User talk:Haploidavey/User's Archive 4

	The Super alta vectus Attis barnstar
	For your continued devotion to chestnut — 03:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

Hope you are all right. Sorry to trouble you once again.

As usual there is a problem that I do not know how to fix. In the article there is an absolutely phantastic translation of the most frequently recurring formula in the LL. Serious scholars have been able to discern the meaning of it as I say in the talk page. But this translation is referenced to a link I cannot see. What should be done? I find leaving things as they are too bad for WP.

Thank you for the attention.11:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)11:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC) The 4 tildes do not work, sorry. Aldrasto11.

Thanks for the message and good wishes. That's a difficult issue, because really all translations should be cited to a reliable source. Apart from my complete lack of expertise in Etrusciana, I'm wary of its pitfalls... as for translation, well, Latin's bad enough. But I agree, we really can't just take any old guesses and the existing translation does seem rather odd. So, see if this helps: Copeland's worknotes on the text. Under the circumstances, I can hardly vouch for their accuracy but his approach seems scholarly. Well, long and thorough, anyway. It could be nonsense, for all I know. See what you make of it. Haploidavey (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I can't access even a preview of de Meer's work on the text; but here's a review, which offers a generally positive critique. And by good fortune, page 3 of the pdf seems to offer at least part of what you're after, and it seems very close to your own translation. I guess this is the same review you were talking about at LL? Haploidavey (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the info. I shall try and register, if possible, for the Copeland worknotes. Yes, you guessed rightly, I read 2 reviews of van der Meer's work: one is Beckwist's you linked and another one is MacIntosh Turfa's on BMCR. I also read der Meer's own review of another scholarly work by V. Belfiore (2010), also on BWCR, even more linguistically grounded than der Meer's. What I meant here is that there seems to be scholarly consensus on the general meaning of this formula, which is the most often recurring of the LL. Certainly the translation now given is unacceptable. It is referenced with a link to Paleolog but the link is unaccessible to me. The edit summary has a note that says Paleolog's translation does not support it though.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that link to Copeland's notes give you full access? It worked for me; perhaps your area and browser don't allow it. Anyway, I'm going to copy the text and van der Meer's translation from Beckwith's review, if I can. Not sure how well my pasteboard will render the pdf's characters, but it's worth a shot. On the rest, do remember that while blogs can be useful, their content can't be used as sources. Haploidavey (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up at the article page after writing here. I saw you deleted it already. Yes the link should work, but it looks they ask for my email's password, which is something I do not like. If you are interested in reading the other two reviews I mentioned just google: van der Meer Liber Linteus and Belfiore LL. Good stuff, informative.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's Jean MacIntosh Turfa, University of Pennsylvania Museum (Bryn Mawr rv. of van Meer's LL... but can't find the Belfiore, except in a Bry Mawr list of works submitted for review. Haploidavey (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC) (forgot to sign at time of response)[reply]

I tried again, Belfiore is readily available at BMWCR. It is also reviewed by Stephane Bourdin at Histara (Sorbonne). Belfiore looks as the last and best researched work.Aldrasto11 (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the sources you use to veriy the interpretation of the Liber Linteus dont know diddly sqat about it they just furnish views that were held by professors 100 years ago.The fact is they dont know what the interpretation i of the Liber Linteus is , I dont care what he is professor of.I do know and I would like to put it foreward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deen maxwell (talk • contribs) 22:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does anyone "know"; it's an informed and scholarly "best guess", and unfortunately for your argument, the author's scholarly credentials matter a great deal. "I want to" is no argument at all at Wikipedia. I believe I've covered these issues and a couple more in my most recent post to your talk-page. Best, Haploidavey (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well you accuse me of vandalising the Liber Linteus , well the interpretation of the Etruscan text is the biggest load of garbage you could pour on the public.The reason I might be coluding with a second party is when I opened my account with WIKI I made a mistake and entered my e-mail address as my used name, so I had to do it again with the correct user name so it may seem there are two accounts,keep my Deen Maxwell account and delete the other. My primary interest is in the Etruscan Language which I have been studying for the last 30 years and I dont have the time to transcribe the Encyclopaedia Britannica to your site,although I enjoy using the site.And also you have a log in on the page but not a Log Out(58.111.89.246 (talk)).(58.111.89.246 (talk) 09:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.89.246 (talk) 09:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've accused you of vandalism anywhere at all - but if I have, please accept my apologies. Thanks for explaining your inadvertent use of multiple accounts. They're allowed under certain, very limited circumstances. Single accounts are better for continuity, accountability, trust and stability - they help foster and maintain a transparent, open editing environment. This matters particularly when article content and best-editing practice are in dispute. You've evidently made an honest mistake, due to your unfamiliarity with the relevant Wikipedia policies.

Your IP account won't be deleted, as its history is relevant to editing on other pages. You can and should open your IP user-page, using your named account, and enter a brief explanatory text, such as "This is an alternative account of [your named account signature - add four tildes (~) to sign automatically]". Copy the same to the IP talk-page. Then just don't use it. I can't know why you're having problems logging in or out; just remember to always log in using your named account before you edit. As far as I know, any browser can be set to remember your Wikipedia user-name and password.

For the rest, please carefully read my welcome message and other comments at your talk-page, particularly those relating to reliable scholarly sources. Like it or not (and sometimes I don't) personal background, expertise, authority and conviction matter not one bit to Wikipedia. And no-one expects or wants an article based on the Encyclopedia Brittanica. We're an encyclopedia in our own right. Haploidavey (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think things have been sorted out,only my source I use you think isn't scholarly enough,a pity as I think its leagues ahead ot thr UMASS people,however I have other sources that I will use and I think will be readily excepted,thanks and have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deen maxwell (talk • contribs) 14:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding [1], I got rid of that source sorry, that source is really from an university press, the author has simply made it available online, you can ask for the university's paper version in his website. Please take a look at Valentine's_Day#Lupercalia. Is this worth mentioning in the Lupercalia article, or should we mention it only in the Valentine's Day article?

Please note that the misconception is very widespread in books and it was widely mentioned by newspapers over the years. fortunately, in later years there are more newspapers debunking the misconception than uncritically repeating it. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at editor's talk-page. Interim source; [2] Green, William M., "The Lupercalia in the Fifth Century", Classical Philology, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Jan. 1931), pp 60‑69.

Codrin.B (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed response! I wrote some notes on the article Talk. Best.--Codrin.B (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i dont know why but my ip always changes daily and sometimes i use ips other people used

it's not arnold heeler, i misspelled arnold heeren's name, thanks for correcting me

this is the book

Arnold Hermann Ludwig Heeren, Historical Researches Into the Politics, Intercourse, and Trade of the Principal Nations of Antiquity, Henry Bohn, 1854 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.255.157.4 (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:Responded at IP's talk-page. Haploidavey (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi again

im a 100% sure its in that book but i cant remember which page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.148.1.108 (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! --

]

Thank you.

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia!--74.179.215.67 (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about the George ho thing. I was just reading the block log of his and I just didn't want anyone to to be hoodwinked,that is all. Also I have a username on here,but I cannot access it. Are user names case sensitive? Also please forgive any of my punctuation on here,I am having to use my iPod touch which is quite small.--74.179.215.67 (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info for helping my find my username! If you look through my history I have usually just edited pages for grammar and some pages so were so pov that you would literally Lol! Thanks again!--BeckiGreen (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, hope you are fine. I come to ask for advice once again, sorry for the trouble.

In the table of Agnone there is a station dedicated to Eucluii Patri. I suppose this epithet must have been a sort of automatic identifying tip as it means famous. Modern scholars seem to be in disagreement on his identification. After some pondering I wonder whether it could be either Heracles or Dionysos, with the obvious implications on the rites at the hurtiin. According to my research Eukleia was Artemis but I did not find an entry on Euklos. Maybe someone into Greek things would know more...Thank you for the attention.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably one of the least equipped to deal with this, and I'm not even sure where you could ask. If "Eucluii Patri" means "famous", I'm already in way over my head. How d'you gloss it? Anyway, we need a reference point, so here's Bonfante's reading (once at the linked page, scroll up for for a photograph of the tablet). To me, it all looks Kerean, and euphemistic, and chthonic - leastways, at first glance; and it would seem sensible to end a Kerean sequence with dedication to an intermediate or founding lar or hero - is this where you suspect Heracles or Dionysos? Where d'you find theological connection between this Eukleia and Artemis; and where does that leave Euklos? Haploidavey (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe consider IG XIV 642 for the chthonic Εὐκλῆς Εὐβουλεύς, an "Orphic title of Hades" according to LSJ? —

chestnut — 15:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Now that's lurking at its very best. You splendid chestnut. Haploidavey (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. "Εὐκλῆς" is "of good reputation" and "Εὐβουλεύς" is "of good counsel". Haploidavey (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was thinking of having "Hades of good counsel" do my taxes this year, or at least of sending them to him. —

chestnut — 20:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You've reminded me of graffiti I saw on a toilet wall, in a very posh restaurant: "Don't feed the plutocrats!" and under it, "Eat the rich!" Haploidavey (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But a

chestnut — 02:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I looked here again with some delay. Thanks a lot to you both for the helpfulness. Wonderful job. I wondered it might be Dionysos as a first choice, and it looks to be Hades...however it puts the inscription into a clear context since the beginning...Strange how scholars may be in disagreement given the available references. To Davey: yes Euklos means glorious, famous, or of good name, so in theory it may refer to any great god here, especially considering the positions. Artemis was the only goddess who is mentioned under that entry in my dictionary, probably since she was the most famous Greek goddess. But here I considered first Dionysos for his links to Demeter in the Eleusinian mysteries.Aldrasto11 (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be accurate though Euklúí is not the first of the list, he is preceded by an unknown Vezkeí.Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about that (an Eleusinian link) but doh! (slaps forehead). Of course it's not the last name anyway. My working memory's become barely functional of late. Haploidavey (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But hang on a tick; I'm less confused than I thought. "Father Euklos" is the last on the list, at 25. Plain "Euklos" is second. Glad we sorted that out... Haploidavey (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth pointing out that, in the years after the initial publication of the tablet, Euklos was often just translated Liber, but I've only read popular scholarship including this from the 19th c., and none included any argument for the identification. For Hermes, Liber and Hades (with a bit of bibliography), see P.A. Johnston, "The Mystery Cults and Vergil's Georgics", in: G. Casadio & P.A. Johnston eds., Mystic Cults in Magna Graeca (Austin, TX, 2009) 251–76, at 268. —

chestnut — 13:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Great link. I'd forgotten this work - I think I came across it a year or two back, in an unhealthily obsessive and fruitless search for any scholarship at all on Liber as Father of plebeian freedom and plebeian augury. Anything, no matter how tentative. Or anything that might distinguish plebeian augury from... um, the pukka Jovian kind. Still lookin' when the mood takes me. Haploidavey (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good link. I would argue that there is a focal point in the repetition of some theonyms, after the mention of the two rites on side A. However note (sibe B) Euclos et alii have just one statio so here seems to mean go back in a circle, or two.Aldrasto11 (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(some time passes) In the latest issue of ZPE, Jan Bremmer appears very confident that Εὐκλης/Evklus is to be identified with Hades. This is based in no small part upon the "Tavola di Agnone" that Aldrastos brought up 18 months ago: evklúi.statif.kerrí statif/futreí.kerríaí.statif/. This futir is "daughter", that is, ~Κορή. This identification of Evklus as associated with the Plouton element has apparently been quite popular since Angelo Brelich, "Lo Iuppiter della Tavola di Agnone", Abruzzo 12 (1974) 151–60. There is also some discussion of Eubouleus in Bremmer's article, which is "Divinities in the Orphic Gold Leaves: Euklês, Eubouleus, Brimo, Kybele, Kore and Persephone", ZPE 187 (2013) 35–48. —

chestnut — 01:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, Paul.  davidiad { t } 17:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was very unhappy to see Evans1982 eviscerate the lede without discussion, but I don't understand why you put it back en masse, ALSO without discussion. Can we talk about this and come to consensus? I really am impressed with this article and would love to see it bubble up to FA status. It cannot do that with a 6,162 character, seven paragraph lede. Right now, the introduction is nearly 5% of the article. No one will lift it out of B Class as it currently reads. Kevin/Last1in (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without discussion? I'm not sure what you mean. While I don't doubt the eviscerator's good faith, the edit was roughshod, and came nowhere near addressing the issues already discussed in detail at the talk-page. I simply reverted a change unjustified by any argumentation whatsoever.

I've not the time, energy or enthusiasm to actively promote - to whatever status - this or any other article; I've seen far too much lively, readable content shoehorned into dull compliance. My interest in the topic is amateur and personal, not expert; and my intensive reading is an attempt to understand the subject, and tease out its knots. My writing's a test I set myself; if it renders the subject comprehensible to non-specialist readers, I just might have understood something of my sources as a whole, and thus the topic. Anyway, I'd strongly argue against building on the eviscerated version. The longer version of the lede already contains the structural essentials; the detail can be further

rendered down (or as some might prefer, "distilled") per the talk page consensus. I'll do what I can. Haploidavey (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Marija Gimbutas

See

]

Thanks, Doug. I've reverted accordingly. Haploidavey (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is new for you have a look... It is the one discussed by Brouwer at p. 78-80 nr. 70. Do a google search for Tibur Latium Vetus or/and Zaccaria Mari/Archeologia.Beni culturali.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Also the old borough of Aefula is thus possibly identified on one of the nearby hilltops.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another topic but also in the line of archaelogy: Grandazzi in an article of 1996 identifies Ferentina at the issue of the emissary of lake Albanus near the old laghetto di Turno. In 2008 a student of archaelogy (C. Mauri) identified it with the emissary of lake Nemi near Cecchina: he claims a local temple of Ceres and P. of the V century contained 2 statues of Ferentina and that the bodies of 15 beheaded people found near the emissary include that of Turnus Herdonius...there is indeed some evidence suggesting the VI century but I think inconclusive.

Both have predecessors in these choices. Grandazzi's is based on Colonna's, supported by C. Ampolo, Mauri's has been preceded by Nilssen, Pais, Della corte. Both exclude each other's identification...I have yet to find/read the refutuation of the 1st thesis made by a certain Barzanó.Aldrasto11 (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all these. I'd not seen the latest image on the Tibur temple - the walled temple environs and the intimate complexity of the inner buildings are particularly interesting - extraordinarily large assembly, which I guess must've served a sizable pilgrim population. I've not gotten around to the rest (it seems both dense and curious, specially Turnus H. - what next!?) but will get back to you on some of it. Not forgetting (besides) your input at the Ceres talk-page. Haploidavey (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the pictures are excellent and the description thorough. Grandazzi's article is at Perseé: "Identification d'une déesse: Ferentina et la ligue latine". His thesis is that the league was created by Rome after the destruction of Alba and was based on the control of water supplies for the campagna below provided by the emissary ditch. Ferentina would be a theonym parallel/of the type of Cloacina, a functional goddess. The timeline the same. Mauri says this location has been disproved by Barzanó: his article is of 1991 published on Aevum, before Grandazzi's who apparently failed to read it. Unfortunately his thesis is not expounded on another place publicly available. Mauri's contributions are on Vivavoce online mag.Aldrasto11 (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Haploidavey. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated DR goes to Wikimania! 02:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

Hi, hope you are all right. Found a work on the regal period pdf, a dissertation by a certain GB Cairo. Interesting hypotheses. The inscriptions: Granino Cecere's work pdf on the inscriptions in her article Vestali non di Roma is good. A Marrucinian inscription reading s]acrarix cibat cerria licinia saluta salavs may interest you. I suppose the duplication is significative.

As for toponyms: Alba Longa may reflect a Ligurian word meaning castrum, oppidum (Albingaunum, Albintimelium, Albi in Provence). This bears up the issue of a Ligurian presence in Rome. Festus and others have it. But it is debated as it appears mention of them is due to a conflation with the Sicels. Moreover such Ligurian toponyms are widespread throughout Europe, thus it looks problematic to attribute an ethnic content to toponyms traditionally considered as Ligurian. E. g. Albion for Britain plus all those ending in -asco, -esco etc in France and Belgium. A certain Sergi (see It. wk under Siculi) following Herbig pointed this out for Albalonga, as he remarked the colour of the rocks of the Alban hills is dark grey or blueish, not white (the Latins had the legend of the white saw). Other toponym of Ligurian character are Erice, Entella in Sicily, Albegna in Tuscany. Though I noticed many toponyms that look preindoeuropean or palaeolithic are present throughout western Europe: e.g. the Latin battle on the river Astura, there are various rivers named Stura and Sturla in Italy not to mention the Asturias in Spain, the Pennines and the Appennines. However interesting the Sicani mentioned by Pliny among the 30 Alban people.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am (almost involuntarily) doing some editing in an effort to organize my thoughts re: some research I'm doing, blah blah. And while I have vowed not to deal in talk pages at all, I simply couldn't not exclaim with gratitude about the work you did on Venus (mythology). Cynwolfe (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you me dear prodigy. That's an article I've not checked for a while but it does read like something I more-or-less managed to wrap my head around. Can't even do that halfway, these days. 'Most everything tastes wrong, sort of. Maybe that's just something that got up my nose, and won't come out. Haploidavey (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance is futile. I think I should take another long long break. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already doing just that, in a fashion. I try to ignore anything that threatens to disturb my pleasant drudgery; anything difficult, complicated or challenging. When the bathers are abed, I make small repairs to the aqueducts. In the small hours, I mop the atrium. Haploidavey (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We both seem to have converged on Venus today. I was puttering around Commons, and while I was there tried to find a more Roman-looking Venus. One that was a little less naked, and "mother of Aeneas" in appearance. No luck. I did find one very interesting but unrepresentative example I'll put in when I'm sure you're done for the day. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh oop lass. Give me a half-hour or so, plus tea-break; I'm going to try an integration of signs and attributes. The current images aren't entirely fab; an Aeneas' momma would help – and if my imminent edits don't seem to work, do feel free to edit, revert or whatever you think best. A bientot, minus diacritics. Haploidavey (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thought the trove from the Walters Art Museum would give me something. Something, but not Mother Venus. I have a goody from the Temple of Aphrodisias, but again too far-flung Imperial for the top, and too narrative-specific. I'm going to go scrub outdoor furniture now. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My brain shut down halfway through; must be those microorganisms fleeing your scrubber. Anyways, go ahead. I'm gonna flop out. Haploidavey (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just gonna leave a message on your talk, and backed down sharpish. Holy Bickle! Haploidavey (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't believe I got a cup of tea after that. I loved the file name: inquietante espressione. As for Venus, I should explain my impertinence. I removed "military" in the first sentence because I think without context it's potentially confusing to my hypothetical 17-year-old researching a school project. And of course the sense of victory/conquest is purposefully ambiguous. About the relief from Aphrodisias, I can't find what I need for that. The file description doesn't even have a date. It identifies the infant as Eros, which doesn't mean it can't simultaneously refer to the birth of Aeneas as the result of Eros. The iconography of Selene-Luna is familiar (see the puny start of an article I finally launched on

Luna (Roman goddess)), and mirabilissimo dictu, compare the Aphrodisias relief to the one from the sarcophagus at the top of List of Roman birth and childhood deities, yah? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

That's a lovely symmetry, and I wonder how far back the model goes - I mean the images of mother, infant and father; that fatherly stance is almost Victorian; all he needs is a pipe and mantlepiece. I see you've been doing great things with images here, and there (Venus, of course) and elsewhere... such an impudent busybody ... so I just nicked something tasty from the Aion article for my user page. Haploidavey (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted outdated content, I shall supply the newer views later. I was wondering whether writing an article on Latium Vetus and the preroman towns would be interesting, but the job is heavy. I collected some material...It bears much on the issue of the foundation of Rome. Mainly there are many questions that are not researched enough as yet. Using the ancient historians and the archaeological discoveries, recent and old, may provide some insight though. The dissertation I mentioned looks informative.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a very short article on

Latium Vetus. As you say, a heavyweight topic and under-researched. It might benefit from your specialist attentions. Haploidavey (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

My slip-up

Haploidavey, thanks for catching the mistake I made while patrolling for vandalism. I've responded to your note on my talk page and I've also rectified the warning on the IP's talk page. Rinkle gorge (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

]

Poseidon

Haploidavey, you made the wrong change to the article

]

What's this, smoke and mirrors? The revert was as intended, and the links were addressed to you. Let me make myself absolutely clear - 1: I've no preference for any era-system. I'm frankly amazed that anyone could care enough to trawl through an article history in search of a dead minnow of either persuasion, to replace one that's been around for what, five years? That's more than tedious, verging on tendentious. Which brings me to 2:

WP:ERA no longer says what you seem to think it says. Priority no longer counts. If you'd rather it did, feel free to discuss the policy/guideline at the policy/guideline page. But not here, please. If you're going to be such a legalistic stickler, the guidelines (sadly deficient though they be) recommend that particular cases be thrashed out at article talk-pages, on a case by case basis. So you'd probably best do just that. 3: I'm not going to squander any more time on this. Haploidavey (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Some of my comments above were based on my own misreading of the article history. My apology for this is at WP Editor 2011's talk page. Haploidavey (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your comment in an edit summary here [3] about Etowah plates being a "lovely article", wanted to say thanks and thought you might enjoy this Mississippian copper plates. I had been working on it on and off (mostly off, lol) for 6 months in the sandbox and parts had grown so large I budded some of it off as the Wulfing cache and Etowah plates articles. Anyway, thanks for the nice comment and cheers! Heiro

I have come to think that the story has been foisted on the last foundation of Rome, while originally it referred to that of an earlier one. There are the testimonies collected by Dionysius in I 72 and 73 which clearly point in this direction. Moreover the myth was widespread in Italy. But the most interesting thing is that the Greek authors were aware that Rome had been founded three times (the first were Sicels who left Italy for Sicily, this is what Antiochus of Syracuse said; btw there is a consul Cloelius Siculus at the time before the battle of Lake Regillus). These earlier were not towns, just bronze age villages (remembrance in the so called Septimontium). R&R belong there and their memory apparently remained among locals and they were revived when the story of the foundation was established. Archaelogy shows human presence on the Capitol and other places since the 14th century. But ethnonyms and people names are characteristic and remind of an Italic Protolatin presence there from the Sicels to the Aborigenes. Cairo thinks it was the Etruscans of Servius Tullius's faction as opposed to that of the Tarquinii, who established the canonic story. In fact one thing I had wondered on, but not enough: why there are a Hostus Hostilius and a Mettius Curtius that double Romulus and Tatius? Their presence betrays a conflation of two traditions: the true one would have been the other, R. and T. being two legendary figures of the two nations. The Rutuli and Turnus are clearly Protolatins i. e. Oenotrians or Daunians (son of Daunus), notwithstanding Briquel who thinks they are Umbrians and Scullard Etruscans: the etymology and phonology is that. But another source of confirmation comes from the names of the Populi Albenses: Pallottino puts some 4 or 5 of them on the territory of Rome before the foundation. These were not towns but sparse villages centred on a marketplace, only some developed into towns.Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to correct myself, the Daunians according to sostratist linguists are Hyllirian of the IE satem group, not Italic, on other phonetic considerations, not the d or t of Rutuli. I found many clues about Aventia in various articles (see e.g. in WK Aventicum, where a Aventia is the name of a Celt spring goddess attested on an inscription), but nothing on albula and its relationship to alba, albion, what I read only states they were cognate words and the first meaning of alba should be the one of alpe, still in use in Italian dialects, i.e. a grassy plain on or near the top of a mountain. There are various Albula, which all seem to be sostrate words (in Picenum and Grison, beside the Tiber). However the connection between a plain a on mountain and a stream is not immediate even though they may be close. You may remember the Avens river now Velino near Reate and of course the Aventine Hill of Rome, which had a spring (cf. in Britain the river Avon and in Welsh afon=river). The Ufens of Privernum and the Ofanto of today Apulia (the Latin name Aufidius cannot be its origin in my view, pace some It. scholars as Ribezzo) seem the same word with the normal change to > o > u in Italic (cf. O/Umbri/ Ambrones from a common IE *mbhro rainwater cf. Lat. imber). If you come across anything please let me know, thank you. I suppose the Elben may be cognate. The WK article on Old European hydronims is very poorly edited and puts many things together: the root *alm is just another one, but this is not stated clearly.Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thank you again for all your help at the article Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

Btw, I left my comments at

]

You might be interested in

]

Could you take a look at the above image? If you keep clicking, you can zoom in to obtain a good bit of detail. The object that I describe in the article as a "white cone": I've seen that thing somewhere and can't place it. Notice that the flat rim around the flared end is perforated. This has some kind of industrial use, surely? Possibly in fabric manufacture? It's on the "things produced" side of the mural. I've searched under various guesses, but of course garbage in, garbage out. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before I embark on my series of probably fruitless guesses, let me just say I love this wonderfully bold and unfashionable painting, and thanks for the article. Makes a great DYK.

I can think of no possible rustic or industrial use for such an object, unless as a hose-nozzle, with perforated flange for attachment to a rubber-coated fabric hose. Actually, it would make a serviceable horn for the boy. Or maybe it's just a horn? Like you say, garbage in, garbage out... Haploidavey (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very accurate: 'bold and unfashionable'! I think that's what everybody's liking about it. The kind of discussion that occurred at the DYK template actually has me enjoying working on WP again: people just trying to make things happen, and taking an interest.

Before I zoomed, I thought it was a kind of horn or megaphone thing, but when I noticed the perforations it dislodged something in my head about clothing production. Like a bobbin or spindle for commercial manufacture of yarn or thread. I got nuttin', tho.

While here, I must apologize for the havoc on a certain article I think of as yours caused by my current listomania. I'm tired of the deities' lists being so ... well, dumb is the first word that comes to mind, so I'll use it. So I'm trying to sort these out, but it becomes so tedious I go mad before finishing. Please be assured that I'm planning to yank that rustic crew out of your way with an agricultural counterpart to the birth&childhood list (which is still unfinished, because I saw worse messes to untangle). When that list occurred to me as a solution, I was too tired to execute. Sat through a 4-and-a-half hour high school awards "banquet" Thursday evening (excruciating chairs, and longer than the Oscars!), then took a load of girls to a midnight movie Thurs/Fri night, home at 3 a.m., after staying up most of the previous night watching "Hatfields & McCoys" on the History Channel marathon (I had an uncle by marriage who was a Hatfield, to disastrous result; I may have you about him), then Saturday morning had to drag daughter and Her Massive Instrument to the high school graduation ceremony, where she and her even smaller bassist friend (the only basses neither graduating nor taking exams or such) valiantly performed five full repetitions of Pomp & Circumstance for a class of 400+ till their gracile arms ached. Obviously I've returned to gabbing on talk pages. Await my proper whipping from the Lords of Conformity & Dullardry. Oatley seems to have addressed the List of consuls question; I was going to suggest someone ask him, as I only do Republican consuls from Broughton. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a terrible dearth of artistic white cone/horn commentaries. Don't worry about the lists... there's lists and there's lists. They can happen to the best of us. I've been thinking for a while (quite honestly, that's all I've done for months - hardly any solid content shoveling in all that time) on how we could do with an agri-godling article; even, for once, one combined with an outline of Roman agri-business. Or at least, the agricultural cycle. That seems a logical step, and I need a kick-start... I seem to have developed a terror of actually doing anything useful. As opposed to thinking about it. Or, more honestly, worrying about it. Stuck. Inert. Full of doubts. It takes me all of a half-hour to compose even the simplest message.

On Hatfields, oh yes, you did tell; what a business. Pomp and Circumstance, hm. Once should be enough for anyone. Five times is perilous close to martyrdom. My own sprogs are doing, um, I'm not too sure what, as I speak. Except me boyo is working his poor nuts off, and me girlo is not, by a long chalk; she returns after three weeks in India, tommorrow pm. Sprogs, eh. Haploidavey (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what an exciting trip. More about that elsewhere, I hope. About the ag-gravating matter:

Roman agriculture does exist, though of course it's a huge topic and there are many ways to develop and approach it. It would probably be much muchness to throw the religious side of things in except as a summary. Agricultural literature is a whole other topic too. So if I dash off an outline of ag deities, feel free to have your way with it. I'm trying to get some stuff off my plate that's been bothering me for a while, and am not trying to do a splendid job of any of it. Just want to fill some gaps. Am trying to get back to the birth deities and in turn back to the finishing touches on the October Horse. Jump in as you will! Cynwolfe (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Roman festivals

I just made a dreary trudge through Roman festivals because I finally decided to lay hands on Scullard. I've decided I trust Fowler more. (Scullard includes ludi as annual that nobody else thinks were; I may take these out after I review the other sources.) As it stands, it's a pointless effort, because it probably needs to be made into a table. Not sure I have the appetite for that.

Oh, yes. Why here. Both Scullard and Fowler only do Republican festivals. If you know of Imperial stuff that should be added, please have at it. I'm going to check the festivals template to see if any listed there are omitted in the article. Then I'm going to drink hemlock. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you've done good work there. For some reason, I've never been tempted to get hold of anything by Scullard - which seems an odd sort of baulk, considering. Fowler's lovely. I'll take a leisurely stroll for Imperial stuff, or else join you for a hemlock booze-up. Just for the sheer numb fun of it. Haploidavey (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're not a girl like I am, you may not squeal with delight as I just did in finding a 2012 book called Shopping in Ancient Rome—from Oxford University Press! Still, I had to share. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crimminy, that's quite a find. (Nods, hmmmms and purses lips, signifying deeply masculine approval, though not of the price). And quite a decent preview. Haploidavey (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looky here: a tombstone of a Gaul with That Mark (the ersatz theta for thanatos), where the ends of the bars are even with the outer oval. I think that area is sorta where Varro Atacinus (1st century BC) was from, but they all have perfectly Gaulish names, even though the deceased was a local magistrate and quaestor, and it's dated to the 1st or 2nd century AD (which I find interesting: I'd have thought local magistrates would be citizens with the tria nomina). And here's one with another example; the names seem to be a mixture of Gaulish and Latin. Anyway, the Gaulishness isn't really the point, so much as it's interesting to find other examples of the mark. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how you find these things... and don't you just love these Gaulish names? Funny thing, that business of adoption into provincial citizenship; cf, of course, our mutual friend of yore, though of course he's one of the earliest... and maybe that signifies... something. I guess things just got a little more informal further down the line, and maybe our other guys are just ordinary, relatively late examples of provincial magistracy. And of course, there must be regional variations in just about everything. Anyway, I think they're rather fine inscriptions. I guess our kinda-theta in the first stands in for DM; but not quite in the second (which has deliciously loose orthography). I don't know what the "vIv" means, up top, but the small theta pops up way below it, in what looks to me like an insert, a post script to "Lucilio filio". Obit? By the way, I also wondered whether these uses derive from long-standing Greek connections (as in Gallic coinage) rather than Roman. I also just found, then promptly lost, a page on Romano-British coinage, in which theta proper was said to represent DD. Sometimes. Of course, that really got the old gearbox in a grind - what with me being sorta Welsh, and Welsh "dd" being pronounced "th", as in "that". Haploidavey (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, very interesting. Somewhere in my head floats a remnant of some connection between the "Gallic tau" and the theta … oh, I see that's actually touched on in theta. Good observation about the influence of the Greek alphabet on the Gallic alphabets. I love the look of inscriptions in Gaulish. One of the many self-contradictions in Caesar (which indicate that the Gallic Wars was "published" serially, as T.P. Wiseman has argued, and only collected at the end of the war as one) is that at one point he says something about the Gauls using Greek letters, then later sends a coded message in which Latin is written … in Greek letters, so the Gauls can't read it. Don't remember whether that's one of the times when he then falls into a trap.

About finding things at Commons, it's so difficult to use existing Commons categories that I've been doing some categorization there. (I screwed one up the other day, but so far nobody's noticed, and it's just too damn much trouble to seek help to fix it.) Like, sarcophagi might be organized by country in which the piece is currently held, as if you'd ever be searching for one on that basis, instead of by content, like "Ancient Roman sarcophagi with Dionysian scenes". I created a category within Latin inscriptions of VSLM inscriptions. That turned up some interesting things. So I've been trying to organize some things (that happen to be in our areas of mutual interest) that once found I don't want to lose again. I didn't create the category Dedications and ex-votos in antiquity, but within it created the "Inscriptions, votives and altars to so-and-so" categories, as well as the VSLM category. That's how I found the goodies. As I have time I'm looking through all the ancient Roman inscription categories (again, categorized mainly by where the inscription currently is held, and not by any reference to its content), which ought to turn up more. (There were some Lares and others too, which I just plopped into their main categories without creating a special one yet.) I often do this while ostensibly watching a movie with hubby and daughter, if it's one we've seen before or one I lack all interest in. Some file descriptions contain transcriptions of the text, but some don't, and like an idiot I didn't take the epigraphy class when I had the chance as a youngster, since why would an Ovidian need that? I found the VSLM examples by searching v[otum], so that only turned up the files with transcriptions.

But here's a wee man you'll like. A bust with VSLM, and a completely Gaulish personal name. I haven't checked this yet, but I think it's a Gaulish patronymic, with the man's name given in the nominative, and his father's name in the genitive. Like "Gimli, son of Glóin." Cynwolfe (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arnobius outdoes himself in drollery … Cynwolfe (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haploidavey,

I was reading some of the Florida edit history, and in fact I just got done writing some requests over the use of the word colony in some of the other Florida pages, and I believe reverting it back was incorrect and it should be fixed (i can't as a new user).

There are no references in Spanish royal ordinances or laws of the Spanish Cortes that consider Florida to be a colony or contain colonies (settlements). They refer to Florida as a territory to be settled and, along with being part of the Captaincy General of Cuba, St. Augustine and Havana were appointed governors titled "adelantados," or governors to further the territory. Florida had Parliamentary representation in the Spanish Cortes along with Cuba and Puerto Rico. Representation or coat of arms are not given to Spanish colonies. Pensacola was Florida's first "settlement." St. Augustine was its first "city," after earning a royal coat of arms (much like Gibraltar, Havana, and San Juan PR). There were provinces, settlements, and "missions" as well, in accordance to Spanish terms of governance. In Florida, using the word colony implies a subservient system of governance rather than a representative form of governance. I'm saying this as a professional in the field of journalism, with an interest in Florida's history.

Florida was not a colony of Spain according to Spain and Florida's system of governance. Provinces, autonomous communities, charted communities, and even some states can be considered "colonies" under its technical definition (a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by settlers from that country - Webster.) But again, because of Florida's history with the U.S., using the word colony to describe Florida as well as the Thirteen Colonies is bad word choice. In fact, Florida today has a very similar system of unitary government to Spain. Counties in Florida can charter their own governance (like Dade county), much like provinces can accede to chartered (autonomous) communities in Spain. There is much inheritance and similarity over the course of history.

Below is some proof of what I'm trying to say. One, the History Channel's Conquest of the Southeast. In no case do they use the word colony to describe governance in Florida in this documentary, only French/British settlements. It's one of the most accurate. Two, is an interview with one of the leading experts in Florida history, and member of the Florida-Spain Foundation, Dr. Michael Francis. In the video linked below, he verifies that Spanish ordinances and laws refer to the Spains (Iberian communities/King of the Spains was the title of the monarch for many years) and the Floridas (Florida provinces). In this video he also describes some of the misuse of the word colony in Florida, and some of the myths people believe about our history, like the Fountain of Youth.

Conquest of America (History Channel) (2005) http://www.amazon.com/Conquest-America-History-Channel-Narrated/dp/B000A0GXMY

Entrevista a Dr. Michael Francis (in Spanish) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0vr122VYG8

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FLA.101 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with the word colony. It's used in reliable academic sources. In some cases it might be worthwhile discussing the dispute you say exists, but it's the usual term in English. [4] "Gracia Real de Santa Teresa de Mose: a free black town in Spanish colonial Florida J Landers - The American Historical Review, 1990 - JSTOR" etc.

talk) 16:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

And I'm from Dade County and the comments above just aren't right. From our article: " Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment in 1956 that allowed the people of Dade County (as it was known then) to enact a home rule charter. Prior to this year, home rule did not exist in Florida, and all counties were limited to the same set of powers by the Florida Constitution and state law.".

talk) 17:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for fielding this, Doug. Haploidavey (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through

).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at [email protected]. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:Cynwolfe pointed me in your direction and, though slightly alarmed by dim memories of Catullus 63 evoked by the top of your page, I thought I might try consulting you re

]

Some bubble tea for you!

For tiding up Mohenjo-daro; now it makes better reading! Rayabhari (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohenjo-doro

Removing modern heat record from this archeological article was very good;modern temperature record is not relavant.i was thinking of removing it myself, but was not sure whether it will be appropriate.thank you.Rayabhari (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only known case of a conflict of interest in which a Greek god is editing his own article is leading to some wackiness. Noticed you did some tidying. Do you have any desire to chat it out or should I try to dust off my own ambassadorial sash? Hope all's been well.  ^davidiad_.: 21:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, shape-shifter. The article's worried me for some time - s'pretty horrendous, really, even without the recent expansion. Yes, I've done a little tidying in the lede; very little. My instinctive response is to reach for the silex, which probably means I'm not up to the requisite delicate diplomacy (household affairs are difficult, and they overhang all else. It makes me grouchy, kinda disengaged and potentially unkind). It's so much easier when someone just plasters "fuck" all over a page, eh? Haploidavey (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear you've got a full plate right now. I don't really have the patience to deal with any well-meaning imperfections either currently—hence my trying to dump it off on you—, but will keep half an eye on it. I'm moving from New Haven to Arkansas in a couple weeks and might have more energy once we're all set there.  ^davidiad_.: 15:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I hope the move goes as it ought'er, smooth and painless (I like travelling and arriving but wrenching from the home-rock ain't easy). Haploidavey (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've given him his last warning for his vandalism at Cleisthenes. I will report him if he does it again, but since I do not want to be involved in 3RR with him, could you please keep an eye out on the page to revert it if he goes at it again? Thanks!--Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good... but would a 3R apply to either of us in this particular case? What with the user's persistent restoration of uncited material? Haploidavey (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe it would still apply to us. Maybe we should request semi-protection for the page? --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 00:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A semi might become necessary, but AIV seems a reasonable next step to me, if it comes to the crunch. I'll not mind doing the business. Haploidavey (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that falls under

talk) 15:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You're right, it was more like a slowish edit-war. Not an appropriate behaviour for vandalism warnings or AIV. Haploidavey (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It was in any case copyvio without attribution, and it may not be at the original article much longer.

]

Pleasure. Do you mean one part in particular, or the whole (other than the non-attributed cut-and-paste)? I didn't check the sources, but was and still am very doubtful about some of those broad Indo-European connections. In particular, Cernunnos. Haploidavey (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see which part you meant. Haploidavey (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get Nielsen, S; Andersen, J; Baker, J; Christensen, C; Glastrup, J; et al. (2005). “The Gundestrup cauldron: New Scientific and Technical investigations”, Acta Archaeologica, 76.

talk) 14:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, I've looked all morning for this, and can't find it. It's cited by several scholarly articles but only (as far as I can make out) in a metallurgical context. Frustrating. Fwiw, I've just searched through several articles on this supposed "proto-Shiva-type"at JSTOR and several reject it, for reasons I find interesting - I might add them to the artcle. Anyway, fwiw none mention the Gundestrup image, and just imho, I doubt there's a strong or noteworthy connection. Haploidavey (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

God, what am I like?? It's here: [5]; does the link work for you? Haploidavey (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've skimmed through. It's all about metallurgy, technique, ore sources and environmental factors. Nothing else. No reference at all to our seal image. So as it stands, the connection made in the article is just original research. Haploidavey (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Without decent sources it should be removed. I may look at these again later, there are at least 4 articles involved. The copyvio is part of a big CCI by the way.

talk) 15:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I've already removed the text as unsupported. Can you point me to the CCI? Haploidavey (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	Most Interesting Topics
	I spend much time exploring wikipedia, and I recently noticed your contributions in topics dealing with insects and Ancient Rome (both of which I love). Thanks for your efforts! Being4itself (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did your excursions into the mundus of Ceres by any chance give you anything of use regarding the megaron of Demeter? A question was raised at Talk:Demeter that I only have time to make the tiniest gesture of clarification toward. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, given your relative scarcity the last few weeks, I've had this vision of you performing in the opening ceremonies of the Olympics, after hearing the announcers praise the dedication of volunteers. A happy picture. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, even in dreams that's an impossibly wonderful, terrifying prospect! I've just done the drive down to London - it was unnervingly straightforward but I'm too entangled with the stray burgeoning whatsits of my odd and complicated life to say more than that at the mo', except thank you. It's good to be missed, and sometimes it needs to be said/heard. I'll be more responsive after what promises to be an insanely busy weekend, when I hope to "emerge plantlike from the soil" and start editing again. Haploidavey (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not writing content myself at the moment, because I'm working on my fiction project, and it's kinda like Daniel Day Lewis staying in character on set—too hard to switch gears between the two crafted voices. Watching rhythmic gymnastics, however, I suddenly had a whole new perspective on ball and hoop in classical antiquity (since the medical writer Celsus, I think it was, prescribed ball and hoop exercises for women), and those interludes in mimus, and the bikini girls. Funny how things suddenly start to make sense. I stopped working on mimus because so much of Roman theatre history isn't already in place, and it was too interesting to do a superficial job of. Looking forward to it, but should look back first at October Horse, since my whole distraction into lists of gods arose from that. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's very good news. The fiction project, I mean. It's been bedded down for some time, hasn't it? Sleeping in its drawer, all moist and sprouty for a critical reading. Essential, that. I noticed your edit summary - one might think so, but no, sprung from the soil is how it feels. London's quite remarkably greened, and vigorous, almost too fermented and fertile when seen with a receptive and critical eye. It's not a kindly place, but it has huge organic vigour, and it's unpredictable, ultracivilised or frighteningly atavistic. Anyway, I was there only for the last two days of them Limpiks, but had to miss the closing cos I spent the whole two days feverishly slapping enough paint (three coats) to transform the front room from a deep and depressing blue - which seemed a good idea, a decade back; hell, I even developed the tint myself - to a fabulous bright parchmenty gold. Very pleasing. And off the peg, woo hoo!

But I loved the opening ceremony, even the bits that had me shivering with embarrassment. And watched some events quite religiously... gymnastics, rowing, cycling.

I've found nothing usable on the mundus pit or megaron cleft (seems so bloody obvious but huh). And still haven't wrapped my head around anything like an appropriate wording for that effing you-know-where infobox. An interesting exercise, in which odd thoughts take shape, connect, dissolve. Haploidavey (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raised this at ANI.

]

I was just coming here to exclaim WTF about List of Roman deities. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WTF indeed. I tried a move over the re-redirect, then realised this was but the tip of a considerable berg, perhaps better towed into neutral waters and shattered by admin gunfire. So I self-reverted (well actually, no - I don't seem to have saved my changes) and like you, sent the user a note. Haploidavey (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know how much I dislike working on the Empire, but I really think that Religion section at Roman Empire needs to be replaced with a summary section based on the two main articles. It's too long without saying much. Please watch for any inadvertent violence I do to cultish stuff, into which I have limited intuition. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I was going to attempt a similar cropping - or at least what I imagine would be a similar cropping - at the same section. But I'm writing horribly, horribly slowly today. I think a two-or-three paragraph summary would likely be enough. Minus the surplus on Imperial cult (doubts and skepticism? so what) and did you notice the cock-up on Cybele? But yes, do go ahead, and I'll bring oinkment if needed. What a bloody discussion, eh? I just took out some sentences that seemed particularly problematic, but there are many others. Most of them, really, apart from the main section preamble. Haploidavey (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I find that I can't get to this right now, so please, have at it! Cynwolfe (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got distracted by the inappropriate images. Hope I didn't mess you up. Looking for something better for the Judaism section. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, no collision, good collusion. The whole section's pretty grim; as I'm stripping it down to an essential structure, which I hope explains Imp Cult as something other than a cynical add-on, it'll soon be my turn to ask you for a once-over. Be merciless! Haploidavey (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a review at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Roman Empire/1. I apologise if that means you have to post your comments again, but I thought it best to formalise the process.--SabreBD (talk) 09:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Davey, are you working on social/familial structures? I'm done for a while. I'm considering next tackling actual content, either "Culture" (monumental task) or Provinces/languages/Imperial topography of the city. Recommendations on sources welcome. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am, but so far only in the context of religious, social and moral obligations (if that makes sense), and it's slow going. There's a lot to be filtered out, and quite frankly, I'd rather tackle social structures very early on in the article - people before things, including government - but that's just me, isn't it? And on second thoughts, it makes sense to start with government in any article on Empires. I'll look out for sources. I'm only now beginning to see what a potentially horrendous task it all is, not least cos I'm beginning to see the need for drastic revision in several connected articles. Haploidavey (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Totally concur. "Society" could easily work before "Government." I'm trying to keep in mind the fact that one of the biggest user groups of this article is likely to be high school students. That puts a twist in one's drawers, I must say. I of course have not done what I said, but will have a Language revision soon, because I happened upon the perfect source. A Blackwell Companion to exists. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got around to posting at the link SabreBD gave you above. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had the page open for editing for an hour or so, and didn't notice your additions until I e/c'd. My writing pace has slowed to a crawl (no medals for me then. Your response seems to cover most of the bases. I'll add a section below, in time... Haploidavey (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a solution to a terminology problem that I hadn't seen before: Classical Roman religion. I like that one, and can think of many instances when it would be useful in distinguishing from mystery religions in particular. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	sorry but that is how my knowledge is Vampirechris (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Haploidavey. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I'd remove the image at the top of List of creation myths, since it kinda signals that this is the biggest myth of all, and replace it with one that's non-controversially a myth. See Creation myth and talk page comments (by me, among others). Cynwolfe (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'd recommend the one at the top of Creation myth for the list, though: it was chosen because the lede talks about swirling amorphous chaos and such. At the list, I'd advocate for something from the traditions in India, perhaps, which are rich in mythos. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to disregard what I just did to the Religion section at Roman Empire. I can't seem to rest till I get that thing in better shape, and I felt the Religion section needed to go above the Literature section, but couldn't stand to do it without cleaning it up and actually saying something about, you know, Roman religion. So I just grabbed some stuff from the two main articles and squished down some of the rest.

I'm stuck over there on a section explaining the ordines in the Empire. Please throw me any flotation devices you find bobbing in the rubble. I just need a paragraph 'splainin' how you get to be a senator, equestrian or decurion. I don't understand decurial status at all.

Hope you are well! Cynwolfe (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ta, lass. Not quite sure how I am, to be honest. But on the religiony things what you've done in yt artycle I see nothing to disregard. It seems pretty damn close to my own plan.... understanding.... intention, or whatever. Your compressions cover the main bases. When mood and preoccupation allow (they surely must, one of these days), I'll expand very minimally on the social-religious backgrounds vis-a-vis family, patronage, and the advantages of priesthoods. Hopefully without duplication. On the horrible business of decurial status... hum. I'm not sure what lies the bottomless pond but when I read your note I took a small blind fumble in the google-mud. So far, no pearls. Just a rusty bike or two. I'll keep looking. Maybe I'll find a pram... Haploidavey (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a sample or two: [6], [7] (Scheidel). This has, on p.26, the inappropriately cheerful "The Paradoxes within Historical Reality of Imperial Times". Eeeek.

THANKS! Much appreciated, especially the poverty book with The Old Fisherman on the cover. Still hopin' for a chance to use that image somewhere. Do be well as you can. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"walls that are polished to prevent them from escaping".... hey, that's a "silk-finish". Let's hope we choked at least a couple of the buggers with our tiny, crunchy long-bones. Haploidavey (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That shape... it's a glire's world-egg. By the oddest coincidence, I've obliterated the horrid slippery-shiny bathroom "silk-finish" with a coat of eggshell finish. Heh! Haploidavey (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started a baby section at Roman temple#Caesareum, in case you come across tidbits to add. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just read it. Well done, and I'm sure it'll wax fat and healthy. I'm a little shocked to find that it gets only a starveling mention in

Imperial cult (ancient Rome). Eeek. Haploidavey (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I started to create a stub for it, but I lacked the will and energy even to do that. Still puzzling over the ordines over at the Empire. Averting eyes from

Equestrian order, which seems full of meticulous misinformation (like the senatorial order being a subset of the equestrians!). Yours glirely, Cynwolfe (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It Was A Technical Error, Sorry

My computer is acting up at the moment.75.72.35.253 (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt know that you were the owner of wiki, your comment that "it might help to read up on our requirements" would have been better put if i were asked to read "the" requirements. Il let it go, but its a shame the two finger info aint included, its well talked about, and thats why i put "it is thought that the" and didnt state it as absolute fact. Half the articles on wiki have sources not as reliable as the ones i cited, so on that premise, you will have a lot of reversions to do! have fun! (i aint sticking two fingers up at you!!!)Markdarrly (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, this is the last place I'd want to own... if I owned it, I'd say "my requirements" then sack everyone, including myself, and retire. I say "our" because we're a community, you me, everyone. And yes, there's one hell of a lot of uncited material on wikipedia, some sound, some not. We all do what we can, and it goes on.... and on....

Anyway, yes, you did say "It is thought that"... but my own understanding of content is that it should be "knowledge-positive"... whatever that means. I guess it means we serve our readers with a reasonably serious encyclopedia when we offer knowledge, rather than addresss misconceptions and straw-men, unless of course the misconceptions are intrinsic and neccesary to an understanding of the topic. And yes, I'm also fascinated by the way these stories emerge as if from nowhere. But we've articles on such material - such as List of common misconceptions, which by the way, I don't think should exist. But then, I'm just an aged curmudgeon. And I'm quite sure (or am I?!) that you're really not sticking two fingers up at me as you read this... Haploidavey (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aged curmudgeon is of course the tastiest variety of curmudgeon, heavenly if properly paired with a fine vintage from one's coot cellar.  ^davidiad_.:τ 22:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Been tippling the master's comstibles, eh? It's dry bread and moorhen for you, then back to your broom-cupboard. Haploidavey (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries (i aint an Aussie by the way!) it might be helpful to have a look at the page " V sign", as the origins are mentioned on there. They are pretty well sourced but its not worth going to war over! if we did, one of us would lose two fingers and the other would be sticking em up!! either way, it looks like it will be in folklore until the time machine is invented. (Hope they manage to find a parking space on the battle field, all the bodies everywhere will make it hard work!!!) happy tapping :-) Markdarrly (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! V sign it is. And happy tapping to you too, Markdarrly. Haploidavey (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well there were Egyptian slaves so leave it there. 1:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.225.227 (talk)

Hi, you reverted my edit so quickly I didn't have a chance to add the academic citation. It has been added now. Please read it. There is a URL for browsing. I have another citation (but in Spanish) that backs this up as an accepted finding.Jembana (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your edit on using the BBC feature as a source on the Vestals in

]

Earthquake lights

After reading the news and comments on the conviction at the trial of L' Aquila. It looks not only the earth gave signs but there were also many from the sky. Lights of various sorts before and after the major shock and abnormal clouds flying against the winds. See wp article and the linked article's comments. Reminds me of the De haruspicum responso.Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dearest Davey, I notice you haven't been around for a while. I haven't really either and just realized that I hadn't seen your name in ages. I hope all is well.  ^davidiad_.:τ 02:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto! There must be some kind of "missing Davey" pollen in the air. I was just thinking this morning about emailing again to see whether the familia was OK, since I grow alarmed that my last email went unanswered. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, my dears. It's good to be missed. I've been completely offline, lost and preoccupied. Things have been difficult, but nothing that won't mend, I'm sure. And Attis redivivus est (more of the ole' silex, but in a more expert hand this time around, know what I mean?) Haploidavey (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you must check out the most delicious piece of vandalism I've seen while you were gone. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Ave Korea! What a shame to revert it. Haploidavey (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Experts? Bah! Where's the excitement in that? Glad to hear you're alrightish.  ^davidiad_.:τ 22:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Because you participated at some point in this lengthy discussion about the wording of MOS guidelines pertaining to the use of BC/AD and BCE/CE, I thought you might want to contribute to the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC on era style (BC/AD and BCE/CE). I'm trying to notify all the individuals who took part in the earlier discussion but who haven't weighed in yet for the current one. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Scuse the impersonal tone. I'm putting the same notice on everybody's page. Feel free to ignore it in favor of more important things. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note on citation on my talk page. I'm still learning citation rules on Wikipedia. However in citations such as Aristophanes (Plutus, 594) that is everything as it is an original source and I used the citation standard used in university papers. There weren't really any publishers in ancient Greece or Rome. In the example shown it is from the play Plutus by Aristophanes. 594 is the line number. So should I just add the date (388BC)or what do you suggest? CaraSchulz (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This time of year I watch Saturnalia closely, and piddle a bit with the various festivals, which has got me to the Greek festival of Anthesteria, which in turn got me back to libation, where I had placed this as a Roman example, having displayed at top the little bronze priest I pepper freely throughout Wikipedia. Do you suppose this is ritus graecus, and if so, for whom? He's bareheaded and not wearing a toga. Or maybe ritus hawaiianus, since (if you zoom in closely enough) that's clearly a pineapple on the altar. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, yes. Those Imperial marshmallows borne aloft, stage left, await the Imperial pineapple's toasty heat. A festive occasion. I've had a pretty damn thorough look for commentary on what's going on here (other than "here's Trajan performing sacrifice") but nothing comes up. A wee hole in the scholarship? It's very curious; but assuming this is Trajan about to offer a bull rather than bos mas, then perhaps he's engaged in sacrifice to equals - either Imperial divi, or to his own genius, or both. That might explain the bare head as an appropriate degree of informality towards near equals, rather than ritus graecus. And I can't think of any known recipient of a bull or bos mas sacrificed according to "greek rite". Of course, this is all mere guesswork on my part. Love your friendly, freely peppered little priest, and your work on "his" articles. Haploidavey (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marshmallows of that approximate girth are now sold in my homeland. I was led by a desire for euphony to give bad faux Latin above, which I have corrected. Otherwise, this is a conventional sacrifice: the aulos player warding off the bad spirits (how does that work? do they glide in on some kind of spaces in the air if there are no sound waves of the right frequency?); the child attendant holding the container; the bare-chested popa (why are they bare-chested, BTW?); patera in Trajan's hand. But look at the guy between the aulist and Trajan: isn't that the knot usually found on Isis and (I'm assuming) her cultists? I know next to nothing about Isis, and I haven't seen the knot on a male.

Oh: I added a stub for Feriale Duranum, which has lots of divi. And divae. There's an external link to a translation. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such sad and terrible times. Rather than succumb to helplessness, I spent two days on a goose-chase, hunting for scholarship on the religious potential of soundwaves (specially the aulos), Roman Isis and knots, and found all sorts of interesting stuff, none of which had anything to do with the aulos, soundwaves, Isis or knots. It might come in useful one day. The Dura-Europos links are marvellous.

I spent the rest of my time singing with a sore throat, and having car breakdowns of electrical kind. I'm not sure which of those things is the least interesting. Haploidavey (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best Wishes for a Happy New Year! May 2013 bring you rewarding experiences and an abundance of everything you most treasure. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Gaea (1532–34) by Giulio Romano

Wikipedia is diminished when you aren't around. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi (and Happy New Year to you), I left a response at my talk page re above - maybe what I put on Pronuba needs reworking.--A bit iffy (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been creating a bunch of redirects, including some for potential articles, so I don't have to remember what articles needed to link to a future main article instead of a section in a longer article. I mention this so confusingly because I just created one called

]

I didn't start this one, but thought you might want to have Munera (ancient Rome) on your watchlist. Well, I guess I thought it needed you as one of its tutelaries. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duly watched. I'm currently slow-boiling my own head in pleb and populus sauce. With a dash of cavalry. It's very, very confusing. And I'm noticing just how many half-done bits of articles we have on the foundation of Rome - they're legion, haha! Anyhow, now I'm worried about the assertions made in that little munera stub; so why do modern sources speak of gladiator contests at ludi as munera? Don't worry, that's a rhetorical question. Haploidavey (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I shall therefore let it pass as such. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in return for stokers and snuffers, let me offer you the caption here. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sheer splendour. The joy of specialists. Didn't you once mention a Latin poem on "perky breasts"? Juvenal? Anyway, I like the idea of a nanny-goat pageant. I'd enter the billy-goat category were it not for a fear of disqualification/rejection; "more than 3 inch split in scrotum, and close-set or distorted horns." Damn it. Haploidavey (talk) 11:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, something odd happened with the email account I use for Wikipedia. Delete any new messages ostensibly from me. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever read the article Shinto shrine? Must! Striking parallels to Roman religion. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And this sounds familiar, from Religion in Korea: Largely because converts refused to perform ancestor rites, the government prohibited the proselytization of Christianity. Have you ever come across a sober work of comparativist religious studies that compares Roman religion to these continuing traditions? Would love to read it if you have. Not crazy stuff that's trying to make some kind of "point," though. You know me: I'd like to buy the world a Coke, if only it weren't so terribly bad for you. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd not read either of those, and the connection hadn't occurred to me, self-evident though it now seems. In the distant past I've talked to various Japanese Buddhists about Zen Buddhist traditions and practices in day-to-day Japan; but all I can remember of all those late-night conversations is something like "live in Shinto and die a Buddhist". Which doesn't help but seems interesting - reverence and ritual seem to come first. Then mystery and release. And the early Zennists had a difficult reception in Japan... more than a few "martyrs", unsurprisingly. But the short answer (which as ever, I should have given first, and didn't) is no; I've not come across anything that compares ancient Roman and traditional Japanese religion at all, let alone in systematic and scholarly fashion; as you know, I'm generally wary of comparative religion. Perhaps mine is just a "different cola"... When I wrote my first thesis (on dualism and paradox) I was unguided and indiscriminate in seeking origins and fundamentals, and was fruitlessly sidelined by Eliade and his bloody Adwisal, for what now seems like years, though it was probably no more than a few days. I still rue those few days. Anyhow, since then I've dared approach such material - I mean comparative religion, not Eliade and his "eternal return" - only in fits and starts and strictly relevant dribs. Even then, what little I've found has usually proven too generalised, or speculative, or over-arching, or flabby to be of use; though sometimes, also tantalising. Of course, I'll keep a lookout for better material. It would belong, I guess, on a very slim shelf-space. Compared with the old days - and how could we forget the numina? - most modern scholarship seems bent on deconstruction, terribly wary of origins, and of comparison.

Just so happens I'm reading Will Roscoe's "Priests of the Goddess: Gender Transgression in Ancient Religion", History of Religions, Vol. 35, No. 3 (Feb., 1996), University of Chicago Press, pp. 195–230. It deals with, among others, India's modern-day equivalents of the Galli. Haploidavey (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the trouble with comparativists is that they always seem to be devolving into seeking origins, which is one of my most hated topics even before coming to Wikipedia, where it proves to be a bottomless pit of hateful nothing. I'm just interested in patterns. It struck me some time ago when my daughter was telling me with great delight about a friend of her who was born in Korea and whose family practices jesa. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Capitoline Triad on whether the article should be split. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My watchlist is pretty minimal, so thanks for letting me know. I'll be there dreckly. Haploidavey (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, I was back these days after an interval, hope you are all right. I did some editing, would appreciate comment. It is not yet footnoted, patience, sorry!Aldrasto11 (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being from Appalachia, I can't help reading this as Magnus of Fussin', and think it should be an honorary title for certain Wikipedia editors. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've been told that the series Rome sensationalized the taurobolium, not to mention having the ritual carried out 200 years before its time, would you want to go ahead and add a sentence about it as one of the exceptions? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. The whole Cybele and Attis business is both absorbing and baffling. On the taurobolium, most modern scholars seem very skeptical (and that's probably understatement) of Prudentius's gory anti-pagan theatricals. Not all, though.The taurobolium and criobolium seem such cans of worms... perhaps they they were, in fact. worm sacrifices. Of a big worm and a small worm, respectively. Haploidavey (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for barging in but it is not correct to state that as a rule male deities received castrated animals: it was the opposite, only Jupiter received them. I say this en passant, I will check my sources for further instances if any.Aldrasto11 (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, and please don't apologise - the more the merrier (or so one hopes). I'm none too sure of this myself, but I think you're right. Scheid (? who I believe is the cited source) says something like "deities of the upper world (or heavens) with strong connections to the earth are offered fertile animals" - examples include Neptune, Mars and the genius of the emperor. As far as I recall, only Jupiter gets the bos mas; but I could well be wrong. Memory's not what it was. So here's a copy and paste from the cited page: "In the Roman ritual, the male gods received castrated male animals (with the exception of Mars, Neptune, Janus, and the Genius)". And something I find downright confusing, from p. 173 of the same work (different author), in connection with the probatio victimae: "Bos mas in this context indicates a fully procreative bull, and not – as has been held in the past – an ox." Obviously, bos mas is a male bovine. But why the distinction between that and taurus? And what's the Latin for "castrated bovine"? I'm not sure where I (and thou) get the idea that the bos mas is a castrated bull reserved to Jupiter, or whether the idea is justified by ancient or modern sources. Haploidavey (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gérard Capdeville, Substitution de victimes dans les sacrifices d'animaux à Rome, Mélanges de l'Ecole française de Rome, Antiquité, 1971, 83. See comment on p.299, and footnote on taurus as possibly generic. [8] Haploidavey (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The writers of res rusticae don't beat around the bush: from them I see taurus or bos construed with castratus.  davidiad { t } 17:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though it doesn't speak directly to this, Varro, RR 2.5.6 might support the idea that taurus alone sometimes meant a castrated bull: quae sterilis est vacca, taura appellata; quae praegnas, horda.  davidiad { t } 18:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, thanks for that. I guess it supports Capdeville's footnote. Haploidavey (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was told the other day that we aren't allowed even to look at primary sources in order to understand what secondary sources say. We are permitted only to transcribe mindlessly, and never ask which meaning is intended by a word of multiple meanings in a secondary source, even if it's evident from the primary source passage what the secondary source means to say. I merely report this, without any affect whatever, as those who know my bland demeanor will recognize. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, affectless don't add up to a heap of them green things on this here talk-page. Here's lookin' at you... Haploidavey (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sources include Capdeville, Dumezil (see my edits in Jupiter) and Sini. Primary ones I can think of now Macrobius book III, Ovid Fasti I 588. In all other cases were male for male gods, I think (not sure, e.g. Veiovis a goat and what about Saturn?).Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two quick things. One, at Commons I found that someone had categorized every image of Roman bull sacrifice under "taurobolium". I mention that only as an indication of possible misconception floating around.

Two, Lucan's description of what may or may not be the Amburbium mentions Cybele. The passage is quoted at the article. I didn't spend time pursuing this, but thought I'd point it out. It had to do with the lavatio. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dallied so long, and the topic is so daunting, that I won't have much for Cupid again this year. (Yes, this is the second year I've been aiming to do something to that article.) I do want to make a gesture or two. So far, however, I don't have a source that states flat-out that Cupido was not a deity who received cult, even though I can't recall seeing even a little votive inscribed to him. If you know of or see such a thing—something that makes clear the status of Cupido as a "god" among the Romans—please do fling it in my grateful path. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait—A Companion to Roman Religion p. 199, Cupid among the figures in a lararium. A small lead. I suspect winged Genii/Cupids are the way to look for this, and the Etruscan Lasa. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a sound suspicion. Last time I searched for cults to Cupid/Amor/Eros and Venus, I found nothing at all. Neither positive, nor negative. It's a whacking great gap in the Venus article. Cupid in the lararium is at least something. And Ovid's "twin Cupids" are interesting, (first line of Fasti, book 4, and footnoted as Eros and Anteros in the translations I've read)... all those twins... dioscuri... founding twins... genii... Anyway, I reckon the generic Lasa fit the bill. I'll let you know if I find anything at all. Do you have access to this? I don't, at the mo; but later today, perhaps... OK, got it now. Haploidavey (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a couple of refs that say he received no veneration, while simultaneously finding a source who points out a passage in Cicero's Verrines where he says plainly that there was a sacrarium where Cupid was venerated jointly with Hercules: Item ante hos deos erant arulae, quae cuivis religionem sacrari significare possent, "Also, in front of those gods there were little altars which should be sufficient to indicate the religio of this sacrarium." SInce I'm just trying to sketch in some themes this year, I'm not going to pursue anything with my usual doggedness, but Cupid and Augustus is an interesting thing, if you read the Roman section I put in last night. Typically, Ovid's allegiance to Cupid is viewed as one of his anti-Apollonian gestures of "up yours" to Augie, but it may fall into the category of rival imagery. Don't have time to look at what informed dudes may say, but the Cupid-Iulus connection (which is surely a Vergilian fiction, not a myth?) and the commemoration of a dead child heir as Cupid also suggests that in the Augustan period you start to get some interplay between Genii and Cupidines, the latter of which are ubiquitous on child sarcophagi. Unfortunately, I can only see part of the section on sarcophagi Cupids in the book on the subject. And there are so many weird and major themes missing in the article. Cupid and the bees! Great stuff. Hard not to keep it from being overly art historical, but mainly that's what Cupid is. I love the stained Cupid. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes...I met with a peculiar case, Faunus. The mysterious son of Picus and god of the Italic peoples is indeed identified with Lupercus by Lactantius. First I believed his name means the favourable but my readings led me to change my mind and now everything looks to fit. Faunus has been more correctly interpreted by linguists as meaning the strangler, attribute or epithet of the wolf. This fits with a series of facts such as the lycanthropic Lupercus and the Latin Lupercalia that Varro relates to the Arcadian Lykaia. It should probably be seen as a sort of primitive cult of shepherd people, of clear apotropaic and tabooistic nature. Another intriguing detail is the name of Dauni, which is the equivalent Fauni, and the widespread occurrence of the name Lucera, Lykairia in Italy and elsewhere. Also the third Roman tribe Luceres, which is usually considered Etruscan, would more probably be of Daunian origin. Their presence in western Italy is certain til the eighth century. Compare the Rutulians of Ardea.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the Hindu god with four faces? I saw a statue by chance... Thanks for the attention.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Sorry a brief search on wiki helped me answer this question by myself. It looks it is the supreme god Brama. This confirms my view that Janus is nothing else that that the supreme god Heaven as Paul and John the Lydian said. He corresponds to Greek Ouranus.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm wanting to make two GA nominations within G&R project scope, one in literature and one in 'mythology', and I was wanting to nominate Cybele as the latter. Don't want to do it unless you're around, though. I had two or three questions about it first. Hope everything's OK. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wish to remark that the most likely etymology is from verb angere, which denotes the pain caused by constriction, such as in angina (throat in sore throat or chest in angina pectoris), in winter usually caused by cold angor, angitiae. Note that Angerona's festival was at the end of the year and she was pictured with her finger across her lips, indicating bearing one's pain in silence as Macrobius points out. I consider Angitia's connection to anguis, snake, as a folk etymology based on the healing character of the goddess. Compare angustus narrow, angustia narrow point, angustiae anguish, in Italian angoscia anguish, in Ligurian angôscia nuisance.Aldrasto11 (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did naughty things to Cybele while you were gone. In my defense, I needed to explain "holy week" when I created Martius (month). Cynwolfe (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're a very bad wolf but you've done nice work on both. I suppose that some time or other we'll need to slightly reduce your detailed addition to the Cybele article, or rather, use it as an almost entire replacement of the possibly misnamed Hilaria article. Quite apart from the enormous gaps in coverage at Cybele - theological and cosmological developments, transgender issues, the role of women etc - I'm having trouble organising that article. For various reasons, which might include the fact that I really don't understand a lot of the material I'm trying to organise. I think I need to very carefully re-read my sources, with an open mind rather than looking for Stuff. Haploidavey (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A sort of chronology of theological developments and literary/artistic representations seems to be the way to go with Cybele and Attis. That's what I saw you as doing anyway. And then maybe separate sections following on temples and priesthoods? I considered dumping my week at Hilaria, but there are two problems: Hilaria is also the name of a festival for Isis, so it seems to be a type of ceremony, and not a particular festival. I would see it as like a lavatio, which Cybele gets during the holy week in March, but which Venus gets in April. Second, Hilaria is properly just the name for the one day. I haven't seen a name for the week of ceremonies as whole, whether or not it was fully developed under Claudius (which I personally doubt) or developed up to the time of Antoninus Pius, about whom I need to know much more. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much as I'd planned, yes (and am currently on Plan 24a). As ever, you've thought it through very clearly. I'm swimming through - meaning, of course, a slow crawl, rather than effortless butterfly - the extended relationships between the Galli, Attis and Cybele. Still a bit of a shadow-world, but the odd flash comes through the mists. I've not got as far as Pius, yet. Haploidavey (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just hi. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just learned of the existence of

Flamen Divi Iulii. Didn't see your name in the edit history. Doubts raised after making one edit. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh... dear lord. The things that lurk in unknown corners... I suppose we can't just delete stuff wholesale... can we? If not, big fixy-fixy to be done. Haploidavey (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. A little digging in the article substrate and the talk-page reveals all manner of interesting relics. The whole is based on a Citizendium article started in 2007, seemingly abandoned since, not yet peer reviewed or approved, and authored by one who has worked alongside Francesco Carotta. Thus, I guess, the uncited claim (in our version at least) that the Seven churches of Asia are founded on sites originally dedicated to... stone me, guess who! "Our" version cites some good sources but several less so, and some of the article text seems to misrepresent both. Best rebuilt from the ground up, I think. Haploidavey (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. INeverCry 21:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pashupati may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• as one of five systems, namely [[Sankhya]], [[Yoga]], [[Pancharatra]], [[Veda]] and Pashupata). The school was propagated in the 2nd century AD by Lakulisa, who is described in the [[Puranas]]

Thanks,

]

Ha, you only thought you had become technically dextrous! I got one of these recently too. They must be new. Typo alert, danger, dnager! I hope they develop a customizable spelling bot, so I can ask for alerts when my feeble eyes can't see the difference between I, i and L, l, or those round letters in pharaoh. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most modern typefaces seem to lack the clarity for which I yearn in every aspect of life and seldom find, particularly in me. I don't know if you remember, but I bought a replacement computer in a hurry last year, and being in a foolish hurry I failed to check the its keyboard qualities. It has a zillion keys/functions/groo that for me (and probably most users) are not only a waste of space. Some of its symbols are the size of the small-print on the back of very very small toothpaste tubes. And the keys are shifted to the left of what I was used to. Frankly, it's shit. And I'm no touch-typer, never have been and never will be. A heady mix, then, especially when coupled to the dim even-light or subdued room-light by which I must usually edit, my 'orrible 'ornery screen display, and an increasing propensity for dyspraxic (rather than perceptual) letter sequence reversals. As for you, perhaps you'd best just avoid Egypt?

While I'm here - your gadabout iter cereris reminded me of something other than the scarcity of satnavs in ancient days, and I just found it (the something). I'd send you a page-pic by mail, but that's beyond even my technical wizardry. So, if you ever come across Barri Jones and David Mattingly's An Atlas of Roman Britain, Blackwell reference, 1990 (hardback), take a look at Map 2:14 on p.31. It progresses the sequence of names given in the Ravenna Cosmography (citing the version in Rivet and Smith) to and fro across a modern map of Britain. It's, um, quite extraordinary; makes me ill to look at it. Magnificent, and hilarious. Ah, the lives of scholars. Haploidavey (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the guy who added external links you removed on Wiki page dedicated to Ischia last June 21. I read you message and I understand your point of view, but ... In "external links" section of the page I see other links that are as "inappropriate" at least as those suggested by me ... I'm talking about http://www.lastminutehotelischia.net/ http://www.hotelischia24.it/ So: why links suggested (better quality sites then those mentioned, to me) have been removed? Moreover I think that at least http://www.ischiaonline.it is absolutely "appropriate" :-). Hope to get news from you soon.

Oldlhsguy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldlhsguy (talk • contribs) 09:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's some categorization going on under the general heading of Roman religion. I'm not sure about some of it, but just wanted to put it on your radar too. Like, I'm not convinced that augury is a form of oracle. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed this somehow. As far as I can tell (and I do quite easily drown in this Category stuff, so that might not be telling much), Augurs and Oracles now fall alike within the larger Category of divination. Haploidavey (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was starting a stub on the so-called Servian constitution, but I now see that the Servian reforms section of Servius Tullius already has more info than I care to work through at the moment. I haven't pored over the edit history, but it sounds as if you may have written it. If this is so, could I ask you to cut and paste it into the new article? I want you to have credit for it, but I think it's too long a section in Servius's article, and since the attribution to him is usually regarded as doubtful, that material should really have its own article. You can either provide a summary section yourself, or I can, cuz I don't want to cause you work you hadn't planned to do. Just want your name as is deserved in the edit history, if I'm right about who wrote about the reforms. When the redlink turns blue, the new stub article will be ready, if you're willing to do this. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you, starting that. Please don't feel restrained; just go ahead - it 's good of you to ask, but honestly, such things don't trouble me. I probably wrote or rewrote most of the Servius T article, including the "Servian" reforms section - or at least, attempted to rationalise, rewrite and source it, based on Cornell - but it was a struggle, and it shows. Once I started, I found even the sparse material I had quite difficult to organise, and even harder to offer in due proportion, without overload for the poor reader. Let's face it, that caveat at the beginning of that section (more or less "Servian (?) reforms, or were they?") is sound argument (if argument we must have) for a separate article on the topic. So, yup; I've taken a look at your new stub, and realise that for the time being at least, I'm not up to a well-integrated cut-and-paste that won't immediately need its guts editing out (more work for someone else, namely you). It would just be more of the same... like my half-considered, languishing effort at "Roman omen" (in the gloamin'). And my self-confidence is more-or-less zilch. So yes, please carry on, if you wish. Haploidavey (talk) 09:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say - something or other (possibly several somethings) link to the headings from other articles. See the hidden note. I say this in case you're editing using VE - am never sure of its current glitches. Haploidavey (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you wrote it, I really want you to do the cut-and-paste, if you can spare a moment. Just copy that whole section and plop it after the intro to Servian constitution. I'll reduce the summary section at Servius Tullius, if that's a sticking point. I just need a link to Servian constitution that effectively removes it from the question of "Did S.T. really do all this?" At present, I'm not planning to do anything structural, just adding here-and-there observations as I come upon them in the scholarship that indicate how the topic relates to whatever I'm linking from. Your section presents a ready-made outline that saves me trouble. Your humility is charming, but what I'm recoiling from is taking credit for something I didn't do, which I hate hate hate. (You may have missed how I snarled when it was suggested that I had anything whatever to do with bringing Davidiad's Catalogue of Women to GA status. All I did was nominate it, and maybe adjust an image size or two. Does not a GA make. I also feel bad that GA articles to which I've been a major contributor aren't in my view GAs. This is why you don't see proud announcements on my user page. But that's another story.) I feel bad that in the past I've done major cutting-and-pasting without understanding attribution. I thought our contributions were surrendered anonymously, but when you print an article, contributors are listed by name. (Less humbly, that bothers me when I've completely replaced an article's content, and yet it get attributed to people whose contributions no longer exist there.) So that is a very long pleading when I probably could've said "pretty please, just cut-and-paste it". Cynwolfe (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How could I resist, after that? I saw the brief 'plaint about credits for the loverley Catalogue of Women. And I do know what you mean about the oftentimes disparities between lists of major contributors and actual contributions. And I wouldn't have you feeling bad, not for nowt. So I shall do a copy and paste, and (sooner or later) might even edit it, just a tiddly bit. Haploidavey (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Groovy. Thanks. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Servian constitution may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• as a fraction or equivalent of the ''as'', ''[[sesterce]]'' or [[denarius]] of later coinage). See Cornell, pp. 180 - 181.</ref> A citizen's wealth and class would therefore have defined

Thanks,

]

Such a fusspot. Haploidavey (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "fussbot".  davidiad { t } 01:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that. To ease my chagrin, let me embroider; it's a mincey-wincey nimminy-pimminy fussbot. Haploidavey (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But also fiendishly clever in its own narrow-minded fashion. It's tempting to fuckup on purpose, just for the sheer pleasure righting great brackety wrongs under its brackety auspices. Haploidavey (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just alerting you to this article in case you were unaware, as I had been till just now, of its existence. I haven't read it. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much to read, and possibly not much more to be written; re-written, perhaps, as it's not exactly overflowing with citations. I had no idea we had this; It's not a military title, as such, so I wonder why it was adopted within the Portal:Military of ancient Rome? It might better be merged into one of our articles on Roman honorifics - assuming we have such a thing. I do wonder, though, given the list of honorands and refuseniks, whether this has been linked (by scholarly sources) to the formal or informal institution of genius cult to living emperors, dictators, and other grandees - as seems more likely to me the more I think about it.

Btw, your article on Languages of the Roman Empire's entrancing, fascinating and beautifully written; I think it would achieve GA as it stands, with next to no additional sweat on your part (perhaps a mild glow, at most). I loved the compliment it received on your talk-page; that was spot-on. Haploidavey (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aww. I keep wondering why the section subheaded "Greek" is so short, but can't think of what exactly should go there that isn't covered throughout as more of a pervasive thing.

(Insert) Hm, the section might overemphasise Alexander's conquests; what about the Western settlements? There seems to be no mention in that section of the much earlier foundation of Greek trading colonies in Magna Graecia or the Northwestern littoral of the Mediterranean; nor those in Anatolia. Trade's surely an earlier and more pervasive instrument of dispersal than conquest? (I've now popped this question where it belongs, at Talk:Languages of the Roman Empire) Haploidavey (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a missing section at Roman Empire on "Family" (familia and gens), I would be mentioning the pater patriae concept as one thing Augustus did to position himself as paterfamilias of all Rome, and thus entitled to potestas over them—related also to the moral legislation pertaining to women, and making women with the "right of three children" sui iuris, as if he had the right to act in place of their father. Wanted to slim the thing a bit before I added anything else, though. I think the military boys like to see the emperor as "commander in chief". Cynwolfe (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. Paul August ☎ 12:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clever, innit? Haploidavey (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Been a while since I've seen one like this. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cripes... I doubt that it's even flammable. A redirect-in-waiting? Why do people do such things? What's to be gained? Am I naive? Haploidavey (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the oft-observed tendency to view the ancient Greeks and Romans as fictional characters, and to sensationalize everything about them. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure that sfn stands for so fucking needless. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darn tootin'. And its some fucking nerve when it gets all lawsy on our asses (there you go. I just created a something-or-other something-or-other nonce). You've definitely placed this under the right heading. And what a splendid category that would make. Haploidavey (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minerva. But not soon. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ever look at

mystery religions (now a redirect), IMHO. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Holy singularly persistent things arising from a barbarous underworld, Batman! I've linked to this a couple of times, and never read it. A treasure. Haploidavey (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you said the etymology was already covered in the "Name and Epithets" section on

, and so on. That's probably why I missed it in the first place.

Attys (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, though I have to say, there's no truly standard place to place etymologies. Some articles have them up top. some not. Many articles carry an etymology in pride of place but I'd hazard a guess that for many (if not most) readers, that's not a priority. It's not always logical to position the history of a word or name before the thing (Deity, cult or what-have-you) it describes. Someone else might remove your link. Haploidavey (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"and haven't a clue what sfn is - or didn't until I looked it up; it terrified me"

Citation templates can be daunting at first, but in the long run it allows for a homogeneous style that can be easily changed and automatic checking for anomalies. The place to start to get a grip of the subject is the guideline section in the citation guideline to which

redirects. That describes how to use short citations without templates.

The details of how to develop that further can be found in

• Help:Footnotes
• Help:Shortened footnotes

However all those details can be complicated for users unfamiliar with templates, so there is a graphics front end already available, built into the edit bar.

When you edit a page using the [edit source] tab at the top of an article, a bar is placed on the top of the edit box with a large "B" on the left and a Cite on the right. Click on the Cite produces another edit bar on the left you can select a template name such as "cite book" this you can fill out in a popup window. For more details on this see Wikipedia:RefToolbar/2.0

Once you become familiar with citation templates like {{

]

Roman Triumph of Charles V

Thanks for the comment on my talk page. I'm still hunting for a citation for its being specifically the last. (I found a good one on its being seen as a Roman triumph that I'm about to add.) I've seen it cited elsewhere in Wikipedia as the last Roman triumph, but I may just be passing bad information further along--which of course is the danger of Wikipedia--akin to that in the famous "Citogenesis" xkcd webcomic. I'm going to keep digging, and drop the claim if I can't find any solid cite in the next week or so. (I'm enough of an eventualist in my editing philosophy to give myself a week.) BTW: Your work in general on that "Roman Triumph" article is just fantastic! Very impressive stuff. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found one more that really is "too good not to use" as you put it in your edit summary just now, but I promise that after I add it in a second, it'll be the last one. It's a real pleasure working with you, btw. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The scholarship I'm using is so old that much of it is barely "scholarship" anymore by today's standards, so I appreciate the tip! This is what happens when I source stuff online using public domain sources, instead of having a proper library. I figured the fact that this was coming from old martyrologies meant that it was almost certainly sketchy, but it's still an interesting detail. Perhaps the best solution is to add something at the end of the sentence pointing out the unreliability? I'll try to write something like that now. Thanks again, Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to have a handy citation where one is needed at this new article? Don't spend effort; I'm just being lazy and trying to take a shortcut. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look... it's a lovely article. Lamps are nice. And I've lately returned from the Pompeii exhibition... sigh. But am now stuck in what I hope is a brief period of ireful disgust. Having spent the best part of the afternoon producing two sections of readable, lively prose on Triumphal processions and their logistics - seriously, it was one of my better-to-best efforts - I forgot to click "save". And then I closed the window. Oh shit, shit and double shit. When will I learn.... Haploidavey (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Been there. You should see the marvelous revision I made of Bellona (goddess) that I somehow lost. Have never regained the heart to go back. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The state of dismay, I mean. Not "been there" meaning the exhibition, you lucky dog. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I so wish you could see it (not the state of dismay; I've kind of re-written the vanished bits, but nowhere near...). You'd love it; everything's there... you name it. The last "exhibit" was unspeakably moving; enlightening and troubling; emotionally bewildering but ultimately so life-affirming. Actually, the catalogue's pretty damn fine; though like the reconstructions of vanished articles, not at all the same... Haploidavey (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you editing at right this moment? If so, drop a note at my talk page. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment on my talk page. It's pleasant to meet a gentleman travelling through the internet. Apuldram (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Had to share this. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

agggggh! Haploidavey (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather disqualifies it as meeting standards for RS, ya think? Cynwolfe (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schuré. Haploidavey (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Pompeii exhibition had this lararium; anyway, I gave it a good long scrute, and was much taken by the little assembly above the altar - see the pinecone (erm,"pineapple") there? Sandwiched between two eggs rampant and flames gules? Now isn't that something... Haploidavey (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I always think of the Celtic "ram"-headed serpent when I see these crested and bearded slinkies. The Celtic ones often come in pairs too. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody's pulling our collective leg fer shur. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's spooky. The IPs are nowhere near each other, geographically. What a perverse fruit it is. Haploidavey (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the previous comments on the Prometheus Science section. Could you maybe look at the Cynwolfe Talk page discussion section on Prometheus and maybe leave your quick view on whether the current Science section in the article belongs there or maybe might belong on the "Prometheus in Popular Culture" Page. Thanks. 209.3.238.62 (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When did we get an infobox at Demeter? I don't take sides on the infamous infobox wars, which have evidently claimed the wikilives of several editors, but if there's to be an infobox, why a Roman representation of Demeter instead of the image that was discussed on the talk page? Cynwolfe (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, been putting this off... this and another. Putting this off, because to me (in my faded enthusiasm) infoboxes in this particular subject area seem more trouble than they're worth. Putting off the other, because... well, I guess we'll come to that. Anyhow, on Demeter; the edit history shows what might be a recreation of the infobox afresh, by a good-faith user. Most of their contributions seem to be in other subject areas, and it seems possible that they've not read the relevant talk-page discussion. I'm going to be bold, remove the infobox entirely, and see what happens. I'd rather not see this endless recycling of the same old same old problems. Haploidavey (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've already done it, I see. So much for my tawkin' big. Haploidavey (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I'm feeling so wiki-irritated (wikitated?) at the moment. I should probably take a break, or do something utterly routine and Augean that requires no intellectual engagement. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was at Commons this morning looking at Numa images, and found a sculpted vase from Versailles called (or more precisely file-titled) Numa Entrusting the Care of the Sacred Fire to the Vestals. I moved the series of photos of it to the Numa category on the basis of the file title, but when I look more closely, it doesn't seem to illustrate that subject even allowing for the whims of 17th-century classical mythology. If you would be interested in taking a look, see here. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having great difficulty making out just what the vase shows. There's a small youthful figure - mebbe a statue - with ladies doing it major homage. Some soldiers... more whispily clad ladies... but Numa? Vestals? Surely not. I found a better pic of what looks like the same vase; it's titled exactly the same, and leaves me none the wiser (while this doesn't surprise me, it suggests a worthy puzzle or pastime for the rest of the evening. That's sad, I know. But hey, I caught a possible error in Humphrey (of the Roman Circus book), on the Frangipani family in relation to Titus' triple arch in the Circus; I was extraordinarily, unreasonably chuffed. I guess that's even a little more sad than the other). Haploidavey (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if this has been the scene's description for quite a while.  davidiad { t } 22:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, your text says that the other vase shows "a feast of Bacchus". I think our photographer - or captioneer - has very likely confused one vase with the other. In enlarged mode, the Commons photos show more detail. The small figure on the pedestal seems like a youthful Dionysus, complete with thyrsus twined with vine or ivy leaves. One of the "Vestals" is waving another thyrsus. Then there's the goat, who probably has no idea of the treat in store for it. I've no idea what the soldiers are doing there (maybe best not to ask) but if those ladies are Vestals, I'm a tart. Better still, a Bacchante. Haploidavey (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some scrutiny later, here's my take on the Versailles Vase pics at Numa Pompillius' Commons page. There's simply not the space for all those figures on one vase. The pics show both vases. The first two show Numa and the Vestals; I'll venture (as personal opinion and OR) that the last two pics show the other side of the same vase, with idling soldiers as possible reference to Numa's peaceful reign. The other vase (pics 3 through to 7) depicts a Bacchic rite. Haploidavey (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be right. My geometry is rusty, but circles had 360 degrees in public schools here in the 90s.  davidiad { t } 12:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They did? Such luxury. In the 50's we were only allowed 10 degrees per circle, and 30 circles in any given week. I guess this was something to do with post-war rationing. One gets used to such economies - I have only two degrees, myself. Haploidavey (talk) 12:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit ^beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 100 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to add At its peak of development. Population estimates range from 35,000 to 41,000 people.<ref>{{cite book|last=Allchin|first=Bridget|title=The Rise of Civilization in India and Pakistan|year=1982|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0521285506|page=180|url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=r4s-YsP6vcIC&pg=PA180&dq=Mohenjo-daro+population&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OMRbUpToH-m10QXu04CwBg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Mohenjo-daro%20population&f=false|authorlink=Bridget Allchin|coauthors=Raymond Allchin|authorlink=F. Raymond Allchin}}</ref> But there was an edit conflict. You obviously found a more recent source. I've posted to the editor's talk page about using 16 year old bloggers as sources.

]

SMSR

This review of the university of Rome is online to 1976. I think you may be interested in Bona Dea by Giulia Piccaluga. I am mostly interested in the Lupercalia which I think can be proved to be a rite of regicide: dying god/king and scapegoat, i.e. a classical totem.Aldrasto11 (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SMSR?  davidiad { t } 05:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The complete name of this mag is: Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni published since 1925. For those who read Italian is a very useful source with high level articles by Angelo Brelich, Giulia Piccaluga, Dario Sabbatucci and many other Italian scholars.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh ... and ahhh.  davidiad { t } 06:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good article. But could be better...Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of

]

Year of the Five Emperors Educational Assignment

Hello,

As you noted, this is a class project, and I was wondering if you could help us complete it? We were unsure of how to complete the references section and what belongs in the articles and what does not. I also understand a few of my sources are not reliable, but they can easily be removed because the other sources cover the same information. So I'm asking, what would you like us to do and if you could help us?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klemm8 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment, we do not have any special pages or anything dedicated to this assignment, we were sort of just thrown into it as guinea pigs. I believe the talk page on the Year of the Five Emperors page would be the best place to create a discussion. I am revising my section on Didius Julianus as we speak. Thanks for responding! Klemm8 (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)klemm8[reply]

I think we are going to try to revise our information and sources and try to put it back up, but we are unsure of how to correctly create a references page and have a monday deadline for the project before our class ends. Our instructor has stated that it would be okay if we do not succeed in getting the page created, she is happy with our effort. But we will try to put the page back up and if it is not sufficiently created you may take it back down again. Thank you for all your help! Klemm8 (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)klemm8[reply]

Dear Haploidavey, I'm stuck away in Asia with limited internet contact (for this kind of message anyway). WPEditor has reversed the change to Common Era dates at both

]

This is canvassing and therefore your opinion on this issue has been tainted, Haploidavey. Consequently you have no place participating in Mzilikazi's 2nd Aesop edit war. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]

The idea that canvassed editor's cannot participate in a discussion is nonsense. And I don't think the accusation of inappropriate canvassing holds water. It is ok to contact "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)".

talk) 13:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Spamington Bear

Hey Davey, just FYI, I think I got a pretty convincing fishing attempt from your email a couple days ago ... if that was you, could you resend?  davidiad { t } 01:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, There has been some changes and talk here about the images, but as usual little change to the text. I noticed your very interesting comment from June 2009 and would love you to use your experience on this and related articles - that was early days for you I think. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This post has been in place for nearly two years, and it deserves both a response and apology; sorry, Johnbod for not answering before now. "Stuff" has been going on, and I've not been in adequate frame of mind to deal with my own perishin' talk page. Your Farnese Hercules edit stirred things long dormant and bronzy (hmmm). Haploidavey (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, little has changed at Bronze sculpture, as one might expect. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

]

Disambiguation link notification for December 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gladiator, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Venator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Roman gladiator types, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greaves (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 15:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Giovanni Battista Piranesi may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• degli Edifici di Pesto'', (Remains of the Edifices of [[Paestum]]) a collection of views of Paestum).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

]

nevis.lewis

Would You please delete my account on wikipedia and remove all of my personal information regarding it. I Sincerely am much obliged.

]

Responded at user's talk. Haploidavey (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear Mr. Haploidavey. I noticed your long period of absence and recently it was a very welcome surprise reading your signature again on some of the articles I edited. I am now researching the Lupercalia and the main point of my analysis is that they are a rehearsal of a shamanistic rite which involves a totemic sacrifice in the person of the king. I am interested in the ideas advanced by Wiseman on the identity of the twins on the Praenestine mirror: I just read a bit on google books some years ago and I remember he says the mirror represents the scene of the myth told by Ovid Fasti II about the nymph Lara and her rape by Mercurius. I also remeber he argues the children should have been born in May (if I am not mistaken): Ovid speaks of the Lares Praestites in book V. This would put the rape in August and probably he should argue that the old Roman year began in August (this is an assumption of mine I did not read all the relevant passage). Finally in his opinion the scene of the mirror is that the myth of the birth of the Lares P. was borrowed to create the legend of R. R.? I ask you because I could not read more and I wish to avoid misunderstanding the scholar's assumptions. Thank you for your attention. Aldrasto 11 My address signature does not work...14:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a sock. Doug Weller talk 19:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For being both generously helpful and awesome, it is my pleasure to bestow the following:

Please feel free to post this on your user page, and pass it on if the Smiley spirit moves you! All the best... SeaBeeDee 15:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC) SeaBeeDee 15:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeaBeeDee (talk • contribs)

Re this edit, actually "Cronus" is the "standard spelling" in the sense of the most popular (though in academia "Kronos" might be more common). Of course in the case of your revert those were quotes, which need to be spelled as they were written. Regards, Paul August ☎ 20:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. So much for knee-jerk reverts. I even read the pre-kronos edit as "Cronus". All is lost... Haploidavey (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surely not all ;-) Paul August ☎ 20:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, well maybe just the greater half (see what I mean?) Haploidavey (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just got your respond on my own page. I'm just new to this whole thing, and I will definitely start to research before I click. Sorry about the whole roman roads deal. I appreciate the time you took to respond to me, and I hope we can collaborate in future on other things, and I will start to check my links beforehand. Sincerely, W4L0CK ⚚ 16:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haploidavey. Thanks for the explanatory note posted on my talk page. On reflection I agree with your reversion of the Etruscan edit - the cloak has a broad resemblance in profile to the toga but then so does almost every other ankle-length over-garment of this type, regardless of era or culture.

The Libyan connection claim is almost certainly a red-herring. I have source references illustrating traditional Libyan tribal dress (as worn on occasion up to the Gadaffi era) which does resemble elements of the toga, but this would appear to be a climate-based coincidence rather than an unlikely link between Berbers and Romans. Best take it out entirely.

Regards Buistr (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the intro of the Toga article from the fact that it was nearly exclusively worn by men to that it was initially worn by both sexes, and the stola was later introduced. Do you have a source for this, and can you please add it? As far as I know, this is not true, so a reference would be most desirable. Thanks, ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to add the reference(s) asap; but I'm a little bogged down in said references at the moment, so by all means tag the statement for citation if you wish. Should be able to deal with it over the next few hours or so. Best, Haploidavey (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citation added (presuming you're watching this page). Haploidavey (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! If not, you can always ping. See Template:reply to. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Your work on FAC some day soon. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 18:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply ]

I think I will block this editor. Look at the sources:[9], [10], [11] and [12]. No Nazha, no Arnouk. Doug Weller talk 16:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's exactly how I checked. The editor protested rather too much, eh?Haploidavey (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't bother. He seems to have given up trying to justify his claims, see User talk:Chadi Saliby. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw, and was in awe. All sorts of adjectives come to mind. Collegiate is not one of them. Haploidavey (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I spent quite a bit of time on Wilkens years ago, eg[13] and [14] - there's a lot more out there that I wrote. Doug Weller talk 15:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good man! I'll read those right now. Somewhere or other I've read - either with reference to Wilkens or in his work (?) - a wonderfully down-to-earth bit of speculative chin stroking, as in "how and where did the guys in the wooden horse void their bowels?" Ever practical, and indeed, one does wonder. Haploidavey (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for your excellent work in improving numerous articles related to ancient history. I enjoyed reading some of these articles even in their original unimproved state, but I enjoy them even more after you have brought them back to verifiable and historically meaningful reality. MPS1992 (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]