Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:03, 15 November 2010

Welcome. I don't have any rules or preferences about how you communicate with me — carrier pigeon is fine — so let me know if you want me to reply here or on your talk page. —Cynwolfe

Archives

User talk:Cynwolfe/Archive 1 User talk:Cynwolfe/Archive 2

DYK for Gileppe Dam

On 29 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gileppe Dam, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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 Misplaced Pages 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? Misplaced Pages psoriatica... Haploidavey (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

aorist

Hi. Your opinion would be appreciated at Talk:Aorist#Protected II. — 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 Misplaced Pages 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...)

]

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

Misplaced Pages: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 ☎ 07:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Interested in a stock split? Paul August ☎ 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)

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 esthétique), 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)

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)