User talk:Wetman/archive28Mar2006

I think requiring editors to log in is a good idea. IMO, An IP should be blocked from editing unless it logs in. Sure, this is a free encyclopedia, but this added restriction does not take away much freedom at all. Alexander 007 03:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

...I mean, who knows who this "Wetman" is, anyway? There's no privacy issue. And how often do you find mere graffiti etc from anyone who's logged in?--Wetman 08:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Maybe this can even be clarified in the intro (if it's not already), that logging in/creating an account does not require disclosing any personal information at all. If enough Wikipedians support this it may even be enacted, which would save everybody so much time that could be used more productively. Alexander 007 08:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm making a brief plea with each revert of an anonymous vandal. This is up for discussion somewhere. --Wetman 08:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I've finally done something about the anonymous edit situation, rather than just bleating about it in my edit summaries! laying the case before the Village Pump (here). I encourage everyone to support the move on Village Pump; and in the edit summaries of your reverts to link there — although I've been completely unable to figure out how to do it. . . . Best, Bill 13:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nabta Playa / Roylee RfC

Wetman, judging from your comment at Talk:Nabta Playa, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Roylee. You might be surprised how far the problem has spread. — mark ✎ 10:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I've put it on my watchlist. This kind of pattern subverts Wikipedianexpectations of "good faith". My own similar problems were with User:Zestauferov in 2004, over Hittites and literalist readings of the Old Testament "begats". --Wetman 11:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brympton d'Evercy

Ah wonderful the journey to the bottom of the page is faster. To more important matters I thought the engraving on my study wall will be useful at long last so I uploaded [1] and used it here [2] then I saw a better version [3] (one of your compatriots I believe!) and placed it in latest project page. Then I saw your contribution [4]. Now, my dilemma, the colourful one looks far better in the article so what is the ethical thing to do, bearing in mind the dealer makes no mention that the print may not be "quite" as Messieurs Kip and Knyff left it. Are you quite sure they may not have made just one authentic "hand tinted, coloured, print"? (If only for the American market) Otherwise, and I don't really want (to hear) your opinion on the above as I suspect I can gauge it (but as it's not going to FA) I will probably leave things as they are, or should I - Oh buggeration? Anyway - whatever! could you have look at the page especially the Inigo Jones' section. This particular house is special to me, and I'm probably am not as detached as I should be - don't worry about spelling etc. as usual I will move things about a hundred times, but if you have any points you think should be mentioned I would be grateful if you could put them in, either in the article of the talk page (ignore the "in-use", it's to keep the robots out) Regards Giano | talk 19:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Would it be at all possible for you to weigh in at Talk:Table of nations#Requested move. Ordinarily I wouldn't bother you about this, but the sudden appearance of 3 editors on the talk page despite nothing happening for a week makes me suspicious that something underhand is going on. --User talk:FDuffy 22:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

(Alas, Curious Reader, Table of Nations presents, with apparent credulousness, the peoples represented in the Old Testament by the "begats"—one of the parts of the Uneven Book that the wiser reader skims past... No doubt something underhand and unenlightening is indeed going on, just the kind of thing one always hopes to avoid... --Wetman 20:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] B d'E

Thanks for the help, I'll keep all the edits, you are correct about the Inigo Jones denial is too long for what is in (IMO) an indisputable fact, I'll chop it by half and expand on the patrons and other houses in the vicinity. I'm glad you mentioned the stables I had rather forgotten about them, I've some old fotos I'll look out taken by in the early part of the last century, problem is they all have dogs,horses, or rabid looking children larger than life in the foreground. Hinton House is indeed at Hinton St George, but always known just as Hinton House, much larger than Brympton , was begin in 14something, but has later work by Brettingham and Wyatt. It has a near identical south wing and state apartments to Brympton , except all the windows have triangular pediments, and are not quite symmetrical in order to accommodate the much earlier rooms behind them. Legend attributes this wing to Jones too. Today its all subdivided into smaller houses, the Kitchen wing is known as "Wyatt Court", the stables "Brettingham Court" and so on! This is rare though one of the problems with "doing" houses in this area is how many of the best (architecturally and historically) are never opened to the public and still private houses Melbury and Cranbourne spring instantly to mind. I'll se what I can dig up, all ideas gratefully received. Giano | talk 09:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Good edits, you pre-empted me on the Priest house section, there's abit more to add there, it's actually one of the most unique buildings in England (IMO!) and almost completely unaltered medieval "manor" in its own right - Hall, Solar, bedroom, with a domestic offices downstairs, and a perfect newel staircase in the turret - it realy is perfect, anyway I want to add a little more on it, in a slightly less POV way. I've found a couple of old 1922 photos I want to upload and add - are you editing there now, if I don't here from you in the next 10 mins I'll assume you are not, I don't want t edit conflict you. Giano | talk 14:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope. I'll hold back a day or more. --Wetman 15:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Athena and Phevos

Wetman corrected some heavy-handed suppression and manipulation of information and censoring at this imperfectly bland article on the part of User:Jsone, eliciting the following (with Wetman's rejoinders):

Are you actually arguing that the daidala were described as dolls by the Athens 2004 org. commitee because of Greece's "heavily Greek Orthodox public culture" (what an interesting word construct)?

(No direct causality is suggested in the text. No arguing at all in fact. Only the facts. Wetman)

Because, frankly, that's an extremely far fetched assumption.Having lived in Greece all my life, I can assure you that there has never been any conflict between the orthodox church (a very conservative institution, but not more so than many western christian churches) an the research and display of antiquities.

(A red herring of course. No breath has been uttered of such a doubtless absolutely unheard-of conflict. The sole fact remains: these daidala were publicly interpreted as "dolls" at the time of the 2004 Athens Olympics, were they not? Wetman)

Also, what exactly is "the twist" in using a phallic archaic votive figure? Do you consider phallic shaped objects offensive or something? Moreover, do you consider that remark worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia?

What exactly is the point of noting that the twin of Apollo is Artemis? The mascots were never meant to depict either of these gods, as stated in their presentation page:[http://www.athens2004.com/files/brochure/mascots.html ] P.S:Your last edit has left the page's text out of logical order.--Jsone 02:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

(The official Olympics website linked to by my correspondent actually begins "Athena and Phevos, the ATHENS 2004 Olympic Games mascots, are a brother and a sister..." Thus there is a point in noting that the twin of Apollo is in fact Artemis, a point apparently lost on the Greek Olympic Committee and perhaps on most modern sport-loving and patriotic Greeks, of whom my correspondent I'm sure makes one: my correspondent will attest that there was precious little public outcry in Greece over the mismatched "pair", if any at all. No disparaging conclusions about the level of modern Greek familiarity with ancient Greek culture have been drawn in the text. The phallic nature of the archaic votive figure is incontrovertible, though it will be less than obvious to the uninformed, I imagine: the breath of a suggestion made in the article's former text, that its phallic nature might be less than ideally suitable to this particular occasion has apparently raised my correspondent's easily-aroused instinct for censorship. But wait! There is a further interesting story that is still omitted from the article: one does want to know, who the witty archaeologist was who offered the suggestion of this archaic votive figure, when a representative of the Olympic Committee came, no doubt demanding as a mascot something that was very old and "purely, authentically Greek"—my correspondent will no doubt recognize that all-too-familiar theme in Greek public culture. There is plenty of ironic subtext inherent in "Athena and Phevos" that is quite apparent to any educated person with a grain of humor and a sense of the preposterous, without underlining it in the text— which I agree should remain perfectly deadpan for better effect! Too delightful! Wetman 03:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

(No direct causality is suggested in the text. No arguing at all in fact. Only the facts.

It is strongly implied however, and sometimes implication is worse than outright suggestion, because the implier does not have to present any evidence of his "facts".

"Thus there is a point in noting that the twin of Apollo is in fact Artemis, a point apparently lost on the Greek Olympic Committee and perhaps on most modern sport-loving and patriotic Greeks, of whom my correspondent I'm sure makes one"

Oh how nice to see that you have me so neatly categorized without even meeting me.Also nice to see how you don't let national stereotypes impede your judgement, or influence your contribution to wikipedia.

"The official Olympics website linked to by my correspondent actually begins "Athena and Phevos, the ATHENS 2004 Olympic Games mascots, are a brother and a sister..." Thus there is a point in noting that the twin of Apollo is in fact Artemis"

I don't know if i can put it in a clearer way than this.The mascots were never, i repeat never meant to depict either of these gods nor has such a claim ever appeared outside of wikipedia.Just having the name "Phoebus" or "Athena" does not equalize someone (or something) to the gods bearing that name.

"The phallic nature of the archaic votive figure is incontrovertible, though it will be less than obvious to the uninformed, I imagine: the breath of a suggestion made in the article's former text, that its phallic nature might be less than ideally suitable to this particular occasion has apparently raised my correspondent's easily-aroused instinct for censorship. But wait! There is a further interesting story that is still omitted from the article: one does want to know, who the witty archaeologist was who offered the suggestion of this archaic votive figure, when a representative of the Olympic Committee came, no doubt demanding as a mascot something that was very old and "purely, authentically Greek"—my correspondent will no doubt recognize that all-too-familiar theme in Greek public culture."

Yes, I have an "easily aroused sense of censorship".That is exactly why I tried to reword some of these ludicrous claims into something of an encyclopedic nature.Frankly, someone viewing a phallic figure as "inapropriate", if anyone can call the final shape of the mascots phallic, is a testament to his own education (or lack of). As for the rest of this quote, it's just more of your stereotyping and not really worth answering to.

"There is plenty of ironic subtext inherent in "Athena and Phevos" that is quite apparent to any educated person with a grain of humor and a sense of the preposterous, without underlining it in the text— which I agree should remain perfectly deadpan for better effect! Too delightful!"

Then too bad this is an encyclopedia (at least, in my humble opinion) and not a joke book for people who enjoy a rather peculiar kind of "archaelogical-humor-plus-national-stereotyping"--Jsone 11:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Archivo General de Indias

I answered your question in the talk page. Regards. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 02:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B d'E

Can you think of anything else relevant to add,before I spell check it, tidy it and release into the wild? Regarding Sic Bar - I read it in French these days, they seem to quite like it, and it's doing very well so far on their FAC, but has to stay there a whole month, so anything could happen to it still; but it's recieved some very nice comments so far, as has the Italian version, and I see some brave soul has just launched into a Sicilian language version - now that should be good! Regards Giano | talk 14:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Giano, I can't find the link to B D'E. I had it here somewhere.... --Wetman 20:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Voilà: [5]

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/New Articles

Do you know about this page? It would be nice of you to announce your new articles on medieval subjects there. --Ghirlandajo 14:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I've always admired your impeccable English. Can you do me a favour and proofread my recent article on La Tour d'Auvergne. I don't know how to say many things in English, particularly forensic terms. TIA, Ghirlandajo 17:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B d'E

Thanks for the edits and suggestions, much appreciated. They have all been acted upon. It need your fresh approach as it's a bit heavy and "boggy" - any more contributions welcome! Giano | talk 14:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welsh morphology

Excuse me, I am not a "known vandal", and the correct spelling of the word in question is periphrastic. It has to do with periphrasis, not paraphrases. --Angr (t·c) 22:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

(O, Curious Reader, you may wonder at this outburst! My reversion was intended as a screen against the consistent vandalism from User:159.191.12.24, the public schools of Portland. My edit summary, "rv edit by known vandal: please vet my revert", was not meant to create work for hard-working Wikipedians. My unintended correspondent does revert vandalism himself, from time to time, I'm glad to say.)

I figured that out eventually. However, in the case of Welsh morphology, you did not revert User:159.191.12.24's edit; you reverted mine. And in the case of Welsh morphology, User:159.191.12.24's edit wasn't vandalism anyway. He added a useful reference to a page lacking references, and he attempted to correct a misspelling. (The attempt was unsuccessful, but it wasn't vandalism.) I think it's actually a very bad idea to simply chase a user--especially a multi-user IP address--around reverting everything he does, without first establishing (1) that the edits are in fact vandalism, and (2) that the edits one is reverting actually come from the editor in question. --Angr (t·c) 08:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] please explain seagal edit

hello, I saw your explanation for your last steven seagal edit (rv edit by known vandals: please vet my revert). it seems like you unlinked two terms, "character flaw," and "character development." could you elaborate please?--70.149.108.244 00:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

See above. See also User page for the vandals, with my notice: "Wikipedia editors: A good technique is to revert edits from this IP as a matter of course, inviting other Wikipedians in your Edit summary to vet your action. The result is that edits get screened, only those found to be in good faith get re-reverted. Please log in if you have authentic questions: Wetman does not answer anonymous phone calls, and the like. --Wetman 01:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the info; one more question: more specifically, what are criteria for unlinking a term? Thanks. --70.149.108.244 02:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] English country house

Hi, Brympton d'Evercy is now in main space, not one of the best articles, but I don't think there is a single fact known about it to mankind that is not in the article! Thanks for your help and keep tweaking if you feel so inclined! Regards Giano | talk 09:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's just fine as it stands and that the job is to employ Brympton as an example in other articles, like English country house, in order to integrate it with the rest of the encyclopedia. --Wetman 20:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC).

Glad you think so, problem is English country house needs to be considerably improved, and Country house needs to be...well you can decide that. Just looking at ECH I see Rowsham is a red link, I'm sure I've done it, in fact I know I've done it, Oh ho yep just realised it's Rousham House I'll skate back and fix it. You know you are the only person capable of writing ECH properly don't you? Giano | talk 21:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

D'oh! I was hoping you would. The larger the topic, in an encyclopedia,. the poorer the text: History of Europe, etc.. Couldn't we do it by sections in free-standing articles, each time adding a précis to English country house, with a Main article at... heading, until the pudding starts to take shape around the raisins? --Wetman 21:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC).

Sounds like a cop out Mr Wetman! I'm off in half an hour to take a plane home for Christmas, will give the matter some thought, as you know I've played with several ideas and always they have amounted to nought. Your idea is not bad, sort of using a house as a best example of a period, but the problem will always be the nicest are a hotchpotch and don't categorise easily. Anyway Brymton is the most beautiful and the article almost says so in a NPOV sort of way. I'll surface in 24 hours or so, and we'll see what's happened to it, not a lot so far! Regards Giano | talk 21:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Viscounts

I can find no reference to a Viscount Dumas. I'm not an expert on the subject but a viscountcy is an hereditary honour, and the creation of these now is so rare and unusual as to attract wide media attention, and criticism from the socialists, who as they are in power now would be unlikely to have created such a title - (The Queen has little to do with the selection) especially since the abolishment of hereditary peers in the house of Lords, there would be little point creating one. Newly created peers seem these days to enjoy such titles as "Lord/Baroness Smith of Preston Plucknett" The last hereditary title I know of (I could easily be wrong) was Sir Denis Thatcher husband of Margaret, but that was not a peerage just a baronetcy. The last hereditary peerage (I think) was William Whitelaw, 1st Viscount Whitelaw contrary to what the article says about the reasons behind the creation, one of the reasons it did not provoke much criticism was that Whitelaw had no son, so the title died with him anyway. I'm also a little suspicious of this man's orders of knighthood "KCAJ, KOV" see Royal Victorian Order and what is KCAJ supposed to stand for Knight Commander of ? and ?. As I said I'm no expert but I've lived in England long enough t smell a rat. In fact is THE Christopher Johnson a knight even? He's not given the honorific here [6] even though some of his colleagues are! And here [7] he possesses a knighthood but it's a French one, which is not quite the same thing at all, and again here [8] still a mere Mr. However he is just the sort of person who the British do give Knighthoods to, but not an hereditary peerage. Hope this helps. If I was in UK I'd look in Who's Who, so the definitive answer may have to wait until after Christmas. Maybe wrong here too [9] .Contrary to popular beleif Right Honourable is in fact an honorific only available to members of the privy council, it is often wrongly given to ordinary MPs and peers. Giano | talk 16:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

...Well said, Giano! shall we tell the others? snicker KJAC: Knight Commander of Circuses and Jokes, then? I've pulled the nonsense from the article and given a lightly edited version of my first doubts at Talk:Viscount. --Wetman 19:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)--Wetman 19:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Retro Betty's

Aloha. At 06:51, on 31 July 2005 you redirected Retro Betty's to Retro Betty. Before I attempt to undo this, I'm wondering if there is any particular reason for your redirect. Since McDonald's is found at the appropriate name, shouldn't Retro Betty's point to the correct title? --Viriditas 04:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Quite right! Quite right! I was too rapidly effecting triage with New Pages, which were flying in thick and fast, and I misdirected that one. Awfully decent of you to ask. I'd be astonished to see such a gaffe on your part too! Cheers! --Wetman 04:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Christmas gift?

In case you has any lingering doubts, I think this answers comprehensively the Viscount question [10] even down to the orders of Knighthood - KCAJ indeed and "Principality of St. Michel de Clermont Latin Empire of Constantinople". Oh dear - it's all very sad! Giano | talk 08:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent link. Can't it go into Wikipedia somewhere where it will be useful? I have the nose of a good ratter, Giano. But who'd settle for dabbling in such a muddy fons honorum when they could have a splash in the Castalian Spring? --Wetman 09:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] damn, Wetman!!!

I was all already to post my article about Girolamo Masini, to get out the red ink at Cola di Rienzi - only to discover that you beat me to it. With more info than I had found - Good work. Maybe I'll have to do some of the red ink on his page now? Carptrash 17:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You do Cola di Rienzi (remember Richard Wagner) and I'll sit tight.... then I'll come in afterwards with my dustpan and broom as ever. Sorry 'bout the edit conflict: I just got pipped at the post myself, at Château de Lusignan. --Wetman 17:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No conflict - you were just a hair [trigger] faster on the draw. But here is another issue. Wikipedia insists on having an article for Frederick Macmonnies when it should be Frederick MacMonnies. It is spelled both ways, but MacMonnies is definately the better version. Got any ideas? i don't know how to change the title of an article other than just starting from scratch, and that leaves us with two articles, a bad thing. Carptrash 06:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Al-kaZam! done! Just use the "Move this page" feature. Be cautious, though, and be quite sure of what you're doing and why: people get quite excited if you do this without doing a certain amount of sharing about it on Talkpages first. --Wetman 06:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I can get back to sleeping at night. I have seen the MOVE button, but, timid soul that I am, have not been moved to push it to see what happens. Carptrash 17:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Spanish Empire

If you look at the edit history for Spanish Empire.png, you'll see that XGustaX had uploaded his ridiculous map over mine at the time you made your comments. He "switched" maps in the article (i.e. replaced mine with another he has made) only after I reverted his changes. Anyway, that's what I meant by "confusion"; I didn't touch the map you put up on the talk page; I merely reverted my image. Cheers. Albrecht 19:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nuns?

Look here, buddy, all I'm doing is going through and fixing disambiguation links. BC rightly gets changed to Anno Domini because that is where the disambig page directs users when they click on BC. You have no right to make such a comment towards me, when you know nothing about me or my religion, so back off. Search 4 Lancer 21:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If you have graduated high school thinking "BC rightly gets changed to Anno Domini" you might have a good basis to sue your local Board of Education for breach of contract. Though I cannot shed light on your dimness, I should be glad to stand witness for you. --Wetman 00:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I just love visiting this page Giano | talk 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Humble applogies

Sorry I didn't mean to steal your thunder at Talk:Viscount. I read the page, posted a message, and somehow when it was saved there you were, no edit conflict nothing - as Granny would have said: "These things cannot be explained" Giano | talk 21:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

...oop, I inserted my remark on your quarterings joke at the Talk page instead of here: now we'll catch it! --Wetman 21:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war on Baal

We've got a revert war on our hands over at Baal. Please help!!!

Nick 23:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edits on Polytheism

I think the problem here was that the edits in November both added and deleted large blocks of text. Several people had edited it before I got to it, but I went back and reinstated the text that had been deleted. I was loath to delete the block of text that had been added because I thought it might have something salvageable that could be incorporated into the rest of the article. I'm not sure what could have been done to better handle the major changes/vandalism to this article. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 09:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

How have I left it? I tried to ensure that edits made since the blanking have now been carefully copied back into the current version, which I hope you'll look over. It's very confusing when people edit vandalized text. --Wetman 09:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It looks to me that you've basically finished the job of taking that big block of text and incorporating the useful bit into the article. I really need to read the edit history more closely, but this is how it looks to me:

A test by 213.249.154.101 [11]
...followed by a couple of good-faith (but very extensive) edits by 213.249.154.101 [12] [13]
...which were all then reverted by Jeffrey O. Gustafson [14]
A minor edit by DjCarrad [15]
A near-blanking by 68.39.241.4 [16]
...which was not immediately reverted because it was followed by the addition of a large block of text by Héliocoptero [17]
...which was followed by numerous minor edits.
Then I reinstated the text that was blanked by 68.39.241.5 [18]
Then editing basically went back to normal, excepting some vandalism by 216.136.10.194 that involved changes so small we must have all missed them at the time.

So, should I have reverted and then copied over the subsequent changes? And reverted to what version? I'd like to take a better look at the edits by 216.136.10.194, since after glancing at them I don't see why they were reverted out-of-hand. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 10:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's always best quickly to restore strange deletions and revert vandalism, before others start editing the trashed version, for this very reason. I opened the page in two folders, one open to a comparative history, the other on the last good version, and edited in the more recent material, a paragraph at a time. Several paragraphs seems to have been lost. There might be more sophisticated methods. I think nothing's been lost now. --10:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm troubled to see that a large amount of good-faith text, added on 18 Dec by Héliocoptero, was deleted by Wetman, with some comment about prior vandalism [19], particularly since the text was used, with permission, from a well-known academic in the field. I'm still going through it to see what has been lost, but the amount of deletion by Wetman was very surprising. --Nantonos 20:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

What a mess it makes when editors edit vandalized articles without cleaning up before they begin. Late editors find it difficult to disentangle without dropping stitches. I'll have a look after Nantonos has finished, to see what a botch I have made. --Wetman 23:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

So! This turns out to be a matter of a text dump, several paragraphs long, from an on-line article by a certain Jenny Blain. I carefully moved the text to Talk:Polytheism, with the suggestion that someone might edit it into the text of the article. Nantonos didn't look at the Talkpage, it appears, before re-dumping. So who is this Jenny Blain? a talk-show host or a slimming guru? Let's have a Wikipedia entry for Jenny Blain, if she's so quotable. So in fact, I've done brilliantly and fairly here, as I generally do! --Wetman 23:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, of course I looked at the talk page, where you had dumped the unwikified text. I copied the wikified text back, though, from the older version of the article. I also added it to the references, as one does. Your snide sarcasm about talk show hosts would be better served by a couple of minutes research (she is a senior lecturer at Sheffield Hallam university in the UK). Wikipedia already quotes her, in fact: Seid.

A little less bombast and a little more care in editing, please. Its not about you, however brilliant you may consider yourself.

--Nantonos 12:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

..a very impertinent little remark indeed. My scupulous care in moving the dumped text, in its entirety, to the article's talk page was unexceptionable and might well be imitated by a wiser correspondent than the present one. --Wetman 12:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Providian

Is the title actually Providian Financial?--Wetman 01:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not.

Killerdark 14:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Washington Mutual Card Services Killerdark 14:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you: each little bits helps clear my fog. --Wetman

[edit] New articles

Hi. Please take a look at two recently created articles that could benefit from your attention: Holy Trinity Column in Olomouc and Veduta. Tnx, Ghirla | talk 22:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Splendid, both of them: I hope my tweaks and additions aren't tiresome. --Wetman 22:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, again, and Merry Christmas to you. The former article is not mine BTW. Today, I attempted to adapt Carlo Fontana from Catholic Encyclopedia, but it still needs work. Also, I was frustrated to discover how stubbish the entry on Fischer von Erlach is. I will think what can be done about it.--Ghirla | talk 23:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joyous Noël

And a very happy Christmas to you too! Giano | talk 14:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmakkuh from me too. Keep wikiing! Nick 00:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carlo Fontana

Wetman, I appreciate your great additions to the article. Look, in just two days we managed to expand it dramatically! Today, when adding the image of Apollo and Daphne to the article on Bernini, I noticed {expert} and {cleanup} tags there. So much work is still left to be done... --Ghirla | talk 10:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skull (symbolism)

First, as a few seconds consideration of the History page would've showed, I didn't edit the article at all. Second, as my comment on the Talk page (which I assume you read before reverting) said, I am happy for any of the old material to be reinserted once it is sourced. I don't need to have edited any other articles to follow the simple Wikipedia guidelines on article sources. I have reverted to the admittedly much more simplistic version, written by an anon, but feel free to add back anything you want with a source and I'll support you. Soo 14:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the wholesale anonymous deletions made by User:68.39.174.238, under the edit summary "Severe reaction [sic redaction] of horrible crap". Then User:Agentsoo restored the vandalized version, under the edit summary "replacing of unsourced material". I have just now marked ^{[citation needed]} at each point in the unvandalized text that requires a citation; as I find the appropriate references, I shall insert them: the "support" of Agentsoo shouldn't be necessary thank you. The interpretation of the images at Skull (symbolism) are not arcane or personal ones; they should be fairly familiar already to well-read adults, though they may not seem intuitive to a reader who has never read any iconology or given it any thought. But if any further statements do genuinely need support, they may simply be flagged in the text, as a more fastidious administrator might have done to begin with. --Wetman 20:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Chalice

I've updated the article in french... If you want to take a look fr:Saint Calice, and i've created an article about Sacro Catino fr:Sacro Catino Michel BUZE 22:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship?

You declined adminship over a year ago. Would you care if I nominated you? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-29 06:16

Thank you for your confidence in me, but I have turned down administratorship twice. I do what I can to keep Wikipedia upright and afloat, without being an administrator. My contacts with administrators— in their role as administrators— have been routinely unpleasant. --Wetman 20:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pius VII

I added credit to Jacques-Louis David at Pope Pius VII — looks good to you? --Geoffrey 06:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you! What any illustration is is as important as what it is of. I saw a way to put the caption on a single line. --Wetman 20:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Can you help regarding Pope Leo I?

I noticed you like writing about Popes. I don't know much about them, as I'm a Jewish humanist :)

But I really need some help with the Justinian I article regarding the letter of Pope Leo I to Flavian of Constantinople. The article says this letter was viewed in tho East as "the work of Satan" but provides no citation, no substatiation. We need to know: is this true? what did the letter say? how did it relate to the religious policies of Justinian? Do you know?

Can you help me a bit on the Justinian I article?

Thank you.

All the best,

NickDupree 05:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The background is that of the Monophysite controversy, the occasion the excommunication by Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople of Eutyches for his supposed Monophysite views. Eutyches appealed to the distant Patriarch of Rome, Pope Leo the Great, who sent his sublimely dogmatic letter to Flavian (Leo's Epistle xxviii, 13 June, 449, called "The Tome" in the West for its length and gravity), concisely setting forth and confirming the Western doctrine of the Incarnation, and the union of the divine and human natures in the one person of Christ. The controversy had its political aspects, as Leo took every opportunity to express his independence of the Emperor Theodosius II, the Western Emperors of the day being nonentities. I don't know how these political and Christological wrangles of the 440s affected Justinian in the following century. The link to Leo's epistles will give the essentials, but there are other letters in Leo's correspondence concerning Eutyches and Flavian.

Thank you. One key thing: isn't saying that Leo's letter was viewed in tho East as "the work of Satan" without substatiation EXTREMELY inflammatory? Did anyone really believe Leo an instrument of the devil? my goal here is to clarify the Justinian I and prune it of nonsense. Does this "work of Satan" thing qualify as nonsense? that's what I need to know. NickDupree 13:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes indeed. It carries no information until you know who called it that, when, and in what circumstances. Then it becomes part of the story of the growing schism between East and West, partly over the claims to supremacy made by Leo and his successors. --Wetman 17:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Who called it that, when, and in what circumstances? NickDupree 18:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry: I didn't mean to suggest that I knew. I don't. Justinian struggled with more than one pope, but Pope Vigilius was his main opponent, and the bone of dogmatic contention was still the Monophyisite view of the nature of Christ. --Wetman 18:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"The theologians of the Western Church stayed aloof from the theological arguments that convulsed the Eastern Church, largely because they couldn't understand them." That's a paraphrase, but it's a good line. Unfortunately I forget where I read it. What a pity this state of affairs didn't continue. PiCo 02:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

In Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume III perhaps? Western struggles were often over the proper ordering of the visible church structure instead. --Wetman 02:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Norreys

Just to let you know the John Norreys page which you started needs to be merged with John Norris (soldier) 9see the talk pages) Op. Deo 21:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Op. Deo has pointed out that your article John Norreys is on the same subject as mine, John Norris (soldier). Any thoughts about merging (not a Twaddle and Waffle same-sex marriage)? Mine is bigger than yours.--shtove 21:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Why not just follow the usage of the DNB? --Wetman 22:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Op. Deo has merged the articles. It's enough to be going on with - any objection?--shtove 00:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Skull (symbolism) vandalism and a "cabal"

Thought you might want to weigh in on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/1 01 2006 Skull (symbolism). Soo 23:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, there has been a request made for mediation on Skull (symbolism), could you come and state your grievances on the talk page. You might also want to look at: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/1_01_2006_Skull_(symbolism) Thanks - FrancisTyers 00:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

( Wetman's complete response in this matter: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/1_01_2006_Skull_(symbolism))

Hi, again, thanks for your input, am I to take it from this that you aren't interested in the article any more ? I agree that his edits were incompetant. He failed to keep sourced information. I don't think that it is helpful to brand him as such when you can just find fault with his edits. If you could drop by the Skull (symbolism) talk page to give your final opinion I would be very pleased, but if not it is no real problem. - FrancisTyers 14:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I've tried to improve your article without removing any content could you come and take a look. I really think that gutting it in the manner of Agentsoo et. al. is not necessary. Do you have names of the Dutch painters or the Gaulish tribe or even of the Yoruba folktale? They would be very useful in finding references. - FrancisTyers 17:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Well done, too, I'm sure. But I shall not return to look at the article soon, for fear of attracting the attention of Agentsoo intent on defacing it. Without controversy these trolls soon lose interest: compare the intentional defacement at Rococo by User:Raketenmensch. --Wetman 21:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical criticism

Some religiously biased users are trying to delete A wife confused for a sister, an article discussing the strikingly similar Abraham&Abimelech (Genesis 20-21), Isaac&Abimelech (Genesis 26), and Pharaoh&Abraham (Genesis 12), incidents where the Abraham/Isaac's wife is confused by Pharaoh/Abimelech for their sister, and a later treaty occurs at Beersheba.

The reason they have given for deletion is "it is entirely based on biblical criticism". I.e. they are trying to have the article deleted because it is based on academic knowledge and not on religiously prejudiced guesswork.

It actually also includes a non-biblical-criticism summary of the passages, and additionally discussion of Midrash views and stances.

The sources are the JewishEncyclopedia article on Beersheba, and Abimelech (section 3), and also minor aspects of the Sarah, Isaac, Abraham, and Rebekah articles; Israel Finkelstein concerning the archaeology of Beersheba; Friedmann, Noth, etc. (e.g. "Who wrote the Bible") for much of the documentary hypothesis portions.

Would you consider voting on the AFD concerning the article? I would like it kept. --User talk:FDuffy 20:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marian and Holy Trinity columns

Not a long time ago you viewed my article Holy Trinity Column in Olomouc and did some useful English language corrections there.

Recently I have written an article about Marian and Holy Trinity columns in general and would like to ask you to have a look at it as well, if it is possible.

Thanks. Jan.Kamenicek 20:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well that's very nice to hear. I hope you feel comfortable about elimninating any of my "improvements". The article lacked a strong defining opening statement, so I made one, based purely on what I learned reading your text! --Wetman 03:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting links to texts mistaken for spam

(Wetman posted at Talkpage of [[User:Aaron Brenneman: "Today you have been passing through articles on Early Christian writers, deleting external links, I assume, from your edit summaries, under the impression that you are deleting commercial spam. For instance, at Pope Cornelius you deleted a link that gives text in English of letters of Pope Cornelius. I'm at a loss for your motivation. I can only think you haven't actually clicked on the links you're deleting. Please do so now in the link I've given above. If you have a better link to text in English of these letters, please do substitute the better link. I shall hold off restoring these sensible links until I hear from you right here on your Talkpage.")

Let me begin my thanking you for your civil and rational approach. That puts you somewhat on the fringe in these recent days. I'd note, however, that you've subtly dispared me on Talk:Papias... newly arrived indeed! (insert sound of good-natured chuckling).

While it was appropiate to ask the question on my talk page as it covered a large number of articles, I'd prefer to respond on Talk:Papias, to avoid duplication.

...continued therefore at Talk:Papias.

User:Aaron Brenneman| 10:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eusebius of Caesarea

Look Wetman, I don't know where you want to arrive, with the message you leaved at Talk:Eusebius of Caesarea: but it's quite a long time we've been editing articles in which we had a common interest, and I didn't suspect I had done things which has brought you to consider me a Christian bigot (yes, I know you didn't say that, but it's seems implicite in the message), and, worst still, of being capable of editing in such bad faith to mask behind a hypocrital neutrality a POV-pushing design. I'm repeatedly attacked every day by Balcanic nationalists of every colour, but I wouldn't have expected it from an editor like you, who has done so much to better the quality of the wikipedia history articles. What makes all this quite ironic is that, telling the truth (believe me or not), I don't even like Eusebius, while I literally venerate Burckhardt. But the evaluation was terribly partisan, mainly using material from a POV site [www.infidels.org] and I only wanted to estabilish a balance between the opposing views on Eusebius. I removed the EB link because it has a restricted access, while the other link I removed it because it contained only a footnote that could be used, and this seemed to me to little for a link, and also I didn't know how much I could trust the honesty of the site. As for the "brutal", honestly I only added it to note that he went down with strength on Eusebius. But after all, English is only my second language. Aldux 21:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd be willing to read once more the following sourced material and explain why this is unacceptable in Wikipedia?

" As Professor Michael J. Hollerich writes in Church History, Vol. 59, 1990, "Ever since Jacob Burckhardt dismissed him as "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity," Eusebius has been an inviting target for students of the Constantinian era. At one time or another they have characterized him as a political propagandist, a good courtier, the shrewd and worldly adviser of the Emperor Constantine, the great publicist of the first Christian emperor, the first in a long succession of ecclesiastical politicians, the herald of Byzantinism, a political theologian, a political metaphysician, and a caesaropapist. It is obvious that these are not, in the main, neutral descriptions. Much traditional scholarship, sometimes with barely suppressed disdain, has regarded Eusebius as one who risked his orthodoxy and perhaps his character because of his zeal for the Constantinian establishment."

Dr Hollerich is the author of Eusebius of Caesarea's Commentary on Isaiah: Christian Exegesis in the Age of Constantine (1999, Oxford University Press). I am more than usually testy, as I currently feel overwhelmed by the intellectual dishonesty at Wikipedia, but you have not done your usual best in reverting this text under the rubric "too partisan to stand." Dr Hollerich simply states that Eusebius has been the target of criticism as a shrewd courtier. In fact the text does not even cast aspersions on Eusebius as a historian—an oversight in the article that still needs to be addressed, by the way. --Wetman 23:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Oh, and let me add, quite right to delete the EB link. --Wetman 06:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude in what is in part a personal discussion, but it is also a discussion of Eusebius of Caesarea, and I would like to participate in that part of the discussion. However I think I would prefer to have such a discussion at Talk:Eusebius of Caesarea. Can we please continue this discussion (and copy or readdress whatever is relevant of the above) there? I will say that at first glance that Wetman seems to have a point about the above quote, but I would like to know more about Aldux's objections. Perhaps the quote needs to be appropriately balanced with other reputable views (provided they exist)? Paul August ☎ 05:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Please! Not personal in the least. But if the discussion is scattered over more than one Talkpage, we'll lose sight of the pattern of these reversions. If there are aspects particular to Eusebius, then go ahead by all means. I note today that an editor at Illinois has restored the deleted scholarly references to that article— quite sensibly it seems to me. --Wetman 06:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palladianism

Could you be kind and have a look at this diff: [20] I don't know either property or have the books at hand to verify it. If it is correct could you incorporate. Thanks. Best wishes Giano | talk 22:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Is that better? I threw in a dense little nugget on Drayton Hall. Tanti auguri di capodanno! --Wetman 01:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ciao, - and the complements of the season to you too. Palladian is much better, I've just moved the paragraph lock stock and barrel (my new expression of the day) into the American section where I think it sits better. I just had a look at the Drayton Hall Website - we need to do a page sometime on classical American Architecture - We Europeans tend to thing of Scarlet O'Haras staircase and leave it there. I did once venture into Biltmore, but they have a strange policy (see it's talk page) of not allowing photographs published - not I would have thought a successful marketing ploy or probably even legally enforceable, do all your "Lovely homes" employ this ruling or would such a page be possible? Giano | talk 08:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No such policies obtain, thankfully, though Wikipedians do have to take the photographs. The official Drayton Hall website isn't very forthcoming, is it?: you're supposed to buy the book, published just over 30 years after the National Trust first took possession. --Wetman 10:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I recast that American Palladian paragraph, but my "save" didn't take effect it seems... Oh, and Wikipedia does have an article, but it's at Colonial house, illustrating a very modest Colonial Revival cottage in Washington State. Best to feed and expand the American paragraphs at Palladian architecture until they burst their bonds and float away as a daughter article. Like single-cell algae.....

[edit] Carambat

I had never heard of the wretched man untill a few days ago, an no nothing of hom whatever - what do you think of the page anyway? - be honest (well fairly honest) It's something new for me, I had never heard of her either untill Christmas, when her name came up at a dinner party, and two people at the table started talking,both had known her fairly well and I thought she sounded quite interesting, so sought out a couple of books. Sadly some of the anecdotes I was told can't be verified - and they were the very interesting things - always the way. As a page it should tie in nicely with some of Filiocht's work - so should be interesting to someone. Copyedit please if you feel so inclined- or add something- the problem is it can be a bit Pound orientated and thus off subject, it seems inspite of what the books say she did infact sacrifice her career for him. Giano | talk 16:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intarsia

Oh hell! I can remember searching my brain for that word and deciding it was intrinsica, because it sounded familiar, I now see it is in fact part of a village in Dorset! (odd that) Of course Intarsia was the word I was after, but was it? The article says it's inlaid wood, I thought that was marquettry (or a word like that) I always thought it was only stones. I'll have to add a little. Thanks. Giano | talk 14:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Intarsia is one material laid into a chiselled-out matrix of another, while marquetry is a jig-saw puzzle of veneers. The distant inspiration for Italian marble inlays in floors and revetments—such a useful word: when is a boiserie not a boiserie? when it's a revetment!— is the Cosmatesque work of artisans working in the tradition established by the Cosmati, with Byzantine origins just peeping over the culture horizon. Eleonora di Toledo's funeral chapel at San Lorenzo gave a huge boost to Florentine craftsmen in "pietra dura". And Eleonora came from Naples! After Napoleon it devolved into those cube-inlay specimen marble table tops (I used to know one that had preserved with it its originally handwritten key to the marble names) in black or white matrices, and on the other hand those micro-mosaics sold to rich tourists in Rome and Naples: views of St Peter's or those Roman doves drinking out of the bowl... --Wetman 14:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a little to Intarsia, I don't like that picture of a thing that looks like it's stolen from a boy-scout hut - there must be something better than that! I see what you mean about marquetry. Intarsia could be a lot better.......? Anyway I must get back to my lovely love story. Regards Giano | talk 14:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eusebius of Caesarea

Hi Wetman, I've made a proposal for some new language at Talk:Eusebius of Caesarea. I'd be interested in your thoughts. Thanks — Paul August ☎ 20:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] patristic literature

How are you, Wetman? I haven't run into you in a while. I was wondering if you might be interested in writing a brief article or stub on Patristic literature? It has come up at MEA. Though it is not linked to, it appears frequently and should be linked to. If you're not interested, don't worry about it. Chick Bowen 21:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm able to work up individual works and individual figures, but I don't feel competent to tackle the big picture. I couldn't do English literature either! I find the broader the subject, the less satisfactory the article. This is true of all encyclopedias, I should note. --Wetman 04:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, and yes, English literature, Poetry, etc. never seem to be our best. I have the same feeling about these things, which is why, of course, I attempted to foist it upon you <grins sheepishly>. Chick Bowen

Also, an unrelated question: any reason why you redirected Niccolò Tribolo to Niccolo Tribolo rather than the other way around? Just curious. Chick Bowen 23:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

In my browser, it's impossible to enter a title with an accent mark directly from the Main Page. Accents should appear in the bolding of the title in the opening paragraph, of course. As long as there's a link from, say Champs-Elysees with no accents (I make many of these) , it doesn't matter to me... --Wetman 04:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Yes, the redirect should always be there of course. I might file a WP:RM for Niccolò when I have a minute. Chick Bowen 05:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Evans Schultes

Thank you for noting the reason for deleting "Potions, Poisons, and Panaceas" from Richard Evans Schultes. I would have verified the authorship myself, but was a bit busy at the time. Thanks again! - CobaltBlueTony 23:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Drayton Hall

Hey!! I noticed you removed the photo credit from the image of Drayton Hall. Part of my agreement with the photopgrapher was to provide appropriate credit for the image in the article. If you have any suggestions for doing so in a more aesthetically-pleasing way, please let me know. In any case, though, I feel bound by my agreement to revert the edit and restore the line giving credit to the photographer.

Cheers....Joe--Jfurr1981 16:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's too good a photo to lose: someone will eventually delete the image itself. Better check the copyleft situation. --Wetman 16:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moloch

I've given moloch a thorough kicking, and having seen your comment regarding a previous rewrite on the talk page, I decided to offer you the opportunity to have a look. Cheers, Sam Spade 19:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Surely it's enough to have a long section on the naive and spurious identification with "Moloch" (made by the film crew?) of the mumbo-jumbo antics at Bohemian Grove, which simply mark the start of their "care-free" retreat. The owl is too familiar as an emblem of Wisdom to need identifying to you; laid before it, slips of paper on which participants have written their secret worries and fears are ceremonially immolated. Putting a reference to this in the opening paragraph gives it unwarranted prominence. Let me remove it, without touching the paragraph, which you might want to consider more ctitically, however. Otherwise it's smartened up by your edits. --Wetman 19:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Favour

Could you have a look at this diff. [21] May be I'm more stupaid than usual or it's too early in the morning but I can't understand what he is really trying to say? Thansks Giano | talk 07:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I just could not understand it, I can understand most written English but that threw me, especially as it sounded so authorative my brain kept trying to make it fit what I knew to be true and the wires would not connect! Giano | talk 12:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Art-babble: confident double talk. I hope I was polite enough about it. Have you looked at Classical architecture? Similar: it needs a lot of work. --Wetman 13:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I see what you mean, but today's and tomorrow's architectural delights concern the architecture necessary to ensure legality and compliance with EEC directives on dust in grain stores, and the exorbitant penalties levied on those not complying. Less classical architecture, and unlikely to be a subject featured in Wiipedia, but for me a slightly more lucrative. Regards Giano | talk 13:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You're officially famous

Just for fun, I've enshrined a quote from you at Talk:Presentism (literary and historical analysis). Get ready for the royalty checks to start rolling in. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 22:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool! The only drawback to a lapidary style is, when you're good, people think you're cribbing from Voltaire. --Wetman 15:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fischer v.Erlach redux

Hi there. I just finished rewriting Johann Bernhard Fischer von Erlach and would appreciate your input, as usual. Chevalier d'Eon (not by me) also sorely needs attention. --Ghirla | talk 04:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I just gave it a few tweaks for superficial idiom, but I also added a mention of Johann Paul Schor, the Austrian designer in Rome who was Fischer's entree to Bernini. Your Fischer v. Erlach sources may have material to correct the article I've just created, on your inspiration! Do you have access to Thieme/Becker? --Wetman 16:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. No I don't have access to Das Thieme-Becker. I'm rather far away from such dull books, swinging to Bing Crosby crooning, sipping Portuguese wine rosé, and planning to plunge into the familiar maze of A Letter to a Friend tonight (damn, another stub clamoring for expansion!) It's a pleasant and warm evening here on the Volga, and you can safely forget it is a pinching -36 Celsius outdoors! Cheers to your health, Ghirla | talk 00:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for edit on Heiau

Cult images is a lot less pejorative than idols. Thanks. Zora 20:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my yes! but an unfamiliar expression at Wikipedia, apparently: "Idols!" Earlier today, someone made a bot that ran through Wikipedia redirecting all links of idol secretly to idolatry! "Idols indeed!" "Idols" are worshipped by "natives" aren't they? invariably dark-skinned natives of course, who grovel before their "idols" in the Oriental dust. Europeans don't worship "idols": they put them in museums. Idols are non-Christian, and, quite tellingly, "idols" are non-European too. The Hermes of Praxiteles is never an "idol", though any pre-16th saint you especially admire would have told you that it was. Idols have jewels in their navels, to be filched by Indiana Jones... I have been working my way through the "idols" in Wikipedia today, and your thanks is most welcome indeed! --Wetman 21:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC):

[edit] Roman Empire/reorganization

Hmmm, I read above that you don't really go for the wide-ranging/big picture articles. Still, maybe you could have a look at Roman Empire/reorganization now and then, and make some sensible or nonsensical edits and comments. I think we could do with someone who has eye for detail and encyclopedic value. Thanks!--Hippalus 09:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I am too easily seduced by blandishments. I'll have a look. --Wetman 14:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I finished the category-sweep and changed the structure. Have another look!--Hippalus 12:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hippalus, I've gone to Special:Allpages/Roman the list of articles beginning "Roman" and added into the reorganization schema those followed by a capital letter. A huge list of Roman subjects follows it, still to decide on. --Wetman 15:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Mithraism

The article on Mithraism must be amongst the weakest in wikipedia - this is partly becuase it has been heavily infiltrated by persons with an axe to grind, and no inclination to check their assertions against verfiable sources.

But also it still perpetrates the (now long obsolete) theories of Franz Cumont; partly I suspect becuase they are out of copyright, and hence easily accessible and quotable on the internet. As I am sure you are aware, archeological findings in the past 25 years have radically changed the standard narrative of the cult's origins - focussing attention particularly on Italy in the period 70 to 100 AD.

Fortunately, in the past year or so, a good selection of online resource have become available encapsulating the findings of the current leading scholars in the field - Roger Beck, Alison Griffiths, etc.

I propose doing an experimental rewrite of the entire article, cutting out anything that is based on unfounded assertion, but including a summary of current academinc thinking. I will link particularly the encylopaedia article by Alison Griffith in Exploring Ancient World Cultures.

However, I note from your home page that you seem to have a particular interest in early Mithraism (amongst many other things), and I have inferred that you may still be maintaining the view that the bull-slaying iconography has an origin in Pergamum. I have taken from the literature the contrary conclusion, that this is an unfounded speculation from Franx Cumont, and that the earliest such images are to be found in bas-reliefs dated 50 BCE to 50 CE from Kerch in the Crimea - and that even these cannot be positively identified as depicting Mithra/Mithras.

I would welcome your views TomHennell 12:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert. Though I haven't seen the direction the article has taken in recent months I think, with Alison Griffith, that since "Cumont compiled a catalogue of every known mithraic temple, monument, inscription, and literary passage relating to Mithras", he should be discussed in a manner that is designed not simply in order to dismiss him. Perhaps his conclusions, as updated by Vermaseren apparently, should be characterized in a single solid paragraph. Griffith's on-line essay is admirable. It is not Cumont who assumed an Eastern origin for Mithraism but Plutarch, whether his conjectures about the Cilician pirates were off-track or not. Issues of priority in the formation of such a very stable icon as the Tauroctony are best left to be chased by graduate students, but the highly stable icon was surely given its classic formulation in Hellenistic bas-reliefs: does the school of Pergamum seem very unlikely? Its numismatic history alone reveals the Tauric Chersonesus as more a consumer rather than as a creator of Hellenistic cultural motifs. As to the "competitor to Christianity" aspect, Griffith hits the right note: "The major competitor to Christianity was thus not Mithraism but the combined group of imported cults and official Roman cults." The modern view of comprehensive astrological symbolism should be stressed. Those are my general thoughts: I see a lot of anonymous editing in the recent page history of Mithraism. I see that there's no Main article: Tauroctony heading at the "Iconography" subsection: perhaps useful material has also been deleted. --Wetman 13:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful comments - I certainly take your point about the need to put specific discussion about Cumont's theories into a solid block - with references to the literature.

As to your other points:

- Plutarch certainly assumed an Eastern origin for the cult of Mithras, but then so did everyone else at the time, including the cult's own adherents. As it happens, I am not at all convinced that the cult to which Plutarch refers should be identified with Roman Mithraism.

- The proplem with Caumont's speculations about Pergamum is that - so far as I am aware - that no such Pergamene bas-reliefs have ever been discovered (i.e. no bull-slaying of any sort, and no representation of Mithra, whether with bull or not). Cumont's hypothesis rests on supposed similarities between late 2nd Century Roman Mithras reliefs, and Pergamene reliefs of the death of Alexander; and hence beg the question of whether Mithras in the Tauroctony is to be interpreted as acting unwillingly. The main elements in the Tauroctony can be found in 2nd century Roman representations of Victory, without any need to postulate a Mithraic original in Asia Minor. But I must say the Crimean panels could well be more fully discussed. TomHennell 14:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Cumont and iconic content entirely aside, the style in which the bas-reliefs are uniformly expressed, however dimly it may be reflected in particular provincial examples, a style unlikely to have been developed in the 2nd-century Rome, is Pergamene, rather than Alexandrian. Look at the struggling figures on the Great Altar from Pergamum in Berlin etc etc.. --Wetman 15:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I entirely agree there, but it is a long way to move from identifying Pergamum as the source of the artistic style of the Mithras statuary, to saying: And it was at Pergamum, in the 2nd century BC, that Greek sculptors started to produce bas-relief imagery of Mithra Taurocthonos, "Mithra the bull-slayer." Although the cult of Mithras never caught on in the Greek homeland, those sculptures may indicate the route between Persian Mithra and Roman Mithras. TomHennell 16:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I wrote that, almost two years ago! Out with that second sentence! I've written even worse twaddle in my time, I can tell you. --Wetman 19:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] October Surprise

My redirect of the article was not an attempt to erase the content, but merely a way to sort the three “October Surprises” There is Sick book, the general concept, and the specific allegations concerning the hostage release. DTC 16:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Similar note, my edit was an attempt to make October Surprise point to October surprise, since that is what's most likely meant when somebody (including myself recently) writes ...such and such...October Surprise...blah, blah.... Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 17:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be best to split all three concepts up:

October Surprise (book)
October Surprise Conspiracy
October Surprise (general)

DTC 19:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Any way that doesn't involve suppressing content is just fine. --Wetman 21:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solomonic column

This interesting article was started yesterday. Do you believe that the design originated from Solomon's (sic!) Temple? --Ghirla | talk 19:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting subject: "an order of columns" is a misinformed conception for a start. Solomon's Temple was razed in 586 BCE: what one thinks it looked like depends on one's own cultural context. I gave it some rough history. --Wetman 04:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graffiti

I agree requiring to log-in first before edits should solve most of the petty vandalism issues. Probably half of the time of regular editors is now spent trying to revert graffitis and sometimes quite destructive experiments by anons. Best regards.PHG 00:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there's very little silly vandalism from anyone who's logged in. I keep reminding people with each of my reverts of anonymous graffiti and vandalism of this possibility, which does preserve responsible anonymity. --Wetman 01:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for merging dodda ganeshana gudi and Bull Temple. I am particularly amazed as to how you know abt thie remote place in bangalore.--Jayanthv86 04:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! All I know is what I read, but I'm well trained in reading between the lines. And there's Google. I usually find these articles when tracking suspected vandalism. --16:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puzzled? - I am

photograph of ANZ bank what architectural style would you say this is, it is officially described as venetian gothic, while I can see where the term is coming from, IMO its a mismatch of styles similar to those in Venice, and Gothic is not really in it - in fact the ground floor says Rome to me. I would be interested in your views before I begin it's description here [[22]] Thanks Giano | talk 15:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there's nothing Gothic about it at all. The central three-bay loggia of the piano nobile is the most Venetian touch in this improvisation in a cinquecento manner. The banded rustication of ground floor is decidedly in the Roman taste, Mannerist heirs of Bramante's "House of Raphael" etc. Who invented the way that channeled rustication is so emphatically linked to those voussoirs and is carried right across the attached columns? Serlio? The topmost storey reads like a glazed arcade with pedimented pavilion ends. A very fluent and confident exercise, all tied together vertically too. --Wetman 17:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes its an interesting building isn't it? My first thought was that the top floor was a take on Ca' Rezzonico or Palazzo Labia but that was because I was trying to see Venetian to match the floor below. It seems to be in a street of what is described as "Venetian architecture" try (image googling "Collins Street Melbourne") I've become quite interested in 19th century New Zealand architecture lately - there is a book opportunity there if only I had the time - and talent. Giano | talk 17:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Your architect Sievers breaks his end bays forwards and caps them with pediments though, emphasizing them as pavilions and changing the rhythm entirely. I've found a Serlio column with banded rustication, 1537, and added it to Rustication. I'm thinking there's a Serlio scheme of banded rustication that continues as voussoirs, as on your bank's ground floor. --Wetman 18:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"Your architect Sievers" a penny is dropping rather loudly!!! The picture is - is it not- the ANZ Bank in Melbourne by William Wardell always described as Venetian gothic? Because research I've been doing in the last half hour suggest it may possibbly not be. Have you just saved me from making a fool of myself? Giano | talk 18:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

no relax! hahahah relax!!! he's the photographer, but something is still not right, another building keeps appearing far more Gothic (not particularly Venetian) but Gothic. No wonder their architecture is undervaluated and ignored, they can't even label it properly! Giano | talk 18:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Guys, you've got the wrong building. The building above was demolished years ago and, as far as I am aware had nothing to do with Wardell. This is the one you want [23] - Venetian gothic, I think so. Andypasto 12:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solomonic column

I had a couple of questions about this article. First, what evidence is there that biblical descriptions of Jachin and Boaz inspired Solomonic columns? Why are Solomonic columns not an order? And, out of curiosity, where did you learn about them? I learned about them at a Spanish Unversity study abroad class but I had trouble finding information to put in the article. Thanks for your work on the article.--Bkwillwm 01:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

All the world's memory and fantasy about the Temple of Solomon is extrapolated from a couple of O.T. passages in Chronicles. What other columns from the Temple were remembered other than these two? The "Solomonic" columns were brought to Rome from Jerusalem by Constantine the Great in the 4th century with the understanding that they were from the "Temple of Solomon". You can see that that's an impossibility, isn't it? The "Temple" in question must have been the Second Temple, destroyed in 70 AD. An easy confusion in a culture without historical perspective. I don't know in what medieval document they are first referred to as "Solomonic": not in Mirabilia Urbis Romae. Columns like their capitals are simply elements in an order, often a prominent one of course. But there isn't a "Solomonic Order" any more than there's a "Fluted Order." You could look at a blank stretch of walling at the side of a temple for instance and distinguish Doric from Ionic by its entablature alone. I first was aware of Solomonic columns from their representation in 17th century Brussels tapestries, in the late 1960s. Some googling for "Tapestry Solomonic column" found this Rubens cartoon for a tapestry! Rubens' columns are drawn after the genuine old ones, not Bernini's new versions, which weren't set up yet when Rubens made his drawing. Are the originals still in St Peter's somewhere at the back of the Sanctuary, perhaps? The symbolism of their re-use is not touched upon yet in the article. I dare not... --Wetman 03:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help!!!

Hi Wetman :-) I'm involved in quite a hot discussion with an anonymous Indian editor, who has decided that Alexander the Great lost the Battle of the Hydaspes with Porus. As a consequence, he has edited Battle of the Hydaspes River, Porus, and Purushottama and Alexander the Great (he appears to have given up on the latter article), basing himself upon this webpage, and answers my arguments at Talk:Porus accusing me of being a "Roman nationalist". The discussion to not degenerate in a brawl desperately needs a third party, and I feel you would be particularly well adapted thanks to your good historical knowledge; so please, if you have some time, can you help me solving this question? And I'm really sorry for disturbing you. Ciao :-)))) Aldux 16:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, let me see what I can do to help. I'll begin with re-reading the chapters of the trustworthy and detached classicist Robin Lane Fox's, Alexander the Great (1973). Let us agree that the articles in question should be reports, not essays. The more contentious the atmosphere, the more important it is to credit sources. Good quotes are generally unassailable. --Wetman 20:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't be more concord; I also have and appreciate (in an Italian translation) R. Lane Fox's work. Thanks! :-) Aldux 13:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

R. Lane Fox covers the battle in his chapter 25 in full detail, quoting some sources in his notes. My impression is that Alexander's panegyricists did overestimate Porus' defeat. --Wetman 18:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Halys River

In the article on the Alans, you included [24] a reference to the "Battle of the Halys River" in 430 CE. There was no such battle; your source appears to have been this site [25]. Here's a quote from the front page of that site:

The idea for the site came out of a discussion on the DBM mailing list (see Mailing Lists) as to how players related to their wargames armies … This motivated me to write up a number of battle reports based on some of my games, but in a narrative rather than rules style. By doing this I hope to create a 'history' for each of my armies, thus giving each more character and enabling me to more closely relate to them. It was also a new challenge, as I had never attempted anything that approached creative prose before.

I just thought I'd give you a heads up, in case you used the same source for any other articles. —Abou 19:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a serious gaffe on my part and I appreciate your taking the trouble to alert me. I must be more careful of sources I depend on. --Wetman 20:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good morning!

Care to say a few words: Ecclesiastical architecture Giano | talk 09:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Oi! too... big... for me to... handle... --Wetman 09:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No I can't be bothered with it either, I'm tired of all the accusations of POV, citing sources for the obvious, my lack of golden prose and all the other tiresome things that seem to be necessary here these days. The page probably needs to be absorbed somewhere else anyway. I just changed a red link Sacred architecture to ecclesiastical and found it still red so felt obliged to do something about it. Hope you are well, you seem to be busy. Regards Giano | talk 11:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the category is too diffuse. It's always stimulating and pleasurable to work alterately with you, usually on a subject you've bit off. I wonder if you'd add or refine anything at Palazzo Schifanoia. I haven't seen it since I was 13 years old, during the Younger Dryas, and it seemed to me then in just such tatty faded condition I couldn't enjoy it.... --Wetman 19:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That's because at 13 your soul had not begun to see beauty in decay Giano | talk 22:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

True indeed. It was my mother who introduced me to Rose Macaulay, The Pleasure of Ruins. --Wetman 21:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asking permission to use an excerpt from your userpage

I found your 'wikipedia is a game' entry in your user page particularly poignant. So this is my official preliminary application to initiate a request to requisition, with all due credit given to you, an except from your 'wikipedia is a game' text on my user page. I certainly hope this comment has been obtuse and needlessly formal enough to meet your stringent standards. --Irongaard 16:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. Even without credit! The only other person who's noticed this feature was highly indignant, I recall. The rules hadn't sunk in, apparently. --Wetman 21:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about my message on John Norreys? I can play that game. Indignant shtove 22:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Why no, in fact I thought you melded those two articles splendidly. No, there was some highly-opiniated incompetent on some article talkpage a while ago, who pointed to my "Wikipedia is a game" as a mark of my lack of seriousness sigh. --Wetman 22:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please post a link: my best laughs on WP are at literal-minded drive-bys. Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense is stuffed with tedious spoofs.--shtove 00:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

One can be playing a game and still create things of value. Thank you for your speedy answer to my benediction.

--Irongaard 16:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early Christianity

I wonder if I might interest you in commenting on the accuracy dispute at Early Christianity? The issue is well defined here: Talk:Early_Christianity#Accuracy_dispute. Thank you for your time and consideration.209.78.16.243 23:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

(Wetman responded. Apparently the Edict of Milan was being ignored.)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:800px-Châteautrianon.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:800px-Châteautrianon.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 00:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palazzo del Te

A third opinion is required on this edit. --Ghirla | talk 15:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Galeries Royales Saint-Hubert, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 11:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the article. By the way, there is another shopping arcade worthy of a separate article. --Ghirla | talk 15:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

And it is, too! I've never seen it or heard of it. I did the Panorama. Perhaps when I feel like studying something up. --Wetman 15:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. I also need your magic touch on Summer Garden and Tchernyshov Bridge. Thanks for your time, Ghirla | talk 11:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, there can't be more than five Wikipedians who can correctly distinguish French Baroque from Dutch Baroque garden plans! The Summer Palace is not a summer house, which is akin to a gazebo. Would a better title be Summer Palace Garden? I'll tweak it slightly: see what you think. --Wetman 18:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding warnings to User pages instead of talk

Hi there. I'm sure that it's an honest mistake as I checked that you have a long editing history, but you've added warnings to a few users on their User pages instead of Talk today.

Here they are: User:209.80.152.2, User:204.169.5.20, and User:69.70.10.106.

Thank you for your contributions! -- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 08:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That's my error. Thanks for alerting me. I don't think those warnings are effectual. --Wetman 08:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Countships

Foolish? Foolish? This place gets more foolish by the moment. Check out some of my more recent escapades. I just had a quick look, and will add a comment shortly. Countship indeed! It sounds like a toadying honorific "Your most illustrious Countship". However, If you want to laugh or cry depending on your viewpoint and current mood take a look at this edit summary [26] I don't have the energy or the inclination to argue. Now I can't even manage a GA! As I said more foolish by the moment. Glad to see Ghirla has been here he is doing some good and interesting stuff - so there is hope. Regards Giano | talk 14:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: My spellchecker has just thrown out "Countship" - an American word perhaps?

I agree with you, county is a far more standard term than countship, and this user can safely be reverted. Countship doesn't even appear in the dictionary, though Google indicates that some do use it. In my experience, most modern academics simply call it the Comté de Foix, without translating, and this would also be an acceptable name for the article. - SimonP 14:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. I suppose "countship" would be the actual state of being a count, as opposed to the person of the count himself and his territory the county. Perhaps Fastifex is translating from German, where "County" is literally "countship" (of course in English this a strange Romance-Germanic mix...). I do think I've seen the phrase "to hold the countship" or something similar, but "to hold the county" means the same thing, and one would never say "Countship of Foix" for example. Adam Bishop 04:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"Countship" might be a locution to use if one specifically intended the fact of being a count. Such blunders in idiomatic usage tend to be smoothed away with a little reading: eventually a reader gets used to the sound of the idiom. Perhaps a "Fastifex" is prone to coining his own mintage. The apparent parallel of a "dukedom"—if it occured at all—is misleading: dux is a military, not a territorial title. The Duke of Devonshire has few properties in Devonshire. I think that even the slowest of Fastifex's peers might detect, after puzzling out a line and a half, that it's not "Foix County, North Dakota" after all.

But what should be done? I'm not chrysostomous enough to deal with this aggressive behavior. --Wetman 05:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message posted two days ago which I am reading only today. Normaly the rule is this: county is used for the administrative entity, whereas the medieval fief is called countship when it is on the continent, and earldom when it is in the British Isles. So technically speaking, user Fastifex is right. However, I think it is better to follow usage rather than strict rules whenever there is a set usage. In the case of European countships, they are often refered to as "county" in English, under the influence of French I guess (English writers probably found it more natural to translate "Comté de Toulouse" into "County of Toulouse" rather than the more awkward "Countship of Toulouse"). A search on Google could help to find what the usage is, as well as a quick look at Britannica 1911. For the Comté de Toulouse, I find 51 occurences of "County of Toulouse" at .uk websites, but only 5 occurences of "Countship of Toulouse". In Britannica 1911 there is 1 occurence of "Countship of Toulouse", but 9 occurences of "County of Toulouse". Perhaps a way to solve this terminology problem would be to leave "county" in the titles, and then start the articles with "The county of XXX was a medieval countship...". On a side note, I note there is this recent tendency in English to move from French loan words (such as county) to more anglo-saxon looking words (such as countship). For instance, US political speeches in the 19th century were full of "liberty, liberty, liberty", now they are full of "freedom, freedom, freedom". Anyway, let me know what you intend to do with Fastifax's changes. Hardouin 16:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

So shall we begin a series of articles Dukedom of Devonshire etc, quite separate from Duke of Devonshire etc? I don't intend to get into an edit war with any tone-deaf individuals: my explication of the only possible use of "countship" remains that given above. The Wikipedia reader interested in the County of Foix will find it, I suppose, no matter how preposterous the title. --Wetman 17:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to use Wetman's talk page as a message board, but Hardouin, where do we call medieval fiefs "countships"? (Just the other day I was reading about the County of Toulouse and the Viscounty of Narbonne and came across neither "countship" nor "viscountship", and this was fairly recent scholarly literature...) Adam Bishop 04:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summer Garden

Let me respond to some of your concerns. Firstly, "Dutch Baroque" is a cliché traditionally used in Russian literature when referring to architectural designs commissioned by Peter I, although I doubt they know what it's all about. After all, Jean Baptiste Le Blond was the main garden architect employed by Peter.

Ghirlandajo, when I said "there can't be more than five Wikipedians who can correctly distinguish French Baroque from Dutch Baroque garden plans!" I was including you! The Baroque garden that the Frenchman laid out for the Russian was Dutch, just as you described it: central allée, sequences of square beds. French layouts combine goosefoot angled allées and green cabinets.

Secondly, Peter's house in the Summer Garden is never called "palace" in Russian, for it would have been a misnomer for such a tiny building. As you correctly point out, in English parlance "summer house" is perceived as akin to dacha. So, I don't know how to style it properly. Thirdly, "Summer Garden" is an established English term for this park: check this googlefight.

Ah, I was misled by the English term "Winter Palace." As you can see with "countship" below, if one is unfamiliar with the material, one must be wary of making gaffes. I'm glad I didn't boldly move your article. (Imagine!)--Wetman

As to Lomonosov's monument, I believe it is authentic. According to www.necropolis.spb.org, Lomonosov tombstone was commissioned by Chancellor Vorontsov (+1767) to the craftsmen of Carrara. Neoclassicism was gaining footing in Russia at the time of Lomonosov's death, as Rinaldi's and Vallin de la Mothe's buildings clearly show (see Marble Palace and Imperial Academy of Arts for illustrations).

So, Vorontsov! This is his own taste I reckon. The monument then dates 1765-67; it's very specifically designed by someone au fait with the most up-to-the-minute Parisian taste and developments at the French Academy in Rome. It should have been included in Svend Eriksen's Early Neo-Classicism in France, along with those Delafosse designs.

By the way, I added a picture to Dmitry Ivanovich Vinogradov, which you recently edited. This one is also a good candidate to illustrate Neoclassicism, don't you agree? --Ghirla | talk 18:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent photo for Neoclassicism, which lacks decorative arts. Not ideal at the Vinogradov article, because it's date is 1784— and looks it.--Wetman 05:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I stored it in the Vinogradov article on temporary basis, until I find time to write the article on Lomonosov Factory or Russian porcelain. I would have moved it or the Lomonosov image to Neoclassicism today, but I can't think of a decent caption. Can you suggest one? --Ghirla | talk 13:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I but in here with nothing to contribute, but some thoughts what is the official term for the Grande et Petite Trianons, maison ou palais, not a chateau? Is there a clue here for a term. They were quite keen on French terminology were they not? Giano | talk 20:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Pavillon, don't you think? But the Grand Trianon was just that: a category in itself. For a while ca 1680 there was a Trianon de Porcelaine at Versailles, which art historians recreate in the imagination out of the archives, like archaeologists. --Wetman 05:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What about a "Palais de Plaisirs" or is that too open to misinterpretation? I had a thought too about Countship would that not in reality be the office or position of Count. i.e. "The countship of Lalaland is in the gift of the King of Narnia" This is pushing my understanding of English to its ultimate limits, but I do have a feeling that is the true meaning of the word - am I right. I know you will know the answer. Giano | talk 13:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely correct: countship is the mere state of being a count, the title purely as a title: earldom It does not describe the territory of the Counts of Foix, or the countryside of Franche-Comté. As for the Trianons, all the documents have been published a century ago. The department in charge of construction was that of "Les Batiments du Roi", that concerned with furnishings that of the Menus Plaisirs as I recall. --Wetman 14:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Bedwetting (Talk)

Hiya, Wetman. Some time back, you listed some material from the article on Bedwetting, concerning the administration of Imipramine as a medication in cases of Enuresis. You were asking that the section was confirmed to make sure it was genuine info, since it came via an IP with a history of vandalism. This is just to let you know that I have been able to confirm this information, since I myself was administered Imipramine in my home country, before drugs such as Desmopressin were licenced. I thought I should notify you that the information posted from that IP was indeed valid and perfectly correct. Regards, Thor Malmjursson 23:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Thor's Pet Yack

Thanks! It's always best to vet these anonymous edits, when they come from dubious IPs. --Wetman 23:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bonnet

Nice work on bonnet. Are you interested in this stuff? We can always use more contribs in the History of Western fashion series... - PKM 18:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mithras

I'm fairly, but not 100% certain. I don't think anyone in the 3rd century would have made such a mistake. The symbolism of looking away from the bull is of prime importance, and if you look, I don't think there is any original material with Mithras looking toward the bull. However, until I can verify it, I will alter the caption. I'll also try to look it up. --DanielCD 02:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Getting warmer. It's in the Hall of Animals, Pio-Clementine Museum. Here is the same statue: [27] --DanielCD 02:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

...while of the group of Mithras and the bull only fragments were discovered.

I'm not certain this is the same as my statue; it could be refering to Mithras in the Lion guise, with the snake coiled about. I also have a picture of that which I could probably upload. The tauroctany statue could be a restoration in which so much was missing the restoring artist placed the head facing the bull. I saw another facing toward while I was looking just now, but it also had no date. I will keep looking. I have several pictures of Mithra-related material, and I'll see if I can contribute a few more. I'll also refresh my memory in regard to the symbolism, as that may hold a key to this. --DanielCD 02:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You're certainly right about Mithras looking right at the wound he's inflicting. Heads are the most often restored elements in Roman sculptures: headless statues remained deeply dissatisfying to connoisseurs until the 19th century. The head looks rather clean compared to the yellow discoloration of the rest of the sculpture, which I've never seen in person, I should add. There is a tauroctony relief on the wall behind him and a small one just to the left. --Wetman 03:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yea. Unfortunately this area was lined-off for some reason when I was there. I took the picture from a distance (hence the odd angle). I'm calling it a night, but will continue this, as my interest has been piqued once again. Mithras still calls a bit, even after a thousand++ years later. --DanielCD 03:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I may have been wrong about the universality of the away-facing Mithras in the ancient materials, as Ulansey (the only material I can immediately find) says "almost always" in that regard (Origins of the Mythraic Myst. p. 30). A lesson to me about trusting my memory when putting captions on things. --DanielCD 04:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"Never" and "always" are both hard to prove and will always (heh heh) trip you up, if human beings are involved in the equation. Next time you see that Mithras, look for the tell-tale line across the throat. --Wetman 14:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)--Wetman 14:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Antonio Bosio, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 17:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bog Body

I just want to thank you for your excellent rewrite of Bog body today and the wealth of new details and citations you provided on this underserved topic. Much appreciated! --Pontifex 22:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

My god, you're quick off the mark, Pontifex! My keyboard is still warm... --Wetman 22:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I cut some text you added at Homosexuality in ancient Greece

HI Wetman, when (Dec 30) you created the "In the military" section, in Homosexuality in ancient Greece, it looks like to me that you inadvertently copied some unintended text from the Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece article (for example everything from that article from the "Examples" section on, including the categories). I cut a considerable amount of that text. Please check that I didn't cut anything you intended to add. Thanks — Paul August ☎ 19:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page. Paul August ☎ 05:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

(Quite right! Wetman had inadvertently dragged in unneeded information, creating a sub-section with a brief resumé of material.)

[edit] Nazirtie

You reverted edits that I made to the article Nazirite. Can you please explain what problems you had with my edits so we can make a better article that we are all happy with. please respond on the article's disscussion page. Jon513 21:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Nazirite for the restored sourced historical text that you didn't like and the unsourced personal opinions you added that I deleted. --Wetman 21:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I responded on Talk:Nazirite Jon513 17:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted images

You had mentioned on my talk page that I should refrain from deleting images? I don't recall deleting any at all. Could you clarify please? Thanks - Lastnode 01:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I had merely suggested that "it is considered courteous to inform the uploader before you delete images" in reference to the deleted Image:Grandtemp.jpg. It was used at Doric order. Perhaps that seems extraordinary to you. --Wetman 16:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chatham Garden Theatre

Thanks for the copy edit. I knew "sundry" wasn't the word I was looking for; I think I was confusing it with "sullied". But I like "raffish" just fine. Take a look at Chatham Theatre if you get the chance. — BrianSmithson 20:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I knew you had something like "sleazy" in mind. I think you should de-link all those dates save about two that have some "this date in history" relevance (and insert them under their days), and turn those redlinked gents whose only encyclopedic relevance is as passing ownders of the Chatham Garden Theatre, into redirects. I couldn't find anything on the architect Conklin, btw. Was Roosevelt Street so named? --Wetman 21:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I hate date links too. My practice, though, is to wikify full dates, as these are subject to change depending on user preferences. As for the owners/managers, I frankly don't know enough about them to tell who's notable and who isn't. Chanfrau's name keeps coming up again and again, for example, so he probably deserves an article. Many of the others may have been well-known actors in their day, but until someone looks them up (on, say, Google Books), I figure it can't hurt to wikify their names. I have to admit that I, too, was surprised to see a "Roosevelt Street" before either president. But it appears to be genuine; Google Books turns up hits that talk about it as early as 1776. — BrianSmithson 22:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Empire/reorganization

You're right, Politicaljunkie6 obviously won't listen to reason. I don't feel like starting an edit war on this. I suggest we wait till this storm has passed. He'll probably soon either get bored with Wikipedia (yesterday was his first day as a user), or else replace Roman Empire with his version and move on to something new. In both cases we shall be able to restore Roman Empire/reorganization to the state it was in before his sudden arrival... What do you think?--Hippalus 07:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right once again! It's what I did with Rococo, though I haven't gone back there. Str1977 is another case of misplaced self-confidence, one I'm sorry to run into again. They'll soon get bored without confrontations to spur them on. In the meantime we can pick aspects of Roman life and work up good articles. --Wetman

I see what you mean - Str1977's move of politicaljunkie's edits was asking for a confrontation between the two. However, the move was consensus based, and seems to be working out fine... Knock on wood.--Hippalus 14:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Havelock

Hello, Wetman, hope you're well. I've submitted my brand-new Eric A. Havelock to peer review, and I was wondering if you'd be willing, when you get a chance, to take a look. My main goal, as I say there, is to translate some of the more scholarly stuff into laymen's terms. There's no hurry, since I just posted it, but I'd very much appreciate your advice if you have time. Thanks! Chick Bowen 04:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't pretend to judge it as a peer, Chick, but I'd say you've done an exemplary job, which should give us an idea of the level Wikipedia may reach in two or three more years. I wish I could claim to have added anything so thoughtful. Bravo! --Wetman 05:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Those are the kindest words I've gotten in I don't know how long. Thanks--you've made my day. Chick Bowen 17:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monte Vettore

Fascinating article, but can you provide sources for the traditions about the Apennine Sibyl (apart from Andrea da Barberino and Ortelius's atlas)? (Anonymous, logged in for the nonce as "User:Silflay")

The Cantos in Part Six of the romance of Guerrin il Meschino should suffice, but I'm told that the Provençal poet Antoine de la Sale used some of the same material in his pot pourri La Salade. You may want to read the "telling discussion of Antoine de la Sale's Paradis de la Reine Sibylle(mid-15th century), a curious, demonizing mockery of the character, in which her legendary and imaginative, courtly and enchanted mountain grotto on the Adriatic yields moralizing lessons" in Monique Bouquet and Françoise Morzadec, La Sibylle: Parole et représentation. Collection "Interférences". (Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes), 2004 [28]. The mountains themselves are the Monti Sibillini. The Pontius Pilate ("Ponzio Pilato") connection is casually refered to here. Googling any of these terms plus "sibyl" will give you similar information. --Wetman 16:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date links

Since you have previously taken an interest in links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences. Thanks. bobblewik 20:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Byzantine art

Wetman, I don't know if you hold any interest in Byzantine art, but I recently revised various Byzantine topics, starting the articles on Cappella Palatina, Chludov Psalter, Paris Psalter, Archiepiscopal Chapel, Aghios Demetrios, and Pala d'Oro in the process. These are mere placeholders and need attention both for "idiomatic flow" and factual accuracy. If you feel like it, please edit them mercilessly. Hopefully some article may be even unstubbed for DYK purposes. Cheers, Ghirla | talk 00:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at a couple of them, Ghirla, and I did make a couple of tweaks— for "idiomatic flow"— but Byzantine art is not a subject I really know anything about at all, so I couldn't be very helpful. --Wetman 05:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

As I noticed you had contributed to this article's talk page, I thought you might wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore gay personalities. -- Krash (Talk) 00:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kentland crater

We had a simultaneous edit conflict, the first I've encountered in over 18 months as a Wikipedian. I tried to dovetail my new info with yours for a smooth read. Please check it out. If you don't like the present version, then make the changes you think are necessary. Peace! Cuppysfriend 22:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dagon

Honestly, there's no reason to be insulting in your edit summaries--I'm well aware that "edits are supposed to improve text", and I believe I've done that hundreds of times on Wikipedia. I switched the sentence around because as originally written it suggested that Dagon's worship by the Philistines was a fictional element created by Milton, and your version of the text restores that problem.

Not to be pedantic, but the passive voice is not included in the English language by mistake--it's there because it's sometimes the most effective way to communicate information. Nareek 03:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

A: In Milton's epic poem Samson Agonistes, Dagon is one of the deities worshipped by the Philistines.

B: Dagon's worship by the Philistines is mentioned in Milton's epic poem Samson Agonistes.

B was not an improvement of A.

C: Dagon appears in Milton's epic poem Samson Agonistes as one of the deities the Philistines worship.

C is fine. Dagon does not actually appear, I think, but no matter:

Here celebrate in Gaza, and proclaim

Great pomp, and sacrifice, and praises loud,

To Dagon, as their god who hath delivered

Thee, Samson, bound and blind, into their hands—

After I'd just spent an hour disentangling vandalism and irresponsible edits, doubtless I was even crankier than usual. --Wetman 04:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quarenghi again

I would welcome to see your superior prose on Hermitage Theatre. Thanks for your time, Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assyrians revisited

Lookup "Assyrians". Funny, isn't it? And the flag is back, actually a lot of flags. I don't care anymore really. I have my Britannica :)

[edit] Dunsany

Because I fear we may have gotten off on the wrong foot, I want to state explicitly that I don't really think that whether WP titles the article Lord Dunsany or Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron Dunsany is a life-or-death issue. I do think that the rules point to one over the other, and that arguing about rules can be fun--if no one takes it too seriously. Nareek 18:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

...and mine, simply that there are more than one Lord Dunsany. But look at the actual title for what I've made a redirect for: Mme de Sevigné! Who could find her under her official title? Where sensible heads prevail, the ordinary monniker gets the reader right to the article. One way or another. --Wetman 21:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

But there's more than one George Washington, more than one George Eliot, more than one George Harrison.... Few people, famous or otherwise, have an absolutely unique name. The way WP deals with this is by providing disamb pages, or, in the likely event that the other people who share a famous person's name are non-notable, ignoring them. It's not to give the famous person a complicated and unfamiliar moniker to make sure that the famous are not confused with the obscure. The democratic practice of labeling people as they are known to the world at large, as outlined in WP:NAME, seems to work perfectly well for non-aristocrats. Why do aristocrats have to get special treatment? Nareek 21:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The standard formula, which Wikipedia ignores, is George Washington (1732-1799). I am not in favor of special treatment, even for Popes. --Wetman 23:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New stubs

While patroling new articles, I noticed a few recently-started stubs which you may be interested to check: Churrigueresque, Balconies of Lima, Stoa of Zeus, Christ Church Cathedral (Falkland Islands), Marble Arch Caves. Cheers, Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Am I so transparent then, that you catch my taste so accurately? --Wetman 10:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I often see you making great edits on topics connected with architecture and mythology. By the way, may I recommend Portal:Germany/New_article_announcements to you? They translate a lot of architectural articles from de.wiki: Ruinenberg, Freiberg Cathedral, etc. Have a good day, Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NYC theatre disambiguation

Here's another one: I entered "New Theatre" in my address bar, which redirected me to The New Theatre. As this was the name of the Park Theatre for many years, New Theatre should really be a disambiguation page (with New Theater as a redirect to it). What, in your opinion, would be the best name to move The New Theatre to? I was thinking New Theatre (Central Park West), but I thought I'd run it by someone with more familiarity with NYC geography before I did so. — BrianSmithson 14:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The Century Theatre is its familiar name in New York, memorialized by the Century Apartments on its site. I'd collect all its history into one article at that title, which I can supplement from Upper West Side Story, which I have here somewhere. I agree that New Theatre should really be a disambiguation page. It's best to omit "The" which signifies a title at Wikipedia: The Tempest. Let The New Theatre be a redirect to New Theatre.--Wetman 20:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I did as you suggested. New Theatre is now a disambiguation page. I discovered quite a few different New Theatres, all of which are now listed there. The latter NYC theatre by that name is now located at Century Theatre.— BrianSmithson 21:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Piazza del Popolo

Thanks for the tweaks - I machine translated from the version at German wikipedia and then tried to work out what the remaining peculiar bits meant; given my level-1 German, clearly I was not quite able to finesse the English quite as well as I would have liked. Thanks. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I was already familiar with the subject and the article, so it was easy. --Wetman 21:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marian and Holy Trinity columns

Thank you for improving the Marian and Holy Trinity columns article (which you did on 19 February). It really needed some more info, so that it was less Czech centred.

However, I do not entirely understand one part, and I do not know, whether it is because of my bad English, or because it is not clearly explained. You wrote:

"The basic model which inspired building most Holy Trinity columns is the Pestsäule or Dreifaltigkeitssäule ("Plague or Holy Trinity monument") in the Grabenplatz, Vienna, built after the 1679 plague; in it the column has entirely disappeared in marble clouds and colossal saints, angels and putti."

What do you mean by "it" in the part that I highlighted with bold letters here? Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek 22:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Good call! Why don't I sustitute in this monument the column has entirely disappeared... --Wetman!

Thank you, now I understand. Jan.Kamenicek 17:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Broteas, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Extraterrestrial life and Fools' Paradises

"It seems that others are equally in the dark on the history of this idea, though perhaps not equally imbued with unfounded self-confidence." What is the purpose of comments like this? To arrive back on a talk page a couple of weeks after a disagreement with a flame-post is unhelpful in the extreme. I have very carefully avoided personal attacks or ad hominem comments in our content debates and I would appreciate the same.

As for being in the dark, I wrote the Cosmic pluralism page and about a third of the content on Extraterrestrial life, including most of the history section. I'm not in the dark on anything. Marskell 10:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Over and out. --Wetman 04:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

(You may agree with me, Curious Reader, that not to be in the dark on anything is a most enviable catbird-seat. I, who am utterly unlike my self-confident correspondent in every way, I dare to think, have always learned more when I have been wrong than when I have been right. You may wonder, Curious Reader, how the Wetman could have sailed to windward of such a fellow. I made the initial error of adding some intellectual history concerning the history of the idea of Extraterrestrial life under the subheading of "Ancient and Early Modern ideas" substituting some sourced quotations for generic tripe such as "The Christian attitude towards extraterrestrials turned from denial to ambivalence" and text that veered between Popular Mechanix and True Adventure, as it still does. My modest section was reverted by this fellow with the pert quip "this isn't poetry class". So, after some dead-end posts at Talk:Extraterrestrial life]] I inserted the deleted material at Cosmic pluralism, where it was quite a propos. But this Marskell stalked me there with some further reverts: see the unappetizing history. Stalking is not engaged in by the better sort of Wikipedian, O Curious One. So, then, if an anonymous IP deleted sourced material that included embedded quotations, one would revert it as vandalism. The action remains vandalism, does it not? even when the vandal is logged-in. This fellow tips his hand with a snotty edit summary and threats about "personal attacks". A playground bully. I listed Cosmic pluralism at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature. Some adult editing is badly needed there. But not mine, and that's an end to it.)

Oh my. Perhaps I am self-confident but at least I manage to avoid referring to myself in the third person... Are you a Thackeray fan by any chance? You do a good imitation.

Regarding the content dispute, I haven't stalked you in the slightest and I have not engaged in vandalism. As noted, I started Cosmic pluralism and thus it is on my watch list and thus I noticed your edit. I have repeatedly suggested (without reply) that the problem is one of undue weight and summary style. It was not a "modest section": large block quotes are generally frowned upon and the addition was somewhat tangential. I moved it from Cosmic pluralism to Extraterrestrial life in culture and renamed the page "...in popular culture" to "...in culture" per your concern that "popular culture" was a poor fit. In short, your info still exists and your vandalism charge is unwarranted. As for bullying, I have not once personalized this, though you have repeatedly. Marskell 12:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manna wingnut

Hi. I see you have made some edits to the Manna page. This page and it's talk page are frequently edited by what I consider a bad faith user. I make periodic half-hearted attempts to deal with it, but I'm too busy to commit to watching the page all the time or even look up the correct Wiki-protocols. Can you offer any suggestions for dealing with this vandal (or vandals)? Thanks. - Bubamara 00:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't help much, but I have an idea. "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" naturally requires compromise with mediocrity: the format encourages blatant self-expression. I'm not good with these people: see the section just above. So I've taken Manna off my watchlist: like Extraterrestrial life, it is one of those porchlights that simply attract moths. An alternative is to retrieve the best of suppressed text at Manna/Revision, going through the article's History—nothing is ever lost at Wikipedia. No need to publicize the revision: after a few months, such people find new hobby-horses, and then a revised article can just be snapped into place, like a window-screen. --Wetman 04:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pandora article

Hi Wetman. I tried to fill in the citations for the claims about the jar versus box, and some other scholarly claims made as you cited. I didn't author the original claims, so some might be spurious. I tried my best. It's still up in the air from my scholarly point of view. Best. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 10:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Now, that's excellent! Other Greek mythology articles should be tuned to your pitch. --Wetman 10:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I must say that two of the claims are somewhat up-in-the-air, as I mentioned. The claim about Pandora as the jar or vessel herself, and the claim that jar is a representative of a woman's womb --- both although I could find supporting citations (even though I was not the original editor), I think the claims are on shaky ground. But, I'll leave them in as documented. Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

They're presented as up-in-the-air, and attributed. Ideal. --21:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibreak

You know it's time to go when you start doing stuff like this--sorry about that. I'm going on an extended wikibreak, W, and I just wanted to thank you for everything--you're one of the bright spots around here. If you feel like doing me a favor, would you mind putting Mário de Andrade, Eric A. Havelock, and perhaps one or two more from the list on my userpage on your watchlist (they don't get much traffic)? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, and take care. Chick Bowen 00:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tethys Sea

I you made some changes to Tethys Sea a while back. I've merged Tethys Sea into Tethys Ocean, dropping some of your changes. The reversions that I thought stood out I posted on Talk:Tethys Ocean. Please re-change/comment as you see fit. – Isogolem 09:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaeta

See discussion at User_talk:Fastifex. Ciaooo!!! Attilios

[edit] Ares

The latest corrections by anonymous on the Ares page appeared fine to me (American English), any particular reason why you revised them?

By the way, how do you revert someone's changes? You re-type them or is there a easy, fast way to revert?

Thanks, gio_

See Help:Reverting &ndash Isogolem 19:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's done at the Page History, as Isogolem says. None of the "corrections" were better, and some introduced grammatical errors ("which" rather than "who" for Ares). Wikipedians don't "correct" European spellings for American ones. How is it that Europeans never "correct" our American spellings? --Wetman 22:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks to both you and Isoglem. I will read the Reverting Help page.

As far as the corrections, Got it. Thanks. So, I suppose that the English Wikipedia is a mix between AE and BE (?). I carefully reviewed each "correction", and I agree with you now. You got me reviewing usage of "nor". :) Only doubt left: what about the comma after "Acropolis" isn't it best removed, what do you think? The comma there changes the meaning of that sentence...

I started creating some new pages and editing a few ones in the Greek mythology field. Feel free to look at what I am doing in case things could be done better. --gio 06:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, is this the best way to communicate between us (me you Isoglem and whomever else watching this? Through these (yours in this case) talk pages? What do you suggest?

Right! that comma you spotted was separating a subject from its verb: I removed it! When you begin a thread at an editor's Talkpage, the convention is that the thread will be continued there, unless specifically suggested otherwise. So check your "Watch this page" box under the Edit summary, in order to be alerted when a response is posted. And when the thread is finished, simply "Unwatch" it. Cheers!--Wetman 21:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Right on. I guess that's it then for this thread. Yes, I have been watching pages in the past few days. Neat feature. Thanks again. --gio 02:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another date links proposal

You may wish to see the proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates. Thanks. bobblewik 18:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Known Vandal?"

I changed Gutterflower to add certifications - and now I find the page being reverted to the February 24th version. Since I added the infobox, chart information and other credit information, I am NOT a vandal.Fantailfan 22:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

My error. Edit of 03:48, 24 February 2006 212.117.127.210 was suspect, as all other edits from this anon. have been vandalism. When I note "please vet my revert" I don't need to be contacted personally, even with such charm. --Wetman 22:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinion please

(Image)Don't cheat by clicking to see where this is, were I to describe it as Pompeian neoclassical would you agree? OK now "click" see where it is - what would you call it?]] Regards Giano | talk 22:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Giano! Without clicking I'd call it neo-Grec—with Second Empire precedents— c. 1860, with a Pompeian color scheme (that red, only a little brighter than "Tuscan red"). Now I see that it's Melbourne Government House. Those vignettes are stencilled. I'll go and see how far off (too early) I was. Try Googling "Neo Grec"). --Wetman 12:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

McMansion, far western Sydney suburbs, c.2006. Possible influence of Rose Hancock on some of the more restrained decor. PiCo 12:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Giano, "Italianate" would be fine too, but the Wikipedia article is too poor to link to. Clink on these links for a neo-grec stencilled dado and a neo-grec wallpaper sample. PiCo has a point

are those Ionic columns standing on fluted drums, or does that banister butt against their shafts McMansion-fashion (O shame!) and wrap round them? --Wetman 12:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't want you say Italianate! Its for this article here [29] which to be truthful I have lost interest in, but the fotos are too good to waste, and it's good for the soul to be made to finish things (I don't know wht by my English Nanny always said so). The sources all say it is Italianate too, I just don't like Italianate, take at look at the exterior of the house on the page, it's just a neoclassical block with a pseudo campanile stuck on the side. Oh well looks like I'm stuck with Italianate - we have Pompeian in Sicily but it's a lot more refined than that with trompe louille (I can never spell that) do you know the Villa Spedalotto - it has some doric columns painted to look like those in Australia - but we also used inlaid coloured stones - I was rather hoping you might think the Australian's were emulating that - I'm obviously barking up the wrong tree - the columns threw me. Thanks Regards Giano | talk 13:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice tweaks, I just assumed it had a bell in it - don't know why. I've gone off him in a big way, I thought he was interesting at first, but his work doesn't seem complete or in proportion somehow. I can't find much more out about him - I would love to know what makes a successful architect in England throw it all up to go to the colonies - he found religion - protestants who find catholoicism usually have a secret in my experience (guilt trip coupled with a love for ceremonial and ritual) I could hazzard a guess, but had not better put it in the page. The bank which sources claim is based on the Doge's Palace bears precious little resemblence apart from being in the floral Gothic - and I can't find an eligible picture. The Ozzie editors Golbeirne and co have been great coming up with the one's there, but I have run out of things to say on the man. Since finishing Sicilian Baroque I seem to get bored of pages before they are finished. Perhaps I should find better documented subjects and give myself a sporting chance John Soane is crying out for attention, I think I'll finish this off somehow and then smarten him up a little. Regards Giano | talk 18:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Giano | talk 21:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marcel Boulestin, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Gaetulian lion

Hi Wetman, I ran across this phrase in RLS's Travels with a Donkey in the Cévennes (1879) (he uses it in analogy to the French-Algiers war). Originally it's in reference to something from antiquity, but I can't figure it out. Have you ever seen it before by any chance? Horace mentions it in an Ode, but I suspect there is more to the story, perhaps a greek myth or poem. Thanks for any ideas or connections. -- Stbalbach 17:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] localhost -dev/null

Hello Wetman, can I copy your js-script? Where I must place this file on my PC, (is a web-server needed?)? Greetings --Olliminatore 17:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Anything I have is yours. Just click on Edit this page, cut and paste! (That's about as deep as my web-savvy runs, I'm embarrassed to add.) --Wetman 18:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the Good Article Failure of William Hogarth

I responded to your comment on my failure of William Hogarth in Talk:William Hogarth. joturner 05:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ottonian Renaissance

I looked at your edits and didn't change anything; I just added two links. One question, though: did you mean Bruno I, Archbishop of Cologne, when you wrote Bruno of Cologne? The former makes more sense. As to your question about the start of the renaissance, I would say that Otto's marriage to Adelaide united Italy and Germany and thus brought the latter closer to Byzantium and furthered the cause of Christian (political) unity (in the West). By this measure, it is certainly a candidate for the "start" of the renaissance. Otto's imperial coronation in 963 is the other obvious candidate. On the basis of certain independent events (Bruno's court at Cologne, Roswitha's drama, the aforementioned marriage and coronation), the renaissance began c.950—and I say that with all the confidence of historical uncertainty and subjectivity. Srnec 00:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement there, and I've incorporated both starting dates, for your approval.— you were right about my link to the wrong Bruno. Should the context of the Ottonian Renaissance also note the contemporary nadir of Carolingian energies? A fuller survey of the handful of rich abbeys that were centers of the Ottonian Renaissance, and the works of art that define it might round out the article. --Wetman 12:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This response is a little late, but...I think that some more works of art and architecture would be very helpful to that article. Art is often really what defines a "renaissance," or at least makes it "visible." The nadir of the Carolingian dynasty represents the low-point of France relative Germany and represents, I think, the power and influence of the Emperors over all of (Western) Christendom and, in that sense, it directs us to the notion, so vital to the Ottonian spirit, of Christian unity. A new day was dawning in Europe...or should we say Europe was "reborn"? Srnec 05:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etruscans

Ah, Wetman, like God, you seem to be uniquitous. I left some comments on your Etruscan civilization oratory.User:Botteville 16:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia

Wikipedia is not a game. Life is not a game. If it was I would have opened fire long ago. --Dem 08:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Wetman/archive28Mar2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] History of Morocco

[edit] Logging in: Good idea

[edit] Nabta Playa / Roylee RfC

[edit] Brympton d'Evercy

[edit] Hi

[edit] B d'E

[edit] Athena and Phevos

[edit] Talk:Archivo General de Indias

[edit] B d'E

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/New Articles

[edit] B d'E

[edit] Welsh morphology

[edit] please explain seagal edit

[edit] English country house

[edit] Viscounts

[edit] Retro Betty's

[edit] A Christmas gift?

[edit] damn, Wetman!!!

[edit] Talk:Spanish Empire

[edit] Nuns?

[edit] Humble applogies

[edit] Revert war on Baal

[edit] Edits on Polytheism

[edit] Providian

[edit] New articles

[edit] Joyous Noël

[edit] Carlo Fontana

[edit] Skull (symbolism)

[edit] Holy Chalice

[edit] Adminship?

[edit] Pius VII

[edit] Can you help regarding Pope Leo I?

[edit] John Norreys

[edit] Talk:Skull (symbolism) vandalism and a "cabal"

[edit] Biblical criticism

[edit] Marian and Holy Trinity columns

[edit] Deleting links to texts mistaken for spam

[edit] Eusebius of Caesarea

[edit] Palladianism

[edit] Carambat

[edit] Intarsia

[edit] Eusebius of Caesarea

[edit] patristic literature

[edit] Richard Evans Schultes

[edit] Article Drayton Hall

[edit] Moloch

[edit] Favour

[edit] You're officially famous

[edit] Fischer v.Erlach redux

[edit] Thanks for edit on Heiau

[edit] Roman Empire/reorganization

[edit] Roman Mithraism

[edit] October Surprise

[edit] Solomonic column

[edit] Graffiti

[edit] Thanks

[edit] Puzzled? - I am

[edit] Solomonic column

[edit] Help!!!

[edit] Battle of Halys River

[edit] Good morning!

[edit] Asking permission to use an excerpt from your userpage

[edit] Early Christianity

[edit] Image Tagging Image:800px-Châteautrianon.jpg

[edit] Palazzo del Te

[edit] DYK

[edit] Adding warnings to User pages instead of talk

[edit] Countships

[edit] Summer Garden

[edit] Re: Bedwetting (Talk)

[edit] Bonnet

[edit] Mithras

[edit] DYK

[edit] Bog Body

[edit] I cut some text you added at Homosexuality in ancient Greece

[edit] Nazirtie

[edit] Deleted images