User talk:Davidiad/2012

My 1991 Loeb for S7 indicates 1 whole line missing and part of another. So, if you think it needs it, add another line of dots. The Bromhead translation/paraphrase captures the silkiness of the original and its old-fashioned versification is also apt since Stesichorus was largely in Homer's shadow. If you can find better poetry, replace it, but I doubt that you will. Maybe you can add a note about lack of mummy bandages in Bromhead's time, which means he didn't have all the evidence he needed to guess the structure of the verse, or maybe you can comment about Strabo's quote, which is the original source and which surely didn't set the quote out in the Loeb manner. Anyway, please yourself. The article is now ancient history for me. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 06:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tanks for letting me know what Campbell has on the page. I'm far from a copy of the Page or Davies editions (or Hutchinson's commentary, which might cover this fr.), so I won't fiddle with anything and will be sure to leave alone your silky neo-ancient Bromhead, if ever I really touch the article, that is. Happy belated New Year, or does time go in the opposite direction for the antipodes? In which case, Happy Last Year. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 06:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We always get there before you do, Bozo. New Zealand gets there sooner but nobody bothers about them, except us of course. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 06:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I'm pretty sure that, like toilet water on TV, time travels in the opposite direction down there. That's why Australians never age. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 07:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it all wrong. Here in the southern hemisphere, we always grow UP, but in the northern hemisphere people hang by their toes and always grow DOWN. That is scientific fact. Think about that the next time you go to the toilet. Now if you don't mind, I have more important things to do. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you have been doing some edits to Satires (Horace). The article needs renaming as they aren't really satires at all. Satura is not really the same as Satire. 'Sermones' would be more accurate since that's the name H himself gave to them. You might take that matter up with your fellow gangsters at the CGR. I'll work under the present title, if I ever do get around to that article, but it is better changed. Also changes will need to be made to the Epodes article, since it lumps H with others, whereas his Epodes deserve an article of their own. Maybe 'Epodes' (Horace). Or keep the present article for Horace and give the genre its own article, as 'Epodes (genre)' Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're definitely right that a strictly Horatian Epodes article is a huge desideratum. It could usurp "Epodes" (just a redirect to Epode), since the other notable ancient authors who composed in the genre are pre-"Book Culture" folk and won't be getting their own epodes articles. Epode could then be fleshed out as the genre article, taking account of everything from Archilochus to Rome (and perhaps even up to Gregory of Nazianzus).

Moving Satires (Horace) to Sermones might be less likely to fly with the CGR posse since the collection is more often referred to by the current headword in modern scholarship (the OCD has even begun using the abbreviation Sat.). I'm ambivalent on the matter, as apparently is the American OG who's made his career writing on these poems. (But note that he says his forthcoming Green and Yellow is on "the second book of Horace's Sermones".) The Satires article right now is inconsistent, at least in the abbreviations. Anyway, some of my Latinist friends and I were marveling at just how poor and/or underdeveloped the Horace articles are, so it would be great if your Gang of One could get to them. Thug Luv. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 00:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What wonderful work you're doing there, and with such readable prose! I just bannered it for the Women's History project (which has fairly stringent criteria for inclusion), mainly because of the section Catalogue of Women#The Women. (You do realize you used the dreaded word "misogyny"?) Do you foresee expanding that section eventually? Cynwolfe (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cynwolfe! I should be doing most of that off-line, since there are so many placeholders like the introductory sentence to "The Women". There are—perhaps surprisingly ... no, absolutely unsurprisingly—very few Catalogue-specific gender pieces, but enough to sustain a section without engaging in undue synthesis. (Kirk Ormand is writing a book that he used to describe with more of a focus on issues of gender, but which is now "on the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women and archaic Greek culture.") You'll definitely have to give the section a good once over once it's good and drafted: you're far more engaged with the over-arching discourse than I am.

As for "misogyny", luckily enough the word is used constantly, sometimes in very dimwitted ways, regarding Hesiod, so no one will be able to accuse me of casual stridency, which I assume to be what was really going on with lupanar. They seem to be able to bear it with respect to overt violence and hatred toward the feminine, but once it becomes a matter of analysis, even in the case of a fairly transparent metaphor like lupa, then "misogyny" becomes a modern activist imposition and not a viable part of the scholarly lexicon. Still, I hope to see on this talk page soon a string of comments punctuated with "Screw you ... Guess what BUDDY ... Jackass." — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 01:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And even though you may be able to string together eleven footnotes that use the word "misogyny," and they can't cite a single source to contradict, you'll hear cries of "non-neutral," based on the misguided notion that neutrality means never explaining social attitudes or moral judgments, rather than a neutral disposition of sources. I think it's based also on a feeling that the ancient Greeks and Romans themselves wouldn't have distinguished between "woman-hating" attitudes, and a regard for social customs that treat women as categorically different from men. It may be a distinction without a difference, but I can see attitudes toward women in antiquity that regard them as inferior in some way (not entitled to vote, for instance) because women's contribution to society was supposed to be domestic rather than public. I personally would disagree with feminists who would find misogyny in the Odyssey, for instance, on the grounds that Penelope is too passive and doesn't act in a way that we might choose as a role model; that seems like an anachronistic judgment to me, and rather misses the point of trying to understand another culture. Anyway, I'm not sure I would ever care to participate in trying to write the article on misogyny (though glancing there I note a long section on Ancient Greece, with an image of Cicero), but an identifiable strand of misogyny in ancient Greek literature is a well-established topic in scholarship, and it's certainly non-neutral to try to dismiss it, especially if you can't come up with sources that counter with "there is no such thing as misogyny in ancient Greek literature because the concept is an anachronism." Even then, you have to acknowledge it as a topic in the scholarship. And in an unrelated matter, I'm in no mood to revert my self-exile, but you were kind to think to. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Catalogue hasn't caught the eyes of the archest feminists yet, but commonly tossed off assessments run along the lines of: The women only exist and are only described in their relation to men: their beauty, their procreative potential, their faithfulness or lack thereof. Superficially accurate, but only slightly more so than it is interesting. What genre of ancient literature could this statement not be applied to uncritically? Approaching the women of the Catalogue is complicated by the genre and the poem's place within early Greek literature. It's to some great extent paradigmatic and as such the models hover around two dimensions:

ἠ' οἵη κούρη Σπυρίου, Λουκρητία καλή,

would not have been too foreign. The Catalogue also preserves folk elements that are largely sanitized in the Homeric poems, which are only found in hints in lyric and on the Attic stage; it might very well be our best witness not only to early constructions of the Greek woman, but also, in a muted fashion, to a popular tradition of women's literature that had few public outlets in the classical tradition (so Lillian Doherty).

What I really find interesting is the role of gender in the reception of the Catalogue in antiquity, Renaissance Italy and in the early days of modern philology. An article on this has been rattling around my head for a while, but it is well in the offing. — the cardiff | chestnut — 19:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed your edit to Horace, titled: iam tum, cum ausus es unus Viciorum | saeculis replicare Horatiana. I hope you don't mean me when you talk about unus Viciorum. It should be unum vitiorum or unus vitiosorum in that case. I can take insults as well as dish them out, Bastard! And shouldn't that be saecula? I have heard of aetas Horatiana but saecula Horatiana is new to me. Maybe you didn't mean it like that. My advice to you is not to use Latin unless you know what you are doing with it, or you might end up insulting somebody. Perhaps you quoted it from somewhere, in which case you have misunderstood the context. Please be more careful in future otherwise I'll have to take some serious action against you. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

saeculis was a ham-handed attempt at maintaining the hendecasyllable of the Catullan model: "daring to remake Horatiana (neut. plural) for the ages" or "in the ages" (abl. time when), i.e. the reception sections that you've been working on, but saeculos would be better for the latter, "though the ages". In any event, please don't report me: I'll stick to Greek composition from here on out, but these will likely be scurrilous choliambs. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 03:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, did I just write saeculos ... masculine ... ? I clearly have no idea what I'm talking about. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 03:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using a Mac laptop (should you be surprised?) and typos are common this end too. I must admit I genuinely had trouble processing Viciorum until I googled it and found it was medieval for Vitiorum. Looking forward to those choliambs. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Serendipity: you get your insult after all. (Though it won't scan.) I was forcing it to be Vīcǐī, inhabitants of a Wiki, but will claim to have internalized the medieval spelling in my great erudition. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 03:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo
Cardiff pathice et cinaede Chestnut,
qui me ex versiculis meis putastis,
quod sunt molliculi, parum pudicum!

Put that in your hendecasyllables! Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damn you, it's perfect. λάβετέ μευ ταἰμάτια, κόψω Γαζάκωι τὸν ὀφθαλμόν., Kardiphonax fr. 120. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 04:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can beat that: λάβετέ μευ ταἰμάτια, κόψω Βουπάλου τὸν ὀφθαλμόν., Hipponax fr. 120, quoted from Suda. There is another paraphrase in Aristophanes Lysistrata 360 sq. Hipponax started it, I don't know who Kardiphonax is, but he doesn't beat Hipponax on his own, let alone Hipponax and Aristophanes. Go home to your wife before she milks the goats dry, Mopsus. These hills belong to me. Menalcas

Oh now I got you - Cardi-wot-not. Still, you don't beat Hipponax and Aristophanes. McΓαζάκος

Yep, pretty tricky character, here. But I still fudged it: I don't think Γάζακος is ever used of people. but Γαζαῖος would have killed the choliamb. — Καρδιφῶναξ | τὰ βρύτεα — 11:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Nestar, a sock-puppet of Gomez, is trying to give the false impression that his paper has been published. See the article on Aristarchus. Also see the article on Sizes and Distances. Actually, the 40 days are not over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.84.114 (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be doing the same thing with his article on al-Biruni. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.84.114 (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look, but don't really feel like getting into any controversies right now. — the cardiff | chestnut — 19:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Richard Janko, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weston Underwood (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) 10:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday nights tend to drag slowly these days, and I must amuse myself with such acts of petty vengeance. Blame it on age and bad character. Anyway, the template's in the Twinkle welcome menu, under "Potential problem users". That's fifth down - "Welcomeunsourced: for someone whose initial efforts are uncited". Enjoy! Haploidavey (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tanks. My Saturday evenings are currently equally exciting. — cardiff | chestnut — 00:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had the happy occasion today to look at, for the first time in a long while, Catalogue of Women, and as it was very much better than I remembered or imagined it would be, I looked at the history and found your work. Well done! Paul August ☎ 15:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Paul! I really have to finish that soon (started in August), but have had little time for WP these days. Such a queer and wonderful poem. — cardiff | chestnut — 16:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for fixing the Theseus page. I knew the page still had errors, but I didn't know how to fix them correctly. Finally it looks right. Best, --Jsderwin (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, I went to check the older revisions and the bizarre format I saw wasn't there. It must have just shown up in my browser that way for some reason. Not quite sure the reason, but thanks for undoing my edit!

Best, --Jsderwin (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I should have left an edit summary, but was in a hurry (not a good excuse). It wasn't a figment of your browser's imagination: an IP messed with the Hades template, removing the last class and leaving the table unclosed, so every page with that box displayed it incorrectly and then took on the style of the template, with its 90% sized text. (I only noticed this because of your edit.) Since the template's fixed, the problem disappears from Theseus' history. If only his youthful indiscretion with Helen could be so easily forgotten. Happy editing — cardiff | chestnut — 15:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah the mystery solved! Yes, that was what I saw, but it was beyond my editing skills. I was hoping my small edit might draw some attention. I couldn't read the text it was so small. Looks great now. As for Theseus, a timeout in Hades can be a most reflective endeavor.

Thanks for explaining the situation with that page to me! Best, --Jsderwin (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Catalogue of Women, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arsinoe (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) 19:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recently submitted an edit for the name of {}, which I know as "nipple braces", as it was the name I knew I heard in school since youth. This edit was reverted. I looked for citations for alternative names and could find none. All names should be considered with equal merit or all should be removed for lack of citation. Nipple brackets, like goose pimples, is the local vernacular we grew up. Entries should not discriminate vernacular based on editorial bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkered (talk • contribs) 04:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable complaints. My "editorial bias" is a taste for verifiability. That other content on a page exists which is not cited is not a justification for inclusion of more content that is not cited. Unfortunately, since WP has changed quite a bit over the past decade, older uncited material often achieves a sort of grandfathered status as an article awaits more thorough editing. Before reverting the edit, I tried to find mention of "nipple brackets" with no luck. You might want to bring it up on the talk page for the article, since there you'll get a broader audience of people concerned with brackets and the various terms for them. — cardiff | chestnut — 17:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I have not contributed to wikipedia in a while and understand your reasoning. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkered (talk • contribs) 21:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is Your proposal? --Melenc (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melenc. I don't think we need any translation of the headword: "Mycenaean Greek" is a modern descriptive term in English, just as it is in Modern Greek, and this is the English language Wikipedia. Offering Μυκηναϊκή ελληνική would make as much sense as printing Mykenisches Griechisch. If you think you have a case for including the Modern Greek, you should probably bring it up at the talk page where a broader audience for the discussion may be found. Later, — cardiff | chestnut — 00:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway...--Melenc (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Marcus Aurelius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laodicea (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) 10:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brother Chestnut! I know you are very busy in the scriptorium illuminating manuscripts and correcting the errors of other monks but your speedy intercession here suggests that there indeed is an item you might like to work on at some time. I'll get it started but I'm sure there are better sources and I know mummies and papyrus are your thing, so please add at your liesure. Friar McNut —Preceding undated comment added 10:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I do have a taste for sifting through ancient rubbish heaps, but really just wanted to give the embryo a moment's peace. I'll watch your work, but you read far more lyric than I do, so my hands should stay in my pockets. If I find I have a good source on my monkish hard-drive that should be there, I'll send it along. — cardiff | chestnut — 10:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks for the advice! I selected the wrong item from the list. Anyway, this has helped you (and me, and Wikipedia) to correct my mistake and be more specific with the Iliad vs. Odyssey metrical foot differences. Thank You!
All's Well That Ends Well ... I promise, I will pay more attention in future... & Happy Editing! –pjoef (talk • contribs)

Well, with over 1,000 fixes, I've definitely made some "small" mistakes, but hopefully the vast majority should be good enough. Thanks for understanding and patience. All the best, and if you have any question or need regarding the March 2012 DAB Challenge or Wikipedia in general, please feel free to contact me at any time via the talk page. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NB—My ISP is having issues with its network and I'll have only intermittent internet access for a while. How long? "Who knows?" Is the reply of customer service. — cardiff | chestnut — 18:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently fixed ... — cardiff | chestnut —

75.87.129.242 (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for asking (instead of just adding the link again). I deleted the link because the painting by Mr. Goodrich does not contribute to an encyclopedic understanding of the topic itself and is not (by Wikipedia standards) notable enough to warrant inclusion based upon the its own, or the painter's, notability. You might want to ask for other editors' views at the article's talk page or, perhaps better, ask at the External links noticeboard, since there will be more eyes on the discussion and people there will not be personally connected to the topic and might have a better understanding of Wikipedia policy. Thank you again for asking, and I hope this helps. — cardiff | chestnut — 01:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Astronomia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hyades and Verbatim (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) 10:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"also, not jus, but ius."

It has been my understanding that in the use of Latin terms in an English article it is standard to render the consonantal i as a j, even if not historically accurate, for the same reason that we render vocal 'v's as 'u's, although the Romans would have rendered them all as 'v,' and for the same reason that we use the lowercase, although the Romans would have used solely uppercase (hence, a historically accurate rendering would have to be 'IVS'). Since obviously historical accuracy with regards to classical Latin is not important (as evidenced by our use of 'u' and the lowercase for the sake of greater legibility), why is it not the same with the 'i' in 'ius,' which ought to be rendered a 'j'?

Thank you for your note. I see your point, but, while v has remained the most common orthography in modern printed texts for a broad audience, j fell out of favor long ago. And I think that here the clarity that you mention in the case of u is actually found not in j, but in i, for jus will more likely be pronounced "juice" by one who knows no Latin, while even the mispronunciation of ius (likely "eeoos") will be closer to the consonantal i of the proper pronunciation. But in my opinion, the real key, and I think this goes also for the host of anglicizations that you've introduced over the past day or so, is that in English articles on antique topics it does not serve the audience to modernize terms that are not modernized in the academic writings which inform the article's topic. Where you think there might be some confusion, it's really better to clarify than to simplify or modernize, because if a reader is going from Wikipedia into class or into a bit of research, casual or otherwise, the argot of the discipline and an understanding of that discipline will be needed. Still, I understand your motivation, but you should note these types of leveling edits will generally be reverted, because there will probably be a topic-specific reason that a norm which might seem unegalitarian is followed. — cardiff | chestnut — 00:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to drop in again, but I also notice you've changed my transliteration of κουρεύς to be more in-line with the standards of academia ('koureus'). However, 'cureus' I believe is more faithful phonetically, as mine is the system which transcribes 'ου' as 'u' and 'υ' as 'y' (except in diphthongs like ευ). Since 'ου' was pronounced 'u,' why not transcribe it such? Under the 'koureus' system, upsilon is pronounced 'u,' which is inaccurate. Admittedly the 'c' is because I am partial to Latinized Greek as opposed to the new, more pronouncedly Greek system, but seeing as both are attested in scholarship why change what was already there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.178.201 (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Wikipedia generally gives Latinizations of names, but uncommon terms will follow the table here, which recommends my k and your u (which I've reinstated). My issue is that in the imperfect world of Greek transliteration, many write υ as u no matter what. I changed the diphthong for transparency. I guess I favor the new-fangled system, though I've never written Akhilleus and never will. But I also couldn't ever accept κοῦρος being transcribed as kuros as though it were Cyrus. Sorry our first interaction is my reverting you. Best, — cardiff | chestnut — 01:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the best place to look is here, which distinguishes between "classical" and "scientific" transliteration schemes, so my reintroducing your u, but leaving my k, made it a mixed system that we shouldn't use, so I'll replace your translit entire. Later, — cardiff | chestnut — 01:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Thronia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pinar (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) 10:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cardiffchestnut, I've replied here. Paul August ☎ 19:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And again. Paul August ☎ 20:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again. Paul August ☎ 15:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

etc. Paul August ☎ 16:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting "Atreides" to "Atreidai." I had originally typed the latter, but unaccountably changed it in one of my edits. This is the first article I've ever dared to edit, so I'm still finding my way around. I thought I'd start relatively small, with an obscure mythological stub! Rbhardy3rd (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! Pleisthenes looks a lot better already! It's always nice to have references. As you get comfortable with things, feel free to drop a note here if there's anything you might need help with. I'll at least be able to point you toward someone who knows how to help. Happy editing, — cardiff | chestnut — 01:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add, please don't be timid at all. Your contributions are of course appreciated and one of Wikipedia's tenets is to be bold. — cardiff | chestnut — 17:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of WikiProject Greece
		For excellent contributions to the project's and Wikipedia's coverage of ancient Greek literature, I am happy to award you with this token of appreciation! Keep up the good work! Constantine ✍ 12:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Constantine! I appreciate it. — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 14:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm here to ask if you'd like to take part in a discussion currently going on at Talk:Minotaur#Lists of compainons. Your knowledge of Greek mythology related subjects, as well as the fact that you have contributed to that article before, made me think that the issue we're currently trying to resolve there may be worth your attention as well. See you there, Phlyaristis (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I'll take a look. — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 14:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be impertinent, but I need help in translation of the Battle of Cannae. There are some small problems in understanding English. I wrote in my talk about my problems. Is not urgent, absolutely, I don't mind if you answer after seven or eight days, and I'd be very grateful at you if you will answer. Sorry for my english. Thank you. Is nice the photo on the right!--Innocenti Erleor (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caro Innocenti, io ho spiacente di silenzio alla Battaglia di Cannae: ho cancellato "my watchlist" (tranne Esiodo), ma qualcuno avrebbe dovuto rispondere! Nell' Eutropio, "300" si referisce in particolare ai nobili; "3,500 horse" sono 3,500 cavalieri. (Eutrop. 3. 10: nobiles viri CCC ... equitum III milia et quingenti.) La frase "the battle exposed the limits of a citizen-militia army" connota: la battaglia ha dimostrato i limiti di capacità della milizia "civile" come l'esercito della Repubblica (a differenza di un esercito professionale). Enough of my weak Italian: I hope this helps. If you have any other questions, it might be best to ask them here. Ciao. Dirò alla mia gatta Tinsel che tu pensi che lei è carina. — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 15:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! This halp is very useful! About "300 hundred": but so, in English, say "300" or say "300 hundred" have the same meaning? Thank you again! --Innocenti Erleor (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't even notice that after reading your question. The "hundred" in "300 hundred" was a mistake. It is just "300". — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 12:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry! Thank you again! :-) --Innocenti Erleor (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a mistake: in the chapter called "strategic background" and in the chapter called "aftermath" there is the same ref name:"polybius" the external link[1] is the same too, but the position in the page is different and in the second are specified more elements of the web! Because the guidelines are differents between the wp:italian and the wp:english, I'd prefer don't do correction. You are more adept than me. Hi (is more correct say hallo?) --Innocenti Erleor (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! The second Polybius reference that you mention is actually Livy, quoted by another source used in the article. I've fixed that. Hopefully this is the only such mistake. In English "Hi" is generally used when you first address someone, "Bye" when you part, but plenty of Americans even say "Ciao" for some reason. Ciao. — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 19:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation about greetings! Ciao. --Innocenti Erleor (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in this edit here you added the {{lang}} template, which is good, but you have a typo which is creating a link to {{lan}}. could you change the lan to lang? I would but the article is protected. 64.134.156.208 (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thank you very much for bringing that to my attention! — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 14:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help! Ecclesiae Regimen is my latest article.

Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doug, super cute; no problem, article looks interesting. — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 20:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Antimachus in Greek mythology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acheloos (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) 09:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FOR THIS! --Morning277 (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. I think this is a disgruntled editor, back to favor us with a tantrum. — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 14:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I think all you needed with this one was the "move" tab at the top of the page. That's what it's for. It seems straightforward, and I don't see how anyone could have taken it amiss. Now that you've templated it as a requested move, of course, I'd wait for someone to come along and close the discussion & move it for you. Wareh (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wareh. I tried to just move it, but I was blocked by system: either because the redirect pointed elsewhere or because it had too much history. I'm alright with waiting now that it's being discussed: the pedant in me can stand a week of Peneleus. (I realize now that Peneleōs is a redirect there, too.) I'm just happy Panthous didn't become Vergil's ridiculous sounding Panthūs. — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 00:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. When I've found a block like that, I've often gone straight to WP:RM and gotten a page moved as uncontroversial, when like this one it's off the beaten path and not the object of much interest or discussion. But I do gather that the trend is towards more bureaucracy, so I wouldn't be surprised if requests at WP:RM will now more often end up with an admin creating a move discussion. Wareh (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.pitch.com/kansascity/david-goodrich/Content?oid=2900325 How big does the guy have to get before he's notable? Cheers 99.155.184.178 (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that; it's a pretty rad article! I don't know that it helps with making his Daphne and Apollo appropriate for that entry, Wikipedia-notability-wise. If he had enough coverage for his own entry, that could warrant inclusion of an image of his at Daphne. I poked around a bit to see if I could get an article started on him, but could only find significant, 3rd party coverage in the article you link and a good review from a 1996 show (I think in Kansas City). The benchmark for an article is set out at WP:ARTIST. I'm sorry no one (other than me) has responded on the talk page of the article: sometimes that takes a while. I'll keep an eye out for Mr. Goodrich and similar image issues on Wikipedia, and will try to get someone else to participate in the discussion at Daphne soon. — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 11:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A banned user has replaced the image on this article. I know little of the subject and I am no expert on file usage, but the upload advances a public domain justification. I see no reason to arbitrarily revert their edit based on their ban, but I wanted to bring this to your attention in the event there exists some problem with their upload. See ya 'round Tiderolls 23:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tiderolls. Yeah, I see that one of the user's identities appealed to me to make the same edit. I don't know that the new scan is that much better than the awful one I uploaded, but, as you say, there's probably no real reason to change unless someone at Commons has a problem with the image. This is the first socknest that I've stumbled upon and I'm glad to just leave whatever's well enough alone, lest I start suspecting every grandmother of being someone she isn't. Later, — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 23:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or gizzards. Just wanted you to know that I fell into silence on our other thread because my desire for mirth was too utterly satisfied to disturb with more verbiage. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No prob ... I'm quite the chatty Cathy these days. — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 20:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For helping me out on Concussions in American football ZappaOMati 03:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you, that's very kind and appreciated ... and a timely article. — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 09:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Richard Keatinge/Fall of the Western Roman Empire is now, I think, ready for article space, indeed I think it's not far from GA status. Thanks for your help so far. I wonder if I could ask for your further help? I can't do a simple move, Fall of the Western Roman Empire has history. The actual move requires either submission at WP:AFC, which is badly backlogged, or a simple cut and paste to Fall of the Western Roman Empire, which would remove the history including your edit. Could I ask you how you would feel about sacrificing the record of your useful contribution? (We'll manage anyway...)

Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard, thanks for asking. I have no problem at all with sweeping evidence of my obsession with little things like endashes and italics under the rug via a cut-and-paste. For what it's worth, I'm no expert on Rome in general, and especially anything after the Severans in the West, but I think the article reads very well. — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 16:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have done it and Fall of the Western Roman Empire is now live as a main article. I'll be drafting up some DYK hooks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is needed on Talk:List_of_The_Young_and_the_Restless_characters_(2010s) for Ricky Williams. Arjoccolenty (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the note, but I just made some MoS edits to the article. I'm an All My Children guy, anyway, so in my mourning I couldn't stomach any in-depth consideration of Y&R. Best regards,  ^davidiad_.: 22:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About two years ago, I noticed that the intro to the article on Ovid seems to suggest that the Heroides is his primary claim to fame. I've opened the article to rewrite the intro several times, but soon realize why I have a policy of not editing articles I actually know something about. I say this in reference to your recent edit summary that, I believe, referred despite your ostensibly mild manner to evisceration.Cynwolfe (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A minor tantrum, but reflective of those dark thoughts even the most mild of us let fly in unguarded moments. Authors like Ovid often suffer here from their influence upon early modern literature, and I suspect that the prominence of the Heroides was caused by this. Epic poetry used to define epyllion as referring "primarily to the type of erotic and mythological long elegy of which Ovid remains the master; to a lesser degree, the term includes some poems of the English Renaissance, particularly those influenced by Ovid." The Nose's elegies as the type species of epyllia was probably born from the stuff after the semicolon (or from a gross misunderstanding of the scholarship's treatment of the relation between genre and poetics in ancient poetry). A few more days' nosing around Latin and then it's back to the lovely Greek where my interests are so poorly covered that I generally get to raze the barn without any objections.  ^davidiad_.: 19:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Works and Days, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Heroes and Gnomic (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) 12:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected it per your request. I'm actually surprised that it was still under protection at all, because normally a page can be unprotected at any time by absolutely any administrator who judges that the problem is no longer relevant, rather than necessarily having to wait for the original protector to reevaluate it themselves, but I guess maybe it just got lost in the shuffle somewhere along the way. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks a bunch for taking care of it so quickly! Hopefully we're not inviting any trouble.  ^davidiad_.: 16:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's another problem with that image too: the file title says they're from Pompeii, but the description says they were found at a sanctuary in Samnite territory. That's one of those articles that's just too massive to exist, and yet it has felt to me as if removing pieces would contribute to misconceptions of mindless decadence. I got tired of writing about the topic before I felt the article was in shape. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of my best friends is mad for this stuff, and even wears a uterus cameo that she shouldn't have purchased in Egypt around her neck, so I had to point it out. As articles on complex topics on WP go, that's one of the best, though. (It has also made me feel less guilty about the Catalogue, since that one will probably approach Sexuality in length, if not girth.)  ^davidiad_.: 16:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have some articles on hand on Xenophon on that subject, so I'm going to go re-read them now. If you wanted to provide full cites for some of the other passages, that would be great. I don't like the structure of the article, but for now I'm just concerned with verifying that which is freakin' obvious. I probably won't be working on it for a few hours, so no more worries about edit conflicts if you want to (when I last looked, there was a formatting error in your last footnote). Cynwolfe (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Will do. I just hate seeing references to ancient texts of the sort "Aristotle (1976, London) p. 44".  ^davidiad_.: 00:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your great new articles and your adorable kittens ベ(@＾ー＾@)ノ. IShadowed (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the kind words—'bout the articles and the cats: I'll be sure to pass it along that you think them adorable, though they already have big enough heads (especially Fredagonde). Happy patrolling!  ^davidiad_.: 01:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reporting this account. I've blocked him for several days. If he repeats his vandalism after his block expires, he should be blocked indefinitely. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Thanks for the update.  ^davidiad_.: 01:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's my turn to ask for advice. When you've settled back in, could you tell me if I'm totally off on this one? I must say I went out on a limb there and maybe I'll turn out to be the biggest fool ever, but "-κτς" seemed sort of odd and is apparently not attested anywhere. Do you think the provenance of that piece could be located geographically on stylistic grounds? I'm a total layman when it comes to art history, but I have a guess about where it could be from, and if I'm right about that, then the final letter is a iota. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should be cleaning the kitchen and packing dishes, but this is my kind of procrastinating. That shard looks Corinthian enough to me, but I'm no expert and the piece is small. Still, you must be right: Indo-Europeanists would constantly be mentioning this piece if they knew about it and if it actually were a 7th or 6th century text that miraculously showed the unassimilated athematic nominative. Without my books the only sourced support I can give is that Sihler prints the form with an asterisk, *wanakts, so at least in 2000 he still regarded it as a completely reconstructed form. I'd say the weight of what you know about the language and archaic scripts is enough to say that you're right on this.  ^davidiad_.: 20:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I'm relieved :-) If your thoughts went towards Corinth too, I can hope I wasn't quite wrong. And your argument about lack of references in the literature is also just what I was thinking. Incidentally, Liddell-Scott lists "“ϝάναξ” IG4.236 (Corinth), etc." as its first attestation, and that refers to a number of dedicatory inscriptions with just this kind of dative ("ἀνέθεκε Ποτειδᾶνι ϝάνακτι" etc.) So, for now, good luck with your moving (and I'm looking forward to paying Mr Poteidan a visit near his very own Corinth in a few weeks myself) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hah. Gotcha. [2] + [3] Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh ... sweet deliverance from doubt! Thanks for letting me know. Give my regards to sehr geehrter Herr Ποτε(ι)δάν.  ^davidiad_.: 14:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if he would like some votive offering from me [4]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

χα χα χα  ^davidiad_.: 22:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to know (so I can be lazy) of a good example of a Greek-Latin bilingual inscription? I mean one that we have an image available for. Or some kind of authentic visual representation of Greek-Latin bilingualism dating from the period of the Roman Empire. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would a Greekly glossed papyrus text of Vergil, Cicero or Sallust do?  ^davidiad_.: 20:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could be considered, though I would rather go with Vergil as a (marginally) Imperial writer. And the section to be illustrated deals more with law, military, and official language, as spoken and in inscriptions, and not literary culture. The ideal illustration would be one of the soldier's epitaphs that gives his bio info in Greek, but military career in Latin. So far I'm not seeing one of those on Commons. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of the plates that I know to be my computer, the only one in the public domain would be Cicero, In Cat. 2.15 (5th c.). I'm pretty sure that some of the legal codex papyri are bilingual, so I'll poke around my database for those and check the publishing date. There's always a chance that I do have an epitaph+diploma like you mention in one of my old books, so as I unpack I'll keep an eye oot.  ^davidiad_.: 21:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I don't have anything good and see nothing on commons. There are a handful of legal documents that are bilingual and old enough for the plates to be public domain, but these don't match your ideal and they aren't generally impressive to look at. I don't even have a single public domain image of any inscription in my library. In case it can be of use for your current project, or a later one (and just for its interest), here's the Cicero:

tempestatem subire dum modo a vobis huius horribilis belli ac nefarii periculum depellatur. dicatur sane	[χειμῶνα [ὑπέχειν [εἰ μόνον ἀ[πὸ ὑμῶν τούτο[υ τοῦ] φρ[ικώδους πολέμου καὶ ἀθεμίτου ὁ κίνδυνος ἀπωθηθείης. ληχθήσεται μάλιστα

 ^davidiad_.: 11:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I certainly enjoy and benefit from seeing that, so I thank you heartily. This is for the overview article on the Roman Empire, however, so it's probably a little specialized. (That article is currently destabilized, and was given what I and several others consider a precipitous GA rating. I'm reluctantly spending some time on it because of the article's importance. I'd just about decided 'who cares? what good does this do me? I sound like a cranky schoolmarm,' and then I went to the 'meet the teachers' function at my daughter's high school last night and realized that across America thousands of teens are going to be googling "Roman Empire" for their World History class during the next six weeks. And guess what will come up first? So this morning my stomach is tied in a knot at the thought.) Anyway, you are very kind and helpful as always! How 'bout we put your image at In Catilinam? Cynwolfe (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we had an actually article on the Catilinarians, maybe it would fit. Perhaps I'll fill that entry out as I take a walk down undergraduate memory lane as I unpack my old Latin books. Best of luck with your morning sickness: I generally try to avoid looking at pages on major topics so that I can avoid guilt over noodling with stuff like ever-so-important poets from backwaters.  ^davidiad_.: 13:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, something odd happened between here, where I reverted back to your BCE/CE, and here. At least as it shows up to me: the first diff shows me reverting, but then with no intermediate diff it's back to BC/AD and you reverting me. Very odd. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP made two edits, and it looks like you reverted the second. I just restored the edit from before the IP rolled in. But, then, I did randomly impose BCE/CE on the article and then said I'd wash my hands of it, so why am I paying attention?  ^davidiad_.: 22:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I didn't look back far enough in the edit history. Not the first time I've made that mistake. And you know what? The Cicero papyrus is growing on me, after what seems like hours looking at dim stones with chicken scratches at Commons. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it'll do for now: at least one can easily recognize which column is Latin and which is Greek, something that can hardly be said for most documents. I also have P.Amherst II 26, Babrius with Latin translations, 3rd/4th c., that I'll upload and add to Babrius' entry in case you find it more useful for the time being, though Cicero has a bit more popular resonance than Babrius.  ^davidiad_.: 12:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. BTW, could you take a look at Papyrus Rylands? It was a dab page until a few minutes ago, when I switched it to a stub. But even as a stub it could use at least one source and something slightly more explanatory. I also didn't thoroughly categorize. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now merged with Rylands Papyri, which of course is almost completely focused on Biblical pieces, though the bulk of the collection has better things to do. I've updated you link at Roman Empire. If P.Ryl. is too jargony, its Rylands Papyrus I 61, not Papyrus Rylands. The reversed construction is all over WP because of a few biblical criticism contributors who felt the need to unpack inventory designations in an awkward way that isn't used in specialist prose.  ^davidiad_.: 18:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I had you look, as I hadn't bothered to search far enough even to know that Rylands Papyri existed. Just robotically typed in the unabbreviated form. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice anything odd about the relation of image to text at Ostracon? (Thought of this regarding your observations in the last comment above.) Cynwolfe (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. I avert my eyes.  ^davidiad_.: 06:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One must. I used to be resolute about willed blindness to major articles, because geez, to do something like Roman mythology or (my current bane) Roman Empire would be excruciatingly difficult and time-consuming. To me (and WP:Readers first, the more visited the article, the more one should be aware that it's likely read by high-school and young college students, and should avoid jargon and showing off one's intellectual acumen in favor of communicating basics. And sometimes the basics are the most difficult things to provide citations for, because they're taken for granted. Nevertheless, I've made a commitment at Roman Empire, because frankly my daughter's teacher for World History is a coach, so it would be nice to say "just go read the Wikipedia article." Restructuring it is so complicated I kinda have to do it offline. I think Haploidavey is working on the Religion section. Anyway, I practice averting until under some kind of compulsion. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily my cats aren't allowed online unsupervised, so they're ignorant of these all-important Biblical ostraca, and I can retire to my fragmentary-poetry-lair while Greek tragedy remains pidgin: "At these events were brief and burlesque tone because they contained elements of satyr, then the language became gradually more severe and also changed the meter, which trochaic tetrameter, to the more prosaic, became iambic trimeter." Maybe in 2013 I'll actually start sweating over the big topics.  ^davidiad_.: 00:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That has a perverse beauty, if aside reader to communication negligent writer. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

χα χα χα  ^davidiad_.: 18:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, seeing you have edited this article, is the name confirmed? It makes sense, but PIR2 gives "L. Junius Gallio (vel L. Junius Annaeus Gallio, antea Annaeus Novatus)" and a lot of references, but no sign of Lucius Junius Gallio Annaeanus. Should this article be thus called? -- spin^control 03:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly a Hellenist, but Miriam Griffin (cited in the article) is a truly reliable source and she uses the same full nomenclature that WP does. If I should ever face such a prosopographical conundrum, I'd ask User:P Aculeius. Sorry to be of so little help.  ^davidiad_.: 03:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see the situation after looking actually at the article: Gallio is his adoptive nomen, and Annaeanus would be an adjectival (in form) cognomen formed from his birth nomen.  ^davidiad_.: 04:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why I said it makes sense, but Annaeanus may never have been used. I just didn't know whether we could rightly call a WP article by a name that has never been confirmed. -- spin^control 05:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Man ... I was just thrilled that I still remembered something about Roman names. Sorry I missed the gist of your question: I'd ask P Aculeius or post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome for more input. There are a few phrases that seem to ape Griffin pretty closely, so her use of the full set of nomina might be where our article title came from, but I don't read enough Roman history to know what the proper path would be for unattested names of a predictable form on Wikipedia or elsewhere.  ^davidiad_.: 13:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I will try P Aculeis now. Incidentally, Pliny the Elder calls him Annaeus Gallio (NH 31.33)! -- spin^control 22:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queer. Good luck sorting that out.  ^davidiad_.: 13:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please warn vandals Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 07:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Jim. I know I should when I revert.  ^davidiad_.: 11:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding that phiale and patera are used so interchangeably that I wouldn't know how to keep them separate if I were to try to develop either article. Not that I'm going to do this immediately, anyway, but I wonder whether you can think of any reason to keep them separate. I ask because you and I have agreed at times that some articles lumped together Greek and Roman stuff (like xenia/hospitium) in a way that wasn't helpful. However, I've actually seen sources that say "phiale" and "patera" are interchangeable terms, as they do seem to be functionally. What do you think? I'm trying to distract myself from the baby-talk section on "Roman art" I'm tempted to post at Roman Empire, since the existing section is so uninformative. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm thinking the image at patera is probably a plate, not a patera as such. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you're not playing in traffic today. That's a good question, and one that I'm probably not set up to answer since the last time I encountered patera at V. A. 1.727–8, I probably wanted it to be what a Hellenist would want it to be: Dido filled her father—heavy with gems and gold—with wine.

The New Pauly s.v. "Patera, Patella" opens: "The patera was a flat, round dish without a handle, decorated from time to time, with a bulge (omphalós) in the middle (like the Greek phiálē : [1. 42–44]) that was used as a drinking vessel (Plaut. Amph. 260; Prop. 4,6,85) and as a sacrificial bowl in the Roman cultural area (Varro, Ling. 5,122; fig. see Sacrifice IV.)" Same volume s.v. phiale: "The ritual functions of phialai were taken over in Rome by the patera." Random and perhaps useless quote from Pliny 8.186: "There is a place on the Nile in Memphis which they call Phiale on account of its appearance; there ever year they dip a patera of gold and one of silver in the waters on the days which the hold as the birthday of Apis", Memphi est locus in Nilo, quem a figura vocant Phialam, omnibus annis ibi auream pateram argenteamque mergentes diebus quos habent natales Apis. I'd go with your gut and put them together: there's a lot more overlap, I guess even continuity, here than there was in the xenia–hospitium deal. But I don't know what the proper headword would be: Libation vessel is actually free, but some limiting adjective or phrase would be appropriate to point out that we're dealing with Graeco-Roman jive.

That dish at patera certainly looks flat to me, and since that vessel is supposed to be without handles by definition, it shouldn't be there. (The original uploader called it a piatto, a "plate".)  ^davidiad_.: 18:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's this?  ^davidiad_.: 02:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we've met before, but I appreciate the good work you did. I dabble a little bit in the field you're working in, some Aeneid-related stuff and such (and I just got a few DYKs, templates still on my talk page), and it's nice to see that there's active editors who know much more than I do, which is way too little. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a nice hello, Drmies. Thank you. Glad to make your acquaintance. I've seen you skip across my watchlist a few times, but other than that weird situation we haven't really knocked heads. It's rad to see that Peter has a well written and undeleteable page.  ^davidiad_.: 00:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, does that subhead scare you, little man?

I'm going to ask you a question, and I'm not even going to tell you why. It's a surprise!

When you start an article from scratch, do you prefer BC/AD or BCE/CE? Not a trick question. There's no penalty for either answer. I really want to know.

Actually, I will tell you why so you'll give me a straight answer after that jocular opening. I'm starting an article stub that's in your area, an article that you're probably most likely to develop, if anyone ever does, since Wareh is busy with other and better things. If I get around to developing it, it'll be, like, five years from now. So I want to entice you by using the era style with which you're most comfortable. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that I had no real preference, but it looks like I use BCE for topics that only need BCE and AD for articles that only need AD, e.g. Chersias, Petra papyri. (Odd how that works. Does it mean that I'm more sensitive about referring to my own era? Plumbing depths, here.) With the unfinished Catalogue, which would have loads of both, I switched to BC/AD to avoid the confusion BCE/CE can lead to. But do whatever you want: I'm easy.

Is it Phaethon (Euripides)? I've been trying to write that offline since I uploaded this in August of 2011. Your almost carnivalbarkeresque approach above has left me peeking under the funhouse wall.  ^davidiad_.:τ 15:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ho, ho, no, it's one of the major redlinks that keep turning up, like Roman satire and Roman oratory, except that it's a Greek one. I'm going to do a shamelessly slapdash job on it today, because after years of linking to nothing or some half-assed section somewhere, It Must Be Done. I'm hoping to lure you from these Phaethonesque minutiae into articles for which you are vulnerable to pursuit by the hounds of Actaeon. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, so it's the all-important Archilochus on Christians.  ^{davidiad.mobilis}_.: 18:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a major omission in our coverage, but alas, I give you Greek lyric. Please don't mock me for its slovenliness. I just couldn't take not having an article on this any longer, not even one in pidgin. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good start that hits the major points. I'll probably nibble at it a bit in my continued avoidance of completing the Catalogue or real world articles. I'm about to pop over to that talk page.  ^davidiad_.:τ 20:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the headache, by the way ... after this is a real article I plan to find the most irrelevant topic possible and baby it into oblivion. When are you going to write the Wedding of Peleus and Thetis?  ^davidiad_.:τ 00:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How did you come upon that? I did declare that somewhere, long ago. Actually, when I'm fairly satisfied that Roman Empire is readable and informative enough to tell my daughter she can read it (in lieu of having a World History class—they watched Disney's Prince of Egypt and Mulan for the Egypt and China units, and have I said she's 15 and a sophomore in an honors class? I'm thinking of emailing the teacher and suggesting they watch Gladiator and Life of Brian for Rome, which I'd consider a vast improvement) … where did that sentence go? After I've caused the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, I'm taking a long Wikipedia break. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I redlinked P&T's nuptials for a moment in the Cat. article and saw your promised entry linked to the title. ... and a deserved wpbreak, especially since it sounds as though you need to home school the daughter. (My history teacher was my basketball coach, who offered a brilliant education, aside from his constant belittling me for the last two years of high school because I quit the team to focus on my poetry: not a way into even an enlightened meathead's heart.)  ^davidiad_.:τ 01:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greco-Buddhist art, was it, on your watchlist? Hullo, Dave! Yes, it is me, Erik. And it has been a long time, indeed.

I don't even have a watchlist. I only really work on en dashes and such. It's actually more or less what I'm up to. Yes. Copy-editing, in books and such. And don't imagine that I've no clue at all what you've been on about. Your scholarship (you being scholarly) delights me. I can even imagine the lover's quarrel you might have had with grad school. I had one, too.

For the record, your Pushkin is the third cat I know with that name. How nice!

On e-mail, I'm at [email protected]. In case you ever want to know that.

Erik Kennedy (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Music of ancient Greece. Man, I wish I could work on copy-editing: I too have a real person job now—for the first time in nine years—, and it has nothing to do with books. And, yes, grad school. I miss the library, but it's nice to have my pasties off.

It's 6:30 and I have to get ready for work. There I will read policy for 8 hours. I might even print out some documents, scan them and then shred them.

When I get an hour or so of decently undisturbed time I'll touch base. Glad to find you still exist, as does uncle George.  ^davidiad_.:τ 11:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't take a photo of that corner (or I think any photos in the church for some reason). Pity. Dougweller (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rats! Thanks for letting me know, Doug.  ^davidiad_.:τ 11:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh lord, preserve us from the detritus of I... Haploidavey (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just stumble after you on my crutch, collecting pieces in the hopes of one day cobbling a Diploidavey.  ^davidiad_.:τ 11:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misery loves company … Cynwolfe (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your cruelty knows no bounds, φίλη Κυνολύκη. I mysteriously own old Jaeger, so it will be hard to ignore this, even with offline drafts for Greek lyric, partheneion, Phaethon and the Catalogue moldering with age and neglect.  ^davidiad_.:τ 22:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I could actually toss off a lead, but I'm ever so tuckered and muddleheaded. I'm sure it'll be reverted instead of improved.  ^davidiad_.:τ 02:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paideia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aristocratic (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) 14:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just my aversion to the sloppy and meaningless use of the word 'pagan,' or is there a more informative way in Codex to describe "one of the earliest pagan parchment codices to survive from Oxyrhynchus in Egypt"? I get that it means "not Christian," but doubt whether it actually means "pertaining to non-Christian religious practices" in terms of its content. I would find it singularly unhelpful, for instance, to describe something from Menander as "pagan". Cynwolfe (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the word as nonsense. It was either that or replace it with "interesting". Whoever stuck pagan in there was huffing the residue of two strains in Biblical criticism: the continued hilariously impossible dating of NT codices by non-papyrologlist crackpots, and the formerly popular belief that the codex was invented and perfected by early Christians to spread the good news. So, yep, the "pagan" could do nothing but confuse or mislead: the earliest Christian and the earliest, err, "pagan" parchment codices are otherwise known as the earliest codices.  ^davidiad_.:τ 22:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I had already changed Martial from a "pagan poet" to a "Classical Latin poet". My objection to "pagan" is that most of the time it's non-informative or actively misleading, but it wasn't clear to me what they were trying to say about the parchment. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some day we'll figure it out: I give you King Paganus.  ^davidiad_.:τ 04:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David! My edit on the Famagusta page was no mistake. The character count for the edit summary was not enough fot the reasons so thats why i didnt use it. I used the talk page instead. Hope thats ok! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmatso (talk • contribs) 23:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. You might want to use a summary like "see talk" in that case. Like a lot of other editors, if I see the removal of sourced content with no edit summary, I don't even pay attention to what's been removed: I simply revert and put that message on the editor's talk page. Best,  ^{davidiad.mobilis}_.: 23:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davidiad, I'm writing you because you kindly helped me a while ago to figure out the Greek letters for indusiatus, and gave me links to Liddell & Scott to use as a source. I wish to do similar for the Greek iodes (the article is Cortinarius iodes), which I believe is ἰώδης (assuming this is correct), but for the life of me I can't figure out how to find this in L&S. Could you point me to the page I could use to cite this info? Sasata (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This one is unfortunately not as easily referenced as the epithet for indusiatus. The ancient Greek form for "violet-like" is ioeides (ἰοειδής), while the io- of iodes (ἰώδης) derives from ios, "poison", a near homonym of Greek "violet" (ion); cf. Liddel, H.G. & Scott, R. A Greek–English Lexicon, 9th ed. (Oxford, 1940), s.v. ἰώδης and ἰοειδής. Your iodes (ιώδης) is actually the modern Greek form for "violet-colored" or "purple", but I don't know of a good, reliable source that we can link like LSJ. The form appears to have entered scientific terminology from modern Greek via the French in the late-18th or early-19th century: OED s.v. iodine: "Named by Sir H. Davy in 1814, < French iode , the name given by Gay-Lussac ( < Greek ἰώδης violet-coloured, < ἴον violet + -ειδης like, resembling) from the colour of its vapour, with termination -ine suffix3, as in chlorine." But it might also have been a simple mistake for the ancient ioeides or Gay-Lussac contracted the form himself: when I first saw your question I immediately thought, "yeah, that's right", even though ioeides is all over the ancient poetry, and I've only encountered iodes in the medical writers cited by LSJ for the word.  ^davidiad_.:τ 21:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed response; I certainly wasn't expecting the etymology to be that complicated or ambiguous! I think I'll hold off from adding the Greek to the article for now until (if) I can find a more definitive source. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you would take special pleasure in this edit summary for one of your favorite articles. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arrgh. That would be a pretty good title for the article. I've been preoccupied with work for weeks. Soon I'll be able to write productively and then, after sending off some real world articles and finishing up the the Catalogue, Greek lyric, partheneion and Phaethon, maybe I'll think about Greek tragedy. I'm reading Sophocles right now for kicks (and out of guilt for always putting him third), but really want to be reading Latin, which makes me wonder if I'm well.  ^davidiad_.:τ 12:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Good news: you're up next for a free JSTOR account, since you signed up Wikipedia:Requests for JSTOR access.

JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swallingwikimedia.org) with...

• the subject line "JSTOR"
• your English Wikipedia username
• your preferred email address for a JSTOR account

The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so ASAP or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. We're waiting to deliver access to everyone until we have the 100 recipients collected, so the sooner you reply the quicker everyone can start using JSTOR.

Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The email has been sent. Thank you, Steven.  ^davidiad_.:τ 22:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now four months in Arkansas after my first three decades in my Mid-Atlantic, now that everyone—even Atlantic City, Staten Island and the Rockaways—is creeping toward being us again, I hear, I must say how much I've missed us all and how sorry I am that I wasn't up there a month ago to be with us. What beauty is there but the beauty of home, and how beautiful is New Jersey and New York, even Connecticut? Let's go at least a decade, now, of imagining we're the impervious caramel center again. I miss all that and you and us so much.  ^davidiad_.:τ 05:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Papyrologist, is the Feriale Duranum in Latin, or Greek? Discussions of it seem to emphasize its character as a document of traditional Roman religion (for instance, noting that it has the standard bos mas as victim for a sacrifice to the emperor as divus), but looky here where it says "translated from the Greek." I dashed off a stub because I kpet needing to refer to it, but haven't exercised due diligence trying to track down a transcription. Not that you should. I just thought you might know off the top of your head. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kpet being the ancient Egyptian god of papyrus, of course. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All hail Kpet. I've held these in my hands: most certainly, and legibly, Latin.  ^davidiad_.:τ 22:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And a transcription.  ^davidiad_.:τ 23:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a bounty! I thank you for your expertise. "Translated from the Greek" is one hell of an editing error. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you gotta love source books. Pretty badass stub.  ^davidiad_.:τ 19:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be 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.

— Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!  ^davidiad_.:τ 01:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this nice article! (Aristodemus)--Miha (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! But all I did was correct a wikilink. Happy editing,  ^davidiad_.:τ 01:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You want to challenge what I said. Then read all my sources on theoi. You asked for it. I am going to give you every source. I read, read what I said slowly. Nothing I put in is false. Zeus returns Asclepius and the Cyclopes from Hades. What I put in about why Zeus returned Asclepius and the Cyclopes. Is what I read. My statement about Hades holding the dead prisoner in the underworld is true. Very few people go back into the world above. Read about Dionysus returning his mother from Hades. Read about Orpheus returning Eurydike. Why failed Hades didnt want to give her up. Also read about Hercules returning Alkestis from Hades. Also read about Hercules freeing Theseus. Read the story of Asclepius and why he died. As far as you deleting what I put in about Hades and Poseidon also defeating the titans with Zeus. That is a fact. You have no right to delete anything that is a fact. Like I said Wikipedia is a free domain. You dont make the rules. Your a vandal. Read what I said slowly. Have fun reading all my sources. If you want to challenge what I put in.

Orphic Hymn 18 [ ... 70,000 kB of sopy-pasted text from Theoi deleted ] herdsman Menoetes — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkSleach (talk • contribs) 09:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. If you look at the edit I reverted, you deleted content, links and references, without adding whatever this unwelcome mass of text was about. I think you might be confused about just how Wikipedia works, both from a technical and from a policy standpoint. You might want to take a look at Help:Getting started.  ^davidiad_.:τ 16:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see what little snippet you're all upset about. I'll take a look at the text you've been trying to add when I get a chance; from the conversation I see you've had with Paul August it's clear that this has been going on for a bit. In the meantime, please follow the link that I provide above.  ^davidiad_.:τ 18:00, 23 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) 16:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Victory, Janus, Chronos, and Gaea (1532–34) by Giulio Romano

Thanks for adding your knowledge and wit to the Wikipedia community. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind tidings, Cynwolfe! All I have for you in return is this image culled from the Commons category Catloaf. Hope you're having a pleasant holidays.  ^davidiad_.:τ 18:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]