User talk:Petrouchka

Handy links for myself

• Manual of style
• How to use wiki markup
• Abbreviations used by editors
• How to do footnotes
• Picture tutorial
• "References" formula for Smith articles:

==References==
<div class="references-small">
<references />
</div>

{{SmithDGRBM}}

Your edit at Analysis

Hello! I noticed your edit at Analysis. Thanks for trying to fit the style of the rest of the page! :-) Since Analysis (Homer) is a redirect your first edit was actually more correct -- but don't bother to change it back, it's good now, too. You can read more at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Thanks & enjoy! Ewlyahoocom 01:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Auckland meetup

Just to let you know that a meetup is planned in Auckland for the 25th of June (see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland for more details), and that you are cordially invited. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 00:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Parry, Lord and others

Thanks for your comment on Talk:Homeric scholarship. I've left a reply there. I wonder if others will have comments! I'm slightly worried by the threat of Martin L. West, with whom I have never knowingly disagreed, but, if even he should disagree with me on what it was that Parry and Lord demonstrated, I think I would still, humbly and fearfully, steer all who disagree back to the texts of Parry and Lord. All the best Andrew Dalby 13:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What comments have appeared have been in favour of my formulation, so I'm going to put it back again. I don't want to be argumentative, and if there really are scholars who have claimed in print that Parry or Lord proved the possibility of oral transmission of poems as large as the Iliad and Odyssey, I would be very happy for you to say so and cite them. Andrew Dalby 20:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I hadn't realised till now to what extent the whole article Homeric scholarship was your creation. A great piece of work. Andrew Dalby 12:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

New Zealander-Israeli relations

I noticed you identified yourself as a Wikipedian in New Zealand. You may be interested in New Zealander-Israeli relations. Respectfully, Republitarian 23:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nicanor

Hi Petrouchka. I'm the creator of all the existing Nicanor articles, and can only be happy to hear you're going to do Smith's remaining Nicanor's. But I must tell you that I oppose you're decision to rename Nicanor existing articles; a Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek) has been approved, and the last version of the OCD, which uses traditional naming, hasn't been written in 1911. As for Byzantine (post-Heraclius) it's different; an accord has been reached regarding using "scientific" naming, and this is the position taken also by the OBD. That said, what is of primary importance for me is the creation of the new articles, so even if in the articles you create you prefer the choice that doesn't respect the policy guideline, it's not very important for me.--Aldux 11:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I've just found that another one exists: Nicanor (Syrian general).--Aldux 11:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

About the names, I agree the ones I first gave are too generic and not satisfying. Now lets speak of your proposals for renaming:

• renaming Nicanor (Greek general) to Nikanor (officer of Kassandros); I would prefer Nicanor (Antipatrid general).
• renaming Nicanor of Macedonia to Nikanor (son of Parmenion); except for the k, it's OK.
• renaming Nicanor (Egyptian general) to Nikanor (son of Lagos); this is simply wrong, because Nicanor was not son of Lagus; I propose Nicanor (Ptolemaic general)
• renaming Nicanor of Macedon to Nikanor (father of Balakros); OK, except that I'm for Nicanor (father of Balacrus)

Regarding Nicanor (Syrian general) there are big problems; as Smith treats them as two distinct Nicanors (i.12 & i.13), while the article as the same person. As for the name, we could use for the moment, what about Nicanor (Seleucid general)?

As for the articles you've got in mind, wouldn't Nicanor (satrap) be simpler for i.5? As for i.7 and i.3, I propose to omit them, because they have absolutely no chance of getting longer than one sentence stubs, sadly. Maybe a short mention of them in the disambig page could be enough.--Aldux 13:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Petrouchka, don't worry; it was me that was worried you still had hard feelings concerning me for the affair, and I'm happy to see there's no such problem. You were right to be irritated, because it was my fault, as I should have asked you first. I thank you for your kind words, and want you to know that I'm enthusiastic of your work in wikipedia: Homeric scholarship, Venetus A and your articles on the less known parts of the Trojan Cycle are fantastic. BTW, a few months ago a sort of convention (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-23 Names of Byzantine rulers) brought to the conclusion that for Byzantine rulers names should be in "scientific transliteration"; so I would really have no problems if you want to restore Eustathius to Eustathios. Ciao,--Aldux 11:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Geography of the Odyssey

Hello, Petrouchka. I've had other things to do, unfortunately, so I haven't done any expansion of this topic. If you're prepared to deal with ancient views I will be very happy, and I look forward to seeing the result! Andrew Dalby 19:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have now moved most of the "Geography of the Odyssey" section from Odyssey to Geography of Odysseus' narrative. Therefore, if you have time to do some work on ancient sources and opinions, feel free to add it at any time. I will get to work on the modern ones.

At the moment, the bulleted list of usual identifications remains. I am not sure if this will be useful at all in the end, or perhaps whether it should be split into two lists, ancient and modern. I will begin, I think, by summarising modern views on an author-by-author basis and see what emerges from that. Andrew Dalby 12:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The title is now Geography of the Odyssey, incidentally. Andrew Dalby 20:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Petrouchka,

Andrew Dalby asked my contribution[1] on Geography of the Odyssey as well as yours.

I have added the accounts of Strabo and Plutarch on the Geography of the Odyssey, since the majority of the "mainstream academia" considers them reliable classic writers.

On 23:08, 20 October 2006 you edited Geography of the Odyssey - Ancient identifications - part one, you confessed "long - I'm not sure what to abbreviate" and you deleted both accounts, of roughly 10 lines long.

Is it because you don't consider these accounts on the location of Ogygia and Scheria relevant to the article? Is it because the article is far too long and you get the message: This page is 66 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles as in this case or is it for any other reason?

Your excuse, "long - I'm not sure what to abbreviate" is not good enough.--Odysses (☜) 19:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to take up space, but since Odysses mentions my name, the link above shows that I asked him for brief details of modern identifications, not full length quotations of ancient ones. Andrew Dalby 20:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Petrouchka,

Thank you very much for your reply. Obviously it was a misunderstanding. Please accept my apologies for being inquisitive. You are doing a fine job with this article and I won’t tamper with it in the future.

I will take this opportunity for a friendly argument on Plutarch's account.

Template:Polytonic (The great continent which is surrounded on all sides by the great sea, they say, lies less distant from the other (islands), but about five thousand stadia from Ogygia).

From the present tense used in this text, it seems to me that Plutarch refers to an existing continent since Atlantis (if ever existed) had been destroyed several millennia ago. A similar description was also given by Plato in Timaios. What do you think of the interpretation of the text? --Odysses (☜) 14:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Petrouchka, - Thank you, I will find an opportunity to contribute to the article. There is a problem with five days sail west of Britain. Maybe it refers to a report by a Carthaginian sailor on a trip to the Atlantic Ocean, but I don’t have this report handy. Also, as you pointed out, it should read: the great sea surrounded by the great continent, not the other way around as I thought it was. I went back to the sources and I think that Plutarch got this from Plato. Plato wrote "and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean" (Timaios 25,a). Most academics wouldn’t accept that the "opposite continent" refers to America, would they? --Odysses (☜) 18:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Petrouchka, I thought you'd like to know that an editor has proposed to rename your article Kypria. Please share your thoughts at the article's talk page.--Aldux 23:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I wish I'd known that...

Thanks for posting those handy tips on footnotes. Your instructions are more to the point (and certainly easier to find!) than those in the Wikipedia style guide. Thanks! --Tanyushka 00:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)