Hi Wetman-
I saw your input on the discussion page of Scare quotes, and wonder what you would think of an issue I'm debating a bit with another editor. It concerns some quotation marks I added to a template that generates one of the "War on Terrorism" infoboxes. I'll tell you up front that I don't even think an infobox with such a name should exist, but that's a battle I don't have time for. Thanks in advance if you have a minute to take a look. -Eric(talk) 00:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's the template that's unnecessary, and I've simply said so. I quite agree with you, but I have no inclination to do battle in any such toxic atmosphere. --Wetman (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't mean not to be drawn in to Giano's defense, but not to be drawn into toxic exchange with the coarser element. --Wetman (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that's what you meant (otherwise I woudln't have agreed with you), much as I fear it's impossible to defend him in the current constellation (not because he behaved indefensibly, at least to my mind, but because of the way the whole discussion seems skewed to me). Is the coarser element in fact dominant? In any case, I think he's a major loss to us all... athinaios (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the improvement on the hook for Heinrich Steinhowel. If you have any ideas for a better hook for a self nominated article I did on Decemebr 24 of Laurent de Premierfait I welcome any suggestions you may have - or any improvements to the article itself of course. --Dougtalk 19:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found a reference to his portrait in a ms of Du cas des nobles hommes et femmes in the Bibliothèque National, and I made some further tweaks, which you may want to vet. That was illuminating: Laurent de Premierfait was nothing but a vague name to me; I might read a couple more articles on him from JSTOR. Thank you!--Wetman (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great improvements you made to the article - thanks!--Dougtalk 21:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Wetman. The article should only cover the events of 490-479: Marathon, Thermopylae, Salamis, Plataea, and Myucale. There should be some Ionian Revolt background, a bit about the Delian League and Peace of Callias, but only a bit. Apparently the title has been interpreted to mean "A Catalogue of Every Time the Greeks and Persians Butted Heads from the Ionian Revolt to the Time of Alexander the Great." This is ridiculously broad.
Given that I went into the Pandora article shooting first and asking questions later, I wanted to check with someone else before I did anything. Could you leave your thoughts on my talk page, please? Thanks, Happy New Year. Ifnkovhg (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wetman, I don't know the protocol, so I continued this discussion (if you can stomach it) at User talk:Ifnkovhg. Thanks! —Preceding comment was added at 04:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Wetman- Hate to bug you with another thing, but you exposed your interest in Greek history...I did the translation proofread of an article, Greece_in_classical_antiquity, which had been translated from one on FR WP. I'm no expert on the topic and put some proofreading notes on both the translation project page and the article's talk page a couple weeks ago, but haven't had any comments or responses. Thought you might be interested or might want to signal someone who takes stewardship of articles on the subject. Thanks. -Eric(talk) 16:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at it, Eric, but the encyclopedia format doesn't serve broad subjects nearly as well as it does smaller, more narrowly defined ones. I can't quite get a grip on this article to see how to improve it. I'd begin by looking at the Cambridge Ancient History to see what the appropriate section headings might be, for a start. --Wetman (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same feeling while reading it. The piece is too thin given the broad title. I can't tackle it, but hoping someone will. Thanks for taking a look. -Eric(talk) 17:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to take a look there. A user named user:Silk Tork or Peter Tork or something has been "cleaning up" the article by tagging it as inappropriate, removing the lead, etc. I'm sure he or she means well, but the user is over zealous and, I think, misunderstanding when and how citation is needed. Removing the entire lead because it doesn't have a lot of footnotes is surely a sign of inexperience or confusion. Geogre (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Average attention span is shorter than yours or mine. I usually let the dust settle, then open in two tabs and selectively edit the cumulative diffs, so that nuanced information isn't lost. It does seem that by saving every minute edit, the appearance of a massive edit count can be gained overnight. --Wetman (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restored some deleted context. --Wetman (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading the history log correctly, you tagged the "difficulties of interpretation" as original research, yes? First, thank you for not deleting it. Second, in what way is it OR? I set forth a number of possible interpretations as set forth by published Hesiodic scholars. I note that West's reading is the most popular, but don't endorse it. How is setting forth these theories original research? Should the article not address the issue of interpretation at all? I thought we'd settled this already. I'm confused. I'm also going to bed. Ifnkovhg (talk) 10:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I always feel that a discreet commented-out hint to other editors is just as effective as a disfiguring tag: perhaps for you they are equivalent, as you suggest. A report of possible interpretations as set forth by published Hesiodic scholars is exactly what the article needs. Credit the sources and the sections no longer will appear to be "original". --Wetman (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm extremely confused. I referenced the advocates of each theory quite a while ago, but if I'm reading the log correctly, you marked it as OR only a few days ago, yes? If this is your assessment even after I have sourced the various theories, then I can opnly ask you what specific corrections remain to be made. Thanks. Ifnkovhg (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies - I entered his name under List of saints by name:A, which I thought was meant to be an exhaustive, new alternative to a comprehensive "List of Saints" article. I also just noticed it's been proposed to merge it with the List of saints page. I should have added it to both. Alekjdstalk 21:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea that List of saints by name:A even existed. If others are working to keep List of saints a complete list of Wikipedia articles, then I'd better keep my shoulder to the wheel as well. Thank you, Alekjds!--Wetman (talk) 08:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Elective monarchy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wetman, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! ...and fine culture ~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
Elite schools are schools such as NYU (nationally ranked), Cooper Union (nationally ranked engineering) Columbia (Ivy League). Since when does Pace, The New School, and St John's University fall within this catagory. This seems to be more or less in violation of Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterismUnclePaco (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
by the way at what point did i remove NYU? Take a look at the differential and you'll see that I didn't! UnclePaco (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
btw your mild suggestion was more of a threat. but we can agree to disagree. UnclePaco (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wetman never makes threats, I'm sure you have noticed, Dear reader.
I am trying to produce a few high-quality reproductions of this poster (the updated Elphas Levi Baphomet image used by Leo Taxil), and don't know where to request an archival copy or find an archival-quality image on the internet. If there is anything you can do to help me in this regard, please let me know at mandyflanny@gmail.com
Thanks again,
My friend, and Wikicollaborator, on what grounds is an anecdote "false"? It may be unproven, but I find your terminology harsh. You say "A false title, unless the alleged anecdote were sourced", well, the mere fact that the title exists, supported by a simple Google of Winston's Hiccup that brings up sufficient references, makes the case by itself. Your line of reasoning, if I may generously term it as such, would consign a good many very well based Wiki articles to the dustbin, I'm afraid. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The (spurious?) "anecdote" concerning the arbitrary boundary lines between Syria and Jordan is uncritically related without sources in the newly-created article "Winston's Hiccup". The anecdote would be "false" if it simply reflected wish-fulfillment on the part of its third-hand retailers, whether on-line or off. To the statement "Thus the zigzag, with the Saudi town of Kaf near its apex has been written into history as "Winston's hiccup"., "irresponsible" might have been kinder, for no "history" has been attested, no credible source added, in spite of the bluster, as of this post. And that's simply the fact. --Wetman (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You asked about the removal of bronze from the Pantheon. According to A J C Hare, the bronze from the portico of the pantheon was taken, on the order of Urban VIII, Maffeo Barbarini, to make the baldachino at the papal altar in St Peters. This prompted cynics to remark "Quod non fecerunt Barbari, fecerunt Barberini." [What the barbarians did not do, was done by Barbarini.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leightonmowbray (talk • contribs) 18:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be Augustus Hare, Walks in Rome, I suppose. There must be a stronger source. I'll look for it when I can. --Wetman (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One starting-point here - the quip seems contemporary, although exactly where bronze came from varies rather. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got it at JSTOR: Tod A. Marder, "Alexander VII, Bernini, and the Urban Setting of the Pantheon in the Seventeenth Century" The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians50.3 (September 1991:273-292) p. 275: "In the early seventeenth century, Urban VIII Barberini (1623-1644) tore away the bronze ceiling of the portico, and replaced the medieval campanile with the famous twin towers built by Maderno— not by Bernini, despite the popular legend". I've added this at Pantheon, Rome, but since every iota of the Bernini baldacchino has been minutely studied, the source of its bronze must be published somewhere. --Wetman (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sir, Thank you for your recent copy edits to this article. I appreciate your effort. I happened to notice that three images that were meant to depict sculpture were lost inadvertantly, during the edits. Can I put them back now, if you are done with your copy editing.? I would not want you to loose any edits due to edit conflict.thanks again for your help.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and thank you for being patient about that. I'll leave the article alone while you repair my inadvertent damage! I was just composing my suggestions for the article— though I feel that the struggles over "Feature Article" status are distracting and tiresome. I wouldn't inflict the process on anyone. --Wetman (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am waiting for your suggestions.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 8 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dorus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi! I created a page about a Peruvian mountain spirit called Apus. Here is link to the page: Mountain_god. Would you mind cleaning it up or editing it? And changing the title? Thanks! Neptunekh (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you begin by expanding the references you list, like ACES, etc., which I can't make out? See how I've edited your post just above, to link directly to your article (or any article) using [[]] A better title would be Apu (mountain god), since Wikipedia articles use the singular in titles: click on the Move function to move your article. Come back here when you're done and alert me under this same header, and I'll help you further, all right?--Wetman (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am not trying to be difficult and I appreciate your efforts to improve the article La Beata de Piedrahita, but there was still noticeable POV, with no back up references, so I tagged and updated as necessary. Yours, Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 11 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Latmus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 11 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Silva Carbonaria, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
While we may not have seen eye to eye over at Winston's Hiccup, many thanks for your help with this article. It's much appreciated. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I thought the Wikipedia reader should see at a glance who's being quoted here. --Wetman (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for your architectural additions. I see you've also edited a passage to read - "A new establishment bearing the name St James's Club and Hotel, based in Park Place, London, has no connection with the original club." That's my guess, but the hotel's web site claims a connection, as does our article. I've challenged it on the Talk page here. I'm just wondering, are you sure of the "no connection"? Regards, Xn4 02:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the nature of the "connection"?--Wetman (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Someone might have bought the remaining assets and liabilities of the Club? NB, the new Derby Grammar School claims a connection with the original Derby School because it was set up by old boys and was allowed by the Old Derbeians to take over the old school's badge and motto... but in this case I'm very sceptical. Xn4 11:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I've now seen your comments on the Talk page. That's a very smart piece of architectural detective work, Wetman, I'm impressed! Xn4 11:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I especially enjoyed finding that gambling raid in 1889. I see you've tuned the articles up to concert pitch. Good job all round! --Wetman (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wetman. I thought I'd let you know, before you notice anyway, that I've moved Ganymede to Ganymede (mythology). My reasoning is that the moon of Jupiter, Ganymede (moon), is a more likely search target. Normally, I'd start a talk discussion, but I didn't in this case because:
The talk page on the classical character has very little comment. Doesn't seem to be a heavily watched page. Relatedly, only you and Haiduc have sigificant contrib's to the page, and even those are in the low single digits.
All of the other Galilean satellites (Io, Callisto, Europa) similarly disambig between the classical character, the satellite, and other mentions. Other major moons, such as Titan, do the same. Where a search for the astronomical object is obviously more likely (e.g. Pluto), astronomy wins out.
I don't want to denigrate the efforts of editors interested in the classical Greeks, so I thought I'd contact you. On the whole, I think the main search target immediately disambig'ing between character and satellite bests aids the reader. Marskell (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly: Ganymede should be a disambiguation page. People are about equally likely to be looking for the Galilean satellite. But much thanks for alerting me, by the way: few editors have such tact. -Wetman (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good! I'll only add that I feel classical characters and astronomical bodies both have long term salience and the disambigs themselves should immediately point to them. Video games, cars, shoes, sports teams, and military vehicles should come after. Our disambigs are inconsistent on this. Marskell (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're an editor of the right stamp! Many Americans seem to have no access to adult culture: I'd sensed this before, but I've really come up against it only through Wikipedia. --Wetman (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To carry on from previous, long- and short-term culture are the terms I think most appropriate. (Adults google childish things, after all.) How long will X mean anything?, is the question. The title "Saturn," indicating a character from Roman mythology, will matter as long as people study the Romans. Indicating a planet, it will matter as long as human beings exist. Indicating a car, it won't survive this century. If people are most likely to search the car company, then we should aid them doing so—but we should balance it against what will last as a search target. Similarly, I don't have a problem per se with people editing video game articles (that would be mean). (And, of course, some video games take on iconic status, gaining long term salience.) But I hate the way lexical borrowing tends to over-emphasize the immediate, short-term culture, on Wikipedia. Marskell (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Oh, and I'd hesitate to agree that Americans are only to blame for this emphasis on the short-term. Marskell (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Of course, there's plenty of room for articles on every conceivable subject: I've just done a brief bit on a figure who's really only relevant within the historiography of mythology. On the head of "short-term culture" — so much more pain-free than my usual "manufactured culture" — you might enjoy a discussion at Talk:Judgement of Paris. --Wetman (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating places. They're really not far from where I live and I've been planning to drop by for a visit and have some pictures taken. Unfortunately, it's been rainy here in Portugal so I've been postponing my visits. But I will probably go there in the coming weeks, and will provide some visual material for these articles. Regards, Húsönd 03:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Wetman. Perhaps you would be interested in my last post at User talk:Giano II. :-) Best regards, Húsönd 02:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding some pic to Black Moshannon State Park. Do you have an interest in this park? I am working on getting it up to GA or maybe even FA. If you have any comments, suggestions, or changes please add them. Thanks. Dincher (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Dincher, I stumbled on the photo uploading at Commons, where I lurk checking new additions because, if they don't go into articles, they get stashed away as in that last moment of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Go to Commons and search "Moshannon": I think you'll agree we've got the atmospheric shots. I don't know the park at first hand, regrettably. --Wetman (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the pics are terrific. Haven't seen Raiders of the Lost Ark in a long, long time so I'll take your word for it. Happy wikipediaing. Dincher (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to comment on the discussion on giano's page here, we'd greatly appreciate your opinion. --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some nice essays there on your user page. I should try and model my page on stuff like that. The current stuff is so boring, and is just there to help me find stuff. I should tidy that all away in the subpages. Carcharoth (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I have a Bavarian sister-in-law who doesn't think I'm a bit funny. Those remarks draw in the nice ones, and about once a year get a looney foaming with quotes from Ezekiel. --Wetman (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment there. Why is there such a weird article? Is there something I'm missing that makes this non-random information? I know you didn't write the article, but I saw you there and thought you might have some feedback. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For your info. I've established some contact with the Pieter van der Merwe at the National Maritime Museum. The claim comes from Bold and refers only to the original plan - an H shape in both cases with a roadway beneath. I've thanked him and asked if he might have any interior pics he's willing to share. I had foresworn wikipedia, but I'm going to write up a new version on citizendium and then port it back here for a bit of critical editing as I'm a one man band over there at the moment. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits to my tweaks there have without exception improved them. I wish the title were Queen's House, Greenwich. The essential flaw in Wikipedia is that it is by its very nature a constant compromise with mediocrity. So many day-to-day commonplaces need to be buttressed by the Printed Word. I scrupulously avoid the ill-informed and mean-spirited politics that have so worn down and angered Giano. Intellectually it's like hanging out in the NY subway— where Juilliard students do play string trios for dollars, however— and a very wholesome new experience for me, who have entered a public school only to vote. I'd be sorry if you gave up Wikipedia altogether. --Wetman (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wetman, although I must confess Mr van der Merwe offered some suggestions for corrections etc. As to wikipedia, I'm keeping a toe in the water, but really feel its a busted flush as an attempt to create a serious encyclopedia. The numbers of decent writers, those who frequent yours and Giano's, Geogre's, Bishonens pages etc are so few in comparison to the legion of others. This wouldn't be so bad if the place was run with just a modicum of competancy. Jimbo Wales appears so afraid of micro-management the result is practically no-management. Nepotism is rife as is the rather distasteful favouring of technophiles over bibliophiles. I admire you incredible ability to rise above it all, but can't seem to do the same. I end up reading the endless squables, a futile battle for common sense to prevail, and yet nothing gets close to resolution, just increasingly embittered participants. So I've opted for quality over quantity. Albeit a rather lonely choice at the moment. It is at least quiet. Kind regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Joopercoopers, your disappointment is encapsulated in the expression "serious encyclopedia." There's always going to be an unserious populist slant here, a lack of editorial oversight, plenty of worthless babble and minute concentration on The Simpsons episodes. Many dangers from loose cannons pitching about the deck. I learned a while ago, when a buffoon "re-edited" Rococo: I just took it off my watchlist. Wide-ranging articles are playpens for cockscombs: Leonardo da Vinci is employed as a virtual coconut shy at a fête, but a more specific article, say Ginevra de Benci, has a better chance of becoming the best synthesis on the Internet. Aiming higher than that brings inevitable disappointment. It's important to let go and, especially, not to attract the furious attention of guttersnipes. Are you interested in Wentworth Castle or Wentworth Woodhouse? --Wetman (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have used the word celt in the article on Sitakunda Upazila, but it is creating some confusion as the word generally means a group of people, not an implement. If you can clear this confusion, please, leave a note on Talk:Sitakunda Upazila. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't have access to more recent publications. But, the solution you provided would do fine for now. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The major problem is this: "In 1886, the archaeologist Rakhaldas Bandyopadhyay discovered a fossil wood, shouldered celt..." In 1886 Rakhaldas Bandyopadhyay was six years old. --Wetman (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified on the talk page. What a blunder! Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You evidently produced the following text: Thus he became known as Harmerty - Horus of two eyes.< ref > This would be rendered Harmachis in Greek, and Harmachus in Latin.< / ref > and Heru-khuti (in Egyptian) seem to be none other than Horus
What did you actually mean to say? Dan (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...Here's the diff: I did indeed add that, and shouldn't have— then it's not simply a Greek rendition of an Egyptian name? Do please delete it or repair it--Wetman (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bloody hell, that was impressive! I was working on an improvement, but nothing as detailed as that! As a matter of interest, where did you get it from? Is it in the guidebook? Swanny18 (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! it seemed to unfold quite easily. JSTOR mostly, credited in the footnotes, and Howard Colvin— ask me anything about a pre-1840 English or Scottish architect, and I can help you from Colvin's dictionary— and Rupert Gunnis's dictionary of English sculptors too, but I found those two on-line links. I'm a persistent googler, and now Google gives you a peek into all kinds of old books, with the right searchwords... --Wetman (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said, "Someone with the patience for the paperwork involved should report this for deletion." I did — I tagged it for speedy deletion, which you removed. Please don't do that without good reason. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly didn't mean to remove such a sensible tag, which was effecting the very change that's too complicated for me. I can only suppose that, perhaps, you are mistaken. --Wetman (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Halie, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Off to Wiktionary with it! What a textdump Wiktionary must be. Wonder why the bot picked me. --Wetman (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on 'Christ Pantocrator, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because 'Christ Pantocrator is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting 'Christ Pantocrator, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there such a thing as "an implausible typo"? Not for some of us! Johnbod (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mkae them all the time. --Wetman (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on an extended (circa year long) wikibreak and drop in to edit only periodically while using the site as a reader or to show someone editing/back end/administrative side of the wiki. Today I came across the article linked above after reading a BBC news brief about his death. I was hoping to get a link to get some more information and a link to the de-wp article. I was surprised by the familiarity of the first section. It turns out that both paragraphs cited the exact same BBC article (check the number at the end of the link), which I had just been reading. The first paragraph had been lifted straight out, and the sentence-long second paragraph, which you added, had only reworded "internet encyclopedia site, Wikipedia" to "German Wikipedia." I have removed the entire section as a violation of the BBC's copyright. —WAvegetarian(talk) 16:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wetman's resources of patience and forbearance are in perennially short supply. Principles of triage require that no more of these reserves be expended than any one situation requires. Your understanding is appreciated.
Noticed you have some interest on this subject. Presently I am challenging the birth date provided for Giovanni Boccaccio. It seems too much of a coincidence that what is provided is 16 June 1313 and these numbers "coincidently" are close to Midsummer and the birth of John the Baptist. When you add 16 + 1 + 3 you get 20 and an additional 1 + 3 you get 24. June 24 is the date given for John the Baptist's birth. My understanding is that the summer solstice swings somewhere between June 20 and June 24 over so many thousands of years. Noticed also that Boccaccio's death date is recorded in history as the winter solstice. Would you care to comment and give your input on this either at the Reference Desk (Humanities) or at Boccaccio discussion? -Dougtalk 21:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Number-magic has nothing to do with whether the birth date as given is incorrect. The source to check would be Dizionario biografico degli italiani vol. X (Biagio-Boccaccio) Rome, 1968. I'll copy this answer at the Boccaccio talkpage. --Wetman (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your answer. Found this source in Google Scholar, however can not read Italian. Does it then say these dates for his birth and death? I'll leave these dates then in the article as they stand. I didn't put these dates in the article, as they were put in about 2004 or before. I just happened to have noticed the "coincidence". Apparently then you are indicating these are correct and have references? Actually I would just as soon leave those dates in as I find them a fascinating "coincidence" that his birth is at the summer solstice and his death is at the winter solstice, June 24, etc. --Dougtalk 22:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't able to find it on-line, thus I used the conditional tense. The dates as given in Dizionario ought to appear in a Wikipedia bio. article, unless there's specific information showing that they're wrong. English Wikipedia gives (June 16, 1313 – December 21, 1375); French and Italian wikipedia give simply born Certaldo, 1313 – Certaldo, 21 December 1375. Death dates of famous people are recorded more consistently than birth dates. John Addington Symonds, Giovanni Boccaccio as Man and Author (1895 p. 13) stated that we know neither his birthplace (he grew up in Certaldo, so that's assumed) nor his mother nor whether he was born in wedlock or no. I think the birthdate is not known, but one is even more careful of removing information from Wikipedia than one is of adding it. --Wetman (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking up this additional information and references on this. Yes, agreed with you that death dates are better recorded. I'll leave the dates in until I am able to find good sources that say otherwise. --Dougtalk 23:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Wetman. Pope Clement IV (1265-68) wasn't the last Pope who was married before he took sacred orders. Pope Honorius IV (Giacomo Savelli), elected 17 years after Clement's death, was also married and had at least two sons. One of them became podesta of Urbino and died before 1279, and another one became senator in Rome and died in 1306. This is according to S. Miranda: Cardinal Giacomo Savelli. Best regards —CarlosPn(talk) 14:56, 27 January 2008 (CET)
Well found! I trust you've corrected the articles. --Wetman (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was intrigued by the paragraph you left on the discussion page for Augustus; I was the chief editor who brought it to FA status. I'd like to hear more about your opinion that the article lacks information about Augustus' personal decisions and motives behind them. In writing the article, I sort of felt the same way, but couldn't add anything about it since my sources did not elaborate on the psyche or detail of the intimate personal life of Augustus. Do you have source materials that you could use to improve the article in this regard?--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling was that the article was caught up in reporting material that should be fully covered in the myriad of brief articles under Roman civil wars, whereas it should confine itself to following the figure of Augustus through them, with Augustus kept in the forefront as a unifying figure, as in Anthony Everitt, Augustus: The Life of Rome's First Emperor or Ron Mellor Augustus and the Creation of the Roman Empire which prints some primary documents. Werner Eck , The Age of Augustus and Jim Whiting, The Life and Times of Augustus Caesar are essentially biographies set in context, like other similar works noted here. For background, the reader of the article should be guided by Main article... hatnotes, and further reading suggestions in footnotes perhaps. For instance, Res Gestae Divi Augusti appears in two sentences that deal with it purely as an inscription. Descending to details results in quibbles; my criticism, as I remember, was simply that the article loses focus in attempting to embrace the political history of the whole period. It's easier to criticize it than write it, needless to say. But as a Featured Article, it's meant to set an example. --Wetman (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
at Anna Hyatt Huntington about the Horse Tamer. I'd like to match it up with the picture (which happens to be mine) before the shot falls under the ax of the copyright police. Life is supposed to be interesting. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should have known that was your photo! The source you gave seems secure enough to me, but who knows what the Ministry of Magic will get up to. --Wetman (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good job! Once it's published Carpwoman may quote from it. I have to scour JSTOR to find published articles that state the obvious: ventriloquism, because just to say what everyone who's ever read a book in a field already knows, is too original for the post-teen refugees from MySpace who take up virtual personas around here. Ah, "when leisure outruns culture". --Wetman (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish Netherlands is not really right for 1567 (nor was the version before). I was wondering why the French expelled Netherlanders, and was it religion-dependent? Can you cast any light - is it in one of those Edict articles of yours? We don't seem to have Ketel's religion. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Habsburg Netherlands, then? Catherine de' Medici's intrigues with the Habsburg Philip played a destabilising role in the French Wars of Religion; the currently active phase was the "Second War": Philip II reinforced the strategic corridor from Italy north along the Rhine and made an unsuccessful attempt at taking control of Charles IX. This provoked the further outburst of hostilities (the "Second War") which ended in another unsatisfactory truce, the Peace of Longjumeau (March 1568). Are you sure all Netherlandish subjects of Philip were expelled? France at that moment might have been an insecure place for a {Protestant?) portrait-painter. --Wetman (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is all from Hearn, PKM's source - all new to me (as is Ketel in general). One expects he was Protestant, but you can never tell. I will copy this to the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something is not right in the part of article under "History". The second paragraph jumps into the 19th century with the history of the colonne, then we have to wait until the fourth paragraph for the origin of the square three centuries earlier. For proper continuity, paragraphs 2 & 3 need to go after 4; however, because of the pictures, I am afraid I will do something wrong if I touch it, thus becoming a vandal against my will! When you have time, would you be kind enough to return to me? (Putting this on the talk page of article.) Frania W. (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the first paragraph of "History" is itself out of place - the fourth should be the beginning of "History", then it should go on following chronological order. Frania W. (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message. I have, I believe, been very careful in what I have deleted. Italin Visits is a clearly commercial site which exists in order to sell tours and make money in other ways. It is scandalous, in my opinion, that this organisation has plastered its links all over Wikipedia. This kind of activity has to be challenged in order to save any kind of credibility for Wikipedia.
Would you not agree as to the commercial nature of the site?
Thanks for the quick response. I am glad we agree! The Italian Visits people have been particularly aggressive in their spamming of Wikipedia. --Bcnviajero (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it seems that they have been doing the same across a large number of different language versions of Wikipedia, spamming anything to do with Italy. I believe it is possible to get domains blocked from being linked externally from Wikipedia following extensive abuse, but am not sure how to get that considered. Any idea? --Bcnviajero (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam seems to be the place now, but you should follow the mildly irksome procedure they ask for. They can connect to the Wikimedia blacklist, but are the best place to start. Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Posted both here on your talk page and on mine where you first wrote:
I had responded, but over on your talk page. I have backed out your recent change intending to restore the sentence, as the sentence was not actually deleted, so your change had it in there twice. Thanks for being concerned about losing information.
Sorry for not posting on mine since that was where you expected to find the answer. WilliamKF (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How tiresome of me. And now I see you've even saved the footnote quoting Poggio Bracciolini, which added flava. I am quite neurotic about losing information, to be sure: Wikipedia articles seem to be subject to erosion. --Wetman (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. M06ff1 (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The use states that it is a low-resolution image of a DVD cover for this very film. What is the issue?
You posed the question: "This isn't a sales pitch for the book... is it?" I don't know what you meant by the term "sales pitch," but I can assure that I was not looking to hawk the book because I am not in the book-selling business and this particular book has long been out of print. If you meant was I endorsing the book, then you might have a case to make, although I deny that I was. I included the only worthwhile reviews of the book that I could locate. Furthermore, it seems to me that substantive book reviews are an integral part of a book's history and thus worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Perhaps you believe otherwise, and I will concede that your opinion in this regard trumps my own.
I thank you for the corrections you made and must compliment you on the rewording of the introductory paragraph. I question, however, why you felt it was necessary to redundantly label it as "superfluous verbiage." The word "verbiage" alone makes your point. In fact, "streamlined opening" would have sufficed.
All the same, I hope that future articles of mine might be lucky enough to benefit from your editorial expertise.
Though no editor "trumps" another at Wikipedia, a disconnected series of paragraphs appended to an encyclopedia article, each of which is a praising blurb, all quoted verbatim, is the style of Publisher's Weekly rather than of an encyclopedia. Publisher's Weekly being a trade organ designed to help sales of books, the doubt expressed in "This isn't a sales pitch for the book... is it?" arises quite naturally. Why not go back to the article and edit those selections from the commented-out quotes (for I didn't delete them) that actually describe the work, rather than simply puff it. The quotes you retain should be sourced: or did they all come directly from a bookcover? --Wetman (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions--I may do just what you say. As for "The quotes you retain should be sourced: or did they all come directly from a bookcover?," there were only two review quotes and both were clearly sourced in the original entry.--Squelle (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I see that I goofed and should have appended this to the previous exchange. Sorry.--Squelle (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't checked the page history carefully enough. --Wetman (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'll see I've added, with some duplication of material from the various other ones. Do you have pics in mind? There are some Medici studiolo ones in commons. Which is the one in the ?Met with ceramic Labours of the Months on the ceiling? Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you sure give good value, for such meager inspiration! No, I didn't have particular illustrations in mind. The Medici "studiolo' is so spectacularly overblown, in its scale, its use, in its imagery, that it doesn't really provide a good example. A shame we don't have the intarsia one at Urbino, or the Gubbio room at the Met. --Wetman (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well done with your partner (Valentines day?)[edit]
On 14 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cabinet (room) , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello, and thanks for your additions to History of Chester. In order to help prevent the large amount of unreferenced stuff already in this article get even more out of hand, would it be possible to only add material along with appropriate references to the material? If you are at all unsure how to do this, WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:References will provide some guidance. I hope you can add the references in for the material you have already added, as this will help prevent it being tagged as unreferenced and possibly deleted in the future. Best wishes. DDStretch (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid not. I don't think one can use wikipedia articles as appropriate referencea for other articles. DDStretch (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What very high standards for such a mediocre article. Though he contributed an image of the Town Hall and a few commonplaces about its construction, History of Chester is not on Wetman's watchlist, so this has been transferred to Talk:History of Chester. No further discussion will be needed. --Wetman (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of courtesy, your contribution and views about this matter are commented on in the article's talk page, and on WT:UKGEO, where I have asked for comments about my actions. DDStretch (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for correcting my blunder. Do you have any advice on how to expand the article, possibly make it more interesting? Ionek (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've already forgotten what I corrected, it was so minor: my own understanding of bacteria comes largely from aquaria and reading: Skeptical Aquarist.com. Yes, I'd go into the metabolism. How it gets its energy. Can you sketch the chemical pathways without introducing chemical equations? How does it deal with its extreme environment. In what way are those waters "bleach-like"? Figure your audience is modestly prepared, on a high-school biology level, but interested. Remind the reader what a concept like "extremophile" entails. But don't pander: anyone reading the article is already curious. Are all the basic articles in footnotes? Readers should be given a guide to deepen their detailed understanding. --Wetman (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Hi - rather making incorrect accusations please take the reasons for your change, whcih are mistaken, to the discussion page which I previously started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.253.110 (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[We don't take anonymous calls here, but anyone mistaking self-confidence for information concerning Meissen porcelain and "porcealin" in general— and setting out to make a reputation as a cockscomb— will find a great deal of stiff competition at Wikipedia.] --Wetman (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to improve articles in Wikipedia. I have tried to discuss these changes, both with you and on the relevant dicussion pages. But you seem to be more interest in making snide comments. Please take your own advice and only edit what you know about, which for you appears not to be porcelain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.253.110 (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that map isn't really "based on more recent publications". It just replicates the map it replaces, with Epirus and Macedonia added for the edification of Greek nationalists, and a few random ISBNs thrown in to make it look legit. In a charitable mood, I'd call it a violation of WP:SYN. In a less charitable one, outright fraud. dab(𒁳) 12:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt. But why tell me?--Wetman (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To include such a bold claim in the lead, you need not only a source (the Britannica link at the end of the sentence does not bear out the assertion) but to explain it somewhere in the article itself. I am removing the words until such is done. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. To call Romanticism "self-contradictory" without saying why it is so, transmits no information. Wasn't my word, I'm glad to say. --Wetman (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for your interest in the article. In case you are interested in expanding the article, I can send you some articles along. Can I contact you over PM or somehow? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say that I just don't ever make any connection between Wikipedia and my e-mail. I was asking, could the articles be entered as Further Reading following the article 365 Crete earthquake? but I see you've already done that. The ball's in my court, I see... --Wetman (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice copyedit (it was one y not 2) ... can you find a hook? :-) Victuallers (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...well, how about "*...that among the Catholic exiles from Elizabethan England, Nicholas Fitzherbert found a place in Rome as secretary to Cardinal William Allen?" If you like it, just cut 'n paste and enter it yourself, as it's your article. By the way, though, you do have to decide between Fitzherbert and FitzHerbert. I believe the former is more usual. What does DNB do? --Wetman (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know you don't really approve of categories, but any new recruits to the above and Category:Medieval European sculptures (of which I have lazily made the ivory ones a sub for the moment) would be very welcome. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A category should function as a kind of meta-index, but then they get divided up by the gazetteer-thinkers, so that the reader is faced with fourteen indices instead of a couple, and the indexing function collapses. I spend my reserves of this kind of energy making re-directs from all the ways a reader might search for an article. I suppose that medieval sculptural programs in architectural contexts would have to be included: so Autun Cathedral would fall into the Category:Medieval European sculptures, yes? I'll try to keep these categories in mind, though, when I'm burrowing about. --Wetman (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll avoid general cathedral articles unless they have very full coverage of the sculpture, otherwise they could all go in - Cathedral of Chartres has more than Autun, but I'll still leave it. Ditto Santo Domingo de Silos Abbey. Johnbod (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Until there are sub-articles on the Tympanum at Autun, etc— I'd say, about three years hence, and not written by me. --Wetman (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You do a great job of cleaning and improving articles submitted for DYK. I just want to let you know that it is appreciated. :) AgneCheese/Wine 16:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you: I'm trying to sleek them before they appear on the main page: see Cabernet Sauvignon. I was so cross when you asserted that "handsome" applied to Wentworth Castle was "POV" or "OR" or something, that I quite gave up offering hooks to my own new articles for a bit. But I've got over it! I have two writing hints for you: first, you should stop whenever you find you're using phrases beginning "with" and a gerund ("...with other producers finding...") and look for another way. And, second, avoid "and" when it only means "plus also": a colon after a sentence is a neat equivalent of "furthermore..." By the way, your wine knowledge is unparalleled: I simply try to give it better pouring characteristics and make it, like young Cabernet Sauvignon, more "approachable". Wine writers generally avoid the verb form drunk, I notice with amusement.--Wetman (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize that my DYK review came across as negative. I certainly didn't mean any ill intent and I honestly didn't realize that was your article till I followed the link. I believe I said handsome was "slight POV", which is how I normally view that word's use in other articles (like a "handsome" wine). Again, I apologize for how that came across and I'm glad that you are still contributing to DYK. You certainly are a tremendous asset to the project as a whole. Thank you, as well for the hints. I will certainly keep them mind. I know that my writing is atrocious, namely because I'm more of a speaking person rather than a writer. I often "think too fast" to where my mind is on the next sentence before I've finished typing the first and thusly make silly mistakes. I appreciate you putting up with my mess and making each article a little better then it was before. :) AgneCheese/Wine 23:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick one on this edit [2], I didn't delete those, I only incorporated them as citations in the article, they're listed in the Reference section now. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see them now. Quite right; in-text references don't need a superfluous References listing. Take 'em out again if you like. --Wetman (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen has not edited since Christmas except for matters related to the IRC case. She has deleted her user and talk page and killed her socks 'Zilla and Little Stupid. It is obvious that this decision resulted from the handling and circumstances of the IRC case and the subsequent retreat of Giano. She has long been one of our finest editors. Besides doing a lot of thankless admin work, she has been at the heart of numerous collaborations and has written (alone or in collaboration) a number of fantastic articles, such as John Vanbrugh, S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897, Great Fire of London, Swedish emigration to the United States to name only a few. Her humor, wit, and hospitality have attracted countless dedicated writers and made her talkpage the venue of many of Wikipedia's wittiest discussions ever.
Giano has been one of the finest editors ever. His intelligent and humourous writing style, his knowledge and wit, his dedication to the project and his insight into Wikipedia matters were unrivalled. He has left after of years of harassment by Wikipedians from every imaginable station, from the nitwits and trolls to admins, former admins, and even members of our most illustrious tribunal.
So much for the facts. Here's the context in a nutshell:
The IRC channel #wikipedia-en-admins has seen numerous lamentable events, including rude attacks on users. In December 2007, a short-lived edit-war broke out over the (now redirected) page describing that channel, Giano taking sides for Bishonen and mentioning said lamentable events. Administrative tools were used in violation of policy, including page protection by an involved user, and an inadequate block against Giano (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence). A RFAR was filed. These events took place over Christmas, and there was virtually no chance for the community to sort out the matter before the RFAR was accepted. It was accepted under dubious circumstances and conducted under heavy criticism. Its outcome has predictably resulted in Giano's leaving, who has indicated that he will not return. Bishonen's role in these events was rather small (she had been subject to attacks on IRC in the past, and briefly involved in the skirmishes over WP:WEA). She has however made clear that she will not accept sanctions that cause Giano to leave.
So much for the context. For those interested, here's the comment:
The arb com's ill-advised acceptance of the case, their delays in decision-making, their unclear stance on conflicts of interest among their members, and the small-minded final decision have foreseeably caused a lot of bitterness and the loss of two superlative writers. I respect Giano's and Bishonen's decision to retreat from a project that they have been given every reason to consider disgraced.
But it's such a bloody shame. (Signed)Kosebamse 08:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I can only add "amen". --Wetman (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Wetman I wanted to thank you and Kator for emending the Coleman article. I'm a bit of a tyro when coming to rectifying possible vandalism. I imagine it is an easy task to do but I'm at the stage of sensing out possible vandalism and bringing it to the attention of wiki's humanity ref. Thanks again Pjt48 (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello could you use this mapMap of colonies ancient colonies for the article? Its from the commons.Megistias (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's more like the right sort of map! Each colony should be a dot of color with a blurry edge. And relief topography, as shown, controls the situation: modern state boundaries are just distracting. The only problem is that even with full resolution, the names are illegible. Why not post this at Talk:Colonies in antiquity to discuss the completeness and accuracy of its contents, then ask the team working on maps to improve it? I'll copy and paste this there to get talk going. --Wetman (talk)
Can you take a look at Frances Yates please? It has been edited by a new editor who appears to be the author of a forthcoming book on the subject, so my initial assumption is that it has a conflict of interest problem, but I would like an assessment by someone more qualified. - PKM (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. I restored a version of the deleted text and edited in the additions, toning down the preening over the forthcoming biography. Please vet my edit. --Wetman (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(This post concerns the notorious "correspondence" of Jesus with Abgar of Edessa in Eusebius. Wetman has now posted "I've already said "Once individuals have been canonized, a machinery comes into play that tends to suppress all criticism." The spurious "correspondence" is well-known and needn't be characterised as fraudulent by me." Considered as readings of "history", arguments at Talk:Eusebius_of_Caesarea needn't occupy Wetman's attention further. --Wetman (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Hi, thanks for your note. Your tweaks look fine to me. I've not seen Blisworth Limestone used in the south of England (may be wrong). I was surprised not to find an article entitled Great Oolite to link. The closest seems to be Bathonian Series, perhaps we should make Great Oolite a redirect to this. Pterre (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was precisely why I mentioned the link. Since the Great Oolite is part of the Bathonian Series, there's the proper link! --Wetman (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching my oopsies on Henry Lyte (botanist). The OCR of the 1909 DNB is atrocious, which makes sorting Elizabethan spelling from errors a bit difficult. Fortunately the book title is also available here - I didn't find that until after I wrote the first draft. I've made changes per your incorporated comments. - PKM (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the great improvements to the Blue Ridge Parkway tunnels article. I submitted it as a self-nominated DYK today and the improvements will certainly help. I got a lot of help also on making the TABLE from another Wikipedian from the Help Desk - can't take credit for that. Lately I have written several articles pertaining to the Blue Ridge Parkway and several have been selected for DYK (see my talk page). I also completely rewrote the article on Southern Highland Craft Guild and wrote the article on Blue Ridge Music Center. I welcome any improvements you want to make to these articles or any articles I start as I am sure your edits will greatly enhance them. Thanks again. --Dougtalk 18:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's very reassuring to hear, because I don't want to interfere unnecessarily— fingerpainting— but to help put across the ideas already there with a more concentrated punch. --Wetman (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Blue Ridge Parkway tunnels just got selected as a DYK. Thanks for all the great improvements you made to the article. I am sure these helped in the DYK selection. I believe you already know that Julian Price and Julian Price Memorial Park were previously selected as DYKs. I see you have edited Paul Cezanne so you might be interested in looking at the new article I just wrote on the Cone sisters who collected his art. I would be willing to bet the farm that Michigan logging wheels and Silas C. Overpack will be selected as a double DYK. Thanks for all the help and the outstanding improvements you have made to these articles.--Dougtalk 23:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes! The articles Michigan logging wheels and Silas C. Overpack were be selected as a double DYK today. Thanks again for your help on all these articles I have started - I appreciate it! You can do all the "fingerpainting" you want.--Dougtalk 11:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a ten fold expansion for the article Cone Mills Corporation. This is where the fortune came from for the Cone family. I am trying to come up with a DYK hook with these possibilities:
...that Cone Mills Corporation was the world's largest producer of the denim fabric since 1908 and has been a major supplier of the fabric to Levi Strauss and Company since 1915.
...that Cone Mills Corporation was the world's largest producer of the denim fabric since 1908 and its founder Moses H. Cone was known as the "Denim King."
Do you have any ideas on this? --Dougtalk 12:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd drop the the and tighten it:
...that from 1908 Cone Mills Corporation was the world's largest producer of denim fabric, making its founder Moses H. Cone the "Denim King?"
Btw, I've changed Ceasar to Caesar throughout, yes? --Wetman (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a bunch for the GREAT improvements. Yes, a little dyslexia. Thanks for correcting the spelling on Caesar. I will use the above (very much improved) wording for a self nomination DYK. So, the pictures should always then be at the default 200 pixel? That would be more correct? I see you combined the references on the first four. It looks a lot better this way. I learn some really good stuff from you everytime.--Dougtalk 20:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Doug. I've set my own preferences (upper right corner, next to log out) at a default of 300px, for nice big illustrations. The thing is, not to mention px at all, i.e. leave the image at default setting. Btw, if upright images, displaying at the same width as horizontal ones, result in a display that's too big, adding |upright| to the image's html will proportionally adjust them. --Wetman (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking that they have it wrong here at their Marker also. I am not alone. I believe the correct spelling is really Caesar. I did the self nomination and I believe it has an excellent chance now. Great hints. Thanks again. --Dougtalk 21:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one that will blow you away! Google "Moses and Ceasar Cone" and you get over 600 hits. Then with the correct spelling of "Moses and Caesar Cone" you get under 40 hits. Wow!! I changed the articles I have been working on lately to reflect Caesar as you pointed out - because I believe that is really the correct spelling. Interesting so many others also misspelled it! --Dougtalk 22:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nowadays there must be people actually named Ceasar, as there are doubtless people actually named Smiff. --Wetman (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just wrote up a couple of articles that I am trying to figure out a hook or hooks for possible DYKs. They are Big wheels and its inventor Silas C. Overpack. One possible wording might be for a DYK is: ...that Big wheels are a set of wagon wheels ten feet tall designed to haul logs?
Perhaps a possible double hook might be ...that Silas C. Overpack was the inventor of Big wheels which are a set of wagon wheels ten feet tall designed to haul logs?
Do you have any ideas for this and if you have time look them over for any tweaking. Appreciate your help.--Dougtalk 11:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Xn4 has just given me today several excellent improvements that I have used on these articles. Also he has given me an outstanding "hook" for DYK that I am using. He also suggested a name change to Michigan logging wheels as it better described what the article was about. Below is the suggested self nominated hook:
If you see any other improvements that can be made on these articles I welcome your input. I have high hopes that Blue Ridge Parkway tunnels will become a DYK - thanks to your improvements.--Dougtalk 00:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added some links and tweaked some wording at your Michigan logging wheels; I was pretty sure you didn't mean "eighteenth century" since I think it was the Erie Canal that got Michigan logging going. It's a nice story, and well illustrated too. Come up with some captions for those illustrations. --Wetman (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)--Wetman (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliments. In fact I did not mean "eighteenth century" as Michigan was the leading lumber producer from 1869 to 1900 (added line to show this). Manistee, Michigan where Overpack produced his logging wheels is about 15 miles from where I live (in the summer months) in Ludington, Michigan. All the edits you did were great and correct. No wonder you are known as a Wikipedia big wheel.
Other editors are also participating now. I added picture captions as you suggested. I believe the article now has an excellent chance of a double hook DYK with Silas C. Overpack. Thanks for all your help.--Dougtalk 13:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should be up your street, if you want to join in. Q·L·1968☿ 23:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would I like to enforce uniformity of style, invent infoboxes, skim articles in order to rate them and hang out in cyberspace with post-teeners who identify as Celts? NBL! --Wetman (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I hope they all read Oppenheimer's "Origins of the British" before they start! Pterre (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What if one just concentrated on getting the gist of Barry Cunliffe's publications into Wikipedia articles, with references. That one might do on one's own, without a gang. --Wetman (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zounds! The only reason I joined was that I get royally irked when I see 'Celtick miste' piddle passed off as scholarship. Kindly watch where you point that thing. Q·L·1968☿ 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aye! It's an uphill paddle against the mist-ifiers!--Wetman (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said that the hook for this, which "asserted" that it was Swift's best poem, was not a good enough hook. I'm a little puzzled by this... Swift was an influential writer and poet, and he is quoted as saying that this was his best work... I fail to see how this is uninteresting... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated it to say that it was considered his best *poem*, and that Swift considered it his best poem. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a flattering remark concerning the poem by Bonamy Dobrée. To say that it's the best poem of his youth would remind the well-prepared reader that there are those poems to Stella... --Wetman (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you still don't think the hook is adequate? And thanks for the extra bit there that you added. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your fixes to Emancipation Memorial. I cranked that out last night spontaneously at one sitting and definately left some T's uncrossed! "You can always tell a Harvard man, you just can't tell him much." -- House of Scandal (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should see my uncrossed ls, er ts...--Wetman (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wetman, is there some reason why this artist's name has to link to a Parisian Basilique? I was just reading about his connection with the violinist Christian Urhan and found a link, so I followed it, but wasn't very much the wiser. But I saw in the hist that this had something to do with you, followed by a bot. Was there ever an article on the artist, and if so, do you know what happened to it? Has it gone to a sort of elephant's graveyard of orphaned intellectualia? Better still, could we get it back?...! Best wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd added "The dedicatory inscription records the Basilica as the accomplishment of a vow by Alexandre Legentil and Hubert Rohault de Fleury, ratified by Joseph-Hippolyte Guibert, Archbishop of Paris." I made the redirect so that someone like you, thinking about making a real article on Alexandre Legentil, wouldn't miss this. So nothing's been lost! Oh, btw, click on "redirected from Alexandre Legentil" to return to the redirect page, then open "Edit this page", clear the redirect html, and start your article. --Wetman (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was a superb addition. Sounds like the oath of the Horatii. And thanks for the explanation, you are one of those clear-headed wikipedians one meets occasionally. Actually I haven't got any data on Legentil yet, but when I have I will follow these instructions minutely! I'm thinking about Franz Stockhausen senior instead right now, but will see what I can scrape together. best wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get cocky, I am a student of history, and I don't read comic books, but even if I wasn't, what difference would it make? We work off references, not our own knowledge and assertions. Show me a reference mentioning that the title is 'wrong' and we can add it to the article- until then, even assuming that it is meant to look Latin is original research. I understand what original research is, and I accept that Latin for 'book of the dead' is not 'libris mortis', but I say that linking such an assertion to the article, when it doesn't even mention Latin, is. J Milburn (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your addition is of course correct, but surely my deletion wasn't erroneous? The old text read "There is evidence that the Babylonian version of the story is based upon a slightly modified version of an older epic, in which Enlil, not Marduk, was the god who slew Tiamat. <ref>Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 27.1 (1964), pp. 157-158."</ref> which completely misinterprets the source (I have a copy of the article), right? My deletion may have been hasty, but I did think about it and couldn't see the point of putting in something which I felt was a bit obscure. The other problem for me was that the same text was in the horrible Enlil article (which had lots of Sitchin-based stuff) but without even a reference.
If you'd like to help cleanup and enhance the Enlil article that would be great, as it's really not my field.
Is this version better? Of course no deletion could be erroneous: only the sweeping of the question out of the room might be considered an error. These Mesopotamian mytholgy articles should all reflect the scholarly discourse on their interpretation; statements should be attributed to the players in the discourse. It's all slowly headed in that direction: your critical eye is highly desirable. --Wetman (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks very much. I agree completely about the basis of the Sumerian mythology articles. There's no excuse to base them on a 1911 encyclopedia or even worse people like Sitchin.--Doug Weller (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 16 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Giuseppe Ceracchi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
This is related to the comment you had placed in the DYK talk page related to my nomination on Hallur. The hook states that a finding at Hallur is against the theory of Aryan invasion. It is as according to the citation I have provided in the article. While the Aryan invasionist theory may be real or may be fantasy, it is indeed popular. If there is a finding that goes against a popular theory, I dont see an issue in stating it. By the way, the finding of horse bones at Hallur was a major controversy and created quite a stir in archaeological circles. You can read more about it here. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made a change from "the Aryan invasion" to "an Aryan invasion" precisely to circumvent any punch-ups over it, by not taking for granted in the hook that there was such an event. Thus attention was freed to concentrate on the independently most interesting horse bones at Hallur. D'you see? --Wetman (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK, now I get it. I failed to notice the subtle change you made earlier :) -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 15:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now you got me going on this spelling. In the article Julius Caesar it is the way you are suggesting as correct. I have shown my article Moses H. Cone to at least a half a dozen professors at Appalachian State University - and while they gave me suggestions and corrections none brought up the spelling I had as Ceasar. I am also in communications with the author Phil Noblitt who wrote A Mansion in the Mountains: The Story of Moses and Bertha Cone and Their Blowing Rock Manor. This is probably the most authoritative secondary source on Moses Cone and his brother Ceasar Cone. Throughout his book he spelled it Ceasar Cone. When I showed him the article I wrote on Moses H. Cone he did have seven detailed pointers about the article I wrote - none were of the spelling of Ceasar (or Caesar). When he saw the article it was spelled Ceasar Cone. This is where he gave me the idea to write up an article on the Cone sisters. Here is his seventh point:
7. Probably not critical to your story, but I find interesting the fact that Moses' sisters, Dr. Claribel and Miss Etta Cone, were art collectors who used some of their family's textile fortune to amass a premier collection of modern art. By the way, their friend, Gertrude Stein, once visited Flat Top Manor, and artist Henri Matisse, another friend, was sent apples as a gift from the Cones. The Cone Collection, with its extensive collection of Matisse and other works, is today housed in a special wing of the Baltimore Museum of Art.
The book Phil Noblitt wrote was from a thesis he had done at Appalachian State University. Any further ideas on this? I tend to think Caesar - perhaps it is both!--
Additionally Phil was with the National Park Service (Blue Ridge Parkway) for over 30 years. Now I am really puzzled. Should I e-mail Phil concerning this?
Dougtalk 23:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting the Primary Source I am using spells it Ceasar Cone. I changed all the articles to the spelling of Caesar. I think I will leave it that way for now and wait and see what happens. Maybe time will tell in these recent articles I have written up. I have high hopes that the Cone sisters and Cone Mills Corporation have an excellent chance of becoming DYKs because of the improvements you made to the articles. I am going traveling throughout the states for a couple of months - so don't be surprised if you don't see any edits from me for awhile. Maybe I'll come across some interesting items I can write about in the future. --Dougtalk 00:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that both Caesar and Ceasar were used during his lifetime, if not Ceaser too. It's easy to forget that until about 1900 the spelling of almost all names in the English-speaking world was unstable, just as it was in Shakespeare's time. People who were literate usually, but not always, used only one spelling for each of their names, but other people spelt names pretty much as they pleased. The clergy of the Church of England wrote names into parish registers as they saw fit. I think the idea of fixed 'correct' spellings really came in with things like national insurance (US, social security) registration. 04:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know that. Told you I learn a lot of stuff from you. I also checked the spellings on Google of Cesar and Cezar - however they don't seem to be popular. Now that I have reasearch it further I am leaning towards Ceasar Cone as probably the way he spelt it. Another reason is that there is an Elementary School named after him in Greensboro, North Carolina where the corporate heaquarter were located. BTW, I like the 300 px setting for big pictures and am using |upright| in Moses H. Cone as that works better. Thanks again for all the great ideas and excellent information you have provided.--Dougtalk 12:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see there's an article in Time which uses 'Caesar' throughout. I like this bit of punchy journalese from it - "Time passed. Caesar and Moses Cone died." Xn4 14:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just now notified that the Cone sisters became a DYK and do see it on the Main Page with the article picture. Thanks for your help on the article. --Dougtalk 14:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just now notified that the Cone Mills Corporation became a DYK and do see it on the Main Page with the article picture. Thanks for your help on the article and the excellent hook. BTW, the number of edits a User has done can be found at "My Preferences". I suspect yours is over 50,000. Wow, that is a lot for your watchlist. I only have about one-tenth that and have trouble keeping track. However the Pareto Principle comes in play here - only a few get my attention and the majority do not. I have found the Pareto Principle has played a major role throughout my life and have been able to use it to my advantage.--Dougtalk 18:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It says 54,512 edits, but I work up whole sections before hitting that "save" button. . I scan the watchlist rapidly and let vandalism accumulate before vetting recent edits, often several months' worth. If more energy is spent fixing nonsense than creating it, the system collapses in time. I remove articles from my Watchlist when they seem to be stable and well watched by other grown-ups. --Wetman (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do I go about getting Cone sisters semi-protected. There is much vandalism occuring on it from many editors. HELP!!!!--Dougtalk 20:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now you know! This will all pass in a few hours, when new DYKs appear. Then you just revert all the vandalism at once. I'd open the article in two tabs, one showing the cumulative "diff" between my good last edit and the current version. And in the other, "edit this page" selected from the current version, if there are numerous good clean-up edits, or from my last good edit if there's lots of scribbling. Then I copy selectively the good edits and save the version I've been working from. The trick is not to use more energy protecting than they use vandalising.-- Wetman (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Great advice. Yes, it looks like someone has semi-protected the article for 31 hours. I see now they pick on the DYKs. I guess you would call this ramdom acts of vandalism, which would be pretty much the opposite of your random acts of kindness. --Dougtalk 21:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My acts of kindness are not random: rather like ET, I simply respond in kind. I'm friendly and helpful because you're friendly and helpful. My reserves of charity and patience are extremely limited, as more than one coxcomb can attest. There are those known to keep this page on Watchlist simply for the occasional fireworks!--Wetman (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I'd always thought of you as the Buddha of wikipedia. Giano of course is the Gitto Faukes. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm only sensible, witty and informative because you are. With one of those disingenuous toads, I am terse, and drier than a Gibson.--Wetman (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well that stopped them right in their tracks. Next time I won't be so alarmed. I see now that it is some high school kids playing around when they see the article on the main page. Just out of curiosity (if you care to reveal) about how many do you have on a regular basis on your Watchlist? Also I am in the process of redoing my User Page and would like to know the tool for determining how many edits I have done. --Dougtalk 14:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My bloated watchlist is currently at 4486, but I set no example. I'm always removing articles from it when I have nothing more to contribute, and I see that they are well watched by others. My default setting adds an article to my Watchlist when I've made the most trivial edit, unless I tick the box, which I try to remember to do. I don't recall where the edit-counting tool is kept: once you've seen how many editors save after each five bytes, you stop keeping your own score.--Wetman (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you prefer "ninth century" to "9th century", as do I. Others do not. Does the MoS say anything about this, since my "ninth"s inevitably become "9th"s in time and now I hardly even bother to write out the word? Srnec (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do indeed, but I'm old and my shelves are lined with books in stiff covers. In the body of text, writing "9th century" jumps out to my rheumy eyes as an unnecessary jar: it has the cheap look to me of l33t, though "so-and-so and his 6 sisters spent 10 years summering at..." is not as degraded as "hot times 2nite"— still, I clean up as I go, but never trouble about mis'corrections'— the seagulls in my wake. User:Giano II is as flexible as you in this, and I trust his judgement, even though I don't follow it in this case. I have not found the Ministry of Magic to be unerring in matters of style. --Wetman (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-as the musicians insist on calling the Renaissance intermezzo, is active, if you want to chip in. I have some pictures waiting in the wings, or ready to be lowered amid a shower of gold pieces. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's splendid stuff, though I lag so far behind, I'd have expected Intermezzo for a title, til I looked and saw how neatly the two articles complement one another. I was anticipating the masque reference, and there it came, just a whisper, at the very end. All these Mannerist-Baroque court forms fed one another. I wish I had something concrete to offer, to join the Page history of such a distinguished party. --Wetman (talk) 06:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just selected Hallur for DYK, but thought I'd just check it was ok with you to use the hook "that the discovery of horse bones at the archaeological site of Hallur in south India refuted the theory that horses were introduced to this region as part of an Aryan invasion?" I was a bit confused by the debate between you and the creator on this point, but think this hook is much more interesting than the subsequent suggestion.
The fact that horses have now been documented in South India before the appearance there of Aryans is the interesting bit. Whether or not the appearance of Aryans in the subcontinent constituted an "Aryan Invasion" is a contentious but separate point, which can be avoided by careful wording. That it's now just a piped link to Indo-Aryan migration solves any issues, viz:
"that the discovery of horse bones at the archaeological site of Hallur in south India refuted the theory that horses were introduced to this region as part of the Indo-Aryan migration?"
Truly, it's no more complicated than that. --Wetman (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. I've removed the "Aryan Invasion" wording from the hook. Espresso Addict (talk)
Thanks for the addition of "ex pede Herculem" to this article. There is no question about the method, but there is about these particular figures. I based the article on one on the fr-Wiki, which was reasonably well referenced but this incident is not given a specific source: I've asked the French creator for his exact source for this, in case the information has suffered in transmission, but so far no response (he seems not to welcome communication).Would you know where I might find out more about what the exact proportions were held to be in the 16th century? I am dubious about the idea that anyone in the classical period, the Middle Ages or later who had seen a human body would believe that a man's height is 8x his thigh bone, as 5 seconds observation shows it isn't. HeartofaDog (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forget the last bit - it has to be from Vitruvius somehow, although I haven't yet found anything specifically referring to the length of the thighbone as a ideal proportion. Best wishes,HeartofaDog (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All I can suggest is that the cultural background to the proportions is the same from which Leonardo drew/created Vitruvian man. I don't know any details, but I'm sure they've been well explored from the Leonardo point-of-view.--Wetman (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reference books seem divided, so I can jump either way, what is your opinion. Rococo or Baroque? I'm in favour of Baroque because it's too heavy and solid, what do you think? Giano (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems right to me, too. There's precious little genuinely rococo architecture. Like Art Nouveau it's mainly a style of interiors and objects. Nice to hear you on your own true, fruitful subject. --Wetman (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, I'm waffling from start to finish and grasping like a drowning man at any available reference, normally I like a little blood and sex to enliven the architecture, in this case it's trying to find some architecture amongst the other. Was it Queen Victoria, Marie of Romania or some other European Queen that said "...in the time it takes a normal person to dress for dinner, a Romanov will have stabbed three members of their family on the back stairs"? there's a hidden reply to your question on public viewability (is that a word) in the text. Giano (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well spotted, I was after the Jordan staircase, I was going to rely on a child's scholtrip fotos with the other little morons edited out, but then my own little moron coud not remember in which palace he had taken which foto - I am stiil afraid I will be uploading 60 fotos for the Rusian editors to try and identify, Tsarskoe and the Winter palace are very similar in their interiors. Giano (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wetman, nice one about G. P. Campana. We have lots of pictures of objects from the Campana Collection on Commons. Do you think it would be appropriate to split the category into more precise ones, such as "Jewelry from the Campana Collection"? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 22:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling about categories in general, is that they function as indices. A long array of images gives an impression of the scope of the Campana Collection and helps, though passively, to define it. --Wetman (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. There are currently 190 pictures in this category. As you may know, the category is visually split into different pages when it exceeds 200 files. I still have some pictures of jewels from the Campana collection so the critical number will be reached very soon. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'm not conversant with Commons categories. Would structuring sub-categories like Campana collection: jewellery, Campana collection: Greek pottery help keep the images more findable as a group? --Wetman (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They would be sub-cats off the main Campana collection page, and could also go into some other parents, maybe, like Category:Ancient Greek pottery in France. It seems a good idea to me. They already seem nicely categorised by other factors, which is good. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see now. As long as there is a hook to hang the whole Campana collection on somehow, that's going to satisfy me. --Wetman (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about the use of this word, but it came from one of the sources. Roman Baths are often sourced from cold water, and then heated ... if you take the Roman away, then you will just be left with a Frigidarium. It appears, they were generically known as Thermae.
The sources talk of remains of Roman villas in the vicinity of the Strand, and the Holy Well is of a pre-Roman use. These would often be taken over for bath houses, or Roman religious use. Yes, the main centre of Roman London lay over by the Guildhall - essentially the reason the Guildhall ended up there. The Strand was then part of the hinterland - cheap, roomy properties with a nice view over the river.
As it makes clear in the article, the baths origin was historically thought to be Roman; what can be seen dates from the 17th century - and the origin is more likely to be as Tudor cisterns - but why place them at the property boundary? The reality can only be found by taking the remains apart - together with a substantial number of historic churches, a university and the like. When the area was redeveloped by the Victorians the majority of evidence under the more modern buildings would have been lost. Thanks for your interest. Kbthompson (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps— without making a federal case of it— "Roman" needn't be quite so prominently inserted in the very title, as if to forestall doubt? "Historically thought to be Roman" would be an excellent way to distance the text from the "Roman-ness" or not of this cold plunge, which is not remotely a thermae though indeed deriving its water from a spring, as you observe. Here's mention of the plunge, with suitable reservations, from Ivor Hoole, A Guide to the Alleys, Courts, Passages, and Yards of Central London (1900:27). Has any evidence surfaced of any Roman villa along the Strand, in spite of the river view? A brick? a drainage tile? Survey of London covers only the north side of the Strand, or have I missed something? No ruins of riverside villas are implied by a place Anglo-Saxons would call the strand. A pre-Roman use of the Anglo-Saxon Holy Well of St Clement Danes is un-documentable, though pre-Christian is as like as not, as is generally the case in Britain and France. I have taken the liberty of copying these interesting remarks to a more apposite place, Talk:Roman Baths, Strand Lane, where they may be more public food for thought. --Wetman (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, I updated the Neo-Grec article with a little more information, and some more pictures. Mostly I did this because someone interested in a Russian artist put on the page an image of a painting based on the eruption on Pompeii, which while inspired by the same archeological digs as the Neo-Grec artists isn't in a Neo-Grec style, but is a traditional history painting. This annoyed me, as do a lot of edits to articles I wrote by people who don't know the subjects, so I discussed more about the teacher of the Neo-Grecs, Charles Gleyre, and put two more examples of paintings by artists.
At any rate, for a long time, before Wikipedia was even popular really, I've been slowly working on making a site of my own on cultural history. Wikipedia, and the web in general, tend to have 100 fold information on contemporary ideas and events than the culture of the past. Part of the idea is to give people a rich, detailed introduction of what was happening in different eras in history by connecting different movements, ideas, and people, in intuitive and well-presented ways. One of the key points is the presentation, so being a freely editable wiki would miss the point, both because random editors will be unable to have a good idea of how everything on the site links together, random editors may not have good design sense, and random editors might not have the same conception or knowledge of cultural history. The idea is an information source, but something completely different from what wikipedia is.
At different points I've made different degrees of progress on this, and whenever I decide to make a big push on it I think I can get a lot done. However I'm wondering if its something you may want to participate in. Thanks.
I fully understand your frustration, Brianshapiro : I've struck several broad subjects like Rococo from my watchlist rather than struggle with self-confident boors: an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is by definition a constant compromise with mediocrity. As I've only been inside an American public school to vote, this is by a long shot the most demotic undertaking I've ever had any part in, and people who know me are quite astonished. Wikipedia is growing faster than it can be read— that's genuinely organic growth for you!— at the same time, I can't tell you how far it's come in quality and authenticity in the brief period since I began editing in September 2003. Though I'm not tempted by your project— the cathedral rather than the marketplace, as the populist image has it— I owe you some explanation for that. I can only say that what I've seen of the Internet does not replace books like Fernand Braudel's Civilization and Capitalism or the Philippe Ariès/Georges Duby series, A History of Private Life or Simon Schama's Landscape and Memory very much in the way that even a probing BBC television series does not.
The Big Subjects and the Broad Picture don't suit an encyclopedia format: not even the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica could properly present Religion. The smaller the topic, the better it can be covered: Wikipedia coverage of Charles Gleyre may always always be better than Michelangelo, where there is always white noise. I have also learned not to present my own considered opinion, except by ventriloquism, summarising a well-stated published opinion, offering my thought through someone's published quote.
Pixel by pixel, the images are coming clearer. Look at User:Johnbod's articles on Renaissance and Baroque court art, or User:Geogre's on Swift's Tale of a Tub, or User:Giano's Brympton d'Evercy. The intellectual skeletal structure you long to see has just begun to form, organically.
But you can't completely manage the form articles take. You can't feel possessive about them. You can't get credit for the splendid job you've done. All good lessons for me, personally, who have rather a grand opinion of myself. But not for everyone.
Wikipedia celebrates its ten-millionth article today. On Nicholas Hilliard— in Hungarian. Now, that's very interesting. Something seems to be happening: I can't quite descry it.--Wetman (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason that something only has to be done one way only. There's a place for Wikipedia, and I'm not putting it down. But for the same reason automated news sites like Google News don't ever replace a human-created presentation of news, so people will continue to go to the New York Times Site, or even the Drudge Report, I think there's something that can be accmoplished in an alternative format to Wikipedia.
We're in a time when people believe, I think for no real reason, that everything in Web 2.0 will make older technology obsolete. People predicting that desktop software will disappear as everyone uses web software, that newspapers will disappear as everyone uses news readers. There is also some acceptance that the Wiki model is the only way to do things. But to me its no different than saying that just because we can build Costcos everywhere, that we should shut down every corner store, even despite the fact that would change things for the worse.
Wikipedia is just not going to accomplish what I want to accomplish, in terms of presentation. What I have in mind also has a lot of interactivity that can't be incorporated in Wikipedia, because its not something easily managed by random users.
If I could sum it up, what I'm planning will be less like an encyclopedia, and more like a book, but a very sprawling, open-ended book; organized like a book, in how a book can relate things through chapters. The details will be incidental to the organization. I think there are ways to use the web that really haven't been taken advantage of yet.
Maybe when I get enough started, I'll show it to you, so you can have an idea of what I'm doing.
Thank you very much for your edits at Marforio, and my apologies for the errors which triggered your comments at Talk:Facchino and Talk:Babuino. My excuse - if there can be one - is that I was trying to do my best with my somewhat faulty Italian, and my ill-disciplined fingers. The "declining Silenus" is, of course, a "reclining Silenus"; and the repeated passage mentioning the "14th and 15th centuries" was based on the Italian versions, most of which (it:Marforio, it:Madama Lucrezia, it:Babuino (statua parlante), it:Abate Luigi) state: "del XIV e XV secolo" (which I think means 14th and 15th centuries, rather than quattrocento - although, I admit, I would have got that wrong too).
I would be very grateful if you could take the time to point out any other examples of "nonsense" or "babble" in any of the other articles I have contributed too. -- Theramin (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely stop to see who has inserted any particular thing, so my broadsides really aren't personal. I'd recently corrected the error quattrocento=14th century more than once, and finally my lack of patience showed. Pasquinade for such verses relates to il Pasquino, not dug up til 1501. Witty verses posted at the statues may predate the fifteenth century: one might ask, though, where any were mentioned. Satiric graffiti, however, appear in Pompeii; a contemporary one's noted at Domus Aurea. I contribute my own share of babble: I do try to cathch it and correct it, but what's escaping my net? --Wetman (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think I am safe saying this [3] without a ref because I can't find one and made it up, but is it an indisputable fact? Ignoring Tsarkoe Selo's Catherine palace which is dodgy in tems of architecture can you think of another serious rival to Versailles? Giano (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nb: I don't say in terms of architeture. Giano (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comparative value assessments are always bones of contention when the dogs are primed for a fight anyway: Mozart vs Haydn etc. But, can't Andrej give you a directly comparing quote? I'm hunting through JSTOR, searching "Winter Palace" and "Versailles", but why wouldn't the Winter Palace's equal be the Palais du Louvre, since Tsarskoye Selo is right there to compare to Versailles? Rather than the older phenomenon of leaving fortifiable castles, which you mention, aren't all these palaces more particularly the concrete embodiments of autocracies following the collapse everywhere but in Britain and Poland of governments by cliques of aristocrats? That Whitehall was in essence a Stuart expression is the key to its broader significance, and that it burned down quite symbolic. Noting that "Sanssouci, Queluz are all often described as their country's Versailles" is confusing: actually they each play the part of a Marly to a local Residenz. With Versailles of course as a distant example, what is Italian about the Winter Palace and what is specifically French, and the fact that nothing is Russian seem like less assailable points, though tamely instructive. (This is so much better than watching them throw paving-stones through your windows, Giano.) --Wetman (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No we shall in the peniltimate chapter we shall see the paving stone going through the poor Tsar's windows instead. I shall think on it, as I fly to your lovely country this morning - Beware I may be strolling in Central park later today. My normal service will resume the day after tomorrow. Giano (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On April 2, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Giampietro Campana, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Ha ha, you're ahead of me. I've been unable to find any good pictures of the tapestries at all—on line or off—so I have resorted to uploading what I have in my books. That one was horribly small, and I had to blow it up rather nastily: but it is better than nothing. I did upload a nice Caron drawing of the "whale" design, and I love looking at it. I'll add that, too, I think.qp10qp (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of my daily tricks is to work through "Latest Files" at Commons, like a trout at the base of the falls, waiting to see whatb washes down! Images get lost at Commons: I've just written Palazzo Porto in Piazza Castello, Vicenza and Warwick Vase, really— at first— to preserve some images. You'll edit the captions won't you? --Wetman (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mustn't come here too often or I'll end up reading your articles instead of getting anything done. Great stuff. I liked "The vase was widely admired and much visited in the Earl's greenhouse". There's fun to be had with "encyclopedic prose", on the quiet. qp10qp (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WB Yeats was using romantic in a different sense. One refers to an artistic movement. Yeats was refering to a style that dates back to the Middle Ages. There is a difference between Romantic and romantic. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then your report of a published explanation of the distinction will make a desirable addition to the article Romanticism. Deletion of a self-description by Yeats would only be helpful if Yeats made no such remark. --Wetman (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that a disambiguation page would show that there are multiple definitions. There already is one here. I suggest that Romanticism have note of such disambiguation added to it, since the disambig page already links to romanticism. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there needs to be a link to Romantic poetry, seeing as how the page starts off with "Romanticism", and that is one of the terms of Romanticism. There is also German Romanticism, which has an equal problem with the above. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is confused by a lot of people. It all comes from the term Roman, which means those of Rome and also "book". And since then, both have had their spin-off meanings. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You had helped me out in the past. The article Aryachakravarti that you help copy edit is a WP:GA now,a BIG THANKS. I am on another big project, I am about 90% done, it is Sri Lankan Tamil people. If you have time please help copy edit it. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I objected to the use of "gay scandal" and thus changed it. I see you changed it back. "Gay scandal" is strange. Not only does it characterize the scandal as being gay, rather than consisting of gay acts, moreover the word itself has more than one meaning, making it strange. I believe that my edit made it both clearer and simpler. I do not believe I acted to "suppress the word gay" or similar. - Please respond in my talk page, thanks!--User:Dwarf Kirlston 23:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Best to keep it right here, don't you think, Gentle Readers?) After a bit of scalp-scratching I remembered that this concerns the Chevalier de Mailly and other members of his circle who were caught fooling around with boys. I had written "He appears to have become embroiled in a gay scandal in 1682, in which an aristocratic underground circle practicing le vice italien was uncovered." Now, I've always thought "gay" was irretrievably vulgar, myself, and still prefer "queer"— or "funny that way"— but "gay" seems to be a universal self-decription now. The scandal was about "gay" activities, thus— avoiding pedantophilia— one might say a "gay scandal". Le vice italien, a common euphemism of the period, seems to have passed over many heads without outcries from offended Italians. --Wetman (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pedantophilia- love of the pedantic? "funny that way"... Do I detect some irony?
- I thought of the perhaps more specific "homosexual scandal" at the time, but I believe it clearly does not work. I thus concluded that if "homosexual scandal" was somehow wrong - then "gay scandal" would be worse - since it would be adding yet another meaning.
Please note whether you have answered on my page yet again, I will attempt to copy this convo to my page later, it all being the same to you and GR.
No laughing at Wikipedia I see! I think the one thing we don't want to do, is to make the facts go away. Any text that is perfectly frank is probably going to be fine. --Wetman (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about: He enjoyed male only parties where the company all batted for the other side. I think that is quite nice and polite and should not offend any sensibilities. Why has it got to be called "Le vice italien" let me tell you, I know quite a few..............Giano (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...isn't it called the peccato inglese up at your end of life's long table, Giano? Like syphilis, "the Spanish disease", etc, always being attributed to those other guys. You've seen Central Park at its raw winter's end: snowdrops and early narcissus and forsythia and wintersweet in the air. --Wetman (talk)
Actually, it's called quite a lot of things at this end of the table, but bearing in mind the delicate and very worrying requirement for civility currently in vogue at Wikipedia, I won't go there there. No, the English vice is for those who like a little fustigazione with their breakfast. I'm sure none of this ever happens in the land of blueberry pie. Sadly, I saw nothing of Central park this time, merely the inside of a disappointingly low building several blocks from it, during my few hours hours in your beautiful country. I had even longer to study the architecture at JFK and a building which seemed to resemble Sydney opera House, which must be concerningly confusing for Australians arriving disorientated after a long haul. I was interested to note that the "Alien signs" have been changed at JFK. Most American airports have a queue for arriving aliens, and I have often wondered how many visitor from Mars and Pluto the USA has each year. If I were an alien visiting earth for the first time I don't think I would choose USA, but then other country's airports don't have alien queues so perhaps they can't go anywhere else. Anyway it seems JFK have abandoned the signs and queuing ranks for aliens, and allowed other nationalities to use them, perhaps they just got tired of waiting for the little two headed men to arrive. It's a pity though, as we "other nationals" can no longer all stand in a line smirking and making patronising remarks about Americans who believe in Martians, which was always amusing. Now we just are interrogated by overweight men, obviously hoisted by crane into their tiny booths who bark questions as to the purpose of our visits - Oh the quick one line answers one has to suppress. Then we are finally instructed to have a nice day and allowed into the country. Giano (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was that Eero Saarinen's TWA Terminal? Poetry in Pre-Stressed Concrete? My grandmother was an alien: she "came over on the Mauretania". It was part of my answer whenever I was asked whether my father's people had "come over on the Mayflower". ("No, they went to Boston.") She used to sign in as an alien at the post office every January as long as she lived: just wouldn't give up The Queen. --Wetman (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Italian vice was known as such because young upper-class Englishmen were supposed to learn it in Italy on their Grand Tour. I quote a London play from 1696, where the homosexual Coupler is indignant that young Fashion has visited Italy, yet failed to broaden his erotic horizons:
Coupler: Let me put my hand in your bosom, sirrah!
Fashion: Stand off, old Sodom!
Coupler: Nay, prithee now, don't be so coy.
Fashion: Keep your hands to yourself, you old dog you, or I'll wring your nose off.
Coupler: Hast thou then been a year in Italy, and brought home a fool at last? By my conscience, the young fellows of this age profit no more by their going abroad than they do by their going to church. Sirrah, sirrah, if you are not hanged before you come to my years, you'll know a cock from a hen.
Shocking! I'll have to sit down now and thumb through Jeremy Collier's Short view of the Immorality, and Profaneness of the English Stage (1698).
Thank you Wetman, I see "The expressive curves of the design create attractive, spacious halls and a rare degree of exhilaration" I can't say it exhilarated me at all, looked to me more like a spacecraft crashed by one of the aliens angry at finding their queue gone. As for you Mrs. Bishonen, at least in my sun-kissed part of the world we are able to have some vice, unlike other alien nations, whose peculiar idea of a good time is rolling naked in the permafrost. In my experience young Englishmen are quite capable of discovering what my own dear, but late, grandmother (who unlike Wetman's Granny was born in Newport) used to call "filthy behaviour" for themselves without any help from nice, clean, good living, Italian boys. Giano (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano's Yankee grandmama was a Cancer, then? or a Leo? --Wetman (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She was indeed Wetman a Leo, born in August, one month early and delivered by a Naval Surgeon who thought he was out for a pleasant dinner. Apparently as my Great Grandmother laboured away, my Great Grandfather and the remaining guests continued to eat dinner undisturbed or perturbed. I've always thought that showed a sense of style and decorum. Things just aren't like that any more, with officious mid-wives blackmailing unfortunate men into attending the births of their own children regardless of whether they want to. The last thing any woman wants to see is her husband keeling over or standing their looking nervous and useless while she gets on with the business in hand. All this bonding business, if God intended all this male bonding to go on the second a baby screams its first, he would not have invented nannies and the like. Giano (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm relieved to hear this, Giano: to be born in Newport other than in July or August would have been most improper. Stories of aplomb like your g-grandpapa's are always inspiriting: what a very memorable dinner party for everyone! Good cooks are easily demoralized where dinners are not eaten, and then everything suffers. --Wetman (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bucentaur: English translations of Italian texts[edit]
Hi, thanks for providing translations for some of the Italian and Latin texts. I'm sorry I didn't spot your postings until now. In the book title ""Habiti d'hvomeni et donne venetiane: con la processione della serma. Signoria et altri particolari cioè trionfi feste cerimonie pvbliche della nobilissima città di Venetia", I was wondering if "serma. Signoria" was a term, with the full stop after "serma" indicating that it is an abbreviation of another word rather than the end of the sentence. Any idea what that might be? Also, do you know how "Forma in Frezaria al sol" and "sovraprovveditore" might be translated into English? Do respond on the article's talk page. — Cheers, JackLee–talk– 16:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. More correctly transcribed it would have been serma, meaning Serenissima Signoria. Frezzaria Sol would mean "Fresh Air Lane" if you were to translate it; that's the narrow street where the volume was printed in Venice. The Wikipedia article Provveditore will explain the title at length: a sovraprovveditor oversees the performances of provveditori. (Transcribed to Talk:Bucentaur)--Wetman (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 7 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Warwick Vase, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Three DYKs in a day is a record for me, Gentle Reader. I was all afire for several days last week. --Wetman (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC).--Wetman (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some (heaven forbid) might consider it a vulgarity and an ostentation! Giano (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any notice from Giano is a pleasure. All three subjects will be amusing to you, Eccellentissimo. --Wetman (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Do yo have any source, apart from your personal opinion, that the Arch of Constantine was the sole inspiration for Penchaud? It has three arches, not one. The only similarity is the allegorical statuary. The only written source I could find - the official document prepared by the Musee d'Histoire de Marseille (with numerous references) - cites the Arch of Trajan at Benevento. Other sources on the web cite the Arch of Titus: it is clear that the monument was a pastiche, drawn from various antique models and that is what the article at present says. I mention the Arch of Constantine in the architecture section, as a result of your extremely helfpul editing of this article. However, including a picture of the Arch of Constantine makes it look as if you now are trying to make a WP:POINT. Please don't. I spent € 12.20 on the authoratitive official documentation, purchased at the Musee d'Histoire de Marseille, which alas must be accepted unless another reliable (non-web) source can be found. Anyway, thank you again for your very useful help in upgrading this article. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 07:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re your remark on the talk page of Porte d'Aix, there is a lot more that can be said about the history and architecture of the building. My latest information is gleaned from the sign in front of the building (erected in 2003 following restoration) and from the booklet I bought. I have no problems with ownership, but it doesn't seem like a good idea to misinterpret documents. For example your statement about the Peace with Great Britain is not what the original official letter to Louis XVI said. As you requested, I confirmed that it was to be dedicated to his grandfather Louis XIV who restored order in the city. I also gave the names of the statues and added the missing Battle of Marengo. You are right that a lot more can be said about the models that inspired Penchaud, the history of seventeenth and eighteenth century projects, precise architectural details, the planned surrounding area (fountains included) and recent restoration. I'm sure that there are other academic sources. I was actually trying to find a free picture of the aqueduct or of the statuary. The booklet I bought is full of beautiful but alas non-free pictures of all sorts of things. Again I do not own the article but I do own what appears at present to be the only reliable source document. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Wetman has done what he could to tune up the article Porte d'Aix to concert pitch. Porte d'Aix is not currently on Wetman's watchlist.)
A box aggressively attracts the marginally literate eye with apparent promises to contain a reductive summary of information that can't be neatly contained. Like a bulleted list, or a time- line that substitutes for genuine history, it offers a competitive counter-article, stripped of nuance. As a substitute for accuracy and complexity a box trumps all discourse.
Infoboxes with incorrect or misleading misinformation get deleted quickly: IWIOMMGDQ. Those editors who have content contribute content. There are no vehicles on the Ponte Vecchio. The Ponte Vecchio was built in only one of the three dates given. Your disinfobox is not informative, it is disinformative: os the the shameful disinformatio your shame? Those are the issues. --Wetman (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the deal: all the information, other than that which I placed there with a question mark, was right out of the article. The bridge was built at least three times, since there were documented cases of the bridge being wiped out twice. If you have a problem with information in the article, I suggest you fix it. Being patently offensive is not helpful. - Denimadept (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The default situation with these boxes of misinformation is no infobox. If an editor without information adds dates of former bridges at a location, then equally misinformed and lazy Wikipedia readers will be misled into thinking Ponnte Vecchio is a rebuilding of a tenth-century bridge. Other hobbyists without information will add it in a "timeline of bridges". This is irresponsible at Wikipedia, no matter how much hobbyists' energies are involved in creating boxed substitutes for nuanced history. Why? Because disinformation snowballs without informed correction. Competence is the issue here. This is a general problem, of which the Ponte Vecchio disinfobox is just one little incident example. --Wetman (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that it has been done so as to add 6 inches of white space. Johnbod (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered the question, Wetman. The information, other than the bit with the question mark, came out of the article. If you have issues with the information in the article, why don't you fix it? - Denimadept (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, if you have issues with the whitespace, turn off the table of contents which created it. Who do I contact to resolve this? Wetman doesn't seem interested in doing anything but being offensive. I'm going to copy this whole thing to that talk page, 'cause it doesn't really belong here. - Denimadept (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your helpful edit to Peover Hall. I had/have a problem. I am trying to write articles or stubs so that all the Grade I listed buildings in Cheshire are included to create a complete [[Category:Grade I listed buildings in Cheshire]]. In an "ordinary" encyclopaedia both Peover Hall (listed Garde II*) and Peover Hall Stable Block (listed Grade I) would be in the same article. The problem comes with categorization. If the Peover Hall article includes a full account of the stables and I categorize it as Grade II*, it misses out the stables; if I categorize it as Grade I, it would list "Peover Hall" as being in that category, which is wrong; if I add both categories, that is nonsense. Any advice or comment? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article for each Grade I structure in each UK county will be a useful addition to Wikipedia, though when I see the impoverished banal structures offered as Historic Sites in the US, doubts creep in. Not every list is a category. Not every category is a "complete" list. That's what List of all Grade I structures in Cheshire would be for: make sure its listed at List of lists. Just keep thinking, "what's the encyclopedic treatment here?" and follow that.--Wetman (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Caduceus includes a section discussing examples of usage. This section notes universities, investment houses, and a video game. Do you feel these are advertisements as well? What makes one "example of usage" an advertisement while another is not? Besides the addition of a photograph, what makes my addition different?
Adding a picture and one line of text (without external links or commentary) in an appropriately labelled "examples of usage" section is not an advertisement by any stretch. If I had linked to external websites, online stores, or reviews about how yummy the wine is, then you'd be correct about advertising. But I did not. I've reverted your edit. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shift6 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A large illustration of a bottle of "Caduceus" wine with a "reference": "*Tool front man Maynard James Keenan owns and operates an Arizona winery called "Caduceus Cellars." is a plug for a product that is wholly unsuitable at the article Caduceus. Copied to Talk:Caduceus. --Wetman (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In removing a category from Hippocamp you left the edit summary '...is Moby Dick a "mythical fish"? are we idiots?' You made me laugh but tsk tsk tsk...you know that even when we are correct, we must be civil! Best wishes. - House of Scandal (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that's the kind of "civility" you wanted? I'd have thought you meant Wikipedia:Civility, yep. - Denimadept (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I linked to the wrong civility. Only a jerk would point that out, though (I AM JOKING!) - House of Scandal (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the Category was "Mythical Fish"! I'd just deleted Dagon from that same category. Are mermaids mythical fish? Am I an idiot, I wonder?--Wetman (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol...no, that's why I said "even when correct..." - House of Scandal (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I know this is an old edit, but on 20 August 2005, you made some much-needed improvements to the article Cosmas and Damian. You stated in part that they were buried in the "city of Cyrus in Syria (CE)." I was wondering what "CE" refers to. It obviously isn't "Common Era", but I can't figure out what it means. Thanks. MishaPan (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't well done. (Catholic Encyclopedia) was the intended reference— I think because I couldn't work out what "Cyrus, Syria" would mean.--Wetman (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recently went to the talk page of the Amazons article, which I had commented on about a year ago and I noticed something that you said on it:
If someone can't distinguish between names established in epic tradition and written down in the 6th c. BCE, from poetical fancies as multiplied in the highly decorative poem by Quintus Smyrnaeus in the 4th c. CE, how can one have a sensible discussion? Are there any competent adults watching this page who would like to comment on the commonplace statement "Some "Amazon" names are purely poetic invention"? Why any competent person would challenge such a tame bromide with the retort "We can't know for certain" defeats me.
I know its been nearly a year since I last visited the page, and I suppose I sound oversensitive, but your comments made me feel very angry with you. I found your tone to be arrogant and patronizing. Rather than address my concerns and treat me as a peer whose input was worthy of consideration, you implied that I was not capable of sensible discussion and that I was not a "competent adult". I am not writing to you about the disagreement itself. It is the fundamental lack of respect that you showed me that makes me angry. You are clearly a very intelligent and dedicated editor, and I want to be able to work with you on improving articles that interest us both, but this kind of comment makes me wonder if that is possible, as you clearly do not hold me in the same esteem. Asarelah (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's like that sometimes. Perhaps he needs to remember WP:CIVILITY? - Denimadept (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not all anger at incompetence is patronizing. If you are a competent adult watching that page, and understand the commonplace statement "Some 'Amazon' names are purely poetic invention", then your attention is urgently required at Amazons. There is such abundant misplaced self-confidence at Wikipedia. Does it come from the American public education system, where the aggressive class clown is permitted to challenge each piece of information as it comes up, and the whole system collapses. Not that I'd know. Any help you can offer at Amazons will be most desirable. --Wetman (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I once again remind you that my anger is not about the disagreement itself, but at the fundamental lack of respect that you showed me. I find it hard to believe that my help is desired when you regard me as incompetent, as having "misplaced self-confidence", and ultimately compare me to an "aggressive class clown", and suggest that these flaws that you think I have stem from my having recieved an education that was in some way inferior to yours. I now see that writing to you was a waste of time. I came to express how hurt and angry I felt and I ended up recieving more insults. You may know a great deal about Greek antiquity, but you have a lot to learn about treating your fellow human beings with civility and respect. It rarely bothers me when I'm insulted over the Internet, but you made feel like dirt. I hope you're very proud of yourself. Asarelah (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he cares, Asarelah, or maybe he doesn't see it. Note the section "Disinfobox at Ponte Vecchio, and misinformation in general" above. He did it to me a week or so ago. I prefer to believe that he's socially clueless/insensitive/inept rather than intentionally offensive, but I'm not sure it matters when he keeps doing it. Read the entries above and you'll see this happening over and over. - Denimadept (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wetman, detecting a toxic atmosphere in the cheeky WP:CIVILITY attack made by some completely non-involved third party lurking here, did not respond to these outbursts of resentment, his points having been sufficiently made:
Why any competent person would challenge such a tame bromide with the retort "We can't know for certain" defeats me.
Not all anger at incompetence is patronizing.
The correspondent's attention is urgently required at Amazons. (In fact, Amazons]] wasn't even on this editor's Watchlist, always a sure sign of interest in an encyclopedia subject, so the issue here actually has little to do with content at the encyclopedia page. It's all about Attitude and a peremptory deletion that betokened lack of familiarity in the field of Greek mythology, which is defined as "incompetence" in this area.)
As a direct result, a report was filed by someone concerning this exchange. Most vexing. Wetman (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
