User talk:Rothorpe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Chhinnamasta: Wikipedia:Peer review/Chhinnamasta/archive1[edit]

Hi Rothorpe.. I hope you are doing well ... It is been a long time since you helped Ahalya's journey to a FA. The article Chinnamasta was recently expanded for a potential FAC. Like Ahalya, Chinnamasta will benefit from reviewers, who are unfamiliar with Hinduism so that we can know if a non-Hindu understands the article. Chinnamasta is a self-decapitated Hindu goddess, who holds her severed head in her hand and drinks blood from her wound.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Far out! Thanks, I've put her on my watchlist and will keep up with revisions. Rothorpe (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Rothorpe. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Greco-Roman mysteries[edit]

Hello, Rothorpe! -- I need your opinion regarding this edit to Greco-Roman mysteries. The editor changed this:

  • Christianity was seen as objectionable by the Roman establishment not on grounds of its tenets or practices, but because early Christians chose to consider their faith as precluding the participation in the imperial cult, which was seen as subversive by the Roman establishment.

to:

  • Christianity was seen as objectionable by the Roman establishment not on grounds of its tenets or practices, but because early Christians chose to consider their faith as precluding the participation in the imperial cult, causing them to be seen as subversive by the Roman establishment.

While I agree that it is important to have the antecedent of a relative pronoun ("which") clear, I'm not sure this is the best fix. Also, wouldn't you agree that although "which" often efers to (and replaces) a single noun, sometimes it can refer to (and modify) an entire clause, which I think is the case here.

(a) Do you think it was clear enough (before the edit) that "which" referred to the entire clause that precedes it ("early Christians chose to consider their faith as precluding the participation in the imperial cult" – which could be made more concise)?

(b) If not, and you support a re-wording, do you think "causing them to be seen as subversive by the Roman establishment" is the best possible re-wording? I was thinking that the sentence starts out with "Christianity was seen as objectionable", so the topic of the sentence is Christianity, not Christians. Also, that last clause in a certain sense repeats "Christianity was seen as objectionable", so I'm not sure it is even necessary.

I'm wondering if the entire sentence should be re-arranged, something like:

  • The Roman establishment found Christianity objectionable, and even subversive, not on grounds of its tenets or practices but because early Christians saw their faith as precluding participation in the imperial cult.

Any ideas?  – Corinne (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I follow your reasoning. Tuck 'subversive' in after 'objectionable', yes indeed. Rothorpe (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I've made the change.  – Corinne (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the cover art[edit]

Sincere apologies, Rothorpe, if you recently stumbled upon any ancient ethnic traditional footwear. I found your usual politeness and friendly advice a terrible shock. I would have emailed you, but I always like to appear terribly elusive, of course. Are there any articles I can help out on for you? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "My name is not worth knowing, it's enough to know I'm just a willing slave to something free".

It's just an elusion! Rothorpe (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


Oran fatwa[edit]

Hello, Rothorpe -- What do you think of these edits to Oran fatwa?  – Corinne (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Another case of EFES, I fear. Suggest you do your usual polite revert. Rothorpe (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I can't. Look at his/her user page. If anything, I would invite him/her to go over each edit, discussing each one, but s/he may not be interested in doing that.  – Corinne (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
She (1st user box) is clearly unlazy & may be amenable to that. Rothorpe (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Uguisu no fun[edit]

I came across this sentence near the beginning of the History section of the article on Uguisu no fun:

  • Then, during the Edo period (AD 1603–1868), the Japanese expanded its use by using it as a beauty treatment.

Can you think of any way to avoid the appearance of two forms of "use" in the same sentence? Perhaps substituting "introducing" or "adopting" for "using"? Any other ideas?  – Corinne (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Tricky. Or 'by employing', perhaps. Or '...additionally, they used it as...', perhaps combining the sentences. Rothorpe (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Do you think it is really necessary to say "expanded its use"? How about just skipping it and saying:
  • Then, during the Edo period (AD 1603–1868), the Japanese began using it as a beauty treatment.
?  – Corinne (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I was toying with that, yes. But maybe it's informative? Rothorpe (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)