User talk:Davidlwinkler

Welcome!
Hello, Davidlwinkler, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Bearian (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

February 2016
Hello, I'm Marianna251. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Stockholm syndrome has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Marianna251TALK 19:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Autonomic nervous system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salivatory nuclei. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

DPL bot (talk) Thank you for the message. I love to be proved wrong and appreciate your correction as does Wikipedia. However, I need to learn how to do these conversation things and Wiki's various Hyper text markup language or whatever they're called here. Attempting to sign this correctly, David my talk page

Triptolemus
Hello Davidlwinkler. I've reverted your addition to the article, in which you suggest that Porphyry could have intended Cyamites as the "god of fruits". Without a reliable, mainstream scholarly source, the statement is editorial speculation or original research. Thank you. Haploidavey (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I've done the same, and for the same reasons, with your additions to Cyamites, in which you described him as central to the Eleusinian mysteries, not merely a minor god or demi-god with connections to beans. It's true that the Pythagorians and others held that beans were possibly seats for souls in transmigration, but that does not, of itself, imply connection with purported Eleusinian "rebirth" - for that, you'd definitely need a strong, mainstream, modern scholarly source. Haploidavey (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the pleasant note at my talk page. Your signature worked! The Pausanias citation is fine regarding the positioning of Cyamites' shrine (or heroon), somewhere along the road to Eleusis. The remainder of the citation refers to un-named revelations and connections within the Orphic and Eleusinian mysteries. It's all rather coy. Pausanias seems to know -- or believe that he knows, or else has been told -- more than he's saying, and stops well short of betraying the mysteries themselves. Only initiates of the mysteries can know what he's talking about; others remain in the dark, and no harm has been done by the geographer himself because he hasn't spilled the beans -- sorry for a dreadfully bad joke. I've had a thorough search for more up-to-date translations and scholarly commentaries on the passage, without success thus far. Frustrating! To summarise, I think you'd be OK restoring the Pausanias citation in full, as a quotation but should restrain any temptation to infer any further connections; we simply don't know what they were. The material on fava beans (broad beans in my dialect) could perhaps be restored, with a better source -- by this, I mean a scholarly, classics-based source (rather than horticultural) which addresses the significance of beans, preferably in connection to Cyamites, Eleusis and Orphic cults. Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * On Pausanias, you might try here. The citation would be Jost, Madeleine, in Cosmopoulos, Michael B., (Editor), Greek Mysteries: The Archaeology and Ritual of Ancient Greek Secret Cults, Routledge, 2002, pp 154-155. It's not much, and some of the translations seem a little creaky, but at least it's a secondary, scholarly source commentary on the same Pausanias passage (using a slightly different translation). Haploidavey (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I edited your signature, and modified it for mine, but I thought user was missing whereas talk worked...and I just typed in the time, but it at least worked! Now to learn some more things. I will take you up on your first suggestion, but I am hesitant to use the citation you provided because it relates these statements to fantasy. I realize the statements are indeed quite odd, but I would not go as far as to say they are fantasy, as it is possible that they are metaphorical. Your joke was well suited, but other than those who were initiated, there are those who on occasion accidentally break their two-day fast by ingesting 1 1/2 cups of the broth from a Fava/common/broad (all three, right?) bean soup dish, and believe they've stumble across this accidentally. Aeschylus, as you appear to know a few things, or rather claim to believe, was acquitted of his gaffe that was compared to firing a catapult, which is no easy task, and no accident.(Nico Ethics Note 211) Socrates on the other hand stood in silent answer to who ran the Thinkery at the end of Aristophane's The Clouds, whereas Plato quite often wrote about not standing one's post. With no reason to believe Epictetus refers to such a correlation, he does in fact say the following, "Therefore attend to the greater diviner, the Pythian God, who ejected from the temple him who did not assist his friend when he was being murdered.” Enchiridion of Epictetus, XXXII


 * I believe this published article by a Hematologist who argues that Favism was a known condition in Ancient Greece would entice you at best.
 * 


 * As for Plato's The Apology, and if you read it, did you catch where Socrates said his "opponents are of two kinds - one recent, the other ancient; and I hope that you will see the propriety of my answering the latter first, for these accusations you heard long before the others, and much more often."? He definitely addressed the main charges throughout his dialogue, but in doing so, he addressed many things something related to those mysteries, such as the name dropping for which he is so famous, but mentions Apollo, Zeus, and the Oracle, or Pythia at Delphi. He also says Chaerephon asked her who the wisest man was, but in another spot, it says he gave answer to the Oracle. The following excerpt is one of my favorites, because as a material evidentialist, I love it when people ask if I'm an atheist or agnostic. The following are four paragraphs from that dialogue which I believe are in relation to Kyamites, and that the naming of this demigod was the purpose of the dialogue rather than it truly being a court setting, which sadly would categorize it as fiction.


 * You are a liar, Meletus, not believed even by yourself. For I cannot help thinking, O men of Athens, that Meletus is reckless and impudent, and that he has written this indictment in a spirit of mere wantonness and youthful bravado. Has he not compounded a riddle, thinking to try me? He said to himself: - I shall see whether this wise Socrates will discover my ingenious contradiction, or whether I shall be able to deceive him and the rest of them. For he certainly does appear to me to contradict himself in the indictment as much as if he said that Socrates is guilty of not believing in the gods, and yet of believing in them - but this surely is a piece of fun. I should like you, O men of Athens, to join me in examining what I conceive to be his inconsistency; and do you, Meletus, answer. And I must remind you that you are not to interrupt me if I speak in my accustomed manner.


 * Did ever man, Meletus, believe in the existence of human things, and not of human beings? … I wish, men of Athens, that he would answer, and not be always trying to get up an interruption. Did ever any man believe in horsemanship, and not in horses? or in flute-playing, and not in flute-players? No, my friend; I will answer to you and to the court, as you refuse to answer for yourself. There is no man who ever did. But now please to answer the next question: Can a man believe in spiritual and divine agencies, and not in spirits or demigods?
 * He cannot.


 * I am glad that I have extracted that answer, by the assistance of the court; nevertheless you swear in the indictment that I teach and believe in divine or spiritual agencies (new or old, no matter for that); at any rate, I believe in spiritual agencies, as you say and swear in the affidavit; but if I believe in divine beings, I must believe in spirits or demigods; - is not that true? Yes, that is true, for I may assume that your silence gives assent to that. Now what are spirits or demigods? are they not either gods or the sons of gods? Is that true?
 * Yes, that is true.


 * But this is just the ingenious riddle of which I was speaking: the demigods or spirits are gods, and you say first that I don't believe in gods, and then again that I do believe in gods; that is, if I believe in demigods. For if the demigods are the illegitimate sons of gods, whether by the Nymphs or by any other mothers, as is thought, that, as all men will allow, necessarily implies the existence of their parents. You might as well affirm the existence of mules, and deny that of horses and asses. Such nonsense, Meletus, could only have been intended by you as a trial of me. You have put this into the indictment because you had nothing real of which to accuse me. But no one who has a particle of understanding will ever be convinced by you that the same man can believe in divine and superhuman things, and yet not believe that there are gods and demigods and heroes.Davidlwinkler (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

RE Plumping
Hi - I've just undone your edit on Plumping, and thought I ought to explain myself. :) Using a  tag had the effect of enclosing an entire WP policy within the References section, which messed up the layout.  Also, I'm no expert but I don't think you're meant to add comments into the citations.  I did what I did purely on technical grounds; I'm in no way commenting on the sentiment behind your edit.  Hope that's alright?  Cheers, DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Reverted edit to Saccades
Hi David, just letting you know about this revert I've done. I don't believe that the mention of Huntington's disease in the opening paragraph you made on 18 February 2019 is correct. Saccades are not caused by this disease (they are normal behaviour) and the citation at the end of the sentence doesn't mention Huntington's disease. Prehistoricmanthe2nd (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think that, so I undid the changes, and added a couple citations to support it. Also, the Hungintonton's disease page lists saccades as something it causes, and the studies support that.Davidlwinkler (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the previous commenter. Saccadic Eye movement is a normal part of vision. Saccadic movement, according to the sources you provided, can be affected or impaired by Huntington's disease, so perhaps there's scope for a section on that lower down in the article, but it's incorrect to say "The phenomenon is due to Huntington's disease" Check out https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0301006616657097 for a discussion of saccades with no reference to Huntingtons. Minion-for-hire (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

You guys are right, and I apologize for wasting your time. Thank you for the correction, and I'll try to read things a bit closer next time. (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ialemus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Classical period ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ialemus check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ialemus?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Please note that I have deleted your sandbox in accordance with WP:NOTWEBHOST. I would politely suggest that you set up a blog or similar if you wish to write what you have been writing here. Wikipedia is not the place for it. GiantSnowman 14:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.
 * Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote your conspiracy theory. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  21:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)