Almost nothing is known of Aaron Williams's family or early life. It seems likely that he was the son of William Morgan[!] of Caldicott, Monmouthshire, Wales. If so, his name indicates a typical 18c Welsh formation of English surnames from patronymics, mimicking the Welsh "ap Gwilym" son of William. This suggests that his immediate ancestry, and likely his native language, was Welsh. Certainly his known publications and teaching venues were English. Maybe Welsh-English or Anglo-Welsh would be appropriate. What say you? Finn Froding (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds as if you may have given the matter more careful and informed thought than the sources I found on Williams. I've undone my undo and will leave it to you to phrase it as you think is most accurate. Thanks for your care! If a source can be provided for the possible connection to William Morgan, that would be great. Wareh (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Wareh. I've cleaned up the publications list, and offered a couple of additional sources: Temperley's Grove Music article, and his online Hymn Tune Index. Be cautious with the Grove article, though: references to "Bangor" and "34th" seem to refer to tunes by William Tans'ur and Joseph Stephenson, respectively. Finn Froding (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Phaedo red links
Fair enough on the Phaedo red links, that's good to keep in mind. I would love to see articles written for all of those ancient philosophers and dialogues, too. CCS81 (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for understanding my motivation. And forgive my laziness in not determining myself the notability of all those. But I hope I may provide Zopyrus (dialogue) myself one day, so I'd like to keep its redline phantom existence going for now. Wareh (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wareh! Yes the Lille Stesichorus translation is a WP thing. However, the quantitative verse is imitated in this instance by syllable number per line. I've tried something else now to meet your scruple and to keep the syllable count for that line. Thanks (oh and thanks for final sigmas) McOoee (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well in that case pardon my tin ear, and I'll have to come back soon to appreciate your work on the versification. Wareh (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Book reccomendation
Hi Wareh, Thanks for the book reccomendation on the ref desk. It wasn't the topic I was looking for but precisely the kind of in-depth research and synthesis I like and a topic I am also interested in. Right on the edge of what an educated layperson can understand, I have to read (and re-read!) it slowly. Peace! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.66.156.178 (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback, and I'm very glad to know it was of interest. I'm saving it for a summer lull myself! (The book is Bellah's Religion in Human Evolution, if anyone else is curious.) Wareh (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Message amical de Jean-François Monteil à Wareh
(86.75.111.161 (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC))
I propose to your benevolent attention the three following knols: Knol 000 About Google and its knol system.
FR-ENG Knol 000 Présentation des trois collections de Jean ...
FR-ENG Knol 000 Les knogs de grammaire-et-logique.tract-8.over ...
To reach them, you have only to type: Knol 000. Yours cordially.JFM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.75.111.161 (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Online links you removed. I will certainly restore all of those links unless you can give some good reason why you consider them "obsolete". The second one (veritasbible.com) might be considered already covered by the first (which may be grounds for omitting it). But the others (which have been there at least for the past year) are definitely helpful to anyone interested in the topic. So is Cormac Burke's version, which is certainly new. I don't follow your argument that the others are obsolete on the grounds that they "were only here b/c I added them". You did well to add them; why should they now be removed because you decide they are "obsolete"?Unimpeder (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in principle that my addition of these links is not a reason why others cannot differ with my judgment that it's time to remove them. But the reasons for which they seemed good links under WP:EL at that time no longer seem to apply. See Talk:Douay–Rheims_Bible#Obsolete_external_links for a fuller explanation than I was able to give in my edit summary. Wareh (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI
Because this is tucked in the drawer, I just wanted to point it out. You have more influence over this user than anyone, but suggestions from multiple editors that he mount a different defense seem not to have been heeded. I've been keeping my distance because I didn't want to drag you into something. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You're right that I never saw that. So we're suggesting pretty much the same thing, independently; I don't know about influence, but I can hope it starts to sound like sense. But sorting it out is above me. Yours, Wareh (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I know you aren't around much these days (and I take that as a good sign of success elsewhere), but I think of you often and miss your your voice. I learned a great deal from you about trying to be a good Wikipedian. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All my best wishes to you and yours for the New Year! I have been a bit preoccupied and otherwise engaged. It's great to hear from you, and if I'm pretty scarce around here, I'd always love to hear from you by more reliable means too. Yours, Wareh (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford's Aristotle titles
I've noted that way back in 2007 you moved On the Parts of Animals to Parts of Animals and cited "Standardize title by Revised Oxf Transl". After looking at some other titles that were translated in a similar manner, it makes me question the wisdom of those scholarly translators at Oxford. How can they completely ignore the "De" in De Partibus Animalium, De Motu Animalium and several other of Aristotle's titles? When one looks at that Corpus Aristotelicum article, it is obvious that sometimes the "De" translates to "On" or "On the", and sometimes the "De" is completely ignored. Is it me? The inconsistency in those translated titles seems to scream out for us (Wikipedia) to ignore those Oxford translations as highly suspect in their veracities! How can the Oxford translations be considered reliable sources under such inconsistent circumstances?
Please note that I am by no means challenging you or your title changes. But I cannot help but question why those Oxford translators sometimes ignored the "De" and then sometimes didn't ignore it. Please, am I missing something? – PAINE ELLSWORTHC L I M A X !04:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your question. First of all, Aristotle didn't know Latin, though that's kind of a dodge, since our Greek manuscripts typically give titles with peri corresponding to the Latin de (though there are often interesting variations). The bottom line is that this word designates the subject about which the treatise carries out its investigation. I suppose the Oxford editor's rationale is probably that, in English, it is normal simply to title a book bluntly with the topic rather than "About the topic."
Since I realize this is bound to strike you as a bit unsatisfactory, let me defend the point I'd actually care to defend, which is simply that The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation is the only candidate on the entire English-language landscape for an authoritative and complete collection of Aristotle's works in English. Yes, we may quibble with some of the idiosyncrasies the editor (Jonathan Barnes) has committed in little details, but it seems we should follow some such standard. I would certainly prefer some different titles in some instances myself, and I'm perfectly capable of trying to use Wikipedia policies like WP:COMMONNAME to advocate for them, but I refrain from doing so because it seems to me more neutral to follow this single objective collection which can claim to be standard. Wareh (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting and instructive. Thank you for that. Were I to hazard a layman's guess, maybe the titles in question in their Greek form lacked the peri, and whoever translated them to Latin would sometimes tack on a de for the sake of conformance. Perhaps the venerable Jonathan Barnes discovered this detail and corrected the English translation. That's how I would justify it in my own mind, anyway.
Your explanation was far from unsatisfactory, btw. There is the "only guy in town" part that is a tiny bit unsavory. I suppose we should be thankful for there being at least one scholarly and authoritative resource. Thank you again, Wareh. For what it is worth, I learned something from you today. – PAINE ELLSWORTHC L I M A X !21:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to be of help. I guess the question is, how often is any single unified project going to come along and retranslate all of Aristotle? There are some good new collections in other languages, like German. Wareh (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good work! To my way of thinking, you've really got two good navboxes here that would be better separated from each other: one on the reception of Dante's Comedy (the rows "Music" through "Video Games" plus all of the "Related" links except for Cultural references in Divina Commedia), and one on Dante's Comedy itself (everything else). That way you (and others of course) could decide whether, for a given article, one navbox, the other, or both might be appropriate. It would also avoid the appearance that the majority of the topic "Dante's Divine Comedy" consists of its reception in later works. Just my two cents of course--again, thanks for your work! Wareh (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP Classical Greece and Rome in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see you provided information about how the object is described at the museum that houses it ("a portrait of Plutarch, Plotinus or a philosopher"). I think it would be best to make sure that any use in the encyclopedia in connection with Plutarch is clearly and scrupulously identified as only the "most probable candidate," as you put it. I don't have any particular insights to offer to the discussion to adjudicate how and where this might be appropriate though. Best, Wareh (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your positive comments, it is appreciated. I will add a few more info and links on Talk:Plutarch hoping that other users will add some constructive information on this bust. -Odysses(₪)17:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
October 2013
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Bibliotheca Teubneriana, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 12:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These images have fair-use rationale at their file pages, and within the article WP:NFC's "Images that are themselves subject of commentary" clearly applies to them. The article requires these brief fair-use visual excerpts of books to illustrate a portion of article that is about the visual (typographic) appearance of books. Wareh (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Bibliotheca Teubneriana, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 12:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)