User talk:Cynwolfe/Archive 2

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ex tripudiis
Loved your headlining! Wonderful stuff, eh? This is just a newsflash quickie. I've been in the bountiful south for a bit, and pretty much off-wiki. Part of the bounty is my son's construction of a new e-road that leads me straight to the holy bowels of jstor. What a treasure-house that is. Much frantic downloading later, and I've now read Ahl's “Amber, Avallon, and Apollo’s Singing Swan,” as recommended by your good self. Headspin, yup? So I also got hold of Romm's "The Edges of the Earth in Ancient Thought"; the one supports the other, in no particular order. Beautiful. Haploidavey (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Stor of wonders
Ahl is in condition of poetry. You no need envy magic stor-key more than little bit. You ask. I send. Haploidavey (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Manes
I had it in my sights but was distracted by Lares, The Aventines and god-knows what else (including the huge project I shall not name). It's not on my watchlist, 'cos then I'd feel I had to address its problems. Pretty grim. Bailey?? See, once I know it's there, it becomes an unbearable itch. I just know I'll pick at it. If I find some juicy references I'll post to the talk-page. Haploidavey (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well! I'm away a just few days and look what happens. You've had some quite fascinating discussions, I see. Just got your message; yes to all, and more anon. Haploidavey (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Tone and accusations
Please change your tone and stop your accusations against me. I do nothing of the things you mention and imply in your comment here:. Please try to get acquainted with the issues and arguments before you start with the accusations. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I trust it is unnecessary to say that I agree with you. It may be necessary to say that what I found fun was discussing a genuine (if slightly off the wall) question with an editor of learning - as opposed to some of the discussions on that page.


 * Your opinion on whether the list should discuss the nature of Greek democracy at all would be welcome; I don't care much, but it may be useful for some readers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, I have never edited that article. Someone asked me to look at the content dispute talk page discussion for that page.  There appear to be several issues, but the first thing I saw that really stood out was your tone when addressing other editors.  As shown in these two diffs, your insulting manner with other editors is completely unacceptable.  I'm putting that page on my watchlist and if I see you make one further comment like those two to anyone I will be reporting it for admin action as appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you want this threat reported to the appropriate authorities now? If so, there is an appropriate ArbCom case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Although I was exasperated and did indeed become testy, I would hope these remarks would be taken in the context of my comments as a whole. I had been making an effort to take the arguments of both sides into consideration, and to look at relevant scholarship. Vigorous debate is not a thing to be suppressed, and false decorum can prevent free exchange. Ultimately, what matters is the quality of what goes into the articles. I think it's bad for Wikipedia if editors simply try to block content as if this were some kind of game; they should instead spend more of this time researching the topic so they can discuss its presentation in an informed manner. As a result of looking up material on the topic in question, I became convinced (as I was not at the beginning) that the information was verifiable and that accusations of synthesis and OR were being misapplied. Certainly, I'm sorry for hurting any other editor's feelings. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As far I can see, this is not formal action; this is a threat of formal action. There are a number of pages in Wikipedia space where he could make the same complaint; most of them require that he notify you immediately (and give you a link to the section involved), and his edits show that he has not done so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you may want to be careful in your dealings with Cla68. I no longer edit article space because Cla68 carried on what I consider a harrassment campaign against me and Wikipedia editing was no longer fun for me. He outed my main editing account so that it was actually no longer possible to edit using that account. I don't understand why he did this to me since like you, I never had any interactions with him prior to him targeting me. Here's probably the best place to get my full story. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&oldid=366933134#Statement_by_Bill_Huffman To demonstrate how far Cla68 is apparently willing to go if carries through on his threat to you, he told a brazen total lie to the Arbitration Committee in order to try to get them to ban my editing. If he does take further action against you then perhaps you can use my story help try to establish a pattern in Cla68's behavior as a defense? I wish you well and hope that you are able to continue enjoying making contributions to the encyclopedia. Bill Huffman (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

CynWolfe, I think that this behavior on the part of Cla68 may be a disruptive pattern. I've started a thread on his talk page that you may want to contribute to? Although if you don't wish to possibly stir up more trouble with this editor, it is perfectly understood. Regards, Bill Huffman (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Indiges
You can find the citation of Grenier's article on Aculeius's talk page, I left it there for him too. I wish to thank you for the link to Anttilla's work which is a breakthrough in my opinion. See also Preneste Digidii or Depidii called Digitorum by Solinus.

This should be the origin of imperial cult as in the formulae of oaths Penates was substituted by the name of the princeps.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

hollow apologies
You make a good point about the uselessness of hollow apologies. Active Banana (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Shhh...
..happy to do that. How could I possibly resist a "megalomaniac conception?" You're doing real good. Were the pins rusty? D'you need an anti-tetanus? and is it safe?? Haploidavey (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wahey! I'm surprised you've not worn a hole in your cheek these last few hours. But that's a lovely little article, beautifully written, and no schmypographical errors at all to be seen at all. Haploidavey (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC
You know, the great majority of wikipedians are 13-year-olds. Well, maybe not literally. But we have loads of them, and child admins too. Yours may be a steward or 'crat, for all I know. me me me 23:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC).

Childless?
Hi. I was interested in a comment you made here about most Wikipedians being childless. I don't doubt that you are right, nor, as the father of a 25 year old daughter and a 11 year old son, do I doubt your other point, but I was wondering what the source was. Has there been a survey that's available somewhere? I'd love to take a look. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! (and no problem) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to the Boston Review article, which I thought was interesting. A great deal of the commentary rang true to me -- indeed, I've made some similar observations independently myself .  One thing that struck me as ... well, not wrong, exactly, but somewhat inaccurate, was the claim that many of "Wikipedia’s bureaucratic guardians ... are persuaded only by hyperlinks, not cogent arguments."  I haven't found that to be the case, nor have I found that there's a prejudice against print citations -- if anything, print citations are seen as holier than holy.   It's certainly true that most of the research & referencing comes from online sources, but that's simply the nature of the beast, and the predominant contemporary mode.  Also, the problem is not that Wikipedia has a bureaucracy, it's that its bureaucratic structure is haphazard and poorly "designed" (i.e. not designed at all, but grew like Topsy), with few effective safeguards against malfesance.  The quality of the admins is, to be blunt, just as widely variable as the quality of the editors, ranging from the very good to the idiotic. As for Jimbo's description of the typical editor, which I've just seen you have on your user page, it seems accurate enough to me.  Certainly I suspect that many of the people I deal with are much younger than I am (I'm 55), with less life experience and (you should pardon the expression) less wisdom - i.e. less ability to make fine judgments based on both knowledge and past experience.  That goes along with being young, as does (as you pointed out) a certain naivete about human behavioral patterns which can be cured by getting married or having a kid or two.  (On the other hand, there's a lot of really smart people here as well, regardless of their age.)  The maleness of the place seems obvious, too -- sometimes I fancy I can smell the testosterone seeping out of the screen -- and contributes to the "infighting" talked about in the article (which failed to mention the straight-out fighting that breaks out occasionally as well, no "in-" about it). The article made me wonder again if I should read the book by Lih -- have you read it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Was there really a need
For this? I mean really? So i make a spelling mistake and this means i`m an illiterate? Nice mark nutley (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The next time you leave a message on my talk page, make sure it's a summons to a tribunal. Otherwise, take your Wikipedia pleasures elsewhere. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but at least now i know why you defend PMA, your just as rude as he mark nutley (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Orthographical errors are trivial. I have a close family member who is highly intelligent but dyslexic. However, he knows he's dyslexic, and takes steps to remedy the effects of his LD on written materials other than personal notes. His lapses can and have been unfairly construed as deficiencies in learning or intelligence. Refusing to recognize or to try to remedy one's errors or limitations is the mark of willful ignorance. In the area of mathematics, I have only the most rudimentary knowledge: because of deficiencies in my education, I am an ignoramus regarding areas of mathematics in which my 13-year-old is already proficient. Were I to edit mathematics articles on the basis of my ignorance, I'm not sure how mathematically-informed editors would get rid of me, and I suspect eventually somebody would point out the bald fact of my ignorance. I don't know why I would persist in editing mathematics articles, unless I was trying to compensate for my ignorance by attempting to control the subject matter at a level I could understand. Mark nutley has already ignored my request that he not leave messages on my talk page; I ask him not to do it again. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Would you be interested in looking out a history of Carthage, as I intend to do next? if there is a case that Carthage indeed became democratic about the time of Zama, it should certainly be mentioned - and if there is a case against, that should also be mentioned. It is usually possible to ignore nuisances (and if not, we can consider an electronic equivalent of gold plates ad inferos); but I would miss having someone to talk to on the subject.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One idea would be to update History of Carthage which skips briskly from the mercenaries' revolt to the 3rd war (do you notice someone missing?). Apparently there is a dispute whether the democratic change after the mercenaries was evolution or revolution - but we know about it from Polybius, who deplores it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup; what I mean of that post is that I mean to, probably looking at this book on Cuba as I go; but the figments on Athens are getting thicker (where are the violetments?). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it would be going too far to suggest that a certain editor buys his own silver, and - like Brigadier Gerard - kills his own foxes? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Uncivil remarks.
Please, Cynwolfe, your uncivil remarks and straw men are getting fairly tiring, and I'm not sure how long I wish to ignore them. I do understand that you and Elen admire Pmanderson, but I don't see why you therefore have to emulate him to the extent of becoming mirror copies in behavior. The block he got should be a hint that this is not the correct way forward. Stop trying to make this debate into a personal issue. Stay factual. Focus on the issue, not the editors.

Thank you. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't have the slightest idea what a "straw man" is. Don't visit my talk page again until you leave a notice of impending action. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have, reluctantly, said effectively the same thing . I can be extremely incivil if necessary, but I do know when I'm doing it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ezra Pound
Hi Cynwolfe - I thought you might enjoy a diversion! I've rewritten the Legacy section of Pound's article. Still needs polishing, etc., but your comment on my page resonated a bit, and I didn't really like the Ginsberg quote, which was in the article before I began reworking it. I'd be happy to get feedback from a person who studied Pound with Davie. I think that single 700 word section is the most difficult of the entire article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

When in Rome
Indeed, not to be missed. The pic shows what could be a waste-heap awaiting disposal by the bin-men. The altar - or rather what is taken to be the altar and certainly still functions as one - deserves careful consideration. It's small, low, superficially insignificant and somehow very moving. Haploidavey (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Virginie Bovie
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

None may leave...
I swear, it's Brigadoon meets Groundhog Day. Oh doom, doom. Haploidavey (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC) There was a chain of reasoning?? Oh, you mean fetters; surely not even Inchtuthill had so much to bury. Haploidavey (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, Reason, why stayeth thou thy soujourning slumber 'pon on a farther shore? (Exit, Swooning). Haploidavey (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Nah. Me poem's crap, innit. Yours left me knees all wobbly. Bloody A1, and dead spiritual, with all the bones and clay and Latin and that. Haploidavey (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Poe? Really; then I congratulate your poetaste. Haploidavey (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lord no, I'm not removing that. I can happily live with "slightly disturbing" and for some reason I find the victima adestra (lagomorph) strangely familiar. I've a great liking for still, er, lives; especially from the mid 18th Century Spanish schools. And the utterly wonderful Chardin. Haploidavey (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Remedial
Maieutic may be even more appropriate. Try to channel Diotima. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ave Imperatrix!
Glorious one! Live long and prosper and damn yes, have a happy birthday! You better had, 'cos it's the only one you're getting this year, and we don't do refunds. I raiseth a glass to you. Haploidavey (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cyn, that was thoughtful. Blessings on you, and enjoy. Haploidavey (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC Teeninvestor
Please comment on what I have posted here. --Tenmei (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Charade
Actually, I think you've dealt with it nicely. You made no charges, but it is unlikely that Ally will be back. And if he is, I'll cite you when taking appropriate administrative action. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That editor doth protest too much, clearly. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Crossfire
I understand now what Active Banana meant by crossfire. It took me several days to build up to saying anything on wikipedia and I'm sorry it was your article that I first talked on. I don't know what to do with my page now that I'm leaving. If there is any way to blank it please do so. Thank you. Ally74 (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've only made two or three edits to that article, to do with links and a typo, so I hardly consider it "my" article. This can hardly have been in response to my comment at Talk:List of wars between democracies. A WP newcomer would be unlikely to track down my comments to other users, if he even knew how to track contributions. And how did a newcomer know the WP jargon "blank it"? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Little dancer
Exquisite! And no, I'd not heard of or seen her before. The treatment's extraordinarily deft and sensitive, almost offhand; and terracotta's such grainy, groggy, resistant stuff. Horrible to work, but that little figure carries no effort at all. I'll share her in the morning, with thanks. PS: Ah, so she's press-moulded - God, what's with my blokey remarks?? The Louvre commentary's very good; I thought it was caput first time around, then realised I'd muted my PC speakers. Duh. Haploidavey (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Addition
Hey man, I know that this was a long time ago, but, since you appear to be the lead coordinator there now, I was wondering if you could please reconsider adding a warbox to the Trojan War page. I'm not saying to add it in the beginning, but perhaps in the section labeled 9 Years of War, where it would make sense. Like take a look at this article as an example of what to do- Never Call Retreat: Lee and Grant: The Final Victory.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing ever gets resolved on Wikipedia, does it? --Akhilleus (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And yet I wasn't expecting this to come up again. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You weren't? Haploidavey (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My naïveté allows me to remain open to surprise. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Put like that, 'tis a lovely quality. Haploidavey (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Fit?
You know I'll respect your decision as much as I respect you, but I don't think you've any idea how important you are to this, er, community. Haploidavey (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, more misfits than you may realize look to your example! Vale.  Wareh (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Though I've never crossed swords with you, In researching various topics I've read a number of your posts which seem not just logical but done for the good of the article. It's a shame you've decided to hang up your keyboard so to speak - don't let the haters get you down! --Richardeast (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be a rough place at time, but right generally does win out in the end. We need editors prepared to do the work and survive the knocks. It matters, as the first hit on any google search what is written here matters. I really hope you will return. -- Snowded TALK  06:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If it's GWH's threat of a block that has caused this, then do please reconsider. It happens to all of us from time to time.  In GWH's case, I expect he's just fed up of all the kerfuffle on his talkpage. You're as good a fit as any of us.  --Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is also always worth bearing in mind that a 'I could have blocked you' is not a block. Plus, that termite joke, though a good one, was a bit over the top and OF's interpretation was not unwarranted - even if that wasn't your intention. So, I'd just take the whole thing in stride and move on. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)