User talk:Davidiad/2013

Hello

Hello Davidiad, I see no one has posted anything here, anyways, forgive me that I forgot to log in my account, pardon my misttake, Thank you (Slurpy121 (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC))

Did you also mistakenly remove my comment from Paul August's talk page while, again, editing from your IP and immediately logging in to edit from your account? Get your act together.  ^davidiad_.:τ 03:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Sincere appreciation(s), dear D

For your thoughtfulness, pithiness and delightful wit... and may this be your best year yet. Haploidavey (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Davey. A year ago this time we were discussing practical applications of silices. Here's to hoping this year brings nothing so interesting.  ^davidiad_.:τ 16:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Last message

Hi, I've seen your message in the talk page of paul august. I would like to talk to you regarding the recent incident, Thank you (Slurpy121 (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC))

Not interested. Best,  ^davidiad_.:τ 23:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Charito

Hello Davidiad, I just write a quick note to tell you that it is all in good faith, and that it is true, Charo is also commonly known as "Charito"[1]. Please don't doubt my good faith[2]. Regards. Tortillovsky (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me for doubting your intentions, but is that Charo?  ^davidiad_.:τ 06:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Davidiad, my best wishes go out to you. I appreciate you are looking out for the best of the project. My sincere apology if I sounded harsh. Best regards, I remain at your service. Tortillovsky (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, I truly apologize for not being more careful about the reference I provided.[3] Sorry. Tortillovsky (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Charito Baeza, under "Personal Details - Alternate Names" [4]. Thanks. Tortillovsky (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, there we go. Now that's Charo. Sorry again.  ^davidiad_.:τ 01:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Help needed

See User talk:Moonriddengirl#User Mondigomo and massive copyvio -some editor here have been involved in some of the articles this editor has left full of copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This guy again. Great. I'll look through this in a bit.  ^davidiad_.:τ 18:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It's at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Mondigomo now. Thanks for the offer. Dougweller (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Feriale Duranum

I lifted the "External links" section of Feriale Duranum directly from those you so helpfully offered me when I asked you a question about this document. The Beinecke link[5] has stopped working. Know why, or a more durable alternative? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's annoying: the Beinecke finally has an updated site, and, in true Yale IT style, the only access to the papyrus collection is hideously broken. In fact, the basic search of the site is broken. I was able to get in through the backdoor and update the link to the new location of the old record. Hopefully within the week there will be a shiny new record and a more stable link. Let me know if it breaks again in the meantime.  ^davidiad_.:τ 00:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

All I can recall of Yale IT is punched tape - I guess it must be better now. :-) Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

To judge from the functionality of that glossy new site for the Beinecke, they might still be using tape in lieu of servers. With an endowment as big as Yale's, I'd <insert off-color joke here>.  ^davidiad_.:τ 18:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Cynwolfe (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You got it.  ^davidiad_.:τ 04:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

[6] Cynwolfe (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Rad. I have a feeling that if my furry little crackers got out the door and found that they were in Arkansas, they'd hightail back to the Northeast; at least Henry would, since he's Jersey through and through.  ^davidiad_.:τ 14:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat like this one

My cat, by contrast, is a beautiful little whore who would go with anyone. Which is how we obtained her: she followed us home when my daughter was still young enough to be riding a tricycle, and decided to stay. I confess that I didn't look very hard for her owner, since she looked just like the kitty I had wanted since I was 9 years old (rather like a blue mink Tonkinese, including the blue eyes). She had no collar, wasn't a year old yet, and at that time we had a number of semi-feral cats around, a couple of whom resembled her, so I've always imagined she was just born civilized and decided "screw this living in the woods hunting crap." She hates climbing trees, and on those few occasions when alarm has driven her up one, has had to be rescued even from a height that allows me to stand flatfooted on the ground and reach up to her. She likes sitting on people, particularly visitors to our home who dislike cats, but bites anyone who attempts to pet her. We have moved once with her, and it was only a short distance (less than half a mile), so I was sure she'd wander back, but she preferred our new digs: we have this funky multilevel 70s place with an open but tread-carpeted stair that's one giant cat hangout. She used to visit a former neighbor and terrorize the Boston Terrier. Although a small, delicate cat, she completely rules our two shelter-adopted dogs, who are not merely dogs but hounds, one a very small beagle (aka "rabbit dog" around here) and a 55-pounder bred specifically to tree small game. She's very proud of them, and will go on short walks with us; she likes to humiliate the beagle in particular by rubbing against her during bathroom squatting. And now you know my cat tale. (I shall reserve tales of the great Julius, her predecessor, slayer of serpents, for another day, unless of course the Powers That Be swat me too unkindly for using precious WP space for human contact among colleagues.) Cynwolfe (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

この利用者は眼鏡をかけています。

O my ... that sounds like quite the powerful character. Hank is the whore in our house, though Tinsel (of Japanese userbox fame) will occasionally take an intense liking to a visitor that is more properly called an obsession. I look forward to hearing about Julius someday, but heaven forfend that I encourage you to fall off the chatting wagon, what with the recent warm reconciliation with your castigator.  ^davidiad_.:τ 23:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Suspiciendum est. But new ones pop up when you least expect it. The last few months, I'd been thinking the place had become nicer and more reasonable. Hadn't dealt with a crazy person in a long time. At first I took it as a test. Now I just feel beat up on. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, this discussion resembles 60s hippies and 70s post-hippies who would probably discuss Linda Goodman's Sun Signs as serious conversation at a coffee table. And I say that with all due respect. Hilarious.  ^davidiad_.:τ 12:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow. This guy is a real dick.  ^davidiad_.:τ 23:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edgar Lobel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mods (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) 11:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Greek titles

Here is something you might be interested in. Wareh isn't on much these days—for positive reasons, I think, if my last impression holds. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Wareh addressed the question, which is for the best since I'd argue for Latin titles all around. Glad to hear his absence is likely a sign of success ... I haven't corresponded with him for over a year.  davidiad { t } 23:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Scroll/roll

If I'm talking about the transmission of an ancient text that made the transition from roll to codex as a step in its survival, what is my best article link for "roll"? Every time I have volumen to link to, for instance, I find myself perplexed by a lack of clarity in my options. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You mischievous little lupine! Is this retaliation for my sending you on a rant the other day? Right now the only real option is scroll, which at least opens "A scroll is a roll ...", but is a hideous little page. History of scrolls is useless. Rotulus is not a real option because it is in part a fork of scroll using queer terminology, in part a misleading account of post classical phenomena while hinting at a practice found in Demotic documents during the classical period. But on that page we see one of the reasons that the scholarship has persisted in using roll for our texts: scroll implies vertical orientation. (Why this "rotulus" is vertically oriented, who knows?) The anachronistic distinction at rotulus seems to try to clear this up, but I think it might be terminology specific to Spanish-language scholarship for the classical period, because I've never seen it in the wild. (Rotulus, in my opinion, should just be deleted.) For what you're doing, and I think this comes up enough to warrant individual treatment, we could have an article on the process, the so-called metakharakterismos, which could give brief coverage of the history of the bookroll and the early codex and describe the scholarship's theories about the implication of the shift in format. The issue with that would be that the moment a sober account is written, some idiot will come along and say St. Peter's nephew or someone transcribed P.Beatty 2 around 80 AD, and I'll be driven to drink. What text are you working on?  davidiad { t } 19:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope ... I was wrong about rotulus. The article came from the Catholic Encyclopedia, not a RS.  davidiad { t } 20:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite gratified by this, both as a mischievous lupine and because I wasn't wrong to feel this insufficiency. I'm not working on a text as such; I'm working on Cupid and Psyche and I just need a passing remark without going into detail that the Metamorphoses, though it survived what the source presents as a sort of first trial to transmission by passing from roll to codex, falls into obscurity at the end of the 6th century, but survives by the skin of its teeth for its glorious Florentine rediscovery. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Many years ago, though far too few to be called "many", I was a frustrated English major who enjoyed the good fortune of having been raised by a Latinist. During the summer of 2003 I read her copy of Helm's Teubner back and forth until it was paper mache and woke up a misguided classicist that fall. Last week when your edits started popping up on my watchlist I couldn't help but read it again (in my dogeared copy) after about seven years with no Apuleius. Damn! That's a book.

Anyway, "a sort of first trial to transmission by passing from roll to codex" is about as fine a way to put it as there is. Too often classicists over emphasize the importance of this shift, appearing to forget that the transition from roll to codex is a product of an active readership, not the other way around. The number of partially preserved "lost works" that didn't make this leap is actually very small. In my experience most fragmentary texts that made it to the second century also made it to the next two and into codex-form. Menander and the Aetia sure as hell did, and the latter survived until at least the 10th century, to judge from the indirect tradition. One has to wonder, however, despite the language of the prologue, whether or not the Metamorphoses began life as a codex, or at least made it there during its first generation of readers. Who are you reading that brings up the issue of format in transmission?  davidiad { t } 23:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

It's at Cupid and Psyche#Classical tradition. There's a footnote. It's meant just to provide a context for why the tale was known and allegorized in the 5th and 6th centuries, but then resurfaces only in the mid-14th century among the Florentine humanists. The section is on literary reception, not the transmission of the text as such, which I would see as belonging properly to the article on the Metamorphoses as a whole (I regard it as unfortunate that we go with The Golden Ass). Cynwolfe (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I see people are lining up for your offer. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You just scared the hell out of me, κακόσχολε Κυνολυκείη. As I was driving back to the office after posting that, I feared that I'd opened myself up to a torrent of requests to dip into the cache of scholarship accumulated during my time as a poor, scan-happy student. Still, maybe someone will come by and decide to take me up on it. Here's a cryptic offer to you: that list that we put our names on for access to that thing last year—I got bumped up the list and got it. Drop me an email if yuz needs anyting.  davidiad { t } 23:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: A couple prods

Why do you think this requires discussion? The discussion is already linked and nobody disputed the rationale on that talk page, and I'm endorsing it through the prod, too. The articles aren't redundant, they're factually incorrect from the get-go. Do you actually think these interpretations are wrong? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You are of course free to de-prod for practically any reason, but you're also free to revert yourself :) Thanks. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Catalogue of Women

May I place your article Catalogue of Women in GA nomination? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking and for thinking of this. If you think it a good idea, I'd say go for it ... There are some deficiencies in what is there that would benefit from the process, and perhaps the exercise could impel me toward really finishing it. Where are "The Women", Dave?  davidiad { t } 22:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I've never nominated a GA before and wanted to start with something clearly deserving, and something in which I had no involvement or emotional investment. Might I suggest, though, that you move P.Oxy. XI 1358 fr. 2 to the top image? I recall our conversation about illustrations that might seem tangential, and of course being me I encouraged that, but now I'm thinking it would be better to start out more grounded. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the Elektra fragment to the top and taken out the Reni for now. There's a book on the Catalogue and the Metamorphoses coming out that uses the painting ... I haven't asked the author if our article influenced the decision.  davidiad { t } 11:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I hope I didn't make you feel you should take out the Reni altogether. And perhaps I was wrong in the first place. This should be a quick pass, if anyone decided to undertake the review. I have reservations about the recent nominations of Mars (mythology) (which I think has significant gaps, like no sections on temples, Venus and Mars, and the classical tradition in general) and of Jupiter (mythology). But I'm tired of being the one who obstructs GAs, which is why I wanted to look for a couple to nominate. I think the Cybele article deserves a GA, but Haploidavey doesn't seem to be around, and I doubt there's anyone else well-versed enough to monitor any misunderstandings of content that may arise if the prose is edited. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. Having Reni up front was actually a tacit compromise on my part because I often feel that my gut reaction to slap a papyrus up there doesn't serve every given topic as well as I wish it would. I think that it has a place in the reception section once that monograph comes out and I can give Ovid a bit more attention. I'd be surprised if our article is reviewed anytime soon. Traherne has been on that list since December!  davidiad { t } 22:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Check email. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with all the images. I just realized that you thought P.Oxy. 1358 fr. 2 should be the lead image, not 1359 fr. 2! Please feel free to change.

Whichever you like best or think is most apt. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Davidiad, I may be getting what my girls had earlier this week, and I won't go into further detail. In other words, my review may take a few more days. BTW, I hope you don't mind how I'm doing this--I could paste all those headings in there and say "pass" "pass" "pass", because it clearly passes a lot of the criteria, but I'll take care of that later. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry to hear that Drmies ... I hope you feel better: drink liquids other than beer. No hurry on the review, and I certainly didn't expect it to be done in an evening. It gets dense with summary and I may have gotten lost in it a bit, though when I read it now I do see logic in much of the presentation. I'm too muddleheaded these days to fix real issues—i.e. content issues—as quickly as they might be noted, anyway. Tomorrow there may be two or three more paragraphs, though I might wait as I've been holding off on these until there's some clarity on the state of what's there. (I'd been planning for some time to ask Cynwolfe to give the article a good read for this purpose ... but her idea to put it up for GA came first.) As you read, if you feel you need to see a source, I have the majority of them scanned or downloaded. And however you go about your review is fine ... I have absolutely no idea how it's supposed to be done anyway.  davidiad { t } 02:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Well played. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Davidiad; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Happy birthday. Enjoy. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Wait—they sell Chimay in bottles smaller than 75cL? Don't tell the lady: we generally "split" the biggins. She got me a Sam Adams spring sampler, which actually has two pretty interesting varieties. We live deep in a dry county (which I didn't know existed until 4:36pm on August 14th of last year ... after driving three days and unpacking the truck), so any more recherche scholar-beers are a real drive away.  davidiad { t } 00:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't want to bring this up, but anyone who moves to Arkansas deserves what's coming to them. Yes, they sell them in smaller bottles--$20 for a four-pack. The missis and I drank a big bottle of Chimay tripel this afternoon, and I'm getting a Cosco card soon: $10 for the blue. My dealer sells three Sam Adams varieties in big bottles but they're not that exciting, though I had their gueuze and it wasn't bad at all. Drive by here--and bring all your savings and a trailer since we have some good stores here, and a nice bar. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The Maple Pecan Porter is a low key, but nosy dessert beer, but if you're mad for the monks, the ratio of sweetness to alcohol (5ish I think) will make it seem cloying. The rest have the soapy finish and mouth feel that most Sam's has—for which one develops an odd taste early on where I'm from. We might be more than visiting in your neck of the woods soon: she's applied for a job at one of the Yellowhammer State schools.  davidiad { t } 03:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Eagle (Roman military standard)#Second survey

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Eagle (Roman military standard)#Second survey. —Sowlos 09:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Youtie

No, sorry. I studied classical Greek but my interest lies in Plutarch and Philo, not papyrology. I have dug around in Jewish Hellenistic papyri before, but adding both Youties was simply here on wp in passing as an adjunct to Dodecapharmacum which a muslim editor asked to me to create. Papyri is a bit too techy for me. Grammar however, now that's exciting. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Grammar is sexy, but papyrology ... ah, papyrology. I assume by Philo you mean the big one and not my favorite Philo:

τοῖσιν ἕδος μακαριστὸν ὅλης μέγας ἔκτισεν ἄκτωρ
ὕψιστος καὶ πρόσθεν ἀπ' Ἀβραάμοιο καὶ Ἰσάκ
Ἰακώβ <τ'> εὐτέκνοιο, τόθεν Ἰωσήφ, ὃς ὀνείρων
θεσπιστὴς σκηπτούχῳ ἐν Αἰγύπτοιο θρόνοισιν
δινεύσας λαθραῖα χρόνου πλημμυρίδι μοίρης

Ἀβραάμοιο! Still, great to have both Youties!  davidiad { t } 11:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I meant the big one. Our epic friend above could actually be made even smaller if Robert Doran was right. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I've never studied any Philo in earnest: just how much of the fragmentary Philo does Doran think spurious?  davidiad { t } 12:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Only the "Philo the Elder" snippets cited in Stromateis/Josephus. No great loss to Philo the poet. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Cybele

Thanks for looking at the Greek. Actually, all the Greek could bear some more looking at, since it originally said Δεδποινα. I fixed the obvious typo, but didn't look anything up, and am having so much trouble with my eyes I can barely read English, let alone Greek diacritics. So I was planning to ask whether you could spare the time. There are some things I want to get back to later, such as the organization of sections in the latter part (the last section seems tacked on; it might be better to have a single section on the Galli instead of two), but it won't be tonight. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

And I am in awe, or something, of the mind that found it informative and necessary to create the categories represented by these edits: [7] [8] [9] Cynwolfe (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Ha! I saw those all over my watchlist earlier and did get a big kick out of them. I'm almost tempted to create Category:Deaths by chariot misadventure in Athens and Category:Deaths by chariot misadventure in Rome and Category:Deaths by chariot misadventure in Elis and so on. I'll take a quick look at Cybele soon, but right now I have to go pick up the lady. She's returning from driving a field trip to Crystal Bridges, the only major art museum with a name appropriate for an eighties pop-country singer. I'm planning to finish up the Catalogue GA process this evening and tomorrow: if your eyes are up to it, keep one on my edits.  davidiad { t } 01:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I looked at it for a second. The Doric that I assume someone was after with Matar is actually Mater and I put in the real Pindaric text, but I don't know that it's really necessary (or is giving the Mater at all: the article isn't about Greek dialects). The other Greek passage was my work, as can be judged from the ever accessible method of citation: "fr. inc. auct. Pfeiffer", so it's obviously perfect. I started copy-editing, but realized you'd be doing that and might disagree with my idea of sensible punctuation. There are a bunch of hypens for en-dashes in page ranges, though, so I might look again as I hate, hate, hate that.  davidiad { t } 03:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I left Matar alone because I thought I might be missing something. One problem with Cybele has to do with naming, and the whole "Mother of the Gods" thing, and Magna Mater … all of which now suggests to me that we probably need the very thing I hate most in deity articles, or indeed any article, the gibberish section on etymology, because it creates the impression that if you could just get the PIE root with absolute certainty, you would know everything that's "real". Very Stoic. But with Cybele I see this in terms of invocation and epithet, not morphology. A section after the intro tracing how the deity is invoked or named as she moves into various religious contexts would be a sort of capsule of the overall history, and it probably makes more sense to look at the title Mater in Greek and Latin side by side. The point about how Kubele comes into Greek usage was interesting. So I would be thrilled if someone would do a "Naming and invocation" kind of section.

I do have one qualm about pursuing Cybele as what I think might be the first GA for a Greek or Roman deity, and establishing a precedent or model. She doesn't have much of a presence in the "classical tradition", because she doesn't have much of a narrative tradition, so she can't provide an example of how to negotiate religion/mythology. (Though she does have an extremely interesting presence in the clash with Christianity that needs a section.) I feel strongly that we should have intelligent end-sections on representations in later art and literature that are more than trivia lists, and that suggest why a particular myth speaks to certain intellectual, aesthetic, or cultural trends (such as Prometheus and Romanticism). The major Roman deity articles are in such a mess that I don't know any that would be a good test case, but some Greek deity articles are better. Mars was nominated for a GA review, but it has at least three significant coverage gaps. Diana at one point was colonized by Wiccans. With Minerva one would be starting virtually from scratch. Apollo would be an ideal subject for Greece, Rome, and reception, but it's consumed with unreadable lists and what Apollo "really" means if we could only strip the veils of time and get back to his prehistoric origins, and Apollo would take months to research properly. Ditto Dionysus. Pluto meanders because I found the sources that said what needed to be said (that Plouton was a name to reform the deity in the context of the Eleusinian mysteries and the Classical culture of Athens) only after I had thrown in a bunch of stuff willy-nilly. Cupid is extremely difficult because atypical: not really treated as a proper deity in Rome. The Venus article has some good stuff, but the topic is enormous, given the vast reception history. (Haploidavey has made great improvements to both Venus and Ceres.) The Aphrodite article has no images from vase painting, and I just made two huge off-topic deletions (long narratives of Cupid and Psyche, and Pygmalion; nothing at all about the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite in the article). I might see what I can do for Mars. This sort of survey makes me feel like a Danaid. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If I were to admit that I know what a Minerva is I'd have to go to the Greek consulate and turn in my gun and my badge, by which I of course mean my spanikopita and my debt. My advice would be to take the deity that you feel most confident in completely rewriting if it came to that. The path of least resistance in my mind would be Hermes, since it would benefit most from academic literature and would be least prone to hobbyists among the major gods. But whichever you latch on to I'll be willing to help. I can help with the literature but not much else. I think that in the meantime you should draft WP:LEER.  davidiad { t } 22:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Sheer hypocrisy from the woman who illustrates articles with display cases of penises and breasts (oh, right, and a uterus), and I'm too busy with Category:Writers of Greek killed by falling Testudinidae. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we have an article on Socrates' great opponent, Testicles (Greek philosopher)? Drmies (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

χα χα χα. Classy. (Spurred by the same Simpsons episode I watched online last night?). Here comes the nerdness ... test- isn't Greek. ὄρχις, orkhis was testicle, though they were often just called δίδυμοι, didymoi, "the twins"; cf. epididymis.  davidiad { t } 23:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Catalogue of Women/GA1

Davidiad, I had a busy couple of days and it's not entirely over yet. I'll get back to it before the week is over. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• No problem at all: my week has been a bear, too. I'm still not done with the necessary tweaks and two paragraphs need to be added. Let's reconvene this weekend when the lady is in Tennessee and I can recover a bit from working for a living.  davidiad { t } 23:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Hehe. Mine'll be in Mississippi. We should meet in the middle, at a brewery in Huntsville, and settle it over some beers. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Maybe you can meet her half way: she'll be in cosmopolitan Bumpus Mills ... with the car, so I'll be stranded deep in a dry county. The only thing resembling beer in the fridge are a few 7 oz. bottles of Miller High Life that she bought as a sleep aid.  davidiad { t } 12:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

[ Untitled ]

Hi davidiad My contribution to the article (L C Youtie) regarding her work on the medical recipes in the papyrus compared with that of Galen has been deleted as wp-synthesis. i could not understand it how is it wp-synthesis?Dr Muhammad Ali (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the addition, but if In ictu oculi removed it because it was synthesis, then it probably was. Have you read the content of WP:SYNTHESIS? Often when we edit topics that we are close to, it's easy not to realize when we engage in synthesis.  davidiad { t } 23:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

And I accidentally bought soy milk instead of real milk for my coffee

Back-to-back PMA and Wareh at the G&R project! All is right with the world. But you do remember The Incident when I was essentially told to shut up and stop participating? Well, not that anyone could be blamed for tiring of my verbiage. I thought you had put my name back on the membership list. For some childish reason, I feel stupid putting it at #6,721. Nor do I know exactly why I've posted this message. I must be flooded by the desire to belong somewhere after a friend of mine just received a major life-impeding rejection. As a cat person, I thought you would be an expert on faux milk: what IS that stuff they sell in the cans in pet stores for cats only? Is it an industrial byproduct of human kindness? Cynwolfe (talk) 12:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I know! I thought it was December 2011 again for a second, until I realized I was in Arkansas. Back when the Incident occurred I threatened to just draft you back into the Project, but you said no. Are you really not going to stick yourself back in because you'd be at 107? Classic. Sorry to hear about your friend. I have no idea what this mystery product is, probably because every time I've tried to buy something special for my cats they've ignored it and gone back to trying to lick the butter and find a crumpled up piece of paper to play with. The Catalogue is now a GA. That horse sex article has to be done this week, so I'll send you the draft I turn in to the redactor. I still haven't found my notes on the Italians, but I'm sure they'll turn up. I remember thinking it would actually be a good and approachable, but still scholarly, article for the new Classical Receptions Journal.  davidiad { t } 17:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, does this sound like the title to a sequence in a Mel Brooks' movie or what? Cynwolfe (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

These pages are an endless source of fun.  davidiad { t } 04:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I keep hearing the "some" phrase in Jon Stewart's ethnically self-parodic voice. Horse sex reminds me of an internet search I did once that went very very wrong. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

What in Hades

Could you possibly spare time to fix the intro to Hades? It has become gibberish in a recent string of edits. All the crap about the name needs to be moved into another section, but I believe you've heard me complain that I can't see to work with Greek these days: a combination of allergies and floaters. I can't imagine a single human being who would come to this article to learn about Hades and find it useful to begin with all this parsing. The article gets a lot of traffic. The intro in particular needs to be comprehensible to a 14-year-old who just watched Wrath of the Titans. I'm pretty sure no mythology article needs the phrase "hence the iota adscript" in its first sentence. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The majority of that is useless to everyone. I'll look at it, it might not be this evening as I'm tuckered and it's only noon. I have do idea why "hence the adscript" was there: that wasn't technically an adscript because it isn't a mute iota, and the quantity of alpha would have nothing to do with that anyway.  davidiad { t } 17:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

WP Classical Greece and Rome in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hannibal protection

The page protection was because of the lack of discussion: the IP continued to revert after messages left on his talk page and took no note of the discussion. The page is back at its stable (and correct) form. I don't see this as rising to the level where consultation with other admins is required. I certainly would have done so if I chosen to block him. Now, if he wishes to make the edit, he will have to discuss it and gain consensus first, which is the goal.—Kww(talk) 07:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'll respect your judgement on the protection. I actually think the IP's edit should probably be made since MOS:POSS rightly prescribes that a page should be consistent in it's treatment of terminal s possessives: the other such words in the article have the simple apostrophe. I won't make the IP's edit for him, but since the style used elsewhere on the page has used the simple apostrophe, Fabrius shouldn't be treated differently. Thanks again for the speedy reply. Later, davidiad { t } 11:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Janus

Thank you for your edit. I just wish to say that I added the credentials of Capdeville because requested by the reviewer of the article. First time I do this and frankly I do not know where it would be most appropriate to give this piece of info.Aldrasto11 (talk) 08:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Aldrasto, I wondered where that came from, since I'd never seen you add such information about a scholar before. I think the reviewer probably meant that Capdeville's name doesn't necessarily belong in the article text. When we work on our own "real world" scholarship, we almost always say whose work supports an assertion we make, but in an encyclopedia that is often frowned upon as our audience will just be distracted. So I think what your reviewer is saying is that some parts of the article need to be rewritten to put the scholars "behind the scenes" and keep the information up front. On issues that are uncontroversial you can simply let the citation serve its purpose without mentioning the scholar. If a scholar's view is especially novel, then it might make sense to point that out to the reader and give his name in the main text. (By the way, I'm often guilty of the same thing (I do it too much here), but understand why it's not really necessary or helpful to most of our readers.)  davidiad { t } 12:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Stalker here. I don't think you name-drop too much, and certainly not in the Catalogue article, because the history of scholarship is particularly at issue with a fragmentary text. Just wanted to say that because I so often go on about putting attributions in the footnotes. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You're right: I'm infallible! Speaking of fragmentary texts, when are we gonna bite the bullet and write Annales (Ennius)?  davidiad { t } 18:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ouch. Have never even thought of that. Nor have I ever dared to read Ennius. I'll put that on the list after rewriting Latin literature, turning Roman comedy into an article instead of a redirect, turning my mimus draft into Performing arts in ancient Rome, and writing Roman satire and Roman oratory. And Ovid's article still implies that the Heroides is his major work. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I've given up many of my ambitions for new articles, as evidenced by what I threw up for the Hecale. I have the introduction and text, maybe the commentary, of Skutch's edition scanned to one of my computers, so maybe I'll toss out a stub at some point. The only other things that I know I have which could be helpful for the article are the Cambridge History of Classical Literature and Jdf8's copy of Allusion and Intertext. (Hopefully he's forgotten I have it!)  davidiad { t } 19:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm going to go away for a while, because I'm feeling a bit fragile and would not like to take hits I feel I don't deserve. Ever since PMA was exiled, I've been trying to be nice to people and keep a sense of humor, and what does it get me? Prescriptions for deli meats. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

A'ight. Whatever you need. I might drop you a line this week with threatened materials. Rest up.  davidiad { t } 02:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Would welcome the threatened materials. BTW, I said a seemingly ridiculous thing the other day that you may've seen. I said it was harder to write a Wikipedia article than scholarship. What I meant was, of course in doing scholarship, you have to know everything, and to show that with thorough and complete documentation. But on Wikipedia, you can't say a single thing without attaching it to somebody else's page number, and that can make it harder to put together a coherent article narrative. Right now I'm working on Rosalia (festival), which is where College of Aesculapius and Hygia came from. I'm having trouble finishing it, because it's become apparent to me that it isn't really a festival as such. It's a practice that gets placed on a calendar at times, mainly when it's attached to a celebration of Imperial cult. But nobody says that, so I can't say that. They call it a "rose festival", and then explain it with various practices of rose adornment.

I'm sure you or I or Wareh or others who have bewailed the absence of certain literature articles could knock out a basic introductory article that would serve the purposes of the vast majority of readers by reviewing a few major sources and writing up an overview as one might for a lecture course, omitting ingratiating jocularities. In the early days of Wikipedia, articles were often written like those in other encyclopedias, with a list of sources at the end of the article, and not necessarily footnotes. Although collaborative editing requires the intricate armature of footnotes, it does make article writing slow and painful. (I thought this request was a little over-scrupulous, since the articles already cited as sources for the college's calendar noted what these flower festivals were.) So unless I'm willing to devote six months to it, I'm reluctant to undertake something like Roman satire. Is that anything like what thwarts your ambitions for articles? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

What the hell is an Aesculapius? It sounds disgusting. The same dude who wrote the Rosalia entry in the OCD gives "The Roman festival of the offering of roses to the dead. The Rosalia were a private parentatio (Parentalia), not a festival of public religion ..., but were sometimes celebrated in connection with the ruler cult" in the New Pauly. Perhaps that qualification of private parentatio helps.

My trouble with creating new articles is mostly caused by crippling perfectionism that afflicts me here and in the real world. (Four years ago next month, for example, I identified a meager and mostly uninteresting four-line papyrus of the Works & Days that matches the modern vulgate—it has yet to be submitted for publication.) You'll remember that my first edits had to do with Callimachus, and I started marshaling sources for the Hecale, Iambi and Aetia back in the summer of 2011, with fully formed articles already sketched out in mind. But a lack of time and energy has left me without the requisite devotion to put up anything beyond a stub for anything, so I often just don't. My article on the most famous poet no one's ever heard of, Nestor of Laranda, could have been a FA from the beginning, but it came out as a dreadful little thing that doesn't even touch upon the most interesting aspects of his fame.

Though it is draining, the cite evvvvvvvvvvvvvverything aspect of Wikipedia writing doesn't bother me as much as the effect it has when switching between Wikipedia mode and real world mode. Yesterday I was working on my own stuff and stopped myself in a panic: "That paragraph has no citations!" I skimmed the paragraph a few times and stared at my bookshelf, hoping for some lifeline from West or Janko or an Italian, then I realized that I didn't need a citation: the point is that I say so. When I have the energy to do so here, I'm fine with citing even the most basic facts, because I know that my citations are pristine and up-to-snuff, and work as a prophylactic against the introduction of unacceptable online sources that sneak around this place like mold spores.  davidiad { t } 15:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Moving on

Do you happen to have easy access to A. S. Hoey, 'Rosaliae Signorum', Harvard Theological Review 30 (1937): 15–35? You once mentioned you might. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

For catching my mistake at Talk:Judea (Roman province). Ibadibam (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have no idea how that could have happened.  davidiad { t } 02:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I was editing in Firefox and the program crashed. When I restored the session, the URL query string &section was probably left off as I had been in preview, so the entire page would have been replaced with what was in the edit box. Another good reason not to edit directly in the browser! Ibadibam (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation ... I'm surprised I haven't done that yet.  davidiad { t } 22:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Janus (2)

Sorry I did not look at your talk page for some days. I glanced at it now and I realize my question was not specific enough. The reviewer found it inappropriate that in the section on etymology there is a statement like "in Capdeville's view", and asked who on Earth this guy is, asking me to give readers this piece of info. Since a good part of the article is based on his work and probably the Anglophone general public is not acquainted with him, it sounds a reasonable request from his standpoint. Though I am not sure whether a note like the one I wrote would be fine or an excursus in the body of the article would be more acceptable. Thank you for the kind attention.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Aldrasto, sorry, I archive pretty quickly if a conversation seems dormant. My original reply can be found here. I'm pretty sure that the reviewer's "who on Earth is Capdeville and why does his opinion matter?" was a rhetorical question. There is generally no need to name the scholars you are citing within the body text. Although Wikipedia articles should of course reflect the current state of scholarship on their topics, they should not resemble the sort of status quaestionis introductions that we find in dissertations. So, our articles are about topics and are written with knowledge of scholarly discourse, but the subject is not that scholarly discourse. We instead strive to write accessible, well-referenced articles which are based upon the finest scholarship available to us, but which present this information in a readable fashion that accommodates the varying needs of our audience. This is why in my earlier reply I suggested keeping the scholars "behind the scenes", writing much like a magician performs: the audience perceives the presence of artifice, but is able to appreciate and digest the performance at its face.  davidiad { t }

19:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your opinion. I see the reviewer's aim as the passage in question may sound puzzling to readers. While presenting ancient etymologies the text suddenly shifts to expounding Capdeville's view on Paul's etymology as meaning Chaos. Indeed me too I am not 100% in agreement with his opinion here and also on the other one that the interpretation given by Valerius Messalla augur is reducible to the same idea. But I have no sources to support other interpretations. So either I delete the whole period or I must say who Capdeville is and why his opinion matters. But I could also omit his name in the body text and just say that this etymology is considered contrived and put a note.Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Metamorphoses

Hi, I hang around WP:GAN sometimes, and came across an article you edited (Catalogue of Women) and was really impressed; it's the most meticulously constructed article I've seen in a long time. It's a long shot, but would you mind casting your eye over Metamorphoses? Ovid isn't Hesiod, or even Greek, so you might not be interested, but I'm trying to get his work to Good article status, and it's a rather large topic to tackle (I usually stick to obscure pieces). Any help you could offer would be massively appreciated! Cheers, MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ho ho, you do realize that if you covered Metamorphoses as meticulously as Davidiad did Catalogue of Women it would take ten years and produce multiple bound volumes? (Please file this under: "good-natured ribbing".) Cynwolfe (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I love Ovid. I haven't had much time for Wikipedia over the past few weeks, but, coincidentally, was planning on doing some editing this weekend, and, coincidentally, was planning to do so because I just got my copy of Ovid and Hesiod: The Metamorphosis of the Catalogue of Women and wanted to flesh out the reception section of the Catalogue article. So I'll read the Metamorphoses article tonight or tomorrow and try to offer some suggestions. I had actually been meaning to help, since I'd noted your hard work on my watchlist and that the article is up for peer review, but have been too busy. I just glanced at the article for the first time since you started and it does look much better than I remember it being. It is a huge topic, as you and Cynwolfe have said: the bibliography on the Met. dwarfs the body of work that's been done on the Catalogue. I'm back to work, but promise that I'll look at it soon.  davidiad { t } 18:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh—and thank you for the kind words about the Catalogue. They're much appreciated.  davidiad { t } 18:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You mean there's more to add to the Catalogue!#? Oh my (add another volume Cynwolfe …). Anyway, the article I inherited was in a dire state, so I thought I would pick it up for The Core Contest (hence the Peer Review, which is obligatory in the process). If you are able to take a look today or tomorrow that would be extra great—the contest apparently finishes 12 May—but to be honest I just value the help, whenever it arrives! Cheers, MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

D., is that some kind of emoticon??????? Cynwolfe (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ha! You know I saw that and thought to myself, "Now, it's not like Cynwolfe to leave something like that. Would it be rude for me to correct it for her?"

The Catalogue still desperately needs, in addition to a few minor points, a more approachable and engaging edit of the synopsis, the reception section to be completed, along with new sections on gender and the poem's place in the constellation of early Greek epic. Someday, someday.  davidiad { t } 21:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I've got my Tarrant out of storage and ready to think Ovid. I'll post comments and questions at the Peer Review this afternoon or evening.  davidiad { t } 15:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI

... I've referred to something you wrote here ;-) Paul August ☎ 21:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You got my hopes up that something I'd written in real life had come out without my knowing and that you immediately ran out to buy it, read it and cite it. Selene looks great Paul, a vast improvement over what was there. I'll read it in earnest soon ... but am of course pleased that both the Ehoiai poems made it in there. I don't have access to Kerenyi or the 2nd edition of the OCD (just the third and forth): do they really call Mene the feminine form of the Phrygian Men? I thought the *men- root was simply good PIE, as in Greek μείς < *men-s and Sanskrit māsah, both "month".  davidiad { t } 22:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

:-) The OCD says "In later times, however, the Phrygian moon-good Men (q,v,; Selene was sometimes called Mene) received worship in several Greek cities." Kerenyi has "Besides being called Selene—a word connected with selas, "light"—goddess as she appeared in the sky was also called Mene. This was the feminine form of Men, a word that meant the moon, the lunar month, and in Asia Minor also meant a moon-god." As I now reread things I'm wondering if the note may need rewording? Paul August ☎ 23:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably. I think a gist closer to Kerenyi's train of thought here would eliminate confusion. I know little about Phrygian epigraphy or liguistics, but I know that there are a lot of correspondences between the language and Greek, some of which are considered Phrygian borrowings from the Greek, some of which are considered independently derived Indo-European outcomes. But I'm beginning to think that we call the moon god Men because that's what Greek-speakers called the fella (cf. Lucian, Juppiter tragoedus 8, Greek inscriptions, and the mass of Greek names in Meno- in Hellenic Anatolia), so it's probably safest and most instructive to go from Mene to moon to mentioning a masculine parallel in Anatolia.  davidiad { t } 01:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, poking around a bit more I think that, in all my ignorance, I've locked in on Greek v. Phrygian and that when we say Men we understand ourselves to be saying a Greek name for a Phrygian deity because the witnesses we have to his worship are all quite late. Don't worry: if I have any other questions or comments, they won't be this niggling and off topic.  davidiad { t } 02:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'm understanding this. I've removed the bald "The feminine form of the Phrygian moon-god Men" from the note as misleading. I'm considering replacing it with: "The word men (feminine mene), meant the moon, and the lunar month. It was also the name of the Phrygian moon-god Men," What do you think? And no worries here, "niggling and off topic" are right up my alley. Also thanks for your copyedits, they are much appreciated. Paul August ☎ 10:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I would go with "... name of the [[Men (god)|mood-god]] in Phrygia" to avoid implying a tidier linguistic relation than should be gleaned from Kerenyi. After reading a bit more about Phrygian, I suspect that the form would more likely have been Mās or Mān before the full influence of Greek was felt upon the language (especially written)—if, that is, the god's name was actually a cognate of Greek men.  davidiad { t } 15:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but now for my own niggle. To me "[[Men (god)|moon-god]]" is what's called an "Easter-egg link" (see WP:EGG) since the reader will expect to be sent to a general article on "moon-gods" (e.g. moon-god), while the explicit reference in the text to "Men" is lost. So, what about "... name of the moon-god Men of Phrygia"? Paul August ☎ 15:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

While we've been discussing the fine points of this note, the ground has changed under our feet ;-) 16:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw, but haven't read the article again yet ... things move fast through these series of tubes. Yeah, you're right ... I Easter-egg when confronted with doubt. Your word order is good, and P Aculeius has hedged a bit with the recent edit, though the new "equivalent of the Phrygian moon-god Men" now implies more of a cultic parallel than your sources do.  davidiad { t } 16:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes the tubes are fast, and the little wheels in my foggy old brain turn slower and slower. In any case I like most of P Aculeius' edits. I need to think more about others including the one we are discussing here. Paul August ☎ 17:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much about Phrygian moon gods, so I'll rely on you guys to sort out how that's connected with Selene. I was mainly revising the text for readability, and only referred to the sources where I thought I remembered some relevant detail for clean-up, or couldn't decide how to re-write without checking what the original said. In this case I just didn't want to exaggerate the importance of a name I wasn't familiar with, and I interpreted the article to say that Mene and Men were somehow cognate in this case. If I got the wrong impression, feel free to change it.

As for Euryphaëssa being an epithet of Theia, I'm sure I read it in an early source I consulted when researching Greek theology years ago. When I was in college, I drew up extensive charts based on various classical dictionaries and books of mythology, trying to connect all the names and get the big picture. Sadly, I couldn't find the source for this when you reverted my change to "probably". I thought it would be in Arthur Fairbanks' The Mythology of Greece and Rome (1907) (really a nice handbook on Greek theology), but it doesn't seem to be in there. I also checked the Oxford Classical Dictionary (2nd Edition), Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities, the New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, and the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, without finding an explicit identification of the two; the Larousse uses Euryphaëssa parenthetically after "Theia", ambiguously implying an alternative name or mother. But I'm sure I learnt that Euryphaëssa was merely an epithet for Theia somewhere. Brill's New Pauly does explicitly make this identification, so there is a source we can cite, if you think it's satisfactory. I don't think there's any mention of Euryphaëssa in any other context in all of classical literature, so it does appear to be an epithet, and as far as I know Hyperion isn't paired with any other goddesses in any account. I couldn't find either Euryphaëssa or Theia in the oldest Pauly, and didn't have the previous version available on-line to check. P Aculeius (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I was just being conservative, the source cited in the article, Morford p. 61, says 'Euryphaëssa (the word means "widely shining"), given as the wife of Hyperion and mother of Helius, is probably just another name for Theia'. But M. L. West's Homeric Hymns, note 61 p. 215, for example, says: 'Euryphaessa, "Shining Far and Wide," appears only here as a name of the Titan whom Hesiod and others call Theia". Paul August ☎ 18:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Davidiad, re Men I've found the following in the OCD: "The native form of his name was Man(n)es, and his lunar associations if not original, may be due to confusion with the Greek μῄν."

Rad. Now this one, that one and I can take our nap.  davidiad { t } 19:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

appreciated. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome.  davidiad { t } 15:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Changing subhead to avoid repetition

Enacting WP:LEER. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought WP:LEER was our policy recommending the inclusion of the greatest number of the most titillating images whenever possible. Perhaps you can solicit help from the Commons photography workshop to make those nipples rosier. I know you're just there to deal with Brennus, but I find the opening sentence of that article dreadul: "Violence against women is a technical term used to collectively refer ..." to exactly what any semi-literate person would judge those three little words to mean. Queerly tautological, but I guess it's so structured to allow for linking technical terminology as a bulwark against our roving gangs of reactionary, pituitary fellas who think misogyny was invented in the 70s. Speaking of which, I'm working on the Women section for the Cat. right now: hopefully it will be up be the end of the weekend (doubt it). Hope you're feeling better.  davidiad { t } 21:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Tomorrow peace and mourning

Thoughts constant of communities in Oklahoma.  davidiad { t } 06:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Trackers

Hi Davidiad. Thank you very much for your help and your expert advice on Trackers. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for writing the article. I used to have a photocopy of the play, but can't find it now. It's like candy for the lowly papyrologist.  davidiad { t } 21:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, getting appreciated by an expert is a great reward for me. It also doesn't happen often. So thank you very much Davidiad for your nice comments. I actually agree with your comments about the play. This play, and the way Harrison weaved it into modern reality impressed me greatly. It's as if he repaired the old fragmented play and made it whole again. There is something to that action that provides catharsis to the spirit. Or as you so aptly put it, candy for the mind. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

R U

still watching Talk:Seikilos epitaph? A question was posed. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up ... it's on my watchlist, but that list is all the pages with the project banner, so if I don't check it for a day, I miss a lot of stuff.  davidiad { t } 17:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? You have all the pages with the project banner on your watchlist? How many is that? Cynwolfe (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I've got 10,390 pages on my watchlist; probably 99.71126082772% of those are WPGR pages. I use AutoWikiBrowser to compile the list every few months and then paste it into the box you get if you click the "Edit raw watchlist" link at the top of the watchlist page. I just do it to keep tabs on vandalism, since most of the pages that I care about are either not edited by anyone but me, or I can just check them purposefully every day or so if I'm on line.  davidiad { t } 23:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

... but, yeah, that's why if there's something in which you think I'd be interested, something that wouldn't show up at WPGR Talk, a heads up here is always appreciated.  davidiad { t } 23:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

On an unrelated matter (I'm too lazy to start a new section), here's a fun article we don't have: mirabilia literature. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it a critical topic? Sounds like one. I'm so pigeonholed in the archaic period that I've lost all knowledge about other conversations.  davidiad { t } 11:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I just like to clean out my anxiety closet and drop off little bags here once in a while. And since I'm here, let me share my hope that should I become notable enough for an article, it won't be categorized thus. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd be alright if it were the reason I was notable enough for an article:

Davidiad (Latin: Davidias; 2 February 1982 – 13 January 2041) was a cat fancier and occasional papyrologist best known today for his death from a sudden and fast-progressing bout of disentery on the steps of the Capitol Building. News outlets initially suspected that his infection and subsequent death were the result of bio-terrorism or self-inflicted as a political protest, but upon further investigation the CDC concluded that he was simply a filthy man who happened to be in Washington, DC, chaperoning his granddaughter's class trip.^{[dubious – discuss]}

References in popular culture

• Davidiad is mentioned briefly in the twelfth episode of the fifth season of ...

vel sim.  davidiad { t } 22:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

[[Category:Personal eschatology]] [[Category:Scatology]]

χα χα χα.  davidiad { t } 01:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

In the spirit of improbable categories, I present this novelty. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

What? I've honestly just spent about twenty minutes trying to figure out who that IP is and why it though to notify you about that article. Now I want to know just how many serial killers our task force has captured.  davidiad { t } 11:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

kappa

I'm not saying what should be, but really, "invariably"? Cynwolfe (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing whoever wrote that meant current transliterations of modern Greek, which might invariably use k, I just know I've haven't seen a c in a modern transliteration in any recent formal writing... so ... I shuffled it to mean what I guess it meant, but it still needs a reference.  davidiad { t } 21:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Good catch with your PROD of Achthonian! BDD (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, BDD! And thanks for zapping that lil invention of the internet age.  davidiad { t } 01:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The Pandia

Hi David. I'm writing an article on the Pandia, a festival celebrated at Athens as the final act of the City Dionysia, and I need a little help with some Greek: Inscriptiones Graecae, II² 1140, line 5. Could you please shed any light on what this inscription is saying in regards to this festival? Thanks. Paul August ☎ 06:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

In the past five hours the Packard Humanities site has gone apparently gone down, or we're blocked from access in Arkansas, since such highfalutin Yankee trifles would just angry up the blood. But I have PHI7 and believe I'm reading the right inscription since the Pandia's in line 5. It doesn't say much directly about the festival, but the translation is: "Gods. In the archonship of Mystikhides. It being resolved by the tribe Pandionis. In the agora after the Pandia. Demostratos said: Demomelos son of Paianias commends Demon, the priest of Pandion, and crowns him with a golden crown because of his righteousness toward the tribe, and grants him an exemption from the all liturgies so long as he lives. The managers record this decree [ ... ]". I left some supplements out.  davidiad { t } 11:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes that's the right one, and your translation helps, much thanks. (The site seems to be working for me —in Calabria at the moment— so maybe it is just an Arkansas thang.) Paul August ☎ 12:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Ha! I'd probably be doing the exact same thing if I were in Calabria ... and the lady would be looking for the bluntest object with which to inflict the bluntest force upon my person. Pollux, Photius, the scholia to Demosthenes and a couple others also mention the Pandia. I'll drop whatever's useful here later, but now I have to go to the grocery store. Jon Mikalson's The Sacred and Civil Calendar of the Athenian Year might be helpful, but I don't have access to it and doubt that you do right now, either.  davidiad { t } 12:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd appreciate any of those you can rustle up. (We own a small house in a tiny hill town five hours south of Naples, so no call to rush off to the next tourist attraction, and I have to do something while my wife paints ;-) Paul August ☎ 13:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing about our respective situations sits well with me, Paul.

• Pollux, Onomasticon 1.37 simply lists the Pandia among the high holidays: "The honored festivals are the Mouseia of the Muses, the Hermaia of Hermes, the Diasia and Pandia of Zeus, the Panathenaia of Athena, the ... "
• Schol. Dem. 21.39a: "Some regard the festival as being for Zeus, others call Selene Pandia, perhaps because she's always moving (pantote ienai)." I assume because she traverses the sky; cf. Lexicon Patmense s.v.: "Pandia. A festival among the Athenians, either of Selene, because she passes over everything (panta diienai), or [a festival] of Zeus, from Pandion, the first person to celebrate the festival."

The bit about others calling Selene Pandia in the Demosthenes scholion is either a corruption (a common sort) or an attempt to make sense of the tradition that informed the Lexica Segueriana s.v.: "A festival at Athens. Either from Pandia, the daughter of Selene, or from Pandion, whence also the eponymous tribe." The Photius entries are clearly derivative of some of the above, so I didn't bother.  davidiad { t } 15:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Lex. Seguerina could just as easily be read "Pandia Selene" as it could "Pandia, daughter of Selene," without assuming corruption. These lexicographical traditions strip away some of the surer syntactical cues of real prose. With the testimony of the Demosthenes scholion, we should probably assume that both passages mean Pandia as an epithet of Selene. I should also add Harpocration s.v. (surely with reference to the Dem. speech): "A festival in Athens, conducted after the Dionysia."  davidiad { t } 16:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

But you have your youth, and a brain that still works — myself not so much ;-) Thanks for all of this, it's helping me better understand the modern sources I've been mulling over. There are still things I don't fully understand, and If you don't mind, I may have other questions for you ... Paul August ☎ 04:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, on both counts. Enjoy that check each month: I'll never see one.  davidiad { t } 19:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, here's a draft of the article. Any comments you might have would be appreciated. Paul August ☎ 09:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks good, Paul. I have two questions. What's the most common view among the more recent scholarship that you've looked at regarding the god being celebrated? In the second paragraph, I assume "by degree" is a tyop for "decree", but the statement, and the source on which it's based, seems dubious. It will be logical to assume that the Pandionidai were more invested in the holiday than others, but I've never encountered this decree and think it should be left out if it's an assumption of a non-classicist publication. If I knock my sconce against it later today when I can read some Greek, I'll let you know. It might be worth mentioning briefly—either in the text or in a note—a synonymous, but possibly unrelated holiday at Plotheia. I'll send a source.  davidiad { t } 11:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks David for looking at the article. What to say about whom the festival celebrated is a question I've struggled with. All the sources I've managed to find so far (mostly via Google Book searches) are all given, in chronological order, here. I must confess that I'm not sure that I completely understand what these sources are trying to tell me, and I doubt that these are sufficient for me to say what the "common view among the more recent scholarship" is. If pressed though, I'd have to say that Zeus seems to be the leading candidate:

• Harris (2010) seems to confidently assert that "The Pandia was a festival in honor of Zeus", but he cites: IG ii² 1140, in which I (and you) find no mention of Zeus.

• Schnusenberg (2010) seems equally confident, saying "The Pandia,³⁵ an all-embracing festival of Zeus … This was a public convention of the ekklesia, where justice, law, and the order were dispensed, and it was therefor presided over by Zeus.³⁷"

• Anderson (2003) calls the Pandia "a major festival of Zeus" (also citing our friend IG ii² 1140) but also says "this public expression and affirmation of the special bond between phyle and arkhēgetēs is securely attested only for Pandionis at the Pandia", and that "The addition of the Pandion sacrifice to the program of the Pandia probably postdated the tribal reform (see Kearns 1985, 193; cf. Kron 1976, III–13)."

• But Robertson (1996) seemingly disagrees with the "Zeus hypothesis" saying "The festival name Pandia is sometimes thought to mean "Common festival of Zeus"—i.e. one celebrated jointly by several communities, which would provide a different analogy. But the true meaning is surely "Rites of the all-bright sky," referring to the first full moon of spring; by one account, the festival is named for Pandia, daughter of Selene." Though I suppose this doesn't rule out that that the festival was held in honor of Zeus?

• And Willets (1980) seems uncertain saying: "The festival was said to have derived its name either from Pandia, the daughter of Selene, or from Pandion, the eponym of the tribe Pandionis, being held in honor of Zeus."

I'm not even certain that the festival might not have had a connection to all three of Zeus, Pandia and Pandion.

The bit about the "decree" is solely based on Schnusenberg 2010, p. 133:

"The Pandia,³⁵ an all-embracing festival of Zeus, was celebrated in spring in the month of Elaphebolion and was apparently connected with the full moon. Its beginnings are shrouded in prehistoric mystery. the myth of the Pandia might have unfolded [as] a pastoral festival embedded in Mycenaean times involving the "king of Athens and a shepherd chief of central Greece."³⁶ Later this festival was added, by legal deree of the Phyle Pandionis, as the last act to the City Dionysia and concluded with a great leiturgia (whence our word liturgy), a public act, in the theater of Dionysos Eleuchtereus. This was a public convention of the ekklesia, where justice, law, and the order were dispensed, and it was therefor presided over by Zeus.³⁷ Not much more is known about this festival.

35. See Deuber, Att. Feste, 176–77, n. 9, citing Demosth. 21.8; Mommsen, Feste 432f.; 441; 445, n. 1;448, n. 2; Wilamowitz, Gaube 1: 222, 253, n. 1; Cook, Zeus 1: 732–33.

36. See Robertson, Festivals and Legends, 15, n. 41.

37. Cf. Lloyd-Jones, Justice of Zeus, 161–62."

I can see a snippet from Cook, p. 733 here:

"The festival itself was held on or about Elaphebolion 14, and appears to have formed the concluding act of the City Dionysia¹. Its name is an extension of Dia² comparable as Pollux saw, with Panathenaia, Panionia, Panaitolia, Pamboiotia³. Mommsen⁴ and Gruppe⁵ suppose with much probability that the Pandia was ..."

I intend to get a look at the Schnusenberg book, along with the cited sources, but I expect this will have to wait till I'm back home in Cambridge. If you continue to be dubious about the "decree", I should probably leave that bit out, at least until I can do some more research. That would make that sentence read:

"The Pandia may have originated as a pastoral festival during the Mycenaean period, but later was added as the last act of the City Dionysia.

Does your concern extend to the remaining assertions in that sentence?

08:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Schloss Davidiad

Rad. Thanks for the details. I had thought folks these days generally took the Zeus focus as granted. I'd try to express that recent confidence, though I don't know where it comes from. If Lloyd-Jones actually said there was a decree from the Pandionidai, then I guess I'd repeat that, but it seems likelier that Schnusenberg (fantastic name) is mis- or over-interpreting something he wrote in The Justice of Zeus (I can't see the relevant pages in Google Books). For now it might be best just to state, outside of the brief mention we have in Demosthenes, the only contemporary account of the Pandia comes from that inscription which shows the tribe Pandionis officially recognizing that priest following the feast.

I'll think more about this later today. I'm currently at my cottage in Lichtenstein and have to re-thatch the roof. ;-)  davidiad { t } 11:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

So you call that a cottage do you? Paul August ☎ 12:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Genealogy table

As one of the editors most likely to be both well-informed and interested in mythological genealogies, could you take a look at the genealogy tree recently added to Maia (mythology)? I wish these things were more attractive. The duplication of the table name in the subhead has to go. When I was about to remove the subhead, it occurred to me that perhaps these ought to be treated like the collapsible navbars at the bottom of articles: placed where these are, or just above any existing navbars. At any rate, I think this thing should autocollapse, though mainly because I find it unpleasant to look upon. What do you think? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, these things are dreadful eyesores. When I decided to stick the tribal eponym stemma in the Cat. I looked at all the available templates and decided to just do it with raw HTML that I could control. What bothers me more about the family trees that float around is that they reduce a very fluid tradition to one editor's notion of what's canonical. I guess it's not as big a deal for the major gods as it is for heroic genealogies, it's still an over-simplification. Anyway, in the case of this page, at least, in which multiple Maias are covered I think it only right be collapsed and down in the usual navbox area. The editor who did most of these (including this one) is occasionally not well-pleased when his work is altered, so it might require some conversation. In the body I believe stemmata should be trimmed to include only significant relations, I mean relations relevant to some aspect of the article, and, where possible, they should be able to float:right as a helpful figure, not a huge page element. I'll think about this during the afternoon.  davidiad { t } 17:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I share all the concerns you have articulated here—particularly that a tree asserts a single genealogy when traditions vary. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Almost forgot: you really should log in when you make an edit like this. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You know very well which of these two things commanded my attention more. I happen to agree with the IP, but were I to start editing cat articles, I'd probably be blocked in no time, for edit warring or for insipid cooing.  davidiad { t } 12:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Mediation

I appreciate and am flattered by the faith, but I can't do any mediation right now. I'm working on the largest sock puppet case I've ever seen. I have over 12 hours invested just today, blocked 199 socks, and I'm not even half way done with the blocks, no less the clean up. This will likely take a couple of weeks to fully deal with. Believe me, I would rather be mediating, but as I'm more familiar with the sock master than most, I need to not hand it off. Sorry I can't help at this time. I would recommend pinging Anna, whom you already noted. I'm not sure how busy she is, however. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Dennis ... we content editors never know to run to the right notice boards: we just tug on the coats of level heads in which we have faith. Good luck with your sock hunt. I still haven't tried your recipe/method, though you did encourage me to use the dehydrated onions, which I did two days ago in a meat loafish thing .... but the lady has lately been convinced that thighs can make a meal, so hopefully soon I'll get to your suggestion.  davidiad { t } 00:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You won't regret it. Anything wrapped in bacon must be good, and a little creativity turns those into exceptional meals. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

She doesn't eat bacon, Dennis. She doesn't eat bacon. Nature or nurture—I have no idea, but something just went wrong with that girl.  davidiad { t } 02:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Pandia update

Hi David. I've finally gotten to the library.

About the "decree" business we discussed above, I find no mention of anything like that in Lloyd Jones, Justice of Zeus, just general remarks on the relationship between Zeus and justice, so I've removed mention of such from the article. Also I now believe that the "common view among the more recent scholarship" as you asked about, is that the festival honored Zeus, and have rewritten my draft article accordingly. I was lead astray somewhat by, for example, Smith "Pandia", which seems to treat Zeus, Pandia and Pandion as mutually exclusive choices for whom the festival honored. More modern accounts appear to entertain the possibility that more than one of these were associated with the festival.

I know you did not include Photius in your translations above, as you considered it derivative, but I've become more curious as to exactly what he says. As you point out above, "Pandia" in addition to being the name of a daughter of Zeus and Selene, was probably also an epithet of Selene (see Cook, p. 732–733, Roscher, p. 100). So I'm interested to know if Photius refers unambiguously to the daughter (unlike for example, as you mention above, the Lex. Seguerina).

One final tidbit. I've found apparently another reference to the festival here: Inscriptiones Graecae, II² 1172, line 9, which as far as I can tell seems simply to be a list?

There are a couple of other sources that I still want to look at, but I'm about ready to post the article. My current draft is available here, as always I would appreciate any thoughts you might have — I'm farther a field than usual, so I'm particularly hoping to avoid any rookie mistakes ;-)

Paul August ☎ 13:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Paul, Photius says "Pandia: a festival. From Pandia, daughter of Selene, or from Pandion, the eponym of the tribe. The festival is conducted for Zeus. Thus perhaps it's named from the necessity of sacrificing to Zeus in all matters . (In all matters is how I read panta here, but it could also be "sacrifice eveything", I suppose.) The reference to Pandia, daughter of Selene, has the same ambiguity mention above that the other source have, but a strict grammatical standpoint, I'd read it as meaning the daughter, not the epithet. That inscription lists amounts dedicated to certain festivals at Plotheia, and I believe folks consider this to be a minor, unrelated festival, or simply one about which we can say nothing. I think the article looks good and sober. Right now I'm well under water with trying to finish a website for some extra cash (I need new wainscoting for my late-summer house outside of Nîmes), but hopefully this weekend I can think Greek a bit.  davidiad { t } 01:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks David. Regarding the Pandia mentioned in IG, II² 11l2, line 9, I think the situation there is unclear, see for example Parker 2005, pp. 73–74 (I do have that Milkalson 1977, "Religion in the Attic Demes" PDF you sent me before which says "A festival entitled Pandia is attested for Plotheia (IG II² 1172, 9) but has no apparent tie with the state Pandia and may even be, as Solders suggested (96), a festival of the local hero Pandion." ) — I will need to go to the library again. Hope the wainscoting turns out well — upkeep is such bother. Paul August ☎ 13:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I have another for the two of you (Davidiad and Paul August, that is): Anthousai. I'm not entirely convinced they exist outside the Philostratus passage (which I haven't looked up in Greek): [Description of an ancient Greek painting:] Here are the Nymphai in a group, but do you look at them by classes; some are Naides (Water Nymphai)--these who are shaking drops of dew from their hair; and the lean slenderness of the Boukolai (Pastoral Nymphai) is no white less beautiful than dew; and the Anthousai (Flower Nymphai) have hair that resembles hyacinth flowers. The article seems to be the product of mass-entering stuff from, you guessed it, Theoi.com. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cyn, a quick scroll through a TLG search for antheo, "to bloom", shows only one capitalized feminine present participle: in the Philostratus passage. I'll do a real search tonight or tomorrow, but I bet you're right.  davidiad { t } 12:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

John the Lydian, as we quaintly call him, says something about Anthousa being the equivalent of Flora or the Floralia or something; this came up in the Rosalia article. It was in his explanation of the Anthesteria. I didn't check it out in Greek, or if I did it was only in passing. The thing I couldn't clarify in the Rosalia article because it would've been "OR" is that the Anthesteria seems to have had nothing whatever to do with the Floralia until "late" antiquity, just as the Roman practices of Rosalia and violatio were "read back" into older festivals; perceived connections of common significance seem to belong to that fertile later Imperial period, like Arnobius's elaborate treatment of the Attis myth, or officially recognized festivals for Isis in Rome. It was part of the ecumenical or syncretic spirit of the times, these words being utterly inadequate. So it isn't that the connections are meaningless; it's that they shouldn't be foisted backwards—which is what many scholars have done anachronistically in trying to understand the Archaic or Classical festival. This is related to Philostratus only in that he was engaging in a lot of this kind of connection-making. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I forgot about the Lydus, as I continue to even more quaintly call him ever since being mocked for taking it as his last name when I was green and encountered De mensibus in a apparatus. I'm utterly cross-eyed (I have no idea why I started that article or if I'll ever finish it) right now from trying organize code. Hopefully later today or this weekend I can harness some Daviditas and look into Anthousa(i) and the Pandia with a bit more energy.  davidiad { t } 17:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

But I see him called Lydus all the time (and have probably done so myself), no doubt because his given name is so common. In fact, I'm pretty sure I regularly see the cite as "Lydus, De mensibus whatever". I haven't had a lobster in years. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

People do call him Lydus, but I very truly thought his birth notice would have read Ioannes Lydus, 8 lbs. 3 oz., son of Archibald Lydus and Mary Ellen Lydus, nee Cromwell, hence the mocking. The only time I've attempted to eat lobster I was immediately in tears. It's been 25 years.  davidiad { t } 18:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

... but this is nothing compared to the time that I, as a precocious freshman in a grad seminar on the epigram with David Sider, gave a presentation in which I repeatedly referred to the author of an unbeknownst to me anonymous epigram as, Adespoton!  davidiad { t } 18:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

But look how it made you think with precision. On another note, I think anyone who compares his block to the Holocaust has pretty much confirmed why the block was justified. You know of whom I speak. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I do my best to ignore him since he's a bit of a dick and a touch below my intellect threshold for taking a dick seriously. Not really a reductio ad Hitlerum, to invoke Jenny Clay's adoptive stepfather, but still stooopid. Not around much at all right now. Hope to be back soon, and Paul, I promise promise promise I will think about you Pandia this weekend.  davidiad { t } 01:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Take your time. Paul August ☎ 14:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I've created the article (warts and all) at Pandia (festival). Paul August ☎ 16:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Rad. Looks great. "Robertson sees the festival as marking the spring migration of sheep to mountain pastures, and having originated at least as early as the Mycenean period." Does he actually argue for this or just say it? Half of his work is well-researched, sober exposition; half is Neo-Ritualist pronouncement. Just curious.  davidiad { t } 16:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There's some argumentation, but he mostly just says it:

• Robertson 1991, p. 5: "The sheep were driven up to the mountains in spring, in March or April according to the weather (Orth 1921, 390—91; Georgoudi 1974, 167–68). At Athens the occasion is marked by the festival Pandia, which falls in the month corresponding to late March and early April (Deubner 1932, 176–77). The name Pan–dia means "rites of the all-bright sky."¹ Just at this time the skies brighten both by day and by night; only then is the mountain pasture suitable."
• Robertson 1993, p. 15: "On the Acropolis, Zeus and Athena go back to Mycenaean times. The festivals of Zeus — the Pandia and the Dipolieia — mark the seasonal transitions for the two staple livelihoods, pasturing and agriculture, that are conspicuous in the respective aetiologies. The myth of the Pandia reflects a far-ranging transhumance, as between the king of Athens and a shepherd chief of central Greece, that can hardly have existed after the Mycenean period."

I've had misgivings about whether to include that bit. I had started to get the sense that he might be a bit "out there"

Paul August ☎ 17:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I've now reread that article, and in fairness to Robertson he gives a better argument than I may have given him credit for. However In any case, I've now decided that having that bit where it was gave it too much prominence, so I've moved it to an expanded note 1, which now discusses the age of the festival. Any other concers? Paul August ☎ 17:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Well. I think t looks god. Sometimes Robertson puts me off, so I was just curious. I'm pretty sure yours is the most comprehensive treatment of this holiday.

Thanks. Paul August ☎ 17:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid of my favorite pie now

"We'll always have Honolulu"

In light of earlier threads here (how's that for a mixed metaphor?), I feel I must make sure to point out Death by coconut, which is contending with Mary Toft on my personal list of most beloved articles. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The warning sign is incredible. That tree is clearly a menace that needs to be dealt with. Are the Hawaiians trying to convince us to exterminate the coconut palm? Or is this the buildup to mass internment? As long as one doesn't marry my daughter—that's all I have to say. And is the viewer supposed to construct a narrative around the father's holding of the giant lolly?  davidiad { t } 14:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Or rather, it's a coconut swatter. We are warned not to be taken in by those TV ads promising coconut defense and permanent hair removal from the device, which will inevitably prove inadequate in the event of actual pursuit by a Godzilla-like coconut palm blasting its coconut cannons. I was going to edit the first sentence per WP:REFERS, and found myself stymied. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, but they are so cute... can they really be that deceptive? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I've finally found the only category I would hope one day to become a member of. I place it here because I would toast my admission with the beverage provided. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

And it's such beautiful company, Cyn. I tried to find a link to joke about, but they're all too golden. Save the one that probably led you and Akhilleus there, and the one before that one. Yawnsville for those two from me. At first I thought N. Senada was Neil Sedaka, but my hopes failed me (oh, 'old on, I found a very poor joke). Grim times for me here: I quit the family business. Do you want to hire an obscenely handsome and educated honest man to paint your shed? I'm a Chrestian, ma'am. I'll be back around WP as soon as the dust settles.  davidiad { t } 04:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

family trees

Did you mention once that you'd tried to work with the template for family trees? (If I'm recalling correctly, you gave up and did your own.) Even so, it makes no sense to me, but the syntax at Caecilii Metelli family tree is so badly broken that it doesn't show up at all. If it's evident to you at a glance, I wondered whether you could fix it. I regard it as no great loss if you can't, so don't spend time on it. For all I know, it could be woefully wrong anyway. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Gross. I'm still spending all my time writing code, so this actually suits my mindset right now, unlike thinking about actual content (I even compelled Drmies to write a stub for Les Lauriers sont coupés the other day instead of doing it myself, and he did a stand-up yob). I'll take a look at this in a few.  davidiad { t } 18:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You should be writing articles. Real ones, that you can publish, or you'll end up like me. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Two out so far this year, Drmies. But right now I'd kill to be where you're at. Cyn, the problem was that there were some folx in need of dabbing who were linked in the tree and template:dn broke the syntax. I think I've fixed them all, but if it comes up again, you'll just need to track down the template(s) in the source, delete it and dab the offending party.  davidiad { t } 19:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I cannot imagine myself doing this, and so I thank you for the fix. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

No prob. By the way, speaking of coconuts, as we were last week. The coconut crab terrifies me, probably irrationally.  davidiad { t } 20:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Not to say that ending up like Drmies would necessarily be so bad ... but please don't dismiss this advice lightly. Paul August ☎ 19:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Since you're a speaker of ancient computer languages, Paul: var advisors = ['Drmies','Paul']; for(a=0; a<advisors.length; a++) { document.write('Thanks, '+advisors[a]+', will do.'); } I've got two more articles I plan to have submitted by the end of the summer, but I need cash and right now that means staring at reams of code.  davidiad { t } 20:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

;-) Paul August ☎ 23:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Cash is in short supply here as well, David. Congrats on cataloguing women (really, I'm very happy for you!) though, as a French femimist, I'd have to say that it's impossible to catalogue them. Yes, keep on churning them out, boy--the competition is fierce, and the a-holes from the tier 1 schools (no disrespect intended; I'm just jealous) take up all the good jobs. Our profession is sick, and it's made only sicker by a complete lack of money and attention. And I say this after a good conversation with our chancellor today. You know what my colleagues in Liberal Arts are telling their kids? To stay out of Liberal Arts. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• One more thing, Cynwolfe: I don't really approve of the use of the progressive present as in "If I'm recalling correctly". You sound like my wife who is undoubtedly hipper than me but also susceptible to the influence of social media. I've already been accused of writing "popular culture" articles (see User_talk:Drmies#DYK.3F); let's all try and keep this shit at the appropriate academic level.

  Psst, Davidiad, if you can write code, you can get a job on the other side of campus, in Management Information Somethings or Informatics. The pay is much better, and you don't have to be smart every day. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies. I was think about hard-boiling some eggs, and you've probably got Cyn at just the right low boil with that. Da Drmieso veniam, Κυνολυκείη: tempus post sextam horam Alabamae est. Thanks also for the congrats on the article. I've got Crisco's first piece and am really hoping to hunker down with the Indonesian once I'm done with my mayhem. It sounds like it's cut from a higher brow than what I normally do. I have thought about jumping ranks, either accepting one of these renewable digital humanities fellowships or going IT all the way. I've got enough new research to publish a book or two before I'm done and a couple articles a year for the next decade, so it wouldn't be such a great loss to academia if I said fuck all once and for all and became a sehr geehrter Privatgelehrter. There are enough handsome assistant professors.  davidiad { t } 01:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Digital humanities is certainly a happening field, yes. The medieval job market last year was pretty bad; y'all's can't have been much better. Privatgelehrter? One characteristic: "Fehlende akademische Qualifikation für eine ordentliche Lehrtätigkeit an einer öffentlichen Hochschule oder Universität." Better to be a Privatdozent--Rousseau-style, Julien Sorel-style. Pity we couldn't take all the advantages appertaining thereunto, since we're married, haha. Yes, Crisco is really doing an amazing job, and he's still in the Master's program. You're not medieval at all, are you? I'm thinking about going to SEMA (if I actually get invited, which, believe it or not, is in the cards); I think it's up in Boone this year. We could have beers. Cynwolfe might like to come by and revisit Appalachia... Drmies (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a chance in hell. Haven't been back since my mother died 13 years ago. Would prefer not to have my childhood memories of misty blue mountains blasted away by our particular brand of ruina montium. Saw it once and cannot get it out of my head. As my daughter would exclaim, scarring. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks both :) (Now here's hoping that this translation can pay off a little... Riffaterre --> Indonesian). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yowza, Crisco. Where I'm from the standard money-making scheme is something like raising emus or alpacas in your backyard. I'm booked solid in September and October, Drmies, and I'm no medievalist: I don't look west again until Renaissance humanists start saying nutty things about Greek poetry. If I made it as far as North Carolina, anyway, I'd drown my phone and keep running north until I hit more familiar territory. In late November or early December, however, I might have a reason to pass through your area ... you can buy me one of your fancy beers then. I had a Keystone Ice the other day. Damn, that's a grim sentence to type.  davidiad { t } 05:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• And a grimmer one to read! Mind you, Bintang isn't all that great either... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ha, and indeed that's apparently where nl:Bintangs got their name from. Cheers. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

But "Bintang Beer won a Gold Medal at the 2011 Brewing Industry International Awards" ... muchlike my beloved Sam Adams, under every cap of which one finds mention of a medal won, but then it tastes like soap.  davidiad { t } 01:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Davidiad. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 18:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drmies (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Drmies, this is not me screwing with you.  davidiad { t } 22:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Haha, I know. But thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

__________________________
Alright guys, who hid the salami?

Hey di hey

D, that was very thoughtful of you... missed it 'cos I'm a bit fraggied these days. Vague in the middle and at the edges - maybe a bit venerable too (I demand worship!) but also remiss, which isn't so good. Are you OK? Haploidavey (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine, thanks, Davey. Been working like a dog and thus not around WP much, but I'm slowly getting used to having a real job. This weekend, despite repeated promises to myself over the past few weeks to do so then, I'm actually sitting down to my own work, which means some Wikiprocrastination. I hope all's reasonably well with you.  davidiad { t } 18:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Ovid

I have no idea what finally prompted me to do that. Pmanderson and I had marked the undue weight on the Heroides years ago, maybe as long ago as 2009. The edit was done in haste and the intro still lacks a sentence on the characteristics of his style, but I felt such an effort would require a citation. And actual thought. And sometimes one can't—what is that expression?—let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks great. I Don't know how many times I've started to clean it up, but lost my motivation. 9 days out of 10 the perfect shouts down the good around here, hence my general lack of productivity.  davidiad { t } 21:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Dionysus

There's no point giving more reasons to this IP user at Dionysus; he's long past WP:3RR. See [10] for more of his behaviour. I already opened a complaint at WP:SPI. Just waiting for an admin to do something. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Gotcha. I'll just undo without explanation if I see it again.  davidiad { t } 00:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Phineus (son of Belus)

I don't think there any source that says that Phineus was the son of Belus, what the sources say is that Phineus was the brother of Cepheus, so Phineus son of Belus requires a lot of original resarch by synthesis, as we must suppose: (1) that Phineus and Cepheus had the same father (2) that Cepheus is the son of Belus.

In the pt-wiki, I made this article as Phineus (uncle of Andromeda) which seems more likely to correpond to what is in the text of Ps. Apollodorus and Ovid, and I add a touch of poison by modern authors that think that Phineus was not the brother, but the brother-in-law, of Cepheus, since he and Cassiopea would both be children of Phoenix, the son of Agenor, and Cassiopea, the daughter of Arabus. Albmont (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Albmont, thanks for this. Actually the sources cited in the first note give the genealogy. The explicit reference to Phineus' being the son of Belos isn't in the Bibliotheca, but in the scholia to Aeschylus—ὁ Εὐριπίδης εʹ φησὶ παῖδας εἶναι Βήλου, Αἴγυπτον, Δαναόν, Φοίνικα, Φινέα, Ἀγήνορα—and in Nonnus—Βῆλος ἐπασσυτέρην γενεὴν σπερμήνατο παίδων, | Φινέα καὶ Φοίνικα λιπόπτολιν. (These are cited by Dräger; Tzetzes give the same genealogy a few times, too.)  davidiad { t } 00:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! These families are very confusing, I don't know how the ancient greeks constructed them, but it seems that they were trying to fit local legends and translate foreign names into the corresponding greek heroes. I once read a modern analyst speculate that the greeks were well aware of the pre-olympic chronology that the authors were using, namely, they were building and adjusting the genealogies in terms of generations. In this way, it makes sense to place Phineus as son of Belos (in the same generation of Cepheus) or in the next generation (as grandson of Agenor, brother of Belos). Albmont (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The extended family of Belus looks especially like a rationalization of the heroic past and the presence within it of non-Greek strata. Later,  davidiad { t } 22:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

A is for …

I AfD'd Aeternae; could you just glance at it? I'm wondering whether it's a Greek name misunderstood by the (extremely thin) sources because of some similarity to the Latin adjective.

Also, I may have a key to the mystery of the Anthousai: see Tyche of Constantinople. It was unclear to me whether the reference meant that only this city's Tyche was called Anthousa, or whether Anthousai could thus be equivalent to Tychai. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw that out of the corner of my eye the other day. I'll take a look presently as I just got back from a week of mind-numbing bug testing in Little Rock and could use some mindless word searching. That Tyche bit looks like a coincidence to me, but, who knows, maybe there's something behind it.  davidiad { t } 00:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

This has my flummoxed. I've done all the searches you've probably done, and scoured the Greek and a couple Latin Alexander texts and haven't come up with anything (not that searches of the Latin can be all that fool-proof.) My Greek searches involved searching for words in Ἰνδ- within 20 lines of words meaning head. My best guess would be that this is a medieval tradition, but the Google Books sources give me pause. It would be nice to see the reference in Rose, but that's not part of the preview. The citation system, however, does not give me much confidence. Aeternae is cited to reference 7, which is used in a number of entries, so it looks as though the book is simply citing other monster & fairy tomes, in this case Barber, A Dictionary of Fabulous Beasts. By the end of the weekend I'll probably !vote delete on the grounds that we lack context and presenting the article without that context leaves it squarely in tarot-nerd fan universe, implying that there's demonstrable antiquity to the topic. But it would be nice to see what's inside Barber.  davidiad { t } 17:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm only checking my watchlist in passing these days, as I'm feeling rather pessimistic about the whole thing and am starting not to care. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I hear ya.  davidiad { t } 22:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Types of Women

Hello,

I just wondered, considering your great work on Catalogue of Women whether you might be interested in working on the slightly lesser-known poem by Semonides "Types of Women"? I've created it, but don't have the time or the resources to expand it further. Brigade Piron (talk) 07:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Brigade Piron, good catch. This one definitely warrants its own article. I'll try to fill it out a bit this week, but I only return home and to my books on the weekends for the next three to eight (or more) weeks. I do believe that one of the laptops I have with me has a few articles on Semonides from when I tried to expand the poet's article, so I should be able to do something in the meantime. On first glance I wonder if we might rethink the title. The Michigan State professor seems to have given it his own, though I'm not sure: it might be that "Types of Women" is in common use and I just haven't noticed. Hugh Lloyd-Jones' commentary on the poem is title The Females of the Species, which might be another option, but I've always known this poem as Semonides 7, and that's how I've seen and heard it referenced. Would you be opposed to that? Thanks also for the kind words on the (as yet unfinished) Catalogue of Women.  davidiad { t } 13:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

could you please help me in this?

Hallo Davidiad, days ago I found a very interesting article on the Lupercalia published on a mag named Helikon, styling itself undergradute review of Yale University. As I found it by sheer chance while making a search under another heading (but a similar one) I copied it but missed the author and the site. Oddly enough now as may happen I am unable to find it again, never mind how I try. Thank you if you wish to help. I am collecting material to write something on this rite, but connecting it to the Lykaia and other issues.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Aldrasto, is this what you read? Mind you, these are Yale kids peer-reviewing each other. I would not use this as a reliable source on Wikipedia, nor would I cite it in my own research without thorough consideration of the piece and correspondence with the author. But if this is for your own research, it may be helpful. Having taught people in Siobhan's class (though I only slightly remember her), I can say that these kids are often quite bright and imaginative, and often receptive to discussion. I hope all is well,  davidiad { t } 05:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed, it is this article! I found it very good, especially the connexion with the Omphale-Herakles myth, which scholars have til now overlooked, as far as I know. But it could have been pursued further. It is for my reasearch in fact. I am working on some hypotheses that scholars seem unable to see, even though they look obvious to me, on the basis of comparison...Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Good, glad to help. These Yale undergrads are being taught by three of the most sound American Latinists, with good commands of philology, historiography and cult, so it's good to know that Siobhan's work is worthy of her professors. If you're thinking of publishing in an English-language journal, feel free to email a draft if you'd like some proofreading.  davidiad { t } 06:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your helpfulness, I suppose what I have to say may be of interest to the genral public (and cannot be published in Italy, as I am an independent researcher...)Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. If you have something worthwhile, publish in an English-language journal. We don't fuss so much about credentials. Your country's academic structure has some odd rigidity. Hell, Guido Bastianini's position as director of the Istituto Papirologico "G. Vitelli" has to be approved by the senate.  davidiad { t } 01:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for the encouragement!Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_25#Category:Rape_victims

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_25#Category:Rape_victims. You are being notified since you participated in the last discussion. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Booyah!

Get healthcare or my wrath will be old-testamental.

Almost there, almost home. I'm just about at my wits end, here, but I do have an academic job for next school year, thank Poseidon.  davidiad { t } 04:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations,  davidiad { t }! (former academic, here) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

;-) Paul August ☎ 13:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks folks.  davidiad { t } 16:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sandi Jackson image

To the best of my knowledge that is not a photoshopped image.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tony. It's a derivative of the individual portraits of her and her husband, but if you think it's helpful to have it, certainly restore it. I just thought it looked foolish. Later,  davidiad { t } 16:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

In recognition of your socialistic efforts to improve the world. I figured you had beer there, but hotels typically don't carry kittens. I'll heed your advice, though it's hard. Take it easy; don't go crazy over them dashes and other thingies.

Drmies (talk) 05:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Drmies. Let's try to keep socialism out of this. My most enlightened colleagues know exactly where this Ivy League Yankee is coming from, and distrust me for it, despite the fact that they are stewards of this program. An America where the goal is that all children and adults have the opportunity to thrive is the America in which my beatrix mother was raised. It's why we could do such good in spite of our government's interests over the past century. Imagine if this country once again pretended at a collective globally aware conscience instead of the parochialism that has developed since the 70s. And, no, there are no kittens, so thanks. But tomorrow evening I'll be home for the first time since early October and will get to nap with two of the fuzzens on my user page. (Not a dash in this missive.) All best wishes.  davidiad { t } 06:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)