User talk:Cynwolfe

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Cynwolfe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 09:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK? nom

Hi. I've nominated L'Année philologique, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on August 3, where you can improve it if you see fit. Congratulations on making such an informative article about a helpful collection, CB (ö) 04:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 10 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article L'Année philologique, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quintus Valerius Soranus DYK

On August 17, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Quintus Valerius Soranus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:A.M.W. Stirling.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:A.M.W. Stirling.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 18:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for Image:Isle of Dogs pulpit.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Isle of Dogs pulpit.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 18:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still quite a dummy about some of Wikipedia's ins-and-outs, so while I think I'm entitled to remove these two warnings now that I've corrected the problem, I guess I'll just leave them. They were the result of my bumbling around trying to use images when I hadn't before. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colchis

Thanks for reporting the problem with Colchis. Apparently the messed up formatting was due to a change made at the template {{History of Georgia}}. Even though that change was reverted, sometimes changes in templates don't get propagated to the pages that use the template until that page is edited. Just a weird quirk of how Wikipedia works. It should be all fixed now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary (philology)

I noticed your wikifying of references to Commentary (philology). Per WP:MOSHEAD, section headers should not normally contain links. Please keep that in mind. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mee too

You said

"I look for that author’s user page and hope to find a list of other articles."

I do the same thing. It seems to be that in trying to be more professional, there are now a bunch of well meaning but ill-qualified "wiki bullies" that slap tags on articles of which they know nearly nothing about. As you stated in your discussion on greek paparyi (sp) people seem to enforce rules like some people quote the bible, as they see fit. Some will challenge notability, because they do not know it. as if their arrogance of knowledge is so vast they feel there is nothing they can learn. I tend to write articles on people or topics I feel are notable, and often search far and wide for proof. The current trouble is almost circular. If there is nothing about it, it cannot be written about. But, many editors only use online sources. There is a huge information bubble or black hole of stuff that was common knowledge even 30 years ago, and now the people that know it are not online to blog or write about it. The 60s everyday events are an example. Beatniks and hippies sure. I have found google online book search to be invaluable in my easy chair scholarship. sorry for this treatise, I just feel I found a kindred spirit when I read one of your posts.--K3vin (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Magical Papyri

Thanks for your comments on Greek Magical Papyri. I should be able to track down a historical version of the page (I hope so anyway, as I didn't keep a copy for myself). I don't think there was anything non-encyclopaedic in the original article, but I guess this is WP not a real encyclopaedia. Gabrielbodard (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Androcydes (disambiguation)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Androcydes (disambiguation), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

unneeded Dab: article exists on physician, but non on math guy, nor any lk to him -- he has the ring of someone mentioned once as the author of a now lost work; perhaps i'm wrong & an article will be created, but we do not tolerate Dabs for the sole purpose of distinguishing article subjects from topics we have no reason to expect to become article subjects, and we can recreate the Dab if and when.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

Thanks for the article, and for being diligent by worrying abt Dab issues. You would learn some useful things if you review my edit of the page; ask me questions as you find useful.
Jerzy•t 23:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Remove the ProD tag, and keep at the articles. Let's wait until we're in a position to evaluate the three against each other, but if the Dab needs to be at the unsuffixed title, you'll probably need an admin to do a deletion, and (being already somewhat acquainted) i'll make myself available, so rattle my cage. Thanks again,
--Jerzy•t 23:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not locked

That article you recently referred to as being locked, is actually only semi-protected, i.e. only locked against newbie and anon edits. Also... if you enable e-mail (its a setting in your preferences), I'll whoosh you a work-in-progress for review and input. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much; I feel foolish for not having noticed the distinction. Just saw the lock icon. I decided for my peace of mind to avoid that talk page for now. I would be glad to look at anything you wish, if I can restate my reservation: I'm not qualified to judge the validity of any content regarding the linguistic or ethnological uses of the term "Aryan." I do know that in a private email exchange a couple of years ago, a linguist who works with Celtic (and who has significant publications in the field) stated to me that "Aryan" was abandoned because of the connotations it had acquired, in favor of "Indo-European" or a narrower label when appropriate such as "Indo-Iranian." Not to rehearse what I've beaten to death on the relevant talk page, but I came to the "Aryan" page first as someone who needed to link, and then second by trying to imagine what contexts would lead someone who actually didn't know the term (like my hypothetical young student) to visit the page. I found the intro insufficient for both purposes. Otherwise, I have no special interest in the topic. Also, I'm an ignoramus about most technical aspects of Wikipedia, so I'll look into your suggestion regarding my preferences. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your reservations are fine! They distinguish you from the dimwits whose opinions plaster the talk page and the article's edit history.

I've whooshed you the work-in-progress that I had mentioned. Your opinion is appreciated. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Scholars

Thank you for the message on my User page; I'll add the three names you suggest onto my agenda, although I can't promise anything soon. Elizabeth Rawson will probably be the candidate I go for first as most of her career was at Cambridge. For recently deceased scholars, the on-line edition of the Independent is probably the best source of basic biographical coverage in their obituaries section.--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following your message I did some preliminary on-line research on Rawson, but, while there are thousands of references to her, there is very little of a biographical nature. She died before newspapers went on-line! I have established her dates of birth & death, place of death (a university in China!), university colleges (New Hall, Cambridge and Corpus Christi, Oxford) and a list of published books, but not much more at this stage; it would be the barest of bare stubs. I shall persist. --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good article on Elizabeth Rawson; I've added the few additional facts I have discovered with references.--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I notised the change to the paragraph I wrote on textual critisism. You are indeed corect. I apologize for not messaging you sooner about this, but I have been rather busy lately. The location of the paragraph is much more appropriate. Good call, and thanks for telling me. --GodSpeed and God Bless! Devon Jones (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Nemorensis

Excellent coin images at Diana Nemorensis: they make the text comprehensible! --Wetman (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucius Valerius Flaccus (consul 195 BC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Lucius Valerius Flaccus (consul 195 BC), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Lucius Valerius Flaccus. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Goddess

Your work on the antique triple goddess is great. I'm happy to discuss edits on an individual, case-by-case basis, although article talk pages are probably more suited to that than user-space. Of course I respect your position on these matters. Also I have not deleted (nor will I delete) anything that was properly sourced, but the content may have been moved to another article. The removal of Roberts was due to her use of the MMC /TG as a feminist mythology, as pointed out by critics. While she may draw on ancient texts, the conclusions she reaches are seen through the filter of goddess-feminist doctrine. For example The Shakespearean Wild [p.175]: "As the aspects of the Triple Goddess shrank into commonplace cliches about women, patriarchal society easily assimilated the young virgin etc. etc." I would seek to avoid making the same error as Graves made in his "the Greek Myths" - by presenting Gravesian concepts as genuine scholarship of the antique and misleading readers. Graves influence goes far and wide, but it is not accepted as serious scholarship, and those that use his concepts (like Roberts) have their own agenda to push which has little to do with a scholarly understanding of the ancient world, and more an attempt legitimising a feminist mythology. In response to a situation where an antique work that inspired Graves was then interpreted using Graves models (apart from the circular reasoning this must involve) without seeing the source material I cannot make any reasonable statement about it, by all means add it. Further to this, we must be careful that the article does not end up suggesting the various different goddesses that have triplism belong to a single 'Triple Goddess' concept. We must be careful to deliniate exactly which concept is being discussed in the source rather than just saying "the triple goddess" or treating it like it is a single idea. For example, Hecate is mentioned in Midsummer Nights Dream, not the Gravesian/archetype 'triple goddess'. --Davémon (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

appreciative note

I'm very impressed by the quality of your editing, and thought I'd let you know it. Regards! Haploidavey (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination

Hi. I've nominated Gello and aetites, two articles you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the articles here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Thanks --Bruce1ee^talk 10:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures would be nice. I had a brief look on FIST but didn't find anything pertinent. I'll keep a lookout for something. --Bruce1ee^talk 06:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Willem van der Horst

The Dutch article is similar to the English, with the exception of this paragraph:

The Affaire Van der Horst

His farewell speech on 16 June 2006 at the University of Utrecht, entitled "The myth of Jewish cannibalism" caused much controversy. The speech was about the anti-Semitic myth of Jewish cannibalism, which originated in ancient times, played a role in the Christian Middle Ages and in Nazi propaganda, and is now making inroads in the Islamic world. The directors of the University of Utrecht, made aware of an early version of the lecture, thought Van der Horst should not highlight the Islamicisation of anti-Semitism, and forced him to modify his speech, stating that if he did not, the university could not vouch for his security. In the eventuality, no actual threats were made.
The episode cast a negative light on the University, which was accused of dhimmitude, self-censorship, and violating academic freedom. A similar case occurred a half year later in Leeds, where the university with an identical argument prohibited German scholar Matthias Künzel from discussing the Islamicisation of anti-Semitism.

I leave to you the decision of whether this merits inclusion. If you want to see the article for yourself, Google translate actually does rather a nice job with Dutch. - 69.125.166.7 (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Gello

On April 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gello, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for aetites

On April 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article aetites, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shedim

Your reorganization of Shedim was very helpful.

I have the impression that the original sources are included as links in Further Reading. Perhaps the editor who created the article did not know how to include inline refs. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salvito

Thanks. I do but not immediately. I have a quota of articles I can work on at one time and Salvito will be in it but not right now. I will keep your note there for reference. As you know, working on Wikipedia is like getting lost in a thicket. If I start Salvito there goes everything else. Best.Dave (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marsyas and the "Imperial Cult"

Hello Cynwolfe. I was enjoying a browse through your articles and came upon "Prophecy and free speech at Rome". I was struck by the identification of Marsyas with subversion and plebs, and with augury. I'll get to the point - do you have any sources or insight on the relationship between plebian Marsyas and Augustus' claims to superior augury as justification of Imperial cult? Your article contribution offers a tantalising glimpse of opposition. Best Regards. Haploidavey (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to recant my heresy regarding "your" articles - of course, they're not "your's", are they? On the other hand, some editors don't own some articles less than some others. Oh dear... Haploidavey (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my recantation. The compliment was intended, of course, and I enjoyed your courteous and eminently readable responses. All were relevant to the matter at hand, which is a thorough re-working of Imperial cult (ancient Rome). It was festering quietly but incorrectly away, all by itself. As you seem to have guessed, I'm seeking a balance of material on public and private responses to Augustus ("Godfather" to a whole gens) and the cult - in particular, popular reactions rather than those of the cultivated elites, and whether the Augustan "reform" was as effective as its propagandists claim. I know very little of him, really - but have the impression of an exceptionally ruthless and able politician who managed to seem all things to all men - or least seemed to seem that way, which in my book is the core of political genius - and to cap it all, managed to die at a ripe age, peacefully in his bed. I've no idea why Augustus receives less attention than JC. Insufficient demonstration of heroic hubris, perhaps.

Anyway, yes: I'll chase up as you suggested. My overall resources are a few (a very few) good quality recent specialist publications, none of them adequate to the task in hand. I've popped my intended reading list into the "further reading" section of the Imperial Cult article. Google previews are very useful as a start, but for more than those glimpses allowed, there's only the British Library - which I visit for reading intensives a couple of times a year and to which I'll soon migrate with a gargantuan reading list and several pencils. My heart sank a little at your mention of Barton: in what now feels like a previous incarnation, I edited Gladiator into its rather turgid and still incomplete current form, using the resources of the Brit.Lib. Yes, I read the Barton entries, drew a great deal from them and entirely failed to take notes on the grounds that this was all too arcane for Wikipedia. There's a lesson or two here somewhere. Haploidavey (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I need lessons in making links. 4th attempt! Haploidavey (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, an entirely relevant response. I do get the impression (and at this stage it's no more than that) of the Principate as providing the advantage of social mobility for plebs and equestrians alike, and a general feeling that most were quite willing to trade libertas for pax and cash. Of course, it's a monarchical system, but what else is it? By the way, have you dipped into Gradel on Imperial Cult - he disposes of "cult", "worship" and sundry modern terms as wholly misleading and false equivalents. I'm inclined to follow his lead in what I think is the section after "background". Google-books allowed me a glimpse of the problems inherent in conflation of divus and deus. Try telling that to Cyprian...

Why do I do it? Gladiator as a first article, and now this. Oh, and the Roman Triumph. I'm sure there's something else I committed to, and have mercifully forgotten. There's something unhealthy in this habitual head-first nose-diving into deep material. Haploidavey (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left your page a bit untidy, and thought I'd clean up my mess - and thank you specifically for the information on Crassus grandfils: you've actually provided me with a wealth of leads. All will be useful. I don't know if this might be of interest to you - perhaps you already know it. Small, but nicely formed... [1] Best regards. Haploidavey (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindented) Yes, the link was meant for Edmondson's article, which I'd already downloaded. I've a poor grasp of of these things! And yes, the Imperial Cult article needs very substantial revision. The "Background" is as far as I've gone, as yet. I was hoping to clarify precendent, socio-religious context and terminology - genius, numen, divus, deus, religio, honore et al - though not in that order in the next (as yet empty) section, which I'm preparing offsite.

Honour as privilege under the Principate, rather than as rewarded merit (cf Romulus, the proto-triumph and apotheosis) is exactly right, imho. The tagging of the remainder speaks for itself, but I was very taken with your deft and lucid handling of the "slippery" issues of subversion in Ovid. It really deserves inclusion. Yes, analysis and commentary - and a little Latinist deconstruction - are definitely sought.

I noticed the comment in (and yours on) Fishwick and the qualified exemptions for (some ) Jews. That really is fascinating, especially in the light of Augustus' "messianic" claims. Gradel (and I think, Price) have a deal to say on it. More later! Haploidavey (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commodus is indeed problematic. Again, the nature and copious sources tend to re-iterate the same judgements, of which I'm rather skeptical.

And thank you for the link to Syme - exactly what I needed. That's a book worth scouring the second-hand bookshops for (razor-sharp but d'you find his style sometimes odd? - stilted?). I feel very honoured by your positive appraisal of my all-too-obsessive efforts. [post-edit: I've no idea what I meant by "the nature and copious sources" above, regarding Commodus.] Haploidavey (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"they have a perspective that will always be valuable for the very reason that it's biased by their experiences." That's too good not to respond to - I vaguely got it halfway through reading, then it sank in. My screen's now constellated with droplets of coffee...

You write exceptionally well and with wit. You're very welcome to do so on my talk-page whenever the mood takes you. Regards. Haploidavey (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Oh, by the way, I've no Latin to speak of (or with), which as you might imagine is very frustrating. Humph. Haploidavey (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe I'm capable, though my short-term memory for even the simplest things is extremely short... Lunch in New Orleans, nice idea! Haploidavey (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lucifer of Liège

Hi, Bellatrix. I was looking at pages that linked to the image file for the so-called Lucifer sculpture by Guillaume Geefs, and found your user page. Thought you might be interested in the recently created article on the sculpture, under its formal title Le génie du mal. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cynwolfe. You thought right : I am very interested. Good work ! As soon as I have time enough, I'll translate it (or at least I'll try to translate it) in french. Thanks for your message. Regards, --Bellatrix Black (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Scriptum : I suppose that in french the article will be titled Le Génie de Liège with a « big » G (french conventions on titles).

Marsyas redux

Thank you so much - and no, I'd not seen it. But I shall. Best Regards. Haploidavey (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google books allows an unprecedented 18 consecutive pages. And then some more. Marvellous stuff! Haploidavey (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caius Julius Vercondaridubnus

Hello! We're talking about the minuscule new article, yes? I was stuck with the Celtic etymology (having found a tertiary but unconvincing source) so I'm done for the day. Delmarre, yourself and all your cohorts will be most welcome.

While I'm here - do you know how to change an existing page title - or even whether such a thing should be done? Wiki has a very stubby and incomplete parentalia, but I need to expand it as a link for di parentes (begotten from Imp. cult - it's a monster, I tell ye). Haploidavey (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC) (restored your mail sequence to proper order - I'd misplaced this one above my previous)[reply]

Re parentalia and di parentes, I suppose an internal link would do, rather than re-title, which would probably break all sorts of things... Haploidavey (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re tribus or civitas, you seem to be right (I somehow felt you would be). Caesar's comment on the Bellovaci has amicitia civitatis Haeduae fuisse - I've now lost the page ref. Haploidavey (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

di parentes

Thank you for a much earlier reply than I expected - your suggestions are excellent. A separate article would serve multiple purposes - I'll prepare most of it as a userpage, which shouldn't take long. I too was very surprised to find nothing at all for di parentes in Wikipedia - and by the way, I think you're right about lemures. (The whole category is rather a mixed bag - Religion in Ancient Rome also needs updating, especially the earliest parts). Haploidavey (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tres Galliae

I see what you mean. There was Asterix and Obelix... I can never remember the third one. Fishwick (vol 3, 1, 12) simply talks of a federal concilium, but probably has a great deal more on the subject. Beard et al, (p353) have two concilia, one early and mixed (for provincials and Roman citizens) and another for AD 220, explicitly for Roman citizens (which makes perfect sense).

By the way, you've done a very fine job with our Romanised-Gaulish-priestly friend's wonderful name. I cleaned up a bit - my own misinterpretation, that is. Handwritten notes are best when legible. I do this a lot, you know. Haploidavey (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the history of Federal sanctuary of the three Gauls? The article history seems to contain another, French article (whose source I can't tell). As my other brain cell is entirely devoted to coping with English (just about) - and I suspect you've several devoted to French - would you care to take a look? There may be prospects of salvage. Or not, in which case I'd rather just start from scratch. The article as it stands seems to have been abandoned a while ago. PS: My french must have improved overnight - the "hidden" article's quite informative, and cited to boot.

As to egregious errors - I count mine by the paragraph. In vino vitium (please correct at your convenience). Haploidavey (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unclean spirit

That's an extraordinarily riveting article. Haploidavey (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I liked the introduction - perhaps it's less a topic intro than an excellent background to the etymology and concepts. The section on animals and liminality brought it all together for me - I then re-read it and the whole made more sense. I don't know why that should be, except that liminality (by that or any other name) is a personal preoccupation. I've recommended the article to the Haplogavey genii and daimonions (which are legion). We love the way you deal with these things. Haploidavey (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bang on here, but... One of the things that really fascinated me in Barton (gladiator & monster) was the liminal status of the arenario within and without the arena, but especially that of the gladiator and his transcendence in extremis with an outward, expiring breath - the breath of the crowd collectively held, anticipating the moment. Haunting and deeply disturbing. Haploidavey (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes feel I go on too much - so thank you for the assurance. You do extraordinary work in lonely outposts, and render with clarity what would otherwise remain obscure. But enough of that. I just read insufflation - excellent piece of work, stripped to the bone but the life within the subject makes the treatment exactly sufficient - anyway, I noticed Augustine's appeal to the traditional establishment of baptismal rite as justification and post hoc explanation (contra More, with a decent interval between). Brilliant! Assuming that's not a mere quirk of translation, it seems a very traditionally Roman parcel of attitudes - pace religionists, of course. Haploidavey (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simulacra

I wanted to say thank you for your work and also to thank you for learning me 'Pareidolia'. I just added a section on Simulacra and iconography. After I noted your text in Simulacra's Discussion, I resloved to send u a note. B9 hummingbird hovering^{(talk • contribs)} 07:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		Home-Made Barnstar
		Awarded to Cynwolfe by B9 hummingbird hovering for specialist work of note on Wikipedia.

Monsters of Imperial cult

This is vaguely a copy of my reply to your response to my helpless squeal on Imperial cult (ancient Rome), but with additional fats and proteins... Those are valuable insights. All make more sense than the article! You'd be so welcome to edit, and as mercilessly as you thought fit - you've no idea how sincerely I mean that. In the early section (citing Tacitus out of context) I've tried to objectively summarise the viewpoint of early modern scholarship - perhaps prematurely, and any such remarks would be best left for the section on legacy, assuming they're even needed.

My major difficulty arises - as you guessed - from a need to provide an adequate background for "Imperial cult" as a civil-religious-political development. The more I've read on the subject, the less patience I have with "Imperial cult" as a category, and the more frustrated I've become with the modern terminology available - none of it is adequate. I hoped to avoid the rocks and shoals of "pagan-polytheism" and thought I'd done so - unfortunately, "traditional Roman religion" explains less than it avoids. Or rather, it presumes a background. (By the way, Tacitus' disparagement of adulation is often taken out of its context and interpreted as a general condemnation: I thought I'd made that clear but maybe not!)

I'll do as you suggest with the messiest, most disorganised sections, which currently look more like a demolition site than a construction project. I might also copy the whole article into a user-page and try some bold re-arrangements. As ever, my sincere appreciation. Haploidavey (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No! you're anything but discouraging! You've made the best - OK, I'll be honest, the only suggestions anyone has made for improving the article. But what an enormous kettle of Imperial worms it is. Haploidavey (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a brief note - I got your message, for which I thank you. Imp Cult talk is on my watchlist - I'll transfer to there. Haploidavey (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got the e-mail, straight through to my address. No pdf as yet but would it be possible to send through normal channels? Best regards. Haploidavey (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I ran out of steam about two hours ago, and have been irritably picking at my dreadful errors and misunderstandings ever since, to moderately disastrous effect... ho hum, much trimming to be done. This is a hello, really - but also a thank you for introducing me to Momigliano and his integrity - oh yes, and to avoid more trouble at the Cult, I was thinking of starting an article to include the rite of apotheosis (which at this stage of my ignorance seems like a very posh Roman funeral with an eagle on top). It would make sense to place such a snippet at one end of a general article on funeral rites in Ancient Rome - at the other end, dragging with a hook, assuming that's the worst. I know you've an interest in the subject ( and have little opportunity at the moment). Best regards. Haploidavey (talk) 01:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In yesterday's feeding frenzy I somehow overlooked your appreciative comments on my talk-page. I am now rather bowled over - thank you so much. Haploidavey (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Scholars

The omission of birthdates surprises me. I'm in London in two weeks or so, and will have access to "Who's who". Other databases might include university, electoral and census rolls. Either way, finding out would be no trouble at all - indeed a pleasure, even if challenging in a small way, which is entirely another thing. I'll do what I can and post as-soon-as. Haploidavey (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my rash promises... I'll check the following if you prefer (there'll be a 2 week wait, as I said) but meantime this was keeping company with the wee fish at the bottom of the net:

His entry in Who's Who reveals that he was born on February 3, 1940, and was educated at Manchester Grammar School and Balliol College, Oxford. He lectured at Leicester University between 1963 and 1976 before joining the University of Exeter as Professor of Classics in 1977.

(taken (apparently) from an article in the Scotsman by the author of the following: [2]). Haploidavey (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiseman is mighty. He effaces even your browser-cache. TrembleHaploidavey (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC) and bow down...[reply]

I was amazed to find not a single biography of Wiseman online - apart from the few academic summaries in university pages - so yours is an overdue and welcome addition. I think you've done the good deed by him and look forward to more on his work (oh, what an unsubtle man I am!), which I've come to admire very deeply, as much for its kindness and sympathetic imagination as for its bold dealing with the stuff beneath the skin. And you'll proofread and edit your own far better than anyone else could - not that anything jumped off the page in this respect. Haploidavey (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being a bit hard on yourself over the Charon's obol changes - I admit it, I stalked the page (or rather, it's been on my watchlist) - and I thought your comments fair: infinitely more fair and reasonable than some I've made. Sometimes editors look for things to edit and sometimes they look for things that need editing: sometimes they don't see the difference - this can produce what I think of as casual or "wanton changes"... (steady on now!) They're the hardest to address, because most readers simply won't have the original editor's grasp of the material. How could they? But I honestly believe they should be addressed, for the sake of the encyclopedia and all its editors. Shouldn't we extend the same courteous but stringent reasoning we expect from others to the work of others? Haploidavey (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Res divina etc

I just replied on my own talk-page - tut. You've made a wonderful job. Let's be honest, there was a great deal of off-topic rambling in that section, and there's more to be dealt with in the others. None of it comes easily to me, I'm afraid! What you see on my pages are a series of disconnected spoil heaps, which I then have to laboriously sift through for nuggets. You wield a skillful shovel. The results are in a different league and a delight to read. Haploidavey (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination

Hi. I've nominated T.P. Wiseman, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Bruce1ee^talk 09:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yee-hah! Obviously chosen for the Beard connection, eh? I thought I'd also let you know I read Wiseman's review of Feeney's Caesar's Calendar, etc. at the hallowed London Review of Books online portal. I looked for more by (or on) T.P. Not a lot there but LRB's own google-search led me straight to... (wait for it)... your article. I was chuffed. Haploidavey (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to put this post, but anyway - I subscribe to the paper version of the LRB - an expensive fortnightly joy among the sundry grimness of the "letterbox portal". The subscription also gives unlimited online access, but their online archives only go back to 2001 or so. Pity. But if you want anything looked, do ask. Haploidavey (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I daren't summarise based on my abysmal recall (PS - and spelling), so give me a while - I might forward you what I can via your email, all things permitting. Otherwise, I'll stick my neck out here. By the way, I registered with The Scotsman but even then couldn't access the Wiseman-Potter article so it's likely been blocked due to swamping. Haploidavey (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In some ways, yes: Feeney "very nearly succeeds". I think Wiseman would have taken a very different approach. (I've scrubbed the rest of my "summary" here as irrelevant). Look out for post in your email. Haploidavey (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for T.P. Wiseman

On July 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article T.P. Wiseman, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Giants27 (

c|s 05:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link

I've not heard of Dirda, but he seems to have chosen some of my more contentious favourites and a few I've been meaning to read when the opportunity arises. His take on Brown will be interesting, I think - I only know your excerpts of his work - Bowersock I know first-hand only through "Dionysus as an Epic Hero" (which I read quite a while back). The essays look well worth tracking down, so thank you. Haploidavey (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E. C. Osondu

Ok I see now what the meaning is that you want to get accross. It would be very difficult to combine those two ideas smoothly into one sentence, unless you know the title of the first story he submitted for the 2007 Caine award. I can see several possiblities though. I would suggest omitting the 2007 submission. Or, "Osondu was a finalist for the 2007 Caine Prize; in 2009 he won for his short story "Waiting". Even with the commas seperating the 2007 event, it is confusing as to what it means. I guess it is gramatically correct but because of the time lapse and the two different stories, I read through it thinking you were infact talking about the same story for both years.

--Baumgaertner (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nigidius Figulus

Thanks for your thoughts on Nigidius Figulus. Indeed the first I heard of him was when I read the Britannica article I edited for Wikisource. Politics seemed important to him, and he was certainly involved, but my moving the paragraph on his reputation back into the body of the article took too much emphasis on his scholarship from the intro. Still the paragraph seems too wordy for the summary. I thought it was interesting to see a scholar so involved in politics. I'll leave the article with your reversion. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vespasian et al

Welcome! To both you and the article, which I just read aloud to a rapt maman Haploidavey. It held surprises for both of us, and Gruen writes splendidly. Your thoughtful dispatch is much appreciated. It has opened things up once more (always a Good Thing), and not just for the culty business. Every now and then, I read something - or more usually re-read it after a long-ish interval in which other things get read and written - and things fall into place, like the tumblers in a horrendously complicated lock. Then the door opens. And I behold a strained metaphor...

Isn't it an altogether amazing and inexhaustible subject area? I spent three days at the British Library with a booklist of five, of which I managed three. Sadly, Brent's work on the early Christian church up to Cyprian offered no translations for its copious Greek quotations: very frustrating. Of course, the article that dare not speak its name is a battle but makes increasing headway. Every swathe of undergrowth cleared reveals the trees within. The rest proceeds piecemeal but the pieces begin to fit and those that don't are course no loss (they're mulch for other articles). The "Augustus" section's dreadfully otiose but I expect to drown a little in the details for a while longer and there'll be merciless hacking from time to time for that and the rest. In short, things seem to be going quite well, especially with this irresistible impulse to express just about everything through dreadfully unoriginal and long-winded analogy. For some reason, the article (and only that article) won't let me edit at the moment. I've asked why at a help-place. (PS - I just know someone's developed a bot that prevents long-windedness and everything else that comes easily to me) Haploidavey (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though as you ask - I'm having a remarkably difficult job finding more than the most generalised information on post-Decian cult. A major omission. Haploidavey (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, have you read Gruen's "The Last Generation of the Roman Republic"? I haven't, but was thinking of tracking it down. So I was wondering what you made of it, especially in relation to Syme's work on the same period. Haploidavey (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you fell for it, and told me something new. Not that I'd ever cast you a line, but somehow I thought you'd be a practised writer of something more than gardening tips. I like what you say about Syme and Gruen, and I think you've hit the nail. Syme is mesmerising... um... sort of Roman baroque. All those near-interminable, elaborate, forwards and backwards, spiky streams, and then a great lump of masonry to finish it off. Bang. Fabulous, oracular stuff. I might disagree but wouldn't dare argue, let alone cross-question him for it. As you say, "Syme says this" and there's an end to it. I've been trying to read Tacitus in the original (with a lot - really a lot - of help from Lewises and the Shorts and the rest). Of course, its beyond me really, but Syme's right there in the orthography. It occurs to me that I never question Tacitus either; just listen then slope respectfully away and do my things in a corner where he can't see me. Haploidavey (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral architecture

I responded to your comment by reducing the intro to make it more architceturally specific and adding an extra section, which gives people the option to simply skip an explanatory preamble if they chose to. Amandajm (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Túr Gloine

Well done! I have observed the difficulties of scraping info together. I'm located in Australia, which means I haven't got access to anything local. Amandajm (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autoreviewer

Having glanced over your article creations, I have given you the "autoreviewer" status. It's not a badge or a barnstar, and it does come with some strings. Basically, community members no longer need to (waste time) patrol(ling) your article creations - they are assumed to be good. In return, I hope that you will keep up your own high standards of article creation, even now without the safety net of a guaranteed look-over. It may be wise to make sure that you review policy / guidelines if in doubt, particularly on the sometimes tricky area of notability. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions! Cheers, - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 19:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that AFAIK does not offer any advantages re. image uploads, but I could be wrong. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 19:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)oghini[reply]

The great belated Tacitus

Yes! That's exactly how it feels. I love knowing I'm trying to navigate something hugely respected and both superbly and quirkily crafted. That's a great motivator. Even if I can't find first gear. Haploidavey (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and the late Vespasian

Thank you! It had completely escaped my Imperial radar. Haploidavey (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Walter Horn

On August 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Walter Horn, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

{{User0|Giants27 14:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Augusti

You've found one of my major sources of frustration: everything to do with transition to Christianity. The short answer is "no", but en route to offering you nothing of substance, I'm not sure what you mean by the point (if any) sought in connection of Mary's heavenly birthday with that of Augustus (or imho, the Augusti, despite the Latin). Possibly none, other than a neat fit (not made in the article) of one over the other in the Calendar and Roman conservatism in all things Roman. Could you clarify?

For what it's worth, one thing that really really annoys me about Imperial cult scholarship is the Imperial cult as a specific category, which it wasn't (see Beard). The other is the impossibility of studying it other than categorical terms (see Gradel). Fishwick's earlier work on Imperial cult is much more adventurous than his later work in matters of synthesis and equivalence - remember Vercondaridubnus, August 1 and Lughnasa? Haploidavey (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usurpation! Yes, and no more traumatic or revolutionary than any other usurpation in Rome's history. In my own strictly amateur and guffy opinion, the transfer of power from a "pagan system" to a "Christian system" becomes difficult to see only when looked at from perspectives presumed opposite rather than antagonistic. In the context of "Imperial cult", Christianity is another cult, baffling, subversive and a major pain. But of course, that's just Rome as-it-was, to which the self-identity of Christian perspective was neither here nor there. Christianity regards itself as the radical fulfillment of everything that's gone before: that is a Christian viewpoint, not Roman. Christian festivals, saints, you name it, are absorbed by a Roman Calendar, and become Roman. Rome becomes a Christian Empire, and what follows is another chapter, but it's still Roman. It's a conservative ideology but a brilliantly organic and yielding system. And sometimes (I remind myself), older scholarship is much more helpful than modern. Haploidavey (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've every sympathy with your frazzle. Deconstruction's healthy, even if it gives one a headache, but I think it's more about the nature of questioning and knowledge than about problem solving. Maybe the burn-out's a signal that enough questions have been asked - time to go back to telling the story. Your advice to me on Cult was excellent - whose story, how does it unfold, what happened next. And thank you for the compliment - though the Cult is perhaps a little too broad. We'll see. (I took the liberty of rephrasing and separating this paragraph and adding a little. Also, thanks for linking me to another festival requiring attention. Working on those bijou articles really helps clear my head.) Sincere regards. Haploidavey (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cambrai Homily

On August 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cambrai Homily, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

08:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ronald Syme

If I were actually offended, I would have made a much more pointed demurrer. I last read Syme some years ago, and he certainly leaves the impression that he thinks the death of Hirtius and Pansa is a Machtergreifung. I do not recall, and cannot be bothered to look up, his exact words. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

Appreciate articles about Lucifer. Left info. on Lucifer section. Native Americans said "many moons", but didn't have telescopes. Jupiter, Saturn. Charlie Brown. Football, Psychology. Lucy75.203.112.55 (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

adventus

That's just what I'm after - she co-authored something perceptive in another of the refs I used. And your compliments are much valued. Bless you. No hurry whatever on the email, which was but a well-intentioned blurble. Or else an attempt to bump-start two stuck writers. Haploidavey (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC) PS: Calling myself "blocked" after an interval of ten years or so seems a bit optimistic! But at some point I'm going to try again, and this time I'll know not to force it. So yes, I really am glad to have stuck in there with cultus. It has taught me more about people than any other writing project I've taken on. Haploidavey (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MacCormack's adventus is not excerpted online: but a title search turned up quite a broad swatch of scholarly references to it in other works, via google books - I'd best use those, I think. MacCormack seems a major player in the field. Once again, my thanks for that and other thoughtfulness. Haploidavey (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that really would be useful! I really wasn't trawling you there... Haploidavey (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC) :Sorry, nothing new. I just fixed my error in the author-name - I'd spelt it MacCormick: a curious slip, as MacCormick [sic] has a book on pretty similar topics, and cites guess-who. Such a small world. Haploidavey (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just got it and had a quick skim. It looks spectacular. I was wrong about her co-authorship - she's cited in one of my bookmarked googlepages, (the MacCormick, quite recent) which I intended to use but has key pages missing in pre-view: and is no longer required thanks to you. Haploidavey (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobiles

Yes, very happy to do that. Hope things are going OK for you. Haploidavey (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have next to nothing, but have posted what I can on nobiles talk and will of course keep a look-out.

Persecutions

Thanks for notifying me - I added my tuppence worth. It's a difficult subject: and I've noticed myself that once I've "finished" with an article the introduction always needs disinterested attention because the article has outgrown the original plan. Haploidavey (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh!? You didn't sound at all nutty. You made a reasonable and rational observation - didn't you? - on the introduction to a topic that's bound to draw flak. Haploidavey (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, I guess it's likely that most will just read the introduction to something offered on a plate at page 1 - for the most part, that's likely a casual readership. Personally, I tend to skip introductions - which is probably why my own tend to be unsatisfactory - because most of my reading's directed towards the substance and searches for cited authorship. Everything here is potentially loaded with whatever the reader brings to it, to say nothing of the writer. If even the apparently innocuous genius is potentially fraught (see my talk-page) I don't think any article titled "Persecution" (of whoever or whatever - and how else could it be titled?) can fail to provoke debate and dispute... which is healthy. And of course none of this obviates the requirement for actively critical reading. Caveat lector, every time.

And again speaking personally - out of habit - I think that your uncertainty regarding the intros to Charon's Obol and Unclean Spirit might be markers of your uncertainty somewhere in the main text. Or a striving for certainty (cf Keats) where there's none to be found? I have to say, neither is apparent to me - but then, I draw my own conclusions and would be hard pressed to express these as other than emotional. I think sometimes one must be content with the reportage of mystery, not its explication. Least of all its solution, which would be most unsatisfactory. I hope I don't presume too much here. Haploidavey (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Different ball-game, but only sort-of. One's predicated on the other. That needs a lot more thought than my usual lazy stream-of-semi-consciousness. I'm re-reading a few times before I respond... Haploidavey (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindented, just in case) Smileys! How about a "smiley of uncertainty"... or a "smiley of skepticism". A "smiley of hamstrung creativity and elucidation" would be a quite Sardonic Smiley, I believe. I'd definitely go for a "smiley of Original Thought and bugger the consequences".

Narratives. Yes, that's one of the reasons why I do my damnedest to avoid details that don't move the narrative onwards. So many dates, bloody battles, who won, who lost, who was the emperor, when was the empire, yes it was, no it wasn't, yes it was, that's POV!!!!!! Was he gay??? I heard he was! Jeeeeez... who needs it? Of course the Big Fiction on these here pages is that as long as we're dutiful drudges of others' scholarship and keep it squeaky clean "in our own words" we serve The Purpose. That's a more serious problem because, well, no we don't. Books are touchpaper. Of course its much easier with broad, extremely well debated and disputed topics where a form of original synthesis can happen through patchwork. The result is a hybrid, with a peculiar life of its own - which is pretty close to Original Thought, which to me is damn close to Original Research. But then, I'm not a scholar and if I seem to gravitate towards big topics its because they're very much in evidence. I shy away from deep, obscure and narrow fields partly because I don't even know they exist until someone like you writes about them.

So it's difficult for me to do other than hear what you say. You're dealing with arcane and difficult material at a level I simply can't match, even if my occasional intuitions prove useful. I hate the Original Research bar when it stymies the development of articles like yours - or any, really. And it's an absurd evasion of the real problems in historiography. Cripes. Eheu... (yes, at last I've learned to sigh in Latin. It's a personal landmark though I'm also listening to Beethoven's 9th so the eheu's rhetorical - impossible not to feel good with the 9th).

I have to say, I'm amazed at what seems to me a fairly common and scarily naive presumption that Livy is a sounder bet for the "facts"(!) than a modern published "secondary" authority and that either is preferable to an intelligent and articulate interpretation based on a grasp of both. Depressing and fallacious professionalism, arguing from authority for a position that's actually based on belief - or, if you will and more accurately, disbelief. And so widespread - creeping paranoia and mistrust. It's why the British educational establishment is obsessed with testing and measuring - (they call this evaluating; but don't let me start on that. Quite scary). Though actually, I have started, haven't I? Because in the end, it's the same thing, and deeply anti-humanistic.

This is just a smidge because I write very slowly and then have to check for my habitual typos and crapitty grammar. More anon with reference to history not actually moving backwards (like William Holden in Sunset Boulevard), the cult to Pillars of mellifluous wiki-Goodness and most of all, initiation - which I'm sure will strike me as spot on just as soon as you offer me a citation in triplicate from the HA. Haploidavey (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I knew you'd not take that on, but I thought it might be read against intent... back to your list now. By Monday without fail. Haploidavey (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I like the motto! Haploidavey (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bear-hugged by topic

Well, I've been taking sneak previews. Beautifully written and it lucidly explained to me just what a governor was in those circumstances: that's a first. But yes, the List! and after all that's what it is and I don't envy you the task - shows Rome at its least likable. What a bunch. The Middle Republic reeks of neurotic insecurity and I've never been able to cope with even trying to understand it. Actually, I linked out from the article to some of the basic status and social terms and concepts (good to see your crucial link to Other) in Roman society and it confirmed what's really lacking in Wikipedia's Romanoid topics: the difficult and essential stuff of social relationships, things that happen between the lines rather than the power-badge identity stuff. Plebs, citizenship, clientage, you name it. It never ends, does it? Haploidavey (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Triumphal and other honours

Thanks. How did I miss that? Or maybe I just forgot about it. The Roman Triumph article's a chronic itch. At some point, I'll have to give in and deal with it. No balm otherwise. At the moment it makes me shrivel up inside, but I do find it useful sometimes (especially when stuck) to read and edit around the subject. Beard's book is splendid for all manner of things - did I tell you I bought it? - superbly indexed and very broad in scope. I'm only just discovering how best to read it: which in my case means reading and re-reading it with all the ignorance I can muster (that's lots, therefore easily done) and none of that ferocious intention to "do research" (kills a good creative read stone dead). Haploidavey (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of the best reasons would be not having to deal with Roman Triumph! I agree that at some point, these two might be usefully merged - but for now why not see how they both look some way down the road? EraNavigator developed the Triumphal honours article, and I don't know whether or not s/he's put it to bed. I'll drop EraNavigator a line. Haploidavey (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minding the S's and P's

Very happy to oblige: I don't see how they could be other than capitalised as entities. Consider any attentions reciprocal - you've a luscious-seeming reference there on Triumphal debate in Livy. Where do you hide your articles-in-progress? They seem to spring forth fully gestated, like Herself. Haploidavey (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, all's well with the article and I see no requirement for further citation. One thing only - and it might just be me being thick - but the grant of imperium to magistrates while still privati had me baffled. Less baffled now I've read the promagistrate article: but it still seems a remarkable sleight-of-propriety. Heigh ho, live and learn. Haploidavey (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to move my comment - though I must say, it's based on my own misunderstanding rather than your text. Athena's gifts to me were just stocking-fillers, alas. Haploidavey (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only an iota's difference

« τρίκτυπε, τρίφθογγε » shows on my screen as lowercase tau-rho-(English letter "i").... In edit mode I can see that you typed « τρικτυπε, τριφθογγε » with accented iotas, but it doesn't display that way in browse mode. My display font is Wikipedia's default choice, DejaVu Sans. Should I be using a different "skin"? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A source for triple goddess stuff, if you read German

If you're comfortable with German, you might want to look at T. Hopfner, "Hekate-Selene-Artemis and Verwandte in den griechischen Zauberpapyri und auf den Fluchtafeln," Pisciculi (FS. F. J. Dölger, Münster, 1939), 125-45. He examines several magical papyri, including PGM IV.2785ff., the focus of so much discussion lately. I'm never happy when I have to read German, so it will probably be a long time before I get to this one, but it seems like it might help in the development of Triple goddesses in antiquity... --Akhilleus (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand bowing out; I tagged as a way of doing so myself. But it's bad luck to let go of a wolf's jaws. At least you didn't do it on a Tuesday. ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you do find the time to edit an article on how contemporary classicists treat the epithet formation away from the discussions of Theosophy, 19th C. pseudoscholarhip, goddess feminism and neopaganism. I'd certainly enjoy reading it. Thanks for both your erudition and clearheaddedness in the subject so far. Davémon (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gaius Cassius Longinus

Thanks for jumping in there. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucius Valerius Flaccus (praetor 63 BC)

I am no expert on this - or any - LVF, but I have had a look at Appietas's draft, and it seems to have plenty content and references to make a decent article. There is a bit of work needed to get it into the right style, and it reads as though there is some OR that would have to be trimmed, but I think it would be a waste not to get it over into mainspace soon.

I have had a go at the lead and first section (Birth etc) at User:Grafen/sandbox. It gets a bit trickier after that, and I would be delighted if you were to finish it off (or start again if you think you can do better). But I hope we can get it launched one way or another. Grafen (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for both messages. All points taken. I shall leave Flacci alone for the time being. Grafen (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Well found and thank you, C. That's probably the longest and most thorough I've seen anywhere. And you've done great work at Ambitus, I see. Haploidavey (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Sucks teeth"

...is as near candid as I'll allow myself, but yes, the underlying issues have surfaced. Remember Truth? Plus Deity? Obscurely yours, Haploidavey (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it a major transgression. 'Cept of reality: so, business as usual. Haploidavey (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The H Word

Well, I wish you'd stick around the article, Cynwolfe, because your suggestions are quite reasonable. Certainly more reasonable than this: [3]. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, there was Mary

Oh, wonderful stuff. Isn't that just the bees knees? Haploidavey (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a Tums

Well, it could be worse - and if we leave it, it will be. Some Latin I student will insist on magister equita (it's plural, isn't it?); or at least on accent marks.

The difference from mother-in-laws is that mother-in-laws may, however irrational, be usage. This has no such excuse; all of these hits appear OCR blunders (equitum 5 from an index, equitans, equitibus ( [sic]!)).Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman, however, is redundant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, after looking at the article is that there are at least three offices involved:

The assistant to a dictator, which appears to be all the present contents.
The relatively short-lived office under the Dominate, standing CinC Cavalry.
The British (and other modern) offices called Master of the Horse.

(2) can only be Category:Magistri equitum and eventually will be.

(3) makes Category:Master of the Horse ambiguous (although I would like it). If I had the switch, a great cat including Rupert of the Rhine and Gaius Servilius Ahala would be cute.

So how about Category:Roman Master of the Horse and Category:Magistri equitum for list of magistri equitum, after Category:Magistri militum? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had two proposals;

One big cat called Category:Masters of the Horse to cover everybody.
Category:Roman Masters of the Horse covers the present cat, leaving Category:English Masters of the Horse for Rupert and Category:Magistri equitum for Constantine's cavalry generals.

(1) may be simplest. But something must be done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is going to be a cat for the fourth-century generals, it must be Category:Magistri equitum, both because historians say that, and for consistency with Category:Magistri militum, which exists and which it would be silly to move. But upon reflection, I don't expect such a cat soon, since the articles don't exist; if someone writes them, let that editor make the cat, as a subcat. I therefore commend one big cat Category:Masters of the Horse, which can have subcats as necessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 11:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an admin power; if (like me) you ain't one, you tag the cat with {{subst:cfd}} and explain at WP:Categories for discussion, to which the tag will link. If that isn't clear, I'll do it, and you can follow my edits. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renominated, as the closer suggested. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Baebius Tamphilus

Hey -- I've reviewed your article Marcus Baebius Tamphilus, and I noticed that you're using Wikipedia as a source (sources 3, 28, and 30). It is a commonly accepted fact that it is inappropriate to use another Wikipedia article as a source. See this RSN discussion. Just thought I'd let you know! [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 17:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(This user was notified that these were not citations of sources in support of information provided in the article, but amplifications of the text and 'see also' links for readers who wanted additional background on related topics.)

DYK for Marcus Baebius Tamphilus

On November 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marcus Baebius Tamphilus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek love

I came across your edit while scouring the recent talk page of GL - a breath of fresh air, if I may say so. Your refs were very much a propos, and I am sorry that the current editors did not sufficiently recognise the pertinence of your comments. The version of the article I worked on for over three years [earlier version], was directed to exploring the subject rather than the history of the term. Re the (Cicero) refs to 'amor amicitiae' and 'more Graecorum', I wondered if there exists anywhere the phrase 'amor amicitiae Graecorum' (in Cicero or elsewhere), which happy combination might satisfy the 'literalists'! Can you help? Dominique (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]