User talk:Wetman/archive16Oct2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive:

User talk:Wetman/archive3Mar2004
User talk:Wetman/archive16Jun2004
User talk:Wetman/archive12Aug2004

Please add new sections at the bottom. Thanks Wetman 07:50, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Do you have any more of those chocolate-covered grapes?"
"Do you have any more of those chocolate-covered grapes?"

Contents

[edit] Wetman's blunders

[edit] Eocene snafu

I am not sure what is meant by the recent message on User_talk:Livajo. The only modification I made to the Eocene page was add the link to eo:Eoceno. Livajo 00:11, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well then I don't get it either! I'm often confused by the History section. I'll just move it back to Eocene Wetman 00:21, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lindisfarne and Durham

Just out of curiosity, why do you feel that the Lindisfarne Gospels and Durham Gospels pages should be merged? They are two quite separate books and I feel each should have its own article. In time I hope to get each of the illuminated manuscripts up to the completeness of the Book of Kells article. Dsmdgold 02:53, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If I'm in error, please correct any blunders. The stub entry Durham Gospels had no description yet nor even a date for the manuscript, nor any external reference, so blunders are quite possible.Wetman 02:59, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Peter / Pedro

So from Talk:Pedro II of Brazil, Pedro should be moved back to Peter, right? Would you agree? ---Rednblu 07:52, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What? No, don't we all recognize him as Pedro II? Much more natural-sounding, no? Thanks for making the change. Wetman 07:57, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Gee! I already moved his bones back to Peter before I got your message. I definitely think that Pedro sounds better. I agree with you. I call Kaiser Wilhelm by his proper name and not King William. I think Pedro sounds better, but I don't think Pedro would want to be out of line with all the other Anglicized Kings in Wikipedia. I took a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) which would make the name of the page "Peter II of Brazil" under the rule at the top of the page "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem." Besides, I saw that User:Jorge Stolfi from Brazil had moved Pedro to Peter before. Move him back if you want; I won't complain. Use the Move tab on the page. Good talking with you. ---Rednblu 08:26, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't want to get in trouble. This is just what happens when no one will permit there to be any "best" usage, case-by-case, because that wouldn't be neutered point-of-view. Caesar William II indeed! Wetman 08:36, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
How about I will change Wilhelm II of Germany to William II of Germany? That should get a happy tune from our German friends! ---Rednblu 08:54, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(You're kidding of course! Moving articles at Wikipedia should only be done after some pretty serious thinking. Stuff gets lost Wetman 09:20, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Architecture

Hi Wetman - see you've been tweaking in Ragusa - thanks. Do you know anything about Roman Villas? I know little, and have been editing (quite a bit actually]] at Mansion and have put in 'villas were first mansions', now I'm having second thoughts if that's correct or stretching a point a centimetre to far. Also I interfered there as I thought the bias was too 'America' now it's too European. Could you have a look and try to redress the balance. Roman Villas and American Mansions are not really my subject. Love your McMansion page - am I write in thinking your not a fan of them? I would love to live in a fully repaired non-leaking house, then perhaps - no I would not!Giano 10:19, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC) I stumbled upon your good work at Mansion-- and Ragusa, which I don't know (my tweaks were literary). I tried to keep the jokes subliminal at McMansion. Americans overuse "mansion"-- and underuse "house" which has been all but replaced with the real estatese "home" (and how we have shrunk "landscape"). Mansions go back to Domus Aurea etc. Roman villas functioned like Palladio's villas: self-contained social and agricultural units, perhaps on latifundia. Of course the villa at the heart of a latifundia could be quite palatial, and even in the 4th century, fortifiable... Wetman 18:04, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for casting your eye over that. I'm happier for it being checked over. And your links add some weight. I think the whole concept of what is a mansion is ambiguous and varies from country to country - Have you ever heard that 'Manse' (home of a Scottish priest/minister) and 'Mansion' both derive from a gaellic (I think) word meaning 'house built of stone' I did not put in in the page, because while I'm sure (I think!) it's true, I can't find a source for why I know it - it's bugging me, untill an remember whereGiano 22:56, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Wetman - Could you do me a huge favour, and go to Montacute House and make the image bigger, I have uploaded it, and the original is gigantic, I've followed all the instructions (this is a first attempt! - Quelle suprise) I can't make the original smaller, or the image on the article page larger. Problem is the very large image shows that I have airbrushed my charming children out of the picture, and a medium sized photo looks quite natural (children replaced by foliage!) If you could do this or tell me (in words of one sylable) how to do this I would be very grateful, I've quite a few other photos from Italy and Europe I want to treat in the same way, if I can work out how, I think they could enhance, or at least liven up, a few other articles. Regards Giano 22:07, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm no good either. I made the framing (and therefore the image) larger by adding "|300px|" in the html, but the image as presently downloaded is offcenter with free space to left and below. Try loading it again, using the exact same title, which will substitute a new loading of the image for the wonky one... Wetman 22:21, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That was quick! and an improvement, Thanks. My computer kept saying that the message was not saved on your page, so pleasant suprise. If I can sort these problems I have realised I have inumerable photos of renaissance palaces, chateaux etc. If I can subtly remove sulking children who would rather be in 'Disney land' Thanks Giano 22:33, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Public Domain images of architecture (and details) are sorely needed. English country houses, eh. And interiors. I wish I could give you advice but I scarcely know the difference between uploading and downloading.... Wetman 22:42, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hi - Its been a while; would you care to have a look at Palazzo Foscari and Palazzo Barbarigo. I think they need some addittions, especially the latter, Ca' Barbarigo, which (in my personal view)is vulgar but as I had a semi-decent foto it seemed a shame to waste it. I chose Palazzo over Ca' in the titles as I thought palazzo would be more recognised in the English speaking world. However I think in time Ca' Rezzonico will have to be a title, but at present I am still working on it. Regards Giano 20:15, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In all my life, I cannot remember seeing the true front of Ca' Foscari, perhaps it's all a trick and it has never existed! Thanks for the tweaks. Giano 21:04, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Surly Ingrates

  • Ever check the history and see that it's being vandalized? You're a very odd man, not verifying if it should be deleted before deciding so. --TIB 22:48, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
I didn't think to check the "History of There." I am odd indeed. I'll be more cautious in future. Wetman 22:50, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • The Basque Ball. The Skin Against Stoneis not a speedy candidate, take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. In the future, please only mark things with {{delete}} if they meet one of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:24, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • After checking the Squirrel Hill history page, it does appear that you have some sort of highly bizarre vendetta against me. Keep it up; I do find it pretty amusing. Thunderbunny 19:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • (This person inserted "Squirrel Hill has a very high Jewish population." Nothing further on how that has affected the character and style of Rabbit Hill. "New York's Upper West Side" has a very high college graduate population." Vaguely irrelevant, unless one can make a point. I'm otherwise blissfully unaware of Thunderbunny.)
  • (Re Union Station (Chicago)): You are certainly being a troll today. The reference to Daniel Burnham is still there; I put it there when I wrote the article. I also did not remove the references to other great railroad stations. That was user:Meelar. Maybe you should rethink your actions. You owe me an apology. Stargoat 00:54, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • (Grand'mere said "a word of politeness is never wasted." Grand'mere was wrong. Wetman 20:09, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC))

[edit] Countess Maritza Mariza Maritza Mariza

I suppose it would be easier if only one of us tried to fix this at one time? The most usual English name is Countess Maritza; an alternative English name is Countess Mariza; the only German name is Gräfin Mariza, and I suspect the most complete article presently resides at within the history of Gräfin Mariza (it has the note about various spellings. Let me know if you want to do it or want me to...<g>. - Nunh-huh 07:42, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) I'll keep my paws off while you do it. As long as the main article is findable at Countess Maritza, where we'd look for it in the English Wikipedia. Maybe a redirect from Countess Mariza?... Wetman 07:45, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I shall procede to make it so. - Nunh-huh 07:48, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Slip disambig

On slip the text '( cetera desunt)', whatever that is, does not seem to be working, just showing up - what is it suposed to do? Leonard G. 04:48, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can you come up with good definitions of "slip" as it pertains to aeronautics and to engineering? I'd be hopelesss at filling in the blanks. I should have put text needed here. Can you help? I think these are important usages. Wetman 04:55, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I sure can, in general keeping a level of detail appropriate to a disambiguation may be difficult. What I find is often required is a reference to a subsection via <article title>#<section title>. If the article is not sectionalized then I have to do that, which can be tricky - it often exposes poor organization in the article, needing some thought before rearrangement and consolidation. No problem, and the article is improved, but somewhat of a snowball effect.
I have made the changes to slip and I think that they came out well. Feel free to give me a notice if you see something that needs technical work as I really enjoy that kind of reading and writing. My ignorance of Latin is the effect of a modern (1960's) North American college "education" - which I am finding to be quite deficient without the classical studies - Latin, Greek, Rhetoric, etc. Leonard G. 15:32, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Now that's a good disambiguation page: a hub of links that help set the direction the reader needs. In Wikipedia, if we add up our incomplete competencies, the total is greater than the sum of us "parts", eh. Wetman 17:54, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re: San Francisco City Hall

I'm glad you liked the photo, but the only other ones I have worth putting up i already have done. You're welcome to comment on any of them too :-) Nick 14:00, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In gratitude for addition to your input to San Francisco City Hall i now give you: Hodge 301] (Nick)

How's that? Wetman 20:09, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Realia

Hello! Please take a look at the talk page of Realia. Thanks! AlainV 02:51, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wetman 04:17, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, it turns out that sometimes those objects are exempla (or exemplum?) but in other cases (games, toys, microscopic slides) they are most certainly not. and in others still the examples are lumped with the non-examples. More on the talk page. AlainV 03:42, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Let's carry this on at Talk:Realia. Wetman 04:09, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Padua

Thanks for the detailed updates! Quadell 14:59, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Tacoma Aroma

I actually lived in Tacoma for a summer and experienced the "aroma", but there's just not a lot to say about it - just about every pulp mill in the world has the same problem, and you could see that the article writer was struggling to come up with additional content. So I apply my usual two tests - can it ever grow into a 1-2 page article, and if not, will it be useful for any kind of cross-linking that ought not to go to the existing article? Stan 21:39, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Two fine tests. Wetman 20:09, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wildflower

Thanks for the suggestion, Wetman. While the individual wildflower images will be included in a "soon-to-be-released" article on Wildflowers of the Canadian Rocky Mountains (which I'm not at haste to stake claim on), there are a couple of images, such as this one, which I was wondering where to put. Great idea! Denni☯ 22:16, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

Good images shouldn't lie fallow. Wetman 23:03, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning "The Kochs"

I think categories for deletion would be more appropriate than speedy deletion, but I must confess that I have not yet developed the coinciding articles to make it a better category. It is better to have consent rather than arbitrarily deleting something and allot less pretentious. Arminius 20:45, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

    • (This user thinks The Kochs makes a sensible category, when one suggests that an entry Koch family might do, as it does for, say, Medici family. "Arminius" indeed!)

[edit] Thanks

Just to say thanks for calling my picture "good" (Tower of London). I'm new and thus a little shy about putting my stuff up, so it means a lot to me. --Viki 17:45, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can only assume you mean Ewoks ;-) Will never cease to struggle to uphold the high ideals you've set out for me.

[edit] HH Richardson

Thanks - I'm getting on a roll, though will get rolled away soon. i took these 20 years ago while I was doing pilgrimages. I'm glad that they survived the intervening years - many times they almost did not. Carptrash 04:12, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm already formatting them and adding to the captions. Wetman 04:29, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, go for it. My attitude is, 'Here are some images - use them as you( ie. any & every one) see fit".

PS you've moved up from 104 to 95. In double digits now!

(How embarassing, really. You see I have no life... Wetman)

[edit] Dartmouth, England

Hi from Bristol, England. I don't think what you've done to the pic placement of "my" pics on the Dartmouth article looks good, I think the article is too short for the alternating system to work and I'm guessing it might make a real mess on an 800 by 600 screen (mine is 1024 by 768). The problem is that there's not enough text between the images to separate them satisfactorily. However, I won't revert. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 09:02, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, why don't you change the format, without reverting the new information? It's just a cut and paste thing. It looked better to me. The entry needs more text. Wetman 09:06, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I gave the impression I might revert the information, I wouldn't dream of doing that! :-))
I was only talking about the pic placement looking ugly to me. I don't intend to change back the placement because I don't feel that strongly about it. One day when more text is added the positioning will look fine. Off to Bristol Zoo now for the rest of the day - Adrian Pingstone 09:23, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] LotR movie trilogy articles

They do exist, and they are really in the movies, and people really talk about them. There are Lurtz action fictions and you can buy your own Hadhafang if you like. And Figwit, while absolutely absurd, is a rather bizarre phenomenon of the internet movie-fan community that is definitely encyclopedic. I think they're silly, too, but they are notable and not vanity (unless you are perhaps referring to Peter Jackson). I thought you deserved an explanation. ;) --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 21:17, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. Really I did. Pre-teen culture has been mysterious to adults for half a century now. Wetman 21:30, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dookie

Hi. Thank for the tag on Dookie. It was not deleted. The page history showed it was a real article before it was blanked. I have restored the article. - Tεxτurε 17:26, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, sumthin wuz up! (I shoulda checked the History.)Wetman 17:30, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Flags

I didn't invent these flags. If you feel one or more are not really used, please specify which ones -- I made these for a project some time ago, for which the standard of notability is perhaps lower than here at Wikipedia. It is certainly possible I have made a mistake, but please don't be condescending. TheWhiteRussian 05:34, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do find out who did invent these flags and make sure that any flags you enter are authentic. An External link is all it takes. Wetman 06:10, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(No response.)

[edit] Editing my stuff

Thanks for taking the time to fix up my stuff. When it comes to adding things to the Wikipedia I feel like I am way out of my league and lost in space. That is why I have never become a member (no handle). I'm just a curious grunt with a passion about some pretty obscure things. I am sure you and other Wikipedians have guessed that by my abuse of Wikipedia formats and the english language. Thanks for making me look good. Charlie Turek 9 Sep 2004

[edit] Stamp images

Just noticed your comment on my gallery page - in many cases I simply don't have the unused stamps, sometimes because they're extremely expensive. In other cases, the usage is itself interesting, connecting to a historical place for instance. It also inoculates against difficulties with governments - many have laws against accurate reproductions of unused stamps, for fear of counterfeiting (that's why you see little slashes through the denominations sometimes). It does reduce the value of the stamp as illustration of something else, but after seeing a number of designs compared to the originals, I would say that the stamp is a last resort for an encyclopedic illustration anyway. (At some point I'll probably put up an article on the subject of designers' alterations to reality.) Stan 15:36, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I could tell that your philatelic passions were in control. Philatelic illustrations are best at conveying a cultural response to a thing rather than the thing itself: Art Deco, Fascism, Nationalism, Romantic nationalism, Olympics, Propaganda, Modernism, Christianity, Military occupation-- these are all entries that would be improved with the illustration of certain postage stamps, IMHO. Surely fears of counterfeiting concern stamps currently valid for postage, not from the Kingdom of Italy, etc. Color illustrations of mint stamps are ubiquitous... Wetman 17:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You're quite right; many stamp designs are illuminating in ways perhaps not originally intended. :-) If you ever have particular requests, I can dig around in my collection of 70,000-odd types to see what's available. On counterfeiting, some stamps are valid for quite a long time, for instance all US stamps since 1861 are still valid. I don't know how much governments pursue people putting up images, would certainly depend on image quality and site visibility. I like to put up large images (as good as if one were using a magnifying glass on a physical stamp) and WP visibility is getting up there, so I think it's worth being aware, if not paranoid. Stan 17:32, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arab celebrations of 9/11 anniversary

Bravo wetman for your addition to Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks. I see you're getting that knee condition under control. JDG 01:25, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Trying to keep my Self well to the the background. It was a deeply skeptical observation, was it not?. Wetman 02:08, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Palladian

Thanks for the warm reception on my user page, Wetman. Unfortunately my expertise is not in architecture, so I'm afraid I won't have too much to add to Palladianism, though I might be able to write about William Kent. My nickname was chosen more from a general admiration of the early 18th century spirit in England, the birth of Reason and the 'revival' of classicism, not because I am expert in the specifics (other than the furniture, paintings and objets de vertu that populated those marvelous buildings).


As for your question about the provenance of my image, I got it from the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript library at Yale University. The complete title reads: "Andrea Palladio's Architecture in four books ... : The whole containing 226 [i.e., 222] folio copper plates / containing a dissertation on the five orders & ye most necessary observations relating to all kinds of building ... ; Carefully revis'd and redelineated by Edwd. Hoppus... and embellished w.th a large variety of chimney pieces collected from the works of Inigo Jones & others. Published : London : Printed for Benjn. Cole engraver the corner of Kings-Head-court, near Fetter-lane, Holbourn, & John Wilcox opposite the New church in the Strand, 1736."


So I can confirm the date of 1736 for the image, which occurs on page 185 of the Beinecke copy. Regards! Palladian 08:58, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Brandon Freels

Why do you think everything is a "ludibrium"? --Daniel C. Boyer 16:02, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(Regarding this foolish self-indulgent prankster— see his User page— here's a quote from Talk:Chocolate: "Daniel C. Boyer: Regarding "chocolate coulage", please stop adding it to this page. The only net references to "chocolate coulage" all point to you. I don't think you can be objective about it. It is, at the very least, self-aggrandizing and indirect advertizing of your own artistic works. Daniel Quinlan 21:53 28 Jul 2003" )
So you who promiscuously slap the label "ludibrium" on things right and left quote in answer someone who sees "advertising" in everything. Will he get a job on Madison Avenue with his theory of "indirect advertizing"? Just wondering. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:35, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for the laugh

Hilarious. —No-One Jones (m) 23:53, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to start extrapolating on what's actually in the text... Wetman 00:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Shroud of Turin

Some time ago you commented that the Shroud of Turin article was "Wikipedia at its most craven". It hasn't substantially changed since then, but is now a candidate for Featured Article status. You can cast your vote at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Shroud of Turin. JamesMLane 16:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Even though I voted "Support. Wikipedia at its most preposterous, " User:JDG called me one of the "dyed-in-the-wool skeptical reductionists who, ironically, show the same tendencies to supress [sic] (under the guise of NPOV and rigor) opposing positions that religious authorities of old showed." Wasn't that a cheap shot! I scorn both the suppression of information and bogus "NPOV." Initial skepticism is the normal result of an elite education, where one is taught to doubt everything and to assess the motivations of the speaker. My private assessment of this furious Catholical apologist is not high... well, you can just imagine. Wetman 21:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Do you care to explain why you support an article you feel is preposterous? JDG 00:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(This egregious entry stands as a warning to Wikipedia users— as long as the Discussion pages are not "lost" which I am seeing to personally. Editors stand revealed in the discussion, as in the following "personal" note:)

Despite your gibes and sneers it looks like Shroud of Turin is on its way to Featured Article, as Mpolo's rewrite is meeting with approval from most of those who have objected. A small victory for genuine freethinkers. I wouldn't go quite so far as to suggest you change your username to AllWetMan. Yet, anyway. JDG 00:20, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is all very amusing. I make a good-natured pun ("AllWetMan") and it is "egregious". Wetman says "My private assessment of this furious Catholical apologist is not high" and you (JamesMLane) find nothing wrong with it. Double standards, relexive POV peddlers bemoaning POV entries, advocates of scholarly rigor who practice nothing like it themselves, freethinkers who censor. Another day on Wikipedia. JDG

[edit] Jewish Encyclopedia

In Susanna you added a paragraph out of the online Jewish encyclopedia. It says on the page there's a copyright on the material. Do you know if we have permission for this, or do we need to rewrite to avoid copyright problems? - Mpolo 19:06, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

A few tweaks and it's fine. I recommend the Jewish Encyclopedia to you: though it was published between 1901-1906, put it on your Bookmarks. Consulting it always improves edits that rely on Easton's (1897) and the like. I hope you'll also check Wikipedia's quotes of Easton's and draw attention to any copyright issues you may perceive... Wetman 19:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I had looked at the bottom of the page you linked, which had Copyright 2002. However, that can only be a copyright for the page design and markup, since the material is public domain. Which means that like Easton and the Catholic Encyclopedia, we could quote with impunity. But I agree that it's better to tweak them. -- Mpolo 19:41, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
but but it can't be the first time you've seen the on-line Jewish Encyclopedia! Didn't the nuns tell you there was one? ;) In all seriousness the Jewish Encyclopedia attains a rational and critical assessment of literature and text traditions and cultural history that forms an interesting contrast to the Catholic Encyclopedia-- which I use daily-- of the same date. Wetman 19:52, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Staatsoper Hannover

Thanks for the beautiful Image of the Staatsoper Hannover. Pleae provide some information about the source of your image, in particular where the image stems from (e.g. are you the photographer) and about the license of the image, e.g. something like {{GFDL}} - other tags for licenses can be found here: Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. If you could add the date of the image that would even be better.

Personally I would like to see a higher resolution image. If you made it on your own, then please upload a larger version. Anyway, thanks again for the image and best regards from Hannover -- mkrohn 10:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right, I asked the wrong one ;-) Thanks. -- mkrohn 11:52, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Elymian language at the Sicels entry

  • "the Elymian language, which some would consider related to Ligurian or to Anatolian." Would you be a little more specific here please. Even identify "Some" perhaps. "How" would help. Perhaps you'd best begin the Elymian entry. And please add an External Link to help us out. Thank you. Wetman 06:13, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I did not make any content changes to this article. I only fixed a link newkai 06:17, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Shroud of Turin

You added a link to the Walter McCrone article, but the Shroud of Turin was already linked in the first paragraph. Did you overlook this, or did you think the link needed to be repeated? I generally repeat wikilinks only in a long article, and this one's fairly short. JamesMLane 01:03, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There was already a link to McCrone, but as I understand it, his research addressed more than one aspect of the Shroud, so there's no reason not to mention him in each context. As for JDG, I stand by what I said in the FA debate: that he's been admirably industrious in pushing his POV. The real problem with the article is that the religious claim about the Shroud is so far-fetched that skeptics don't take it seriously and don't see any point in spending a lot of time researching the Shroud (in the real world) or unearthing and incorporating into the article the results of such research (in Wikipedia). JamesMLane 01:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Finally we get some honesty. This shows my statement on the FA nominations page was 100% accurate: "Some will cry "POV" not because pro-authenticity arguments are presented as truth but because such arguments are given the implicit respect of inclusion." Doubtless my advice will be ignored, but here it is: Learn some respect. JDG 02:11, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mallomars

Just thought I'd say to you that that's a fantastic article on Mallomars. -- user:zanimum

you just liked "local color (very dark brown)..." Wetman 00:33, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] re: romanticism

it really is a good image, good call

LegCircus 01:50, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Ca' Rezzonico

I don't know! My source quite clearly said Clement XIII perhaps I should write a life of the popes as pennance! I keep on seeing small mistakes now its gone 'live' which I could not see before - Giano 11:57, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I thought I'd wait and let you fix Robert Browning (Elizabeth Barrett was his wife!). I'm like you: I don't see the gremlins till I've saved the edit. Wetman 12:02, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That error was one I had not spotted, I am talking about Robert Barrett Browning the painter, who was the son of Robert Browning the poet who (died there in 1889) (I've just put a link on his page), the unfortunate 'Painting' Browning does not have a page, but was stil alive to sell the place in 1906. Perhaps I've not made it clear in the article, I'll go and have a look.Giano 12:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Done!Giano 12:47, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hah! you got me. Poet Browning made another habitation famous in a volume of poems, but Casa Guidi is Florence not Venice. Wetman 19:44, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest: I thought I was talking about the poet too,I did not know he had a son who was a painter - he must have been very successful to own Ca' Rezzonico, I checked he owned it too! At the moment having uncharitable thoughts about Ca'Rez:- see its talk page, (I'd already had to fight a corner on user:talk over an edit, before he went public on the talk page!)I can't help feeling if people know so much why didn't they write the page in the first place. Its late at night know doubt I'll be cheerful in the morning. if you see anything else obvious please sort it for me! Giano 20:21, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] St Mark's Square

  • What on earth makes you assume I have never heard of Sansovino? As it happens, I studied architecture for five years and so hope I have a fair overview of the history of architecture. Of course I've got no problem, as I said before, with you editing the article, but please do not make assumptions about what you call my "ignorance". Warofdreams 10:17, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Venezia D'addio

I shall shortly before my departure from the above named city be writing an article on that well known boulevard 'Quinto Viale' in 'Nuovo York'. Having argued the whereabouts of a ceiling in Ca' Rezzonico, the opinions of the world famous experts who advocate the place, and a consonant between the modern and old way of spelling 'Baldosserre'. I am leaving VENEZIA, and advise you my friend to do the same, our talents may be appreciated in Oxford, Siena or even Boston. Giano 20:52, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Have you seen the stub for Holkham, that central Palladian structure? Or Wilton House? Or for Palladian itself? Desperately in need of Giacomization before you head for Quinto Viale. Wetman 22:13, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
More buoyant today! - Great idea, I'll do an in depth on Wilton, I've some unpublished stuff on that, also - Do you know anything about lengths of copyright, I have some photos of the British Royal Family at Wilton, in a signed book by Queen Alexandra (she gave a copy it to my American great Granny), but published it for sale in 1906/7, or as she gave it, does that mean the copyright is Granny's heirs (ie me!)do you think copyrights expire anyway, after a set period of time, I'll have to dig it out and see if it even says copyright. I wonder who would know? Palladian will have lots of very clever people to write it; Holkham, I have been too, but to be honest it's not my type of place no drama or romance - a bt soulless (is that a word in English). I've also half finished Palazzo Labia but that can wait, I'm tired at the moment of the 'Venetian custodian' Regards Giano 18:02, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The copyright to photos published in 1906/7 has 'maste difinitely' expired. Did you know that Wilton, before the Civil War, had one of the very first French parterres in England? Only de Caus' grotto survives, I understand. I never set foot in the gardens at Wilton: how I hate the pace of touring around; I just like to be there and stay. So, have you been exposed to Wikipedia's coxcombs then? Wetman 19:04, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Have found the book, that's great copyright has expired - it says copyright 1908 within USA and British Empire!!! I'll upload them and see if anyone from USA ot Empire complains! There are only a couple of Wilton, I thought there were more; what I found quite sad was the next page, four small laughing Grand Duchesses and a tiny brother, nothing to do with Wilton, and not my subject, but its a good thing people don't know what's comming!

I've been checking some facts, funnily enough the Grotto was turned into a school for estate workers children but closed in 1920, and was then turned into a house mid 1950s, it seems the bridge described in the 'stub' was not built untill 1800s and designed by an Earl of P who was an amateur architect. Apparently Inigo Jones and de Caus work was destroyed in a fire, but and elderly Inigo Jones supervised the rebuilding from a distance, in my experience half the English houses attributed to Inigo Jones are not! But it seems one of the Earls of P may have paid for Jones trip to Italy, and the documentation for the first Jones rebuild at Wilton is good. It'll take a while to sort this page. I have not seen about the parterre, yet Caus was the son of a landscape gardener. I don't know the word Coxcombs, but if it means what I think then YES. I don't mind people editing or criticising, but when their user page links to an 'Own Site' where they have the largest collection of fotos Venetian palazzos etc, I think hey stop, wasting time criticising me, write a page and put some of this stuff on and do us all a favour. Giano 21:44, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My error bridge built 1737 by 9yh Earl ans Roger Morris
Started at Wilton House going to be slow process this week as 'earning a living' is rather getting in the way of progress! Giano 12:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you have time could you have a look, I know what I want to say, but it does not read too well. perhaps you could modify it before the next lot comes out, seems there was now a fire and Jones takes a heavier hand, and Wyatt comes in with some heavy hande gothicasation - bit like a soap opera.

[edit] Imperial guardian lions

Thanks for your recent edits to imperial guardian lions, it filled in some major gaps. I plan to add a floating image gallery and will then remove the stub status. -- Leonard G. 00:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-Roman Iron Age

(on this computer, I can not edit on talk pages unless there is already a subheading so I go to your talk pag instead). You wrote that the article on Pre-Roman Iron Age should be merged with another article. Please allow me to start the page. The period is a part of North European prehistory and there is plenty to add.

1) The name "Pre-Roman Iron Age" signifies that it was before the influx of Roman imports into Scandinavia. The following age, which I will write on in due time is called the "Roman Iron Age" because there were Roman imports and Rome was very powerful. The age following it is called the "Germanic Iron Age", but some also call it the "Age of Migrations" or even the "Heroic Age".
2) The naming is not obsolete. You can easily Google it. Wiglaf

[edit] Christmas in Caen

Wetman: I do not know to expand on it, what you've written is accurate.Stbalbach 06:09, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

per this link:
"The action takes place at Henry's castle at Chinon, France [in 1183]. Eleanor has been permitted to travel there to join the family for Christmas Court. This play is a work of fiction. No Christmas Court is known to have occurred at Chinon in 1183".
so, i guess the Cain 1182 Christmas refrence is not accurate. Stbalbach 11:07, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No, it's in Caen archives. It's Christmas at Chinon that's invented in the play. Wetman 19:56, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Objects d'art

I would refer you Mr Wetman, Sir, to the wills of the de Rothschild family published in the 19th century when many 'Objects d'art', and 'objects of virtue' were left to their friends! The correct English word is 'day bed' for chaise longue. Seriously though, joking apart - I was just sorting a red link in Buckingham Palace, if you want to help me start a crusade to rid wikipedia of tasteless pages, see Stately home: foul nasty expression, I have left a message there on the talk page, as I would like to see Country house liberated to a proper page of its own, I am rather tied up in Wiltshire and you have the knowledge to do it. Giano 21:48, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You caught me! "Objects d'art" is auctioneer's puffery, back to the Stowe sale I think (haven't seen that sale catalogue in 40 years, though), and sometimes contemporary usage is so overwhelming that even a Rothschild may commit a vulgarism to paper. Daybed indeed! snicker ...but isn't Stately home hard to swallow, though!: cf. Robin Leach. I much prefer the BBC's Tweasure Houses. So pleasant to find a Wikipedian who knows a sheep from a goat. Wetman 22:17, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Mmmm. why do you think I was editing Objects d'art anonymously, I don't want it linking back to my talk page! as for the Rothschild wills: I expect that was a humble scribing error by the English clerk who had to write it, I wish I could remember where I saw it - possibly the 'Mentmore Catalogue'. Have you ever read John Betjeman's poem (cant't remember the title) with the line 'I must have things daintily served'? Day bed is true! I saw it for the first time yesterday, in a book listing the contents of the collonade room at Wilton Giano 06:24, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"Daybed" is still the U term. I had a massively strong one in my university rooms, a lifetime ago. "Chaise longue" is fake French (isn't it?) for what the French call a marquise, a sort of extended bergere. It was upholsterer's fancy jargon at the end of the 18th century, passably okay, but then mangled into spectacularly non-U "chaise lounge" to humorous effect. The Rothschild inventories will have been done by some high auctioneer (Christie's?): "objects d'art" could never have been uttered at Wasddesdon or Mentmore.

Well there you have me, furniture is not my subject, I always thought a marquise was a biscuit one put in ice-cream! At home in Sicily we have there some French furniture and a two seater chair called a canape (with an accent on the e), when I came to England, I found a canape was a pea-nut or chip with a little caviar to go with a drink, then on a rare outing in polite society in London, I found myself conversing with The Queen's hatter, at a loss for conversation (who would not be?) I asked his oppinion on a woman's hat near by, to be told rather haughtily that it was not a hat but a canape. That story is true!

The last titled occupant of Mentmore,would not have said 'Object d'art', he even hated the word Towers for his house as he thought it was middle class, I tried as nicely as possible to put that in Mentmore Towers when I wrote that page, I was assailed by people untill I fanally surrendered and called it Towers too.

Wilton is finished (at least by me) it needs a lot of tweaking and I am word blind when I look at it, so I will leavie it alone for a while - please feel free to wade in, it probbly want's cutting by half, and I'm not sure about the ending either, but I had lost the impetus by then. I want to do next a country house nobody has heard of, it is quite special to me, so I will do it anonymously, not open to the public, hidden, and only once written of in 1922, and yet probably in my POV England's most beautiful house. - Regards Giano 20:54, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See we are tweaking together! I am now finished with it for good (well a while) Would appreciate it if you can think of a better heading than secondary rooms, I'm stumped! Also sitting at desk not doing what I am supposed to do Giano 09:57, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Halloween

Thank you very much for your compliment; I really appreciate it! There's more work I want to do on the article; there are parts where I think it doesn't flow very well. I have questions, though, about the two bits you brought back into the article:

  • If this day, originally simply honoring all the departed faithful, now also helps the faithful to recall to mind the reality of Hell, it is only through its association with Hallowe'en. Originally this sentence was in reference to All Saints Day, and I removed it because All Saints Day doesn't have anything to do with Hell. But you restored it to a paragraph that's talking about Halloween, and it makes less sense there (the antecedent of this day is now Halloween). What's the purpose of this sentence? It originally seemed to mean that All Saints Day makes people think of Hell because it's associated with Halloween, but I disagree with that and I don't even see how it follows.
Quite right. The reference is to All Saints' Day. It's the reality of Purgatory that is called to mind the day after Halloween, not Hell. Is not Purgatory itself a liminal or "threshold" situation?
So you're saying that Halloween brings forth thoughts of Purgatory? I don't agree with that, but if that's the assertion you'd like to make, would you please edit this part of the article to be more clear? - Brian Kendig
  • It is a liminal or threshold occasion, when the distinctions between the daylight world of reason and the spectral nightworld are blurred. I removed this because it didn't make sense to me - I don't know what is meant by "the distinctions between the daylight world of reason and the spectral nightworld"; and Halloween blurs nothing; it's only a holiday. Maybe the sentence is trying to say that things seem more surreal or more supernatural on Halloween?
I can't help you with the connotations of "liminal" and the Celtic view of the Otherworld. Danny Ruck and Carl Staples give good comprehension of "liminal" and so does Joseph Campbell. But I make it a rule never to revert material I don't understand. Is it important to you that Halloween be without any deep meaning: "it's only a holiday" as you say? Anyway, try Googling some combinations like "liminal myth".Wetman 22:48, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I often edit material I don't understand - I edit boldly. I'm passing no judgment on the holiday in question; it's just that I felt this particular sentence was too vague and contributed nothing to the article. For example: I don't consider daytime particularly full of "reason" or nighttime particularly "spectral", and I don't know what "distinctions" between them are being "blurred." You seem to have a better understanding of how liminal applies to Halloween - would you edit the article and go into a bit more detail about the relationship? (Oh, and if you follow up to these comments, please follow up on Talk:Halloween - we may as well make these notes available to everyone!) - Brian Kendig

- Brian Kendig 22:29, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Crimson crush

Under which speedy deletion criterion did you think it should be deleted? I can't find any matches. You will probably have to list it on WP:VFD instead. — David Remahl 01:40, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Under the heading "unrecorded amateur high-school bands" Wetman 01:46, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Please review WP:CSD... — David Remahl 01:48, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
(Fortunately an adult stepped in and deleted the entry.)

[edit] Goths

Thanks for changing "unfortunately". I had a feeling it might be sarcastic, but I actually think that it is unfortunately. I would be quite happy with an alternative theory.--Wiglaf 12:50, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd be satisfied just with the reference in the literary work that puts Goths in the basin of the Visula in 1BC.! Wetman 12:52, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I found that in a source which I have forgotten, so I have checked Dick Harrison in the Swedish encyclopedia Nationalencyklopedin who cites Tacitus and Ptolemy. He says ca 100 AD. He is a Weibullian, which means that he is negative against any information that does not appear in at least two sources that he considers to be reliable.--Wiglaf 19:38, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Kedleston Hall

As the British say: You are barking up the wrong tree! I stumbled accross the poor little article about one of their great houses while linking houses to my (quickly done) Country House page and away from Stately Home, seeing Kedleston in that condition (a 'probably wrong' diatribe about Government House in Calcutta) two lines on the great architect, and a litle on a designer dress, I could hardly leave it that way. It deserves as much as Wilton, but like Holkham etc, its not really my type of place. I visited it a couple of years ago, and had to agree with my 6 year old 'Pappi, its cold and it smells' - did not notice the aroma, but it is cold in every sense of the word. The house I am going to do, you may have heard of, I would be interested to know is called 'Brympton D'Evercy', it too has a wing once attributed to Inigo Jones but is definitly not by him or indeed any one else recorded. It is in my opinion the best in England, but I'm very biased, so when its done (God knows when) you can dePOV it. Regards Giano 13:06, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I just tweaked your excellent Kedleston tour. Yes, I see I've got it completely wrong. Indeed it's colder even than Syon house: even the stoves are cold. So, you should also do Compton Wynyates, Cotehele and Ightham Mote, three more English houses that reduce Americans to tears. (Ightham Mote was even bought by an American.) Wetman 13:35, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Nice tweaking, I should have done some other rooms, but after the 1st two mausoleums, I had rather lost interest. I've some old photos of the house when it was properly lived in complete with 'chaises lounges' and 'objects d'art' and it was much nicer to look at, the National Trust has taken everythinng away which is not contemporary, and rather spoilt the country house feel, but I suppose the purists like it. I've been thinking about Compton W, its completely private now (I think) but I've some old stuff, but without a legal foto it all a bit dull; Has 'Brympton D'Evercy' crossed the Atlantic? Giano 13:54, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't know: I live on an island at the edge of the Atlantic. But I think so: apparently American wedding parties arrive in jets to get married at Brympton d'Evercy. It's that golden stone, isn't it? Wetman 14:08, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Damm! It is let out occasionally for weddings, and is of golden stone, did'nt realise people had to come so far to get married - what's wrong with them? Do not know enough to challenge you Northumberland House being the last, but I've a hunch Montague House, Grosvenor House, and possibly Devonshire House survived until the first 1/4 of the 20th century; and of course Spencer House stil stands. For some reason pictured you typing away on the top of a sky-scraper overlooking central park! Regards Giano 14:19, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Aye, last of the Jacobean palaces, I should have said. Grosvenor House and Devonshire House are two good examples. Not Montague House, though, swept away for the British Museum. I wouldn't count Lindsay House in Lincoln's Inn Fields: just an hotel up against its neighbors. But Spencer House! the first fully neoclassical interior in Europe! Holland House (17th century and later) in Holland Park, bombed in the war. And Carlton House, come and gone. Marlborough House? The Lodges in Regents Park? (just villas I guess) (Wetman 15:04, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC), a full block from Central Park)
Aye, last of the Jacobean palaces, I should have said. Grosvenor House and Devonshire House are two good examples. Not Montague House, though, swept away for the British Museum. I wouldn't count Lindsay House in Lincoln's Inn Fields: just an hotel up against its neighbors. But Spencer House! the first fully neoclassical interior in Europe! Holland House (17th century and later) in Holland Park, bombed in the war. And Carlton House, come and gone. Marlborough House? The Lodges in Regents Park? (just villas I guess) (Wetman 15:04, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC), a full block from Central Park)
Britain's oldest living princess HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester in her memoirs claims to have been born at her father's London home Montague House (HRH is 102 ish), I think the British museum may be older (it looks it). Marlborough House, is used for official entertaining by the Government, last resident was Queen Mary in 1953. I suppose Clarence House does not count, there must be some others still? Many aristocrats Lord Rosebery for one lived in huge palaces known only by numbers the Rosebery's sold '38 Berkeley Square' as late as 1939, and that was a palace. I think Londonderry House may still be standing, the Londonderry's were still living there in the 1950s - perhaps they still do. I have always wanted a book though or information on the great houses that once lined 5th Avenue, I've seen a few pictures of amazing chateaux and gothic fantasies but little real informtion, why don't you write it? Town houses can be as fantastic as the country ones, in my country especially, but they never seem to hold the same appeal to the masses. I wonder why? Regards Giano 15:29, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Boyerism

Stop using this term in a misleading way (as you did with "parallel collage") to refer to things that I by no means invented and in which my participation is minimal (at best) to their importance. I half-expect you to put Oxygen under Votes for deletion because the air I breathe consists of it in large part, saying "Delete. Boyerism." --Daniel C. Boyer 17:37, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • (I avoid "-ism" when I can, and I dislike seeing terms used in any misleading way. See the page User:Daniel C. Boyer to assess whether or not this is a contributor with a genuinely wholesome approach to Wikipedian clarity and accuracy. "User contributions" is always revealing: Wikipedia is splendidly transparent.)
    • This still does not address my specific complaint. Using the term "Boyerism" in reference to "parallel collage" is misleading and dishonest. What seem to be unspecified allegations about "User contributions" are completely irrelevant to this specific complaint. --Daniel C. Boyer 12:59, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] William Kent

I would be interested to see what you make of the large chunk of text just put at the bottom of the above article, I left a message at the contributors talk page, but so far nothing. Kent is not one of my subjects, but I think the new text is better than the preceding paragraph, but something tells me the contributor is a non 'native speaker'; I know it seems stupid but I can't sort that kind of thing, I start to question my own usage, and then bizarre things happen, if I stop and think I can't write, I go straight back to an English boarding school aged 7 with English to match! Giano 20:42, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hm. It's too heartfelt to revise. Wetman 20:53, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I thought that too, but, sadly, somebody else will. Pity he needs to be encouraged, reminds me of a young me!!! Poor man Giano 21:02, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Your Ionic orders pic

Thanks for uploading Image:SixIonicOrders.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) Thanks so much, – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 02:07, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

(I've added a Public Domain notice for this 18th-century engraving by J.-D. Le Roy.) Wetman 02:41, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rousham House

Could you do me a favour and look at the above, someone has sent me an email and said it's terrible English, grammar and all wrong. I checked all my facts, English (well it's best I can do). Grammar could be erratic. Its not one of my best as facts about Rousham are deliberatly supressd by owners who like it kept quiet etc. Giano 07:49, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've been watching the entry come together! I think Kent's new wings are on the north not the south front (Howard Colvin, and that very shadowy north front-looking photo of your friend's). But I haven't changed that text. My usual tweaks. I added dates of Kent's work there. A very Kentian side table in the house was actually designed by the late owner Phillip Cottrell-Dormer! (I'm sure of the spelling). One of the temples was designed by a local builder William Townesend, but the others are all Kent's. I have a photo of me and friends sitting on a Kent bench in one of the temples... Wetman 08:17, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Nice tweaking; I think you are probably right and my source wrong as I seem to remember the replacement glazing on the entrance facade, which I think is the North, one of those trips where there was no film in the camera, (and the house was closed!) and no 'Ye olde worle gifte shoppe' to sell me one. The photos I found on the internet and asked the owner for permission to use. he was delightful and happy to agree - so encouraged I have asked the official Wilton Site the same question, I wonder what they will think, it's all good publicity for them so hopefully they will agree (I don't really like 'link here for photos' - to my mind it somehow lessens the Wilipedia page sort of 'this is OK, but press here to see a proper article on the subject' - perhaps that's just me though. I only though of Rousham, and meant to put a few lines on for a stub when I saw the mention on the William Kent page,(where I see you have made a valiant effort) have you seen the Charles Bridgeman unwikified, but so professional I would be too frightened to touch it! - Thanks again Giano 09:43, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Fools rush in: I have wikified Charles Bridgeman. An excellent condensed entry. Wetman 10:25, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Kind words on my talk page

For which thanks! I need to get back to my own site, though -- which was meant sort of as a one-man Wikipedia for ancient Rome and Italy; I like the interface here, and am learning how to make a website.... Best, Bill 21:23, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] John Vanbrugh

Hi, Wetman, I'm tremendously impressed by your work on Baroque architecture. Trying to orient myself in order to fix up John Vanbrugh, which is an unspeakable 1911 EB text dump, I checked out Nicholas Hawksmoor and Baroque, and realized that the best bits in them were yours. I don't mean to impose if you're busy, but would you be at all interested in helping out with John Vanbrugh? It really needs input from someone who knows the subject, and you refer to Vanbrugh in a friendly way in Nicholas Hawksmoor, so I figured maybe you don't hate him.

The problem is this: originally, I thought with crazy optimism that I was going to do a rewrite of the first part of John Vanbrugh, about Vanbrugh's plays, which are the kind of things I know something about, and just clean up the chuckly pipe-puffing language in the section on the architecture, which I'm extremely ignorant of. So I left a statement to that effect on the article Talk page, to which nobody's responded. (I can't say I exactly blame people for not having it watchlisted, either. ;-)) But, looking again, I see now that all of the 1911 text is beyond cleanup. If I merely remove obsolete POV and tweedy language from the architecture section, I'll be left with zero.

Anyway. I've got a few paragraphs about Vanbrugh's comedies in a text editor, but haven't felt a lot like posting them while the architecture part remains so bad. (If you'd like to check out if you think my drama bits reasonable before you decide about helping with the architecture, I'll just put them in.) Best wishes.--Bishonen 22:50, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] John Vanbrugh again

Outstanding. :-) I'll paste in my draft for the plays, see what you think. One would like ample illustration... sigh. The Godfrey Kneller portrait of Vanbrugh surely has to be PD, no matter what the National Portrait Gallery says about "licensing" it here. Don't you think so? All they've done is digitize a painting several centuries old. But I'd like to have much more than the portrait. Vanbrugh is a visual subject. I wish I could find some cool old prints of scenes from The Relapse or something, with the original, or not too unoriginal, cast. I'm not aware that any such exist, though, unless one counts Colley Cibber as Lord Foppington with the big periwig (see article The Relapse). That one's pretty dull. There are prints of the Haymarket Theatre, I guess... dull ones also. :-( You don't happen to have an extravaganza of great photos of Blenheim etc, that you've taken yourself, lying about the house, do you? No. Pity. There's one photo at Blenheim, but it's not exactly great. Oh, and I just realized it's listed as possible copyvio, too.

Worcester sauce is hilarious! Best,--Bishonen 09:32, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've Googled "Vanbrugh" set on Image and struck out (portraits), Wasn't Vanbrugh a member of the Kit-Kat Club that made those cut-off-at-the-hip portraits fashionable, as "Kit-Kats"? I'll tackle him tomorrow. I actually spent a weekend in a great Vanbrugh house, many years ago. The butler unpacked my suitcase: embarassing. Think I had to borrow cufflinks too. Wetman 10:05, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Butler? Man. He was a prominent Kit-cat, yeah, supposed to be the only one all the others liked, I think. Objectionably sunny disposition. I hadn't heard of "Kit-cats" = portraits, but I'm sure you're right. The 1911 EB actually refers to Kneller's portrait as "the kit-cat". --Bishonen 12:00, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the tweaking at Vanbrugh, I really don't like his work a lot, I've been 3 times to Blenheim. First time I thought, it an overwhelming disconected mass, the second time I though what am I missing here, the 3rd time knowing I was going to see some interiors not normerly seen, I thought all was going to be revealed, big square cold rooms and more corridors; it was only while writing this that it came to me what Vanbrugh was trying to acheive - so I'll appreciate it a bit more, (In England I stay about 25 miles away sometines), so I may go and have a look with new eyes and take some fotos. The talk on weddings led me for a walk through customs and etiquette and eventually black tie - bit I think I will confine myself to safe subjects - I've seen what happens to people who tread in Miss Mitford's territory Giano 08:22, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mosaic photo

No such luck that I was located somewhere helpful such as the original location of the mosaic--no, no, it was in the not-so-ancient stairwell at the British Museum. I was thinking that I might be able to contact someone there to identify it, but I haven't had a chance since I realized last night that I couldn't find any written notes. (I'm SURE I wrote it down. Probably on some scrap of a brochure somewhere in the huge stack of papers and books I brought home with me...) Elf | Talk 20:11, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm thinking it wasn't a British artifact--you know, it looked to me like 95% of what was in the museum was not of British origin. So it could be "maybe" a Roman British villa. I'll try to find out eventually. Elf | Talk 20:25, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Great eye! Great find!

Thanks for finding those two great on-line summary links to the University of Virginia's "Dictionary of the History of Ideas" for the Atomism page. Your adding these two links meant a lot to me personally because this is my favorite page in all of Wikipedia--since it gave me what I remember to be my first shot at creating a full NPOV page from a red link (like this one) -- a page that summarizes the thought of the 2500 years of what I consider to be my personal Patriarchs. The two links you added I found to be very useful in summarizing the various content in a whole long shelf of hardcopy books; your links thus make easy access to a lot of detail. I just read it all in both links. Very useful. Great eye! Great find! And thanks. ---Rednblu 18:23, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is! It's such a find that I'm going all through it alphabetically, to link to it from the corresponding "big idea" page at Wikipedia. Wetman 20:48, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree. But I think some sectors of the Wikipedia community are not yet ready to deal with the reality of published scholarly points-of-view as summarized in the University of Virginia's "Dictionary of the History of Ideas". For example, the first parts I checked were "evolutionism" and a quick search on the scholarly uses of the word "theory"--both of which realities I suggest the majority Wikipedia community is not yet ready to face. :) Perhaps you see it differently. In any case, your find is a great personal service and potential time-saver for me, I can see that already. It is almost like a whole CliffNotes set for Human culture! Wow. ---Rednblu 00:36, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Not all the essays are so great, but "Cliff Notes for Culture" is about right! I'll start with the Ds tomorrow. My castle is often threatened by the villagers with torches and pitchforks: I'm no longer surprised to see entries on major cultural features without a single external link. Wetman 00:52, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Merlion VfD

Hi there. Just for clarification; did you vote to delete the article on Merlion (saying something like "text dump. Why is this being voted on?") I couldn't tell if you were voting on this or on the Joan of Arc Cross Dressing article. If you have no idea what I am talking about then presumably I buggered up somewhere along the VfD process. Cheers --Roisterer 09:25, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes I voted against Merlion. Wetman 09:33, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] My recasting of Cladistics

It's a pleasure to see Wikipedia growing up! Thank you. Wetman 09:55, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but thanks! It's always nice to know one's work is appreciated. :) Josh 10:19, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Attalus I

Hi, FYI: I've just done a major rewrite of Attalus I, since you were a contributer to that page, I though you might like to know ;-) Paul August 05:44, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Delinking unsure dates

I saw that you delinked a few dates at least in Pope Pontian. Doesn't that break Wikipedia's automatic formatting of the dates into the form you want? If a Brit links [[3 January]], I see January 3. Testing to make sure I know what I'm talking about: 3 January. Mpolo 07:28, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to link "maybe" dates, this day or that day, or approximate years. I was clearing away some unsure dates. Not every date in every entry is worth linking, don't you agree? Have you ever entered a year and hit "What Links Here"? A mess! Wetman 08:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I understand that it is not useful as a "link", but it is useful for the function that WikiMedia chose to put into links for dates. Here are various date formats, which should all be the same for the viewer who has set a preference: April 15, 2000; 2000 April 15, 15 April 2000 2000-04-15. Mpolo 10:57, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
Linked so that "3 February" displays as "February 3"? Is that what it's for? Even when the dates themselves may or may not be the actual dates of an event? If everything is linked, how does a reader find a relevant link? Wetman 15:53, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Somewhere in the myriad pages connected with the Manual of Style, it says that complete dates (day, month, year) should always be linked so as to facilitate the tranlation function. But as you say, this makes links to dates all but useless for informational purposes. Maybe some developer could come up with an easy way for the software to do the conversion without requiring linkage (but without overloading the servers at the same time).... Mpolo 16:05, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Crusade

Thanks! I had read about the image in numerous places (the Oxford History of the Crusades quotes the caption), and I recently found the picture itself on a page for a class taught by Paul Halsall, the guy behind the Internet History Sourcebook. Adam Bishop 23:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] White wedding

"The biographers mention as a curious personal trait of Gregory XIV a nervous tendency to laughter which occasionally became irresistible, and which manifested itself even at his coronation." (Wikipedia entry Gregory XIV)
Gaffes at a "white wedding" at Thornbury Castle, England, where even the mother of the groom is hatless and a member of the party has also worn white (Wetman's caption)
Gaffes at a "white wedding" at Thornbury Castle, England, where even the mother of the groom is hatless and a member of the party has also worn white (Wetman's caption)

Wetman, as the supplier of the wedding photo I was astonished by your caption change. I was not the wedding photographer but came across it while out for a walk. The group were getting ready for the photos so the mother of the bride may well have had her hat behind her back ready to put on and there may well be a coloured top hidden behind the shawl on the guest! Its absolutely wrong to insult people who may, one day, see that pic. I have reverted you, Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 13:16, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Its a very sweet wedding party and I'm sure they'll be happy. Wikipedia is not a sentimental photo album: images are illustrations of the subject of each entry. My correct caption was heartless I suppose. The subject at the entry White wedding largely concerns the traditions of a white wedding; two unbreakable traditions of dress code at an informal afternoon wedding, such as this one, are 1) hats for ladies please 2) only the bride wears white at a white wedding. I've removed the image as well, since it undercuts the meaning of the entry. No offense. The party is identifiable as what my grandmother would have called a "village wedding" by the fact that the bride alone is in full kit; the men wear dark suits. Their red "power tie" is a familiar virility signal. One dare not mention such perfectly manifest things in Wikipedia, and I did not. But they are part of the interest of the image. (If it were an upperclass wedding party, a bridesmaid in flipflops would be noted with glee at Wikipedia.) Wetman 19:19, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I just happened to see this--I agree that the caption doesn't reflect everyone's view of a "correct" white wedding. I've been to many, many weddings, and I don't know that I've ever seen anyone wearing a hat except the occasional eccentric or someone dressed to the T in the latest fashion-magazine style. Red ties are very commonly worn by men in suits and I've never heard it mentioned or even suggested that this is some kind of obscure "virility signal." We don't know the details about the bridesmaid's shoes (looks like a sandal to me, not a flip-flop) or why she might be wearing them even it were a flip-flop (foot injury, etc.). I've also heard that only the bride wears all-white, but many people wear all-ivory or other light colors that are very close to white, and sometimes other members of the bridal party wear all white for reasons chosen by the bridal party, and it's all perfectly acceptable--and no one would start whispering about "gaffes". But then, this is America, not England, and I'm not a member of "high society". I'd guess that every group and subculture has its own rules about what's proper for certain types of weddings, and addressing one of them as a "gaffe" is not NPOV. Elf | Talk 21:13, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
And, BTW, I hope you'd reconsider leaving the image in the artilce. It's a nice shot of a legitimate white wedding (e.g., see article definition, means a wedding where bride wears white, and this certainly is the case).Elf | Talk 21:16, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If a "white wedding merely "means a wedding where bride wears white" and nothing more, then this belongs at Wiktionary. A neutral reader will note that the entry mainly concerns the conventions of a "White wedding". The concept of a gaffe is just a natural part of the structure of a convention. A gaffe is part of the continuum, no less genuine than the convention. An illustration illustrates. All the rest is wounded class sensibilities (perfectly genuine, partly explicit), clothed in middle-class claptrap. As for the red ties, look up "power tie" through Google. The people in the image look radiantly happy, gloriously fit and very nice indeed. Wetman 21:32, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Wetman, that was a terrible thing to write even if it appealed to my warped sense of humour! As the men are not wearing morning coats, perhaps the rules don't apply. If you study the picture far from being a virility symbol the red ties are meant to match the flowers the bride is holding, I think it's all very tasteful and the bride's maid is wearing flip-flops because they are probably going to have a reception on a beach where they will unwrap the objects d'art they have been given for their new home. The body language of the bride's mother suggests she is about to take her daughter off somewhere, so perhaps she's not so happy! However, I feel you and my father-in-law would empathise greatly with each other, he once noted a tail coat was an incorect distance from the back of a knee (mine actually!)

I only dropped in on your page to ask if you would be kind enough to have a look at the Blenheim section of John Vanbrugh (which you should now do as a penance) where I've made some changes, but I think I've become more of an apologist, just seen that you have been having discussions on the subject too, so please revert if you've already something planned. Glad I dropped in it's made my morning. Regards Giano 08:59, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shall do. Inappropriate laughter has not always endeared my cousins to their neighbors. An invitation to a family wedding, where one is not family, is one of the great honors in life. At the same time a truly preposterous wedding is remembered for years. Before helicopters were quite so commonplace, an ascent from a lawn by a bride and groom earned the couple the secret name "The Apotheosis" in my family and provided good cheer as long as the union lasted (fully six or eight years). Wetman 10:00, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I had to return to see how the great debate is going, and give moral support. Where I come from that white wedding, and those shoulders would not be allowed inside the church, which would rather spoil the wedding, also that red bride's maid dress isn't that the colour of blood and also supposed to be unlucky at a wedding, or is that Sicilian peasant clap-trap. I agree with you it does not symbolise a white wedding - upper class, lower class, or even bourgeois. On the subject of class and weddings invite me to a lower class one every time much more fun, unless its an upper class Italian one! Here there are rules not even known of in America and Britain to catch the imposter, which can be a sport in itself. As I am wise, I am going no where even near White wedding to give my alternative views. Finally, white does symbolise the bride's purity, which is why old ladies go 'tut tut' when most brides enter the church Giano 16:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wetman's edit at Cult

I reverted your edit at cult because it was an unattributed opinion. Try to find a good reference, scholarly reference for this opinion and then it can be re-inserted. Thanks. In case you are are interested, I am an ex-member of Sathya Sai Baba, one the more famous/notorious gurus. Andries 23:39, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(My statement was this: "Uncritical acceptance of any party line and unthinking obedience to any leader is a danger to a democracy, no matter how respectable or established the cult." That "opinion" was an axiomatic statement derived from the understood connotations of democracy, critical thought, and cult. There seems to be a continuing confusion about cult, linking it to number of members. This User:Andries who challenges me to "find a quote" to justify such an obvious statement has held the entry Cult hostage with the cheapest bullying, intellectual dishonesty and suppression of other's sensible edits. As disreputable a parasite of Wikipedia as you could find.)
User Wetman, please, if this is so obvious then please explain me why this is so. I may miss something. I have read a lot about cults due to my unfortunate background in this respect but I have never come across your statement. In the course of years, I had become uncritical of my guru but I do not think that I have ever been a danger to democracy. I mainly became a danger to myself. I would appreciate it if you retract your accusations towards me. Thanks. Andries 08:53, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
(The reader need only consult Talk:Cult and Talk:Cult/archive1.)
Wetman, I re-read the talk pages incl. the archive and I could not find there support for the sentence that you had inserted. Your accusation that I hold the cult article hostage can be proven to be untrue; I made only four of the last thirty edits, which were not big reverts of the previous edits though it is true that I have been very active at the article's talk page. Andries 09:15, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)