User talk:Cynwolfe/Archive 5

Juno
I finished editing. Would appreciate comments and suggestions.Aldrasto11 (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Strange fruits
I can't tell you how disturbed I am by that other Eve's hairstyle. But I would like to feed grapes to the pterosaurs. I like to feed sweet potatoes to the giraffes at the zoo. I would like all the little giraffes and all the little pterosaurs to play together. (And hey, Davey, you didn't sign your name — people will think I'm talking to myself.) Cynwolfe (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But you err on your user page: see Baraminology. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops, I erred twice there (assumes penitent posture). 'Fraid once I entered that portal, I got sucked in. Did you find the gift-shop? They don't have the brazen staff, but there's some pretty hot china-ware and tee-shirts. I'm now beyond even talking to myself. I've devolved. Haploidavey (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"an utterly useless man"
Poor Natalis, what a wonderful memorial. Editing here has gradually suckered me into similar habits (similar to yours, not his, I hastily add). I still get immense pleasure from reading, but the last time I read simply for pleasure was... I can't even remember. Ah, no, it was Wolf Hall. Then I thought of buying TP's mythology, just to edit the article, oh shame on me; and now you've given me pause, but perhaps I'll buy it after all. Just to spite myself. I was given Cunliffe's "Europe between the Oceans". Similar deal, to a point; readable and almost unusable. So what do I buy after that? Like I owe the wiki something? Brouwer on Bona Dea, now pretty much done with, but what a lovely tooled library binding it has. Tut, what's to become of us? Haploidavey (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Stable version
Neutrally, this is a claim that there is one version which most people support, and which has been the text of the article most of the time, when not disrupted by POV pushers. In practice, it means "the version the poster likes" at least seven times out of ten. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Women's History
WikiProject Women's History needs members' input on implementing auto-assessment. You'll find the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Women in ancient Rome
(Fortuitous?). Yes, I think this should certainly be picking up life-issues rather than law; anything else would be horses pushing carts. It's some task, and you're a braver soul than I (and I have to admit, better equipped all round) but I'll take a look, leave any comments at the talk-page and be as bold as seems fitting. Haploidavey (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The copyediting alone is overwhelming. I'm mainly looking for inspiration, I think: when you go to such an article, what do you expect to see that perhaps you don't? And of course any reorganization. A couple of the sources are a bit dated. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Latin exchequer
Busted shovels, huh? That'll teach you to go to war. I'm bothered about the use of genius as translation of Cardan's... whatever his original was. Especially when he's cited as saying "the Latin word is spiritus". It just sets the OR bells a-tintinabulating. Haploidavey (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

this is for your recent edit
at Sculpture. You did that wonderful combination of simplifying the text while making it better. On a side note, like you I do not fit the wikipedia profile. Okay, so I am a guy but I do try and be in touch with my Inner Goddess. And for the record, I am the figure on the left (House left. offering the grapes, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you! That's probably the most pleasant figure to be. (I think you may mean History of sculpture — glad you didn't think the cuts were too bold.) Cynwolfe (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, History, No not too bold. And Yes. It is pleasant to be me Carptrash (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Heartfelt edits
Ahhhhsome indeed! I'd probably have sent that editor an appreciative message. Some weeks back, I regretfully reverted an edit at Violin, near worthy of Flann O'Brian; or even of Flann O'Brien, ahem... Haploidavey (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see, that was indeed a charming edit. Actually, I see that there's been a flurry of activity at Circus Maximus, and I seemed to have reverted something else, it was all happening so fast. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd clean forgot until your clinky glass reminded me. The Ides are upon us, so here's to nuncle J. Haploidavey (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, your Pluto is proving quite the splendid, far-flung journey. Much enhanced, I'm sure, by your dedicated pursuit of answers to unanswerable questions. Closer to home, and les affaires Juliennes (culinary skills being the core of imperium, as per your recent farinaceous edit summary)... um, I have to admit it; I've not read that article with the care it and its topic deserve. Except for the sort-of-religiony bits - sketchy they be - which are naught but thin topping there, which makes me unreasonably irritable. Me and my bugbears. Anyhoo, what you say's interesting to me, so must scrutinise critically. Must check recipe. And must add this; good to see huge growly Bear-list. Haploidavey (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Might that just be Nemesis at her usual business, what with him being such a pompous old fart? Haploidavey (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite so. Poor Cassius is also receiving attention today, busy though he might be with Brutus and Judas in Hell. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As we shall prob'ly be, what with the world coming to an end, and all. I reckon it'll be interesting and nicely furnished, with pulvinaria for all. And decent air-conditioning. Haploidavey (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit links
See this week's Wikipedia Signpost for more info on the edit links and the pencil icon. (wasn't sure if you were still checking on your question at the Help Desk, so I thought I'd post this on your talk page too.) Dismas |(talk) 01:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Since it switched back, I'd kinda forgotten about it. Cynwolfe (talk)
 * Have informed myself, but still don't see where I can go to post a comment or make a suggestion. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

my customary impertinence
Just mumblin' to myself in the park here. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Uh oh. So who's on the menu? I'll just have to guess because I no longer watch certain pages, partly because some folks... well, I'd rather not see talented, human editors go down like Zwingli. It's a terrible grinding cycle (it is that, don't you think?) and there seems no fix for it. These days, I have to carefully feed and water the few remaining fragments of my former misty optimism, just to keep editing. Too many weenies on the roast, and too many would-be roasters of weenies. Nothing so sour as the taste of virtue. So yes, anyhow - rather than find yourself unhorsed and roast, please do shed any overspills in my direction; I'm quite absorbent. Changing the subject almost entirely, or maybe not at all - lucky you, to see Joan. It was banned over here, and known only by reputation in the 70's, when our Uni film society tried to get hold of it. The dvd looks tempting, and is available via my rental service - there's a queue, of course. What you say of faces is good, and apposite. Haploidavey (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Banned? On what grounds? Cynwolfe (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Joan, I mean. (What else could I possibly mean?) Cynwolfe (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, what else could you mean? We were the nasty sneering weenie-roasters. That's just not British, don't y'know? Sneering, I mean. Haploidavey (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. I have many vices, but the pleasures of the mob are not among them. These fragile folks who are threatened by someone disagreeing with them about the relation of spaces to ellipsis and other matters of grave theology, and who begin to gather firewood … on the other hand, Joan was quite the impossible person, I'd think. And yet those little voices always make seem to make sense in the end, if not livably to most … .The British in the film speak French, and little mention of nationality is made — more about the male tyranny of the Church. Seriously, it was banned as anti-British? But the impulse to root out heresy is always tiresome, when not scary, even and especially when petty, since it cultivates a state of mind in the everyday that makes each larger step toward suppressing the Other easier. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I find most mob behaviours problematic because they drown out small voices and show a terrible, inexorable, collective will. Small still voices are usually more discreet than Joan's and have the wisdom (or timidity) to go unnoticed. Complicated stuff. But yes, the film wasn't shown here; and in France, representatives of the Catholic church insisted on certain changes. As for the former, I can only guess that Joan was something of an embarrassment. She trounced yet another English imperial ambition, was unjustly executed by English connivance or contrivance and became the national saint of England's traditional enemy. That's not a good start; then there's blood-guilt. And Britain in 1928 was Imperial with a vengeance - all those red bits on the map - despite being rifted from top to bottom and teetering on the brink. It truly was hellish Imperial and considered itself entitled as of self-evident right, self-evident virtue, noblesse oblige and manifest destiny by the grace of God, and probably the best thing ever on the face of this earth, QED. It wasn't too keen on self-examination. By the way, in 1958, Empire day was still celebrated in my village school. Mobbishly reverent, amazing, and almost unimaginable to me now. Haploidavey (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wasn't Tory splendid? I thought of offering a link to Liberal, which might stand in for the Greeks, but that would be over-severe on a user just 11 years old. You've really got me in a quandary, though, on how best to prevent myself from editing and salvage a shred of dignity wherewithal. Mea culpa, mea culpa et infamia. The myrtle was fun (swish swish), but self-immolation's impossible, even with alder, because my matches are damp. I followed your link to LessHeard's page but what if he turned me down? Haploidavey (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The humiliation would be all the more acute. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oooo... that sounds most attractive. Haploidavey (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ha, it popped into my head last night that I said the English spoke French in The Passion of Joan of Arc. They didn't, of course, because it's a silent movie. For some reason, that just gets funnier and funnier to me. The titles were in French, but they would be even if they'd had the English mouthing English, wouldn't they? But since it was shown on American television, the titles were subtitled in English. These subtitles were smaller, and my husband, who had left his glasses downstairs, couldn't read them, so I was reading them aloud, while trying at the same time to read the French, in case there were any interesting differences. And then I realized that he, after a couple of long work days and short sleeps, had dozed off, and I was talking to myself. All in all, a rather complex and ultimately pointless communication situation. Rather like most WP talk pages. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But how pointlessly pleasant! It reminds me of dozing off to "Book at Bedtime" on BBC Radio 3 - never mind the content, it's that bedtime story-teller's voice, demanding nothing. Subtitles, done well, can be amazing. Many years ago, aged about 17, I watched the splendid, over-the-top Polish film of The Saragossa Manuscript at the Electric Cinema, Portobello Rd. It was Polish language of course, but subtitled in English. I became utterly rapt and about half-way through I started hearing it in English. 'Twas near-magical. Haploidavey (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Google Art Project
I just noticed this via a new external link. Pretty incredible: I offer it in case it may bring you enjoyment. Wareh (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is marvelous! Thank you for pointing it out. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Janus
While editing I looked at the other WP: the Italian WKcommons section has good iconographic stuff. Would you mind, if and when you have time and feel like it, uploading something from there: I am unable to do it. Thank you very much.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the attention and the detailed reply. The arch of Janus is one and the other a  much worn coin with the head  and the bow of a ship on the obverse (dated 240 BC) not the one with the quadriga. However one of the same subject you linked is fine too: I mean the real coin (Canusium), not the drawing. Thank you a lot.Aldrasto11 (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I think this is fine, the other coin could be shown too however as it is more ancient. Sorry for the trouble.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Credo, gratis
Cyn, did you know about this? It was passed onto me earlier today - could be useful. Haploidavey (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but only because I spy on your talk page. I applied, thanks. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Undue wheight
That assertion is banal, what is really undue wheight is him getting the Greek treatment right from the lede - in the first sentence it says he was in Greek myth and religion etc and mentions nothing that he was also part of Thracian religion and myth, since he was Thracian, plus in Bulgaria there is a long tradition that he was Thracian and it is written in Bulgarian history books as much as I am aware. It is a shame that wikipedia is still a place of strong nationalistic feelings that cloud issues and cloud the importance of NPOV - like for expample writing Greek stuff in the lede and nothing about Thracian - that is outragous and actually surprising really - and I am sure that other people will agree with me. I just cant understand and cant fathom why the edits from around 10th december, that i put on now, were take off - they wereperfectly fine and solved the whole issue, as both views got put in the lede, making it comfortably NPOV and avoiding further arguments - I just cant understand why someone had to go change it and cause a start of these lame arguments again, why - is this a passion for someone, to cause these arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please confine this discussion to the article talk page. Bring scholarly, verifiable sources that clearly state your point. I in fact have a tangential interest in Thracian belief systems and particularly the iconography of Thracian art, but raving about Greek nationalism as you did in one edit summary (???? I grew up in the hills of Appalachia in rural America) won't get you anywhere with me. You need sources, not your passionate feelings or arguments. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

What sources - in, for example Bulgaria, it is common knowledge by both the common citezin and the scholars, that he was a Thracian. If you really did know a lot about Greek myths etc, you would have been aware of the fundemental fact that many, mnay people understand him as a Thracian. You growing up in America does not exclude you having Greek ancestry and thus passionate feelings (which clearly from your edits and you hogging the edits shows - and most of all, from the statement which you made long ago" that the babal assertion that it requires sources" or something like that, in the talk page, clearly shows your POV and passionate feelings toone view point only, which is againts wiki policy, and it shows that you (who thinks that you know so much about these topics) were probably not even aware of the many people who know him as a Thracian, and neither aware that it is common knolwege in countries such as Bulgaria . And the statement "won't get you anywhere with me" is plain arragont - who do you think you are - the master of these topics on wikipedia and that I need you approval or something? I dont need "to get anywhere with you" - I dont need you approval or whatever. Clearly (crystal clear) there exists two viewpoints in this matter - that he was a Greek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please confine these ramblings to the relevant talk page. Citing sources requires the name of the author, the book, publication data, and a page number. I also suggest that you open an account instead of hiding behind an anonymous IP. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Undue wights
I watch the articles in question. Alas, I type far, far too slowly to keep pace with such vehement and rapid changes; by the time I've written a reasonably accurate edit summary, I'm edit-conflicted. But yes, arrrrgggghhhh. As far as I can remember, this comes down to how one interprets or extends - as one should not - the mainstream description of these "Thracian figures". Haploidavey (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Maia
The practice of substitution in sacrifices is well documented. In general when the offerer could not afford the cost of sacrificing an animal victim he could substitute an effigy of the relevant animal made of bread or wax. About the particular case of Maia I shall have to look for the citations however and as I am overworked with Janus I cannot look for it now. Macrobius says something on the subject. You may also refer to Capdeville's article on the substitution of victims in MEFRA 1971.Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Macrobius I 7, 28-35. Servius Aen. II 116: "Vergine caesa non vere sed ut videbatur. Et sciendum in sacris simulata pro veris accipi: unde cum de animalibus qua difficile inveniuntur est sacrificandum, de pane vel cera fiunt et pro veris accipiuntur." If you have time to check, Capdeville cites: Paul 49, 17 L; 57, 5 L; Juvenal Satirae X 66; Arnobius Adv. Nat. II 68; Servius Aen. II 116 (quoted above); IV 512; VIII 641.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Something you may find useful from two University of Leeds Classics students
Dalek and myself are looking at using our lecture notes combined with further reading to improve the Wikipedia Classics section or WCS for short. This, we hope, will create a more academic and NPOV article that contains emminent and upcoming specialists on the Classics such as Beard, Wiseman, Potter and Goodman. If you wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to leave a message on our talk pages about it. We've got a month off from university for revision in prep for May exams. Regards 78.146.132.102 Classics (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Funerals, Imagines and Other Stuff
Yo, and thanks for the note(s). Both very useful and clear. Yes, Roman funerals and burial is cause for lamentation. I'll wait semi-patiently for your revelations on Cardea; has it perhaps to do with beans? Liminality? Meanwhile, a couple more items for your consideration. Working on the section on disposal in the Gladiator article (re-structuring's still on the back-burner) some time back, I read Donald Kyle's expansion on the appalling logistics of disposal of dead noxii - see either of his works in the article bibliography. Do we need a more inclusive, umbrella-title than "Roman funerals and burial" to cover this? There seem to be several strands on disposal that don't involve the funus or burial. Then there's the apotheosis ceremony for divi. As for Imagines, Flowers' book on the same reproaches me, spaniel eyed on the shelf. It wants a walk. Which would probably take me somewhere close to Nobiles - I think we've been here before, or somewhere like. Probably even Fayum. About time too, and appropriate, it being Mum's birthday weekend, and she a great lover of Egypt. Haploidavey (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ick. But more on that later. Happy birthday to your Mum! My daughter is also a great lover of Egypt. On her second-grade field trip to the art museum she was pointing out the meaning of hieroglyphics, no thanks to me (and expressing her view that the man on the big Greek pot was probably Hercules, not Jesus, though I'm probably awful enough to have corrected her to "Herakles"). I think this is her way to express her interest in antiquity without having her mother browbeat her about those Romans. Though she did evidently just make what seems to have been among the highest scores in her school on one of the interminable standardized tests they take on something called "language arts" (I see no glimmer of "arts"), having decided that perhaps all those impromptu dinner lectures on Latin roots came in handy after all. ("Mom's unemployed and on her second martini, but she sure does know what 'regicide' means!") I've decided it's not so bad if your daughter's pop-culture role model is Hermione Granger instead of Snooki, where we have no better example of how WP's neutrality policy can prevent presenting an accurate description of a topic.


 * I believe I've digressed again. I remember body disposal as one of the questions raised in regard to the games maybe also by Mary Beard in pointing out that they were hardly held every weekend; that is, our view of the scale and frequency of the carnage is probably way out of whack. Functionally, cremation seems like a sane way to deal with sanitation issues, and perhaps a means of disposal that could please everyone from Stoics (your own personal ekpyrosis!) to Epicureans (release those dear atoms back into the cosmos!), but it takes a great deal of fuel to burn a body, and I wonder about that in Rome, since not everybody gets to have the senate house as his pyre. In Gaul the production of charcoal on a large scale would be feasible, but I don't know of anything of the history on this. GunPowder Ma could probably enlighten us on the question of fuel, which presents itself also with metallurgy.


 * Flowers was briefly online in preview a few years ago. From that I seem to recall him/her arguing that a ius imaginum was not so formal as some have thought, and not a defining or determining characteristic of nobilitas. My opinion is that since Gelzer, Brunt and whoever can't sort out exactly what a nobilis was, it's best not to use the WP article to try to arrive at a definition. When you look at it closely, the scholarly attempts to arrive at a strict definition are almost Wikipedian in their lameness. The article in my view will be good enough if it gives a general idea that all patricians are nobiles, but not all nobiles are patricians, and if it explains forcefully what "noble plebeians" are, since one keeps encountering WP articles written as if the politics of the Late Republic are still a Conflict of Orders between patricians and plebeians, and since most people don't seem to get that Lucullus and Crassus, for instance, were plebeians. Well, I still can't get my head around Lucullus not being a patrician, since he embodies everything about the common English meaning of "patrician," even though I know what a patrician was in ancient Rome. The inescapable conclusion is that we can't define nobiles very well because it was not a clear category among the Romans themselves, not like belonging to one side or other in the patrician/plebeian dichotomy, nor even sorting out "senatorial" vs. "equestrian." What I have on the talk page there is less accurate than what's in the article, since I was at the time in thrall to whatever I'd just read, evidently a strict interpretation of nobilis as "belonging to a direct line of descent from a consul." But that would just be consularis, a "consular" family.


 * OK, have exhausted in rambling what could've been accomplished in a more focused and productive way in an article. Or really, I should be out hunting morels; I ran into a mushroom hunter in the woods the other day who asked if my dogs were trained to find 'em. I regret not, though this would certainly be an intelligent way to employ a "rare breed" hunting dog.


 * I leave you with this. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Quelle ramble! Here's mine, one sideroad at a time.
 * Ick? Tell me more.


 * Mum thanks you, and is more than a little impressed at anyone - let alone a teenager - who can read hieroglyphs. Once her second birthday sherry had taken hold - cf above, vaguely - she launched into her spooky Apis-story. She and her beloved ex, surrounded by those oppressively gigantic bull-coffers in the looming gloom, caught themselves a massive panic-attack, and had to leave pronto, pursued by an enormous darkness. So goes the tale, for the nth time. I told her Hermione would have coped, and her response was "Who?". Her response to Snooki was "Why?"; a difficult question at the best of times but I hadn't heard of this "personality" - that's not my choice of word, I'm citing the Wikipedia article - and was forced to "explain" via links such as this. It explained nothing, of course. Some things just are, and deserve scare quotes. "Apis-Snooki"? Be very afraid.


 * Yep, I see the caveats on estimates re: disposal. I'd best hunt down some scholarly reviews of Kyle. D'you remember where or if Beard refers to it? Only if it's handy; no matter if it's not.


 * Flowers' work on Imagines draws similar conclusions. There's no evidence of a legal or customary privilege granting possession or use of masks to particular classes; no evidence for a ius imaginum, only for the politically useful, speechified inference of such a thing. Loosely, possession and use of masks confer nobilitas; and if that's OK by peers and inferiors, it's a done deed, cemented by reappraisal or outright re-invention of one's genealogy and its deeds. A least, that's how I understand her. I've not yet read the whole thing. Very dense it is; at least it is to me.


 * Wot, no truffles??


 * Hilarious! What's with the 4" tongue??


 * Now for Roman funerals and burial. If a re-naming's in order, it doesn't seem too urgent. I'll probably get around to it once I've sorted out the Kyle-generated issues; of course, these also relate (obliquely) to Lemures, and possibly other restless or vagrant spirits. In other words, what happens to those not accorded proper disposal and rites. I'll post later on my current, almost morbid hesitation in making substantive contributions to articles; for now, I'll just say I'm a natural skeptic with too slight a grasp of the basics. Haploidavey (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I must demur at one point: she can't read hieroglyphics, she can point to certain individual glyphs and know what they represent. I dare not speculate on the church marquee with the 4-inch tongue; others did in the comments, however. And actually, it was Flowers' conclusion I meant to be spouting; don't want to imply that I arrived at this through some kind of thorough gathering of sources. I don't understand the Snooki phenomenon at all, since I fear that in our house we are still caught in the scripted-narrative paradigm. Except for Project Runway. And some of the culinary competitions. And Deadliest Catch. And that other show about catching gators and what-not in Louisiana, which always causes hubby and me to recall the time we overheard a bulky father inquire of his son, chewing on a piece of meat on a stick in the marketplace in New Orleans, "How'sya gatuh, boy?" (though I can't hope to phonetically represent the gorgeous mouth-filling diphthong in that "boy"). Oh, and watching people shop for million-dollar houses in the south of France. Which of the three will they choose? The one with the orange grove, the view of the bay, or the original 18th-century stone floor in the kitchen? So there's a kind of haute/blue collar schizophrenia to it, no bourgeois "Housewives of Orange County" or "Kim Kardashian Goes Shopping" or any of that crap. Hm. Never realized that before. This has been a learning experience, a self-reflection utterly at odds with the purpose of Wikipedia. Someone should trout me on my own talk page. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

For being insufficiently one or the other. Haploidavey (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's my kinda trout. Much better than a plate of cookies. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Mithraic mysteries
Thank you very much for your encouraging note. But I feel frankly pretty bruised. I have many pressures on me, and can only contribute here and there, for fun. I'm willing to invest time and effort when it achieves something; but I cannot do so in attempting to reason with trolls. The latter is draining, depressing, and loathesome. So I won't be doing much with Mithras until I have some confidence that I am not wasting my time. I rue the day that I set out to reference every quote properly. All I have done, it seems, is to create an impressive-looking base for a troll to spread misinformation. Why bother? Roger Pearse (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: Have worked over the Mithras section in the Arimanius article -- hope it's OK? Photius etc are online in English, you know. Roger Pearse (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the new note! Yes, I thought out my methodology carefully.  Waste of time, of course.  The religious accusations are tedious, I agree.


 * Areimanios: I don't have access to the CIMRM or I'd go through it for Areimanius stuff. Wish I could get a photo of that York item. Roger Pearse (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you did a super job. All I did was tidy up one section and add some details to one.  The question about those inscriptions etc -- I was quite unable to work out the answer to that.  I pasted in the two inscriptions in Cumont, neither of which says much (would an English translation help?)  The next one in York is the leotocephaline statue.  I just don't know what the other two are.  I can't help feeling this nagging suspicion that the claims about the Mithras link might be overstated. Roger Pearse (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)