User talk:Haploidavey

A barnstar for you!

	The Super alta vectus Attis barnstar
	For your continued devotion to Cybele you have been awarded this acutus silex. Now, don't run off half-cocked and do something you'll regret with it. — cardiff | chestnut — 03:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Tee hee! That's brilliant, and in more ways than I'm going to let on here... modesty forbids. Haploidavey (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Liber Linteus

Hope you are all right. Sorry to trouble you once again.

As usual there is a problem that I do not know how to fix. In the article there is an absolutely phantastic translation of the most frequently recurring formula in the LL. Serious scholars have been able to discern the meaning of it as I say in the talk page. But this translation is referenced to a link I cannot see. What should be done? I find leaving things as they are too bad for WP.

Thank you for the attention.11:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)11:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC) The 4 tildes do not work, sorry. Aldrasto11.

Thanks for the message and good wishes. That's a difficult issue, because really all translations should be cited to a reliable source. Apart from my complete lack of expertise in Etrusciana, I'm wary of its pitfalls... as for translation, well, Latin's bad enough. But I agree, we really can't just take any old guesses and the existing translation does seem rather odd. So, see if this helps: Copeland's worknotes on the text. Under the circumstances, I can hardly vouch for their accuracy but his approach seems scholarly. Well, long and thorough, anyway. It could be nonsense, for all I know. See what you make of it. Haploidavey (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't access even a preview of de Meer's work on the text; but here's a review, which offers a generally positive critique. And by good fortune, page 3 of the pdf seems to offer at least part of what you're after, and it seems very close to your own translation. I guess this is the same review you were talking about at LL? Haploidavey (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the info. I shall try and register, if possible, for the Copeland worknotes. Yes, you guessed rightly, I read 2 reviews of van der Meer's work: one is Beckwist's you linked and another one is MacIntosh Turfa's on BMCR. I also read der Meer's own review of another scholarly work by V. Belfiore (2010), also on BWCR, even more linguistically grounded than der Meer's. What I meant here is that there seems to be scholarly consensus on the general meaning of this formula, which is the most often recurring of the LL. Certainly the translation now given is unacceptable. It is referenced with a link to Paleolog but the link is unaccessible to me. The edit summary has a note that says Paleolog's translation does not support it though.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't that link to Copeland's notes give you full access? It worked for me; perhaps your area and browser don't allow it. Anyway, I'm going to copy the text and van der Meer's translation from Beckwith's review, if I can. Not sure how well my pasteboard will render the pdf's characters, but it's worth a shot. On the rest, do remember that while blogs can be useful, their content can't be used as sources. Haploidavey (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I looked up at the article page after writing here. I saw you deleted it already. Yes the link should work, but it looks they ask for my email's password, which is something I do not like. If you are interested in reading the other two reviews I mentioned just google: van der Meer Liber Linteus and Belfiore LL. Good stuff, informative.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That's Jean MacIntosh Turfa, University of Pennsylvania Museum (Bryn Mawr rv. of van Meer's LL... but can't find the Belfiore, except in a Bry Mawr list of works submitted for review. Haploidavey (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC) (forgot to sign at time of response)

I tried again, Belfiore is readily available at BMWCR. It is also reviewed by Stephane Bourdin at Histara (Sorbonne). Belfiore looks as the last and best researched work.Aldrasto11 (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Well the sources you use to veriy the interpretation of the Liber Linteus dont know diddly sqat about it they just furnish views that were held by professors 100 years ago.The fact is they dont know what the interpretation i of the Liber Linteus is , I dont care what he is professor of.I do know and I would like to put it foreward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deen maxwell (talk • contribs) 22:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Nor does anyone "know"; it's an informed and scholarly "best guess", and unfortunately for your argument, the author's scholarly credentials matter a great deal. "I want to" is no argument at all at Wikipedia. I believe I've covered these issues and a couple more in my most recent post to your talk-page. Best, Haploidavey (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well you accuse me of vandalising the Liber Linteus , well the interpretation of the Etruscan text is the biggest load of garbage you could pour on the public.The reason I might be coluding with a second party is when I opened my account with WIKI I made a mistake and entered my e-mail address as my used name, so I had to do it again with the correct user name so it may seem there are two accounts,keep my Deen Maxwell account and delete the other. My primary interest is in the Etruscan Language which I have been studying for the last 30 years and I dont have the time to transcribe the Encyclopaedia Britannica to your site,although I enjoy using the site.And also you have a log in on the page but not a Log Out(58.111.89.246 (talk)).(58.111.89.246 (talk) 09:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.89.246 (talk) 09:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I've accused you of vandalism anywhere at all - but if I have, please accept my apologies. Thanks for explaining your inadvertent use of multiple accounts. They're allowed under certain, very limited circumstances. Single accounts are better for continuity, accountability, trust and stability - they help foster and maintain a transparent, open editing environment. This matters particularly when article content and best-editing practice are in dispute. You've evidently made an honest mistake, due to your unfamiliarity with the relevant Wikipedia policies.

Your IP account won't be deleted, as its history is relevant to editing on other pages. You can and should open your IP user-page, using your named account, and enter a brief explanatory text, such as "This is an alternative account of [your named account signature - add four tildes (~) to sign automatically]". Copy the same to the IP talk-page. Then just don't use it. I can't know why you're having problems logging in or out; just remember to always log in using your named account before you edit. As far as I know, any browser can be set to remember your Wikipedia user-name and password.

For the rest, please carefully read my welcome message and other comments at your talk-page, particularly those relating to reliable scholarly sources. Like it or not (and sometimes I don't) personal background, expertise, authority and conviction matter not one bit to Wikipedia. And no-one expects or wants an article based on the Encyclopedia Brittanica. We're an encyclopedia in our own right. Haploidavey (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I think things have been sorted out,only my source I use you think isn't scholarly enough,a pity as I think its leagues ahead ot thr UMASS people,however I have other sources that I will use and I think will be readily excepted,thanks and have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deen maxwell (talk • contribs) 14:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning the misconceptions of Valentine's Day in Lupercalia

Regarding [1], I got rid of that source sorry, that source is really from an university press, the author has simply made it available online, you can ask for the university's paper version in his website. Please take a look at Valentine's_Day#Lupercalia. Is this worth mentioning in the Lupercalia article, or should we mention it only in the Valentine's Day article?

Please note that the misconception is very widespread in books and it was widely mentioned by newspapers over the years. fortunately, in later years there are more newspapers debunking the misconception than uncritically repeating it. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Responded at editor's talk-page. Interim source; [2] Green, William M., "The Lupercalia in the Fifth Century", Classical Philology, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Jan. 1931), pp 60‑69.

Talkback

Hello, Haploidavey. You have new messages at Talk:Ludus Dacicus.
Message added 22:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Codrin.B (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response! I wrote some notes on the article Talk. Best.--Codrin.B (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

hi

i dont know why but my ip always changes daily and sometimes i use ips other people used

it's not arnold heeler, i misspelled arnold heeren's name, thanks for correcting me

this is the book

Arnold Hermann Ludwig Heeren, Historical Researches Into the Politics, Intercourse, and Trade of the Principal Nations of Antiquity, Henry Bohn, 1854 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.255.157.4 (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

:Responded at IP's talk-page. Haploidavey (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

hi again

im a 100% sure its in that book but i cant remember which page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.148.1.108 (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: thank you

No worries! --Mark91it's my world 14:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia!--74.179.215.67 (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry about the George ho thing. I was just reading the block log of his and I just didn't want anyone to to be hoodwinked,that is all. Also I have a username on here,but I cannot access it. Are user names case sensitive? Also please forgive any of my punctuation on here,I am having to use my iPod touch which is quite small.--74.179.215.67 (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the info for helping my find my username! If you look through my history I have usually just edited pages for grammar and some pages so were so pov that you would literally Lol! Thanks again!--BeckiGreen (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Euklos

Hallo, hope you are fine. I come to ask for advice once again, sorry for the trouble.

In the table of Agnone there is a station dedicated to Eucluii Patri. I suppose this epithet must have been a sort of automatic identifying tip as it means famous. Modern scholars seem to be in disagreement on his identification. After some pondering I wonder whether it could be either Heracles or Dionysos, with the obvious implications on the rites at the hurtiin. According to my research Eukleia was Artemis but I did not find an entry on Euklos. Maybe someone into Greek things would know more...Thank you for the attention.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm probably one of the least equipped to deal with this, and I'm not even sure where you could ask. If "Eucluii Patri" means "famous", I'm already in way over my head. How d'you gloss it? Anyway, we need a reference point, so here's Bonfante's reading (once at the linked page, scroll up for for a photograph of the tablet). To me, it all looks Kerean, and euphemistic, and chthonic - leastways, at first glance; and it would seem sensible to end a Kerean sequence with dedication to an intermediate or founding lar or hero - is this where you suspect Heracles or Dionysos? Where d'you find theological connection between this Eukleia and Artemis; and where does that leave Euklos? Haploidavey (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe consider IG XIV 642 for the chthonic Εὐκλῆς Εὐβουλεύς, an "Orphic title of Hades" according to LSJ? — cardiff | chestnut — 15:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that's lurking at its very best. You splendid chestnut. Haploidavey (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice. "Εὐκλῆς" is "of good reputation" and "Εὐβουλεύς" is "of good counsel". Haploidavey (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of having "Hades of good counsel" do my taxes this year, or at least of sending them to him. — cardiff | chestnut — 20:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You've reminded me of graffiti I saw on a toilet wall, in a very posh restaurant: "Don't feed the plutocrats!" and under it, "Eat the rich!" Haploidavey (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

But a Pluto-Crates would be my ideal Hellenistic scholar! So loyal, so learned, so enamoured of the Cloaca Maxima (a detail mysteriously lacking from Crates of Mallus' article, I'm off to add it.)— cardiff | chestnut — 02:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I looked here again with some delay. Thanks a lot to you both for the helpfulness. Wonderful job. I wondered it might be Dionysos as a first choice, and it looks to be Hades...however it puts the inscription into a clear context since the beginning...Strange how scholars may be in disagreement given the available references. To Davey: yes Euklos means glorious, famous, or of good name, so in theory it may refer to any great god here, especially considering the positions. Artemis was the only goddess who is mentioned under that entry in my dictionary, probably since she was the most famous Greek goddess. But here I considered first Dionysos for his links to Demeter in the Eleusinian mysteries.Aldrasto11 (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

To be accurate though Euklúí is not the first of the list, he is preceded by an unknown Vezkeí.Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering about that (an Eleusinian link) but doh! (slaps forehead). Of course it's not the last name anyway. My working memory's become barely functional of late. Haploidavey (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

But hang on a tick; I'm less confused than I thought. "Father Euklos" is the last on the list, at 25. Plain "Euklos" is second. Glad we sorted that out... Haploidavey (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that, in the years after the initial publication of the tablet, Euklos was often just translated Liber, but I've only read popular scholarship including this from the 19th c., and none included any argument for the identification. For Hermes, Liber and Hades (with a bit of bibliography), see P.A. Johnston, "The Mystery Cults and Vergil's Georgics", in: G. Casadio & P.A. Johnston eds., Mystic Cults in Magna Graeca (Austin, TX, 2009) 251–76, at 268. — cardiff | chestnut — 13:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Great link. I'd forgotten this work - I think I came across it a year or two back, in an unhealthily obsessive and fruitless search for any scholarship at all on Liber as Father of plebeian freedom and plebeian augury. Anything, no matter how tentative. Or anything that might distinguish plebeian augury from... um, the pukka Jovian kind. Still lookin' when the mood takes me. Haploidavey (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the good link. I would argue that there is a focal point in the repetition of some theonyms, after the mention of the two rites on side A. However note (sibe B) Euclos et alii have just one statio so here seems to mean go back in a circle, or two.Aldrasto11 (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Religion in ancient Rome lede

I was very unhappy to see Evans1982 eviscerate the lede without discussion, but I don't understand why you put it back en masse, ALSO without discussion. Can we talk about this and come to consensus? I really am impressed with this article and would love to see it bubble up to FA status. It cannot do that with a 6,162 character, seven paragraph lede. Right now, the introduction is nearly 5% of the article. No one will lift it out of B Class as it currently reads. Kevin/Last1in (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Without discussion? I'm not sure what you mean. While I don't doubt the eviscerator's good faith, the edit was roughshod, and came nowhere near addressing the issues already discussed in detail at the talk-page. I simply reverted a change unjustified by any argumentation whatsoever.

I've not the time, energy or enthusiasm to actively promote - to whatever status - this or any other article; I've seen far too much lively, readable content shoehorned into dull compliance. My interest in the topic is amateur and personal, not expert; and my intensive reading is an attempt to understand the subject, and tease out its knots. My writing's a test I set myself; if it renders the subject comprehensible to non-specialist readers, I just might have understood something of my sources as a whole, and thus the topic. Anyway, I'd strongly argue against building on the eviscerated version. The longer version of the lede already contains the structural essentials; the detail can be further rendered down (or as some might prefer, "distilled") per the talk page consensus. I'll do what I can. Haploidavey (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Marija Gimbutas

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology#Marija Gimbutas where the genetic material is being discussed. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug. I've reverted accordingly. Haploidavey (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Discovery of a rural sanctuary of Bona Dea near Praeneste

If this is new for you have a look... It is the one discussed by Brouwer at p. 78-80 nr. 70. Do a google search for Tibur Latium Vetus or/and Zaccaria Mari/Archeologia.Beni culturali.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Also the old borough of Aefula is thus possibly identified on one of the nearby hilltops.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Another topic but also in the line of archaelogy: Grandazzi in an article of 1996 identifies Ferentina at the issue of the emissary of lake Albanus near the old laghetto di Turno. In 2008 a student of archaelogy (C. Mauri) identified it with the emissary of lake Nemi near Cecchina: he claims a local temple of Ceres and P. of the V century contained 2 statues of Ferentina and that the bodies of 15 beheaded people found near the emissary include that of Turnus Herdonius...there is indeed some evidence suggesting the VI century but I think inconclusive.

Both have predecessors in these choices. Grandazzi's is based on Colonna's, supported by C. Ampolo, Mauri's has been preceded by Nilssen, Pais, Della corte. Both exclude each other's identification...I have yet to find/read the refutuation of the 1st thesis made by a certain Barzanó.Aldrasto11 (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all these. I'd not seen the latest image on the Tibur temple - the walled temple environs and the intimate complexity of the inner buildings are particularly interesting - extraordinarily large assembly, which I guess must've served a sizable pilgrim population. I've not gotten around to the rest (it seems both dense and curious, specially Turnus H. - what next!?) but will get back to you on some of it. Not forgetting (besides) your input at the Ceres talk-page. Haploidavey (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes the pictures are excellent and the description thorough. Grandazzi's article is at Perseé: "Identification d'une déesse: Ferentina et la ligue latine". His thesis is that the league was created by Rome after the destruction of Alba and was based on the control of water supplies for the campagna below provided by the emissary ditch. Ferentina would be a theonym parallel/of the type of Cloacina, a functional goddess. The timeline the same. Mauri says this location has been disproved by Barzanó: his article is of 1991 published on Aevum, before Grandazzi's who apparently failed to read it. Unfortunately his thesis is not expounded on another place publicly available. Mauri's contributions are on Vivavoce online mag.Aldrasto11 (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Haploidavey. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. When you recently edited Hestia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Demos and Olympus (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) 10:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Haploidavey (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. When you recently edited Epulon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rex (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) 11:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Inscriptions and toponyms

Hi, hope you are all right. Found a work on the regal period pdf, a dissertation by a certain GB Cairo. Interesting hypotheses. The inscriptions: Granino Cecere's work pdf on the inscriptions in her article Vestali non di Roma is good. A Marrucinian inscription reading s]acrarix cibat cerria licinia saluta salavs may interest you. I suppose the duplication is significative.

As for toponyms: Alba Longa may reflect a Ligurian word meaning castrum, oppidum (Albingaunum, Albintimelium, Albi in Provence). This bears up the issue of a Ligurian presence in Rome. Festus and others have it. But it is debated as it appears mention of them is due to a conflation with the Sicels. Moreover such Ligurian toponyms are widespread throughout Europe, thus it looks problematic to attribute an ethnic content to toponyms traditionally considered as Ligurian. E. g. Albion for Britain plus all those ending in -asco, -esco etc in France and Belgium. A certain Sergi (see It. wk under Siculi) following Herbig pointed this out for Albalonga, as he remarked the colour of the rocks of the Alban hills is dark grey or blueish, not white (the Latins had the legend of the white saw). Other toponym of Ligurian character are Erice, Entella in Sicily, Albegna in Tuscany. Though I noticed many toponyms that look preindoeuropean or palaeolithic are present throughout western Europe: e.g. the Latin battle on the river Astura, there are various rivers named Stura and Sturla in Italy not to mention the Asturias in Spain, the Pennines and the Appennines. However interesting the Sicani mentioned by Pliny among the 30 Alban people.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Venus

I am (almost involuntarily) doing some editing in an effort to organize my thoughts re: some research I'm doing, blah blah. And while I have vowed not to deal in talk pages at all, I simply couldn't not exclaim with gratitude about the work you did on Venus (mythology). Cynwolfe (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, thank you me dear prodigy. That's an article I've not checked for a while but it does read like something I more-or-less managed to wrap my head around. Can't even do that halfway, these days. 'Most everything tastes wrong, sort of. Maybe that's just something that got up my nose, and won't come out. Haploidavey (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Resistance is futile. I think I should take another long long break. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm already doing just that, in a fashion. I try to ignore anything that threatens to disturb my pleasant drudgery; anything difficult, complicated or challenging. When the bathers are abed, I make small repairs to the aqueducts. In the small hours, I mop the atrium. Haploidavey (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

We both seem to have converged on Venus today. I was puttering around Commons, and while I was there tried to find a more Roman-looking Venus. One that was a little less naked, and "mother of Aeneas" in appearance. No luck. I did find one very interesting but unrepresentative example I'll put in when I'm sure you're done for the day. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Eh oop lass. Give me a half-hour or so, plus tea-break; I'm going to try an integration of signs and attributes. The current images aren't entirely fab; an Aeneas' momma would help – and if my imminent edits don't seem to work, do feel free to edit, revert or whatever you think best. A bientot, minus diacritics. Haploidavey (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thought the trove from the Walters Art Museum would give me something. Something, but not Mother Venus. I have a goody from the Temple of Aphrodisias, but again too far-flung Imperial for the top, and too narrative-specific. I'm going to go scrub outdoor furniture now. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

My brain shut down halfway through; must be those microorganisms fleeing your scrubber. Anyways, go ahead. I'm gonna flop out. Haploidavey (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I was just gonna leave a message on your talk, and backed down sharpish. Holy Bickle! Haploidavey (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't believe I got a cup of tea after that. I loved the file name: inquietante espressione. As for Venus, I should explain my impertinence. I removed "military" in the first sentence because I think without context it's potentially confusing to my hypothetical 17-year-old researching a school project. And of course the sense of victory/conquest is purposefully ambiguous. About the relief from Aphrodisias, I can't find what I need for that. The file description doesn't even have a date. It identifies the infant as Eros, which doesn't mean it can't simultaneously refer to the birth of Aeneas as the result of Eros. The iconography of Selene-Luna is familiar (see the puny start of an article I finally launched on Luna (Roman goddess)), and mirabilissimo dictu, compare the Aphrodisias relief to the one from the sarcophagus at the top of List of Roman birth and childhood deities, yah? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a lovely symmetry, and I wonder how far back the model goes - I mean the images of mother, infant and father; that fatherly stance is almost Victorian; all he needs is a pipe and mantlepiece. I see you've been doing great things with images here, and there (Venus, of course) and elsewhere... such an impudent busybody ... so I just nicked something tasty from the Aion article for my user page. Haploidavey (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. When you recently edited Roman aqueduct, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stamps (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, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. When you recently edited Roman aqueduct, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pyrrhus (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) 10:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Faliscan f-h and other issues

Deleted outdated content, I shall supply the newer views later. I was wondering whether writing an article on Latium Vetus and the preroman towns would be interesting, but the job is heavy. I collected some material...It bears much on the issue of the foundation of Rome. Mainly there are many questions that are not researched enough as yet. Using the ancient historians and the archaeological discoveries, recent and old, may provide some insight though. The dissertation I mentioned looks informative.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

We already have a very short article on Latium Vetus. As you say, a heavyweight topic and under-researched. It might benefit from your specialist attentions. Haploidavey (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

My slip-up

Haploidavey, thanks for catching the mistake I made while patrolling for vandalism. I've responded to your note on my talk page and I've also rectified the warning on the IP's talk page. Rinkle gorge (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Haploidavey. You have new messages at Deathlaser's talk page.
Message added 19:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Deathlaser :  Chat  19:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Poseidon

Haploidavey, you made the wrong change to the article Poseidon. I've corrected it now. I'm glad you showed User:RJC the links to those rules, since he had been ignoring the proper processes by hijacking the article like he owns it. I even tried to discuss it on his talk page here but he refused to talk and kept editing the article anyway. Hopefully the article will stop being disrupted now. I can't believe these rogue editors were enforcing their WP:ERA violation for so long with so few people realising. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC))

What's this, smoke and mirrors? The revert was as intended, and the links were addressed to you. Let me make myself absolutely clear - 1: I've no preference for any era-system. I'm frankly amazed that anyone could care enough to trawl through an article history in search of a dead minnow of either persuasion, to replace one that's been around for what, five years? That's more than tedious, verging on tendentious. Which brings me to 2: WP:ERA no longer says what you seem to think it says. Priority no longer counts. If you'd rather it did, feel free to discuss the policy/guideline at the policy/guideline page. But not here, please. If you're going to be such a legalistic stickler, the guidelines (sadly deficient though they be) recommend that particular cases be thrashed out at article talk-pages, on a case by case basis. So you'd probably best do just that. 3: I'm not going to squander any more time on this. Haploidavey (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Some of my comments above were based on my own misreading of the article history. My apology for this is at WP Editor 2011's talk page. Haploidavey (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment in an edit summary

Saw your comment in an edit summary here [3] about Etowah plates being a "lovely article", wanted to say thanks and thought you might enjoy this Mississippian copper plates. I had been working on it on and off (mostly off, lol) for 6 months in the sandbox and parts had grown so large I budded some of it off as the Wulfing cache and Etowah plates articles. Anyway, thanks for the nice comment and cheers! Heiro

R&R

I have come to think that the story has been foisted on the last foundation of Rome, while originally it referred to that of an earlier one. There are the testimonies collected by Dionysius in I 72 and 73 which clearly point in this direction. Moreover the myth was widespread in Italy. But the most interesting thing is that the Greek authors were aware that Rome had been founded three times (the first were Sicels who left Italy for Sicily, this is what Antiochus of Syracuse said; btw there is a consul Cloelius Siculus at the time before the battle of Lake Regillus). These earlier were not towns, just bronze age villages (remembrance in the so called Septimontium). R&R belong there and their memory apparently remained among locals and they were revived when the story of the foundation was established. Archaelogy shows human presence on the Capitol and other places since the 14th century. But ethnonyms and people names are characteristic and remind of an Italic Protolatin presence there from the Sicels to the Aborigenes. Cairo thinks it was the Etruscans of Servius Tullius's faction as opposed to that of the Tarquinii, who established the canonic story. In fact one thing I had wondered on, but not enough: why there are a Hostus Hostilius and a Mettius Curtius that double Romulus and Tatius? Their presence betrays a conflation of two traditions: the true one would have been the other, R. and T. being two legendary figures of the two nations. The Rutuli and Turnus are clearly Protolatins i. e. Oenotrians or Daunians (son of Daunus), notwithstanding Briquel who thinks they are Umbrians and Scullard Etruscans: the etymology and phonology is that. But another source of confirmation comes from the names of the Populi Albenses: Pallottino puts some 4 or 5 of them on the territory of Rome before the foundation. These were not towns but sparse villages centred on a marketplace, only some developed into towns.Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to correct myself, the Daunians according to sostratist linguists are Hyllirian of the IE satem group, not Italic, on other phonetic considerations, not the d or t of Rutuli. I found many clues about Aventia in various articles (see e.g. in WK Aventicum, where a Aventia is the name of a Celt spring goddess attested on an inscription), but nothing on albula and its relationship to alba, albion, what I read only states they were cognate words and the first meaning of alba should be the one of alpe, still in use in Italian dialects, i.e. a grassy plain on or near the top of a mountain. There are various Albula, which all seem to be sostrate words (in Picenum and Grison, beside the Tiber). However the connection between a plain a on mountain and a stream is not immediate even though they may be close. You may remember the Avens river now Velino near Reate and of course the Aventine Hill of Rome, which had a spring (cf. in Britain the river Avon and in Welsh afon=river). The Ufens of Privernum and the Ofanto of today Apulia (the Latin name Aufidius cannot be its origin in my view, pace some It. scholars as Ribezzo) seem the same word with the normal change to > o > u in Italic (cf. O/Umbri/ Ambrones from a common IE *mbhro rainwater cf. Lat. imber). If you come across anything please let me know, thank you. I suppose the Elben may be cognate. The WK article on Old European hydronims is very poorly edited and puts many things together: the root *alm is just another one, but this is not stated clearly.Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Davey!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thank you again for all your help at the article Leoš Janáček, which is now a good article. I'm very happy that such a competent and excellent editor offered me advice and patient assistance. I hope you are well Davey :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Btw, I left my comments at Talk:Leoš Janáček/GA1. Any further suggestions or comments are welcome! I also noticed the IP edits promoting works of a marginally notable author. I'm not sure what to do, but the information is verifiable and I don't think it makes any harm in the article, so I'll probably leave it as it is, at least for the moment. I'll try to expand the section with more important literary works on Janáček. Best regards, Davey. I'm glad you are still here :) Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested in

Talk:Apollo#Traditional year numbering where a move was made that I'm objecting to - you commented on this a year ago. Also, have you seen the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Categorical BC (see the subsection "Another stab at it". Dougweller (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Achelous and Hercules

Could you take a look at the above image? If you keep clicking, you can zoom in to obtain a good bit of detail. The object that I describe in the article as a "white cone": I've seen that thing somewhere and can't place it. Notice that the flat rim around the flared end is perforated. This has some kind of industrial use, surely? Possibly in fabric manufacture? It's on the "things produced" side of the mural. I've searched under various guesses, but of course garbage in, garbage out. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Before I embark on my series of probably fruitless guesses, let me just say I love this wonderfully bold and unfashionable painting, and thanks for the article. Makes a great DYK.

I can think of no possible rustic or industrial use for such an object, unless as a hose-nozzle, with perforated flange for attachment to a rubber-coated fabric hose. Actually, it would make a serviceable horn for the boy. Or maybe it's just a horn? Like you say, garbage in, garbage out... Haploidavey (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, very accurate: 'bold and unfashionable'! I think that's what everybody's liking about it. The kind of discussion that occurred at the DYK template actually has me enjoying working on WP again: people just trying to make things happen, and taking an interest.

Before I zoomed, I thought it was a kind of horn or megaphone thing, but when I noticed the perforations it dislodged something in my head about clothing production. Like a bobbin or spindle for commercial manufacture of yarn or thread. I got nuttin', tho.

While here, I must apologize for the havoc on a certain article I think of as yours caused by my current listomania. I'm tired of the deities' lists being so ... well, dumb is the first word that comes to mind, so I'll use it. So I'm trying to sort these out, but it becomes so tedious I go mad before finishing. Please be assured that I'm planning to yank that rustic crew out of your way with an agricultural counterpart to the birth&childhood list (which is still unfinished, because I saw worse messes to untangle). When that list occurred to me as a solution, I was too tired to execute. Sat through a 4-and-a-half hour high school awards "banquet" Thursday evening (excruciating chairs, and longer than the Oscars!), then took a load of girls to a midnight movie Thurs/Fri night, home at 3 a.m., after staying up most of the previous night watching "Hatfields & McCoys" on the History Channel marathon (I had an uncle by marriage who was a Hatfield, to disastrous result; I may have you about him), then Saturday morning had to drag daughter and Her Massive Instrument to the high school graduation ceremony, where she and her even smaller bassist friend (the only basses neither graduating nor taking exams or such) valiantly performed five full repetitions of Pomp & Circumstance for a class of 400+ till their gracile arms ached. Obviously I've returned to gabbing on talk pages. Await my proper whipping from the Lords of Conformity & Dullardry. Oatley seems to have addressed the List of consuls question; I was going to suggest someone ask him, as I only do Republican consuls from Broughton. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a terrible dearth of artistic white cone/horn commentaries. Don't worry about the lists... there's lists and there's lists. They can happen to the best of us. I've been thinking for a while (quite honestly, that's all I've done for months - hardly any solid content shoveling in all that time) on how we could do with an agri-godling article; even, for once, one combined with an outline of Roman agri-business. Or at least, the agricultural cycle. That seems a logical step, and I need a kick-start... I seem to have developed a terror of actually doing anything useful. As opposed to thinking about it. Or, more honestly, worrying about it. Stuck. Inert. Full of doubts. It takes me all of a half-hour to compose even the simplest message.

On Hatfields, oh yes, you did tell; what a business. Pomp and Circumstance, hm. Once should be enough for anyone. Five times is perilous close to martyrdom. My own sprogs are doing, um, I'm not too sure what, as I speak. Except me boyo is working his poor nuts off, and me girlo is not, by a long chalk; she returns after three weeks in India, tommorrow pm. Sprogs, eh. Haploidavey (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, what an exciting trip. More about that elsewhere, I hope. About the ag-gravating matter: Roman agriculture does exist, though of course it's a huge topic and there are many ways to develop and approach it. It would probably be much muchness to throw the religious side of things in except as a summary. Agricultural literature is a whole other topic too. So if I dash off an outline of ag deities, feel free to have your way with it. I'm trying to get some stuff off my plate that's been bothering me for a while, and am not trying to do a splendid job of any of it. Just want to fill some gaps. Am trying to get back to the birth deities and in turn back to the finishing touches on the October Horse. Jump in as you will! Cynwolfe (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Roman festivals

I just made a dreary trudge through Roman festivals because I finally decided to lay hands on Scullard. I've decided I trust Fowler more. (Scullard includes ludi as annual that nobody else thinks were; I may take these out after I review the other sources.) As it stands, it's a pointless effort, because it probably needs to be made into a table. Not sure I have the appetite for that.

Oh, yes. Why here. Both Scullard and Fowler only do Republican festivals. If you know of Imperial stuff that should be added, please have at it. I'm going to check the festivals template to see if any listed there are omitted in the article. Then I'm going to drink hemlock. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think you've done good work there. For some reason, I've never been tempted to get hold of anything by Scullard - which seems an odd sort of baulk, considering. Fowler's lovely. I'll take a leisurely stroll for Imperial stuff, or else join you for a hemlock booze-up. Just for the sheer numb fun of it. Haploidavey (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Since you're not a girl like I am, you may not squeal with delight as I just did in finding a 2012 book called Shopping in Ancient Rome—from Oxford University Press! Still, I had to share. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Crimminy, that's quite a find. (Nods, hmmmms and purses lips, signifying deeply masculine approval, though not of the price). And quite a decent preview. Haploidavey (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Looky here: a tombstone of a Gaul with That Mark (the ersatz theta for thanatos), where the ends of the bars are even with the outer oval. I think that area is sorta where Varro Atacinus (1st century BC) was from, but they all have perfectly Gaulish names, even though the deceased was a local magistrate and quaestor, and it's dated to the 1st or 2nd century AD (which I find interesting: I'd have thought local magistrates would be citizens with the tria nomina). And here's one with another example; the names seem to be a mixture of Gaulish and Latin. Anyway, the Gaulishness isn't really the point, so much as it's interesting to find other examples of the mark. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't know how you find these things... and don't you just love these Gaulish names? Funny thing, that business of adoption into provincial citizenship; cf, of course, our mutual friend of yore, though of course he's one of the earliest... and maybe that signifies... something. I guess things just got a little more informal further down the line, and maybe our other guys are just ordinary, relatively late examples of provincial magistracy. And of course, there must be regional variations in just about everything. Anyway, I think they're rather fine inscriptions. I guess our kinda-theta in the first stands in for DM; but not quite in the second (which has deliciously loose orthography). I don't know what the "vIv" means, up top, but the small theta pops up way below it, in what looks to me like an insert, a post script to "Lucilio filio". Obit? By the way, I also wondered whether these uses derive from long-standing Greek connections (as in Gallic coinage) rather than Roman. I also just found, then promptly lost, a page on Romano-British coinage, in which theta proper was said to represent DD. Sometimes. Of course, that really got the old gearbox in a grind - what with me being sorta Welsh, and Welsh "dd" being pronounced "th", as in "that". Haploidavey (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

ESUMOPAS CNUSTIOUS

Ah, very interesting. Somewhere in my head floats a remnant of some connection between the "Gallic tau" and the theta … oh, I see that's actually touched on in theta. Good observation about the influence of the Greek alphabet on the Gallic alphabets. I love the look of inscriptions in Gaulish. One of the many self-contradictions in Caesar (which indicate that the Gallic Wars was "published" serially, as T.P. Wiseman has argued, and only collected at the end of the war as one) is that at one point he says something about the Gauls using Greek letters, then later sends a coded message in which Latin is written … in Greek letters, so the Gauls can't read it. Don't remember whether that's one of the times when he then falls into a trap.

About finding things at Commons, it's so difficult to use existing Commons categories that I've been doing some categorization there. (I screwed one up the other day, but so far nobody's noticed, and it's just too damn much trouble to seek help to fix it.) Like, sarcophagi might be organized by country in which the piece is currently held, as if you'd ever be searching for one on that basis, instead of by content, like "Ancient Roman sarcophagi with Dionysian scenes". I created a category within Latin inscriptions of VSLM inscriptions. That turned up some interesting things. So I've been trying to organize some things (that happen to be in our areas of mutual interest) that once found I don't want to lose again. I didn't create the category Dedications and ex-votos in antiquity, but within it created the "Inscriptions, votives and altars to so-and-so" categories, as well as the VSLM category. That's how I found the goodies. As I have time I'm looking through all the ancient Roman inscription categories (again, categorized mainly by where the inscription currently is held, and not by any reference to its content), which ought to turn up more. (There were some Lares and others too, which I just plopped into their main categories without creating a special one yet.) I often do this while ostensibly watching a movie with hubby and daughter, if it's one we've seen before or one I lack all interest in. Some file descriptions contain transcriptions of the text, but some don't, and like an idiot I didn't take the epigraphy class when I had the chance as a youngster, since why would an Ovidian need that? I found the VSLM examples by searching v[otum], so that only turned up the files with transcriptions.

But here's a wee man you'll like. A bust with VSLM, and a completely Gaulish personal name. I haven't checked this yet, but I think it's a Gaulish patronymic, with the man's name given in the nominative, and his father's name in the genitive. Like "Gimli, son of Glóin." Cynwolfe (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Arnobius outdoes himself in drollery … Cynwolfe (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Florida edit

Haploidavey,

I was reading some of the Florida edit history, and in fact I just got done writing some requests over the use of the word colony in some of the other Florida pages, and I believe reverting it back was incorrect and it should be fixed (i can't as a new user).

There are no references in Spanish royal ordinances or laws of the Spanish Cortes that consider Florida to be a colony or contain colonies (settlements). They refer to Florida as a territory to be settled and, along with being part of the Captaincy General of Cuba, St. Augustine and Havana were appointed governors titled "adelantados," or governors to further the territory. Florida had Parliamentary representation in the Spanish Cortes along with Cuba and Puerto Rico. Representation or coat of arms are not given to Spanish colonies. Pensacola was Florida's first "settlement." St. Augustine was its first "city," after earning a royal coat of arms (much like Gibraltar, Havana, and San Juan PR). There were provinces, settlements, and "missions" as well, in accordance to Spanish terms of governance. In Florida, using the word colony implies a subservient system of governance rather than a representative form of governance. I'm saying this as a professional in the field of journalism, with an interest in Florida's history.

Florida was not a colony of Spain according to Spain and Florida's system of governance. Provinces, autonomous communities, charted communities, and even some states can be considered "colonies" under its technical definition (a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by settlers from that country - Webster.) But again, because of Florida's history with the U.S., using the word colony to describe Florida as well as the Thirteen Colonies is bad word choice. In fact, Florida today has a very similar system of unitary government to Spain. Counties in Florida can charter their own governance (like Dade county), much like provinces can accede to chartered (autonomous) communities in Spain. There is much inheritance and similarity over the course of history.

Below is some proof of what I'm trying to say. One, the History Channel's Conquest of the Southeast. In no case do they use the word colony to describe governance in Florida in this documentary, only French/British settlements. It's one of the most accurate. Two, is an interview with one of the leading experts in Florida history, and member of the Florida-Spain Foundation, Dr. Michael Francis. In the video linked below, he verifies that Spanish ordinances and laws refer to the Spains (Iberian communities/King of the Spains was the title of the monarch for many years) and the Floridas (Florida provinces). In this video he also describes some of the misuse of the word colony in Florida, and some of the myths people believe about our history, like the Fountain of Youth.

Conquest of America (History Channel) (2005) http://www.amazon.com/Conquest-America-History-Channel-Narrated/dp/B000A0GXMY

Entrevista a Dr. Michael Francis (in Spanish) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0vr122VYG8

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FLA.101 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the word colony. It's used in reliable academic sources. In some cases it might be worthwhile discussing the dispute you say exists, but it's the usual term in English. [4] "Gracia Real de Santa Teresa de Mose: a free black town in Spanish colonial Florida J Landers - The American Historical Review, 1990 - JSTOR" etc. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

And I'm from Dade County and the comments above just aren't right. From our article: " Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment in 1956 that allowed the people of Dade County (as it was known then) to enact a home rule charter. Prior to this year, home rule did not exist in Florida, and all counties were limited to the same set of powers by the Florida Constitution and state law.". Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fielding this, Doug. Haploidavey (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Gladiators, fingers and thumbs

Hello, User:Cynwolfe pointed me in your direction and, though slightly alarmed by dim memories of Catullus 63 evoked by the top of your page, I thought I might try consulting you re Finger (gesture), which is about to run at DYK; there are a couple of classical references not yet linked to source texts, about the Germans sticking one up at the Romans, supposedly per Tacitus; and about it being the "doomed gladiators' answer to Nero's thumbs down", per Mulligan's Stew; I understand you have looked into the whole pollex question and don't know whether you came across anything related while about it? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

For tiding up Mohenjo-daro; now it makes better reading! Rayabhari (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Mohenjo-doro

Removing modern heat record from this archeological article was very good;modern temperature record is not relavant.i was thinking of removing it myself, but was not sure whether it will be appropriate.thank you.Rayabhari (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Little trouble in big Cyllene town

The only known case of a conflict of interest in which a Greek god is editing his own article is leading to some wackiness. Noticed you did some tidying. Do you have any desire to chat it out or should I try to dust off my own ambassadorial sash? Hope all's been well.  ^davidiad_.: 21:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, shape-shifter. The article's worried me for some time - s'pretty horrendous, really, even without the recent expansion. Yes, I've done a little tidying in the lede; very little. My instinctive response is to reach for the silex, which probably means I'm not up to the requisite delicate diplomacy (household affairs are difficult, and they overhang all else. It makes me grouchy, kinda disengaged and potentially unkind). It's so much easier when someone just plasters "fuck" all over a page, eh? Haploidavey (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you've got a full plate right now. I don't really have the patience to deal with any well-meaning imperfections either currently—hence my trying to dump it off on you—, but will keep half an eye on it. I'm moving from New Haven to Arkansas in a couple weeks and might have more energy once we're all set there.  ^davidiad_.: 15:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope the move goes as it ought'er, smooth and painless (I like travelling and arriving but wrenching from the home-rock ain't easy). Haploidavey (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Problems with User:Asd1555

I've given him his last warning for his vandalism at Cleisthenes. I will report him if he does it again, but since I do not want to be involved in 3RR with him, could you please keep an eye out on the page to revert it if he goes at it again? Thanks!--Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Good... but would a 3R apply to either of us in this particular case? What with the user's persistent restoration of uncited material? Haploidavey (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it would still apply to us. Maybe we should request semi-protection for the page? --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 00:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

A semi might become necessary, but AIV seems a reasonable next step to me, if it comes to the crunch. I'll not mind doing the business. Haploidavey (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that falls under WP:Vandalism. A more specific reason would have been better. Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right, it was more like a slowish edit-war. Not an appropriate behaviour for vandalism warnings or AIV. Haploidavey (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Mohenjo-daro

Thanks for that. It was in any case copyvio without attribution, and it may not be at the original article much longer. Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Pleasure. Do you mean one part in particular, or the whole (other than the non-attributed cut-and-paste)? I didn't check the sources, but was and still am very doubtful about some of those broad Indo-European connections. In particular, Cernunnos. Haploidavey (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Now I see which part you meant. Haploidavey (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to get Nielsen, S; Andersen, J; Baker, J; Christensen, C; Glastrup, J; et al. (2005). “The Gundestrup cauldron: New Scientific and Technical investigations”, Acta Archaeologica, 76. Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've looked all morning for this, and can't find it. It's cited by several scholarly articles but only (as far as I can make out) in a metallurgical context. Frustrating. Fwiw, I've just searched through several articles on this supposed "proto-Shiva-type"at JSTOR and several reject it, for reasons I find interesting - I might add them to the artcle. Anyway, fwiw none mention the Gundestrup image, and just imho, I doubt there's a strong or noteworthy connection. Haploidavey (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

God, what am I like?? It's here: [5]; does the link work for you? Haploidavey (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I've skimmed through. It's all about metallurgy, technique, ore sources and environmental factors. Nothing else. No reference at all to our seal image. So as it stands, the connection made in the article is just original research. Haploidavey (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Without decent sources it should be removed. I may look at these again later, there are at least 4 articles involved. The copyvio is part of a big CCI by the way. Dougweller (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I've already removed the text as unsupported. Can you point me to the CCI? Haploidavey (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You have great taste!

	Most Interesting Topics
	I spend much time exploring wikipedia, and I recently noticed your contributions in topics dealing with insects and Ancient Rome (both of which I love). Thanks for your efforts! Being4itself (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Megara of Demeter

Did your excursions into the mundus of Ceres by any chance give you anything of use regarding the megaron of Demeter? A question was raised at Talk:Demeter that I only have time to make the tiniest gesture of clarification toward. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW, given your relative scarcity the last few weeks, I've had this vision of you performing in the opening ceremonies of the Olympics, after hearing the announcers praise the dedication of volunteers. A happy picture. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yikes, even in dreams that's an impossibly wonderful, terrifying prospect! I've just done the drive down to London - it was unnervingly straightforward but I'm too entangled with the stray burgeoning whatsits of my odd and complicated life to say more than that at the mo', except thank you. It's good to be missed, and sometimes it needs to be said/heard. I'll be more responsive after what promises to be an insanely busy weekend, when I hope to "emerge plantlike from the soil" and start editing again. Haploidavey (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not writing content myself at the moment, because I'm working on my fiction project, and it's kinda like Daniel Day Lewis staying in character on set—too hard to switch gears between the two crafted voices. Watching rhythmic gymnastics, however, I suddenly had a whole new perspective on ball and hoop in classical antiquity (since the medical writer Celsus, I think it was, prescribed ball and hoop exercises for women), and those interludes in mimus, and the bikini girls. Funny how things suddenly start to make sense. I stopped working on mimus because so much of Roman theatre history isn't already in place, and it was too interesting to do a superficial job of. Looking forward to it, but should look back first at October Horse, since my whole distraction into lists of gods arose from that. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That's very good news. The fiction project, I mean. It's been bedded down for some time, hasn't it? Sleeping in its drawer, all moist and sprouty for a critical reading. Essential, that. I noticed your edit summary - one might think so, but no, sprung from the soil is how it feels. London's quite remarkably greened, and vigorous, almost too fermented and fertile when seen with a receptive and critical eye. It's not a kindly place, but it has huge organic vigour, and it's unpredictable, ultracivilised or frighteningly atavistic. Anyway, I was there only for the last two days of them Limpiks, but had to miss the closing cos I spent the whole two days feverishly slapping enough paint (three coats) to transform the front room from a deep and depressing blue - which seemed a good idea, a decade back; hell, I even developed the tint myself - to a fabulous bright parchmenty gold. Very pleasing. And off the peg, woo hoo!

But I loved the opening ceremony, even the bits that had me shivering with embarrassment. And watched some events quite religiously... gymnastics, rowing, cycling.

I've found nothing usable on the mundus pit or megaron cleft (seems so bloody obvious but huh). And still haven't wrapped my head around anything like an appropriate wording for that effing you-know-where infobox. An interesting exercise, in which odd thoughts take shape, connect, dissolve. Haploidavey (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Raised this at ANI. Dougweller (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I was just coming here to exclaim WTF about List of Roman deities. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, WTF indeed. I tried a move over the re-redirect, then realised this was but the tip of a considerable berg, perhaps better towed into neutral waters and shattered by admin gunfire. So I self-reverted (well actually, no - I don't seem to have saved my changes) and like you, sent the user a note. Haploidavey (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You know how much I dislike working on the Empire, but I really think that Religion section at Roman Empire needs to be replaced with a summary section based on the two main articles. It's too long without saying much. Please watch for any inadvertent violence I do to cultish stuff, into which I have limited intuition. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep. I was going to attempt a similar cropping - or at least what I imagine would be a similar cropping - at the same section. But I'm writing horribly, horribly slowly today. I think a two-or-three paragraph summary would likely be enough. Minus the surplus on Imperial cult (doubts and skepticism? so what) and did you notice the cock-up on Cybele? But yes, do go ahead, and I'll bring oinkment if needed. What a bloody discussion, eh? I just took out some sentences that seemed particularly problematic, but there are many others. Most of them, really, apart from the main section preamble. Haploidavey (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I find that I can't get to this right now, so please, have at it! Cynwolfe (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I got distracted by the inappropriate images. Hope I didn't mess you up. Looking for something better for the Judaism section. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries, no collision, good collusion. The whole section's pretty grim; as I'm stripping it down to an essential structure, which I hope explains Imp Cult as something other than a cynical add-on, it'll soon be my turn to ask you for a once-over. Be merciless! Haploidavey (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Roman Empire GA review

A Laurentine sow for you! Isn't she fabulous? (1st–2nd century AD) Cynwolfe (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I have opened a review at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Roman Empire/1. I apologise if that means you have to post your comments again, but I thought it best to formalise the process.--SabreBD (talk) 09:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Davey, are you working on social/familial structures? I'm done for a while. I'm considering next tackling actual content, either "Culture" (monumental task) or Provinces/languages/Imperial topography of the city. Recommendations on sources welcome. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I am, but so far only in the context of religious, social and moral obligations (if that makes sense), and it's slow going. There's a lot to be filtered out, and quite frankly, I'd rather tackle social structures very early on in the article - people before things, including government - but that's just me, isn't it? And on second thoughts, it makes sense to start with government in any article on Empires. I'll look out for sources. I'm only now beginning to see what a potentially horrendous task it all is, not least cos I'm beginning to see the need for drastic revision in several connected articles. Haploidavey (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Totally concur. "Society" could easily work before "Government." I'm trying to keep in mind the fact that one of the biggest user groups of this article is likely to be high school students. That puts a twist in one's drawers, I must say. I of course have not done what I said, but will have a Language revision soon, because I happened upon the perfect source. A Blackwell Companion to exists. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I finally got around to posting at the link SabreBD gave you above. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I had the page open for editing for an hour or so, and didn't notice your additions until I e/c'd. My writing pace has slowed to a crawl (no medals for me then. Your response seems to cover most of the bases. I'll add a section below, in time... Haploidavey (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a solution to a terminology problem that I hadn't seen before: Classical Roman religion. I like that one, and can think of many instances when it would be useful in distinguishing from mystery religions in particular. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	sorry but that is how my knowledge is Vampirechris (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Haploidavey. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I'd remove the image at the top of List of creation myths, since it kinda signals that this is the biggest myth of all, and replace it with one that's non-controversially a myth. See Creation myth and talk page comments (by me, among others). Cynwolfe (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Not that I'd recommend the one at the top of Creation myth for the list, though: it was chosen because the lede talks about swirling amorphous chaos and such. At the list, I'd advocate for something from the traditions in India, perhaps, which are rich in mythos. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Religion in the Roman Empire

just read your message: freedom to all glires!

Please feel free to disregard what I just did to the Religion section at Roman Empire. I can't seem to rest till I get that thing in better shape, and I felt the Religion section needed to go above the Literature section, but couldn't stand to do it without cleaning it up and actually saying something about, you know, Roman religion. So I just grabbed some stuff from the two main articles and squished down some of the rest.

I'm stuck over there on a section explaining the ordines in the Empire. Please throw me any flotation devices you find bobbing in the rubble. I just need a paragraph 'splainin' how you get to be a senator, equestrian or decurion. I don't understand decurial status at all.

Hope you are well! Cynwolfe (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ta, lass. Not quite sure how I am, to be honest. But on the religiony things what you've done in yt artycle I see nothing to disregard. It seems pretty damn close to my own plan.... understanding.... intention, or whatever. Your compressions cover the main bases. When mood and preoccupation allow (they surely must, one of these days), I'll expand very minimally on the social-religious backgrounds vis-a-vis family, patronage, and the advantages of priesthoods. Hopefully without duplication. On the horrible business of decurial status... hum. I'm not sure what lies the bottomless pond but when I read your note I took a small blind fumble in the google-mud. So far, no pearls. Just a rusty bike or two. I'll keep looking. Maybe I'll find a pram... Haploidavey (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a sample or two: [6], [7] (Scheidel). This has, on p.26, the inappropriately cheerful "The Paradoxes within Historical Reality of Imperial Times". Eeeek.

THANKS! Much appreciated, especially the poverty book with The Old Fisherman on the cover. Still hopin' for a chance to use that image somewhere. Do be well as you can. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"walls that are polished to prevent them from escaping".... hey, that's a "silk-finish". Let's hope we choked at least a couple of the buggers with our tiny, crunchy long-bones. Haploidavey (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That shape... it's a glire's world-egg. By the oddest coincidence, I've obliterated the horrid slippery-shiny bathroom "silk-finish" with a coat of eggshell finish. Heh! Haploidavey (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Caesareum

I started a baby section at Roman temple#Caesareum, in case you come across tidbits to add. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I just read it. Well done, and I'm sure it'll wax fat and healthy. I'm a little shocked to find that it gets only a starveling mention in Imperial cult (ancient Rome). Eeek. Haploidavey (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I started to create a stub for it, but I lacked the will and energy even to do that. Still puzzling over the ordines over at the Empire. Averting eyes from Equestrian order, which seems full of meticulous misinformation (like the senatorial order being a subset of the equestrians!). Yours glirely, Cynwolfe (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It Was A Techincal Error, Sorry

My computer is acting up at the moment.75.72.35.253 (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)