This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I'll enjoy that with a biscuit, which can mean two quite different food items in my house. I've been on an image rampage lately, finding hidden treasures in Commons and learning more about how to deal with image clutter from MOS. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Template Greek music
Hello I think that the previous image 1 represents a Greek scenery. So why is it controversial?
--109.242.100.128 (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Are you talking about the Roman sarcophagus? I don't think it's controversial. I just don't think it's very Greek. Anybody who knows Roman sarcophagi will see it and think "Roman sarcophagus," not "Greek music." I left a message at User talk:Cplakidas because I knew he was interested in all things Greek. I haven't made any changes to the Greek music template—only suggested that there must be an image that reads "Greek music" at a glance. A sarcophagus relief is always a bit tricky to "read", let alone at a size for a sidebar, because they tend to be crowded with tiny figures. The only purpose of an image in a navbox or sidebar is to create a quick visual association with the topic, or provide a bit of information that would be useful for all the related topics (like a map). You can see the discussion at the other user's page. It's not a big deal if people are wedded to the sarcophagus, even though I would find it odd to want to impose an ancient Roman image on a Greek topic that isn't even confined to antiquity. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Boyzoyki image isn't apropriate,but cheap and unilateral. It's a general article about music not for instruments, there is so culture in Greece, I think it's quite far better look this --109.242.100.128 (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'm not really that interested in this except as a graphics problem to play with. I don't know that much about the history of Greek music outside antiquity. My only purpose was to question whether a Roman sarcophagus was the best way to illustrate "Greek music" throughout all time. Apollo with a lyre seems to me a better way to go, if that's the consensus of editors working on the topic area. You might want to continue the discussion for alternatives at the template's talk page. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, because the pic on this template was my idea I entitled to unite and agree with ip's opinion, Apollo with a lyre seems to me a good idea too. So i am gonna store it on template, consensus is ok thanks--Heavypic (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 13:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Images again ....
Hi Cynwolfe, I bring this to you because I'm lazy, and a Hellenist and, as I said before, have seen you dealing with things like this: if sometime the urge hits, might you have a go at cleaning up the farrago of images—some valid, some less so, most detracting from legibility—at Natural History (Pliny)? Later, Dave davidiad.: 01:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Only because I love the word "farrago." I miss your old name, though—it was so poetic! Cynwolfe (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, that was depressing to look at. I think for now I'll just delete a bunch of them, and then review the NH so I can keep my eyes open for things that would illustrate the work more directly. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
We also have inconsistent era style. The fun never ends. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that: I was certain that I would delete something that had some great relevance, but wasn't explicit in the text. Cardiff Chestnut will live on ... perhaps as an account to use on public networks or simply for reverting vandalism, but I got sick of explaining that I'm not Welsh (not that there's anything wrong with that). The username derived from a children's book I was working on more than a decade ago about a mare from Cardiff—such whimsy in the twenty-year-old lad.
The NH article appears to be mostly a single editor's labor of love of from 2008, with a good deal of subsequent, occasional accretion, so the mass of MoS inconsistencies is unsurprising. I'll give it another pass, but will probably never look at the work as a whole again (it's been years since I slogged through), so I can't help with content. Did WP:ERA ever actually get worked out? I stopped following once I realized that the trouble, like the diacritics brouhaha, involved a lot more glands than brains. I'm still waiting to be tied to a post for this edit summary. davidiad.: 18:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I spent a week on the gemstones chapter once for a personal research project. It really isn't a thing you can sit and read, is it?
As for the other, if they bring the torches to set fire to your talk page, I'll be there with buckets of water, because that's exactly the kind of situation I had in mind: someone who has vastly expanded an article, spent months on it, should really get the small aid of choosing a congenial era style and not have to slavishly uphold the one used by somebody who transcribed a paragraph from a 19th-century encyclopedia. There was some modification of the era guideline, but even vague attempts to encourage users vaguely to consider what I would call good manners were squelched. In our field, I firmly believe that it makes difference whatever which era convention is used. However, I am persuaded by this comment that it is wrong to ask people to use Anno Domini actively when they regard it as a religious affirmation contrary to their own. My response was a distinction immediately pooh-poohed, but I maintain: it can't be WP's responsibility to shield readers from the use of BC/AD if they can reasonably expect to encounter it in reading mainstream scholarship on the topic independent of WP. (Thus a consideration of whether BCE/CE is more appropriate may be indicated by whether it's the predominant usage in the scholarship, without requiring a survey of the scholarship to establish the style.) However, it's contrary to WP principles to erect an arbitrary barrier to participation, and we shouldn't confront someone with a choice of either using BC/AD or not editing the article. I was discouraged and unconvinced by those who opposed guidelines advising editors to consider the context in choosing an era style because they assumed people would cheat, somehow; in this example, they assumed that there are people who care so much about using BCE/CE that they would pretend to have religious convictions in order to stamp out BC/AD. I find that unhelpful for too many reasons to blather on about here. It may be true, but it's like saying we can't have speed limits on highways because people will still speed, and then lie about medical emergencies or some such to the police officer who stops them. At the same time, it may be impossible to craft a good "law" on era usage, since ultimately it would still depend on editors respecting each other. In my world, respect is deeper than bogus, namby-pamby "civility", which I've never seen do anything here but protect superficially courteous POV-pushers or, frankly, ignoramuses. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the overview of the proceedings. This kind of thing will never be worked out completely. Just FYI, the fourteen journals in our field whose stylesheets I know break down:
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts 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:
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 WikiProject Resource Exchange).
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 wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasit | c 17:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Tacitus, the Germans, and the middle finger
Hello, still friends/on speaking terms? Finger (gesture) has been approved for DYK and has lots of classical refs; I've tracked chapter and verse for The Clouds, Diogenes Laertius on Diogenes the Cynic, and Martial; but as per my request at the reference desk, I'm struggling with these points (1) "Roman gladiators reportedly used the gesture towards Nero when he sentenced them to die with his thumb"; and (2) "The historian Tacitus wrote that German tribesmen gave the middle finger to Roman soldiers as they advanced during battle"; I spotted you as active on the cinaedus page, at the centre of one of the Martial uses; don't know if you know anything about either of these two? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm taking a break but saw your message when I accidentally logged in out of habit when I meant to check an article as a civilian. (I have no negative impressions of you, BTW! Disagreements are productive when the people discussing base their views on something, as you do, and don't just argue to see themselves posture or get a rise out of others or work out some other unfathomable emotional need ... but I digress. No worries!) I'll take a quick look, but one of the best editors on gladiators is User talk:Haploidavey. You might check with him, as he might've encountered such a thing researching the thumbs up or down question. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I just searched the Latin text of the Germania for digit- and didn't find a reference to a finger at all. So then I searched the rest of Tacitus, and the only fingers I found (at Annales 1.34) were unrelated to this. I do find some secondary sources citing Pliny for Britons and Gauls wearing a ring on their middle fingers; if the rings signified some kind of social status or had a religious purpose, displaying them might be a gesture of defiance. But here, The Body Legal in Barbarian Law, if you haven't yet stumbled on it, is a gold mine. Ritual and magic gestures often prescribe certain fingers for grasping herbs or implements. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot; re your points on my talk page: (1) RS - a few have been stripped out and replaced with links to Perseus Project etc, so in the one paragraph I've been looking at I think the current wikicrime is likely synthesis rather than rs, but yes quite agree (and as for the elitist snob accusation, here I must share your vice, since the Tacitus is claimed by a professor of "classics and communication" and published by a university press - still think it would be interesting to identify the precise source for this); (2) Mishandling of chronology - also, well quite; it was spotting this during the most cursory of glances that made me think some attention was needed - although I guess a new fragment of the Twelve Tables may have turned up proscribing this very thing; (3) thanks for the infamis link and for your dangling agent phrase correction - per stats the page is attracting c.1500 views a day, so I hoped the subtle symbolism of the Gerome might draw a few more readers towards Diogenes and the real action; re the above, I'll consult User:Haploidavey and nice ref for Germanicus, fingers, and toothless gums; The Body Legal on the different fingers is very interesting and the Isidore helps bridge the gap till Agincourt (where I thought the legend relates to the V sign); I think your points about Pliny, rings, herbs, and implements are the most interesting, since they are suggesting there may have been meanings unrelated to or at least beyond the most obvious; will update, thank you for the time and pointers, and I'm sure Vallonia and Venilia will wait patiently for your return, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, the dreaded lists of deities into which I have been sucked. Tedious! List of Roman deities gets about 35,000 hits a month. It's visited more often than Religion in ancient Rome and maybe even more than Roman mythology. It used to contain nonsense, as well as linking to unsourced stubs on "deities" who may be nothing more than an epithet or a mention in St. Augustine, not likely ever to sustain an independent article. So it seemed to make more sense to corral them functionally, or deal with them as in Roscher's Lexikon as among the indigitamenta. That's what I do instead of crossword puzzles, or when my husband and daughter are watching a movie we've seen a half-dozen times before. I'm still slowly working my way through verifying all these. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Well perhaps, once I'm done listing all hundred thousand Japanese cultural properties (and expanding one or two of the choicest into sub-stubs), I'll decamp and try to give you a hand, if you're still ploughing through them; wonderful that the general area is getting so many views - so long as it's not some DDoS-style marketing scam aimed at boosting google rankings via a surreptitiously-inserted corporate link, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
If you check out "to play the Siphnian", per Aristophanes [1] and the Suda, [2] does Aphrodite's gesture on the Siphnian Treasury[3] (pp.147 and preceding) appear in new light? A subversive sculptor/in-joke perhaps? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Ha! Could be. I don't see either action (putting on a necklace or holding the reins) as accounting for the position of her hand. That's funny. (The online Suda has saved many a mythology article from nonsense.) Cynwolfe (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 13
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 11:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
When you get a chance, could you respond to me at the talk page above? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Gawain
True, however, there are different points to his death before the regnum, some might say he vanished with Arthur to Avalon, but, it is not to assume other edits as idiotic, until then Cagwinn should not step into some users who believ it was from earlier sources, let us say we let this one go, however if you do let this one go,there is a source showing it was from Lancelot, however in any case all users must respect sources from earlier documents, or there is not anything "idiotic" as some user's naive opininated fact maybe. Thank you, Cynwolfe--GoShow (...............)
Once again, I am not trying to edit war, it was trying to adjust the sources, I kept the user's bargain, but was not in any circumstance edit warring, as you may have seen trying to quotation mark the book. If Cagwinn wasn't in a furious mood, the user may have tried to address the user about the sources and come to a conclusion, without tolerable acts on edit warring, as I came to address enough is enough. --GoShow (...............) 20:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry you're having difficulties. It's hard to edit in a hostile environment. I do advise, however, that you take a break, do some reading in secondary sources (preferably from university presses), and return to the article when you can support your edits with very specific citations. Consider also the most logical places to insert your content. You may not intend to edit war, but if you keep re-inserting the same stuff contrary to consensus, your actions will be interpreted as warring. Since you obviously care about the topic, take some time to enjoy learning more about it, and what the best sources are. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
No problem, not overreacted at all, but I am sorry for the late talk, but thanks for the consideration:). In plain talk, I tried share both the user's bargain, they were both good sources, although, there is alot of (fake)sense of deleting a source which was one is still already in the article since June, while deleting one source, than the other(which was the same source) source comes from the same author from Geoffrey's version. In my opinion it is no wonder why Wikipedia, sometimes is not successful in it's publishing, just because of someone believe someone else's other sources, are "idiotic" (from Cagwinn), and deleting the one source, although, forgetting to delete the other same WP:IRS sources at the bottom of some paragraphs. Just a note, however, I am trying to help in Medieval manuscripts, and if I might need a lift, I'll beep ya, swift journey, and smooth sailing,;).-(GoShow)--74.34.86.153 (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you!
Hi Cynwolfe and thank you for your help with Julius Caesar's article (your removal of the little ref tag). I am worn out now, but think I can add a primary source for that. I will review your suggestions next time (ie: looking at Cicero#Legacy) - when I can think straight! Again, thanks so much! Albeit27 (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Comments on Article Battle of Magetobriga
Thank you for your comments on the article [Battle of Magetobriga]. This is the first article I created. I have tried to address your concerns with respect to Caesar's conquest of Gaul and providing citations. If you have time, please let me know if you still have outstanding concerns. As a seasoned contributor, your input is greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunterkap (talk • contribs) 04:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Had I realized you were a new contributor, I would've been more helpful and less abrupt. You did a nice job for your first article. It's been about ten years since I researched this topic, but I'll take a another look. Although little is known about this battle, it's more important than is often realized to the history of the Gallic Wars and consequently to the formation of modern concepts of "Europe". It's essentially why the Aedui invited Caesar in. If he hadn't decided to move on Belgica the following year for no good reason, his explanation of his actions in 58 would be perfectly legitimate, because as you point out the Aedui sent a formal embassy to Rome to ask for aid, on the basis of a treaty existing from the time of the Arvernian wars in the 120s. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Druids
o.k I'm listening. Yt95 (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Ha! You'll be sorry you unleashed the torrent. I'm in a bit of a hurry now, but I can give you more precise sources (both ancient and modern) later if you like.
Scholars debate whether the ban on druidism had anything to do with religion per se. As Caesar makes clear in Book 6 of the Gallic Wars, the druids had both religious and juridical functions. Some regard the ban as political, pointing for instance to the presence of druids during armed violence in Roman Britain. I believe there's also a (very) tenuous indication of "druidic" support for the rebellion of Vercingetorix, what Caesar calls the "priests." Some say if Caesar meant druids, he would've said druids; others say, who else would these priests be?
The earliest prohibition is that of Augustus, barring Roman citizens from practicing as druids. So you had to make a choice. Why? Nobody else had to make a choice between Roman citizenship and practicing their religion until the Christians came along. And there's no indication that Augustus tried to suppress the practice of traditional Celtic religion (or religions, I should say: the religions of the various civitates). On the contrary, through interpretatio romana, a distinctive Gallo-Roman religion comes into existence. Celtic deities are named in inscriptions and represented in art. Temples in Gaul often have a distinctive architecture thought to reflect their particular ritual needs. Augustus founded the Sanctuary of the Three Gauls, and created a priesthood. These priesthoods seemed aimed at preserving Celtic religious traditions while reinterpreting them within a Roman framework. Who would have the body of knowledge to undertake this theological task in a way that was convincing for the practitioners? The priestly order of Gallic society. The druids. So the priesthoods may have been created for the very purpose of perpetuating Gallic forms of religion, while suppressing the power of the druids, and securing the loyalty of the cooperative ones (as Divitiacus of the Aedui had been—note that the first high priest of the sanctuary is Gaius Julius Vercondaridubnus, an Aeduan).
Caesar says that one of the matters the druids were concerned with was the drawing of boundaries. You can see how that might be a problem for the Romans. (The close connection of the drawing of boundaries and the religious function is seen also in the Roman augur.) In general, Roman practice was to allow local legal precedents to stand, unless they came into conflict with Roman law. One example of this, in Spain but involving a proconsul who had the longest term as governor of southern Gaul before Caesar, is found in an inscription regarding a decision on Contrebian water rights under Gaius Valerius Flaccus (consul). Since the druids were committed to preserving their body of knowledge through the oral tradition, there's no way really to know how or why their judicial functions might've been problematic.
Except in the matter of human sacrifice, which Roman sources point to as a reason to ban the druids. (Jean-Louis Brunaux, among others, interprets archaeological evidence as supporting the reality of human sacrifice in Gaul.) Hold that thought.
The extension of imperial suppression of the druids that occurs under Tiberius associates the druids with diviners and physicians. The Romans were wary of divination, except for the particular form of reading the will of the gods practiced publicly by the augurs. Again, a tenuous reason to regard the druids as doing something that competed with the augurs and the auspices that were the prerogative of presiding magistrates, including generals in the field. And physicians, one might exclaim? Because certainly there were physicians in Rome after that. I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head. There's a French scholar whose book I haven't been able to lay hands on who argues (I gather) that the so-called "human sacrifice" was a form of vivisection for anatomical study, which the Romans found abhorrent. In the Insular Celtic tradition, druids are associated with surgery (Calvert Watkins identifies three types of healing in the Indo-European tradition: herbs; surgery; and verbal therapies, that is carmina or magic spells; see Dian Cecht for an Irish magical surgeon who comes into conflict with herbal healing).
Moreover, Caesar indicates that much of "human sacrifice" in Gaul involved the ritualized killing of criminals. In antiquity, divine and human law were at minimal contiguous, and in origin one and the same: that's why you swear an oath before the gods (hand on the Bible in the U.S. even today) when offering testimony. It seems entirely plausible that the meting out of capital punishment on the part of the druids ran afoul of Roman judicial procedure under the provincial governors.
Finally, Claudius bans druidism, period. Odd, considering that he was born in Gaul and satirized for being too favorable toward the Gauls.
And yet in the 4th century, Ausonius of Bordeaux is joking with his fellow professors about how proud they are of their druidic heritage. Some scholars have pointed out that you only get evidence of druidesses after the Claudian ban: it's possible that this represents a defusing of the political power of the order that would reside among the men, as with the suppression of the Bacchanals because they supposedly fomented conspiracy (coniuratio, the origin of our "conjuration"), when men were forbidden from holding priesthoods but women could lead congregations. By the time of Ausonius, the tutor of the emperor Gratian, it seems that whatever threat druidism had represented had been so thoroughly dismantled that it could be enjoyed as a point of nostalgic pride, just as despite the supposed suppression of the religion of Dionysus, one of the most frequent ways to ornament Roman sarcophagi in the 2nd century AD (almost 400 years later!) was with Dionysian scenes.
Must run now. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much Cynwolfe for taking the time to set out your thoughts. My own opinion is that whilst human sacrifice may have been the major factor in their suppression I think there is also merit in the more political arguments. If there was a strong binding between "church and state" (sorry for the anachronism) in their culture then.... The same argument is sometimes put up for the Amarna revolution during the reign of Ahkenaten which sees the attempted suppression of the old religious ways as being partly driven by the need to reduce the power of the priesthood which was beginning to form a power base that threatened the monarchy. Anyhow the point is you don't seem to disagree that the suppression of the druids was not a matter of faith-religious freedom but morals and perhaps politics. I read up on this a few years ago when an editor of the Catholic Church page was claiming that it was Christianity that ended human sacrifice in the "pagan" Roman Empire and I had to prove that whilst instances occur earlier in the history of Rome, as it did in all bronze age cultures, it wasn't the Christian emperors who brought a halt to it. (It was like speaking to a wall.) Yt95 (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Yup, most people don't even realize that Christianity became the Roman state religion, either. It's like the 2nd–6th century is some kind of historical black hole. One reason I avoid the word "paganism" when possible is that it conjures those kinds of images. However, the Romans were obviously being a little disingenuous about their horror of human sacrifice. The last law against it was passed only about 40 years before the time of Caesar, in the consulship of the Publius Crassus who was the father of the famous Marcus Crassus. And I've always been perplexed about their daintiness regarding anatomical studies; evidently dismemberment was OK only for entertainment purposes in the arena?
Interesting point on Egypt. But I should say that although I couldn't point to a unified source that provides precisely this narrative of the material that I did, the ideas all come from somewhere, particularly French sources. As John Creighton pointed out in Coins and Power in Late Iron Age Britain, scholars tend to roll their eyes when the word "druid" is mentioned, but the Greek and Roman sources are quite clear, if not very informative, about who they were, consistently comparing them to the magi, the brahmins, or the Pythagoreans. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I deleted a portion of text from the above before posting about the "amnesia" of not just the Romans but about human beings in general (rationalizing v rational) when it comes to matters like this. I encounter it today with Egyptologists who dance around the subject of human sacrifice around 3000bc (mainly retainer)in Ancient Egypt and the whitewwashing of history when it comes to slavery or even 20th century Church matters. The person I was trying to interact with cited the religious overtones that could accompany the events in the arena but those sources I had grouped also the burning of witches as an example of the same but can these be truly regarded as as human sacrifice? Yt95 (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
There's plenty of scholarly support for the notion that the tail end of the Tutmoside dynasty decided that it was unreasonable that they fought all the battles while the priests stayed at home and ran the country, and that the move of the capital to Armana was intended to break the control of the priests of Amun Ra over the monarchy. As for the druids, I've always thought that the Romans hopping up and down over human sacrifice was a smokescreen. My suspicion would be that the root of the conflict lay in the role of the druids in promoting successors. Succession by birth wasn't guaranteed - the literature from Ireland and Wales strongly suggests that druidic endorsement was essential to recognition as a successor. If the druids would have had the power to promote a different successor to the heir that the Romans had been lovingly cultivating to appreciate the finer points of central heating and hot baths, this would be an obvious source of political conflict. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, I'd neglected the Insular evidence on druids consecrating kings, which I think has been brought to bear on the priests and Vercingetorix. (On that other matter, I guess we've been told to be on the lookout.) Cynwolfe (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes parallels are drawn between Akhenaten and Constantine, e.g the dawning of monotheism, founding of new cities, the attractions of a single religion for a empire as a bond of unity etc. I think there there is something in the power-base arguments since Akhenaten could just as easily have picked Amun who was already associated with what would later be called monotheism (some of the hymns to Amun are strikingly similar to the sentiments expressed in the Great Hymn to the Aten) That being said it doesn't mean either Constantine or Akhenaten were just indulging in power politics - it could be that political considerations opened the door to sources of inspiration that resonated which would otherwise be ignored or discounted. Will maybe comment further on the druids when I get a chance to check the ancient sources. What I have read so far might suggest that the "physicians" mentioned by Cynwolfe might be a reference to the reading of human entrails and body parts being used for divinitation and charms. Nigel Davies in his book "Human Sacrifice" (1981) acknowledged the laws against human sacrifice but thought they may have been half-hearted because of the instances noted in ancient sources, e.g Porphyry. I think exceptions are just that, (even when an emperor is involved?), but there was a recent example in England but nobody then says...[4]Yt95 (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't this be covered the rule following, as the first word of the article is bolded?
WP:BOLDTITLE-- "Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles are placed in bold:" Editor2020 (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Duh. This was my error; looked at it wrong. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Your message
Responded on my talk page.Aldrasto11 (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I just saw your huge edit to this article. I think you threw out the baby with the bathwater. Perhaps the section on slavery needed some trimming, but you cut out a lot of material and ciations that were useful background facts. Can we discuss this so that I can add some of the material and citations back in? Bearian (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm away from Wikipedia for a while, and I did that some time ago, but as I recall, that was an extended passage on how slavery caused the collapse of the Republic. This makes no sense. I don't know whether the contributors misunderstood what their sources were saying, or whether the sources were fringey. Although agrarian issues contributed significantly, particularly in theories that have the collapse starting as early as the Gracchi, the evils of slavery per se is not a cause of the transition from a Republic to an Empire. And if there's scholarship that argues that the institution of slavery as such was the primary or even a major cause of that transition, it's most definitely a fringe view. Major causes in mainstream scholarship include the loss of small farms, the creation of a super-rich elite with disproportionate military power, failure to address citizenship issues among free peoples under Roman rule, and failure to address social problems in the city of Rome caused by a growing population (a significant number of whom were former rural people made landless). Yes, the holding of large properties by the elite entailed the extensive use of slaves as farm labor, but it's the small farmers losing their livelihood and independence as free citizens that was one of the stresses. Slavery is very much still a feature of the Roman Empire. It doesn't go away. That material seemed more appropriate to Slavery in ancient Rome, and vastly distorted the article on why the Republic collapsed. For instance, I think the rebellion of Spartacus was even mentioned; the only effect that had was to burnish the career of Marcus Crassus, whose role in the so-called first triumvirate was a symptom of what ailed the Republic, not the cause. Again, it just seemed that the contributors didn't understand that the topic is "why did the Republic fail, and Rome become an Imperial monarchy?" Cynwolfe (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
From my reading of the scholarly sources (as well as the more popular secondary sources) is that slavery contributed significantly to the civil unrest that comprises the Crisis. Slavery was the 'background noise' of the many little civil wars and ongoing brigandage. In other words, slavery was not a direct cause, but certainly was an indirect cause, of the republic's collapse. I can't categorize all of those sources as 'fringey'. A brief section, discussing this topic of how slavery influenced or contributed to the Crisis, should be added back into that article. Of course, there is a more recent idea that there was no such crisis. For a NPOV article, acceptable weight should be given to all ideas about a topic. Bearian (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, since you yourself characterize slavery as 'background noise,' then due weight would not support a section on slavery that was as long if not longer than the sections on the Gracchi and Pompey, and overshadowed the main causes. I'm not going to blather on like an old crank when the article lacks substantial treatment of the major Anglophone scholars on the subject from Ronald Syme on. When refs to P.A. Brunt, Erich S. Gruen, Fergus Millar, T.P. Wiseman, and contributors to CAH whose names haven't popped to mind start appearing in great number, I'll take the article seriously. But it also won't do to start cherrypicking every reference to slavery from those, instead of reading them as a whole and digesting their theses. Harriet Flower is a good start (though currently give disproportionate weight), but there's a single footnote to Syme, and it's the wrong book (not The Roman Revolution, no longer holy writ but still a starting point for any modern treatment of the subject). I don't have time to contribute to the article, so this is just my two cents. Best wishes, Cynwolfe (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
O.K. I'll work on it bit-by-bit between now and September. Please be patient if it's not perfect yet. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I have opened a formal review at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Roman Empire/1, so you may need to post your comprehensive comments there again I am afraid. This does have the virtue of formalising the process, which will be useful if the issues cannot be resolved.--SabreBD (talk) 09:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
That section
More work than I thought, and rather than save my scribble, I'm pasting it into one of my skips for the night. If the raptus takes you, just go ahead, G'night! Haploidavey (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Cripes, just read the rest of the rest. Grim. Haploidavey (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to combine the "History" and "Military History" sections, which duplicate each other at several points. "Military History" seems pasted from Campaign history of the Roman military, so that should've been a summary section in the first place. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I've done considerable work on putting these two together offline, but gah. Head hurts. I'd like to help, but I'm letting myself get sucked into something that isn't in my best interest at the moment, so I'll have to see how I feel in the morning. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Do what's best for you, please. Your input has already been immensely valuable. If you'd rather not get further involved for now, that's fine. And if you'd like me to take a look at what you've done, that's fine too. Haploidavey (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, deary. I'm going to give it one last go this morning. It seems like I ought to know how to do it (putting those two sections together), but it's mechanically hard, and I'm trying not to look at the repetitive writing, which devolves to annals. School has already started here (we're in the middle of the second week), and I'm already realizing how getting up at 6 a.m. destroys my soul. I've always been an owl. My father was an owl. My husband's family is even more owlish. Anyway, one thing I might mention about That Article is that it lacks anything about local government, either in the neighborhoods of Rome after Augustus's redistricting, or in the provinces, for which there is such interesting evidence from inscriptions. Where did I see, for instance, that local Jewish officials were given the right by law of taking the Sabbath off from their duties? And that some feared that was such an attractive proposition that people would convert to Judaism for the privilege? That's a far more down-to-earth picture of how people tried to get along than chronologies of the 1 percent killing each other off for the "throne". And indicates that monotheism wasn't the problem, if practicing your Jewish faith was no bar to holding civic office. Really, the 2nd-6th centuries formed such a black hole in my education: nobody ever went there. Will also look at the images. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Toowhit! My current, agonisingly slow rewrite is headed towards the various ground-level honours and offices that helped things run smoothly. Plebs, slaves and the freed will all be there with the midnight owl, cleaning up the atria after those massive celebrities and their gawping fandom have messed the place up. God, what is it with our culture? Haploidavey (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 22
Hi. When you recently edited Roman Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Menorah (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) 13:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the thought... — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roman Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Papyrus Rylands (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) 12:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! The certainty of the connections matters less for my example than just illustrating naming practice. Strangely, I've had both these books open on my laptop within the last 24 hours (one currently) without it occurring to me that I might find an answer there. Thanks again. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Your post to me
Sorry I didn't get around to this, but I think it's sorted, right? If you ever need something done quickly, feel free to email me. Dougweller (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
What?
There's a entry for this? Super valuable, and I use it all the time when I'm too lazy to read for myself, but ... huh? davidiad.: 01:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I've added content to it at some point. I don't know whether it would survive an AfD these days. There is a Bryn Mawr review to which one could point as a secondary source. Many of our articles link to the site. A deletion would to me show a deficiency in our notability guidelines, but other than stamping my feet I don't know how I would wikilawyer for its defense. As a place where classics meets the public, it was for many years almost unique, and certainly pioneering. I often find myself thinking how extraordinary it was for Bill Thayer, who wasn't born of the cyber-generation, to have seized so early on the concept that the internet could make these kinds of resources available to the public—and to assume a public existed for them. I benefitted so much from it when my daughter was little and I was home with her, and even though other resources have appeared, if I want a Loeb translation I'll always prefer LacusCurtius if it's available there, in the hope of some "Thayer's Notes." I used his texts to create my own annotated editions at a time when he was just about the only source for something like Pliny, whose chapter on gemstones, I may have confessed under torture before, I once spent a week perusing. So I have a completely addled and non-neutral appreciation of LacusCurtius, as if it were an astonishingly generous gift for me personally.
I suppose what I'm saying is that there should be some historian of scholarship out there who recognizes these content pioneers (Roger Pearse's Tertullian site is another) who almost singlehandedly put up masses of texts when Google was a brand new toy for the masses, and who understood instinctively how to add functionality online in ways we take for granted now—and if nobody's bothered to write up this kind of "history of the web for traditional humanities" yet, then it needs to be done. They're like Cahill's Irish monks saving civilization, or at least helping morph it along. (Incidentally, our article History of Google strangely lacks a sociological component almost entirely, as if one were describing the growth of a widget maker instead of a revolution in how information is sought and acquired.) I shall begin loin-girding to defend LacusCurtius at once, should the need arise. This site regards it as one of the "best-loved and most heavily used online resources for Classics research," along with Perseus, which I'll do almost anything to avoid using, though it doesn't load as slowly as it used to, and sometimes I can even coax it to offer up text by the book instead of paragraph.
χα! Now you'll be looking for things just to get me to ramble dodderingly, rather than writing about the legal status of various humans under the Roman Empire, as I am sworn to. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Very good: now I know what AfD to dangle should I ever need to WP:BLACKMAIL you. The Tertullian site is rad, too, I've been using it since my first year as an undergrad, lo, these several moons. davidiad.: 13:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Damn you, I have now edited the Kitten article. O vice! Cynwolfe (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Excellent, we'll have to what other embarrassing items I can add to your contributions. By the way, one of the interlocutors from the charming Suetonius on Christians debate that has been going on forever asked a question on my talk page about the title of Lucius Junius Gallio Annaeanus that is more up your angiportus than mine. davidiad.: 14:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Gah, I saw that. Eye-averting ensued. No, you were right to point to P Ac in matters of nomenclature (though in this case, I might like to see Oatley2112 give the matter a prosopographical going over). Given my unseemly devotion to ancient sexual matters, it does indeed take Kittens to embarrass me. But this reminds me of the time I hung out in the Manga & Graphic Novels section of the late Borders bookdtore, nabbing teens to ask them to compare what stylistic conventions distinguished those aimed at male, female, and any-gender readers. After frightening away a few, I found an extraordinarily articulate young Goth who regaled me for quite some time about how "they" like sharp pointy bits and "we" women etc. About that accursed page, note the relative length, depth of detail, and sourcing for Suetonius, Lives of the Twelve Caesars and Suetonius on Christ. The very existence of the article is a perversion of principles such as due weight, neutrality, synth, and OR. Do you know that Commons actually has a "Dead kittens" category? I won't even acknowledge such an abomination with a link. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Rad kitten research. Yeah, I saw the dead kitten category. Good ole Commons. If you tried your social experiment in the town I just moved to, you'd probably be arrested and find your name would be in the paper, right under the large headline from yesterday's edition: "Naked man on ATV arrested for drugs". That was just above "No lights on vehicle leads to chase in Newark, arrest". davidiad.: 12:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Slavery in ancient Rome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Civil law (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) 11:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Must take aspirin
Averting eyes … averting eyes …
For those of you who watch this page and may know what I'm talking about, allow me to curl up in a fetal ball for a minute and weep. This is exactly why I don't work on major articles in topic areas I should be interested in. Davidiad, stay away from Greek tragedy. Do not merely avert your eyes, but flee on the swiftest of feet. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Let cheap beer meet cheap whiskey, grab Skutsch and the recent Italian edition, and write Annales (Ennius). No hobbyist will ever vex you there. davidiad.: 23:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
She's a page one delight! I want her for my mum... Haploidavey (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Archeological site of Alba-la-Romaine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Auvergne (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) 11:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't the heat so much as it was the tumidity
You're the only person I could think of who would likely need to wlink this new article. davidiad.:τ 01:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm so proud you thought of me. I will go create a link at once. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Now averting eyes from the badness of that introduction, though. And yet it's caused me to think about how "monument" occupies a mediating space, or whatever jargon, between architecture and sculpture, and one that's especially important in Greece and Rome. 11:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Cynwolfe (talk)
I was hoping you wouldn't actually read the article. davidiad.:τ 12:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Only glanced, lest I turn to stone or a phallic pillar of salt. Cynwolfe (talk)
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!
Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).
If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, OcaasiEdwardsBot (talk) 05:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 11:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Plural or singular?
Pan, Sparta, 1st century AD, like every piece of sculpture created under Roman rule a "copy" of some Greek original
I want to knock out the redlink to partheneia today with something stubby, and after a week of reading policy at work don't want to interpret ours: should the headword be partheneion or partheneia? davidiad.:τ 16:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Singular, based on other examples of poetic genre, but while I think epinikion should've been victory ode under the principle of 'most common', I agree with partheneion rather than "maiden song." That will be a very pleasant thing to have even a stub for. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Is there any reason why epinikion isn't victory ode? This is also one of those cases where common usage would actually make the Latin translit more common than the "scientific" translit. davidiad.:τ 16:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't know. I contributed some hasty content one day, but without much thought. Nobody's done much of anything since, so feel free.Cynwolfe (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I trust you fixed the dabs above? Since you were working on it, I didn't bother. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Have now; hadn't noticed. davidiad.:τ 16:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Pindar, Parth. fr. *96 SM: "Blessed, whom the Olympians call the shapeshifting [or 'manifold', abstractly] dog of the great goddess" (ὦ μάκαρ, ὅν τε μεγάλας θεοῦ κύνα παντοδαπὸν καλέουσιν Ὀλύμπιοι) — that is, Pan. Am I missing something? davidiad.:τ 00:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
That is a cryptic question. I'm not familiar with this fragment (I love Pindar, but have never had the chance to study him closely). How do we know this refers to Pan? And is your question about Pan being a dog? Cynwolfe (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it's the doggishness. Aristotle says it's Pan. I think the answer is actually "Dave, it's just Greek poetry, get a grip." davidiad.:τ 02:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Unless some Indo-Europeanist has made hay with this and the Lupercalia, wolves and dog-fiber whips and goats and nubility, I don't know not. "Dog of the great goddess", though, makes me think of Hecate and the triple goddesses and "magic" … this is unhelpful. However, the question allows me to flash up the above image of Pan, which I find disturbing. This may point in some direction, because there Pan is a provider of dogs to Artemis. I wouldn't be surprised to find Pan, the triple goddess(es) and a dog collocated in the PGM. Though I'm too sleepyyyy to look. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this—and for taking the time for a jab at PIE. I just stumbled upon an article called "Pindar and Pan: frs. 95-100 Snell" which I suppose will say something, though I'm too tuckered myself to bother with it. See why I never finish anything here? Big topics like Greek lyric and partheneia float by, but I chase my tail around a nonsense little fragment that is only doubtfully attributed to the genre at hand. The literature I've been reading on partheneia is remarkably interesting, by the way. Since the feet on that Roman copy are restored, I'm going say it's just a hairy man carrying a package of frankfurters, or, as the Romans called them, maize. davidiad.:τ 04:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Do have any image ideas for partheneion? I don't have any pretty papyri (the img at Alcman is only doubtfully his and infringes upon the rights of Houghton Library, so I wouldn't use it). You seem to have the holdings at Commons pretty well mapped oot. davidiad.:τ 20:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't know enough about the genre. I might be inspired after you post. As for Commons, I have user pages where I just pile interesting or potentially useful images, because otherwise it would take hours to find them again. Greek and Roman art is mostly organized by where it's found, or where the piece is currently located. Just about the least likely way I'd be browsing for an image, though I might search for a mosaic I knew was from Tunisia—and even then, it might be so subcategorized that it wouldn't turn up unless I knew the village. Anyway, will keep in mind. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch! davidiad.:τ 11:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ruina montium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Procurator (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) 10:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Terra (mythology), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ljubija and Rudnik (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) 10:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I see you have reistated the new items of bibliography previously deleted by Mr Ollie - thank you for doing this - I hope they will be useful to Wikipedia's readers! 109.157.185.131 (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roman Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Specie (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) 11:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Festus
Thanks, I'll give them a second look. I was basing the difference on the content - lexigraphical vs. history and sometimes on the date of the event described. Yup, I could have erred. --Bejnar (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
It is quite annoying when the Wikipedia text is incomplete such as is the case with the editor who copied the text for the Adlecti article, but failed to copy the reference that in this passage refers to. But with classical studies one has to get used to incompleteness. I just wish they hadn't destroyed all of those mummy wrappings to make fertilizer from the mummies. (or is that an urban legend?) --Bejnar (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I am puzzled by this citation: Festus s.v. Edera and Equo. (at Flamen Dialis) Did they find more of Sextus Pompeius Festus than the alphabetized entries M-V? --Bejnar (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I've completed the review. The historian might have survived at Benevento because the source Ausoniam seemed at first to be an epic poem, page 50 of Niebuhr's The Roman History (translated), but I found the Sextus Pompeius Festus text in [5]. As I remarked above, I'm not sure about the reference in Flamen Dialis it seems to be Sextus Pompeius Festus, but the reference is to Edera and Equo. I did find what might be the Edera reference Ederam flamini Diali neque tangere, neque nominare fas erat, pro eo, quod edera vincit, ad quodcumque se applicat. Sed ne anulum quidem gerere ei licebat solidum, aut aliquem in se habere nodum. Let me know. --Bejnar (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roman Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grammaticus (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) 12:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Calpurnius Piso and the Porta Fontinalis
Hi Cynwolfe. From what I can tell, it was Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso, the supposed rival of Germanicus, who constructed a structure over the Porta Fontinalis to connect his private residences. See here and here. Tacitus states that after Piso's suicide, the Senate decreed that it be demolished as one of his postumous punishments. Cheers. Oatley2112 (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Now Nude (art); See my comments "What Now?" on my talk page.
FigureArtist (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
GA
Request on my talk page. — kwami (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Notifying Wikiprojects
I noticed your request at WT:GA. The discussion has moved to WT:GAN, which has more watchers and gets more responses. The current arguements against it are that it puts more burdon on the already overburdoned reviewers and there are article alerts and other automated processes for notifying appropriate wikiprojects that are interested. The GAR notification is a little different as the aim there is to keep the article, and sometimes the original nominator is either gone or no longer watching the page. I read your discussion with Kwami and if you come across a Good article which is no longer at the required standards the best approach is to open an individual reassessment. You can then simply delist it yourself; note you can't just revert a previous pass however (see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 17#Delisting Good articles). You are not alone BTW, I am currently going through this list and either fixing the issues myself, asking someone at the talkpage to do it, or if I have to opening up reassessments. I take it this has come from the recent passing of Roman Empire, which you did a great job fixing up, but don't feel obliged to do that with every non-Good article you see. AIRcorn(talk) 00:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all the good feedback and info. I do think a misguided GA rating damages the encyclopedia's credibility, but I don't mean to overreact. The reviewing procedure does ask something of editors that's different from article compilation, because it assumes that the reviewer is sufficiently informed about the subject to recognize coverage gaps. The independent knowledge required to do that is contrary to source-based compilation. I'll have to follow your links and try to get a better handle on what I'm trying to say. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't quite follow you. Sorry. AIRcorn(talk) 07:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
We typically assume that an editor's personal body of knowledge doesn't matter, because the content is based on the compilation of RS. In evaluating, however, we assume that the reviewer has a body of knowledge for assessing whether the topic has been covered adequately from all major perspectives. If I don't know a subject, however, I don't know whether there are coverage gaps, and if I'm not well-versed in the scholarship, I don't know whether all major points of view have been represented. I might read an article, be impressed with its images and the number of notes, find it a good read from which I learn a lot, and be blissfully unaware of what it's missing. Roman Empire is a labor of love that I'm unlikely to repeat. It's perhaps our most important article on ancient Rome, and after spending a few years trying to learn about to be a more effective editor, I finally felt ready to tackle a major article. But it pointed to how many other articles on ancient Rome need to be developed in order to divert some of the content from what is now an extraordinarily long article, still needing a couple of things fleshed out. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to jump in here, and I just had a nice little edit conflict with you at WT:GAN! Reading what you have posted here and elsewhere, I have some sympathy, and I have come across some terrible GA reviews before. I've had them done to me, too. But I suspect that problems are with the reviewers rather than the process itself. There are some dreadful reviewers out there, but some damned good ones too. The process works pretty well, in my view, but you need it to be used properly and not rubber-stamped. As I mention on the WT:GAN page, wikiprojects are not necessarily the answer, as their quality is pretty uneven too. What the actual answer is, I am not sure, which is why people have pretty mixed opinions on good articles. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I got lots of good and useful feedback on this question here and elsewhere. I appreciate the thoughtfulness of responses. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 10:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!
The Hard Worker's Barnstar
In recognition of your tireless and endless, massive contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of antiquity!—Sowlos (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate the encouragement. Hope you are well. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
You deserve it. I may only be able to provide a raster image, but seriously. I don't know where you get the energy! Thank you. I am. —Sowlos (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Asclepiades of Samos
If you have a second, you might take a look at the Asclepiades of Samos article to see if the recent additions address all of your concerns of 10 October 2011. --Bejnar (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I was the one who deleted tags that I felt were unjustified. But I wholeheartedly commend you for your elegant and well-sourced additions, and hope you are interested in other such articles. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mithraic mysteries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intaglio (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) 12:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Catullus 16/GA1
Hi there, could you please revisit Talk:Catullus 16/GA1, as the GA Nominator has worked to try to address points raised there? Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Mithraism page hatnote
The hat-note you put on the Mithraic Mysteries page is an excellent idea! It will help newcomers to the page to see at a glance whether they are likely to find what they are looking for there, and if not, whether they are more likely to find it on the Mitra page. It's likely to help avoid a lot of trouble... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you see it as helpful. It seemed to be a frequent edit—calling the Mithraic mysteries a Persian religion—so I thought delimiting the scope at the outset might be better. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I see your hatnote as very helpful, not only because it delimits the scope of the page, but also because it strengthens the cross-referencing of pages. You've responded in a very positive way to that frequent edit you've mentioned. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I am so glad to see you! Was worried. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Great Ludovisi sarcophagus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bust (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) 11:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
History of Art
I answer to both of you, many thanks.
We are French students. Generally, we feel quite strange that wikipedia in English ignores important aspects of non English speaking other countries. So that is why we begin to try to improve it.
Well, for the example of Laurent Gervereau, I heard what you said all of you. So, I will write some short words only for 4 subjects (we could take for him literature, Art, politics, cinema, photography...) with references : political ecology, history of art, image, philosophy
Then, please help me Francophonie & Androphilie to put it in a better English
Thanks for your note. I only recall addressing minor layout issues, and commenting that the Great Ludovisi sarcophagus was perhaps not the most obvious choice to represent Roman art in a section dealing with the approach to art history found in traditional textbooks. Good luck! Cynwolfe (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Lupercalia
If 'wolf' is too tenuous a translation, shouldn't the other authoritative uses of the term be removed or changed? —Sowlos (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I didn't review them closely. They don't need to go if they have a good source. "Wolf" is indeed one of the etymologies proffered, but what's questionable is to identify the Lupercalia as a "wolf festival," since there's no indication that the Romans understood it as some kind of celebration of wolves. It was a fertility rite, and that is one possible connection to the site where Romulus and Remus were nurtured. Do you see the distinction I'm making? Regardless of what the ultimate etymology of Lupercus is, the Lupercalia itself was not a "festival of wolves," but a festival connected to whatever Lupercus was supposed to represent. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry. I fully understand your point. Even if I didn't, I know how to distinguish between my own opinions and verifiable/sourceable information (unlike some other people on site). My question was based on if/then logic; if calling it 'Wolf festival' isn't justifiable, then wouldn't statements such as 'the rites were directed by the Luperci, the "brothers of the wolf (lupus)"...' be misleading to readers as well?
Distinguishing between etymology and what the festival meant to Romans is valid, but the article should do the same. —Sowlos (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Even if the Luperci are to be correctly understood as "brothers" of the wolf, it doesn't mean that the Lupercalia was understood as the "wolf festival." I don't have time to look at this because I'm preparing for the Thanksgiving holiday tomorrow. My point is not to exclude lupine elements. Wolf brotherhoods for young men are characteristic of Iron Age Europe and are found also among the Greeks (in connection with Apollo) and the Celts (Proinsias MacCanna sees the fianna as such), and wolves are one of the totem animals of the ver sacrum. Transforming wild "wolf youth" into usefully fecund agents makes ritual sense. It's just misleading to identify the Lupercalia as the "wolf festival" as a straightforward identification of what the festival was in the first sentence—especially since the Luperci wore goatskins. It seems to be a festival so-called because it was held at the Lupercal or celebrated by the Luperci, which is somewhat different from calling it a "wolf festival". Both H.H. Scullard and William Warde Fowler state flatly that a supposed god named Lupercus was an Augustan back-formation to explain the festival, as with Fornax and the Fornacalia (the latter being a wretched little stub I've been meaning to attend to). The relation to Faunus (associated with goats, not wolves) who gets his holiday on the 13th, has also perplexed scholars for ages. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
You make solid points (as usual). I will need to look into this further, as I hate seeing important and interesting topics covered by Start class articles, but don't have time this moment either. I'm sure the article will survive. :)
Have a good Thanksgiving. —Sowlos (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
AENEID
What's with the all-caps stuff? Please see MOS:ALLCAPS. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I guess I used caps for the same reason you did. Interestingly, did you not clock note 2 to MOS:ALLCAPS? Tommy Pinball (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Um, I used all caps as an example of what you did. Note 2 says Reduce track titles on albums where all or most tracks are listed in all capitals. This is relevant how? Especially since even if Aeneid were covered by this, the guidelines tells you to use conventional capitalization, not all caps. The Aeneid is an epic poem, and the title is not conventionally given in all caps, except perhaps on a title page as a stylistic device. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bust (sculpture), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eutropius (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) 11:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
To answer your issue statement, "it's about the condition of slavery, but offers no theory or historical explanation of why Rome's republican form of government collapsed and gave way to an imperial autocracy in which slavery still existed"?:
The "background noise" of the institution of slavery in the Roman Republic was both a cause and a result of the Crisis, for at least three reasons.(cite from Dupont chapter on Slavery) Specifically, the endless competition, litigation, obligations, temptations, and humiliations of daily life in ancient Rome were constantly on everyone's mind.(pinpoint citation from Dupont) Romans were also particularly in grave danger of being harmed by their slaves' hatred and resentments.(another pinpoint citation from Dupont) Finally, the wars of the Crisis brought in yet more slaves.(pinpoint citations from Dupont and Fields)
— from the Slavery section you removed
I am not sure how more explicit that could be, but I will do more research to placate you. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I've been rediculously busy in real life. 2012 has been my annus horribilis. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't need to be placated, unless it's with festive offerings of food and drink for the season. Nor do I mean to be obnoxious. But unless Dupont's book is greatly misnamed, Daily Life in Ancient Rome isn't a study of why the republic gave way to the empire and isn't a political history. And the phrase I've italicized above has little or nothing to do with slavery; it's a psychological description. Dupont in these passages seem to be trying to capture a sort of fin-de-siècle state of mind—not analyzing the constitutional crisis. Exactly how do the anxieties Romans felt about possible uprisings express themselves in the change of constitution? Or how does the institution of slavery change as a result of the transition from republic to empire?
By contrast, the volume of the Cambridge Ancient History for the end of the Republic does set out to offer political history and to examine the constitutional crisis, and it specifically says that slavery was not a factor. If it were, we could expect some major changes in the institution of slavery as a result. The change described in the section was a matter of commerce: because Rome stopped expanding, it no longer enslaved so many war captives. Other grisly facts of the slave market remained unchanged, or supply lines altered because they could trade slaves over the limes. Now, the social shakeup of the early empire gave a significant number of educated slaves more opportunities, and laws were later passed that gave slaves some possible remedies (at least theoretically) against maltreatment. But this was an indirect result of Rome becoming an imperial autocracy, not a cause of the republic's collapse, and has to do with such things as the growing importance of freedmen in society (who might be expected to understand the conditions of slavery and who were a visible reminder that former slaves and hence slaves were human beings) and of philosophical trends such as Stoicism that took a universalizing view of humanity (though the compassion of the theory class can be exaggerated).
I hope you will read the pdf I linked to, truncated though it is (even better if you can seek out the volume in a library), and see what I'm trying to say about the scope of the article—mainly that the deleted material belongs in Slavery in ancient Rome, not in an article examining the causes of the constitutional crisis of the Republic and the transition to an imperial autocracy, since slavery was not a cause of this political transformation. Inequality among free men (Italians and the displaced poor) is, however, generally considered among the undermining factors: the Social War (not the Servile Wars) is an indicator of political stress that during the transitional period Julius Caesar addressed through his mass extensive of citizenship (which left the senatorial elite sputtering about trousers in the Senate).
I hope the horribilis part of your year is more a shudder of excitement from being busy at something challenging, and not a terrible or miserable shudder. Best wishes, Cynwolfe (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
And sorry if I seemed to land on you precipitously; was in a bit of a rush. These are good points. Category:Military history of ancient Gaul, however, would be a subcategory of your proposed Category:Military history of the Celts, since "Celts" would include the insular Celts, and the Romano-Arvernian war involving Bituitos has next to nothing to do with the Battle of Moira. Gallic military commanders would indeed go under "ancient Gauls," but pages and subcategories can go in multiple categories. Judging from the categories within which Vercingetorix has been placed, we don't have a category at present for "Military commanders of the Gauls," or whatever it should be called, so there's one you could think about.
My impression is that there may have been efforts at some point to avoid the ambiguities of who the "Celts" are in creating categories.
I suppose my point was that you deleted the category "Military history of ancient Gaul" from Roman Republican governors of Gaul, which deals in large part with the role of military actions in Gallo-Roman relations. That was one indication that the category wasn't synonymous with "Battles involving the Gauls." Best wishes, Cynwolfe (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christopher Kelly (historian), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Corpus Christi College (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) 10:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the friendly advice
If you have to revert my edits please do so, but try to only revert the era tag (Unless you see any other errors). I usually add/delete information, so I was just letting you know. Lupus Bellator (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
E-mail
Hello, Cynwolfe. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Ancient Rome Wikiepidia contributions. Message added (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I hope this beautiful season fills you with joy and laughter throughout your family. Do lots of holiday shopping. And remember that Christmas is about giving not receiving. (Maybe it‘s a little bit about receiving). Christmas is happy and exciting. Make everyone‘s day nice and joyful. Be merry and wish everyone a merry Christmas. Merry Christmas, Cynwolfe! Do some holiday shopping!--
Why, thank you. What a lovely and unexpected greeting. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Your very welcome. Hope this has made your holiday at Wikipedia, even more special. RaidenRules! (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 10:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Chaucer and company
In case you are interested, there is something underway at WikiProject Poetry regarding articles related to The Canterbury Tales. There may be a task force developed to work on these articles; other editors have suggested directing the WikiProject's focus on Chaucer articles for the time being. Perhaps the Italian humanism/impact article could use some assistance from this; also, would you be interested in participating in this effort? dci | TALK 03:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I would enjoy that, if I can squeeze out some time. For some reason, I've never put the Poetry project on my watchlist, even though poetry's always been an important part of my life. So even if I can't do much in the short term, I'm delighted that you brought this to my attention. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar
You make a Difference! Albeit27 (talk) 07:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi there Cynwolfe. I’m stopping by to let you know that I am remembering your kindness to me when I was first born here. I’m still a wiki-infant, but I’ve come far and I’m having the greatest time! I’m here to let you know that you make wiki a better place by being welcoming to newbies. You were my very first contact whilst on a very first serious-related edit (for me) at a seriously impt article (Julius Caesar , specifically his talk). I don’t watch those pages because you experts do a fine job. But, lol, I did go visit there today and I saw my little edits remain. I’ll also always remember your “You haven't done anything to scare the horses so far” quote! I went there just now - scrolling down the content section, well-knowing that there’d be a newbie clue in the headline/subject line - sure nuff, it says “Hello”, geez lol. Anyhow, thanks for being so kind to newbies.Albeit27 (talk) 07:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
This was much appreciated, especially on a morning when I'm feeling sad about the world. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am feeling devastated along with the rest of the country. I haven’t given out a barnstar before and realize some don’t care for them. Feel free to archive. Back to news - unbelievable, and at Xmas time,,,, My best.Albeit27 (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
See also
Hi Cynwolfe. I have to say I don't find the links to the Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires terribly important to topics such as Roman economy, Roman commerce and Roman metallurgy. I understand everything is somehow connected with everything, but I could think of quite a few other articles to be linked which are contents-wise much closer.
You may be unaware of its history, but there is a quite specific reason why Comparative studies has been an orphan for so long. It started as a plain ethnocentric attempt at wargaming the empires by a retired user. The current article is a compromise version which settled the strong dispute, but at the cost of having something of a queer article which does not quite fit into the Roman categories. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Roman metallurgy contains a comparison to Han production, so the scholarly methodologies on which these comparisons are based seems relevant. Roman commerce has a section on contact with China. SInce Walter Scheidel's work, which involves comparative techniques (including specifically of Rome and China), is a significant contribution to studies of the Roman economy (a rather underdeveloped article), it seemed like a useful link. Keep in mind that these are in the "See also" section, and don't affect categories. Although I'm often queasy about linking to articles of less-than-desirable quality, I do it anyway when I think it's potentially useful, if the article were to be brought up to standard. I suppose this is optimistic. I don't see these see-also links as outré, since the guideline for WP:ALSO says The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. I'm aware of the regrettable history of the dispute, but I try not to let wiki-politics affect editorial choices. If you think having the see-also links is harmful, I'm listening. I haven't thought about it all that deeply. I just had the article on my watchlist, and when it popped up I noticed the the orphan tag. Since I dislike that tag, I always go looking for links so I can remove it. Best, Cynwolfe (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a point you have to keep in mind. The scope of the article Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires is not about a comparison between Roman and Chinese commerce, economy, metallurgy etc., but rather about studies that draw such comparisons. It is an article about historical comparative research, not about any particular results or findings, but a meta-article about the scholarship which deals with comparisons between these two empire. This is easily overlooked, but it a very important thing to note because this meta-character was actually the immediate outcome of the AfD and the condition on which the original, immediate Comparison between Roman and Han Empires was kept in the first place.
By extension, the meta-article is conceptually on different plane from Roman economy etc., making it in my view kind of category mistake to link to them. Ideally, Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires should be linked to other articles about historical comparative research, but the problem is there are practically none in the category and that's why it has been an orphan for so long; the reason for this orphan status lies in its peculiar history of coming into being. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
See my remark about scholarly methodology above. Roman Empire links to classical demography as a way of expanding on the methodology behind the numbers in a way that would be distracting or TMI in the main article. And while I think WP:ALSO goes too far in permitting the linking of "tangential" topics, in practice I don't see this capacity abused a lot, and in any case, a "See also" section isn't about category. It's specifically for related topics that may not be central to the topic, but provide some other dimension. If Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires is a valid article, then there's nothing wrong with linking to it from an article that deals with Rome-China connections or comparisons, since the comparative studies article illuminates the methodology behind the information. If the article isn't valid, it should be deleted. You're not going to convince me by implying I'm too dumb to think logically about category. You have to address the criteria at WP:ALSO, and the specific reasons I chose the articles I did for the links. As I said, I'm listening, but what I'm hearing is that you don't like the article. Me neither. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Happy Saturnalia!
Last day! ;) Hope you are having a wonderful holiday!
I noticed that Julius Caesar is listed as among the top 5000 viewed Wikipedia articles. An attempt to take these listed articles to GA or FA in the coming year has been suggested on Jimbos talkpage! This one should be easy! Also, be prepared for the article to get even more attention in the coming months as the Starz TV series, Spartacus will be introducinjg a young Caesar in the next season beginning in January! (With a possible series spinoff) Look for arguments about his hair and eye color! LOL! It has already started on the Spartacus fan page and usually there is bleed over to Wikipedia. Also being introduced is Crassus. His page will probably see some vandalsim or uncontsructive edits as well! One other new character is a person listed as the son of Crassus but called "Tiberius". Innaccuracy won't stop the editing of the nuber of Tiberius pages we have, so we may want to keep them watch listed!--Amadscientist (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I was reading that article yesterday. I was very interested in the Cornelia information. That I did not know about. I knew she was married to Pompey but had no idea she was also married to Crassus' son. I read that she was presented with Pompey's ashes by Caesar and lived out her life on one of Pompeys estates.
What I may do is put the Caesar article up for Ga nomination. When the reviewer trnascludes the review page and it shows up on the Julius Caesar talkpage, if you feel inclined, you can participate in whatever level you are comfortable with.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Yuletide Greetings
Yuletide greetings, with appreciation for your constructive input to the Mithraic Mysteries page over the last two years.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
..
Seasons greetings to you and yours Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
.JPG)
.jpg)
