User talk:Cynwolfe/Archive 3

DYK for Gileppe Dam
The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Aorist
Actually I only waded into Talk:Aorist after I was shamed by your parenthetical "no Wareh?" I must have been no more clear about this than I have been concise and effective in my contributions to Talk:Aorist. This is the problem with these ridiculous Wikipedia disputes: once they are inelegant sprawling messes of people talking past each other without common sense, it is difficult (for me) to make any intervention without just producing more of the repetitious hot air. Anyway, I'm glad you're back. There remain many unwelcoming bad airs hanging around here and there, but there is also one more bright spot. Wareh (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I know you didn't mean to shame. I'm tempted to follow your example on the talk pages.  Maybe a good rule would be to be ready to disturb only fairly sleepy talk pages with ideas or answers to questions curiously asked.  These talk page controversies, on the other hand!  I feel less useful and not more when I let myself get sucked in.  I think I'm done with the aorist, whatever happens.  When talk bloat breaks out, we'd be better served by brief statements of position, with supporting essays, if needed, linked from our user space.  I know I tend to be wasteful of syllables myself (always the cock-eyed optimist) in that situation, which is why I may partially withdraw from the fray out of concern for my soul's welfare.  Wareh (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You are the hero of that talk page & have charmed the savage beasts. Haste to Washington!  Wareh (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Novensiles and others
Hey, bold ἥρως. Just an acknowledgment of your note. I've had a watchlist-light spell for the last few weeks, with only a handful of articles to guard. All restored now, including Novensiles and Di Indigetes. You've asserted what needed asserting; of course, my attention was immediately nabbed by the Lars Martialis. Will despatch electro-pigeon on other matters, soon. Haploidavey (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Those tantalizing fragments! Q-tips from hidden bales... I made a quick search at jstor; three reviews of the Palmer essays. No text match for the AJA article. I'm quite taken with your rambled connection from there to Bovie; I wonder, how might she have coped with more than she chose for herself? Might she have chosen obscurity? Haploidavey (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010 (UTC)

Dionysiac
I would use Dionysiac and Bacchic about the cult, especially the cultic ecstasy. There are two complications with Dionysian: it's Kaufmann's rendition of Nietzsche's technical term, and it also means "relating to Dionysius" (the tyrants, Exiguus, or the Areopagite) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Glossary
Just got your note after a day out. Excellent. The Glossary stayed on my list, but my caretaking's been half-hearted at best; yours is bracing. So. Batten the hatches, splice the mainbraces and stuff. Haploidavey (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * On lex: while you were writing that, I was casting through the history for the "original" version. I found it. Nothing added up. Please don't overestimate my capacity to grasp the issues, let alone frame a useful outline; sometimes I just fumble through. I found the original completely incomprehensible and didn't even see the need for an entry on lex per se. I did and do see the need to explain what might be meant by religious law, perhaps even a short entry on the relationship between religious and civil law. But quite honestly, I'm too tired, despondent and pissed off to try. Scrub it as ruinous and start from scratch. Haploidavey (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I guess. A lot of this shit has happened because of trying to be all collegial and nice. What's to be nice about, really. Have to say, the bird's ass was brilliant. Haploidavey (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Straight error (mine, no-one else's), now fixed. Graecus, Graeco or Graeca, it was; not ablative Graecia. Haploidavey (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The other is meaningless strife. Who knows why? Who know who? Wikipedia psoriatica... Haploidavey (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

aorist
Hi. Your opinion would be appreciated at Talk:Aorist. — kwami (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Cynwolfe, I hope that the comment you posted at Talk:Aorist doesn't mean you are leaving. Your posts are well-reasoned and helpful.  The three main protagonists are (as long as it lasts) taking a break from the discussion to leave unimpeded room for others to comment and develop their ideas for the article.  Your outline is extremely helpful, I think.  --Taivo (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And you can request unprotection, on the grounds you specify, either from Maunus or from WP:RfPP (sorry for the gibberish, but it's easier to remember and type than the exact link), at any time. Without K or T or myself, it may well be granted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the note at the top of this page expressing my distaste for alphabet soup, and now eat and serve it daily. Linked soup now always welcome. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would actually urge caution on getting the article unprotected. Get a consensus on a lead paragraph and that would be an appropriate time to unprotect the article, IMHO.  The last thing that needs to happen is the accumulation of another pastiche of good words, bad words, stranded references, irrelevant references, etc.  That's what accumulated before.  --Taivo (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Or whether you need to start with the lead, which pressents the problem of whether the aorist is an aspect (I prefer the phrasing Taivo and I managed to collaborate on: that it is often an aspect); a part of the conjugation; an Indo-European stem; two Indo-European stems; or something else. This is irrelevant to most of the article, which can duck this largely verbal question - since the answer is "more or less all of them", but the lead can't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have no objection to the protected text, or some rational development of it, being at Aorist. It was a text written solely in lingustic in-speak, preaching one theory of the aorist, which belonged at Aorist (linguistics); although I could see putting the obscure argument over which functions of the aorist are "constitutive of the aorist aspect" under some such title. I'm sure you and Wareh and Dbachmann will work things out quite sensibly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, if I loved ancient Greek I'd be a classics prof right now, so there's only so much blood, sweat, and tears I'll spill for the aorist. I think my frustration level has reached a point where I need to work on some things I love, or some non-WP things. This is not entirely related to aorist, but I'm sincerely glad people think my contribution there has been positive. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comfort and nourishment. I just took the page off my watchlist.  What a strange theater it is.  It was clear enough how little I could do there.  (I don't presume to have contributed much, but it does seem that the more substantive a point is, the more utterly it is ignored.)  Archibald Thomas Robertson (and some less hoary and less informed players) keep trotting out on the boards to give the audience the moral of the story, when their proper use is not to reveal the truth but to help us define and sketch the questions that have long divided opinion and continue to inspire debate and comment.  My pain is entirely self-inflicted, and, πάθει μάθος, I hope it may have helped me towards a more civilized and tea-drinking policy on when & where to jump in.  There was not much worth saving in this case--just a hope for a future result that would not offend educated common sense.  But it's plain that really good content can be attacked by the same kind of obsessive myopia, and there is little that can be done.  Look to find me working in more obscure but less gloomy corners of the Wikipedia gardens. Wareh (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Fresh starts
Good advice. No wonder it's stilted and stale. What happened to story-telling? Haploidavey (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that sounds like fun. What happened to fun? Haploidavey (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, splendid mail from you on several fronts. I'm immensely cheered and seeing you're online, thought I'd give y'all a wave before response at m'leisure. Haploidavey (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

G&R project list
No, I couldn't find Gladiator there; be really good if you could do that – partly because I've the wikification-gland of a pygmy-shrew prone to cocking things up, plus my paws are pretty sore at the mo'; fingers like sausages (cooked). Haploidavey (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I swear it wasn't there yesterday. Nor Imp Cult, which is now among the 2nd hundred. And what's with "I'm just messing up everybody else's work"? Oh no you ain't. Haploidavey (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Blurry I can understand; you and me both, it seems. Yes to your suggestion re: Roman mythology, and the same applies to Religion in ancient Rome. Nowhere near adequate. Haploidavey (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Things must be desperate....
...I've started translating Aldrasto's Latin myself.... Miss Reed (my old Latin mistress) would be so proud. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Your revert
May I ask how you got involved on the page Women's rights in Iran? I am asking because you had no prior history there, before your revert. You do realize that AzzureFurry is an editor with a history of disruption and POV-pushing on Iran-related pages, whose agenda is to promote the idea that stoning is not merely a Human rights issue, done by a repulsive government to its citizens of both gender, but rather a cultural issue. He basically wants to imply that women have been stoned, for being women, which is a fringe view. You seem like a reasonable editor, so please don't make hasty judgments, and revert yourself, in order to study the issue further. AlexanderPar (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have the same right to edit that article as any other. Sometimes a news story will cause me to look at articles outside the areas in which I most often contribute. My position is quite clear: English-WP readers will expect to find stoning addressed in that article. The solution is not to suppress the section, but to present an accurate view of an issue that readers will expect to find. Articles often overlap in content; this is a relatively small amount of content. I don't see what the problem is. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that you believe that the English-WP readers WILL EXPECT to read about stoning on a page about women`s rights in Iran!?, tells us more about your own biased outlook and closed mindset, than the actual expectations of English-WP readers. Also, you did not come to that page through reading a new article. What do you take me for, a fool? AlexanderPar (talk) 05:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a highly publicized case in the news earlier this month concerning a woman in Iran who had been sentenced to stoning. The New York Times reported on the case in a series of stories: here's one, then here's the report on the lifting of the sentence; more to the point about En-WP readers' expectations, here's a page of comments from NYT readers who were responding to a blog post that compared that case to the recent execution of a woman in the U.S. It's a legitimate question to ask: if the execution of a woman by the U.S. is treated in the context of capital punishment, not women's rights, why should the stoning sentence of the Iranian woman, now lifted, be treated as such? But the question is a real question, as you can see from the range of responses at the NYT, and should be addressed — certainly it shouldn't be a forbidden topic. Readers will expect to be given a context for understanding these and other reports in an article on Women's rights in Iran. If you believe these reports are exaggerated, or false, or that stoning as a penalty is misunderstood, the article needs to explain that with sources; it should not suppress mention of stoning. I didn't say anything about reading a "new article," so I don't know what you mean there. This is not a matter of my bias; for all you know, I may have a favorable bias toward Iran because of Iranian friends I had in college, and would like to see these matters understood better and in their proper context and proportion. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would react badly to your immediate assumptions about my "closed mindset," which I take as a personal attack. It isn't up to WP to take sides or seek "truth"; a WP article should answer the questions that readers will bring to it. The existence of activist groups that expressly address stoning as it affects women is prima facie evidence that it's perceived as a women's rights issue by some people. Any further discussion of this belongs on the article's talk page. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't apologize
I see your point; if you think this still needs to be said, go ahead and emend. I trust your judgment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Blind reverts
Cynwolfe, you are making blind reverts now. I did not delete anything, go back and check the edit in question again. Please revert yourself. AlexanderPar (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The Pit
'Cuz I was all outraged fuff, itch and bickery; what I said was not entirely irrelevant but I'm beginning to see how important it is to stay calm, rational and on topic – which you were and I wasn't. I'll save the excised for later. Haploidavey (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

and Pootery (see especially footnote #2...)
thumb|left|120px|We know [[User talk:Haploidavey#most amusing time|we're missing... no wonder we're sad.]] Misi email, Anglice, dubia species quam quae probabiliter Latin tam malus ut non intelligatur (omnia et gratias omnino Google). Haploidavey (talk) 12:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

and boozy godhead...
Wow... so now I'm a cult! Haploidavey (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

SPI
Thanks, I'll take a look. Haploidavey (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

RfA
Requests for adminship/Elen of the Roads. I may live to regret this :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I support. But I will not add to the pile-on unless it becomes necessary; since my return may be disputed, I will stay relatively quiet for the next two weeks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Re Eros
I've replied on my talk page. Paul August &#9742; 07:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Interested in a stock split? Paul August &#9742; 14:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Cynwolfe, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:Cynwolfe. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And using the template nobots should get rid of this and all other public nuisances. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Carmen et imprecationem
Google translator commodo media mihi!

O divina tria cornua aprum Suscipe libamine. Ne fiat hæc de cliente privare singu Copyright filii pauperis optato munera. Ne sumat Christmas sales a crackers! Adiuva nos Adiuva nos Adiuva nos

Ne eum defendere corporations dives qui rapiunt spuria occasiones facere quaestum communi hereditate. A A Milne obit, Ipsum benedicite, qui dedit nobis. Adiuva nos Adiuva nos Adiuva nos

O divina aper placatus accipias de porcelli et exigua ursus (et parvi cerebri, Disney, TM). Adiuva nos Adiuva nos Adiuva nos. Aut non. Haploidavey (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Cernunnos
I think you have mistakenly accused me of removal of content. Since you gave me a sermon on how I am owning the article, making "a deliberate effort to exclude pertinent scholarship", perhaps you could recognize that the entire drama was just due to a simple oversight on your part.

Regarding the a vs. e point in Maier, I have presented a rephrasing.

An article is more than an unstructured heap of soundbites from cited references. In the "Name" section, the name should be discussed, if possible arranging the references adduced into a coherent whole. If one author say that the etymology of Cernunnos is unknown because it should be Carnunnos, and another author cites a form Carnonos apparently unknown to the first author, it is very difficult not to suggest a connection between the two statements. Be that as it may, I certainly have no opinion on the question and I am completely open to improvements to the current revision.

--dab (𒁳) 10:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Naughty, naughty admin
Oh, splendid. I sent the diff on. Just had to... you know how it is. Haploidavey (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Marcii
Got it. Just seemed easiest. My reasoning with Metellus Numidicus was that the cognomen/agnomen came up in the link anyway. You'd see it if you hovered over (or clicked) the link.

Thanks anyway, Cashie (talk) 02:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. Cheers, 13:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashie (talk • contribs)

Arae
Oh, good. I've some terrible obscure examples. Meet you on its talk-page. Haploidavey (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * So you finally did it. Bet you're sorry you looked. The altars are good, clean fun. Just you wait, I'm gonna put Africa first on the list. Heh heh... Haploidavey (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Suetonius
Nice work on cleaning up the Suetonius article! Geĸrίtzl (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hope I'm not unwelcome
Hi! Although Cicero's head gives me pause for thought. Regarding GL - hope there are no hard feelings as I much appreciate your efforts at Pederasty in ancient Greece and Symposium. However, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the GL article was set up as a means of re-evaluating pederasty outside ordinary academic strictures. I believe that the term/phrase 'Greek Love' could be a fascinating area of research, especially in the way the meaning is modulated from author to author. Hopefully somebody like you will publish a paper on the history of the term/phrase and then we'll all have an authoritative source we can cite. Until then, the only option is a disambiguation page that allows readers to investigate the different uses and meanings for themselves. Incidentally, while following up the disambiguation links, I couldn't help noticing a lack of articles on Gay/Lesbian History - much of it is absurdly squeezed into a single article and I am sure there is scope there for the development of new articles. The kind of discourses that underpin some uses of GL certainly deserve articles of their own but they need unambiguous titles to identify the group, as for example Uranian and Uranian poetry. The problem with GL is it incorporates many discourses, about quite different things, and WP editors can't just keep the discourses that interest them and dump the rest.

Reply here if you like (My user pages are like puritan churches and I like to keep them as bare as I can!) McZeus (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ha, nothing about me is like puritan churches. (I think Amy Richlin has an article called "Cicero's Head.") I may or may not see what you're saying, but I do think there's sufficient groundwork for looking at GL historically as a way of conceptualizing what was often either a forbidden topic, or something that had to be reconciled to prevailing mores. I like what Williams has to contribute on the subject of homosexuality in Rome; I just think he presses his rhetoric too far when he seems not to distinguish between behavior and aesthetic or style. Anyway, I've said all I have to say on the subject ('way too much), and I appreciate your note — I have entirely positive feelings about our encounters, so please don't worry about that at all. I often sound more belligerent than I intend to. Best, Cynwolfe (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I see now why certain editors hate use arguments deeply rooted in policy to argue for the demise of that article.Tijfo098 (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

A resource
Meaning yourself - such a pleasure to read your revisions to Mars (mythology). But also, have your recent travels through google-lit included this very interesting article? Haploidavey (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Gaius Valerius Flaccus (consul)
I just want to stress that I am trying to find some common ground on this.Dejvid (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Rehtia's nails
Hm. It does, but only to a point (is that supposed to be a joke?). JSTOR offers only the article and no link to its photographic plates but it does include three rather small line drawings of nails, inscribed with writing or symbols; a little indistinct. That's at top of an unnumbered page between pp. 228 & 229. Want a look? The plate you're after seems to be elsewhere in the Volume, which ain't accessible. Unless there's some cunning trick you know of? Haploidavey (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The pics you link to are certainly the same ilk. I've no idea why JSTOR (whose name wert blessed) limits Journal access to individual articles even for those who have the totenpass. I guess its somehow linked to them nasty little obols (20 buckaroos in this particular) to be paid by those doomed to the outer darkness (other wise known as "first page of the entry you requested"; damn, must they be so cheery about it?). As the plates in that volume seem not to have page numbers, the said plates are probably clustered together, or possibly distributed with gay abandon here and there, like wot proper Edwardians and their publishers done. I fear we need the Volume index or contents page. Haploidavey (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose that means you've been on talk-pages... again! What's up? Or should I not ask? Editing's freaky today. Many faces of Jimmy Wales stare from the page-tops, all wearing basilisk smiles and asking for money. Haploidavey (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. Gorgon, yes, that's the guy. No wonder I'm feeling petrific. Haploidavey (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahhhh! Davey fll ovr n wet pants cos lol! Haploidavey (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Muscle cuirass
Very nice work! About time we had an article on this... Constantine  ✍  15:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * When it comes to the idealization of the muscle structure itself (the so-called cuirasse esth&eacute;tique), Kenneth Clark's The Nude has a citable discussion somewhere. Wareh (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, yes, that's the source I saw cited elsewhere on WP. Google Books doesn't give us a peep, but I'll put it on my list of "books I need to obtain in my non-virtual hands." Or maybe someone else will add it. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You'll see I've at least made the passage available. Perhaps it technically belongs at heroic nudity, or should be linked from there?  Anyway, now it can be handled as others wish.  (The page reference is pp. 67-68 in the little Anchor Doubleday paperback, but as this pagination differs from the original publication in 1956 of these Mellon Lectures--and the paperback doesn't even announce its date--the form of reference in the footnote at cuirass is incorrect and I thought it better to omit page numbers altogether.)  Wareh (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Folk etymology: Your input requested
Hi, Cynwolfe--

I am looking for people with interests in folklore (editors I’ve encountered on folklore/mythology articles as well as elsewhere) to visit talk:Folk etymology, where there is an ongoing edit dispute. One view (three people) holds that the term is exclusive to linguistics, and another (just me) finds that the term has been formally defined within folklore, and used in academic journals in that sense for more than a century. The page is currently locked. I ask your input not in support of either view, but because discussion seems to have come to a standstill, it seems to be a page few stumble across, and needs fresh viewpoints to get unstuck. Thanks! DavidOaks (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Muscle cuirass
The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Peckerdilloes
That's a weird and marvelous tale. You're privileged; I once did the same with a badger, but received no visitations.

I thought the horse was dead and forgotten; thank picus - this was probably all his idea... in a minute or two, take a look in your e-lunch box for something yuckky but nourishing. Do marvels. Long live the horse! And pecker! Haploidavey (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You know, I didn't even remember writing that. Is there no end to my anti-social filth? Haploidavey (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, we evolved a specially fine badger; and yes, I was minded of your fine, digressive badger-section (it deserves its own article but god knows how you'd title it). My most relevant personal badger-encounter was on a minor road in Wiltshire, years ago. The poor old bugger was long-dead and swollen enough to seem slightly unreal. My arty partner-at-the time wanted to take it home, bury it and skeletalise it for her collection. Yes... love's strange... I didn't fancy the whiff of it, and drove on. After several miles of nagging, I made a dutiful U-turn. The badger was gone. And is probably tapping on my window, even as we speak. Haploidavey (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Awwww, isn't s/he lovely? Thank you. Haploidavey (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Capitoline triad and Trebiae
I did my bit. I do not know what to do of the original text.

Another point that might be of interest is the horse in the 3 functions.

I discovered there are at least three places named Trevi-Trebiae. One near Foligno the sources of Clitumnus, one a fraction of Terni (but I do not know if it is the provincial town as the entry gives it as in the province of Perugia; in the article on Terni there is no mention of a fraction called Trevi). And one in Latium near Subiaco. Only the second should be in Sabine territory. The article by Mary Grant in the Classical Journal readable at Lacus Curtius on the site of the shrine of Vacuna is informative too in that there is the indication of Trebiae the source of Anio.Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Bacchus
Thanks, Cyn. A user-page it'll be; it might take me a week and several lemony cupcakes to get anything writ. Haploidavey (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Rambullpork and Lib
Two answers, one rambling:
 * There's no reason to call any Imperial-led "bull" sacrifice taurobolium unless proven by context or inscription. The temple is the background is usually identified as Jupiter's, in which case the animal's almost certainly not a bull but a bos mas. I suppose it might be an ox, dedicated to the Imperial genius or the genius populo romano - performed at Jupiter's temple for some reason best left to supposin'... (and after all that, I didn't even answer your question, did I? You're right about the taurobolium, and this isn't one). Have to add this - I was surprised by the antiquity of the taurobolium. The first attested use is c.134 BC; and the first in Italy is 135 AD, in connection with Venus Caelestis. Now there's a fascinating goddess; I only came upon her yesterday, all in an indiscriminate celestial cloud with Juno Regina, the Magna Mater, Isis and Bona Dea; so much for myrtle. And so much for sows and chthonic goddesses.


 * Wouldn't that just be perfect? But alas, no. I'm still determined to find out what happened to plebeian augury, and no nearer finding out. Haploidavey (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Dii Consentes
My, you've a headache there. A bullet seems rather drastic. Why not a xocolātl cup-cake? I already watch the page, in a baffled sort of way. If anything useful on content occurs to me, I'll post it. Haploidavey (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC) (Ah, suction tipped darts, merely. Chocolate cake still seems a better medicine.)
 * Well, thanks, that's interesting. What d'you make of the translation? I just squeezed the Latin through my tiny organ of "just guessing, really". I can see the positives, sort of; as with Pliny's Ceres temple, the one in his own backyard. But there's also a rather clouded, negative inference. Something elusive, about potentially incorrect or unseemly uses of Ceres' temple. Maybe it's nothing much: just a core value of pilgrimage, which should not be too easy. But perhaps its also connected to the change to Cerean cults in Rome; whatever became of the older Aventine forms of cult? Arnobius doesn't even seem to know there was such a thing. Sorry, just driveling on obsessively now. We definitely need more Vitruvius. And archaeological comment on the same. Haploidavey (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I get the drift (least I think I do) on urban/rural Ceres. Something still bugs my imagination; it's something unformulated, to do with the political undertow and Roman sub-cultures. Ho hum. Varro's categories are... yes, puzzling. What up with Mars there? It just gums up the works; could keep you sleepless and indigitating for weeks on end. Oh, I forgot to say, very nice work on the list of deities; I see a couple of red-links, and having just linked Liber to Civitatis Dei, Lympha seems an obvious next target. Then Tellus. Haploidavey (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you seem to have been pretty darn busy elsewhere (I just snuck a look). Those poor Romans, no ideas of their own at all... oh, that gets my goat. Btw, thanks for the lead on Vitruvius. He's opened things up. Haploidavey (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

What? Please give me a link to these heavenly visions. I've a mind to get on my little trolley and do the rounds. All I see up top is Jimbo. Not celestial at all. Haploidavey (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Only my most intimate friends know my shame. I just lie to everyone else. I logged out, but no chicas. There's his Infernal Widemouthed honour drilling my brain as usual, and a page one sexy groupshot of cute little bacilli on arsenic. Co-incidence, surely. Haploidavey (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You've written it beautifully, but I think see what you mean. She seems a bit slight or slender. Um, "drippy"? Not much to get your teeth into. Except for the divine madness - splendid. And isn't it odd, who gets the kudos for aqueducts? Bona Dea, even. (I've no idea why I called her Lymphos in the edit summary). Haploidavey (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Check your mail for a possibly useful enclosure (but don't get your hopes up). Haploidavey (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to admit, I found a slower, second reading of Lympha immensely rewarding. And refreshing. After several weeks in the Liberian stews, my poor brain's awash with god-knows-what unseemly fluids. Haploidavey (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

copyvio issues on Vegoia articles
We just had an edit conflict at the Vegoia and Egeria talk page. See what I wrote there - if this article survives I'll be stubbing it, ditto the Vegoia article. I just had a chat with Moonriddengirl and she agrees. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Doug. I thought of leaving a note on your talk page, but since I'd already asked for help from one admin I didn't want to appear to be canvassing. (WP diplomacy! Conducted with more deft subterfuge than actual affairs of state!) That's why I left a note at Talk:Etruscan civilization — I figured if you were interested you'd see it there, as would anyone else with an inclination. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

hi; for the suspected copyvio, I left a note to Dougweller; actually the incriminated text came from another wiki page, not from the source pointed at by Dougweller; full comment on my talk page; regards Robiquetgobley (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Maia
There are 2 testimonies outside Rome that this name is primal in respect to Bona Dea:

1. The Piacenza Liver case 4 reads Uni Mae.

2. The Tabula Agnonensis has Ammai in 3 lines: A6, A23 and B8.

Vetter translates Nutrix but it is his own interpretation, probably for mater. However Coarelli and La Regina translate Maia. See the site Samnites with good bibliography.Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I see you have edited an article on lympha: there are interesting mentions of them in Varro LL V around 70 when he contrasts water and fire: "Lymphae Commotiles a commotu" in the lake of Cutiliae; also lubrica lympha in fact connecting with watery.

The idea of the danger of water represented in these creatures is reflected in Russian folklore in the ravinij, similar to the Greek sirens but living in rivers.

On the Argei I think I can come to the conclusion that it was a ritual connected to a form of preroman bacchism. It was Davis's article connecting the ritual to the dying god theme that put me on this track. Not a real sacrificial expulsion of a pharmakos but a reenacting of the death of Bacchus/Dionysos. Puzzling but interesting the connexion to Saturn.

Proofs:

1. Vofionos at Iguvium is indeed an Umbrian rendering either of Leudhiono- as prospected by Benveniste which corresponds to Populonios/Fufluns or a rendering of Greek Eleutherios (l rendered regularly as v) with fall of initial e. Equal in Etruscan Luth. Thus either way Vofionos would be Latin Loifer.

2. Laris Pulena scroll reads: ... lutheva cathas pachanac alumnathe hermu  melecaprieces puts chim culsl leprnal... It is evident that lutheva pachanac and culsl leprnal mean bacchic. Note the mention of culs along with lepr (leprnal) identic to Roman Ianus Quirinus.

3. The visit to the Argei took place on the day of the Liberalia. The Argei were sacella probably connected to the curiae i.e. to the Roman original 30 gentes (even if sources say 27, apart Dion. Hal.): you wrote a good article on the curio maximus btw.

4. On the position of Dionysos in the Orphic theology it seems there were 2 traditions. The rhapsodic and that of Hieronimos Hellanikos. Cf. Damascius De prinicpiis 123 and 123 bis, 55. Also Athenagoras Pro Christianis and Clemens Alex. Protrepticon. There is clear mention of the monstrous god with bull head and snake body.

Dionysos is the last god of the theogony and thence the god of our world. May I say of the 3rd function...?

On Ianus as creator (Cerus Manus in the Carmen Saliare) and Caelus cf. Macrobius I 9, 14.

Of course I know all this is not backed by enough scholarship and OR. Maybe you can think of how to use this.Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Di Consentes: Varro's list looks to repeat some of the gods he attributes to T. Tatius (Sol, Luna etc.) but mainly reflects his exposition of LL V 68 ff. Interesting the fact that in the list he mentions Veiovi and Summano: this supports Augustin and Dumezil's hypothesis that Summanus was originally a nocturnal Iupiter and not an epithet of Pluton. Indigetes: Arnobius's mention III 38 ff. of the Samothracian Dactyloi as Digiti is remarkable too: cf. Solinus I 2 that calls the Indigetes of Praeneste Digitorum. Servius calls them divi fratres, Dipidii, Digidii. Were the indigetes (Aeneas?) assimilated to the Dactyloi?Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes the Tabula Agninensis is a great topic, also for Greek influences on Italic traditions. Ceres Flora Lymphae etc.: Le Bonniec wrote about the topic and the cult of Ceres. April is the month of Flora. I tried to find out about the ravinij on WP.en but I found nothing. Bloch mentioned them in his work on IE religions, volume about German Balts and Slavonic people.

I edited a bit Summanus. Dumezil wrote smth. interesting on the dichotomy of the 1st function Varuna-Mitra.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Vegoia and Egeria
thanks for your understanding and encouragements; anyway I am but an amateur in Romanities and Etruscanities, and as you underline, it was just strange that there would not be something on Vegoia as such; it was a pleasure starting something; insomuch as Etruria definitely has to have left much stronger traces into Rome than what roman tradition admits or indo-europeanists would like, and I definitely have a crunch that this theme holds something strong in terms of Etrurian legacy into the roman early history (the Numa tale is clearly a complete fake); with my best regards Robiquetgobley (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Reading Vitruvius
Yes, those are exactly my grounds for doubt; or rather, my grounds for seeking a more expansive, sensitive translation. Plus interpretive, contextual commentary. Haploidavey (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That seems one of the bases of Augustan and post-Augustan orthodoxy. Perhaps that's partly why the background's vague. Nothing's indelicately stated. Everything's inferred. Haploidavey (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Apart from the Loeb, I found only one other online, a Penguin paperback edition, 2009 (Tavernor and Schofield): Unfortunately, the preview's internal search function recognises Proserpina and Liber, but not Ceres. Odd. Anyway, the passage we're talking about isn't included in the preview. Haploidavey (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The bottomless bathtub
AKA wikipedia? I hope you mean that, not the husbandy thing... Haploidavey (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ooo, pikchers too! That's even better than monogrammed hankies and should keep me out of trouble for the rest of today. I particularly like the fellow light-footing it with Mrs Sextus, in "Mrs Sextus consoles herself with a Little Party", on page 39. Haploidavey (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Bots
See Template:bots for how to refuse access to specific bots, although you are also entitled to complain to the maker of the bot. These are editing decisions; and bots should not be making them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Summanus
I glanced at other WPs (Italian, Spanish, French, Dutch). There is much info that looks contradictory on the date of the incident and the cause of the dedication of his temple: French WP goes so far as to say that a separate temple was dedicated to him because he had shown his anger through the incident of the lightningbolt on the Capitoline temple.

The references are almost nil.

However I did some editing as the details of the cult are decisive on the identity of S. as a solar though nocturnal god. Festus' s glossa provorsum fulgur would identitfy him with Pluto but it looks a Hellenising interpretation.

Further points:

1. There is a mount Summano near Vicenza. The article (WPit) is quite detailed and says it was the seat of ancient cults since the iron age and a sanctuary ot the god. Moreover was one of the last strongholds of ancient religion as Vicenza had its 1st bishop in 590 AD. If you can read Italian pls read it. Recently the cross on the top of the mount has repeatedly been struck and destroyed by lightning, even after been rebuilt in concrete in 1933.

2. St. Prosdocimus is said to have been in conflict with local ancient Roman worshippers in 79 AD. Now classic philologist Aldo Luigi Prosdocimi was perhaps intrigued by stories about his eponymous saint and the mount near his hometown as he dealt with the issue of the theonym S. in his essay: "Etimologie di teonimi: Venilia, Summano, Vacuna" in Studi linguistici in onore di Vittore Pisani 1969, commented by Dumezil in Myth et epopee III.

3. As S. is listed among the di indicites to be placated with sacrifices in the inscription from Aletri I wonder whether he had to do with mountain tops in general too. The inscription mentions Fiscellus but I did not find a Mt. Summanus in that area.

4. There is mention in other WP articles of an Etruscan god Summamus but I have no idea what is their authority. In my readings of E. texts I never met it.

5. Dumezil cites Plautus as a support for the nocturnal nature of the god (from a pun with somniare) in Curc. 546. However I found a citation of Bacch. IV 5. 84 where the pun is with summanare to steal.Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree about the black victims. Moreover they were 2 and Numa's prescriptions said even no. of victims were for the dii inferi.
 * I read Davey's note and shall reply on the talk page.


 * I also made some additions to the articles Lymphae and Fons. They both had temples, Fons outside the walls and he too was offered 2 whethers, thus he must be considered inferus.


 * There is a very well written and very informative webpage about feminine Roman deities that I discovered yesterday: thaliatook, by a certain Mary Crane, former artist. She has a deep knowledge of the matter but unfortunately is not at all scientific in her presentation, i.e. she gives no references, so much of her work is of little help.


 * On the identity of almost every male god with the sun (esp. Liber Apollo) cf. Macrobius Sat. I 17-19.


 * On Mephitis see webpage Samnites with interesting material.

Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Lympha
Hi Cynwolfe. Your article Lympha has been suggested for DYK and I had a quick look at it. I think it is a good candidate, the only problem is that I cannot access the offline sources to comfirm the hook. I am willing to assume good faith, but would like another more experienced editor to check it before approving it. Feel free to comment. Regards AIR corn (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Greco-Roman gods article improvement
Hello, I been giving expansion and cleanup tags to some articles on gods (Hermes, Mercury, Jupiter, Poseidon and Neptune). It's a shame these articles on important gods aren't better (like the ones on Hera, Aphrodite, Athena, Mars, Apollo or Dionysis). You think anybody will be able to do it? LittleJerry (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lympha
Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Lympha
That's an impressive article!--Wetman (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, you made my day. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For me, that was effusion!--Wetman (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

reply
Sure thing. Not to pressure you but I hope you will also improve the articles on some of the other Roman gods especially Jupiter. They deserve better. LittleJerry (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, do you have any plans for the articles on the other Roman gods? You did such a good job with Mars and Pluto that I was wondering what you could do withn them. Mercury, Neptune and Juno could use a some expansion, not too much, maybe as big as the Pluto article is; but Jupiter definately needs to be at least as long as the Mars article currently is. I don't mean to presure you though. LittleJerry (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Do them on your own time. It's just nice to know someone might get to them eventually. LittleJerry (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Expand
Template:Expand has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ianus
I know about it. You may check my edits too, they were deleted whereas those maintaining the ME etymology were left alone. They were even attributed to me by a wikipedian...!

I revisited my old editing of Furrina and she is certainly a goddess of springs, maybe a limpa. She enjoyed the honour of having a flamen and her antiquity is underlined by the fact that by the 1st century Cicero and perhaps Varro did no longer understand her significance.Aldrasto11 (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Novensiles
Pisani's citation is not easy to find. It is cited in Bakkum The Latin Dialect of the Ager Faliscus as Pisani 1943:259 but the bibl. is not in the preview. Another work by Vetter on the same topic is given as 1953:352-3.

I looked at the WP It. but it is not one of the few works cited. Pisani was a very prolificous author. There is a complete bibliography of his works but not online. From reading the titles on sale by bookshops I suppose it should be Testi latini arcaici e volgari published by Rosenberg & Sellier Torino, but it is just a hypothesis as the date of publication is not given by bookdealers.Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It cannot be that one, it was published in 1975, but it might well be an article of a periodical later published as a book. The only books I found published by Pisani in 1943 are a grammar of Sanscrit Milano and a manual of comparative Latin and Greek grammar Roma.Aldrasto11 (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you I followed your suggestion.

Bakkum's book is a mine: I discovered sacra derives fro a PIE laryngeal /sh2 kro/ not an original *sak-; haruspex should be an IE word too cf. pp.57 ff.

The Novensiles come after Juno, Fons, Lympha in the same region: has this smth. to do with their identification with the Musae? Martianus wrote later but his system could well be very ancient.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a link about the identification Novensiles-Musae that I suppose answers the question without any possible doubt left: it is the identification Casmenae-Parcae. It should have happened that the Romans understood the Novensiles as Favores Opertanei, i.e. Fata in respect to man's destiny, therefore they identified them as the 3 Parcae (Neuna, Decima and Maurta, cf. Macrobius and Censorinus), but the Parcae themselves were or came to be identified with the Casmenae, thence they went on interpreting them as the Musae. The Musae too were 3 at the beginning as Arnobius says.Aldrasto11 (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Mentoring question
Recalling your experience at WP:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor ..., please examine a short thread at Talk:List of tributaries of Imperial China. Can you suggest alternate ways I might have been more effective in this very limited dispute? In this small thread, can you suggest lessons learned the hard way which I could have drawn from this editing experience? --Tenmei (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Getica
Thanks for the note and kind words! Looking forward to collaborate on quality articles. --Codrinb (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Engaging with PMA
Hi, I just want to clarify something. At the Wikiquette Alert you wrote: "Born2Cycle decided not to comment further at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson and Byzantine names, but I was disappointed to see him engage immediately with the user who is the subject of the complaint on the user's talk page.". To be clear, I did not engage with PMA, he engaged with me on a guideline talk page. I did not engage with him, but instead asked him to stop engaging with me on his talk page. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

A Happy Nearly-New Year
Thanks for your toothsome greet, Mrs Wolf. I nodded off contentedly, not quite half-way through the read; that was a good start to the year. I look forward to a year of part-resolution and matters unfinished - I'm resolved to almost start several articles and almost finish several others. So, here's to great joy in small things! (Clinks and quaffs) Haploidavey (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You know what, if it was me, I'd have a bloody great celebratory fiesta under way right now, just for being noticed. I mean, I know it's sorta creepy and yuckky, but isn't it also vaguely, perversely satisfying to have your talk-page watched, 'specially when Old Mooraker fixed it so sharpish. Which was nice of him. I'm sure the offending giblet was just a random dollop of goo, flung wherever. Haploidavey (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't watching this page, merely tracking the vandal's edits. But I am now, just for a few days, in a non-creepy way. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice people are always welcome here. Helpful people are always welcome here. People with a sense of humor are always welcome here. So are people with legitimate questions that can be usefully discussed here rather than on article talk pages and noticeboards. So are people who just want to hash out ideas as pre-writing for an article. Vandals and people who are only keeping me from doing the things I come to WP to do, not so much. I'm hoping the vandalism was random. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I meant to infer vandal lurker as creepy. Not the fixer, who is anything but. Haploidavey (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Very glad I came, otherwise I would have missed "Jesus Christ overcoming surface tension"! --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In the running for "Best Caption Ever Posted to WP," I'd say. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Founding and Semones
Thanks for the last message. I would like to edit that article but as you know I have no access to a library so I must rely on what is online. As I wrote on Davey's page I find Cornell good but insufficient and the topic is enormous. Much is in Italian (Pallottino, Carandini, Coarelli) and not online.

While editing Sancus I found that scholars have tended to interpret Semo Sancus and Salus Semonia??? (Wissowa, Norden and Latte started this trend of a Salus Semonia) as the only 2 known semones, and considered them as those of the carmen Arvale (this view is not shared by Dumezil). However there is a snippet perhaps on Maia 2007 (I am not sure of remembering well) which says they were 12 (no authority given in the snippet)! This and the story that they were men who became gods, exposed at length in the Pauly looks a bit like a jack in Roman religion.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If I come across something I shall let you know. However this character is Greek, not Roman: Dis Pater arrived at Rome with the Pyrrhic war. Earlier perhaps there was only Summanus...Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I just read your article Pluto: I happen to have a book by Giorgio Colli that deals mainly with the issue of Dionysos and Orphism. It is an anthology of quotations of ancient sources plus long commentaries. Maybe there is something interesting but I see you have already said most on the issue of Platonism and Eleusis. On the Roman side one must also remember the mysterious Veiove, a god of Tatius's as Summanus.Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I overlooked your addition of Pettazzoni's citation. Me too I found a source concerning the issue in Fowler 1899, p. 139 n. 3 while editing Sancus: "six rayed wheels as sun symbols" (talking of a parallel with a Gallic Celt god) on the advice of a certain Professor Gardner. I also restored the votum of Tatius that I inadvertently deleted: I did not remember the whole text, I apologize.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at Silvanus that I see you edited. I already wrote something about the issue of the confusion of the 2 gods caused by the accidental similarity of their names on Davey's page. I wish just to add that Woodard gave me the idea that Selvans might be the equivalent of Semo as related to the PIE root *seh for pour, flow, seep from which saliva, sebum. The page is around 186.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be in a position to defend any of my little edits to Silvanus (mythology). I've dipped into Dorcey's book The Cult of Silvanus mainly for comparative stuff, not on Silvanus himself, and wouldn't dare seriously tackle the article without reading the whole thing. As I recall, I was reacting to some kind of knee-jerk assumption that the Romans "borrowed" Silvanus from Selvans (for all I know, they did, but that isn't what my sources were saying). About Pluto, I was interested in the conjecture you noted that Martianus was right to identify Summanus as the Roman form of Dis pater, if Dis pater is only a Latin translation of Plouton dating to the Saecular Games of 249 BC. I suppose that would depend on the "chief of the Manes" etymology (which, contra the linguists, would not have to be "scientifically" correct for it to reflect the operative theology). In reading about Pluto, I ran across a scholar who mentioned a similar notion of nocturnal thunder or subterranean lightning or such represented in a couple of Greek tragedies that he connected to the equivalence of Hades and chthonian Zeus, but I neglected to take note of that discussion. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's fine either way. I like Dorcey's presentation: as I tried to prove Silvanus is not Selvans who fits Semo Sancus iconography, dedications, functions etc. On Pluto cf. Festus sv. provorsum fulgur.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent LacusCurtius Outage
I don't like or contribute to Wikipedia; but I do like to be helpful, and I noticed by accident today that you were wondering what had happened to my site back in November: so this is a quick note to let you know that such outages, whether expected (like that one) or not, I report on Jona Lendering's blog at http://rambambashi.wordpress.com/ — as I did for that one, the instant it actually occurred. Kind regards, Bill.


 * Thanks, Bill, I'll bookmark it. I've read some of your views regarding WP, and find them understandable in ways I probably shouldn't enumerate. It's a desperate sort of scriptorium here, and article-writing requires the placing of many caltrops (aka citations). If you should pass by again, let me take this opportunity to thank you for LacusCurtius. My visits over the last ten years have been almost daily. It remains my preferred online resource for classical texts. My profound thanks. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP
Hi Cynwolfe. Briefly: I often follow your contributions - nothing sinister; your contributions are little short of spectacular. However, I noticed you didn't delete all the unsourced material in the BLP Lloyd Walker. It should all be deleted as per Biographies of living persons. As you know, I have no qualms about deletion - articles can be recreated once the sources are located. McZeus (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I only removed the notability tag, because the subject seemed notable enough to have an article. I do occasionally hit one of those random biographies (as linked at the top of one's watchlist), but I think in only one instance have I found one I thought I could address efficiently enough to make it worth the time. Didn't have time to try to verify any of the existing info. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Orpheus in/and Hades
Thanks for the note (and for your compliment some time back in a Liber edit summary). I've made minimal contributions at Orpheus so far, but I'll have to dreckly address the denizens of the underworld, and in depth, at some point. When I got your note, I took a brief exploratory swim across google-Styx. Everything there seemed darkling and abstruse. And I guess unpacking and cross-referencing could become just a little manic - "abandon hope" - no, that's just a limp joke. Maybe. Of course I'll keep a look-out for Orpheus and Hades. Haploidavey (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)