Jump to content

User talk:Cynwolfe/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

User Brikane

Thank you to warn me Cynwolfe, I know that and I am just fed up with this user. You can write the same warning in his talk page, it won't have any result. He was already blocked many times with different identities and IP : just a quick list : User:Oblada ; User:Blondonien ; User: User:‎70.82.96.170 ; User:76.65.240.91 ; User:66.130.71.39. Always unsourced additions, personal theories and very poor knowledge of the subjects he pretends to develop. Regards Nortmannus (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Without knowing either editor, I couldn't be sure you were aware of 3RR. I'm not an admin or anything, but I just didn't want to see someone making a good-faith content effort to fall into trouble. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you again.Nortmannus (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Saturnalia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links to Porphyry, Autochthonous and Numenius
Satre (Etruscan god) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link to Maris

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

OR?

How was my removing a word which is rather debatable and unnecessary in any way "OR"? Before you use "wiki-speak" such as OR to belittle another editor in an edit summary, actually think about the letters you are typing, and if they actually apply in any way whatsoever....

Thank you for your time and consideration, Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 19:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Screw you. I'm fed up with this Wikipedia game playing, thanks.

HMM... Guess what BUDDY..., Didn't think I'd check the actual source and see that it doesn't say what you claim whatsoever, did you? Who's the ORiginal oResearcher, now?
Jackass.
Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 20:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I must apologise for that. The first two times I looked through that, I somehow both times missed the "misogyny" line, between the pages. But that was because I was extremely frustrated at your "OR" quip, referencing me in the third person, instead of just talking to me and not using wikispeak to belittle me. Apologies. I still do not appreciate your treatment.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 20:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Um, OK, I apologize for the 'wikispeak,' but there are two articles that contain this reference, which is fully cited, and the word 'misogynistic' has been deleted repeatedly by editors, often anonymous, who seem to think that the ancient Romans wouldn't have discerned between sexual words that were neutral and affectionate, and those that were used as insults, invective, or obscenity. This is false; Latin words have connotations just as English words do. In English "prostitute" is a neutral word, "whore" more generally insulting, but Latin has a large number of words for "prostitute" that have a great range of specific meanings and connotations. If you disagree with the source cited on the connotations of lupa, then you'll need a counter source that says it was not misogynistic. I myself am not quite sure that 'misogynistic' isn't too strong a word for this case, but it is not up to Wikipedia editors to pronounce on the connotations of Latin words even if we know Latin very well. The connotation of a word is acquired cumulatively through context, but in learning a language it's important to understand the shades of meaning and whether a word is polite or not: we expect people learning English to know the difference between "vagina" and "cunt." Identifying the connotative and contextual meanings of a given term is part of what makes its treatment encyclopedic and conceptual rather than merely lexicographical. I don't know how well you know Latin, but it doesn't matter: you need a source to pronounce on the sociological meaning of a Latin term. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I must apologise again for my freakout that morning. I had for some reason just gone off the deep-end and responded totally inappropriately. Looking back on it, I was very disappointed in myself. You didn't need to receive that abuse, and were doing your due diligence as a Wikipedia editor. As a side note, about your "vagina" and "cunt" comparison, it's quite interesting. I got in a debate the other day with someone about "twat," a debate I've had a few times. I consider it far worse even than "cunt," as cunt has a harsh and aesthetically striking sound and usage, but "twat" is both derogatory in the same way, plus it is flippant. I think this makes it actually worse. But the majority of people seem to disagree with me, especially a British one, who says it is a very "jovial" term over there (which really shocked me). And some also comment that there is a total difference between the pronunciations "twot" and "twaat" (I don't know how to represent those pronunciations correctly, but perhaps you know what I mean). I also thought this was interesting, and wondered how true it was.
Thank you for your time and consideration, Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 19:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. Yes, individuals react differently, in addition to regional connotations. To me, 'twat' is a kinda-cute word that I find inoffensive: too slangy to be used in most written communication, but not a word I consider obscene. But I'm reminded that my Irish husband goes ballistic when our teen daughter exclaims "oh, crap!" casually; to me it's inoffensive (and it comes naturally to her as a mild oath you'd use in front of your parents), so I take it American usage differs from the Isles. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for all your great work to Saturnalia. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 19:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, and best wishes for the season! I had no idea how well-trafficked that article would be this month until I checked the stats. I hadn't planned to spend the time on Wikipedia, so some of the work is a bit hasty. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Pallas Athena

Hi Cynwolfe. There's an intruiging parenthetic comment at Athena#Pallas_Athena to the effect that stories about Pallas varied sufficiently that 'literate Greeks' couldn't achieve consensus on Pallas's gender. It would be nice to have a citation. Thought I'd ping you, as it's utterly outside my competence! Best, Dsp13 (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting question for several reasons. I'll put it on my post-holiday to-do list. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Dsp13, I've been looking into this a bit, and it's a rather nebulous topic. I'm not sure whether the statement in the article has confused the fact that as a name Pallas may be either masculine or feminine, or whether this refers to the challenges to gender boundaries inherent in representations of Athena. In the classical tradition, as distinguished from the ancient sources themselves, there's a lot of scholarship interested in gender questions as they pertain to Athena. I'll keep looking, but I'm still unclear how to handle the request for a citation in the article. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Fantastic work, very interesting. Anaktoria (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


A belated thank-you to the user with a name I've always found quite beautiful. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Must... sully... page...

...with ambiguous New Year Greeting, as in wryly jovial (or Scottish style, parenthetically speaking). Or should that be parenthetically speaking (Scottish style). It's entrancing, innit; what next? Ho hum. Yeah, well.... so it goes. By the way, you know my mail's been sorta defunct, yes? I'll have another go, tomorrer. Love your beach pic; it's somehow alarming. Haploidavey (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The photo alas is going away sometime after midnight, when I can no longer justify extending the season. People really should observe Epiphany as a protest of the commercialization of Christmas. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Jupiter (mythology)

I'm doing my best to copyedit this difficult article. Would you like to take over the copyedit (I now have to merge my many edits with your one, due to the edit conflict)? All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. You might want to be a little more cautious about the content implications of your edits. The Caelus thing wasn't a mere "See also"; it's (perhaps temporarily, but currently) the place to go for an explanation of Jupiter Caelus. So perhaps it should've said "Jupiter Caelus: see Caelus." Again, sorry. The same thing happened to me and another editor when working on the article. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Conscription

I just saw the wackiness of today and your withdrawal ... please reconsider. I don't know what's really going on or who this mad scientist character is, but it's not as though the other members agree with him, otherwise we wouldn't have raised his heckles. Nor do I really know how to help. I was tempted to conscript you by reverting your edit to the roll, but figured that'd be out of bounds. I might still do this. It would certainly be a detriment to the project if you were to pay any attention to today and stop participating. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 02:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


Please reconsider ...

... this. You are a most valued member of this project. Please also see my remarks here. Paul August ☎ 15:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I also hope you'll reconsider this. Andrew Dalby 16:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, do. Haploidavey (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, and I'm embarrassed to say that I don't even know how to explain why this oppresses me so much. If discussing content that's been called into question, sharing sources and evaluating them, isn't an appropriate use of a talk page, what is? And doesn't evaluating sources require at some point saying "based on the evidence we've assembled, this is what I see as the prevailing position"? When I take WP surveys that ask why I edit, my top two reasons are to learn, and to work collaboratively in a collegial environment (which might include a human dimension, making the occasional joke or off-topic remark). I simply don't understand the repressive strand of Wikipedian who takes pleasure in shutting down others. At the same time, I believe in high standards that serve readers' interests and curiosity (one of my favorite essays is WP:Readers first), and in using the most compelling sources and trying to write well. I don't think we should squander Wikipedia's hard-won credibility with poor writing, sloppy thinking, or out-of-date sources. And in general, humanities articles aren't as good as articles in information-based fields, because in the humanities, what's important is the discourse, the questions asked, the modes of inquiry, the process of creativity, all of which are difficult to shepherd in an encyclopedia article. Sometimes it takes vigorous discussion. Anyway, I was essentially told that I was disrupting the G&R project, by someone who identified himself as "running" the project. My head's still reeling from that conversation, so I expect I should take a break. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
No editor runs the project — we are all equals in that regard. I don't understand Amadscientist's objections, in my experience, your contributions to project's talk page have always been insightful and constructive. And there is certainly a place for the occasional joke etc. Paul August ☎ 19:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Your comment on WP:GAN

The WP:GAN page is regularly regenerated by bot. Thus your comment won't stick to the nomination it is supposed to go after. Given that you already expressed your concerns over the issue on the article's talk page, please consider removing it for WP:GAN. P.S.: the current rating of the article is not considered in GAN process anyway. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Hadn't worked with this process before. WIll remove it. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! Trust me, this is not the first time the bot's operation causes confusion. BTW, could you please also give more explicit description of the issues with this article on its talk page? I was considering the opportunity to either review it or quick fail on coverage, so your opinion might be very useful for this matter. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Greek love returned to prior state

Feel free to edit without my input.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome!

I just now, one year later, read your appreciation of LacusCurtius; this is to acknowledge it. It's gratifying; we all do what we do, some here, some elsewhere. . .. Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.55.12 (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

WP Women's History in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Women's History 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) 01:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Medusa coin.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Medusa coin.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"Allowing use on Wikipedia generally" really isn't enough- if we're going to use content, it needs to be released under a free license. The image is currently tagged as CC-by-SA-3.0, but this seems contrary to what is said on the website. While it does specify that "Any of our photographs may be reproduced as long as credit is given to CNG as the source of the photographs. Please include our site's URL, www.cngcoins.com, in any citation" this does not explicitly refer to modification or commercial use. I'll have a snoop around. J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I had a look for the aforementioned template, and couldn't find anything. However, I did find one on Commons, and after checking the OTRS ticket, I'm happy. I've created a template here at Template:CNG and added it to the file. J Milburn (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Cynwolfe. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

List of Homeric characters

Hi Cynwolfe, and warm regards. I have just substantially revised the article List of Homeric characters and, based on your interests and editorial, I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind reviewing it and editing it, please? It's only a work in progress, and, also, I think that I'm messing up something with the references, but I would greatly appreciate it if you could edit it. Warm regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigold96 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for stopping by. After a particularly vicious scourging in the public square in recent months, and after mourning a fallen comrade, I've rather lost my appetite for the Wikipedia experience, and I'm only dropping by to watch a tiny handful of articles and to make an occasional edit when I can't help myself to articles I happen upon for outside purposes. I appreciate being thought of, though, and if I can don sufficient psychological armor I'll take a look. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! I hope you feel better!--Wikigold96 (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Libation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Eumenides and Spartan
Lictor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Geto-Dacian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

yay! — [dave] cardiff | chestnut — 14:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

October Horse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Trojans, Grammarian and Ides
Biga (chariot) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Kylix and Memnon
Lex Plaetoria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Civil law and Lex

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


WP Women's Project

I am also sending this message to user:Voceditenore I'm not sure who is actually in charge over at WP Women's Project, and I'm sure you've read This Post on the talk page. I have no vested interest in this idea, except to say that for monitoring the progress of the project, this is a valuable tool. All Tedder needs to set up the bot is Search terms. Anybody else can set up the project page and link, by just adapting what the Hawaii project has. I adapted the Hawaii model for the Texas project - piece of cake to set up and link to. Given that the project can be somewhat specific about which articles it wants included, I personally feel out of my depth to communicate the Search terms to Tedder. Perhaps no one over there really knows how to respond to this. Or maybe each individual thinks somebody else will take care of it. But I really hope the project doesn't pass up this valuable tool. Do you have any suggestions? Maile66 (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I don't think anybody should be "in charge" of a particular project. I think everyone should be welcome to participate in projects in any way they feel improves the environment for creating good content for the encyclopedia. I left WP for a couple of months for a few reasons, but returned because I'd made a rather massive investment of time researching a group of articles that I'd left unfinished; unfortunately, none of these has brought me back to the pleasant domain of Women's History, so apologies for not responding over there.
I did read your offer, but hastily, so I'm not sure exactly what your tool does. I hope Voceditenore can give an informed opinion, but she seems to have been inactive on the WH project for a while too. I'll try to make time today to re-involve myself at Women's History. My impression was that you explained in general what the tool is from a technical perspective, so maybe make it clearer what good you see it doing in a practical, hands-on way. I'm one of those people who can use a tool when it's shown to me, but don't care that much about how it works. (Ask my husband, who insists contrary to all evidence that I would enjoy driving a manual transmission. I just want to get in the car and go. Autopilot would be nice. I fear there is some horrid gender stereotype in play here.) Cynwolfe (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've left a bullet list over on the project page. But based on what you're telling me, I may have to do this on my own. I wish it were somebody with more history at the project. Maile66 (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for October Horse

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice note. I'll consider doing that. I need to get to an actual library before I feel the article has been researched and weighted properly, as a few key items still haven't been available to me. It wouldn't need to be much longer, but I would expect some clarifications or filling in gaps of thought.
I've been interested in doing an article on this topic for about two years off and on. Every time I started working on it, I'd encounter a more narrow topic that I felt needed a link and either lacked an article or had one that was inadequate. So I've probably written a dozen little articles nibbling around the edges of October Horse, and still have three red links in it (hopefully one less later today). Cynwolfe (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Sporus

Thanks, I certainly will add this source to the article, eventually. There is indeed a lot more to be said about his story, but I have to review what I'd read because I don't remember where I saw it: a section about the "love" being never mentioned in all of this, and a discussion of why Nero took this action: the possibility of Sporus being (or rumored to be) a bastard of some previous emperor, his emasculinization serving to remove him as a competitor and the marriage as a mean of strengthen Nero's position in throne, as this would also further clarify why later pretenders as Nymphidius Sabinus and Otho also associated with him. Maybe one section about the repercutions of this case as well, like the discourses of Gaius Julius Vindex stirring rebellion amongst the Gaulls using him as example (in the source you showed me). I also want to put some info of him (and Pythagoras) in Nero's article, but that is a GA and I dont' know where would be a good place to put it. ZackTheJack (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Vobis Vici Vicicatulus

Tua semper constans et fidelis Amica.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Saw your quality comment at the AfD. Your point about those who generate substantial content becoming scarce is too true. Folk talk about our 5 year death spiral of active editors, I guess they might be even more Spes omnes relinquite if they considered the fall in substantial content generators. One day the Foundation will do something. Anyhow, I've noted your Herculean labours creating outstanding article on Classical topics, so please accept this faithful wiki kitten. FeydHuxtable (talk)

DYK Achelous and Hercules-need clarification

Template:Did you know nominations/Achelous and Hercules - They like your article. There is a question at this link about the Smithsonian. Are you able to answer on the template? You do good work. Maile66 (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:ERA

This seems like a textbook example of why we need to refine our guidelines, with some nice examples of the problems we face. Dougweller (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree, Doug. I just want to be free of harassment from both the religionists and the militant atheists. As you know, my personal preference is to use BC/AD, but only (as I've said ad nauseam) because I find it easier to discern at a glance, both in reading and typing. I have no interest in imposing an era style on any article, unless perhaps I'm completely replacing an unsourced stub with a developed article. The editor(s) doing the actual article creation should be able to choose the era style, as long it isn't contrary to general MOS guidelines.
What I object to is era crusading, where editors who haven't contributed to an article edit only to change the era style. Or in the example to which you may be referring, adding a date with an era convention to an article transparently for the purpose of establishing an era style (again without having ever edited the article). However, I doubt that a guideline can forestall this latter sly tactic. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Another thing that concerns me about the behavior of the era warrior in question is edit summaries that are either misleading (doesn't specify that the minor change or 'copyediting' was just an era change) or needlessly emotive ([1] [2] [3]). Cynwolfe (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
He obviously is on a crusade, I'm wondering if there is enough of a pattern for ANI. What really annoys me about the extremists on both sides, but especially the religionists, is the assumption that BCE/CE is anti-Christian. It just shows that they haven't done their research, as it is easy to find books by Christian theologians using BCE/CE.
I do think that we should have some sort of guideline about articles that have been one way for a period of time. But the main thing is to have more a clearer guideline. Thanks for your comments. Dougweller (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, I find that religionists often regard neutrality as "anti-". If you aren't actively affirming or promoting their POV, you're being anti-whatever. And militant atheists like to suppress any presentation that might suggest intelligent people have historically found spiritual, social, and even intellectual value in their religion. I'm delighted to say that on one talk page, I was accused of being anti-Christian in one section, and one or two sections later, I was accused of trying to push a Christian POV. I chose to take that as evidence I'm trying to further WP's goal of neutrality. And thank you for trying to address this era issue in a sane way. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
You might want to take a look at[4] and User talk:WP Editor 2011 as well as some weird comments about foreign minorities bastardising the Queens English at the WP:ERA discussion which we need to conclude. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Achelous and Hercules

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Manual of style/Dates etc

Cynwolfe, I just saw your comment to me in the talk page for the Manual of Style. I'm sorry if you thought I was singling you out for criticism; that wasn't my intention at all. I don't want to make the issue personal. Each time I referred to you, it was only to be specific about which proposal or edit I was talking about. Please feel free continue with the discussion. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC))

Thanks for the note. It's OK. Maybe you just need to be a little more careful with what you say about individual editors. I'm just trying to arrive at a wording for the guideline that both sides (and those of us who just want a usable guideline) can live with. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Prometheus

I'm sure it's undue weight and recentism. But it seems useful to me and it will get the Prometheus (film) article more hits at a crucial time. Seems pragmatic to me. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

My thinking was that they're already aware of the film, and if that's what they're looking for, they'll find it. No big deal. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
What I meant it, no big deal if you really want to put it back. Maybe Ridley will send us a donation for promoting his movie. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Image advice

Hi Cynwolfe, I know you're off dealing with other policy headaches, but I have an issue with image use that I think you might be able to help with since I've witnessed your input on similar matters in the past. At Catalogue of Women I'm trying to avoid illustrating the entire article with lovely plates of papyri or the usual smattering of vases, but this raises a significant issue that isn't covered by WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. Since much of the content of the Catalogue wasn't modernly known until the mid-twentieth century, no artistic representation from the modern period could be said to directly relate to the poem. The current problem children are:

  1. Currently the lede image is one of Reni's Atalanta e Ippomene's, which will have Ovid as it's ultimate extant inspiration. The aspect of the myth depicted therein—the apples—is narrated in the Catalogue. Ovid's engagement with the Hesiodic account of Atalanta (both in his version of Atalanta and in his Daphne) is reasonably well-established by a couple articles and a forthcoming monograph, but to argue for Reni's image on these grounds would smell like original research.
  2. Louis Billotey's Iphigénie is currently used in conjunction with the description of Iphigeneia's sacrifice in the Catalogue, which calls her Iphimede and states that Artemis saved the girl and installed her as Artemis Enodia. The image evokes the deer ploy of Iphigeneia in Aulis. A running theme in the article is that the Catalogue preserves versions of myths that were all but unknown until the day before yesterday, but, again, marching out this fantastic painting for this reason might be perceived as OR.

Any thoughts would be much appreciated, as well as any suggestions for images elsewhere. The only other image that I know must be included is the gorgeous 2nd-century papyrus above that transmits part of the Catalogue of Helen's Suitors. Thanks, — [dave] cardiff | chestnut — 21:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hm. I've never actually read through that guideline all the way to the end. Wonder who came up with "a cat with its claws out portrays aggression"? Really? In my house it portrays sofa damage.
I've only rarely seen complaints about the choice of images representing OR. And they've probably all been from me. Battle of Carrhae used to be regularly illustrated with stuff of dubious provenance that seemed to be original renderings based on gaming scenarios. I'm racking my brain (lots of cobwebs there tonight), but my concerns about OR in images, in the broadest sense, have been graphics like maps and charts—informational graphics that get the information wrong.
I suppose if you presented a vase and said, "this used to be an unknown version of the myth, and scholars were divided about which myth was even portrayed, but based on what we know now from the papyri, it represents ... " that would be OR, because you'd be presenting a new interpretation. If I'm understanding what you're asking me, all you're doing is choosing a couple of mythological paintings that illustrate narratives related to the content of the Catalogue, from the classical tradition in general. Now, if you want to be told you're doing something wrong, you shouldn't ask someone who so promiscuously adorns articles with all manner of images herself. You should ask one of the editors who think the purpose of mythology articles should be to strip away all accretions of tradition later than, oh, Archaic Greece. I, however, am a big believer in myth as a living tradition.
That said, the Catalogue is a literary work, and not a myth. But you do summarize the stories. So I see no reason not to illustrate these stories with works that reinterpret the tradition. You're making the content vivid, not trying to make a point or implicit argument. Your caption for the Reni seems just right to me. (In the other, imperatives directing the reader are, I think, frowned upon; you might instead just describe how the substitute hind is kneeling before an altar.) But there are very stern editors who might disagree with me. Hope I didn't misunderstand what you're asking me, because I'm feeling a bit foggy and tired at the moment.
And oh—when searching Commons, don't rely on categorization. If you don't find something you like in the pertinent category, search the name. Tedious to sort through results that may include butterfly species and planetoids, but you often find interesting things that haven't been categorized. I found a trove of images donated by Walters Art Museum, and very little of it categorized by subject matter. Who knows what else. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for this: I think it helps. I need to change the caption for Iphigeneia. I should remove the call to the altar, as I'm not an art history teacher trying to tempt my students into description, and perhaps point out the difference between the "Euripidean" version of the myth depicted and the Catalogue account. I should hope that the necessary interpretation will not be too much of an imposition. The deer has been a part of the received "canonical" constellation in the modern tradition since at least that loveable and Artful Dodger, Natalis Comes; her apotheosis as "Hecate" was little more than a Pausanian curio until the appearance of the Catalogue verses in 1962. If a "stern editor" takes strong issue with either image, I can of course replace them with my beloved papyri, with their dates and provenances and inventory numbers and all that sexiness ... perhaps even their dimensions, but now I'm just getting dirty. I'll dip into your Walters trove and the rest tomorrow. Thanks for the thoughts on this. And, in my house, the show of claws is often accompanied by purrs and means "pet me", at least in the argot of Henry (pictured on my user page). In fact, a moment before that picture was taken his paws were surely out-stretched with terrifying claws apparent, saying "I know you're looking at me, let's cuddle, punk." — [dave] cardiff | chestnut — 04:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
And like my other Commons tip, this one may be obvious, but be sure to search under non-English forms of the word or name. I've had especially good luck with Italian for non-categorized art, since I'm most often looking for Roman stuff. When I'm really convinced something must be there, I do German, French, and Spanish too. Never tried Greek, but I've encountered a certain number of images with Russian descriptions, even when the file name is English, and these alas are impenetrable to me. I've been trying to do a little categorizing there, but the Danaids and the Augean stables come to mind. Cynwolfe (talk)
Lest we doubt the importance of the cat in history, check out the last sentence of the intro to Cyclades. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips ... I actually hadn't thought of that even though I always search for scholarship in foreign languages. The common house cat is all I ever think of when I hear the word "Cyclades". Surprisingly the voiceless frogs of Seriphos aren't even mentioned in that article. That will be my next project: making sure every one of the Cyclades has a trivial mention of animals by the third sentence. — [dave] cardiff | chestnut — 21:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I solemnly swear that you will become the first person to whom I have awarded a barnstar if you carry out this plan. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I see that some of these actually have reasonable articles and I just don't have the gall. If only I had two gall bladders, like the cattle on Naxos. — [dave] cardiff | chestnut — 00:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cynwolfe/Archive_10&oldid=1257960747"