two traditions coming together. BTW, I have a new WP motto. I stole it from this comment at Slavery in ancient Rome: "Somebody still has to clean the atrium." Couldn't you just use that on so many occasions? Cynwolfe (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Roman Republic Iron Age

Slightly frustrating ...

Roman Republic Iron Age

• An Iron Age and Roman Republican settlement on Botromagno, Gravina di Puglia: excavations of 1965-1974, Volume 1
• Weapon: a visual history of arms and armor By DK Publishing, Inc Page 48
• Cambridge illustrated history of the Roman world By Greg Woolf Page 28
• Pathways to Power: New Perspectives on the Emergence of Social Inequality By T. Douglas Price Page 235

Please restore the historic Iron Age link. Thanks ...--J. D. Redding 23:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Rome and the Iron age

Hello, and thank you for your responses, which I caught en route to bed. Sorry you're frustrated but the sheer vagueness of the term is problematic; that said, you've identified something well worth discussion. I won't be editing again until Monday but will reply at the first opportunity. Best. Haploidavey (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

What? So just wait till monday? Not good. And there is not vagueness to the term. --J. D. Redding 00:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Interpretatio graeca

If you have time, could you take a look at Interpretatio graeca? I've been meaning to, since I link to it daily. (Only a small exaggeration.) A question was raised about the purpose of the chart. I'm willing to brush up the article a little, but I'd like your suggestions. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but only half done

Thank you for fixing one of the errors I pointed out in the Julius Caesar talk page, could you please fix the other one I mentioned also? Great games and celebrations were held on April to honor Caesar’s victory at Munda. should be Great games and celebrations were held in April to honor Caesar’s victory at Munda.

Thanks again, and in advance for the second one. 207.30.62.198 (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

pagan monotheism

I'm on break, but I stumbled on the book One God: Pagan Monotheism in the Roman Empire by accident doing something else and wanted to make sure you were aware of its existence. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't an inkling; it's going to be truly useful. Thank you for this, and for taking time out to post it. Reckon that's worth at least an appreciative curlique and an extra furbelow, down at the ole' spina. Haploidavey (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits at Hitler religious views

Alles Gute zum Geburtstag! D'you think Davey left room for cake?

go and get some knowledge about the authors who have published the books you dumb christian , oh maybe you are jealous that Hitler was inspired by Hindusim now you will someday say that hp blavatsky too dont have any expertise in the field of aryans the historian who told about aryans first simply means that the latest use of aryan is refers only to INDO-ARYAN people and not to indo-european or indo-iranian.

the section just below this on islam contains things which are not given in any book simply a link has been posted and do you want to say that Heinrich himmler didnt have affection for hindu religious writing then you are simply a anti-hindu and weak person and i will ban you next time if you try to vandalize the article , can you give your thoughts on islam section it says something which is not given in any book by any author. Otherwise you are just another dumb christian who dont know to which religion Jesus christ belongs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASHOKBINDUSARA (talk • contribs) 14:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Haploidavey (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

all the authors mentioned in the source are of good credibility and not like those which are referred on the same article of hitler religious views.Otherwise plz proove that Mr Heinrich himmler was not close to hinduism by pointing out some sources and not talking in air otherwise you will be nothing more than a crying baby, every article and source mentions that he was very close to hinduism and use to carry Bhagvad gita of hinduism with himself , his comment on bible inferiority in front of hindu texts will surely make you scratch your head he was not a roman catholic but a hindu .ASHOKBINDUSARA (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahem. Enough with the personal attacks. Commment on content, not editors - that's policy. If you need to confirm this (and I rather think you do if you want to keep editing here) read the welcome messages on your talk page, and follow its links. If you're adding content to articles, the onus is on you (not others) to support your material with reliable sources. Haploidavey (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Davey's gut is never filled, and bottom part is shaped like ziggurat. Cake will fit perfectly! Hurrah! Haploidavey (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

UFC XCIV: Demetrius v. Diodorus

Hey, here's a late birthday present. I'm a Georges St. Pierre fan myself. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Poor Diodorus. Blame the ref, not the editor (an irresistibly lame joke). This birthday's my longest by far; seven days, and still counting. Friday was burleque night, with Seaman Thompson (amazing), a one-woman Bacchanal and many other delights. Blimey! Haploidavey (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You wanton, you. What an unending Bacchanal. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Roman school

Saw your edit summary at Roman Empire, I think it was. In hurry at moment, but didn't know Roman school existed. It shouldn't. Would support your merge to Education in Ancient Rome, and you might want to drop a note at G&R. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I tried G&R with this some time ago - second time lucky? (Also in haste - the Bacchanal's well and truly done with. Shit happens.) Haploidavey (talk) 10:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I should've remembered that. Well, let's see what we can do, then, if no one else cares. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

My head hurts. Roman school has no content, really; it certainly has no sources. However, if one were to turn it into a disambiguation page (because of the top note; otherwise, I'd go for redirect), there are still an excruciating number of links to change. I'm assuming there's an automated way to do this, but that requires me to learn something new. Drat. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a stinker all round. Automatically scary, more like. Assuming it exists. God, listen to me. Suspicious old dog barking at nothing. Can't even be arsed to stir from his smelly old blanket. Haploidavey (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Cynic. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Arf. Haploidavey (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

(Wags tail appreciatively). Haploidavey (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Kerala

Hi. Please check if this edit is appropriate. I have no idea about the history of Kerala, hence I am requesting you. Thanks, — Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 15:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh ok. No probs. Will ask Aarem to look into it. Cheers! — Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 15:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Re : Your edit summary at the Kerala article

Hello Dave, it was not my intention to shout at you, or anybody else for that matter. This article keeps changing its entire structure every now and then which is not often seen in many of the better articles. It is one thing to add or remove information, counter vandalism, argue points which are not "facts" etc. It is another thing to see entire subsections introduced here and there which I have often seen with this article. I am not even sure who made that edit that I disagreed with. And my 'shouting' was not directed at you or anybody in particular.

As for your analogies, I disagree that you could draw them with the Romulus-Remus story, or even the Genesis. Rome most certainly did not exist in any conceivable form whatsoever, before the two brothers, and while a she-wolf mothering them might be contentious, what is beyond any shade of doubt, is that Rome "began" certainly after c. 750 BC when the two brothers were born. I am not sure, but I think that Christianity holds there was nothing before the story of the Genesis. The Genesis is the very beginning afaik.

In the case of Hindu texts, that way, why do you not feel the "first" story should be mentioned first? The Parasurama story is not even a universal one in Hinduism but particular to Kerala. On the other hand, the MP, regardless of any conceivable version states the same thing (and I have added four 100% reliable references no less). Same with the Vamana-Mahabali story. The MP was eons (going by Hindu Cosmology/Timelines hundreds of millions of years before the Vamana-Mahabali story which in turn was ages before the Parasurama one.

I personally prefer to see things mentioned 'chronologically'. And I don't think that is against WIKI rules. The Parasurama legend is certainly not to this issue what the Romulus-Remus story is to Rome or the Genesis story is to Christianity. SumerianPrince (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dave, I have been back on WIKI only today since our last correspondence, I just read your reply to my message regarding my edit on the Kerala page. I posted on your talk-page as there was no relevant section on this issue in the Kerala talk-page. Also, in the midst of the ridiculous edit-war going on (I am still not sure about what exactly and am least bothered), I was not certain if my problem was even an issue of contention.

As far as our topic is concerned, I just want to tell you how things are, to the best of my understanding that is supported by valid references. "Hindu texts", at least the still extant scriptures i.e, are pretty clear in that there are various higher beings in other realms far outside of our Earthly one. It was through the passage of time that after and from those realms, that life finally appeared on Earth in a "civilisational" sense, and this "first" appearance was with the Matsya Purana on which there is a separate article on WIKI supported by plenty of good citations. The Matsya or the water-dwelling Fish incarnation was the first of the "Avatars" of the all-pervading Lord Vishnu. This was followed by the incarnations of Vishnu in the form of the amphibious Kurma (Tortoise), wherein the Milky Way was supposedly "churned" by the Demi-Gods and the Demons, to spawn further the Galaxy, Solar Systems, stars and planets and other celestial bodies. Then in order appear, the land-dwelling animal incarnation of Varaha (Boar), the half-animal and half-man Narasimha (Human-like creature with a lion-head and claws), the dwarf-like human Vamana (literally meaning Dwarf in Sanskrit), a full but ordinary man Parasurama, the half-man and half-God Rama, and finally the full manifestation of God in human form Krishna.

The Matsya Purana article clearly shows whatever I have said is right. Also the Vamana story concerns Mahabali who supposedly ruled all Earth and various other planets across the Universe. The former is set in the Malaya Mountains lying in Kerala and Tamil Nadu and its foothills are mentioned as the Malabar that lies almost entirely in Kerala. The latter is a story claiming that Mahabali had his capital in Kerala where Onam is celebrated every September to honor Mahabali. The MP story is some two billion years old according to Hindu texts. The Vamana story is also hundreds of millions of years old.

I would request you to revert the order back to "chronology". Aarem reverted my changes and stated in his edit summary that I had undone your trimming up the section. I want to make it clear that I DID NOT remove a syllable from the section as you had left it. I merely reshuffled it to adhere to the "chronology". I think the page is protected and in any case, I lack the energy to do something about this, argue if the need arises etc. It would thus be nice if you reintroduced the order I had put up there. Regards. SumerianPrince (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Children of Dionysus

Hey, it's a holiday weekend here in the U.S., and I'm just relaxing a bit before I go out to dinner. Some enterprising adolescents created three fake sons of Dionysus (see infobox here), and even a little article for each (Sherifus, Rawisus and Haggarus), two of which I nominated for deletion, with the third getting the attention of someone else. In the past I've had trouble convincing the Powers That Be that something simply doesn't exist. So just wanted to alert you in case I'm not around to belabor this point. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

All taken care of, already. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, cruel. No childer! No daughters, no sons, not even fakes. Haploidavey (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I keep finding this stuff scattered throughout the WP galaxy: Greek Gods and their Roman counterparts. Hope you're well! Charliebray was back at me the other day. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hm. I spy with my little eye... two things we don't need. Not sure how I am; a bit whacked and giddied-out, I guess. Too many rides on the family Gravitron. But it pleases me greatly to see the positive, supportive and well deserved comments on your talk-page, befitting a rare, intelligent and courageous soul. Haploidavey (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I figure that since I've been publicly besmirched (before the truly welcome support) I might as well throw myself wholeheartedly into other compromising areas. I too have just emerged from a period of familial feasting and drinking to which I'm unaccustomed, and have turned to most unwholesome subjects. I have terrible motion sickness, so things like the Gravitron are my idea of hell. No doubt where I'm heading. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Invitation for comment

You recently edited the Mother Goddess article. You're invited to participate in the discussion about the decline of this idea in history. Talk:Mother goddess#Decline USchick (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be very brave of you, Davey. Just a note: is the article Magna Dea on your radar? I find this entity (mentioned at Mother goddess#Roman) in RS so far only in reference to Catullus 61, the Attis galliambic poem. Shouldn't have a separate article; not even sure how a formal cult title it is of Cybele = Magna Mater. Saw your edit summary at Mother goddess mentioning Magna Mater, who is at any rate more relevant to the article than a hypothetical "Magna Dea." TPW here. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite busy cultivating my Inner Coward. But I feel honour-bound to commit at least one foolishly brave deed per annum, and preferably more than that, else me would not be me. It's a moral obligation, and a drop-in and discussion at Mother Goddess, of which I know nowt, might do the trick. A potential hotbed - though less so than some places you've been lately. On Magna Dea; nope, I didn't know, but as far as I can tell; yes, it's an honorific, not name - and off the top of my head, I think Brouwer (of the Bona Dea tome) has a quite thorough compendium of goddesses addressed as that in inscriptions and lit. Likewise Benko, on Mariology and the Virgin's precursors (that's somewhere on my user-page). Anyhoo; what would you say to a cross-referenced section on shared honorifics at List of Roman deities? Seems a more suitable home for a Magna Dea of whatever name and persuasion. Meanwhile... d'you think the Mother goddess article attempts too much with too little?

TPW deserves his own small paragraph. I love that book and really ought to get it. Haploidavey (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

A list of shared honorifics and a brief explanation of each would be an excellent addition to List of Roman deities. Someday I'll get around to doing something about its ugliness. I mean visually. All those little lists look like crap. And a better introduction on the concept of "deity" among the Romans, which might be one of those places where some pressure could be released from Religion in ancient Rome and/or Imperial cult (ancient Rome). Did you see PMA's words of wisdom the other day? Haven't we all been there! Cynwolfe (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

He has it exactly! Haploidavey (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

lapis niger

Sorry for troubling you with a little problem again.

I edited a section of the article and tried to quote the two texts (by Dum. and Gordon) side by side but am unable to make them show in parallel, i.e. so that correspondent lines of each appear on the same line. What function should one use? Blockquote and centre seem no use.

Thank you very much for the attention and help.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(responded at Aldrasto's talk-page. Haploidavey (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC) )

Thank you very much for your prompt reply and kind helpfulness. I tried it and it works fine. I am passably fine, hope you too are all right.

On the Duenos I changed graphem with section: after reading the discussion I checked the dictionary and indeed this word has not got the intended meaning in English.

I edited a bit Diana too, but I am afraid the presentation should be expanded to be thorough and clearer: the article I used though is a very long, learned and detailed excursus so I chose to keep it minimal and elliptic...to avoid opening a Pandora vase. A parallel between Iphigenia and Valeria Luperca of Falerii perhaps could yield some new insights. Your comments as always welcome.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I found and cited a work that contains a list of the texts of the leges regiae too, just in case you may be interested. Allen Chester Johnson et alii Ancient Roman Statutes Un. of Texas Pr. 1961, on google preview. It is quite good as it includes all ancient inscriptions and excerpts from historians or other writers who quoted legal texts.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

IC(AR)

I got totally turned around over there somehow, probably cuz the blood starting shooting out of my ears when I saw "instruments of God's judgment" etc. stated as fact. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Poor you. That's how the source put it. D'you think it needs a caveat? Haploidavey (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The section is difficult. (It's midnight here; what on earth are you doing up?) I just dropped a few turds of bloviation on the talk page. I think those statements read as "history" rather than "encyclopedia article," and so each needs a citation, or different framing, or something. What do I know? I spent the afternoon working on a section on Roman attitudes towards breasts (not yet posted; in short, they're handy for feeding babies). I shouldn't be allowed anywhere near Donatism or anything serious. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

	Quality Management Inspection Medal
	I, [Inspector] No. 108, am honored to award you this medal for your diligent and positive contributions to the quality management inspection process. I appreciate your assistance in improving the "Stable Version" of the Gladiator entry. Always know that you have this humble inspector's gratitude and respect. Thank you. No. 108 (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Psoriasis and the Chaga mushroom

Hi, Haploidavey. You reversed my addition to the psoriasis article. One question only: did you actually read the article I used as a reference ? It is a case study with 50 people and its outcome is described. Nothing more It is an old Sovjet source (1973) and it might even have been discussed in other Sovjet journals; there's no way to check that, it is outside of the digital domain. I strongly believe my addition should have a place in the psoriasis article; it is a successful case study and presented as such. How can you question something that happened before your eyes ?

Regards, Chemicus 234 (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Chemicus 234 (talk)

Responded at editor's talk-page. Haploidavey (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Galli

Would you be so kind as to add Galli to your watchlist if you haven't already? It needs a set of eyes from the perspective of religion during the Empire and Imperial cult, as a recent edit reminded me. I haven't waded into this one except for a really long comment on the talk page (I believe these days this is called soapboxing) because I'm only interested in the Republican part, though someday I'd like to look at Claudia Quinta. But the article consistently if infrequently attracts well-intentioned edits that seem insufficiently aware of Roman religious practice in general, as well as some who may be interested in claims that the cult of Cybele had some kind of cage match with Christianity to see who's the bloodiest. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh. See also in your absence Template talk:Ancient Roman religion for the image change in the template. I just now changed the image for the Priesthoods of ancient Rome template to the flamen's head to differentiate it. Would like your opinion. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added Galli to my watchlist. Yes, isn't Claudia Q fascinating? An overlooked locus puzzlicus of the Roman religious multiverse. But later, later. I find the Galli quite odd and difficult. Some of the general background there could be clarified (eventually, in due course, in full ripeness of time, no hurry etc) at your back-boiler article on Roman priesthoods, and the gender issues further dealt with under Sexuality in ancient Rome. Mebbe. Sorry, that's not much help, is it? My head's still rather spongy. On cage matches - well, I dread to think who really was the bloodiest. Or at least, I dread to think it publicly. And hey, guess who won?

Anyhow, on the Religion in ancient Rome template pic., here are my spongy thoughts. On the one hand, the topic seems more accurately represented by a formal public sacrifice than by obscure Pompeian mystes with lovely semi-naked ladies getting up to who-knows-what (oo-er!). On the other hand: one needs to perform a little squinting study before one can see what Marcus is up to. The Pompeian fresco probably flags up "Roman religion" to most readers at a glance, it having been used and misused willy nilly and indiscriminately in countless TV and film sets. All this is just another way of saying "On the whole, yes to your change, though I'm not entirely sure", which I fear is typical of me. I've had a pretty thorough look through our Commons media. Nothing there is screaming "I'm representative! Use me!"

I'm inclined to support your use of the Flamen image for the Priesthoods in ancient Rome template, at least pro tem. Ideally, we'd have several priests clearly shown in their various regalia. But Commons seems to have no such image. Haploidavey (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Another image option for the Religion in ancient Rome template would be File:Suovetaurilia.jpg, but because it's very horizontal, at a reasonable column width the figures would be too tiny. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

As for the recent ranting (now removed) on your talk page here, holy shit. Nearly two thousand years of dominion, and still attached to a narrative of existential threat. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the cage-fight continues; that was a bizarrely ugly, frenzied little episode. Entirely unrelated, of course, to anything above. Haploidavey (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, no worries. Nev1 is dealing inimitably with this matter. Haploidavey (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I wish I'd known a long time ago that users could be blocked for being clueless. That opens up a whole new bright and shiny Wikipedia world. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Bright, shiny and bloody. Ah, the sands of the wikicratic arena. Haploidavey (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Incident on Hitler's religious beliefs

As you know, an IP has been violating NPOV and the 3RR on Hitler's religious beliefs. I would like you to know that I am reporting this incident on the ANI page, and a discussion will take place there. Shakinglord (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sacra (ancient Rome)

I just found this article yesterday. Should it even exist? I left a note for Aldrasto as well. I'm in a hurry this morning, as they're about to "cure" the electrical cables in my neighborhood (their term; I hope they can "heal" the several street lights that have been out for almost two weeks, greatly increasing my odds of encountering the neighborhood skunk while walking my hounds at night), and my power will be out starting about 25 minutes from now for most of the day. Sacra (ancient Rome) should probably be a redirect to Religion in ancient Rome, and otherwise an entry in the Glossary of ancient Roman religion, but that is only my first thought and I'd like to hear the opinion of you and Aldrasto. Or anyone else, of course. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Amazing what one finds here and there. I don't think a separate article's needed. The principles are already outlined in Religion in ancient Rome; I'd support a redirect to that article for a generalised summary, and links thence to the Glossary of ancient Roman religion for matters slightly more specific. I'm sure some of the Sacra (ancient Rome) can be merged into both well, maybe not, as we don't merge unreferenced material, do we? The articles dedicated to specific deities, rites and priesthoods should of course deal with the specific meats, potatoes and gravy (and whatever else would be on a particular sacral menu. Light salads, fine wines and matured cheeses come to mind. Even hound-caught skunk.) Power outage is unsettling. I reckon it's sent by the divine powers to remind us of our reliance on the impenetrable mystes of linesmen, our intercessors. It keeps us humble in the dark. Haploidavey (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, this was a planned outage, so not so bad, and the 'cure' was much faster than anticipated. Disappointingly, since I was going to use it as an excuse to get out of the house. Redirect is probably the way to go with sacra; I gussied it up but I don't know why. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's another one up your alley: Augusteum. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thankee, Cyn. I reckon I'd best let you know I'm going to ease back my editing still more. You know the background. Anyhow, my brain functions are suffering and so's my editing. I'll stick to read-only mode for a while. Of course, I might make the odd, spontaneous, random stab here and there, and hope not to make too much of a bollocks of it. Haploidavey (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll just assume you're still around. Let me know if that real-life situation is working out, or if it's not and you need to vent. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Apollo

the content i removed is historically plausible (and i actually think it was because Neoplatonism) and you're right i should've justified my edit but there is no citation to said content (i think that citation is referring to the revival of the oracle by Julian the Apostate though i could be wrong) ReneVenegas95 (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk page. Haploidavey (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ovid

I read Liber today just for pleasure; what a nicely written piece. Such a good, natural flow. Just came across this from Arion. Had to share it with you. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Giorgione

Replied on my talk page, sorry.Aldrasto11 (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

DRN

Hi Haploidavey, and thanks for helping out at DRN! I really appreciate it. Let me know if you have any questions about the board or what we do. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for letting me know re not using tildes within articles. :)

Violet Fae (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And, Mr. H, here's a feline prodigium (or monstrum?) for you. Much expiation required. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ooo-err... that's one for the "Tough Wiki-Love" collection. Haploid & Davey have discussed the matter. Davey volunteers to get battered, basted and toasted. What an eejit! Haploidavey (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I do hope you know what I meant by the honorific. I am afraid to follow this link. Oh, I see. Whew. I feared some non-vegetarian variant of french toast. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Mrs C., that was clear. The rest is toasted weenie, strictly traditional. Haploidavey (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Today's treat. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

2 bsy w game-boy 2 rd it lols. Haploidavey (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Got your message. Thanks! Replied there. Isn't the amount of vandalism and pointlessness insane now that school's back in session? Cynwolfe (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup, and for the most part, the quantity's inversely proportional to its wit. That's sad, somehow. And you've another return at the Portal of Replies. Haploidavey (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

But then, up pops this, with a charming reversion summary. Awww... Haploidavey (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Indigetes and Iguvine Tables

Time ago I found a similar word to the mysterious Airsii of the inscription from Sora CIL X 5779 quoted by Grenier : "Iovi Airsii Dis Indicetibus..." but as I did not make a note I forgot its location. By chance today I had a look at the article Iguv. T. and discovered it quotes two passages from T. VI (while attributing one to T. I: I left a note on the discussion). But what matters is that I found again the word that had struck me looking at the whole passage in Newman: Arsie and Arsier appear in two following sentences of T. VI 24. What is even more relevant is: 1. that both are referred to Iove in a context of invocation to the god over the sacrificial spot (Oh Arsius ( Arsie vocative), I invoke you in a submissed voice, oh Grabovian god). 2. The second time the same phrase is repeated as referring to an Arsier frite i. e. oh x of Arsius which reminds the juxtaposition of I. A. Dis Indicetibus. Newman translates fritus as daimon on the grounds of Scottish wraith. I think his guess may be right, considering also Etruscan farthan genius. Newman's guess at Arsius as Averruncus seems lees appealing to me.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll mull this over. Haploidavey (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The Arsius of the IT is an epithet of Iove which seems there connected to the arsmu city militia. Arsfertur is the commander who brings the perscam arsmatiam i. e. virga militaris, military baton. This explains why Vetter translates Iove Verehasus as Virgator, but literally it should be something like lord of the gates: veres = Lat. fores, gates, Asus should be the equivalent to Umbrian Ars(i)os, ruler, orderer. The Indigetes are mentioned in the inscription along with him probably just because they too are seen as protectors of the city.Aldrasto11 (talk)

Sorry to trouble you again. I am trying to expand the article IT and started to read Buck's manual which is in the PD. While it is well written and quite good as a manual, I do not find him (read Bücheler) very inspiring for the IT though: not up to Newman (read Aufrecht & Kirchhof) in insight: arsmo from root aṛ may not only mean rite. I wonder whether posting a request for elucidations on the project page. The word Arsius may or may not be the same as Airsius and translating saint does not make it clearer. This word seems also to be related to Celtic god Esus, Hesus, Aisus, in the end it is meaningless out of its peculiar context. Of course in Praeneste we have Erulus and also Recaranus.Aldrasto11 (talk) 09:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Found something interesting in an article by Michael Weiss on the IT: he cites Lejeune who quotes some Venetic inscriptions from Carinthia. As I supposed Ahsus, Aisus etc. seem to mean just divus. Thence the above too, and the Tablet of Rapino, line 1: "aisos pracris toutai maroucai...". He cites also a work by Devoto on Etruscan and Medit. AIS. Aside: I suppose of the same rootstem of Vedic aśura.Aldrasto11 (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Eusocial not coveret

I do not agree. The eusocial superorganizm are the exception. They are not some of and build some nest or do some care. They are the one which build permanent nest, and continue the care all the time. I understand that my English can be not perfect and some editors are too proud to accept their small personal imperfections. However, I am not obstinate around the English form. It is important to underline the exceptionality of eusocial live and its advantage. I will appreciate to return my edition in better literate English.--Pszczola-osa (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Replied at editor's talk-page. Haploidavey (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I read as suggested the "sections above and below" I do not think this sense and character of eusocial live (constant care for young) is mentioned at all. Regarding cites/sources I would be happy to fulfill you wish. However I do not have the citation. Except written science, wise guys' books is something as common knowledge. Every beekeeper and etymologist see it at first glance. You can believe me I opened thousand times honey bee hives and everywhere it is the same :))) thus I did not care to confirm the obvious in a book. The only concept of opposition to this basic observation can be just English. Let me know if you still think you can request a citation from me. Regards,--Pszczola-osa (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Replied at editor's talk-page.Haploidavey (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Icarus

Are you going to say that Rarity flying too close to the sun, burning her wings, and falling is not a reference to Icarus? Maybe take the time to read Icarus's article and see that the same thing happens with him (except he falls to his death cause Daedalus doesn't know Sonic Rainboom). Besides, this isn't "trivia", it's "in popular culture" and although it doesn't have any products of it that I'm aware of, MLP FiM is one of the most popular TV shows today (and as far as I know, the only "good" show on its channel). And if there was a reference under there on Mucha Lucha (one of my least favorite shows) I wouldn't delete it just cause I don't like the show. (And I'm sorry if I sound rude, but I at least want to get my argument/defense across and hear your response) 24.65.118.164 (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No, you don't sound rude, just a bit miffed. I've replied on your talk-page. Best, Haploidavey (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think I get you. But this is the first time in a while I've edited wikipedia because I rarely ever make an edit that they don't undo, even though I'm only trying to add accurate info others may have missed. This place doesn't seem as accepting as the other wikis about the info they have here (on MLP Wiki, the Sonic Rainboom article mentions Icarus)... Well atleast you had a reason for it that you clearly explained to me, not like some of the others, there's one I know (not naming any names here) who seems to border on control freak insanity 24.65.118.164 (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Oscilla

I just discovered this article, which came up in connection to the horse. Liber. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this; the Liber identification's not overt (or at least, it's not in Vergil); but I've found a modern appraisal, "Roman Oscilla: An Assessment", by Rabun Taylor (2005). It touches on various piglets and worms that might interest you. I'll send it, soonish. Haploidavey (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you view this? Haven't really explored the context; it's in a chapter on the Second Vatican Mythographer. It's Servius, in a long note to Georgics 2.389 (Latin, but you'll get the gist from the preceding English link if it's viewable), who explicitly connects Vergil's oscilla to Liber pater, but I also saw someone pointing out that Vergil is busily intertwining Greek and Italian content in this poem. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

All the links work fine - splendid job! and many thanks. And just found this, on p. 85 of Taylor (above): "Altheim (1931) suggests that an oscillum ritual, which according to one commentary was frequens in Italia (Probus, ad Georgica, 2.385) and which was appropriated by the Liber-Dionysus cult because of that god's identity as a Maskengott, represented the souls of the restless dead; they were shades or ghosts (larvae, maniae) transmuted into little mask-effigies of Dionysus and his followers, then attached to a tree. The oscillation of these masks represents the souls and their restlessness."... Taylor takes things further: "Does it grant the souls a means of atonement by "airing out" their imperfections, as Servius suggests in his commentary on the Georgics? Do the masks thereby "capture" the souls and make them their own, initiating them posthumously into the Dionysiac domain?" Delicious stuff. Haploidavey (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

And evidently the ancients themselves (don't know which ones) thought this was a replacement for human sacrifice. According to some passing reference I saw. See also Esus according to Lucan, and Odin#Hávamál and Odin#Blót. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, LR Taylor bring this up; the last Tarquin suggested the human sacrifice to Mania herself but the first consul J. Brutus foiled or fooled them both. Or so claimed the Junii Bruti, who celebrated their ancestral rites during Larentalia, rather than Parentalia. Haploidavey (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Is that the "Mother of the Lares" article? I've been intrigued by that custom among the Junii Bruti. Mania (mythology) is tiny. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one (thanks to you); the amazing LRT! I'm not sure, and would therefore appreciate your advice on the matter, but as Mania is so vanishing small, should she perhaps be combined with the mater larum? With appropriate redirects? Scrub that: of course, we need to distinguish between the Greek, Etruscan and Roman Maniae. Still, I guess the Mania (mythology) article could be expanded to clarify their relationships. Haploidavey (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Magnus

Mary Beard on Alexander 'the Great'. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! Time for a nice cuppa and afternoon read. Haploidavey (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Gladiator Mosaic

Hello Haploidavey, I have a question about gladiators that you might be able to answer, since you're largely responsible for the gladiator article...do you know anything about the Gladiator Mosaic? Specifically, if the theta symbol for the dead gladiator is a normal representation, or unique to that mosaic? Are there other mosaics like that? Do you know any academic sources that talk about it? Thanks! Adam Bishop (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Adam. Noticed this because I so frequently chat on Davey's page. The theta stands for thanatos, and was used also for instance in the recordkeeping of the Roman military, placed on the unit roll next to the name of a soldier who died. That's the standard explanation, anyway. I believe there are some who question whether the theta actually does stand for thanatos, or whether the ancients themselves just thought it did, in order to explain a symbol whose original meaning had been lost. Davey will have the info on gladiators, but I just wanted to chime in with the military note. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting query, and an interesting response; I was unaware that this sign was used by the military. If I recall correctly, the argument against this sign as theta (for thanatos) relies on orthography, the Greek theta not being obliquely struck through; in the argument for, this is simply a Latinised cursive form of the Greek original. Anyhow, Adam, mine (on the gladiator side of things) is on your talk-page. Haploidavey (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have an old article that reviews the scholarship up to that point (1952). It's way too technical and detailed for my particular interest in the topic at the time I saved it, but I gather this is referred to by Isidore of Seville and Rufinus, and that military papyri as known at the time of publication bore this out. It may actually be a Latin O with a bar marked through it as an abbreviation for obiit (as in obituary), hence the interpretation of Θ for thanatos is one of those explanations after the fact that one finds so often among ancient etymologists. The article I happen to have on hand is G.R. Watson, "Theta Nigrum," Journal of Roman Studies 42 (1952) 56–62. I've seen it discussed elsewhere for military rolls but don't know where at the moment. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That's awesome, thanks both of you! I was asking for a colleague who found a theta being used to mark a medieval Jew who had been condemned for committing some crime or other against a Christian. It reminded me of the mosaic, and she wondered if the symbol she found might have some ancient significance. I will have to refer these articles to her. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There's apparently a relevant passage in this book, Jews and Greeks in ancient Cyrene, but I can't view the page (looks like p. 312). Cynwolfe (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I can view it - it cites Watson's article, actually. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Cicero

Why did this edit make me laugh? So geek. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's pure geek; "blade weapons", yeah. I just love these guys (and I think we need more of this kind of thing at G&R. Whatever became of that List of putative Roman consuls designate who were horses?) Haploidavey (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I would sooo totally love to defend that article in an AfD. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

O lente, lente tum ti tums... Haploidavey (talk) 12:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Bad girls

Here's a lovely (one might say beatific) 15th-century Claudia Q.

I see you're working on the Vestals. Can you see this? I can't view the chapter, though I long to read anything called "Vestals in Revolt." Cynwolfe (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Damnation, I can't either. That's rotten, because my tastes certainly include bad girls, and certainly revolting Vestals. And hey, I've got stuck in a humungeous kerfuffle on Claudia Quinta; as in, was she or was she not? A Vestal, that is, other than retrospectively... Haploidavey (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The available chapters are well worth reading. Haploidavey (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall Wiseman at work on Claudia Quinta somewhere in his vast output. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hm, thanks for perking my interest again. She looks utterly saintly, and by the way, doesn't Renascence convention usually robe the Magdalene in red? The Many Transformations of Claudia Q; so, with reference to Wiseman, I just found this (in Leach, which I've just downloaded) - "the Republican repertoire must have included a fabula togata featuring Claudia Quinta..." which led to TPW's "Clio's cosmetics", which I remember from a post of yore by yerself. Excellent, and cited severally. A Wiseman insight or two will be just the ticket. Haploidavey (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiseman is famous for finding theatre and lost plays everywhere, a practice for which I adore him eagerly, but which has not failed to attract criticism. I was extremely struck by the saintly portrayal of C.Q. I have an elaborate (original! verboten!) interpretation of Catullus 63, the Attis poem (every translation of which I've ever seen has left me cold, so don't ask; I suppose you could try Peter Green): I don't think it's disconnected from the Lesbia poems at all. Cybele ... Claudia Quinta ... gens Claudia/Clodia ... Clodia. During this time also Clodius was mucking about in the internal affairs of the cult in Pessinus, supporting Brogitarus over Deiotarus (and then there's his association with transvestite transgression, as you well know, and the Galli were famously transvestite). Well, actually, it isn't original at all to wonder how the Catullan "I" at the end relates to Attis, anyway. I try not to write about things I care about. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Πλούτων

Πλούτων. Πλούτων. What about this word doesn't look Greek to these people who keep changing the friggin' article???????????? Do they not even read the intro, eagerly clutching somebody's tattered little handbook to mythology, before deciding they know what they're talking about? Thanks for patrolling. Battlegrounds also at The Frogs, where the character's name is Plouton in the Greek text, and Cap of invisibility, where the only ancient source (Greek) that attributes the cap to the ruler of the underworld calls him Plouton. Sigh. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I always hope a hidden note it makes it more Tuccia than Danaid; but yes, sigh. Haploidavey (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the Tuccia article, where we learn When the piety of holy men and women was doubted by sceptics, the gods could perform miracles to vindicate them. Could. Don't always, but could if they wanted to. At which point I realized we had a category "Vestal Virgins," where I found this peculiarity: Saints Chrysanthus and Daria. Chrysanthus, it seems,

objected when his father arranged a marriage to Daria, a Roman Vestal Virgin.^{(as distinguished from the non-Roman kind)} Chrysanthus converted his new bride and convinced her to live with him in a chaste state.^(Utah?) Since Vestal Virgins take a vow of chastity during their thirty-year term of service, Daria's agreement to live in a chaste marriage would not be surprising.

Not surprising to whom? Something fishy about the chain of events here. Why would a Vestal be contracting a marriage? Was this at the end of her "term"? If she wanted to remain chaste, she would've stayed a Vestal. If she had wanted to marry, why would she want to marry chastely? (Sorry, honey, but now that we're married I feel I should tell you I'm celibate. Hope that's OK!) In an abstract way, this seems like an attempt to reconcile Roman ideals of castitas with the Christian ideal of celibacy, I suppose. But saints' lives never make sense to me in their Roman setting. It would make sense if Daria was moved to convert to Christianity, left the Vestals to do so, and then married a fellow Christian. (Too much agency to attribute to the woman?) But if she were having "relations" with some Christian dude, she would have been buried alive. (Oh, I see: she was. Hence "martyrdom" = penalty for incestum.) This reminds me of the soldier-saints: they join the army and are surprised to learn that they have to burn incense to the emperor or whatever. Shouldn't the story line be that they joined the army, experienced a genuine conversion to Christianity, and then found they couldn't reconcile their faith and their military oath? This is a much more understandable and tragic dilemma. (The article implies this rational sequence of events, but see Martin of Tours as the best example of a soldier-saint worthy of a candle: he converts as a child.) But if they were already Christians and joined the army knowing full well that their religion would cause problems, what's up with that? Why would a Christian have such a desire to join the Roman army, if it were such an evil enterprise? Cynwolfe (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I can scarce believe you're thanking me for that! We've have the oddest little things in corners here, eh? Signs of neglect, like dustmice - Tuccia's a dustmouse but worth it for "chaste state.^(Utah?)". Saints Chrysanthus and Daria has/have left me just a bit gobsmacked. Whimsey-pimsey. Did you notice the National Geographic link? Huh?

The whole soldier-martyr thing's completely unreasonable. It's time the Empire struck back. How about Hell's Vestals (a new hope)? Have you sources? Haploidavey (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, doesn't it do a disservice to the martyrs themselves, though? Don't they become more remarkable, not less, if situated in a reality? Isn't a saint's story more compelling if the miraculous grows out of the real? But this is a matter of stories, not articles, so I should stop blathering. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, blather away, please. Disservice... yes, I think I missed your point. I've never really tapped into Christian hagiography, let alone martyrology, which seems like so much soft underbelly in so many ways. Maybe I'm just riled by the perverse triumphalism of tortured suffering that replaces, ahem, "traditional Religion". For a mercifully brief interval, perhaps, but why so vaunted? How did that happen? Where did it come from?? What for? Is it some kind of devotio? Stoic? Big questions, too bloody big by far, and they just mess with my head... so I guess what I'm saying is something like: stories can be well told and plausible, or not. And well-researched, or not. Which is, I suppose, what you're saying too. Or at least, not so very different; historiography, the relationships between the sacred and profane, and ideally a strong, page-turning story that leaves the reader wanting just a bit more than a link to National Geographic. Haploidavey (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The cult of martyrdom has always seemed to me to undo the self-sacrifice of Christ, which was supposed to be the last blood offering. From a sort of René Girard#Christian society perspective (and wow, talk about an article written like an essay). Cynwolfe (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hm, yes. From what I remember (which isn't much) I think the Church Fathers agreed on that. From that essay (I don't think we can call it anything but) - "Has it put an end to the sacrificial order based on violence in the society that has claimed the gospel text as its own religious text? No, he replies..." well, it's a lot more fun than where I've just been. By the way, thanks for the handy thinks on Catullus and whatnot in the useful furrow above. Haploidavey (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please return my edit

I give the start to discussion on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stemonitis#Let_me_see_your_proposal the edit has significant title: "Let me see your proposal." The result until last minute was as I say:"I propose you changes, cooperation and supporting scentific-encyclopedic text and you doing simple erasing" In conclusion I ask you to look objectively and return my last edit. If Stemonitis will choose cooperation we will start from the supported by resource edit instead from satisfied eraser stand. --Pszczola-osa (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I reverted your changes because I agree with their removal, as per Stemontis' reasoning. We've now reached the end of the WP:BRD editing cycle. If you submit your arguments at Talk:Insect, I'll respond there. Haploidavey (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I discuss the case on Stemonitis talk page. I propose you to join the talk there. My arguments are simple: at least two major encyclopaedia underline the importance of the insects in first their paragraphs of article "Insect". In the present time of Colony Collapse Disorder and generally all other bees disappearance it is extremely important that public get correct message. Somebody who opposes the message doing extremely wrong for the public interest.--Pszczola-osa (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but "no" to further discussion on user talk-pages. I think your intentions are good, and some of your points could and should be accommodated in the article text - however, your most recent changes were simply not encyclopedic - nor were your edit summaries. We're not here to "respect" or "disrespect" insects, or to write soapbox articles; please rein in the rhetoric, and discuss the substance. At the moment, despite the validity of some points you wish to make, the article history and 2 user-page discussions show a clear consensus against your reverted changes. The Insect article's on the watch-lists of 173 editors. If even a few of them are willing to enter discussions, we might actually make some very small but necessary improvements to an already very good article. Haploidavey (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed your reply. Please don't harangue me on my talk-page. As I've said above, you should take this matter to the relevant article talk-page. It's what we do with content disputes. Haploidavey (talk) 11:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Another removal. Take this matter to the article talk-page. Thanks. Haploidavey (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Patron-client relations

On to more concrete matters.

There are four related articles that need to be merged: patronus, cliens, client (ancient Rome), and clientela. Someday. I was hoping you would make sure all four are on your watch list, and perhaps someday when we're bored we could work on this—a rather fundamental topic for Roman society. (Nor have I forgotten Priesthoods of ancient Rome. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Will do. The lack's quite painful, and merging's at least a start. I'd no idea we had four of these. Or that DYK. Sheesh. Haploidavey (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Goodness, lad, what time is it there? I'm half-watching the World Series with my family, but have completely lost the ability to focus on one thing at a time. Isn't it strange that four separate articles sprang up? Cynwolfe (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Time? What is time, anyway? Actually, it's ridiculously late. As in 2.40 BST late. I've had two consecutive days of b-i-g friends-and-family visits, with me poor thin self multi-tasking - as men are supposedly unable to - as shopper, cook, bottle-washer, taxi, tucker-in and attempted scintillating conversationalist until round about my bedtime (midnight or so) when Mum knocked a whacking great vase of lilies over. So until a half hour back, me been hoovering weeny glass slivers and shards and two pints water out of the carpet... which might now be dry enough to make mine bed upon. Grooo... Haploidavey (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Och, poor thing, if you were here my hubby would make you one of his famous martinis. I've found a new motto for you, comes out of the mime article (or rather, an offshoot article) ... I think you'll like it. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

How cool is that! Haploidavey (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What if I went 'way bold, and created Patronage in ancient Rome, and redirected all these to the one page? Not a single one of the four has a footnote. Mind you, it will still be merely a stub, but I've fretted about this for two years, and nobody else has cared enough to do anything. If you hanker to add to it, please go ahead, as it would be forever before I'd do much more. If there's one central spot, however, I may be able to add to it here and there. As has come up at Imperial cult and minor articles like Marcus Marius Gratidianus, patronage is an important background for the establishment of the princeps. So right up your alley. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, were you to have done so, that was a good move. There seems to be some editor interest, apart from ours. One of these days, that article's going to be a reg'lar thoroughfare (head-on collisions, contraflows and all - plus the odd bit of tarmac from yours truly). Haploidavey (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have noticed or cared. (BTW, what a jackass! I'm sure you'll know what I mean.) Cynwolfe (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well heavens to betsy, you've been a vewy, vewy bad wabbit. All articles titled "Common misconceptions blah/whatever" are governed by Laws of Fudd. Haploidavey (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

On Pompey

I understand your argument regarding puffery, but I think you're wrong. The original simply fails to acknowledge Pompey's stature and importance in the Old Republic. The Republic contained literally thousands of political and military leaders. Many of these men are notable: Lucullus, Cicero, Metellus etc. But the difference between these men and Pompey is stark. Pompey was the most powerful man in the Roman world for almost two decades. At the height of his power, he exhibited enormous influence over Roman political and military affairs in a way that fundamentally separates him from nearly all his predecessors and contemporaries.

The idea of an opening paragraph is to explain to readers with a limited knowledge of the subject, who the subject was and his importance. The opening paragraph utterly fails to do this. The fact is that doing this requires judgements being made. You can see evidence of this on many other Wikipedia pages. Many pages on this site describe great military commanders as such, and have not been altered by concerns over puffery, because these adjectives are necessary in relaying the importance of the subject discussed in the short space available in the introduction.

Look at the page for Lucullus, and the reference to his "extraordinary generalship abilities." A person reading both pages might come to the conclusion that Lucullus was a more important Roman than Pompey, something any historian of the ancient world would deem ridiculous, and certainly something these men's contemporaries would deem ludicrous.

The opening should be altered to give a good idea of Pompey's status in Rome and his importance to Roman history. If you have another way to do it, that's great, but as is, the opening is insufficient and unintentionally misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.159.141.106 (talk) 07:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Hope you don't mind, but I've copied your post to Talk:Pompey, and will respond there, as a contributor to open discussion of the points you raise. Haploidavey (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Iguvine Tablets

My effort is almost finished. Would appreciate comments. Of course the main difficulty is that of reaching to valuable secondary sources: even if in this case my personal feeling is that the longer the time past the more serious the misunderstandings. So maybe better ignoring.

And btw why is the article not within the scope of other relevant projects?

Lastly: I noticed Jupiter has been many times deprived of its rating record. What is the matter? Not that I mind, but this is suspicious...Aldrasto11 (talk) 07:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Just responding here to the easier stuff for now; I'll discuss the Iguvine article at Talk:Iguvine Tablets but only sometime over the next week, or possibly two.

I should think the Iguvine tablets article is within the scope of several projects, including G&R. Try opening, say, Talk:Jupiter (mythology) for editing, and you'll see its various project tags; they're displayed at the very top. We've a directory of projects... somewhere.

What do you mean, exactly, by "rating record"? D'you mean that rather annoying survey box at the bottom of certain article pages? Or something else? Haploidavey (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention. I would just like to add a few remarks on the topic of the widely (and wildly) differing interpretations of the tablets. As I said above my personal impression is that owing to the dubious interpretation of the text the imagination of scholars has grown wilder with the years (and the trend does not look to be dwindling). I am pondering over adding a section on the main points that have engendered different interpretations and the creation of artifacts due to translation errors. Some of the already discredited ones seem to be still running: the most notable are gods Grabo and Pordoviente invented by Devoto, the last one still present in one place of Ancellotti & Cerri. In Newman and Buck this is a verb meaning porricere or profanare in the future perfect. It would be interesting to trace back to its origin each invention having the material on hands. Erus seems to be the one that has given rise to the most differing interpretations: I found an article by Michael Weiss in which he discusses the issue with his own bias (including ad hoc sentence cuts), (he fancies a noun meaning a sort of sacred offer). It may be a pronoun or noun in the accusative or dative meaning respectively these (sacred) things, to them (the brethren, the public) or unto the gods (judging from the context of all the 17 occurrences I think it looks an adverb of place). The ahtu Iovio ove...ahtu Marti aprom (II a 10-11) at first sight an imperative future of verb ago (in the sense of I sacrifice, attested in Ovid Fasti I) agito Iovio ovem...agito Marti aprum (so Newman and Aufrecht&Kirchhof) became the mysterious entity named god(s) of act(ion) in Buck (probably from Bücheler), another possible artifact that still lingers on. Anter menzaru çersiaru (II a 16) might be simply among the dining mensae (so Newman) but it became the more appealing intermestruae cereales, festivals of Ceres of in between the months (Buck, Prosdocimi), menzne curçlasio all round among the mensae consequently became the month of Curçlasio, i. e. the last of the year.

Jupiter: yes the box below.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

What a business! You seem to have plumbed the depths; I had no idea, but it makes a good read. I particularly like the imaginative, wishful scholarly transformations of Anter menzaru çersiaru from - maybe - "among the tables" to - preferably - "the month of Curçlasio". That's all so very human; it reminds me of the ancient cartographers, who must embellish and populate the vacuums and emptiness left by honest geographers; anyway, the above makes an informative, entertaining, even slightly shocking read. But I really don't know what you can do with it all - other than know it - without seeming to deal in Original Research, because you're well aware of the limits and constraints in this here place. Or maybe there are sources you can use, which share your insights and judgments. I hope so.

On the boxes below; I dislike them and generally ignore them because any twerp can click a box. I've written articles that haven't received even a single mark, for or against. And one or two, which I know to be good, are marked as terribly bad. Haploidavey (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation. Some sources are good but old. By putting them together I managed to write sensible stuff, I hope.Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you happen to know

... a section in any article that most handily explains the Roman belief in the necessity of carrying out a religious ritual/festival fully and completely? I'm pretty sure I've seen such a thing in work you've done. I need a link here that will offer further explanation without my digressing. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The closest slot I can find (or rather, remember) is Religion in ancient Rome#Prayers, vows, and oaths. Compared to some earlier versions, the section's quite trimmed back but I hope not too sparse for your purposes - I remember transferring some material thence to Glossary of ancient Roman religion#vitium. Btw, love those parasites! Haploidavey (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Vitium! That's what I was thinking of. I love how the theatre community took care of its own, given their infamia. I'm disappointed so far that I have no source that allows me to point out the resemblance of the parasites' motto to "the show must go on." Cynwolfe (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the same struck me about the gladiators. Given all those respectable pontificators pontificating from high places on what's what, it's too easy to misconceive the incredibly varied communities of infames as something outside or beneath the real business of being Roman. Haploidavey (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of St. Martin, as we were above, next time I'm struggling not to scream-type are you really that stupid? on a talk-page I think I'll just provide this visual link instead. Do see the caption. (This is a gorgeous little site, BTW). Cynwolfe (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Our diligent inquiries find no rational, natural or logical cause for the aforesaid utterances. Please therefore build suitable shrine forthwith, equip with sacred vitreous image as per your link, and send all accrued fees and monies therefrom to Our "Personal Deposit" Box, Helvetia. Ourself and our Synod thank you for your dutiful submission, and for that splendid site. Haploidavey (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete citation in University of Oxford article

Thanks for your note, and I have completed the citation. Moonraker (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Many thanks for taking the trouble to track down the original edit. Your diligence is hereby recognized! Pointillist (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

How kind! Thank you. Haploidavey (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Magna Mater

Replied on my talk page. Thanks.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Replied further on Machine Elf's talk page. Thanks. Allens (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbelas

I started looking at the table at List of Roman gladiator types, and made some improvements (?) to arbelas. Could you check it? Perhaps you have access to sources; the most important article is unavailable to me. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, and thanks for telling me. I've only just rediscovered some long-forgotten downloads on my desk-top; nothing much on the wonderfully obscure Arbelas, as I recall, but probably useful for some others on that list. Haploidavey (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks good and reads very well. And I enjoyed the links to hapax legomenon (which I didn't know at all) and the ever pleasurable Oneirocritica. Which article is unavailable to you? Would it be M. Carter, "Artemidorus and the Arbelas Gladiator"? Let me know; it'll be OK as I've downloaded very little lately. Of the long-forgotten downloads (mentioned above) two or three are by Carter, and might cover this topic. Haploidavey (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Have just downloaded, and yes, that seems the core text for any article on Arbelas. Haploidavey (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The list article is more of an undocumented mess than I thought. Hope I didn't just do too much damage to it. Head hurts and will do no more. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You've done fine. It's, um, you know; and that's exactly why I've given it a wide berth, until now... well, maybe not exactly. If I were honest, I'd admit cowardice - not that I'm admitting anything of the kind. Haploidavey (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it might be easier now to dip into a section at a time. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Compared to most of what's going on, it offers light relief, if not quite otium. Whatever that is. Haploidavey (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this possibly the ugliest coin ever minted under Augustus? (And boy could that article use a revamp.) Cynwolfe (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

What article couldn't? But hoo, boy, that's grim all round. Looks like old Turpilianus' kids got busy with the play-doh, then wrote an article. Actually, I don't find most Roman coinage up to much. Now and then a winner, but mostly not a patch on Greek or Gaulish. Haploidavey (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Box

It is once again void: what is the mystery? Sorry for the trouble, should I ask the help desk or who?Aldrasto11 (talk) 09:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to swoop in here, but Aldrasto's first sentence made my day. The ratings box (I take it) purges periodically, I think, so that the ratings (hypothetically) reflect the current state of the article, and not responses to some earlier version. To me it seems to be used as a "like" function, not a quality rating. Do you like or approve of a topic and its handling? DId you enjoy the article? Then you give it high ratings under all rubrics. I've discussed this at one of the metawiki sites, where Davey's outright hatred was shared by a vocal minority and resisted by the League of Courteous Tyrants. I suggested that if we had the damned things they should be recognized for what they are: a customer service feedback device, posed as a series of questions:

• Did you find what you were looking for in the article?
• Would you recommend the article?

I had a couple more but can't think of them now.

After all, if you're looking up information because you don't know it, how can you judge whether the article is complete? You can't. You just know whether it answered the question you brought to it. And then users could be provided a space for asking the question they brought that didn't get answered, and there would be a link where editors could read these questions and attempt to incorporate the answers into the article. I also thought it could have a "Comments" link that took the user directly to the talk page, because supposedly the goal is to get more users involved in contributing. The project ratings are a better measure, but are often misused as well. (I once objected to them, but in working with the Women's History Project began to see what their purpose should be.) In short, I don't think the ratings box is an entirely bad idea, but don't think it does what it needs to. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm only just seeing the splendour of Aldrasto's comment! Like a Lucretian koan. Yes, I hate those bloody boxes. Tick list voting. Whatever happened to discourse? What's a talk-page for? I'll shut up now, and harumph away to myself, unseen and unheard. Haploidavey (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. If the box purges periodically why are all the other ones below Juno, Janus, Neptune, Duenos inscription etc. quite stable? I mean, I never found them void after somebody started rating them. Perhaps it purges if a new section is added: in fact yesterday I added one to Jupiter. That though I find inappropriate as the adding of one section to a long article does not justify deleting all the previous ratings. But I can see the logic. Davey's comments are justified, however if the ratings are not deleted over a period of time it may be a statistically objective feedback for editors. I' ll comment on Davey's remark in a while.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you may well be right about this being a stability issue to do with article sections. I'm editing Magna Mater right now, and have definitely been messing with the article sections. The boxes are void. They weren't when I started. Compare this with Julius Caesar. That's been edited recently but there have been no major section changes. Haploidavey (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, this edit added quite a lot of material to Apollo, made no changes to section headers but produced an empty ratings box. So perhaps it's all governed by significant changes in the number of bytes per article. Just guessing pointlessly now, like Sherlock's dim brother. Haploidavey (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It could indeed have to do with the sheer bulk of change and not a given period of time. That would conform to my experience, when I recently noticed a box had been purged on an article that I'd completely redone. When I saw how hostile "THEY" were to suggestions about the ratings box, I just stopped worrying about it. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I dislike this system: probably a reader that rated an article once will not rate it again and if the editing is relatively small this means a good deal of feedback is lost. I added a very small section which caused the clearing and it looks ridicolous. On the other hand the previous days I had also added an even smaller section and there was no clearence, maybe it is the number of bytes. However it is odd Jupiter was void for a long time after the first ratings were cleared, maybe for a month or so. Then there appeared again more than 10 ratings, different from the previous ones. I was amazed since I did not know the trick. Anyway it is a pity that there is no record, no stability: obviously the fewer the ratings the lesser their statistical value. Also readers might well be less interested in reading and rating once again an article that has undergone some relatively minor changes or additions. Thanks.Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I'd say just don't worry about it. It is strange that 10 suddenly appeared at once; perhaps a class of students? Keep in mind that major mythology articles will be read by 14-year-olds who are Percy Jackson fans. As an editor I really don't know what "use" to make of the reader ratings. When I notice ridiculous ratings (high or low) on articles to which I've contributed very little, I just add my own and move on. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

A true man who stands against Seinfeld.

	Jerry Seinfeld fighter
	Protecting Wiki from Seinfeld. Jacknicholson123 (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

As one who wasted five minutes of valuable living-time reverting Jacknicholson123's image-related vandalism, Haploidavey is not grateful for this message, and doesn't find it particularly amusing. Haploidavey (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Check email. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Bwark... Haploidavey (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops

Rustproof fisherman pondering: In spite of the popular misconception that etymology and decipherment are still relevant approaches, Etruscan can be read and substantially understood...[1] Harumph!

Hey, thought you'd done with Jove for the day, and I just edit-conflicted with you after a pretty extensive restructuring, so thought I'd better ask before trying it again. I'll wait for you to answer, then let you know when I'm done. Won't take long. I collapsed the sections on Jupiter and the state as you suggested, and moved sections around. Will be sure not to mess up your epulum changes. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hope you didn't lose anything. I just made another fairly minor edit but I think it's time I had a nice cup of tea - so feel free to carry on. Haploidavey (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No, haven't lost anything. It'll just look more radical than it is if the versions are compared. Leave a note on your talk page if you come back from tea. I might do one more thing, dunno. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that's a structure. And the placing of the etymology section... so obvious, once you've seen it. Please, don't hold back on my account. Haploidavey (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Head 'sploding now. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Done for the night, I think. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:EAR mentions you

Hello Haploidavey. Please see Wikipedia:EAR#Editing articles on Roman religion, where Aldrasto11 has complained that you and Cynwolfe are acting as a team to revert his edits. My guess is that a broader discussion might result in the same advice that Aldrasto11 has already received. With specialized articles it's not always easy to get participants for a broader discussion. If you have any ideas for what to do next, it would be helpful if you would leave a comment in the EAR thread. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If you're interested

Here's something I just stumbled on for the first time. Extensive treatment of the Compitalia and Paganalia. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Good find! and certainly welcome. Things bin gettin' rusty in them thar parts. Haploidavey (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Jupiter image

Click on the image, then follow the link to its description on Commons, where there is now an explanation of what's going on. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Some image sizes seem to have increased two-fold at Imperial cult (ancient Rome) but I think I'll desist from further tinkering until things settle down at Commons. Haploidavey (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

"Upright" will keep strongly vertical images from being disproportionately large when a px value isn't designated. Not specifying a px value is preferred, because devices vary in their display width and users may set preferences. Since MOS is so prolix and I've been concerned with trying to unclutter certain pages without removing useful images, I asked another editor who had demonstrated an understanding of image formatting to elucidate some of this. Although I've worked with page layout, it was ten years ago and with entirely different systems. That exchange is here, if you're interested. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

For example, I just added "upright" to the image of Domitian at Imperial cult. On my display, the image then appeared smaller. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I just saw the change; so that's what "upright" does. Brilliant! There was me thinking it had to do with rotation. I also followed your link above - he's admirably clear with the instructions and explanations, isn't he? I reckon I could follow them, even if I haven't really a clue how they work. Might as well be witchcraft. Funny, but I'm fine with geometry and difficult concepts in chemistry, physics and biology, but utterly and irredeemably shit-headed with numerical formulae. Haploidavey (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You see how it works with a vertical image: because there's a default width, the size of a strongly vertical image proportional to its height can cause the image to be bigger than it needed to be. Yes, the editor was very clear; I was in a discussion in which there were varying views on some layout and citation matters, and while I found myself disagreeing on some points, I learned a great deal from him and asked, as you saw, if he could clear some of the in-universe undergrowth under which so many policies and guidelines are now encumbered. Some day when I'm watching a movie with the family that I've seen a dozen times, I hope to implement more of what I learned in some of the articles I've diddled with. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Greenblatt

I gave you a long answer to that and inadvertently deleted it. May do it via email instead, since I made some comments about work I do off-Wikipedia. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Inadvertent deletions are a bane; thanks for the note. (I'm "having a go at Venus" - strictly non profanum, if you know what I mean). Haploidavey (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As a prophylactic measure? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Nah. I'm clean out of lizards. Haploidavey (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about an article you have contributed to

I'm writing you to inform you that there is a dicussion about an article's deletion you have contributed to, and you might have intention to comment in the debate. Thanks --Gonda Attila (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Aziz Shavershian

On the Aziz Shavershian edits page, you directed me to WP:BLP.

I was a bit confused by this, because Shavershian is dead.

Either way, given the standards that we have put forth in the article, it does not seem reasonable to throw facts out willy nilly.

Just another person trying to help make the world a better place, Zuloon (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

A grouchy Happy New Year

A belated Happy New Year to you on this last day of the Christmas season.

I shall leave it to you to divine what I mean, but really, shouldn't people who presume to do copyediting know the difference between restrictive and non-restrictive? As one minor example. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You mentioned trouble with your email. Has that been solved? I have a non-wiki thing to ask you about. (Still haven't had a chance to try the pudding recipe—Marsala isn't among my standard stock.) Cynwolfe (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's sorted, all by itself. Which is more than I can say for most things at the mo'. Btw, I know no-one at all whose stock of Marsala lasts more than an hour... it's one of those pesky hidden rules that determines our universe. Haploidavey (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Cybele, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rhea and Sumerian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Haploidavey! Which Twinkle welcome includes the verifiability bit? I can never get a preview with those, so have been hesitant to experiment. — cardiff | chestnut — 00:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)