User talk:Cynwolfe

Fulvia, and "the joy with which she pierced the tongue of the dead Cicero with her golden hairpins," a phrase which belongs in the Wikipedia hall of fame.

Welcome. I don't have any rules or preferences about how you communicate with me — carrier pigeon is fine — so let me know if you want me to reply here or on your talk page. —Cynwolfe

DYK for Gileppe Dam

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Aorist

Actually I only waded into Talk:Aorist after I was shamed by your parenthetical "no Wareh?" I must have been no more clear about this than I have been concise and effective in my contributions to Talk:Aorist. This is the problem with these ridiculous Wikipedia disputes: once they are inelegant sprawling messes of people talking past each other without common sense, it is difficult (for me) to make any intervention without just producing more of the repetitious hot air. Anyway, I'm glad you're back. There remain many unwelcoming bad airs hanging around here and there, but there is also one more bright spot. Wareh (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I know you didn't mean to shame. I'm tempted to follow your example on the talk pages. Maybe a good rule would be to be ready to disturb only fairly sleepy talk pages with ideas or answers to questions curiously asked. These talk page controversies, on the other hand! I feel less useful and not more when I let myself get sucked in. I think I'm done with the aorist, whatever happens. When talk bloat breaks out, we'd be better served by brief statements of position, with supporting essays, if needed, linked from our user space. I know I tend to be wasteful of syllables myself (always the cock-eyed optimist) in that situation, which is why I may partially withdraw from the fray out of concern for my soul's welfare. Wareh (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You are the hero of that talk page & have charmed the savage beasts. Haste to Washington! Wareh (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Novensiles and others

Hey, bold ἥρως. Just an acknowledgment of your note. I've had a watchlist-light spell for the last few weeks, with only a handful of articles to guard. All restored now, including Novensiles and Di Indigetes. You've asserted what needed asserting; of course, my attention was immediately nabbed by the Lars Martialis. Will despatch electro-pigeon on other matters, soon. Haploidavey (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Those tantalizing fragments! Q-tips from hidden bales... I made a quick search at jstor; three reviews of the Palmer essays. No text match for the AJA article. I'm quite taken with your rambled connection from there to Bovie; I wonder, how might she have coped with more than she chose for herself? Might she have chosen obscurity? Haploidavey (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010 (UTC)

Dionysiac

I would use Dionysiac and Bacchic about the cult, especially the cultic ecstasy. There are two complications with Dionysian: it's Kaufmann's rendition of Nietzsche's technical term, and it also means "relating to Dionysius" (the tyrants, Exiguus, or the Areopagite) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Glossary

Just got your note after a day out. Excellent. The Glossary stayed on my list, but my caretaking's been half-hearted at best; yours is bracing. So. Batten the hatches, splice the mainbraces and stuff. Haploidavey (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

On lex: while you were writing that, I was casting through the history for the "original" version. I found it. Nothing added up. Please don't overestimate my capacity to grasp the issues, let alone frame a useful outline; sometimes I just fumble through. I found the original completely incomprehensible and didn't even see the need for an entry on lex per se. I did and do see the need to explain what might be meant by religious law, perhaps even a short entry on the relationship between religious and civil law. But quite honestly, I'm too tired, despondent and pissed off to try. Scrub it as ruinous and start from scratch. Haploidavey (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess. A lot of this shit has happened because of trying to be all collegial and nice. What's to be nice about, really. Have to say, the bird's ass was brilliant. Haploidavey (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Straight error (mine, no-one else's), now fixed. Graecus, Graeco or Graeca, it was; not ablative Graecia. Haploidavey (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The other is meaningless strife. Who knows why? Who know who? Wikipedia psoriatica... Haploidavey (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

aorist

Hi. Your opinion would be appreciated at Talk:Aorist#Protected II. — kwami (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Cynwolfe, I hope that the comment you posted at Talk:Aorist doesn't mean you are leaving. Your posts are well-reasoned and helpful. The three main protagonists are (as long as it lasts) taking a break from the discussion to leave unimpeded room for others to comment and develop their ideas for the article. Your outline is extremely helpful, I think. --Taivo (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

And you can request unprotection, on the grounds you specify, either from Maunus or from WP:RfPP (sorry for the gibberish, but it's easier to remember and type than the exact link), at any time. Without K or T or myself, it may well be granted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the note at the top of this page expressing my distaste for alphabet soup, and now eat and serve it daily. Linked soup now always welcome. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I would actually urge caution on getting the article unprotected. Get a consensus on a lead paragraph and that would be an appropriate time to unprotect the article, IMHO. The last thing that needs to happen is the accumulation of another pastiche of good words, bad words, stranded references, irrelevant references, etc. That's what accumulated before. --Taivo (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Or whether you need to start with the lead, which pressents the problem of whether the aorist is an aspect (I prefer the phrasing Taivo and I managed to collaborate on: that it is often an aspect); a part of the conjugation; an Indo-European stem; two Indo-European stems; or something else. This is irrelevant to most of the article, which can duck this largely verbal question - since the answer is "more or less all of them", but the lead can't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have no objection to the protected text, or some rational development of it, being at Aorist. It was a text written solely in lingustic in-speak, preaching one theory of the aorist, which belonged at Aorist (linguistics); although I could see putting the obscure argument over which functions of the aorist are "constitutive of the aorist aspect" under some such title. I'm sure you and Wareh and Dbachmann will work things out quite sensibly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well, if I loved ancient Greek I'd be a classics prof right now, so there's only so much blood, sweat, and tears I'll spill for the aorist. I think my frustration level has reached a point where I need to work on some things I love, or some non-WP things. This is not entirely related to aorist, but I'm sincerely glad people think my contribution there has been positive. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the comfort and nourishment. I just took the page off my watchlist. What a strange theater it is. It was clear enough how little I could do there. (I don't presume to have contributed much, but it does seem that the more substantive a point is, the more utterly it is ignored.) Archibald Thomas Robertson (and some less hoary and less informed players) keep trotting out on the boards to give the audience the moral of the story, when their proper use is not to reveal the truth but to help us define and sketch the questions that have long divided opinion and continue to inspire debate and comment. My pain is entirely self-inflicted, and, πάθει μάθος, I hope it may have helped me towards a more civilized and tea-drinking policy on when & where to jump in. There was not much worth saving in this case--just a hope for a future result that would not offend educated common sense. But it's plain that really good content can be attacked by the same kind of obsessive myopia, and there is little that can be done. Look to find me working in more obscure but less gloomy corners of the Wikipedia gardens. Wareh (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Fresh starts

Good advice. No wonder it's stilted and stale. What happened to story-telling? Haploidavey (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that sounds like fun. What happened to fun? Haploidavey (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, splendid mail from you on several fronts. I'm immensely cheered and seeing you're online, thought I'd give y'all a wave before response at m'leisure. Haploidavey (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

G&R project list

No, I couldn't find Gladiator there; be really good if you could do that – partly because I've the wikification-gland of a pygmy-shrew prone to cocking things up, plus my paws are pretty sore at the mo'; fingers like sausages (cooked). Haploidavey (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I swear it wasn't there yesterday. Nor Imp Cult, which is now among the 2nd hundred. And what's with "I'm just messing up everybody else's work"? Oh no you ain't. Haploidavey (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Blurry I can understand; you and me both, it seems. Yes to your suggestion re: Roman mythology, and the same applies to Religion in ancient Rome. Nowhere near adequate. Haploidavey (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Things must be desperate....

...I've started translating Aldrasto's Latin myself...[1]. Miss Reed (my old Latin mistress) would be so proud. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Your revert

May I ask how you got involved on the page Women's rights in Iran? I am asking because you had no prior history there, before your revert. You do realize that AzzureFurry is an editor with a history of disruption and POV-pushing on Iran-related pages, whose agenda is to promote the idea that stoning is not merely a Human rights issue, done by a repulsive government to its citizens of both gender, but rather a cultural issue. He basically wants to imply that women have been stoned, for being women, which is a fringe view. You seem like a reasonable editor, so please don't make hasty judgments, and revert yourself, in order to study the issue further. AlexanderPar (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I have the same right to edit that article as any other. Sometimes a news story will cause me to look at articles outside the areas in which I most often contribute. My position is quite clear: English-WP readers will expect to find stoning addressed in that article. The solution is not to suppress the section, but to present an accurate view of an issue that readers will expect to find. Articles often overlap in content; this is a relatively small amount of content. I don't see what the problem is. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you believe that the English-WP readers WILL EXPECT to read about stoning on a page about women`s rights in Iran!?, tells us more about your own biased outlook and closed mindset, than the actual expectations of English-WP readers. Also, you did not come to that page through reading a new article. What do you take me for, a fool? AlexanderPar (talk) 05:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)