User talk:Haploidavey

I'm taking a hemi-demi-semi break.

Angitia

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

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

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

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

deletion vs. redirect

What an odd painting (click to read info)

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

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

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

O Imporcitor magnanime!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Duenos inscription

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ga

Diligent copyeditors

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

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

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

Gladiator

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

Jan Sviták

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

Bona Dea

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

Anglicization of Names

Dear Haploidavey,

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

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

Iuventas

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

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

Juvenile me

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

BTW, I know what you mean about researching the Roman omen. Google Books has gotten impossible to search anyway, you get so many duplicate results and misdated books (because of so-called presses republishing public domain books). That's why I keep adding to my vast personalized library, from which I offer the following, if you don't have them (I'm sure you have many) [1]; [2]; on wedding omens; [3]; our friends at Roman and European Mythologies; an odd thing that I've found strangely enjoyable to dip into, maybe not directly relevant but interesting background from the perspective of Babylonian astrology; [4]; no longer available in preview, but a must; IE etymology; Linderski in ANRW. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

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

DYK for Jan Sviták

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

Query

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

Juno

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marriage proposals and other stuff

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

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

AdamWimborne

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

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

DYK for Muriel a oranžová smrt

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

Mattocks pickaxes and spades, oh my!

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

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

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

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

Janáček

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

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

International Women's Day

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

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

Really I'm just thinking aloud.

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

Latin in Genius (mythology)

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

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

Thanks

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

Gaia

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

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

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

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

Let this be a warning to submit blindly

I'm feeling exceptionally surly about WP at the moment. Rainy days and Mondays and burning heretics always bring me down. By the way, have you ever seen the 1928 silent film about the trial of St. Joan?[5] I saw it on Turner Classic Movies the other night. WP article here. So much with so little! Astonishingly expressive faces, like allegorical paintings or great portraits. I think I was particularly struck by this because of online facelessness, and on social sites all these people posting "candid" photos of themselves that reveal absolutely nothing. One of the reasons I got unexpectedly sucked into Pluto (mythology) was the art (the Caravaggio was bizarrely compelling, though not for the faces so much as … whatever). Sorry, I've blurbled all over your page again to keep myself from spewing things I'll be horsewhipped for elsewhere. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks for the message

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

Concerns about tendentious editing

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

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

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

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

But how splendid of you to reinvent it. Fancy my link getting swallowed in the Pond; I guess those pesky Atlanteans are down there still, feeding on our transmissions. You just got the empty husk. The link was to one of Ignatius Donnelly's masterworks, Atlantis: the Antediluvian World. Let's see if it comes up this time. [6]. Oh dear. Don't click on the first one. It's got an annoying wobbly thing inside. Haploidavey (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Credo accounts

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

votum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Classics Articles and Lectures

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

Roman religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then you'll really like this one from Pompeii

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

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

Orphic world egg

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

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

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

file this

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

imagines

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

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

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

funerals

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psoriasis

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

oops

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

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

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

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

Moves

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Rediculus

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

Atticusattor Replying to Haploidavy

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Africa.com

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

Spaeth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roman Republic Iron Age

Slightly frustrating ...

Roman Republic Iron Age

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

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

Rome and the Iron age

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

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

Interpretatio graeca

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

Thanks, but only half done

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

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

pagan monotheism

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

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

Edits at Hitler religious views

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UFC XCIV: Demetrius v. Diodorus

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

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

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

Roman school

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kerala

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

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

Re : Your edit summary at the Kerala article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Children of Dionysus

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

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

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

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

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

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

Invitation for comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

lapis niger

Sorry for troubling you with a little problem again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IC(AR)

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

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

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

Thank you

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

Psoriasis and the Chaga mushroom

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

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

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

Galli

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

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

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

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

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

Incident on Hitler's religious beliefs

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

Coward

You coward! You erased truthfull evidence again that I had placed on your user page.

Hey, if you were 100% holy, how would it hurt people if some one in the future had gone around and had rather fraudulently called you: "Haploidavey of the Underworld" or "Haploidavey of hell"?

Therefore please! Gladly show God some respect!