User talk:Wareh

; Archives	2006-2007; 2008-2009
	2006-2007; 2008-2009

Bugnuts

I don't suppose someone could lose his WP account just for being bug____ crazy. But is he actually trying to introduce this, um, stuff on WP pages? RandomCritic (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rhetorica ad Alexandrum

I've replied on my page - more importantly though, do you know an electronic copy on the web? I was trying to find one, but no luck. Wikidea 15:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Videri

An energy quickly depleted — but restored (at least a little) by your thoughtful words. If the restructuring holds, I will probably just adopt a section or two. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amusement

[1] I thought you (and possibly Akhilleus) might enjoy this one... Kafka Liz (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA icon

(supposing you were who left me the message at es:user talk:manuelt15) sorrry but hat edit is legitim, here they approved the use of icons to identificate GA in this Wiki and it's interwikis, and that article on es: is a legitim GA, so please revert your edit --by Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 18:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)PD:feel free to reply here or my talk page here[reply]

In this case, the symbol constitutes a recommendation of content with major WP:OR problems, so WP:IAR would easily justify keeping it off of the individual page Pederasty in ancient Greece, even if there were a policy to use these icons. I appreciate your suggestion that the matter has been discussed somewhere, but

(A) In fact the discussion you link does not seem to have considered the issue of interwiki icons at all (it was in search of a consensus whether to display the icon on a good article itself). The words "foreign" or "interwiki" do not occur in the discussion or vote, and it is dubious whether e.g. the point "GAN is now pretty rigorous" would have been as persuasive if it had said "GAN here and in all of the sister Wikipedias is now pretty rigorous."
(B) Even if this discussion had explicitly decided on favoring the icon for the interwiki sidebar (which it did not), I am skeptical about whether that consensus would in fact bind anyone as Wikipedia policy. Wareh (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red and blue links

Thanks for restoring this. When I deleted the claim, it was on the basis of no apparent mention anywhere in the body of the text. But the link supports the claim, which is good news, editorially speaking! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contra principia negantem disputari non potest

Thanks for the quick research on Contra principia negantem disputari non potest. Any idea why most of the sources seem to be in German or Russian? Just an artifact of the coverage on Google Books and Google Scholar, or was the phrase used much more in German and Russian traditions than in English? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you'll see what "quick research" it was from how my best answers are only guesses. See my response at the article's talk page. Wareh (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:CSLEmperorRiverbank.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:CSLEmperorRiverbank.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

new Dude

Hi Stranger! There's a new Dude in town. You ought to lay out a welcome mat. Amphitryoniades (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Always nice to see new contributors with ambitions--thanks. Wareh (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aristotle#Ethnocentric

Thanks for you suggested reading; I added material, and will probably add more. My approach to the classic philosophers is psychological and evolutionary. It notes that what is missing from the philosophical formula is "sense." Aristotle appears to have introduced it in the form of observation, as he is given credit for the invention of the Scientific Model, but ethnocentric/racism issues tell me that he may not have been capable of this kind of open thought because of his bias; only fully functioning humans are.--John Bessa (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You raise some interesting questions, and I'm so glad I helped you find some reading that will let you add a different perspective that can be fully attributed to a reliable source. In comparison to your comments at Talk:Aristotle, I do believe that, while indeed many of the springs of human behavior are universal, others really do differ across time and space. This is one of the things that makes history and anthropology interesting to me. Of course, this does not mean that the historical (and human) phenomena have not often been given wrong names, divided in the wrong way, or (as you suggest in this case) conflated for specious and wrong reasons. Wareh (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Cool

You are a model of decorum, Wareh. (Apologies if that "Mr." should be "Ms," but I'm quite sincere.) It would be indecorous of me to point out why at this moment I should want to salute that. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm just not as cut out for the heat of battle as you may be! And it seems you're parrying contentious outbursts on every side at the moment. So, we each fight on for reason as we can... Wareh (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used to edit a weekly publication that covered politics and reviews of local theatre and (by far scariest) restaurants. We're talkin' libel lawyers, white supremacists alleging unbalanced reporting, and pimps complaining our sales reps weren't treating their thinly veiled sex ads with due respect. Much more fun, but an experience resulting in overdeveloped high-horse muscles, as I often demonstrate to my regret. I glanced at one talk page you were on recently (that prompted my initial note), and dropped my shield and ran like Archilochus. Best, Cynwolfe (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Comedy Reading

I did'n want to spam. I added the link the 2.nd time after dialogue with helpdesk, as you can check. Anyway, now I add a discussion at the "Divine Comedy" item discussion. To not seem I just want only some personal promotion, I hope someone else check the quality of the work and judge it worth a mention in the "Divine Comedy" link. I am aware of Wiki conditions, so I added the CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 to my page. Iacopovettori (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, no one at the help desk advised you that it would be appropriate to link to your own website from an article, but I don't dispute your good intentions. The article talk page, where you've taken this now, is the right place for consideration of the external link by editors unaffiliated with the material. Since you want this material in the commons, also note that if it becomes included in commons:Category:The Divine Comedy, it will be available to readers of Divine Comedy though the link to that category. Best, Wareh (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your suggestions. By the way, I looked at commons:Category:The Divine Comedy, but i found I cannot upload mp3. Moreover, the work consists in 100 files of 6/7MB each, so it will be a huge work convert the format and upload them. I would like that you consider that my recordings was not something that evrerybody could easily to do for personal promotion: they represent a professional work of more than 500 hours in total. Only few famous professionals actors can claim they did such a work. The existing free recording has not the same quality of mine (every italian can easy check this). The page I linked do not contains any advertising, and i used my name in the link just to state that I am the reader. For these reason I don't agree with the charge of "add advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia". I am open to prepare a dedicated page on my site (for example, without my image and without the menu used through all the web site) to meet the requirements that you and other editors could accept. Best, Iacopovettori (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only have one canto of the Commedia committed to memory myself, so I can certainly appreciate the labor that must have gone into performing and recording it all. I am not technically knowledgeable about how audio recordings can be put into the Wikimedia commons. I was assuming they can, and I hope you will be able to get some advice (try the commons:Help desk) that makes it seem more feasible than you now believe. I have not attempted to decide whether the link is "advertising or inappropriate" & will leave that decision to experienced neutral editors. The relevant policy here is simply that (to quote the standard template I put on your talk page), "Inappropriate links include... links to web sites with which you are affiliated." If the link is deemed appropriate by a consensus of unaffiliated editors, then it stays. I hope the value of your link will be determined fairly; I'm not presuming it deserves to be excluded. Unfortunately I probably won't be able to assist with the review myself. Wareh (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has discussed the problem at Talk:Divine_Comedy#Reading_of_Divine_Comedy, and I made a sober page in English, maybe he (or she) will consider it ok. You can check if you agree with these variations. Anyway, many thank for your suggestions. Iacopovettori (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that your link has been added by Radagast3, who is a good and experienced editor in this area. I hope you won't take the wrong way my insistence that an unaffiliated editor vet the site. I'm heartened to see Radagast3 thinks it appropriate to list (even in a very long and overburdened list of external links), and I hope I'll soon be able to hear your work. Your desire to contribute something better and new to the public domain is admirable. Wareh (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your intent, also I care that Wikipedia mantains an high standard of quality. My insisting was originated by the awareness that the work I proposed is not easy to do, so I was convinced that its value would be appreciated by other Wikipedia users. Best Iacopovettori (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aristotle

Hello. Responding to your message: You compare and contrast two edits, one where I questioned a revert (a tag removal) and one where I put in material without sourcing. I'd question that approach because I am not on any focused campaign, and I try to judge each edit on its own merits according to whether it is an improvement or not. Adding material without sourcing is often an improvement that can be easily fixed, and I am certainly not one for wanting to tag every sentence. So I did not add those tags about Aristotle's vital dates, and I do not feel strongly about them. On the other hand I feel that removing someone's tag asking for a source is a "stronger" act that just adding material without a tag, and so I felt it worth questioning such an edit. It is obvious that they do not come under WP:CK. Actually, you'll know as well as I do that most birth and death dates from those times are just traditional guesses, if that. I think that ideally, apart from naming a source, the dates should be given as approximate? On the other hand, the edit of mine which you point to, as you must surely know, can easily be sourced. I'll do so. Please note if you had tagged those passages, I would not have deleted your tags. Aristotle's words are not common knowledge of course, but I do not claim they are. (However people who know something about him will tend to know which comments can be easily sourced.) I leave it to you to decide what to do with the dates, but they are neither common knowledge, nor undisputed accurately known facts within the field which is how they are currently presented.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your citation of CK triggered my reaction because I felt it to be technically wrong. I did not know you as an author, but I have this page on my watchlist and it was a routine reaction to such an explanation. But I did think about it. As I am sure you know, 90% of such cases are unfortunately dubious. So anyway presumably you will say that this exposes my ignorance, but happily I am quite interested: how do we know the exact year of Aristotle's birth? I can think of many important people born much more recently where we have no certainty.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, I take it you are not sure who the original authority was? That's a shame as I was interested.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So there are multiple classical sources who give the same birth and death year? Interesting.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it looks like a very useful note, even if not necessary. It adds a fact to the article about the historiography of Aristotle - we could do with more such. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aorist

I've opened up the talk page twice, and closed it without leaving a comment. So 'twas a rather hypocritical shaming. When I said I still didn't understand exactly why this was proving so contentious, let me be sure to say it wasn't because of your description of it, but rather what I encountered on the talk page. Thanks for the welcome back! I made a not very serious promise to myself to stay off talk pages, but while I've already violated that on user talk pages, it's one reason I'm trying to stay out of article talk. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, and yet I've gone ahead and entered the discussion. Wondering whether the violent headache I have at the moment isn't an alarm going off: don't go there, don't go there. It's just that I really don't see the problem on most of these pages, if we stick to explaining what is instead of trying to control too much of the content. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your kind words were spoke too soon. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken! I mean spoken! That was a typo! Following this aorist thing slightly, I'm glad you may be willing to make some kind of statement. Your calm is needed, and I think/hope you can contribute a few words and then gracefully leave it at that. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am feeling quite graceless in this connection, but the "leaving it at that" part is sounding very desirable, and I hope it is an achievable desire. Since I play the part of the inveterate philologist, I'll add that "spoke" suits me as typo or as English (OED A.4.δ gives warrant from Donne, Goldsmith, Scott, and Samuel R. Maitland, 1844). Wareh (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in participating in Mediation? I must ask first, since MedCom requires that all who are invited accept, or the effort will be scrapped.

The Hegelian pedantry involved in the insistence that linguistic universals exist, apparently in a deeper sense that actual observables, and that "pluperfect tense" is meaningless when we all know what it means - and as far as I can tell, there is no other word for it - leaves little hope for ordinary discussion; but a good mediator will suppress the nonsense while not permitting claims of incivility to derail the discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I am deep in regret for ever having attempted to contribute to that non-discussion (and am withdrawing from it), I will gladly (if concisely) contribute a description of some of the things that made it feel needlessly discouraging to me personally. I have not participated in mediation before: if on the other hand it means I'm supposed to adjudicate a lot of charges and claims back and forth, I don't have that in me. Wareh (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, we would be asking somebody else, hitherto uninvolved, to mediate. Cynwolfe points out that it will be difficult to find a mediator with the experience of MedCom or MedCabal who has anywhere near enough background to follow the discussion, so this may be a while; but if we take that road, I'll invite you to comment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your opinion would be appreciated at Talk:Aorist#Protected II. (Re. your comments above, I'm not asking you to get involved in a debate, just to mention any particular points that you may object to, and then to withdraw again if you wish to.) — kwami (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the courtesy notice, but this does not tempt me back onto that talk page. "Are there any factual claims in dispute?" Yes, that version of the article is an inaccurate and unsatisfying account in many ways ("The aorist is a perfective aspect" is not defensible with its context and antecedents; the erroneous footnote to p. 141 of Johanson's article both fails to support it, period, and fails to reflect that discussion's atmosphere of debate, not agreement, over the aorist's nature). So is the Maunus-restored version unsatisfactory, and, of course, so are many Wikipedia pages. I just don't see a path to improvement and nuance. I don't mean to belittle the efforts of contributors who have been working, but we are missing the kind of humility, respect, and trust that could possibly let us conserve what is of value in each other's understanding. The most competent linguists have well understood that Ancient Greek aspectotemporal phenomena are messy and even baffling; efforts to account for them properly are always going to be unsatisfying to everyone (and linguists who care about testing their theories against actual linguistic usage draw sobering lessons from this: as Aristotle says, "with a true view all the data harmonize, but with a false one the facts soon clash"). At the moment I am teaching a narrative author in Greek, whose wide use of the imperfect indicative to narrate the course of action violates on its face many rationalistic assumptions about aspectual categories. And yet, humble and careful work can partially satisfy us with hypotheses that conserve the value of aspectual definitions. I can easily (!) imagine a Wikipedia article on these aspectotemporal phenomena that did justice to the complexity of the subject -- we have plenty of other articles that cheerfully and neutrally canvass different definitions and explanations, and then add clarifying gems of subsections to present the best-informed approaches to the contradictions -- but it will not be cobbled together from linguistic scholarship findable in Google Books. Wareh (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Puvedorj

Because I haven't seen it; I'm not even sure from the discussion whether it's on or off Wikipedia. Can you supply a link or a reference? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found in the wilds of the talk page. It will not exactly fit, but this should go in the same direction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wilds, indeed - and I didn't make them any more navigable when I wrote Puvedorj for Purevdorj! Wareh (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your assistance Please

Dear Wareh, It is most frustrating that you removed the external link, in that this website is completely NON-commercial. The illustrations are NOT for sale and there is no option to buy anything. The works have been exhibited in ONLY non-commercial venues, including the Indianapolis Museum of Art, Temple University, Rome, The University of Notre Dame Special Collections Library - Dever's Program in Dante Studies (Dante after Dore,) National Academy of Design, NY, Palazzo Casali - Sponsored by the Commune di Cortona, Italy etc. The images are included in the image gallery of Columbia University's Digital Dante site and selected pieces have been part of the Cambridge Music Festival Cambridge, England and televised by PBS Religion & Ethic Newsweekly during an interview with former Poet Laureate Robert Pinsky. My work is recommended by the Dante Society of America. There are other living people represented on Wikipedia, and I am not listing a spam sight. I have ties with Academia as I am a part-time university lecturer for Butler University and Indiana University. I am building this website [Inspired by Dante] with more translations and commentary. Students, world wide write me to ask questions regarding the Commedia. If you could assist me in how I might appropriately share this work, I would appreciate your advise as you are obviously very involved with the Dante article. Thank you in advance. Jennifer Strange (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on italic titles

Hi, Wareh. I think you participated in the style discussion over italicizing article titles when they consisted of titles that would normally be italicized as titles. If you follow me. "Julius Caesar (tragedy)" as distinguished from "Julius Caesar" the dude. I dropped a comment on that, but for some reason didn't keep it on my watchlist and follow through to see what happened. Evidently it was decided to do it; I agree with that … or did till I saw one consequence. If you followed that discussion, was it decided to italicize foreign words in a title? I'm not sure I'm down with that. For instance, Di indigetes was just turned into italic. I feel as if this implies the article title is the title of a work, and there are some Latin terms that may or may not be italicized in English usage, depending on how "foreign" they're felt to be. Can you shed any light on this? Cynwolfe (talk) 04:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The decision at WP:AT (not accepted without some controversy) was that article titles should be italicized according to the same principles as in the article body. So as they "may or may not be italicized in English usage" (and so in the article text), so too with the titles.

Before this discussion, the community view was that italic titles were only tolerated for Latin taxonomic names of organisms. My characterization would be that it is now tolerated more generally where subject editors feel that it is correct formatting; my impression is that the mass removal of italic titles has been stopped, but that there's no movement afoot for mass introduction of italic titles. That said, I think one of the advantages of the criterion suggested is that bots can look at the lead of the article and italicize the title or not, depending on how it is treated in the first sentence of the article; this is a much simpler test than saying, "book titles, ships, etc., should be italicized." In the discussion I pointed to this article to show that a good online encyclopedia could use italics for foreign phrases (and exempli gratia I added italics here to the titles of A priori and a posteriori, A priori (statistics), A priori probability). Personally, Di indigetes doesn't bother me or make me think of the title of a work (and it appears that the article you were working on had italics in the body before Cybercobra came along and made the title consistent), but I'd like to hear more about how you think it compares to the "a priori" examples, and whether you think it might just be a matter of getting used to something different. Wareh (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong feelings about this, and I posted above when I was sleepy and not clear. I like italicizing article titles when they represent a title, and commented to that effect in the official discussion. Not doing so is a holdover from the days of mechanically set type. To reserve italics for some things and not others, as you note, didn't seem useful or practical. (As I recall, there was a bizarre drive also to italicize journal titles, but not other titles, the rationale for which escaped me utterly.) I suppose if it's as simple as italicizing anything that's used in the article title and appears in both bold and italic in the first paragraph, then it really may be a matter of getting used to it.

My initial fear, I now realize, was that this would become another angel to dance on the head of the talk-page pin. At the moment, I'm no longer participating in discussions. If I'm linking to an article, and find something I think needs to be addressed, and I don't have time to do it myself, I leave a comment. I leave a comment if there's an opinion sought on something, say at the Greece & Rome project page. But I'm just sick of the kinds of arguments to be had. If I add sourced material and it's deleted or distorted, fine, I'll move on. The prevailing ethic is that WP must be emotionally gratifying to all those who participate for reasons other than presenting the full range of scholarship in a balanced, accurate and useful way. People can be blocked for saying "you're full of excrement," but not for being full of excrement. There's no fighting that. But I digress.

The italicizing of foreign phrases is itself a pin-dancing angel because of the question "when does a phrase stop being 'foreign'?" — how longstanding must its usage be in non-specialized written material before it's no longer italicized? I don't really think that will confront me much. That the decision can be made robotically shifts responsibility on the creators of the text itself. So there 'tis; the problem, if there is one, is not the italicizing of article titles. Think I've worked it out for myself now; thanks. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've been spreading a lot of accurate and useful information lately. If you're managing to do so without stepping in too much excrement, congratulations, and carry on! Wareh (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should check the bottom of my shoes. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Only" warnings

In the worst case I have ever seen, an IP user had a dozen supposedly final warnings, after a history consisting of 100% vandalism, 100%, and then there was a block.
Why is there no automatic process to follow up on this issuing of final warnings?
Sincerely, Varlaam (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right there is nothing automatic - it requires the continuing interventions of us gnomes. However, there is a place to go: if vandalism continues after a "final" warning, report it at WP:AIV, and that should lead to a block. Now, with the school IP's & such, the vandalism comes sporadically from different users, so if a dormant IP returns as a vandal, we should usually give one more final warning before proceeding to WP:AIV. However, if the vandalism is blatant, you can go immediately to {{uw-vandalism4im}}, which is a first-and-final warning. Wareh (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hey dude

I noticed you undone a edit by a school IP today. Maybe WP and schools can get together on things like that so, youknow wot I mean, the admin guy can email the school pronto and give the teachers a chance to catch the beggar, coz the vandalism was 2:03 and you undone and flagged it on the user page at 2:04 (quick shootin, Tex!). A email pronto migth have got the critter between the eyes (and then you woulda been DeadEye Dick as well as Quick Draw Tex!). So long Pardner. I gotta mosey on outa here. 123.211.143.118 (talk) 06:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the cowboy is making a good point, though it tends to get lost a bit in his idiomatic way of talking (he's obviously been watching too much tv). I think he's trying to say this - an admin who reverts and flags vandalism quickly might make a powerful difference to behaviour management in schools across the world if he can notify the schools in time for them to intercept the vandals. Maybe a phone call would be the best way to do this, rather than an email or a tag on the user page. The schools might even pay for the phone call if there is some agreement in advance. It's something worth considering. Children are the future of WP afterall. McZeus (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Na

You're wrong, simply put. You're also emotional. It's seething out of everything you write. You accuse me of being unyielding, misinformed and plagerous when you yourself are behaving in such manners. Sadly, I did read everything you wrote. Every misunderstanding, every false accusation, every ignorant assumption about Wikipedia policy and guidelines that could only come from intentionally not reviewing them. I don't have the time to police articles for your mistakes 24/7 but if you keep insisting on adding articles just because you randomly drop "N.A." in them then they are going to get removed. Period. Continued reverts and attempts to re-add articles that don't have an acceptable reference allowing for their inclusion in the DAB by you will be marked as vandalism. You know better.

And if you keep trashing up the Na talkpage I'll just delete our entire conversation. It's completely unhelpful and totally useless to the construction and improvement of the page and doesn't belong there. If you still want to whine then do it HERE! æron phone home 13:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... æron phone home 14:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not template established users, it's proof that you do NOT want to talk about anything. If you really do want to talk then no one is stopping you. But keep user talk off of article talk pages. This is where your kind of dispute belongs. Your page or mine, it doesn't matter.

You've been on Wikipedia for too long to not realize why you are going about this wrong. æron phone home 14:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is stopping me from talking: the editor who removed the talk from Talk:Na.
Sorry for the template, but perhaps you can appreciate the irony that a regular (you) got templated because a regular (me) got called a vandal in the edit summary.
I'm taking a step back from editing Na and from you (I understand you've not liked how I've engaged with you, but I also have trouble believing your better angel can be very happy with the manner you've taken with me). I'm going to see what uninvolved editors can provide upon my request over here. I request you join me in staying out of that discussion: anyone who watches that page knows MOSDAB and has the advantage of non-involvement. Best wishes, Wareh (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never met an emo on Wikipedia until now. You think that by rightly keeping your personal dispute with me confined to our own talk pages prevents you from engaging me in conversation at all? Grow up. I don't know what a better angel is, but I sure don't consider myself a better editor than anyone else. Including you. I make mistakes and have to rethink things all the time and the best progress I've made has been over disputes resolved like grown men (or women). If you don't want to talk then all I can suggest is that you don't keep making the same missteps over and over again. You've been here longer than me, this behaviour of yours is inexcusable. You want me to stay out of a discussion you started over this? And at the same time complain that you can't (meaning won't) talk to me? That's rich. I'll look at it and decide for myself if I can add to the discussion. Even if you do decide to talk to me I'm not even going to try and list all the policies and instructional pages you should read that discuss all the rules and etiquette you broke over this incident. It would be easier to just post a welcome template, you seriously need to get back to the basics. æron phone home 15:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the curious public. Our unemotional friend AeronPeryton's next step was to edit war over Na with Disambiguation Project MOSDAB-maintainer JHunterJ, to the point of a block, dropping such pearls along the way as, "JHunter's actions through this has solidified in my mind an image of an abused pre-teen with a massive ego. It doesn't matter what he really is, this is my impression of him now. I've been civil (as I can be against that kind of behaviour)." Res ipsa loquitur. The two entries at Na I thought should be there are still there; who knows how many have been pointlessly lost. Wareh (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AD/CE as disambiguator

Could you explain? None of the examples you gave required a disambiguator. In fact, in at least one, it makes it ungrammatical. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I need an explanation from you: I believe both examples are perfectly grammatical. They "require a disambiguator," not in the sense that, "it would be impossible for an investigator to determine the era," but in the sense, "this is a case in which any well-edited reference work would use the disambiguator because, without already possessing knowledge of the subject looked up, it could be either way." For example, the Peripatetic School existed in the 2nd centuries BCE and CE, so it's hardly helpful to say a 2nd c. Peripatetic without disambiguation. I hope this helps. In any case, even if what I've added is subject to refinement, it seems at least as important to give an example of where ambiguity does exist as of where it doesn't. Wareh (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

I have to disagree when he says the muscle cuirass is "one of the features of antique art that have done most to alienate modern taste." He obviously is too little acquainted with the superhero genre.[2]. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-François Monteil has modified his text

Of course, I want to direct the reader to my own texts. I didn't succeed . I accept the verdict. But you should notice that if I accept to submit to the rules of the play, I keep playing. Expel the most original of my thought as often as you have to - your duty is to do so- but I advise you to take cognizance of the contents of my knols. Type : knol 000 as often as you can. Yours cordially. Jean-François Monteil (Jean KemperNN (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for understanding. I did notice your knol contributions (and linked them at Talk:De Interpretatione). This rules-of-play model may not be the most helpful. Rather than making a move and expecting a counter-move (we call this the WP:BRD method), it would be more productive if you could concisely and clearly bring up on an article talk page the content additions you believe could be confirmed by (to quote myself from Talk:De Interpretatione) "independent secondary sources, and unaffiliated Wikipedia editors, confirming the appropriateness of the ideas to an encylcopedic presentation." Note that, if the contributions were to pass muster through a consensus of unaffiliated editors, it would be essential to "direct the reader" to your texts: Wikipedia requires attribution. As long as we have to scratch our heads over how much original content is being passed off as general knowledge, the reversions will continue. Another possibility is that your published ideas could merit inclusion as a minority perspective. What we can't do is rewrite the presentation of basic information about a subject to accord with views that have not been widely embraced in print by experts. Wareh (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wareh, if my texts relative to the entry Aristotle cannot be maintained, it's no drama. I suggest you pay a visit to ENG Knol 102 On the Aristotelian organon. I add to my text a certain number of documents among which a flattering judgment of Jacques Brunschwig. I'm glad that thanks to this slight problem I have made acquaintance with you. Yours cordially. JFM

“

Voici …un essai de bibliographie sélective que j’ai préparée pour ceux d’entre vous qui se sont intéressés au fameux PASTOUT. Je remercie Jean-François Monteil, dont le travail exemplaire m’en a fourni les éléments.

BIBLIOGRAPHIE SÉLECTIVE

POLLAK (I .), Die Hermeneutik des Aristoteles in der arabischen Übersetzung (...), Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, XIII, Leipzig, 1913. [où le commencement touche à sa fin].

(1957, 1966, 1970) BLANCHÉ (R.), Introduction à la logique contemporaine, 1957; Structures intellectuelles, 1966; La logique et son histoire, d'Aristote à Russell, 1970.

Brunschwig (J)., La proposition particulière et les preuves de non-concluance chez Aristote. Cahiers pour l'Analyse, n° 10, hiver 1969*. Traduction espagnole et commentaires par Lucia AMORUSO, chercheuse à l'Université de Rosario (Argentine), in progress, 2009.

John LYONS, /SEMANTICS I, /Cambridge, 1977

Brunschwig (J.) Études sur les philosophies hellénistiques (consultées par Mohamed DJEDIDI, enseignant de philosophie à l'Université de Constantine, Algérie). Recueil d'articles déjà publiés, 1995.

Jean-François MONTEIL, Maître de conférences de logique et de linguistique, DE LA TRADUCTION EN ARABE ET EN FRANçAIS D'UN TEXTE D'ARISTOTE: LE CHAPITRE VII DU /PERI HERMENEIAS, / Bulletin d'Études Orientales, 1996, Institut français d'Études Arabes de Damas.

Jean-François MONTEIL, UNE EXCEPTION ALLEMANDE: LA TRADUCTION DU /DE INTERPRETATIONE /PAR LE PROFESSEUR GOHLKE. LA NOTE 10 SUR LES INDÉTERMINÉES D'ARISTOTE, Revue des Études Anciennes, 2001.

Jean-François MONTEIL, DE LA TRADUCTION EN HÉBREU D'UN TEXTE ARABE DE MAÎMONIDE: LE CHAPITRE II DU MAQALA FI SINA AT AL MANTIQ OU TRAITÉ DE LOGIQUE, en français dans les Cahiers de Tunisie

Jean-François MONTEIL, ISIDOR POLLAK ET LES DEUX TRADUCTIONS ARABES DIFFÉRENTES DU /DE INTERPRETATIONE D'ARISTOTE, /Revue des Études Anciennes, 2005. [un "retour" fulgurant, après tant d'années, et quelles années ? ]

Guy LE GAUFEY, LE PASTOUT DE LACAN : CONSISTANCE LOGIQUE, CONSÉQUENCES CLINIQUES, Paris, EPEL., 2006.

”

(Jean KemperNN (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Note: Monteil cites an "excerpt from an email from fr [Jacques Brunschwig] addressed to a group of psychologists interested in problems related to the square."[3] Wareh (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

low centuries/years

I see our attempts at clarification in the MOS on this matter never got anywhere--lost in others' agendas, I suppose. I can see how low-number years and centuries without BC/BCE/AD/CE can be confusing to the reader, but what rule could be used and maybe suggested as as proposed set of words for a MOS change. Any thoughts? Hmains (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the discussion did produce a change in the MOS, which seems to have been accepted by all the particpants. At WP:ERA, the qualification "unless the date or century would be ambiguous without it" is now at least shown to apply to an example in a follow-up sentence: "On the other hand, Plotinus was a philosopher living at the end of the 3rd century AD." My own personal rule would be not to touch AD/CE century numbers less than or equal to five, and to hesitate with all BC(E) dates (the first sentence of an article like Hesiod is written for someone who may know absolutely nothing about the context). Wareh (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to United Press International. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. (FYI, this information was {{cn}}ed back in 2007/2009.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) WP:DTR, (2) you removed two new cited sources (Time magazine and an archived online history of UPI put up by Bob Lowry) that support much of the material you're removing along with them, (3) it doesn't seem so black-and-white a case to me (in a nutshell, I believe I applied first aid to get most of this essential section to the point where applying {{No footnotes}} would be more appropriate than saying it all has to go this very second). Please discuss at Talk:UPI#Missing_history_section. (FYI, the existing {{cn}} tags did not, in fact, cover the most important parts of this section, only some specific quotes etc.) Wareh (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1)(a) WP:DTR is just an essay. (b) Don't act like a newbie (repeatedly reintroducing unsourced material), and you won't be treated like one. (2) A {{seealso}} and a WP:SPS, not even placed in the same subsection as the material, does not come even close to "a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." (3) What you see as "first aid", I see as a bandaid on an arterial wound -- too little, too late. (4) WP:BOLLOCKS: all excised material was tagged. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(4) is an error I regret, but WP:BALLS is not directly applicable, and I'm not impressed with your choice of when to bring in what is "just an essay" (perhaps your focal area of intelligent design has accustomed you to seeing the only viable strategy for progress to be to beat back nonsense and unverified statements aggressively: but if you set aside your personal reaction, there is in fact nothing "controversial" in the historical statements about UPI). (2) If you want to insist on "even close," I really think you should visit the talk page of WP:V and get WP:BURDEN fixed by consensus to say explicitly that content may never be restored without inline citations. I don't believe this is community consensus (I believe the sources I added "directly support" too much of the section content to be ignored as justification for reinclusion), and we have whole articles without inline citations that would never get consensus to wipe clean in this fashion, {{cn}} tags or not. Wareh (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

205.167.46.8

This IP has vandalized my user page. And you specifically said on the IP's talk page that a block would occur next time vandalism occurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasper Deng (talk • contribs) 18:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reported the vandalism at WP:AIV (something anyone can do, by the way), and an administrator blocked the IP for two weeks. Wareh (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice needed!

You were helpful to me before, so I turn to you with this quandary: I just created the article Taqi Rafat after finding little info about him available, only to discover immediately after posting it that there was already a (wordy but inferior) article called Mirza Taqikhan Raf'at Tabrizi! How should they be merged? I've been editing for years but never gotten into the nuts and bolts to this extent. Thanks in advance! Languagehat (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I'd suggest. The older article has been around for more than two years and has an edit history. The new one was just made yesterday. Therefore it is the right thing to do to edit Mirza Taqikhan Raf'at Tabrizi to your liking, even now after the game. Don't worry about being bold. Take a few minutes to make sure you're not throwing out anything of real value (and consolidate the categories intelligently), but if the best way to edit the old article is to make it identical to your new article, great! Someone can always come along and revert or argue if they feel you've done damage. Change Taqi Rafat to a redirect with a summary like "redirect: realized subject already had an article & will improve there." Next (if you like), consider what the proper article title is. If you believe "Taqi Rafat" or some other title better satisfies good English usage and WP:AT than the current title, just click on the move tab and move the article. (Because of the mucked-up article history the move tab may not work and you'll have to go through WP:RM; as an added layer of annoyance, in this case someone might say that you should have a talk page discussion first.) The bottom line is that you should make the encyclopedia better: change all the content and titles as you like. But by following my suggestions the end result will be that the encylopedic treatment of this person will have a history completely and correctly viewable in one place, which is preferable and policy.

I'll add the two pages to the watchlist in case things head south. Feel free to let me know if I can be of further assistance. Wareh (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! It's still good to be told to be bold, even after all these years. Languagehat (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ARC

Can you provide a linkable citation to back up your claim that ARC (record company) was referred to as ARC Records? The non-linkable citations you gave are not sufficient. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will not take offense if I begin with an objection: in fact, there is no requirement whatsoever that a citation should be linkable in order to be "sufficient." I contribute a lot to Ancient Greek articles; we would be in sore trouble if citations to works that have to be looked up at major research libraries and are not online were deemed "insufficient"!

That said, I wouldn't want to inflict a library chore on any interested ref-checkers unnecessarily. I can and will provide a link for one of the two citations. The one from Sing Out! was unfortunately extracted from snippet view and cannot be linked; however I can assure you that the page of this item identified by Google as p. 44 contains text scanned as "By 1935 Gary had moved to Durham, NC, and in that year Gary, Blind Boy Fuller, and Bull City Red all traveled from Durham to New York City to record for ARC Records. Gary would only play religious songs, and he was not invited to record ..." You could add the quotation to the footnote if you think that's appropriate and useful.

If I may, I would advise as preliminary steps in sorting out this ARC Records mess: (1) a fact check on Lead Belly and Blind Boy Fuller (if they are correct, they show how deficient the ARC article itself is in treating its subject), (2) further disambiguation of "ARC Records." I do find it extremely confusing to parse the various reference to Canadian etc. etc. ARC entities in music recording. However, I do believe I chose the two examples footnoted on sound principles. Wareh (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conon the non-barbarian

A belated Happy New Year to you! If you celebrate December holidays, I hope they were satisfyingly saturnalian.

I've never done a merge before, but thought I might give it a go with Konon and Conon (mythographer). Just wanted another opinion on whether they're indisputably the same person, since I've confused myself before with Cincius and Lucius Cincius Alimentus. Konon was tagged as a potential merge in September 2009, but no discussion was forthcoming. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, and I hope your holidays were full of merriment! Those two are the same & should be merged; if you want to do any more than that, this review would be helpful. Yours ever, Wareh (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much merriment. Thanks for the help! Cynwolfe (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started to do this, then became overwhelmed by doubt. What should the article title be, relegating the other possibilities to redirects? Conon (mythographer), Konon, Konon (mythographer), or something else? Should I ask this question at the Greece & Rome Project? Chills go up the spine at the prospect of days spent on it. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Conon (mythographer) is so evidently appropriate that, if you like it, there is no need to make further consultations. That spelling may also be considered less controversial (since there are so many naming disputes lately) insofar as the subject was first treated here in an article so named. Wareh (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You perceive the source of my timidity. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"public domain reprints, etc"

Hi, I'm something of a novice to Wikepedia, so my apologies if this is not the right avenue for replying to you. You sent a message with the following comments:"ISBN's of public-domain reprints (in the examples I saw, priced double other public-domain reprints of the same item) are not valuable content for the encyclopedia."

The links I had set up are NOT to public domain reprints, although that's how they may appear at first sight, and without further investigation. The books produced by the Prometheus Trust are not standard "scan, publish, sell-via-print on demand" of out-of-copyright works. In fact there is a vast quantity of extra scholarly references, standard pagination, and other work added to the translations which are presented in these books. They are quality books, and only available at the prices they are sold at because virtually all the work which is put into them is undertaken without payment by volunteers. Very often the books combine two or more works, and so will usually be cheaper than buying the substandard scanned reprints - I noticed, for example, you removed the mention of a volume of Iamblichus which is actually three different original books: On the Mysteries, On the Life of Pythagoras, and Pythagorean Sentences: the first two of these can be purchased as scanned facsimiles at £13 and £15 (as far as I can tell from a quick search on Amazon) but the third is not even available. On the other hand the Prometheus Trust so-called "double priced" scholarly edition of all three works is £17 (or £23 in hardback). Why does mentioning modern scholarly translations or Iamblichus add something to Wikipedia, but not translations of Thomas Taylor, by far the most perceptive of translators, now these editions have standard scholarly pagination and cross-references added to bring them up to modern requirements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim-Addey09 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the distinctions you draw, and I am certainly willing to assume that valuable work has gone into these publications, as you say. However, the informational resource (the Thomas Taylor translation itself) was already linked in freely-available form, both via Google Books and HTML versions on the web. It's in comparison to these valuable resources (price $0) that your additions really fail the expectations for encyclopedic content, not in comparison to the reprint publishers (so sorry for giving you that red herring). You don't mention whether you have any affiliation with Prometheus. There are further questions here, such as whether Prometheus' page numbers have really supplanted original publications as a standard pagination for scholarly citations, etc., but that's all really beside the point (an editor without a conflict of interest could create an article Prometheus Trust, if it meets the notability guideline). In any case, the correct venue is an article's talk page: if a consensus of established and independent editors supports the addition, they will make it upon consideration there. But my advice is that they won't support it, so that it's not worth your time. In sum: the standard for references in the article itself is that they are important as knowledge about the subject (e.g. Iamblichus); the standard for external links is similar.

In the age of the internet, the distinction "republished (some for the first time since Taylor's lifetime)" is unfortunately really pretty empty (from a scientific/encyclopedic point of view: Wikipedia aids knowledge seekers first and book-buyers only incidentally); you seem to realize that because you base your argument on the added value of these editions.

P.S. The linking of extracts of works available entire online noncommercially seems indefensible and unanswered by your arguments. If the point is that they show off the added value of Prometheus Trust editions, then the problem of the inappropriate promotion of a product on the market is apparent. Wareh (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm - looking at some of the other discussions on your page, I assume that you know what I mean by standard pagination? Every ancient text has at least one standard edition (sometimes, unfortunately, two or even three) so that whatever translation one reads, one can cite a passage which can then be found by other scholars in whatever translation he or she has to hand. The use of standard pagination really took root in the nineteenth century - so that, for example, the Stephanus pagination become the "standard" for the works of Plato, and the Bekker for Aristotle. There are standards for Iamblichus, Proclus, Plotinus and others. Thomas Taylor produced his translations before this procedure was widely established, so that no original Taylor translation has accompanying standard pagination (and hence no facsimile or online reproduction has)- this is what the Prometheus Trust edition adds (amongst other cross references and additions). Its really not necessary for most scholarly work to quote a Taylor page number for Taylor's work, since it's virtually all translations of ancient texts. I appreciate I haven't answered all your questions - but my main question also remains unanswered: on the Iamblichus article, modern editions of both On the Mysteries and the Life of Pythagoras are listed, but your have removed the from the list of editions the Thomas Taylor ones which I put there because they have important and unique qualities which, in the Prometheus editions, are also accompanied by the appropriate pagination markings in the margins, together the cross-references which scholars now expect. On what grounds do you think that mentioning the Clarke edition of On the Mysteries publication is more useful than the Taylor one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim-Addey09 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do understand the concept of standard editions. It's a bit beside the point, but you still haven't given any evidence that scholars have taken to using Prometheus Trust page numbers; your desire that they make them a scholarly standard is understood. I am not a dogmatic believer that ancient studies only progress to ever-higher peaks. Still, I do find it hard to take seriously the idea that an all-new scholarly product of 2003 by a team including such a renowned expert as John M. Dillon can be compared to an 1821 translation with new pagination and cross-references! But the bottom line is that the page, before you edited it, had a perfectly good link to the most easily accessible version of Taylor's translation (free online), and, when it came to books you have to pay money for, it gave the reference and ISBN of version that any scholar would reach for first (Clarke et al.). Wareh (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC) P.S. As with Bekker and Stephanus numbers, standard citation systems are based on editions of Greek texts, never on editions of English translations. Wareh (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the Road scroll photo

I don't know when and where this photograph was taken. If the French version says it was taken in an exhibit at New York, the editor who added that is going on some information that I don't possess. I found that picture through a Flickr search, and the only information I have is what's on the Flickr page. You might consider contacting the photographer for more info. Tim Bennett (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page (the second recent incident). I'm not actively contributing at the moment, though I check my watchlist now and then, and I'm glad not to have that on my page. At first I thought it was random. Now I don't know what's going on in the vandal's head, whether he's misconstruing my identity, or reacting to my having edited certain articles. Either way, this vile person's footprints (or scat trail, and I don't mean he sings) aren't welcome on my page. So thanks again. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure such juvenile nonsense implies anything on the order of what would count as a motive for you or me... I hope your rest from Wikipedia is restorative and full of gratifying encounters with people and ideas, old & new. Wareh (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Jean-François Monteil alias Jean Kemper concerning the site: http:// grammaire-et-logique.tract-8.over-blog.com

(84.100.243.244 (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)) Yours friendly Jean-François Monteil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.100.243.244 (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(84.100.243.244 (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)) Les quatre thèmes liés: - réalité et importance du signe paradoxal que l'auteur appelle non-marque et qui consiste dans une absence signifiante de matière phonique.[reply]

- nécessité pour le bien de la logique et de la linguistique générale de remplacer le carré logique, dit carré d'Aristote ou carré d'Apulée, par l'hexagone logique de Robert Blanché. Le carré a pour origine le chapitre 7 du De interpretatione, deuxième livre de l'Organon aristotélicien. L'hexagone est décrit dans Structures intellectuelles, ouvrage publié chez Vrin en 1966.

- transmission d'Aristote par les Arabes à l'Occident chrétien à l'époque médiévale.

- utilité d'examiner les problèmes de la logique modale, notamment le problème de l'implication stricte à la lumière de l'hexagone de Blanché. Les quatre lieux d'intervention sur la toile

- 1 site non personnel de l'Université 3 de Bordeaux: erssab

- 2 site personnel : Tract Eight-8

- 3 système des knols mis sur pied par Google. Taper "knol 000" pour comprendre le classement et taper "jean-françois monteil" site:knol.google.com pour les avoir rassemblés

- 4 http:// grammaire-et-logique.tract-8.over-blog.com. Ce quatrième site examine les articles publiés dans Wikipedia se rapportant aux questions de grammaire et de logique.

Zwierlein's Claims For Peter article

Ok - I'll bite. I just got done reading the entire Bryn Mawr review. In it, I see an obviously non-neutral reviewer talking glowing about one author (Zwierlein) and then expanding that to basically say "everyone thinks this way". To me, anyone who stoops to making unsupported generalizations is at best creating a strawman to hide behind or at worst has a pretty big axe to grind. Obviously I can't read the book, since I assume it's in German, but if the validity and weight you are espousing for Zwierlein's claims are founded on this one reviewer, it won't be hard for anyone to marginalize it.

That being said, I am not Catholic and I'm not looking to "grind my axe" on anything or anyone - I'm just questioning as a third-party reader/editor of Wikipedia what the big deal is about this one guy. So what if he claims to have done an "exhaustive review" of all texts - that doesn't mean he is infallable or even right. I've read enough "research" on Christian topics to understand that many (non-Christian, agnostic, anti-Christian, etc, etc) researchers go about trying to prove their own original hypothesis (such as 'Peter was never in Rome' or 'there is no such person as Joseph') rather than allowing their research to form the answer. The other problem I have is based upon the one sentence where the reviewer states and there is little doubt that some of the late New Testament writings were composed in the first two decades of the second century. I have done A LOT of research into the New Testament writings and in "my opinion", this statement is borderline stupid and if held by the author shows how misguided Zwierlein is.

So I'm willing to be open-minded - and I'm open to any healthy, friendly, debate - but you need to sell me on why the article is giving so much credence to this one guy such that you are quoting him 3X in order to debunk 1) Peter being in Rome, 2) the write date of 1 Clement and 3) the write date of St Ignatius' Letter to the Romans. To me the first instance is a stretch and the other two are just compounding that. Ckruschke (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Well, let's not carry on too much here, because if I can't quickly "sell" you here, then the article talk page is the right place to refer it to the consensus of others. In short, my view is that Zwierlein's book is the most cogent, up-to-date, scholarly presentation of the view on one side of this issue and therefore serves a valuable role in stating the terms and limits of the debate on both sides. Let me state at the outset that I have no axe to grind on this subject and simply want to ensure that a work of scholarship as significant as Zwierlein's gets the attention it is owed. I would hope the article would present equally important scholarship on the other side.

What I feel certain I ought to be able to sell you on is that Zwierlein is not a prejudiced, anti-Christian, unscholarly, etc., writer. He has edited the most authoritative scholarly collection of literary testimony about Peter in existence. He is a valuable instance of someone bringing the methods accepted in the fields of (non-Christian) ancient history and textual criticism to a topic in Christianity. By no means do I wish to create any endorsement of his conclusions, but if we can't pass the "this other book is more scholarly and authoritative than Zwierlein's on that side of the debate" test, then it is absurd to exclude his conclusion. Zwierlein is not borderline stupid (and I don't believe Walter de Gruyter publishes borderline stupid books on subjects like this); he knows a lot more about the transmission of texts in antiquity than most. I will admit I respect him as a scholar, but I hasten to add that this is not based on the latest phase of his research but from before he came to NT matters. I first encountered him through his text-critical studies connected to his 1986 Oxford Classical Text of Seneca's tragedies, widely admired as one of the finest editions in that august series.

The "glowing" review is in one of the most reputable book review venues in the field of Classics and is by Pieter Willem van der Horst (unfortunately his Wikipedia has less about his scholarship than we'd like). It's linked because it's linkable and intelligible in English; a summary of Zwierlein's argument is better than nothing, and I assume there's no real doubt in your mind that it can be taken as an accurate statement of Zwierlein's statements (the real locus of scholarly weight) on the points where it's cited.

In sum, the weight of Zwierlein's conclusion is not founded on that review, but that review is an indication of its weight. The claim to be debated on the talk page (if necessary) is this: this is the most dispassionately rigorous, complete, and up-to-date statement on one side and therefore deserves attention. It amply justifies its doubts about a very traditional interpretation. I hope you can keep your opinions ("misguided" etc.) out of it, because it is precisely in the arena of respectable evidence-based scholarship that this book has taken its position and earned respect (which of course will be completely rejected by many, but we can easily multiply the respectful reviews if needed e.g. [4] by James Dunn (theologian)). As a Classicist myself, let me suggest that NT studies, and especially in the US, can exist in a kind of bubble. The ideas of learned European scholars, the perspectives of ancient historians who haven't spent their whole lives grinding an axe on the subject, etc., can often be surprisingly invisible in this bubble, and we should be sure our impression of the real field of scholarly inquiry is not too narrowly constructed. I do believe it's a valid Wikipedia-policy point to say that scientific scholarship, of the kind that serves as WP:RS here, does not get adjudicated on a subject like this by, say, the world of American seminary NT professors, but needs to look to the broader field of international scholarship on the literary and material history of the period. Wareh (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As far as using Zwierlein for the range of arguments on the dating of 1 Clement, etc., can't we take this as ordinary practice, where the current and thorough treatment of a question is cited (in this case, critical doubts about the dating of these texts). Anyone who goes to Zwierlein's book on this subject will find plenty of citations to the previous scholarship on the question. In my fantasy version of Wikipedia, each of those sentences would have a footnote to Zwierlein and also to whatever more focused discussions preceded him in that vein (from his footnotes). But what we have now actually enables the reader to produce those references a lot more efficiently than the typical Wikipedia citation. Wareh (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Very thorough - I was half-an expecting a reply of "you stink and so does your mother". Considering I've never heard of any of these authors, I'll have to defer to your greater knowledge. Thanks for the discussion. One thing that I do request as a favor is that you look one more time at the three sentences that I mention above to make sure that "you" feel that they are neutral and simply state that "other people feel this way" rather than implying something like "smart people have decided XYZ and anyone who holds a contrary opinion is an idiot". If you feel they are all good, I'm good with that as well. Cheers! Ckruschke (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Thank you in turn for your kind reply. I agree, it does get old at Wikipedia never knowing for sure if the person you're trying to sort things out with is going to be at all easy to communicate with! I take it you're asking about the sentences that have the Zwierlein cite. They pass muster with me: they are very much in the timid scholarly mode of "questions have been raised about whether." I think, in the end, partisans of either view of the evidence will come away from this section better informed ("Ok, I'm in good company with my beliefs/doubts about this, but here are the questions on the other side."). Perhaps some of what sounds contentious to you in the article's reporting of the more critical view simply reflects that it's the underdog position against a lot of tradition, and that it's a pretty complex case (here are all these documents which seen in their traditional light can conspire to support the traditional story, but doubts have been raised about all of them piecemeal, so if you insist on a case where none of the evidence is subject to such reservations, then you're not going to be satisfied). I'm just rambling at this point. I do feel like the article is basically ok at this spot though. Wareh (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - guess I'm just somewhat sensitive as it appears (to me) that "all" of the Christian-centric pages include large sections of "this is a bunch of crap". Not threatened by other points of view, but it gets somewhat old when I got to page X and this viewpoint has basically taken over the synopsis. Thanks again for your viewpoint!Ckruschke (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Gaddafi

I apologize for not understanding what was going on at Talk:Gaddafi. However, could you please restore his title in the info box to "Leader and Guide of the Revolution"? This is what it was for a long time, until someone apparently decided it was time once again to mock Gaddafi by any means available. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the talk page vandalism issue. As for the title, Google Books found various reports of the fuller title e.g. [5]. I slightly altered the wording to "Brotherly Leader and Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" (Great Revolution, not Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) based on this and other sources. Put in an edit request with more information on the talk page, and/or give me more information about what's wrong with the present title, and which edit in the history you find objectionable, and I'm sure it will be duly considered (assuming that the talk page vandalism calms down enough so that we can hear each other talk!). Wareh (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a dab opinion called for: intellect, intelligence, etc

Hi! Wondering if you would look at this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syrtis minor

The reason I left that line about Tripoli in the article when I was merging the two articles was because I didn't want to eliminate completely some editor's work without at least given people the opportunity to provide a citation. In my searching out references for the relatively unsourced article, I did not find reference to it going as far as Tripoli. Obviously, I did find mention of Sfax and the K islands. In the final cleanup, I did specifically look for reliable references for a Tripoli extent, but again did not find them. --Bejnar (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well that (OCD) quotation is rather vague by covering both of the Syrtis. In question is the space between Djerba Island and port of Tripoli, that area which appears not to be part of a gulf. Syrtis major is not in question, although the Gulf of Sidra is usually said to end on the west at Misurata (in Tripolitania), see Gadhafi's line and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency definition Talk:Gulf of Sidra#Sources. --Bejnar (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classical sources do not support Tripoli being the eastern cape of the Syrtis minor. In Pliny the Elder here with modern footnotes we find:

The distance along the coast that lies between the two Syrtes is 250 miles. On it are found the city of Œa¹⁰, the river Cinyps¹¹, and the country of that name, the towns of Neapolis¹², Graphara¹³, and Abrotonum¹⁴, and the second, surnamed the Greater, Leptis¹⁵.

¹⁰ A flourishing city with a mixed population of Libyans and Sicilians. It was at this place that Apuleius made his eloquent and ingenious defence against the charge of sorcery brought against him by his step-sons. According to some writers the modern Tripoli is built on its site, while other accounts make it to have been situate six leagues from that city.

¹¹ Now called the Wady-el-Quaham.

¹² Mannert is of opinion that this was only another name for the city of Leptis Magna or the "Greater Leptis" here mentioned by Pliny. There is little doubt that his supposition is correct.

¹³ The more common reading is Taphra or Taphara. D'Anville identifies it with the town of Sfakes.

¹⁴ Scylax identifies it with Neapolis or Leptis, and it is generally looked upon as being the same place as Sabrata or Old Tripoli.

¹⁵ Now called Lebida. It was the birth-place of the Emperor Septimius Severus. It was almost destroyed by an attack from a Libyan tribe A.D. 366, and its ruin was completed by the invasion of the Arabs. Its ruins are considerable.

Support for the non dangerous nature of the intermediate zone is the placement of ancient ports, see above, and the text of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Sailing instructions. --Bejnar (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re

In response to your last question, the answer is obviously "no". Sorry, but I prefer not be engaged in any heated conversations. With regard to BLP issue, if administrators think that everything was fine, why should I bother? I expressed my opinion about at article talk page. We happened to disagree. That's all right. Very best wishes. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nous

I notice you've paid attention to the above article in the past. I've been doing a burst of work on it, and I'm getting to the point where I need to call in opinions, and perhaps help to get a few points better done or better sourced. Hopefully what I've been doing is a nett improvement, and improving will now be easier than it would have been with the old version. Never a deadline here of course, but if ever you have a moment to look... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am impressed with your chalcenteric attack on an article for which I have not had any appetite since the Doug Coldwell troubles of 2007. I am certain that you are, indeed, laying a sounder foundation for future work. I have to tell you honestly that I will not be able to do a review or intervention of general scope in the near future (though, who knows, this note may haunt me in an idle moment). Perhaps I can be of some use in two ways: (1) I'd be glad to hear from you again about some of the troublesome points you mention which may prove hard to clarify or source (of course if they've been selected for those features, I am sure they may frustrate me no less than you, but it's always easier to consider a single point than a complex article). (2) I'd just like to give you my vehement encouragement to take a very free hand and prune away everything that you think the article will be stronger without. I appreciate your conservatism and care not to lose what presumably cost someone some effort. On the other hand, there are things here that are distracting, crabbed, beside the point, etc. Whatever seems an annoying speed bump on the way to the reader's discovery of the actually valuable content should perhaps be sequestered or taken out. Wareh (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated. It is a difficult subject to structure, because there are so many subjects which might seem distracting to some but central to others, and yet they are not necessarily going to make sense if split into isolated articles. The story of nous in philosophy is a massive epic with more characters than Tolstoy. One thing I noticed looking at old versions and controversies is that there are lots of different types of editors (and probably readers) interested in this. A badly structured article will have a strong tendency to split into content forks I fear. Personally I came at it from philosophy, and have had to work from there. But obviously a lot of people interested in religion and wisdom literature are fascinated with this subject also, quite rightly. This subject is a meeting ground. One thing I have also wanted to avoid very much is to artificially break up discussion of nous as if there was no continuity in discussions about this subject. That Leibniz, Spinoza and Descartes wrote about this term in ways which would have been recognizable to medieval philosophers was not an accident but a direct link in a chain that goes back to the Pre-Socratics. I was interested to see Gassendi wrote a letter to Descartes his meditations to Averroes.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've framed the subject ambitiously and worthily. Good luck, and let me know. I agree those are fascinating connections worth doing justice to. Wareh (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Credo

I'm pretty sure you're better informed about what goes on around here than I am, but just in case, I wanted to point this out to you, in case you're interested and it would be of use to you — you may already have this kind of access through your other affiliations anyway. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's very kind of you. I had no idea about this initiative & don't really know what's going on past my own watchlist! I checked, and I seem to have roughly equivalent Credo access already, so this can go to others. I am impressed with the gesture and would love to see more like it. Wareh (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input

Noticed that you intervened on my behalf. If you ever find a spare moment, please consider reinstating the link to the translation of the Chinon parchment at [6]. I don't know why I remain the only person who bothered to translate this document, but the article is probably not better off without the link to the page that is quoted in it somewhat profusely (and necessarily so). Deses (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You're right, on the merits, your translation should be an external link to that article. However, you can probably understand why self-linking campaigns are highly frowned upon. I hope you'll study such policies/guidelines as WP:EL and WP:SPAM. If a worthwhile link is brought to an article's talk page with the WP:COI clearly disclosed, I'd hope the consensus of responsible & unaffiliated editors would not hesitate to add it to the article. P.S. Next time, don't ask for me to review it, but suggest the link on the talkpage with an explanation of your relation to it & its value. If the talk page is dead and no one replies, then after a couple of weeks you can add the link with an edit summary like "no objections or concerns expressed on talk page." Wareh (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Will do so, step by step. Easily found another article that lost its one and only link to my translation of the actual document in question - [7]. Taking care of it first... Deses (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Ok. By all means, let me know again here if you find it rough going. Wareh (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olavo de Carvalho

Se fudeu tentando deletar o artigo, comunista vagabundo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.198.112 (talk • contribs)

Sorry about the edit conflict

Deepest apologies about the edit conflict, I do hope I didn't accidentally erase what you'd been writing so you had to rewrite it (though it appears that you pressed Ctrl+C beforehand like I've learned to do). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I was able to rescue what I'd written to cut and paste. We were saying the same thing anyway, but I thought it couldn't hurt to demonstrate that the point was so obvious and necessary as to provoke an instant chorus! Not that this guarantees listening or understanding... Cheers, Wareh (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you said it somewhat better than I did as well, and you're doing a better job at debating than me at the moment. =p I think my overlinking of SYNTH is coming back to bite me in a place I would rather it not (that and my acting exceptionally arrogant at times ofc =p). Yeah, it unfortunately doesn't mean jack to some. I think most post their thoughts and then leave and then no one actually bothers to click the links except for a chosen few. You managed to get me in an edit conflict btw. xD Saved it though, ofc. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Please manually archive!

I archived 4 old sections on the Libyan Civil war talk page Miza bot missed and the old section you found with "Grogan?" written at the bottom of it.Wipsenade (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks from me personally, and the talk page itself breathes a grateful sigh of relief! Wareh (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Byzantinus

Hello! Byzantinus (talk · contribs) is back with his re-addition of the D.S. Paidas work, trying to circumvent our previous objections by ostensibly using it as a source [8]. It remains blatant promotion and COI however. Do you think that it should be raised at ANI? Constantine ✍ 08:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as long as he does not address the apparent COI at user talk or article talk, I think pursuing administrator action is perfectly appropriate. As you say (and as I tried to say at his talk, though perhaps this was just opening a can of worms), there is a correct procedure to adding references that actually back up article content, but, if you have a conflict of interest you must leave it to neutral editors to make the edits based on good reasons (which you can help provide). Let me know if and when there is an ANI topic, and I'd like to chime in. Thanks for your efforts. Wareh (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Constantine ✍ 00:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plutarch

Hello, Wareh. Do you have a good place to get a Greek text of Plutarch online? This is something I often need; in this case, the Moralia rather than the Lives. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm not butting in, but Perseus now has many parts of the Moralia, if not all. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm just glad you're still around. I rarely run into you these days. For some reason, I hate using Perseus and will only resort to it when I can't find something elsewhere. I found it awkward and buggy a few years ago, and while it's gotten more functional, I mainly use it for Servius's commentaries. And in fact I didn't know it had so much Greek Plutarch, so thanks. Solved my problem in an instant. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most useful complete online Greek Moralia may be what's already given as the last external link at Moralia: the two volumes of the Didot edition (1861). The works are in the same order as our article's list (though the Latin titles are not standardized and will differ). Add this volume for fragmenta et spuria. (In any case, the Didot is more practical to use than, say, this 1829 Moralia edition.)

For HTML Greek texts, it seems that (1) this collection includes some that are otherwise only at Perseus, (2) much of the Moralia is only freely online via Google Books. Wareh (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I see you're asking about all Plutarch's works; in case you can't find anything better, I've updated these external links to link all 5 vols. of the Didot edition. Wareh (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Cynwolfe (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phone tables

I'm posting here as well, since this edit summary by User:Selket leads me to suspect there might still be some contention: the subpage in my userspace is something I developed as a central location to clearly indicate what consensus is on the format of the tables at pages like voiced velar fricative. In the introductory paragraph of this subpage, there is a link to the archived original discussion about the formatting; there are also links at the bottom that link to discussions that amend the prescribed format. I only point this out so overtly because Selket seems to have missed it and I wanted to make sure that this was clear.

As I said in a previous edit summary, anyone is welcome to go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Phonetics and discuss the issue again, bringing up the merits of a change in this policy/MOS. Since I'm not interested in engaging in an edit war, I'd like to leave it to either you or Selket to remove Old English yourselves. You should at least understand that the "modern spoken languages" stipulation is agreed upon by the community and going against that is going against what others have agreed to. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 22:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I can't really parse this to my satisfaction. Broad MOS-type consensus is great, but in my experience at Wikipedia it's usually not used to exclude from an article the kind of information about an article's subject you can readily find in WP:RS. So perhaps you can ease me into this by telling me why the RS information about, say, the occurrence of the voiceless velar fricative in dead languages, should not appear alongside the RS information about its occurrence in living languages? The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Phonetics/Archive_2#Proposed_style_guidelines, in which you chatted with three other editors and no one discussed the propriety of excluding dead languages, does not seem adequate, but it's all I find via a visit to your user space.

If we take this to a broader Wikipedia consensus, I am sure that, at a minimum, you'll have to concede moving the information about dead languages to a second table next to the first. But I'm simply not seeing the support or rationale for reverting dead-language additions. Please move information about dead languages instead of deleting it; otherwise I believe you are violating WP:NPOV, which trumps any (alleged and not real in this case?) MOS. Wareh (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Codex Atlanticus

No coincidence. See [9] which starts "The evil forces of information and thought suppression such as Doug Weller at Wikipedia's unofficial censorship bureau" which relates to a couple of other articles the IP edit. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see! Yeah, I suspected this but saw no proof. I'm glad between us we've made the link between IP & blog clear on the talk page, since this conveniently shows the lack of credibility to anyone who may wonder about future edits. Wareh (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lyle Roebuck for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lyle Roebuck is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyle Roebuck until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article..Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Train Songs: Midnight Train

Hi, Wareh! I deleted "The Midnight Train" because the list is composed of train songs and notable artists who performed them, whereas in this case, the listing only gives the composers. Meanwhile, the song and its performers are already covered in the M section. When the article was created in 2008, the original version included only the songs and the recording artists, and the list has been maintained along these lines since then. In my opinion, providing separate entries for songs with the names of their writers would change the nature of the article and unnecessarily expand what is already a long list. I would appreciate your feedback. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it seems discrepant from the point of view of the list's history. However, my view is that if you're going to have a "List of train songs," so titled, then WP:NPOV would ask you not to exclude notable train songs. The absence of an author does not indicate less notability, and I wouldn't insist here if I weren't confident that this song is more notable than a lot of what's on the list. If having a performer helps, then following the redlink will show you one performer you can list: Dan_Zanes#Traditional_music. But I hope the names of the collectors will remain (note: not composers, as this is an anonymous folk song); Dan Zanes (and others) only recorded the song because it is so famous by virtue of appearing in Carl Sandburg's American Songbag etc. I hope this helps you incorporate the song in a way you feel will be appropriate, even with some difference. Wareh (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hind 2007

Email enabled - cheers. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done! --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Ermerins draft is my gift to you!!!

Thanks for asking, feel free to take dear old FZE off my hands. Much appreciated, and thanks for the interest. Sincerely, "Cal" aka Caltrop (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... in response to your request, yes, I'll be glad to do some proofreading of the article against the Dutch source material. Paul Koning (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I have made an initial pass copy-editing that article. Paul Koning (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Epigram

You probably already know this 2010 book on epigram. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but these G&R New Surveys are generally good, and this one in particular looks like where I'd want to go on the subject, and it could be used all by itself to improve epigram ad lib. (I do have access to it in the library, if that matters.) Wareh (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't claim to have looked at it; it was some kind of programmed response: epigram - 2010 - Wareh. It came up when a friend of mine was reading Catullus's "door poem" and I was pleased to inform him that like everything else in classical studies it had a fancy name. Strangely, or maybe not so, the paraclausithyron article was entirely about Latin poetry, so I when I looked to make a token gesture toward Callimachus, Epigram popped up. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Müller

I have a terrible feeling that I have ignorantly linked to the wrong Karl Müller multiple times, blithely glancing at the dab and saying "oh, there's the classicist." Ugh. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a very easy mistake to make. That - together with feeling that FHG shouldn't be consigned to a footnote on FGrHist - was my motivation for making the article! Wareh (talk)

Pi 6

I added a picture of a frag to Euripides, which seems to fit in with a note by Denys L.Page about a Π6. See details in the article's picture if you can supply more info. It's not essential but interesting all the same. Yours numerically. 121.223.100.220 (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC) No it can't be the same - Pi6 is a papyrus but the picture is from a vellum codex. Yet Page says "Pi6 supports ouk for kouk but throws no light on the rest" and that perfectly describes the pictured fragment. Just a coincidence I guess. Another coincidence: Page dates Pi6 to 4th-5th centuries AD, same as the pictured fragment, and describes them as "beginnings of 1086-92", which is same for picture. He mentions Classical Review xlix 1935 p 14. I suspect the picture is mislabled though it looks vellum-like. Curiouser and curiouser. 121.223.100.220 (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC) No got it now - he adds in another note that Pi6 is a tiny fragment of vellum. Why it's listed with papyri I don't know. So there is no need to exert yourself afterall. 121.223.100.220 (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just taken my first look, and, indeed, it now seems expertly presented and captioned. Fine work, and a nice addition! Wareh (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre

Oh.

I'm simply pointing this out because of your participation at History of theatre. I already have too many irons in the fire. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just back from a trip and not up to speed on this. It seems that (1) the talk page discussion died more than a month ago, (2) by then Akhilleus had already nailed it with his suggestion that we write, "The first recorded examples of theatre comes from classical Athens, where traditions of tragedy and comedy arose in the 6th century BCE. In later times vibrant theatre traditions of theatre have flourished in cultures across the world." I think this would win a much broader consensus of editors than DP is going to bring on the other side, so what is the hang-up? (I know, I know, things are never as easy as it seems they should be.) Wareh (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope your trip was for pleasure, and it offered you a full measure. Our discussion was at History of theatre#Greek theatre, which has been changed, though not to the wording of Akhilleus; this one is at Theatre#Classical and Hellenistic Greece. I was in a hurry the day I left the note (and am again at the moment), so in part I meant to remind myself by making sure it was a "live" comment. I have no idea what I'm trying to say. I shall return if I figure it out. Cynwolfe (talk)

In better news, it was a delightful camping trip with the family. As to the theater articles, I did realize the two locations: the talk ceased more than a month ago in both places. In my typical naivety, if I had the fortitude I lack, I might try an improving edit (to either article), explained with "backed by the stronger consensus at Talk:History of theatre." If mere truth were enough to prevail, we'd then be done. In actuality, perhaps it will be necessary to demonstrate more bluntly that more editors understand the high-quality sources against DP than with DP. Wareh (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help

What is one to do with Thomas Hubbard's book related to That Unmentionable Article? On the one hand, it's cited by respectable classicists and other scholars, and (correct me if I'm wrong) Hubbard himself is a respectable classicist. On the other hand, geez, that publisher. I don't know if I could feel OK about it, neutrality or no. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tough one. I think the easy answer is that it's not really related to the article (as far as I can tell). Certainly Monoson and Shapiro are sound sources in that volume (snap judgement based on more familiar names). Hubbard's assertion here about the publisher seems contradicted by this. There is certainly an argument to be made that such a publisher, being manifestly outside the mainsteam of academia with its normal procedures of review etc., should for that reason alone not be relied upon. But the real truth on this score should be sought in academic reviews. The subject is so contentious that even some of the academic reviews are clouded by overt polemics; I'm sure the more reliable ones could be found if needed. Again, that book doesn't seem relevant to the GL article, so these are issues facing editors of other articles; I have not read Davidson's new book either, but I think it has been met with plenty of interest but hardly unanimous agreement. Let me know what part of all this is still weighing on you, and I can try to help more. Wareh (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you're better at finding reviews and such than I am. Hubbard is surely disingenuous about this; when I looked up the book in the Kinsey Institute library system catalogue (Indiana University, which offers guest access), the alarming association was right there. This modifies one thing I've said on the talk page, however, which I'll address there. Davidson's book was reviewed or discussed in The Guardian, as I recall—it has a broader intellectual/social appeal than a scholarly monograph, and it's my impression that it was meant to provoke discussion. That makes it more difficult to use as a WP source, but a better read. I'm afraid my impression of Hubbard has been forever scarred by his looking like a smirking satyr in the photo he's evidently chosen to represent himself on his UT-Austin faculty page, and on the page he shares with bird-of-a-feather Percy. This all points to the remark Blanshard made about the reasons for the divisiveness of the subject. Heading for a picnic at a winery for the Fourth, so will need to have a quieter think. Unless I decide that I really really need a break from this topic. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, some recognition of that. Oddly here is a fuller version of the same image. Let's put it this way: anyone who wanted to question the use of TKH as a source could probably win the argument pretty easily, and that by itself is a reason to try to build our content on alternative basis. Wareh (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC) P.S. I just read what you wrote at the article talk page about TKH, and it seems exactly right to me. Wareh (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a break from the article to get some perspective. I still haven't put it back on my watchlist, because I can only look at it when my spine is feeling particularly steely. Best, Cynwolfe (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also missing

Well, here's a doozy to add to our list of missing articles: as far as I can see, there's no article on either Greek or Roman oratory as such, though rhetoric covers much that's relevant. You were probably already aware of this from writing Asiatic style. I had forgotten till I was needing to link. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I hadn't noticed that consciously. I suppose Rhetoric#History could be spun off in a pinch. Again we see how we have many individual articles, even on technical subtopics, but not the (perhaps difficult but more useful) treatments of even the most important literary genres of antiquity! (To give just one more example, see how e.g. Greek historiography is effectively a list.) Wareh (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Callimachus

Dear Wareh, we're trying to decide which title of Callimachus' main work (Aitia or Aetia) to use going forward, and Cynwolfe suggested that you might be able to help. When you get the chance, could you check out Talk:Callimachus. Thank you, The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iambus

As you see, it redirects to Iamb, but it's needed to cover the genre for Archilochus, Hipponax etc. It looks messy and since you are good with messes I'll dump it in your in-tray. McCronion (talk) 06:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking me to draft a new article on iambus, then, umm...maybe later! The redirect issue is easily resolved: just start editing iambus with new text ("Not to be confused with the related but distinct accentual-syllabic iamb. Iambus is a Greek poetic genre..."). Then, edit iamb in a couple of small respects: (1) simply remove "or iambus" since this spelling usually means the ancient genre and not English, and confusion is resolved by the suggested hatnote at iambus; (2) at Iamb#Origin link iambus and also add a {{Main|Iambus}}. If I'm missing your point, please set me right! But I hope I've just moved it from my inbox to yours & bless the undertaking. Wareh (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cardinal Wareh for the blessing and congratulations on a neat sidestep! However the exegesis is obscure and I'll try my own solutions (maybe Iambus (genre)). It'll be a stub and nothing more until somebody works on it. Blame my protestant upbringing. McCronion (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good, if I can say that without sounding too much like a Prince of the Church... Staking a place for the notion, a bed which others can help plant and till, is often the most important step. I'd be curious to hear where you believe the best location is to place any future discussions of ancient iambic meters. Am I trying too hard to separate quantitative verse? Or should we create something like de:Jambisches Versmaß (Antike) and move the Greek part of iambic trimeter there? Meanwhile I've created iamb as a disambiguation page to clarify the map of subjects. Wareh (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now that Iamb is a disambiguation page, I hope you will both help WP:FIXDABLINKS, especially since this one could use expert attention. This tool helps keep things in order (just make sure you tell Preferences not to put every single page in your watchlist!) Thanks, --JaGa^talk 20:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have always considered that part of the job & have earned my stripes sorting links. Unfortunately here it is indeed complicated. There are links to poetic traditions I can't assume I understand (Modern Greek, Algonquin). There are cases like iambic dimeter, a redirect that would properly go to our equivalent of de:Jambisches Versmaß (Antike), if there were one. I believe it's fair to say this is a case where creating the needed disambiguation page revealed the massive confusion already in place, rather than disrupting a previously tidy system. Thanks for the link to the tool (though I don't see any preferences), which I have just used for the first time & successfully. I'll think about further strategies when I can, and meanwhile help would be very welcome. Wareh (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about this, the more sure I feel we need to ape what the German Wikipedia has done:

Iamb (foot) = de:Jambus, a short article saying this is defined as short-long and has various meanings in various traditions
Iambic verse (accentual-syllabic) = de:Jambischer Vers (Akzentmetrik), most of the current content of iamb (foot), and the master-article for all the English (German, Russian, etc.) content in iambic tetrameter etc.
Iambic verse (quantitative) = de:Jambisches Versmaß (Antike), an article on anything ancient and iambic, quite possibly simply to be started by breaking off the section Iambic_trimeter#Greek.

The same can be done with trochaic. In that case, perhaps trochaic septenarius should serve as the nucleus of trochaic verse (quantitative). Wareh (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't following this thread. I'll have to put this page on my watchlist though I am not sure I can contribute anything useful to Wareh's scholarly observations. The Prussian system mentioned above looks efficient but efficient systems aren't always the most vibrant and there is a lot to be said for creative disorder. Still, disorder can be stifling and maybe it is time to clean things up. As I said, I'm not sure I can contribute much here. :} McCronion (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've just reviewed the mess and it isn't of the creative kind. There definitely needs to be a separation of quantitative from accentual articles, with maybe just an introductory article combining both in a general way. The Prussians seem to have got the stick by the right end as usual. So yes, proceed with that change if you like. A discussion page? Anywhere will do so long as all relevant talk pages are notified. McCronion (talk) 04:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the WP:DPL project to hold off work on these dablinks for now. Once these articles are sorted out to everyone's liking, I'm happy to help with the dablink fixing. I wish I could help with the article creation as well, but this is out of my depth. Thanks, --JaGa^talk 20:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Sorry that this isn't looking like the tidiest of operations at present or in the immediate future! Wareh (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I felt like I should be apologizing for not being more help. Thanks for the understanding. Cheers, --JaGa^talk 20:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following Wareh's suggestion: Iamb (foot) can cover both accentual and quantitative, linking however to Iambic verse (Greek) and Iambic verse (Latin), each of which would contain overviews of the various iambic meters in those languages (I think they should be kept separate). Same pattern could be followed with trochees. I can help out using my 1879 Greek Grammar with its section on Versification. I can begin by drafting Iambic verse (Greek) and Wareh can polish/update/correct. Someone else can do Latin. If that works, we can then do the same with trochees. McCronion (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessarily separate Latin and Greek, since in order to do Iambic verse (Latin) properly you'd have to rehash so much from Iambic verse (Greek). Cynwolfe (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for separating Latin from Greek. 1)A lot more people study Latin than study Greek and the Greek will only get in their way, or else the Greek will end up the poor cousin in the article; 2)There are some significant differences, as in the Greek use of dipodies and the Greek understanding of arsis as opposed to the Latin use; 3)there is actually quite a lot of material for the Greek alone, justifying its own article. In fact I'm already thinking of an intermediate article after Iamb (foot) titled Versification (Greek) where the basic principles in versification can be developed before linking to the next level down, Iambic verse (Greek). Anyway, I'll probably start a drafting page and Wareh can do what he likes with the material I generate. Should be finished iambic stuff in a couple of weeks and then ponder the point of similar treatment for trochees. Greek love must be deleted. McCato

I should think it's Latin that's the poor cousin of the Greek. I only have the most basic understanding of technical metrics, but when I did my semester of it in grad school we used Halporn, Ostwald and Rosenmeyer's The Meters of Greek and Latin Poetry (one of whom was the prof) and were given to understand that Latinists needed to have a grasp of the Greek system in order to understand the strangeness of what the Latin poets did by adapting it—strange because imposing the Greek system was in many ways a contortion of Latin's natural prosody. Of course Latin students learn the rudiments of metrics in their Vergil class without recourse to the Greek, and WP has so many gaps in the literary history of classical antiquity I wouldn't worry about leaving this one. Wareh had brought this up at the Classical G&R project, and I didn't know who McCronion was till just now, so I didn't mean to intrude. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd want to start with unified Greco-Latin content and break them apart if the need arose for more specialization. Consider Aeolic verse, which, while no doubt forbiddingly arid to many readers, is so because of the discussion of meter, not because there's any Greek getting in the reader's way. In fact it doesn't even quote any Greek! At some future point someone can enrich the discussion of Latin Aeolics by pointing out that the "aeolic base" takes a set form, etc., but this one I think makes sense on the unified model. Now, I guess I just don't really know anything about Iambic verse (Latin), so that's another reason why in my hands it would tend to begin life as a very brief appendix to a unified article. If McC wants to write a thorough technical treatment of Latin iambics, then I say, great, create an address for it. Otherwise, it sounds to me like taking cuttings from a plant we haven't yet made viable. Since all I was contemplating was redisposing the existing material, I think separate addresses would have ended up causing more repetition and confusion than clarification. Here I think the Teutons are on to something, and I remain satisfied that what I proposed on three public talk pages is the best way forward. Wareh (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't want to do anything on Latin prosody - all I have for that is a very basic text. I haven't been following 'public talk pages' for some time and I'm quite happy surfing my own beach. McCronion (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to create a Versification (Latin) article but it would cover all the main forms - dactylic hexameter, dactylic pentameter (ie elgiac line), iambic trimeter, iambic dimeter, Sapphic and Alcaic stanzas. Then I'd go ahead with the Greek versification as outlined above. If you are happy for me to do that I'll proceed with it and hopefully finish in a couple of weeks. Otherwise you'll have to find other helpers. I think it's a mistake creating articles on meter in a language vacuum or with different languages jostling each other for room. Anyway, your choice. McCronion (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course my response to the idea of your creating an article on Latin meter is to welcome and encourage you to do it! Don't let me slow down any contributions you'd like to make. If it were at variance with my own plans (and I don't see that it soon would be), that certainly wouldn't be a reason to stop you. I've always been of the school that says the first step is to pile as much missing content into the encyclopedia as possible. I'm sure whatever you write will be worth keeping around; even a collection of basic definitions followed by a catalog of meters would be a significant step forward. There will always be time to keep moving around the deck chairs later. My own plans will be slow to bear fruit, I'm sure. In fact, all this dancing around beforehand is probably not very productive. I only created a discussion because I found the treatment of various English & ancient rhythms to be so higgledy-piggledy, as I wrote that disambiguation page iamb.

Now, we do already have articles like Sapphic stanza and elegiac couplet. The Latin section of Archilochian could be expanded to cover a lot of forms that have been called one or another kind of "iambic dimeter."

If you get to Greek, I can make available a copy of Sicking's Griechische Verslehre, which I recommend (or Dale's series of articles on The Metrical Units of Greek Lyric Verse, as I mentioned on your talk page), if it is useful to you. I really do think that at some point in the future we need to offer the reader, not just tools for scansion and analysis into "feet" etc., but larger principles, phenomena, and groupings. I'm guessing that an unfortunate feature of real reliable sources is that they will tend to treat all this in the Greek context, in large part for the reasons Cynwolfe mentioned. It's frankly very difficult for me to imagine the shape of the ideal treatment of Latin meter. I have no faith I could gather up the materials that do justice to its complexity. If we had the contents of Halporn et al. on Wikipedia, that would be a good enough start on some practical information. In Greek, on the other hand, I would be very loath to trade Sicking for the state of the art 125 years ago, so that it's harder to find low-hanging fruit. An article on Greek iambic verse is attractive because doable. Meters like dactylic hexameter and iambic trimeter are also relatively easily improved a great deal, with a better treatment of differences across different authors/periods and, even just within Homer, a digestion of what Kirk says about Iliadic line rhythms in the intro to the first volume of the Cambridge Iliad commentary.

Don't take my musings the wrong way. I see no reasons for inaction here. Wareh (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK that's invitation enough. I'll create an article for Latin prosody and then it's up to others to add to it, and they can create new articles to expand whatever bit they like. I guess I'll call it Prosody (Latin). Then I'll create Prosody (Greek) and thence down a step to Iambic verse (Greek). There I'll pause and decide if I want to go further. You are welcome to change, add, polish, as you please. I probably won't start for a couple of days. I'm doing it for my own benefit, to develop and consolidate my own understanding: enlightened self-interest rather than selfless idealism seems to be the way to go at WP, so stuff you all! Greek love must be deleted. McCato —Preceding undated comment added 15:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Happy learning! Wareh (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Herr Wareh! It turns out that I have time on my hands today and I'll start now. Slight change of plans - 'prosody' is not a word most people are familiar with so I'll use the title Latin Verse and explain in the article itself that it is really about prosody (though there should be room for comments about verse generally in the examples given). I'm using Kennedy's Revised Latin Primer (1962) and the preface to Green's The Poems of Catullus. Both excellent simplifications, especially the Primer, and I'll use their examples. When you find time, you can provide other citations/examples for the points I make. Incidentally, you shouldn't turn your nose up at my 19th century Greek Grammar as it descibes literature that is a great deal older than that. McCronion (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I think you may know, I am hardly a believer in the progress of classical learning & obsolescence of 19th century insights. When it comes to making sense of something like the meters of Pindar, tragedy, and comedy, though, I do believe! For accurate descriptions of what we find in much of the most beloved Latin literature (as opposed to stranger mysteries such as Plautine lyrics), I trust your sources will work, though there will surely be richer material for our understanding in books that spend more space on the subject and actually address it more than incidentally. Halporn/Rosenmeyer/Ostwald (1963) and Raven's Latin Metre: An Introduction (1965) are both down-to-earth and concise primers that would lend themselves nicely to the descriptive enterprise I think you're proposing. Wareh (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Kennedy Primer is fine for an overview of Latin prosody for the main meters; I'm using Catullus only to bring in hendecasyllables and the greater asclepiad. It's an overview, Wareh, so stop vorrying about it. If you want more detail, you can expand sections into new articles. All the same, we should use other sources, such as you mention, but they can be introduced later. I can't afford to buy more texts and I only open the wallet for literature, where the primer and Green's Catullus have been ample for my own needs, and I have pretty well read most of the significant Latin poets. Anyvay Ich better get back to the vork in hand. McCronion (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. If you want access to books without opening your wallet, let me know, and I'd be glad to help as I can. I don't mean to browbeat you & didn't mean to create a circular conversation. Wareh (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've just discovered Latin poetry, which is basically what I am writing, except I have more to add. I'll work on that and it should involve a substantial rewrite. It should turn out a big improvement. McCronion (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pinacography

Hi Wareh. I've thought about the issue you brought up re Ptolemy and Π/πίνακες. I think I am going to (at some point, hopefully soon) expand the Pinax article to include a discussion of the term in the bibliographical sense, since it would naturally belong with the singular and I do think that when one reads the plural, the first thought is of Callimachus' work. I suppose that if the expansion overwhelms the page as it is, the scholarly genre can be spun off. If that all sounds reasonable to you, and pinacography is still on your radar, I'd really appreciate any additions that you might be able to make to Pinax since right now I'm trying to get a handle on the best way to revive epyllion and to present the Hecale (not to mention the fact that I'm shaken from not having even heard of this aptly, in my case, named "Ptolemy the unknown" before I saw your note). Best, The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, on my radar screen and ready to write something may not be the same thing, but I've just made at least a bare reference at pinakes. Ptolemy's catalog is indeed introduced as singular not plural: Πίναξ τῶν τοῦ Ἀριστοτέλους συγγραμμάτων. But this doesn't mean much, since the individual heads or lists by Callimachus were also referred to in the singular (e.g. the Suda mentions Callimachus' Πίναξ τῶν Δημοκρίτου γλωσσῶν καὶ συνταγμάτων). Moreover, it's hard to look at the two articles pinax and pinakes and feel that the former is the right place for a usage that clearly refers not to tablets but to Callimachean catalogs. See the edits I've just made, which I hope are unintrusive and the right general idea. Let me know if anything seems amiss. If not, would you object if I listed Pinakes (Callimachus) as an "uncontroversial" move to simply Pinakes? (I don't propose to change the actual article any further, and as far as I gather you would have used this title except that it wasn't technically feasible & now requires an administrator to change.) Wareh (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that all makes perfect sense, and the move is uncontroversial with me and the page's creator, with whom I discussed this a bit on the Talk page when I made my initial, ill-fated moves. Just to clarify what I was after with singular v. plural (so as not to appear a plodding dolt), I meant that if we were to push an article toward being about a genre in which works can be referred to in the singular or plural, the singular seems to be the preferred usage in discussing genre. A point of general interest: the other, singular pinakes listed in the Suda entry aren't considered parts of the work known as the Pinakes, that being Πίνακες τῶν ἐν πάσῃ παιδείᾳ διαλαμψάντων, καὶ ὧν συνέγραψαν. I don't know that I believe that interpretation of the testimonia and fragments, but who am I? Going this route, I'd actually be alright with no mention of the/any Pinakes appearing on the Pinax page: this uncited bit about a map picture is a bit too creative for my taste, considering the other basic meaning and the existence of the πίναξ ἐκκλησιαστικός at Athens. Thanks for looking at this and I hope that I can get back to that article soonish and will be thinking about the extra-Callimachean angle that need to be pursued—please let me know if any other names come to mind. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re "the other, singular pinakes listed in the Suda entry aren't considered parts of the work known as the Pinakes": That occurred to me as likely, but I silenced my own confusion. Others will be confused too. Would you mind going ahead and adding a brief section stating the existence of these non-Pinakes Pinakes by Callimachus at Pinakes (Callimachus)? If Pinakes#Later_bibliographic_pinakes is being kept there, then this belongs there a fortiori, and it would be a great clarification. P.S. I have requested the uncontroversial move (though you never know with these bureaucrats whether they won't ask us to have a period of consultation over it). Wareh (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add something quick and uncited now and try to return to it with a fresh step a bit later. Another Aristotelian, Ἀνδρόνικος ὄνομα, should probably be in the mix, too. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you a bit more there to check over when you've satisfied your needs for nap and whatnot. E.g., is it really better to name and refer the reader to Democrates, and are the didaskaloi dramatic poets? Cheers, Wareh (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that all up (and unpacking Glosses); it has to be didaskaloi in the manner that you link, too. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advice Mein Herr?

Please see Talk:Latin poetry for an issue that needs resolution. McCronion (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the content of that article to an article I have just created Prosody (Latin). McCronion (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just seeing this now after being away for several days. Prosody is a perfectly coherent and valid topic under Latin poetry, so it was perfectly appropriate and valid to break off Prosody (Latin) as you've done. I've answered a couple of calls for opinions at Talk:Prosody (Latin). Wareh (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<br />

Not that you've got unto yourself the responsibilities of managing editor, but you seem to know your way around these issues very well. You corrected my breaks at anacreontic saying that they should be avoided, could you take a look at the section on my user page regarding translation formats and tell me whether or not I should say uncle or, at least, if there's a wiser way to go about what I'm after. I already think that I might be vainly trying at textual vanity. Thanks, The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, and I hope you won't take my comment about <br> as a dictate. As to User:Cardiffchestnut#Translation_templates, I have to say that the stichomythy does not work acceptably. The problem is that there is nothing to force the speakers' identifiers to line up with what they say! On my office display, the chorus's first reply is, in toto, "goddess is speaking trusty." (In the Callimachus example, the English lines run over while the Greek do not, so there is no line-to-line alignment, but that's fine.) I believe I've tried to solve this problem of parallel texts more than once, but offhand I can only point you to one example at Praxilla, which I copied at Alcmanian verse. Wareh (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Have a look at Chaucer#English. Wareh (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might be it: "nowrap"—when you get a chance can you see if the stichomythia is still a mess for you. I've bounced between browsers and sizes and it seems to work now. (Also, I don't get what you mean re the Call. fr.: "no line-to-line alignment": are you talking about the translation, or are the line-breaks actually a touch off from each other?) Thanks, The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nowrap seems to have been the key, and they both look correct now, even in an undersized window. By no line-to-line alignment I just meant that lines were wrapping over on the English side (but not on the Greek side), so that the equivalent lines in the two languages were not on the same horizontal line of the screen. But we're used to that; it's typical in dual-language texts to have the translation more verbose, so that the eye can't simply move in a straight line left-to-right to find the equivalent. But it's better to let the eye do just that, which is what you've now done with nowrap. Wareh (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC

Great, thanks for the help. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

new unreviewed article

Hi Wareh. Prosody (Latin) still carries a new unreviewed article tag. As this seems to indicate only a provisional article status, I'm reluctant to do any more work there. McCronion (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It passes my cursory review with flying colors. Since you speak of more work, I will trust to your instincts about what most needs to be added. My one suggestion would be to try to work in at least summary mention of all the verse forms mentioned in your sources, even those you may not wish to treat in their own sections. This way readers (and potential future article improvers) will have a more complete map of the subject and won't mistake the helpful sections at Prosody_(Latin)#Meters as being exhaustive. Wareh (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There will be room for some more meters demonstrated with Latin verse but other meters will only be present in abstract. I'm not sure if there will be room for things like all the different Archilochian and Asclepiad systems, even in the abstract, maybe just the first of each kind with links for the rest (A joint Greek/Latin coverage might be best for articles on systems). I'm working from a potpourri of sources off my own shelves so I'm sure to leave gaps here and there. Somebody with a comprehensive text on Latin prosody can follow up later. Thanks. McCronion (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly message from Jean-François Monteil

(86.75.111.133 (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)) Dear Sir, we were in contact a few months ago. If you want to know what I'm doing now, I advise you to click on FR-ENG 000 Liste des knols avec accès pa and Knol 000 Présentation des trois collections de Jean-François ...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.75.111.133 (talk) 05:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC) (86.75.111.133 (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC))(86.75.111.133 (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)If you think that my field of research is of some interest, I suggest you type on Google: -FR-ENG Knol 000 Présentation des trois collections de Jean-François Monteil -FR-ENG Knol 000 Liste des knols avec accès par simple click. -FR-ENG Knol 000 Les knogs de grammaire-et-logique. tract-8.over-blog.com consacrés à Wikipedia. Accès par simple click. It seems that my expertise in the study of Aristotle's writings results in discovering important things in logic, especially, concerning strict implication. One Lewis raised the question a hundred years ago, now. Type:ENG Knol 107. Yours sincerely. Jean-François Monteil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.75.111.133 (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu

Nice work on Lulu--definitely an improvement to a difficult list. Much cleaner & more logical. Cheers!--ShelfSkewed Talk 19:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad it makes sense! Thanks for noticing. Wareh (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doxography

Hi Wareh, any interest in giving some time to a weird doxographical papyrus that I've been editing? Based on your CV, it might be up your alley, and none of my colleagues seem up to collaboration on it. Rhetorical, Pythagorians, some Ionic diction that might be part of a quotation ... The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Online shape-note tunebooks

You've done excellent work with this list, but it really belongs under shape notes rather than Sacred Harp. Perhaps the links to historical editions of The Sacred Harp could be retained.Finn Froding (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The same thought did occur to me, but then I noticed that the article Sacred Harp may have once wanted to be about just the tunebooks with that title but has developed into an article on "a tradition of sacred choral music that took root in the Southern region." I determined that my links fit under that rubric. So the ideal fix to all this is to make the relationship between the articles clearer. If you think you can move the whole section to shape note in a way that works, it's all right with me, though I worry that people to whom "Sacred Harp" means what our article says it is ("a tradition...that took root in the South") might miss out on a bunch of nice tunebook examples of that tradition. The bottom line is that I recognize the difficulty, so I won't stand in the way of a good solution to it. Thanks again, Wareh (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean about Sacred Harp as a "tradition," but it's really a tradition of singing from some version of The Sacred Harp, as several recent contributions to the discussion page reveal. Certainly singers from the New Harp of Columbia or Christian Harmony don't call themselves "Sacred Harp singers." I would almost prefer "Sacred Harp singing" as an article title, meaning "a community musical and social event, where people sing songs from a tunebook called The Sacred Harp." But the present article is ok in focusing on both the book and its traditional use. And "shape-note" is really a notation, or group of notations, not a specific tradition or a style. In the southern U.S., it usually means convention gospel music, sung from small paperback books; that's why I liked it that your list specifies shape-note "tunebooks," those mainly big oblong things! Do you attend Sacred Harp singings? Finn Froding (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can claim no expertise in this, since I have just begun to become interested, though I love what I have heard so far and plan to attend a singing for the first time in a week. I think your overall idea sounds good, though I'm not sure exactly how you would divide the material and how many articles would result. I gather you'd have an article The Sacred Harp (with {{Italic title}}), on the 1844 tunebook and its direct descendants that kept the name (the current article is simply not on this topic, at least until the lead is rewritten). Shape note could be on the 4-shape and 7-shape notational schemes more narrowly. What's harder to see is where everything about the musical tradition (both as compositions and performance practices) belongs. It seems the books in my list reflect a common tradition of schools and singings with The Sacred Harp, and where to put it is awkward. Is there really an easy & natural dividing line between "the singing of people who only use books titled The Sacred Harp" and "the singing of people who made and used those other books"? My gut is telling me that separating the latter group and calling it "shape note" is not really correct. My current feeling is this: I'm happy with the way my own intervention got redisposed by you, but I regard the two articles as a bit of an unclear mess with respect to how they define their topics. Here's my best-guess idea: (1) shape note restricted to the notation, (2) The Sacred Harp restricted to the 1844 tunebooks and its descendants (not ones that accidentally shared the name), (3) Sacred Harp singing or some such, to which Sacred Harp might better redirect, which would describe in general the music, its performance, and its wider history, which clearly includes both the music in SH and the music in other books (this is where my list would belong). #3 would have to have a carefully written explanation at the beginning: This article is not limited to the SH book but treats the wider American musical tradition of which it is a part. Is something like this what you're proposing, or have I got you all wrong? Wareh (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC) P.S. To boil this down more concretely, the material at Sacred_Harp#History_of_Sacred_Harp_singing is very important, but no one could honestly say that it tells the history of The Sacred Harp rather than the history of the whole tradition reflected in my list. At least, this is what I stumble over. Wareh (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

break?

Are you taking a break? If so, I hope it's for reasons that are only good. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kindness. I am fine and will be back at some point in the coming weeks. I probably would have been back sooner, except that visiting here had come to mean first checking on incredibly inefficient efforts to resolve a certain dispute. That does not mean I dropped out out of pique or frustration. I retain my sense of a good-faith responsibility to continue that discussion together with all the discussions here, despite my practically enforced neglect of all of it since September 30. It's just that, not having time to visit Wikipedia was all the more clear when visiting included looking at that mess. It's made it clearer that I simply haven't had the time, as real life has interfered (minor illnesses, loss of my last living grandparent, busy at work, Nov. 1 deadline for final edits to my book manuscript). So, expect me back soon, if perhaps not rested in the way "break" could imply. Yours as ever, Wareh (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry to hear about the loss of your grandparent. (And please know, I was asking because of your absence from the G&R project page; if I take your meaning, that other discussion hadn't really gotten underway when I inquired.) Please take care of yourself, and again, I'm sorry to hear of your family's loss. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dance in ancient Greece

I just responded to a request at Talk:Ancient Greece#Music for a section on music under "Culture." (I used what was in the main article Music of ancient Greece, nothing that required thought.) In doing so, I noticed another Greek topic that seems to be missing: Dance of ancient Greece. There are lots of small articles on specific dances, but no overview article. When I have time, I might round up some of the missing topics discussed here and list them at the Greece & Rome project. You are missed! Cynwolfe (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syzygy

Thanks for the heads up (and cleaning up after me!). --TimL (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It looks like you're doing it the right way now. The reason cut-and-paste doesn't work is that it destroys the edit histories of the pages. Wareh (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logic Museum external links

On what grounds have the links to the Logic Museum been reverted [10]? The Logic Museum is a large site of more than a 1,000 pages containing material nowhere else on the net, including a translation-in-progress of Ockham's Summa Logicae. It also contains a digitisation of part of Scotus' Ordinatio. Is it allowed to remove links simply because the owner of the site is a banned user?Quisquiliae (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and you've already been told that back in May. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:William of Moerbeke, where I would value your input. I'm hopeful we can separate the questions of inappropriate editor behavior and the value of an EL for an article. Wareh (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on List of Train Songs

Hi, Wareh. I'm still working on the List of Train songs now and then and would like your feedback on a major change I'm in the process of making. As an experiment, I bolded half of the song titles (but not the quotes), because they didn't stand out enough from the artist links. For example, if you're scrolling to look for a title (try the second half of the list), you have to stop periodically to catch the titles, whereas with bold, it's easier to scan them. This is especially apparent on a smart phone, even in smaller views. Anyway, that's my "pitch." When you get a chance, let me know what you think. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert on Eidos.

Please consult this RM discussion. Salvidrim! 22:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. It's particularly courteous of you, as it's clear we come down on different sides of this. Wareh (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather see consensus reached before anything happens than have a partial conensus and ensuing debates, as these post-move debates are likely to be less civil. :) Salvidrim! 00:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]