User talk:Wetman/archive7Feb2007

=CURRENT & NEW TALK=

DYK

On 21 October, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the articles Prinias, Al Mina, Rue de la Chaussée-d'Antin, Château de Tanlay, Château de Courances, via Giulia, Pinax, Villa Molin, Crouching Venus, Gesta Tancredi, Chazy Formation, Orsten, Getty Victorious Youth, sand Hippocamp, 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.

--Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 19:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

A newbie clamored that the article should be expanded before being DYKed. I don't care. The little knowledge of the subject I have is derived from Google Books. It is a priceless source of information, as I'm sure you know. If you don't have a google account (it is required to view the text), I will send you one. Best, Ghirla ^-трёп- 20:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Marca Hispanica

I agree totally they should be merged, they are the same topic just with differently spelt titles.

(responded at User talk:Vivbaker)--Wetman 20:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I had a go merging the two texts providing a geographical and historical context. I copied the test into the two sections as I don't know how to remove an article. What do you think. I will attempt to draw a map of the area for inclusion later.--Vivbaker 08:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks good. You really seem to have managed a meld of information. Since you've done all the work, which is the better title? The other should be deleted and replaced with REDIRECTpagename preceded by a #. The last refinement is to check "What Links Here" for the redirected page and fix double redirects to make them direct to the new combined page. Your map needs to be credited to "self". --Wetman 15:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Archaeology "corrected" to archeology

Wikipedia doesn't generally "correct" international or British spellings to American ones. Think how tiresome this is outside the US. --Wetman 07:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wetman, I agree about leaving American/British spelling as is, if my bot's doing that, it's certainly not intentional. Could you tell me what article you're referring to? I've just checked my bot's spelling substitutions list and i doesn't change any word into 'archeology'. Thanks, CmdrObot 00:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Dang, now I can't find it in my contributions history. What good is that? --Wetman 03:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The vandal strikes again

Hi, the vandal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:207.63.63.204 struck again today. This time, he/she was caught by the vandalbot. Can we block him/her again? Just a thought. Great work you're doing around here!  :-) --MonkeyTimeBoy 19:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm the wrong one to ask, though I'm totally sympathetic. The only use I'd find in being an Administrator is having buttons that package vandals and eject them into Deep Space. Picking them off by hand as I do is a bit like ridding oneself of lice with a comb... --Wetman 19:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for assuring

[[:Image:ThumbsUp.jpg|thumb|88px|left|You are awarded the Thumbs Up Award for another job well done. ]] that the Piccirilli Brothers maintain their rather small niche in history for one more day. Carptrash 17:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ho, ho ho to you too. If was carved in NYC at that time and if it mattered, it was probably the PB's. The stock exchange was done by the youngest, Getulio, who was something like 19 at the time. Life is good. Carptrash 15:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Secularism

I have reverted secularism back to my changes with a lengthy explanation. Please be civil if you engage this on the talk page. Clearly you have made your edits in good faith and have considered them within your own frame of reference. As I hope you will understand when you read the explanation so have I. I was rather unappreciative of your insinuations that I do not understand concepts and that I made thoughtless changes. The easiest way around doing so in the future is to engage the content I provided only. Thanks and best.PelleSmith 13:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Runaway Bot! Runaway Bot!

The bot is changing international 'knowledgeable" to American "knowledgable". I'm a New Yorker myself, but isn't this a little ruthless on our poor overseas allies? Seriously, these things don't need to be regimented quite so strictly. --Wetman 05:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Wetman. Could you tell me tell me where this happened? I have a number of rules where I change definitely incorrect spellings such as 'knowlegeable' (note the missing 'd') to 'knowledgeable', but none where I turn anything into 'knowledgable'. Cheers, CmdrObot 21:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Found it this time! Amphitrite. --Wetman 00:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah excellent. Thanks. CmdrObot 14:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Châteaux

Hi, Wetman, do you know that some guys took a cue from you and ALoan and continue to translate French articles about châteaux? The problem is that translations are rather rough. You may want to take a look at Château de Menars, Château de Louveciennes, Château de Rosny, in particular. I shall add some details too. Regards, Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'm bringing over some châteaux right now and some articles about French architects. This is mostly what I've been working on, User:DVD R W/Claude Nicolas Ledoux - should have the first draft done soon. This one too User:DVD R W/Charles De Wailly - but it has too many links. Thanks for the edits and DYK noms, I'm only about fr-2 so miss some important things sometimes like l'extraordinaire des guerres and corps de logis, so many thanks again, DVD+ R/W 17:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, could you show me some that you and Aloan have done before? DVD+ R/W 17:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello! This is a great move forward, DVD. I've added material from Svend Eriksen's Early Neo-Classicism in France (1974), which I have here, to the Louveciennes article, and DVD I'll go to your private sandboxes to add bits from Eriksen to your drafts, okay? Charles de Wailly is the better form. You can go to Category:Castles in France (not my title) which collects all of them. I've done a lot at some, just tweaked others. Keep in touch. --Wetman 19:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, add anything you want my sandboxes aren't so private, it is just that I don't want them to get {{notenglish}} while I'm working on them. Any refs and things from printed sources is more than appreciated, my poor excuse for a library is in boxes right now :-( DVD+ R/W 19:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you change your mind about the "D" or "d" in Charles Wailly? And, I could probably convince a bot to turn Category:Castles in France into Category:Châteaux in France, if that would be better (though the accent circonflexe isn't easy to type redirecting from chateaux will do). Ledoux is now history merged into article space, after a little more work I might try to send it to become a GA (which I've never done before). I looked up Svend Eriksen's book on Amazon - do you know how much that is worth? I'll look into the genealogy question you asked at Ledoux tomorrow. Thanks again for your help, DVD+ R/W 07:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you changed my mind about the "D": I hadn't twigged, and now I've looked at the brief vitae in Eriksen's Early Neo-Classicism in France and it's under "D". I just took it without thinking that it was French. Hmm, I'd bet it's a $100 book by now (I've just looked: good grief!: if I only hadn't dropped mine a couple of times and wrenched the spine.) Châteaux are hard to categorize: some are country houses, some really are castles: best to leave categories alone I guess. --Wetman 08:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently even used issues are going for £700 quid + [1]. I've been thinking about ways to get poor impoverished DVD out of his Seattle garrett for some time now........ By the way I've commented on Tudorbethan architecture and moved the "conspiracy theory" paragraphs to the talk page for dissection. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

Hi Wetman,

What's the deal with this edit? The editor had already been warned and had not vandalized again, as far as I can tell. Your edit summary is "blatant vandalism should not be 'welcomed' ", but this user was given a standard warning, not a welcome message (by me). What's going on? Firsfron of Ronchester 03:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, if "blatant vandalism should not be 'welcomed' ", per your edit summary, you shouldn't use the BV template all, as it leaves a message that begins with "Welcome to Wikipedia." and then says "Take a look at the welcome page". Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like blatant vandalism to me too. And since they made the edit twice I think they should have gotten two notices or at least a more severe one than test1. I'm usually in favor of accelerating the blocking process for obvious vandalism. DVD+ R/W 03:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the edit summary says "blatant vandalism should not be 'welcomed'" (which isn't the template that was left). I left a test warning template. And the BV template gives a message that begins with "Welome to Wikipedia". Firsfron of Ronchester 04:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

And what's your suggestion? Is there a template to use in cases of blatant, obscene vandalism, whether previously warned or not? Are you afraid that these people might be discouraged? --Wetman 04:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid editors that already gave a warning will be discouraged by people saying "blatant vandalism should not be 'welcomed'". I know I am. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I currently have 4123 pages on my Watchlist. It's my fault I suppose: Ttey tend to build up as one adds content to Wikipedia. If one were to increase one's Watchlist, I imagine that leisure would cease to weigh so heavily on one's hands. That is quite enough on this subject. --Wetman 04:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I know what you mean about watchlists. Until a few weeks ago, I had 7,600 on mine. It was a bit too much, so the number I'm monitoring now is significantly smaller. Anyway, thanks for the explanation. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Vlaamse Opera

Hi. I see that you are a member of the WikiProject Opera. I thought you or someone you might know might want to write an article for the Vlaamse Opera. Its conductor, Silvio Varviso, died November 1. Please let me know if you are uninterested and I will inform others. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 17:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm simply ignorant and I don't read Flemish or Dutch except by improvising from my second-rate German. Someone else would do a better job.--Wetman 19:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sending this out to wikiart folks everywhere,

so please don't feel picked on. Here's my thing. I've been watching list of sculptors recently and have been weeding out the entries in red on the theory that this is an index of sculptors in wikipedia. However i have been reluctant to remove artists that I know or discover to be real, wikipedia worthy people, so am trying to decide if i should just do a stub - maybe a lot of stubs - of these folks or leave them on the list [I HATE lists with too much red - check out the List of Frank Lloyd Wright works for example.

For example, i checked out one, François-Joseph Duret (1804 - 1865) and discovered that there are at least two sculptors with that name, (1732 - 1816) and (1804 - 1865)- this one is the son - and both probably could comfortably be in wikipedia. I did have a rather bad moment recently when someone DELETED my article on Connor Barrett about an hour [maybe less] after I first posted it, on the theory that he was not wikiworthy [or something] and a lot of these fairly remote (in time and place from me) artists are a lot more obscure than Barrett. So, i would like to know that i have the support of the wikipedia art history community before doing this. Drop me a line, if you wish to sit down and be counted. Life is good, Carptrash 06:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. although i do mostly American art i have contributed to lots on non-American articles including Aleijadinho, Ásmundur Sveinsson, Einar Jonsson, Gunnfrídur Jónsdóttir, Henry Moore, Ivan Meštrović, Ørnulf Bast, Rayner Hoff, and probably some others. I say this because most of the stubs I'm proposing would be Europeans.

Hi Carptrash, I responded at Ghirlanajo's page. The Categories Category:French sculptors, Category:Italian sculptors,etc. will give many names with Wikipedia entries not yet represented on the list. --Wetman 06:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Holy Moly - those are some lists. hmmmmmmm. Carptrash 08:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sending me that nice blue list of English sculptirs - though i did miss Eric Gill. Carptrash 14:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"Etruscan pottery"??

[[:Image:EtruscanPottery.jpg|thumb|Are these of the same family as the one in Phanagoria?]] Wetman, your work on the châteaux has been superb! For my own part, I managed little beyond expanding Valençay and starting stubby entries about Raincy and Talcy. And I also discovered DVD RW's translation of Château de Troussay. I believe the most obvious articles have been translated now and we may move on to other subjects. Have you seen Image:EtruscanPottery.jpg? This century-old photograph has been tagged in the catalogue of the Library of Congress as depicting etruscan artifacts. I notice that the image is similar to the one I uploaded in Phanagoria today. Having changed the description in Commons, I seek second opinion. What do you think? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 02:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Can't say. I've seen this image at Wikipedia, but I know when not to have an opinion! I've never been face-to-face with anything like these. Your sphinx pot is beautiful. --Wetman 03:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Château de Talcy rewording

Hello Wetman, I was reading Château de Talcy and was wondering if:-

"It was commissioned toward 1520 by Bernardo Salviati, a Florentine banker with connections to the Medici family. The château, which is imbedded in the village to one side, where the village church forms one side of the courtyard, is more Gothic in its vernacular feeling that might be expected in a structure built for an Italian at the height of the Renaissance."

Might be better as

"It was commissioned in approximately 1520 by Bernardo Salviati, a Florentine banker with connections to the Medici family. The château which is located to one side of the village centre, with the church forming another side of the courtyard, is more Gothic in execution than might be expected in a structure built for an Italian at the height of the Renaissance".

My French is utterly non-existant so I have no idea what the original articles thrust was - but I made the proposal to Ghirla who suggested i talk to you about it. Kind regards --Mcginnly | Natter 19:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

- The Salviati had had a branch in Bruges for decades (Gerard David altarpiece in NG London commissioned by bastard of family etc) so he may have spent most of his life in France or Netherlands. Johnbod 01:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Rhapsody (music)

No, I can't remember whether Keats wrote about a lark (nightingale, yes), or indeed a thrush, but I was amused to read on your user page that "I derive enough poetry out of Scientific American not ever to read verse any more". Always verify your references, m'boy! Best --GuillaumeTell 22:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My ears are just burning! It was a half-memory of "thou art pouring forth thy soul abroad In such an ecstasy!" that tricked me, I think... but the analogy with the inspired artless character of rhapsody is still a good one! - -Wetman 06:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Opinion sought

Hi Wetman, how are you doing?. I'm just making a few copyedits to Claude Nicolas Ledoux, and becoming a little bogged down in the translated text decided to look up a chateau to see if I could make out what was going on - Now what do you make of this [2] to me that is baroque in the vogue of Vanbrugh's Marlborough House yet is supposed to be Neoclassical - it could be my new spectacles but the facade even looks as though it could be slightly canted - what do you think? Regards Giano 15:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A style is rarely in complete control of an object or a structure: the château you illustrate (it is French, isn't it?) is a compromise with a conservative taste, like the familiar French commodes we call "transitional" in English, with a rectilinear corps broken slightly forward in the center, raised on cabriole legs. In the house, the conservative taste (of a patron?) requires that the block be lightly articulated in the established Baroque manner, an effect that the architect has minimized: lightly syncopated rhythms, eh. Terrible lump of sculture over the portico! --Wetman 22:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the portico thing in the middle reminded me of the one on the garden facade at Blenheim (I can't remember is it the south front? - not the big cour d'honneur one), the overall for some reason made me think of Easton Neston (I'm not sure why I say that) and the "lump" of sculpture again some of the "ornament" ar Blenheim, coupled again with Marlborough House - I came upom English Baroque - Vanbrugh, Hawksmoor and Wren yes it is French 1770 something - looks like a sannitorium doesn't it? Giano 22:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's the west front of Blenheim, rather than the south front facing Duchêne's water parterre, that you're reminded of, with its successive forward breaks in the cornice. The central recession in the attic storey of your château seems to be carried up from the recess behind the portico below: it's not a proper flat neoclassic façade at all, is it? in spite of its severe windows. Those "transitional" commodes are also 1770s: Oeben invented the formula, and Riesener carried it on almost to 1780. Is it simply the colossal order that reminds you of Easton Neston? --Wetman 01:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Château de Bénouville!, and the date is 1769! though it wasn't Oeben who invented the so-called "transitional" commode, I find, but Gilles Joubert.--Wetman 20:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Turpentine - Woodwose

Barbara Tuchman "A Distant Mirror" p 504 my edn:

"In costumes of linen cloth sewn onto their bodies and soaked in resinous wax or pitch to hold a covering of frazzled hemp, "so that they appeared to shaggy & hairy from head to foot""

- several refs given for her very full account at the back. (see also p436 death of Charles the Bad of Navarre if you look).

Both pitch & turpentine are or were pine resin products going back to antiquity (what we buy now being properly "spirits of turpentine") but I suppose "pitch" might be less confusing Johnbod 01:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Spirits of turpentine, being a distilled product that I confuse with turpentine, like most of us I figure, had me doubtful. Why not just give Tuchman's quote directly and and reference her, and avoid the extra layer of interpretation? --Wetman 01:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC) --Wetman 01:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

ok will do Johnbod 01:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet

Just letting you know I reverted your (probably unintentional) revert of Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet. Gzkn 12:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you! My Watchlist was getting stale as I worked down it. Got fuddled. --Wetman 13:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course its art history

[[:Image:WatteauPierrot.jpg|thumb|200px|left|Art history? - Marie Antoinette had omitted to mention the dress code on the mailed invitation to her fête champêtre. Too late some guests realised white clothes are not suitable for lying on the ground, and were unhappy. Giano]]

Template talk:Revivals

There's a new proposal waiting for your opinion. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Apollo Citharoedus

Howdy - I greatly appreciated your improvements to the Apollo Citharoedus article, as I learned a great deal. Nice photo too. Also I did enjoy reading your rather rambling 'self' page. Quite entertaining. Cheers, Daderot 01:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

St. George

Ok, Mr. Englisher, as far as I am concerned, there is a thing in English grammar called redundancy and this in fact can be seen in this sentence from the article: in Georgia the feast day on November 23 is credited to St Nino of Cappadocia, who in Georgian hagiography is a relative of St George, credited with bringing Christianity to the Georgians in the fourth century, where the verb credited is used two times and sounds awkward. In addition, I would respect others edits than just reverting everything that he or she wrote. I am not sure what is your religion, but different denominations of Christianity have different stories and interpretations of the saint's life and the fact that you don't quite agree with it, does not mean that it is wrong or silly. Regards SosoMK 22:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad editing, I agree. I've forgotten what was the silly part. --Wetman 23:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

List of scientists...

Did you mean this revert [3]? It doesn't fit the edit summary at all... William M. Connolley 09:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I did not. Thank you for catcing my error. --Wetman 13:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Chiaroscuro / Tenebrism merge

Hi again Wetman, These are very old tags - back to 05 i think. The opinion seemed to go C - all against; T - some for, most against. I was thinking of removing the tags, but thought i would sound you outJohnbod 00:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't care much. Encyclopedic thinking doesn't come easily to most people I find. None of the other "editors" who voted against the merge at Talk:Chiaroscuro have actually made an edit, according to the Page History of Chiaroscuro: a most Wikipedian situation, don't you know! Perhaps one day both articles will be so rich and long, we'll be glad of the division... --Wetman 00:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Capitoline Venus and Crouching Venus edits

Could I just take issue with your reverting my edits on those?

• Capitoline Venus - 'not to create a separate one on each sculpture' - yes but these are 2 different sculptures, the BM one isn't a copy of the Capitoline Venus and so should be discussed separately.
• Crouching Venus - if we're creating a list, surely asterisks are a good idea

Neddyseagoon - talk 18:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you take the article Madonna and Child, and separate it in bits, with an isolated article on each example, because after all none of them are exactly alike? Maybe you would. Thus you could with very little effort interfere with a reader's getting a general idea.

Well, there's no need to be sarcastic, and that's a far more extreme example than this one. I'm not 'separating it into bits' so crudely as that, just trying to clarify if it's on the type or on the specific artefact - I just feel that 'Capitoline Venus type' does not equal 'Capitoline Venus' (which is a single artefact), as you half-acknowledge below. Neddyseagoon 19:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No one is keeping you from creating a stub on every single example, if you like. Capitoline Venus is a type, as you know from your art history. Indeed, the BM one isn't a copy of the Capitoline Venus: both are Roman copies of a lost Greek original. The variations are instructive, are they not? --Wetman 19:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Which would make far more sense - Capitoline Venus, with precis on both statues, and also as a list page for stubs on them both? That way they get this 'general idea' you are so keen on, plus 2 more specific pages.Neddyseagoon - talk 19:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Lists? The type is established by Capitoline Venus. If you'd google those words you'd find more examples, none precisely like any other: there are many more than two. You could make a stub on each example you find, if you like, and add a precis to the article. The overview is at Capitoline Venus, the type to which art historians refer the other examples. But, if each Venus with its own article is added to Category:Venus types, the category will collapse under its own weight into trivia. Lists reduce everything to uniform trivia. We're both concerned with building context. --Wetman 21:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Capitoline as is, with link to Iemini stub - a good compromise? And I'm not suggesting stubbing every single, say, Crouching Venus, just ones where something major could be stubbed off to relieve the main page (eg Lely Crouching Venus. Neddyseagoon - talk 23:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Compromise? just link up any stubs you make, to be sure. Articles are never cannibalized to make stubs: cut and paste all the stubs you like without trashing the main text. A mild enough request. I'd have thought the page scarcely needed "relieving" yet, unless one's attention span were seriously damaged.

It didn't, and my apologies, but I've seen too many pages start off like that and get into a near irredemable mess (eg Venus de Medici, with parts on the Weddell Venus and half a dozen others).Neddyseagoon - talk 10:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Venus de' Medici is a famous example of a type The Weddell Venus is of encyclopedic interest— rather than as one in a bulleted directory listing— as an example of the "Venus de' Medici type". Context is what one tries to provide. You seem very resistant: can this be utterly new to you? --Wetman 17:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

But imagine my surprise! when a connected series of paragraphs, each of which treated a single sculpture (some still too short), has been turned into a bulleted list! That's generally considered a step backwards: in general one tries to turn such lists into connected text.

Well, it didn't seem like they were getting longer any time soon, and so I felt that format was far more suited to it for now. Of course, when it can be made fuller, with a full paragraph (rather than 1/2 sentences) per statue, which then all link up into a thread (the connections seemed a bit bitty - were they in the order that they were acquired, or something else?), then they can be boosted up into a fully paragraphed format.Neddyseagoon - talk 10:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a step- backwards. The article was currently being worked on as you intervened: "any time soon" is quite unnecessary.--Wetman!

And then to see the illustrations shuffled into a foto-strip down one side, like a travel brochure!

Well, the right hand side is the only proper side for a bulleted list, otherwise the asterisks vanish. Plus you had section lines cutting over the Louvre example when it was where it was, which looked ugly, or at least you did on my web browser.Neddyseagoon - talk 10:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. Their was no need for a foto-strip except that text was now reduced to a bulleted list. --Wetman 17:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

How disheartening that you couldn't see why the Rubens was contrasted with the Lely Venus in a single screen shot— and yet felt competent to make these changes.

Oh, I did and can see how it was contrasted (whatever else we say, let us not denigrate each other's competence), but I felt the Rubens was more relevant right next to the part of the text on the Lely Venus - then you can see directly how Rubens came into contact with it - whilst the main Lely image had to stay at the top as the article's 'headline image'. The alternative in the article as it was seemed to be that the unenlightened user was questing around for which specific example the Rubens was linked to, a problem I felt needed remedying. I felt it more important to make that relation, than to have those 2 images together for comparison (which can be easily done by scrolling between the two.Neddyseagoon - talk 10:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

An "Identification" subheading: am I to sense that "attribution" is not yet in your vocabulary?

It is in my vocabulary, and that would be a far better title, thank you - I was grasping around for one and happened to pick the wrong one ('to err is human...').Neddyseagoon - talk 10:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I shall painstakingly retain the good edits you've made when I have the heart to pull this together again. --Wetman 23:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever happened to ' 'good faith edits'? If more info had gone into those paragraphs first time, they would not have appeared list-ish and not invited such an edit.Neddyseagoon - talk 10:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You are simply getting an inkling of your discourtesy. Your good faith is not being questioned, but perhaps your self-confidence is less than warranted. --Wetman 17:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, all well-justified - I am far too blunt and disputatious for my own good, and I over-compensate for low self-confidence outside WP within WP , all things I of course need to grow out of. Thus, I apologise unreservedly for all my previous discourtesy and thank you for your extreme patience in straightening me out, which I do not deserve. Mea culpa etc. You are far 'older' in Wikipedia than I, my knowledge of classics is greater than my knowledge of Wikipedia's ins and outs, mechanisms, courtesies etc (which I am trying to remedy, in fits and starts), and your edits are of course superior. There, white flag - I'll say no more, barring the addition of links to stubs, I leave the articles entirely to you and eagerly await your additions to them. Apology accepted? Neddyseagoon - talk 20:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

PS I'm just copying this over to Talk:Capitoline Venus and Talk:Crouching Venus respectively, so others can chip in, and where I will continue discussing it, as I assume we both have it on our watchlists! :-) Neddyseagoon - talk 10:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Not mine. I've had my fill for now, but shall return in a few months to pull these articles together again after you've moved on. You might do some reading in the interim to get that "general idea" you put in quotes. --Wetman 17:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have 2 minutes

Sorry to be a nuisance but an appeal is being made for an expert here [4] I think the others have already commented. Giano 19:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, always nice to have an expert opinion - what wants tweaking, I was top of the class in English in Palermo! Giano 23:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the best overview of Palladianism on the Internet, Giano. I didn't want to say so in the review, because it would have sounded gushing. As you know, I'd tweak the Declaration of Independence if they'd give me a draft: isn't "Nature" sufficient, without adding "...and Nature's God"? --Wetman 00:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

(I hope you'll pardon a third party's comment on your aside.)

Actually, no, it isn't. Nature's existence is contingent, so it is therefore dependent, and not a sufficient cause, in and of itself. The Laws of Nature confer no entitlements, and certainly no equality. Nature's God, on the other hand, has given each of us the dignity of being created in His image (equality). He lends a portion of His authority to governments, which is why the writers felt the need to justify their actions. Nature gives no rights, to life, liberty, or anything else, but Nature's God declares that the purposes of government include protecting good and punishing evil.

In short, Nature may well prescribe separate stations for the US & UK, but only Nature's God provides for equal stations. Mdotley 16:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Renaissance architecture

Wetman, I would appreciate your opinion on these edits. The girl believes that Baroque was a "phase" in the development of Renaissance architecture. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If I may butt in - I love my old Bannister Fletcher (my great-grandfather's copy - great drawings instead of photos) but this cheap reprint is liable to cause a lot of trouble. You should see what he actually says about Baroque architecture (short but sharp)- makes EB 1911 look progressive. you just have to explain that though this was the standard history in 1901 (even earlier in UK?) things have moved on. Johnbod 12:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Baroque is also the last stage in Wylie Sypher's Four Stages of Renaissance Style: Transformations in Art and Literature 1400-1700, a standard text in English. None of us would agree with Sypher's closing date nowadays, excluding Galileo Galilei and Vanvitelli. Then, I can't see how you'd include Late Baroque academic classicism but omit Neoclassicism. So, the general rule in encyclopedias seems to be "the broader the topic, the less satisfying the article." Should the discussion of Baroque as a subsection of Renaissance Architecture emphasize the continuity of its architectural vocabulary? It has its For the main article, see... header. --Wetman 16:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I have just read this statement there: "After the building of the Banqueting Hall (1622), English architecture moved with great rapidity in the direction of the Baroque." I can't agree with that sweeping statement. Chatsworth (1696). is Englans's first truly Baroque house, and some people would argue that Castle Howard (1720?) is; but remonstrating there seems to have no effect at the moment. Giano 17:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

A more nuanced view:"Such Italianate styles remained confined to a small circle of Caroline courtiers; elsewhere English architecture in general followed a vernacular development from Antwerp Mannerism. After the building campaigns at Wilton House, completed following a fire of 1647, ambitious English architectural projects were aborted by the English Civil War. Following the Restoration of 1660, the architectural climate had changed, and taste moved in the direction of the Baroque, even in projects designed by Jones' pupil John Webb and Hugh May." --Wetman 18:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

So iy was hardly from Banquetting House to Baroque with great rapidity. Giano 09:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Parenthetically, I suppose this editor would appreciate your attention. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Quoth The Raven: Nevermore ?

A sad thought. Our friend Mariska Veres has just left the building. She sang about Venus and was she not ... Nature's Godess ?

Well, it is not all that. I just feel another Christmass coming.

a slightly depressed,

Lunarian

yep

your userpage is pretty awesome. — coelacan talk — 20:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! compliments are always welcome— and ever in too short supply. I looked at the page again: it does seem a tad wordy... --Wetman 20:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't find it wordy, although I didn't read it all at once. It's in inverted pyramid structure which I think is appropriate to your purposes. — coelacan talk — 20:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Theological Views.

First, I must say that you're articles are very well writting and neutral. However I felt that I had to say something regarding ur User Page and it's depiction of your Theological and Religious Views. I am forced to point out that Atheism is as much a religion or cult as any. Regarding something as right (i.e The Bible) when there is no proof, is faith, Just as regarding it as wrong without proof is also faith. I am afraid I am relativly new to Wikipedia Editing and am unaware as to the rule of User Pages. I did find that calling all people with any faith children was a little naive. After all beleif that something is wrong requires faith as well. Also, I think that Religion does not thrive on Ignorance, at least not anymore. Many Church's will pay Theology Degrees for it's Clergy, A Degree that covers all religions.

I do not want to seem to be moaning at you or getting at your opinion (I Beleive that everybodies opinion should be heard and listened to no matter how "controversial"). Instead I wrote this not to change your opinion but I felt an inexplicable sense of duty, I assess every new piece of infomation I recieve and I use it to question my beleif and if I came up with solid proof either way i would accept and move on.

Feel Free to Delete this once you have read it. If I have assumed wrong please tell me, I just ask you think about what I said.

Again I am not sure on rules but is it okay to use a talk page to get across your own views i was under the impression it is not but i may be wrong. I would also like to reiterate my congratulations of the clarity and extent of your contributions. Thanks, Drew 14:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My child, the Wetman has no theological or religious or extra-terrestrial or atheistical views. The Bible is not a book, it's a library: no library is "wrong." These are historical texts. There is no "rule" concerning Userpages: perhaps part of your indoctrination suggests that there should be. After you have assessed every new piece of information it must be pleasant to be nestled all snug in your thoughts.--Wetman 17:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Dear Wetman—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 14:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Re Baroque in the Italian Renaissance article

Hi Wetman!

Thanks for your contribution!

The problem is, that within that pargraph, I'm trying to make a fairly brief (but non-the-less lengthy point in which what happened in England is simply an example of a general trend ie architecture that was fully Classical in style didn't appear until the Italians were already well into the Baroque period.

The paragraph is not about specifically English architecture, and I don't want the detailed history there because it already exists at pages on Elizabethan, Jacobean and Palladian architecture.

Now, I've just removed Spain, Hungary, France and England to their own pages and some well meaning Pole has put in the entire history of Poland!

Not to mention contending with the dunny jokes and poor Lady Catherine de Burgh and sweet little Attilios who interprets my poor Italian into English that is worse and persists in removing dates.

So I hope that you won't be terribly offended by my shifting what you've written elswhere, if i can slot it in. --Amandajm 06:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps your thesis, that styles are not simultaneous all over Europe, is too narrowly defined to substitute entirely for Renaissance Architecture. It would be missing an opportunity to reduce the article to a series of concise reviews of major personalities. Considerable non-biographical but essential material won't "fit" your thesis either: architects and patrons, the invention of "Antiquity", treatises and illustrations, etc. --Wetman 06:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Heracles

Hi Wetman, I've replied on my talk page. Paul August ☎ 06:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Via Giulia

I've added the requested note. Galanskov 21:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's accurate enough. Galanskov 22:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Chi-Rho: "heavenly chi"

You wrote on the Talk: Labarum page about "heavenly chi;" What? Are you saying "The modern Chi has angles closer to 90-degrees, while older Chis had obtuse upper-and-lower angles?" Because, if you weren't... I don't know what you said. If you did mean that... I just barely got it. Scoutersig 04:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's that simple. It was a quote from the link that I gave. Compare the modern illustrations with the ancient ones. The ancient angles are not cross-angles like the modern adjustments; in fact they are too close to the angle (23½ degrees) between the ecliptic and the celestial equator for it to be coincidental in the labarum, a sign that Lactantius affirms was adopted by the Emperor who also— and more certainly— worshipped the Unconquered Sun and who put that, rather than the labarum, on his coinage, with the unmistakable legend SOLI INVICTO COMITI. Thus in the chi-rho signal, the chi also has a clear astronomical referent that can't be avoided. Fairly plain, don't you agree? --Wetman 04:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

I went ahead and was bold by adding the link into the paragraph that already talked about non-Christian meanings. It's not much, but it does add depth and "proof" to that section. Scoutersig 16:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. I use "proof" slightly cynically.

Heracles

No problem:). It seems that the anon wants to remove all non-english sources, something that could be well considered vandalism... Though it is the english wikipedia, i have seen non-english sources in many articles. Afterall, all sources and books have not been published exclussively in english. There is much good material in other languages, and as far as i know, for the Greek mythology German (primarily) and French researchers and writers have done a really good job! Regards Hectorian 04:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Secularism once again.

I've responded on the Secularism talk page once again. I wanted to note, however, that I am myself "secular", belonging to no religous institution, supporting the disestablishment of religion and believing in no god or gods though I am no "atheist"--that is I do not deny the existence of gods--I am simply not concerned with them. I'll gladly confide this information to you. My concern with what you wanted to include, originally, was that it only covers a small part of the picture--secularism of a very strongly atheistic nature. This is why it cannot be essentialized in the lead--because it is a very partial aspect of secularism. If you want to make sure that it is included in the article, as an aspect of sceintific secularism, materialistic secularsim, materialistic atheism ... or whatever you want to call it, then by all means do. The lead, however, should introduce the topic in terms of how it then is fleshed out in the article, and not from a very narrow perspective.PelleSmith 13:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(At Talk:Secularism the curious reader with a taste for the morbid can follow PelleSmith's tortuous justification for suppressing the fact that the secular state assesses natural causes "without reference to the supernatural." You'd have thought this were a necessary part of the normal definition of secularism. All very elaborate and protective of something-or-other, for a person "of no religous institution." The struggle to keep Wikipedia honest seems a thankless task. Wetman 18:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

Keeping wikipedia honest? Torturous justification? Are you ready to get tortured: Secular = that which is not "religious". The secular is not "that which is not supernatural", ONLY. I'd love a second, third or even fourth opinion on the matter, so please come and see the circus.PelleSmith 20:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(Secularism is not currently on Wetman's watchlist.)

Keeping Wikipedia transparent

Recently User:Str1977 has methodically gone through articles included in the Category:Christian mythology removing them. Wetman has inserted in almost every Talkpage concerned the following notice, with the edit summary "Christian mythology?":

User:Str1977 has methodically gone through articles included in the Category:Christian mythology removing them. This article was one of those removed.Perhaps not in the interests of the non-indoctrinated Wikipedia reader? I have no opinion in this particular case myself. --Wetman 10:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The notice has also been posted at User:Str1977 's own Talkpage. The notice is accurate and self-explanatory. No discussion is expected --Wetman 10:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

These claims are false. I have gone through the category but only removed those I deemed inappropriate for various reasons. I can give those reasons and classify them on the category talk page. Your stated disinterest in those articles places your notice close to wiki-stalking or spamming. Also, your insults against another editor (me) by implying that I am indoctrinated may be true to your Wikipedia record but not helpful either. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 02:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like there will be discussion anyway. Did you even read the notice at the top of the category page? While I agree it was perfectly justifiable to remove those articles only tangentially related to Christianity, it looks to me as if you removed any article you personally considered historically true, but this is irrelevant to what is meant by "mythology". Even Christians so devout as Tolkien or Lewis did not hesitate to call the body of Christian stories a "mythology". (That they are mythological had much to do with Lewis' conversion.)

You repeatedly asked "How is this mythology?" You've been answered. A better time to ask would have been before making such a sweeping set of changes. (And I'm sorry, but this was systematic. You obviously went through the category article by article and removed those whose listing there you thought incorrect.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, TCC. I expected to be accused of stalking; since the categories were methodically removed, it was necessary methodically to draw attention to the action which would have passed unnotioced otherwise. I have no opinion in this particular case myself, I merely draw attention to the actual facts. --Wetman 03:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you are not interested, Wetman, I will not continue this discussion here. I have replied to TCC elsewhere.

As for your actions, you are overestimating your importance. You are not needed to draw attention to this - the editors of the pages would have noticed or not regardless of your campaign. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

(You will agree, Gentle Reader, that the editor of each page are more likely to think that only that page is at issue.--Wetman 07:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

Walhalla "enshrinees"

Since I remember a comment from you, no doubt on the talk page, you might like to vote here Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_13#Category:Walhalla_enshrinees where the Category is winning a vote against deletion, which I have just tried (too little too late, probably) to swing to a Rename as Persons in Walhalla Temple Johnbod 00:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Too many categories. Any imaginable list might be made into a "category". Why not this one? "Enshrinees" is a barbarism, but I'll not vote for or against in this case. --Wetman 01:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree there are far too many categories, but I don't think this should be (one of) the first to go. Johnbod 17:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The essential is that information be preserved in a list: Persons inducted in Walhalla Temple, where the date is also preserved in the alphabetical listing. The list is linked from Walhalla Temple, perhaps simply under "See also". The criterion: is this a category useful enough to appear on every relevant page. Few categories are. --Wetman 18:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverting: slow down please

Dear Wetman, In your admirable zeal in the fight against vandalism, you have inadvertantly reverted some well-justified changes. The most obvious example from someone other than me is the article "Rapunzel", where you reverted a comment on the alternative version of "radish".

It so happens that Rapunzel is German for a plant of the radish family, and such versions of the story do indeed exist. "Rampion" is used in some verions also. Had you but glanced at the discussion pages, you would have seen a lengthy discussion on exactly which type of vegetable Rapunzel referred to, complete with original German text (Grimm).

Perhaps you are not taking enough time to check the discussion pages to see if edits are being made in good faith?

Perhaps, too, you are trusting your own gut feel more than other peoples cited contributions? (Jerome's comment on James)

Please extend the courtesy of considering the possibility that an edit may be correct, or at least in good faith. It may even be, as in Rapunzel, outside of your personal area of expertise, considerable though that may be. Trishm 08:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"Some versions of the story" that identify Rapunzel as "radish" do need a citation. I have requested one. In such versions is the name 'Rapunzel rendered inexplcable, or translated "Radish, radish, let down your hair..." This article shouldn't be on my watchlist anyway: a fairy tale with a spoiler warning! --Wetman 17:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wetman, I'm sorry, did I not make myself clear? There are times when your judgement of vandalism is producing false positives. The issue under discussion is not about the citations required for variant translations of the word "Rapunzel". The issue is that there are instances where you have reverted a correct, good-faith edit, without checking or making comment on the discussion page. I recognise that you are acting in good faith, and doing a tremendous amount of good work. I just think that there are moments when your enthusiasm gets the better of you. Cheers, Trishm 01:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you are right. When there is a shadow of doubt, I try to note in my edit summary "Vet my revert" or similar. But when anons. make changes to dates and statistics, I almost always revert, but alert others in the edit summary. Sometimes, however, with the best will in the world and infinite patience— both of which I have in short supply, I confess— it is difficult to judge between fatuous nonsense edited in perfectly good faith and furtive vandalism intended to render Wikipedia ridiculous. I'm all too aware, as you must be, of the limitations of "assume good faith" in the face of experience. I find that I am equally in sympathy with the essay "On assuming good faith". --Wetman 01:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries. By the way, the "radish" versions of the story leave the name Rapunzel, and also the sense that Rapunzel is another, perhaps archaic, name for radish. Trishm 02:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Architecture notability

To counter spurious time consuming AfD's, I've had a stab at a draft policy for architectural notability here. I've attempted to restrict the scope of the proposal to actual 'works of architecture', architects, building technology and legal aspects of the profession. Buildings and structures notability enmasse should probably be a separate enterprise, or at least a later one. I need to give some thought to threshold notability and have shied away from minor works by major architects, because buildings are not like music or literature, they cannot generally be ignored by the public and play some kind of role in most built environments, so I argue the impact is beyond just they're effectiveness or otherwise as a work of art. Comments (by anyone) gladly received. Cheers --Mcginnly | Natter 21:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A Little Mean

Okay, I find it a touch offensive that you compare religion to syphilis. Voltaire once said that "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I, being a devout Christian, follow this saying as a motto, and try hard to be as understanding as possible. But when someone compares religion and theology to SYPHILIS, I feel a stirring of offense, seeing my motto being spat at. Please, if you don't believe in God (and it is 100% your right to broadcast it to the world), don't compare those that do to those "infected" with a "disease". Anton1234 01:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

(Cruel was intended, not "mean", I should hope. It has been my experience, that people who say that Voltaire said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" have usually never read a word of Voltaire. Not even in translation. Up at my end of life's long table, we were all taught as soon as we were not merely children never to appear to "take offense". Whatever this person may be suffering from, my sympathy is overwhelmed by my relief at not being infected. --Wetman 03:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC))

Restoring format of Sol Invictus

Hello. I noticed you restored the format of an inscription just a moment ago. I had noticed the edit myself & thought that the "small" format that you reverted to was markedly superior. I hesitated to revert the edit, however, on account of not being aware if there were any policies, informal or otherwise, on the subject. Are there, or was your rv aesthetic? Just curious. --mordicai. 14:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

“ Yes, we're agreed that the small capitals sit better in the typography. On general principles, each edit should improve an article. My revert was simply esthetic: I'm unaware of policies on the subject. If there were sigh they'd doubtless be wrong-headed, like this dismal block quotation format affected by the visually illiterate. --Wetman 14:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC) ”

Andrea Schiavone / Meldolla

If you happen to have the Freedburg volume of the Penguin/Yale history of art on your shelf, could you very kindly see what he actually said here:

Later in the 1550s, "occasionally, the sensibility - too receptive, almost feminine - that inclined Schiavone towards imitation brought him to the verge of echo of the larger personality" [Titian].

- added by User:CARAVAGGISTI , who I have asked to check it, with no response. If not, please ignore. Thanks Johnbod 03:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's on page 534, as I've amended it above. Sorry for the delay.--Wetman 17:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks - actually C has done it already - I was being a bit impatient over a holiday period really Johnbod 17:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Schoeps on Ebionites and Anti-Gnosticism

Hello Wetman,

It's been a long since we first talked on the Ebionites article's discussion page.

On 16:45, 30 July 2005 at 16:45, anonymous user 4.227.194.130 revised the Ebionites article to add the following sentence:

Hans-Joachim Schoeps argues that their primary influence on orthodox Christianity was to aid in the defeat of gnosticism

Since NazireneMystic has disputed the veracity of this sentence, we need to know whether or not it was you who added it and if you can provide some quotations in the Talk:Ebionites page to support it. --Loremaster 22:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's unfamiliar to me. I never edit except as Wetman. No doubt the source is Hans-Joachim Schoeps, The Jewish-Christian Argument: A History of Theologies in Conflict. I haven't read it. --Wetman 22:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. By the way, what do you think of the current version of the Ebionites page, which now has Good Article status. --Loremaster 23:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Wetman

An editor has taken exception with the article I was working on, mythical origins of language. He suggests that the name "mythical" in the title implies that some of these myths are "untrue". I would value your input on the talk page. Regards, - Francis Tyers · 21:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"furtive deletion"

Re: Pandora... I didn't make the deletion of the "Dora and her lunchbox" reference, but looking at it, I'm having trouble understanding how it is an appropriate reference for that article. Can you explain? Robert K S 06:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed "Dora and her lunchbox" when I restored the vandalized reference, and now I can't find it in the html to take it out. Can you see it? It's so much more work to undo vandalism than to do it: what does that mean for Wikipedfia over the long run? Slow erosion? --Wetman 07:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism requires less effort than vandalism (two mouse clicks), which is precisely why Wikipedia works. As to the animated series "reference", it's not really a reference at all in the sense usually implied by that term in a scholarly work. I think it was properly removed and you improperly restored it. Robert K S 08:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, quite improperly. And quite inadvertently, too, I would have thought needless to add. I was simply trying to restore some essential deleted words in another reference. I assure you that repairing this has taken more of our time than it did for the silly addition and tiresome deletion. I trust you have set all to rights, without further comment. --Wetman 08:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, nevermind. Your saying that you had "restored" a "furtive deletion" confused me. Actually you were deleting a furtive insertion (the animated series reference)! Robert K S 08:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Catholic-expand

Hi,

Thanks for the message. For some explanation on the tag {{Catholic-expand}} please see the link to the proposal below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Catholic_Encyclopedia_topics#A_proposal_for_clearing_up_blue_links

If you disagree then I really would like some comments on this (on the CE discussion page as it will mean that discussion is in one place).

JASpencer 09:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Catholic-expand

Template:Catholic-expand has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Stbalbach 22:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Seen this?

Image:Pontius und Sidona cpg142 122r.png (I won't link) Johnbod 04:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, never! To be useful it should be linked to the descriptive text describing the wedding banquet in Geoffrey de la Tour Landry's Ponthus et la belle Sidoyne, which it is illustrating. These "wildmen" are scaly rather than hairy: I think they have dancing bells on garters. Very interesting. I'm clueless. --Wetman 05:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

René Nicolas Charles Augustin de Maupeou

Just to let you know that Category:Occitan personalities is at the moment being discussed for either renaming or deletion; until that discussion is over, could the category be left where it is? It's been completely depopulated once, and I'm trying to make sure that it remains populated until the discussion is over (as per the CfD guidelines). Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(Ah. No sounds of the squabble had reach my attention: I largely ignore these categories. One would have thought Category:Natives of Montpellier were the more specific category anyway. --Wetman 15:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

You're well out of it. My impression is that it's more heated than the subject might be thought to warrant. I stumbled into it simply because the original category was spelt "Occitan personnalities"... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hussey, R.C

My sources stubbornly refuse to tell me what the R.C. stands for in R.C. Hussey, the 19th century church architect (Chester cathedral etc[5]). Do you have an inkling? --Mcginnly | Natter 00:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

None, alas. Even Colvin mentions him as R.C. Hussey ("1802" [sic, actually 1806] -1887), in the article on Thomas Rickman, who overshadowed him, though Hussey trained one of Rickman's sons for a subsequent career in architecture. Would his full name be in the list in G. W. O. Addleshaw, "Architects, Sculptors, Designers and Craftsmen 1770-1970 Whose Work Is to Be Seen in Chester Cathedral" Architectural History 14 (1971), pp. 74-109? He and Sir George Gilbert Scott did a lot of restoration there. JSTOR is required to open it: do you have JSTOR capability, or should I see if I can't open it? Rickman's diaries are in R.I.B.A. (I'm noting parenthetically that Sir Robert John Hussey Vivian's dates are, confusingly, also 1802-1887 [6])--Wetman 01:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! I just googled "Thomas Rickman Hussey" and came up with some hits for "Richard Charles Hussey", including his listing at R.I.B.A. . There you are!--Wetman 01:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You are a rare and reliable genius sir, many thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

spam in Cyclades

The revision you designated spam in Cyclades has been re-added by the same anon IP. The site looks legit to my non-Greek-reading eyes... are you sure it's spam and not just a good link with an unencyclopaedic description? Cheers. — ceejayoz ^talk 19:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll check it agaion. There's a long-standing spam tradition at that article. --Wetman 01:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Boxer of Quirinal: ISBN?

Hello Wetman! Thanks for your recent edit at Boxer of Quirinal. Do you by chance have an ISBN for the Himmelmann book, as well? EdJohnston 21:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I can't connect the exhibition catalogue with an ISBN number at all. --Wetman 22:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Vincenzo Bellini and Bel canto

As regards "bel canto" (see it:Belcanto), this definition is very often used, especially in the USA, but its meaning is very uncertain and without any doubt cannot be used after Rossini. The vocal style in the operas of Bellini and Donizetti (I would say also in Rossini's operas composed for Neaples and Paris) is all but "belcantistic". I realize that to correct the voice Belcanto would be the first thing to do, but I cannot do this because of my poor English. If you want, kept this definition also in the article about Bellini (I work on it.wiki and don't want to open an edit-war here), but be sure that it is totally wrong. Best --Al Pereira(talk) 22:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My concern was with unnecessary loss of information. If that information was misleading to the reader, then I was mistaken in restoring "bel canto" in favor of "early nineteenth century." A definition of bel canto that excludes the writer of Norma might seem owlish. Perhaps that present usage should be explained in the article. --Wetman 22:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I understood your concern because I know how "popular" this meaning of "bel canto" is. But every historian of music knows that one of the elements in Bellini's opera that deeply impressed the contemporary audience was exactly their intense expressiveness, obtained both with purely musical devices and with a singing-style very different than in the former decades. In fact, it wasn't easy for Bellini to persuade Adelaide Tosi and Giovanni Battista Rubini singing this way, but he succeeded. The link between the aseptic aesthetics of "bel canto" and Bellini is dued to the Verismo reading of his (and Donizetti's) operas. Unfortunately, the anglosaxon non scientific critics still call them "bel canto" composers but this is just a mistake. I wouldn't explain this in the article (maybe in the discussion), just would delete the wrong info. --Al Pereira(talk) 08:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Chateau Grimaldi

Hi there. Mcginnly suggested I ask you about this. I'm trying to distinguish between several different references to 'Chateau Grimaldi', and have found three so far. Would you be able to help? Carcharoth 05:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I don't actually know any of these structures. But there are certainly several châteaux Grimaldi, as there are several villas Medici near Florence, and I think you don't want a Wikipedia article collecting them all together. For example, Château Grimaldi, Puyricard, is a country house partly rebuilt for archbishop Jerome de Grimaldi in the C17, according to your link. So call that one, if you were making an article for it (not particularly encyclopediable!), Château Grimaldi, Puyricard. If this Château Grimaldi were identified as "near" Aix-en-Provence, as it is in fact, it might still trip you up: so keep the commune attached to the château. Does that help? --Wetman 06:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That helps for that one. What I was hoping, though, was that you would know where to find, or be able to find, a definitive list. Also, is it likely that some structures might be informally known as "chateau Grimaldi" - like a holiday home or second home or just a chateau on one of the many Grimaldi estates and lands? I'm rather wary of using internet resources here, as I think they might be as confused as I am! What sort of books would help? Carcharoth 06:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No, there's no definitive list. I don't know what the French Pevsner would be: there must be a series of official Internet lists from the Ministère de la culture et de la communication. ...and they do shade away to Villa Grimaldi, not always torture dens in Peru, some of them quite nice country hotels, apparently (173,000 Google hits). Just pick the one that is most encyclopediable for its interest and history: Château Grimaldi, Antibes is the only one that's a designated Monument historique. But there's Château Grimaldi, Cagnes, also a museum. Include a note "There are numerous other châteaux Grimaldi in Provence, such as..." that way you won't get distracted, and you could turn each one later into an article. --Wetman 06:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That really does help. Can I check a few more things? I think you mean Chile, not Peru, for Villa Grimaldi. Also, I want to double-check that you do think there are two chateau Grimaldi in the Antibes-Cagnes area (this is the first I've heard of this), one where Picasso stayed, and one that is a Monument historique, plus another one over in Puyricard commune (the one "near Aix-en-Provence"), that was the one where Jerome de Grimaldi lived. From my talk page (and adding links): "Looking on a map, Cagnes-sur-Mer and Antibes are close to each other on the eastern Provence coast, near Cannes. Aix-en-Provence is over the other, western side, north of Marseilles." Also, just in general, from the history of aristocratic families (you mentioned the [[Medici]s] earlier), is this sort of thing quite common? An aristocratic family having lots of houses/castles/estates whatnot, and those buildings being known as the <family name> 'house'? Carcharoth 17:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. Is Puyricard definitely a commune? I could only find w:fr:Puyricard, and couldn't find it under Communes of the Bouches-du-Rhône department. Carcharoth 18:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What is most usual in France is for branches of a family, whose name may have originated with a stronghold they might no longer possess, to be differentiated by the name of the château that branch lived in, in the formula "X de Y" or "de X de Y". In genealogies you'll find a "comte de X" who is also "sieur de A, sieur de B, sieur de C"-- each a fortified place perhaps each lived in for part of the year, keeping a jump ahead of lice and bedbugs. It is much more usual in France for the château to be the traditional name of the place, thus many variants of Château Rochefort or La Roche de X. An inspection of each Château Grimaldi might turn up its more ancient name. Meanwhile, try Googling in image mode "Grimaldi Antibes" and "Grimaldi Cagnes"; two different structures, one a harbor-guarding fortress, one a bishop's palace. The village/commune of Puyricard has its own website.--Wetman 20:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Corbinian

Thanks for your well-cited and constructive additions to the Saint Corbinian article! Alekjds 06:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It's always nice to hear that. What about his name change? Was his mother Corbinia, Corvinia, Coruinia ("crow woman")? Only Vita Corbiniani would have the answer. --Wetman 06:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha! I did a search for "Vita Corbiniani" and found this excellent (German) webpage: http://www.helmut-zenz.de/hzkorbin.htm. Specifically, the Biographie section refers to his mother expressedly as "Corbiniana." (Nach dem Tod seiner Mutter Corbiniana lebte er als Eremit bei der Kirche von Saint-Germain bei Châtres. - "After the death of his mother Corbiniana he lived as a hermit in the church of Saint Germain in Châtres") Also, it defines the etymology of his name. (Sein Name bedeutet so viel wie "Befreier von Sorgen," "liberator of concerns/anxiety") I'm going to paste this to the talk page; I think it would be justification enough to reinclude the bit about the origin of his name. The only other recourse I can imagine for verification to this ends would be to find a copy of Arbeonis episcopi frisingensis Vitae Sanctorum Haimhrammi et Corbiniani... Cheers! Alekjds 07:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Do work your new finds directly into the article's Links and its "Further reading": they'll be lost on the Talkpage. How an etymologer finds "liberator of concerns/anxiety" hidden in Corbinianus might need some justifying and a source: pretty tortured, it seems to me at first sight. Those medieval "etymologies" can't be taken seriously: Isidore of Seville, Jacobus de Voragine, et al.. Corvus ("crow") is a major totem animal,; there are parallels in names like Ursinus, Lupinus etc. Even Gallo-Romans with no Germanic connections began to use such names in the later fifth-sixth centuries. --Wetman 08:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Working methods

Gah! How long did this take you? :-) I guess you work off-wiki and then, when you have something ready, paste it in. I work in a more, um, 'distributed' way. I guess that helps with the DYK 5-day limit as well (which is obviously where I saw the article). Nice article, btw! Carcharoth 09:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It took a bit over an hour, after I noticed that mosaic at Bath— with a side-trip to add some Roman material to Halo (religious iconography). I really should work off-wiki; that way I wouldn't lose precious text from time to time when the hopper jams. I was shocked! ...shocked! that hippocamp just redirected to seahorse. Started me off. http://www.theoi.com is a great site that pulls together quotes from the classical sources and gives you a search function. And you thought I was so smart....--Wetman 09:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Using the 'back' button on your browser should rescue text when "the hopper jams". BTW, I forgot to thank you for the above tips re: Google Image searches. I use Google all the time at work. I should have thought of that one myself! I'm going to try and get something up on the chateau(s) soon. Any tips for images? Carcharoth 09:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hippocamp

right|222pxHippocamp is a nice article, kudos. I merged it with hippocampus (mythology), added some more artwork, and expanded it to include such things as the frequent appearance of the creature in heraldry and modern fantasy. I'll make sure your article appears on DYK. House of Scandal 12:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Who could have expected that there was an article hippocampus (mythology) that didn't have a redirect from hippocamp! I did do a search. I've taken out some wordage that didn't contribute to the sense, and I've cleaned away extraneous links with a note at Talk:Hippocamp. Could you identify any coats-of-arms with leocamps and the like? Even one in an armorial would justify its inclusion. "Mer-horse" is a nonce-word, according to OED, based on analogy with mermaid. --Wetman 14:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Wetman for your many contributions! I'm intending to continue my DYK duty despite the confidence you expressed in me becoming an arbitrator. Keep up the great work! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Award

The Black Cross of St. Declan You, Wetman, are awarded the Black Cross of St. Declan for going medieval on our asses with your excellent work on articles of Dark Ages and Middle Ages interest. De réir a chéile a thógtar na caisleáin - "It takes time to build castles" Ciarán of Clonmacnoise 05:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Suz Andreasen Edit

Wetman - I noticed you worked on my article on Suz Andreasen. You noted "Clean Up still reads like a promo." In your opinion, what could I do to make it read less like a promo? Any editing suggestions?

Thanks, Archie Martin Archiemartin 21:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes putting a new article into conventional Wikipedia format ("cleanup") helps soothe resistance, just in itself. Perhaps it is essentially something of a promo. Where would a wikipedia reader have recognized her designs, without being aware of her name? Is her teacher widely known? Can her style be more closely described, without exclaiming about its quality? Just some ideas. --Wetman 07:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

one more question: Thanks much for the feedback, I am using cleanup to try and make proper edits in accordance with WP format. I do have one more question. If I wanted to add an image, what is the proper protocol? I know many readers will not know her work as much as her name but they may know her images. Thanks again. ArchiemartinArchiemartin 17:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A bit complicated: start with Wikipedia:Images. The photos have to be your own, which you release all rights to. But with contemporary art, the artist herself may reserve some rights. Way over my head... but Wikipedia:Images will start your tutorial!--Wetman 18:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Étienne de Vesc

I have announced your France related article on the Wikipedia:WikiProject France/New article announcements list. This WikiProject France has been created to coordinate the work on France related articles. So if you make further article relted to France, then do announce it on the list. Happy editing, STTW (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(What a very long list that must be. A WikiProject "Medieval France" might have made a more manageable effort. Or a Wikiproject "Quattrocento". But Wetman is generally too occupied with avoiding fender-benders in traffic to read all the bumper stickers at Wikipedia.))

Thanks for the kind words

Thanks for the kind words regarding my maps. I have long appreciated your work and sense of humour, and so your compliments mean a great deal to me. MapMaster 23:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(The particular MacMaster map in question Wetman had added to Duchy of Benevento.)

email

Hey Wetman your E-mail this user isn't enabled :-( DVD+ R/W 12:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've never used it. I like Wikipedia's transparency. What's on your mind? --Wetman 14:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

nvm I wanted to ask you about something - I emailed Giacomo already while I was waiting to ask you and he explained it perfectly, so I'm not confused about it anymore, thanks though. I still think you should enable it for later but of course you don't have to. DVD+ R/W 14:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Periplus

You must have a strange perception of the point that I was trying to make - I have well over a thousand stubs that I have a strange relationship with I live in trepidation of some dead head deletionists finding justifications to get stuck into! To me a lack of a ref does show up - regardless of yours or any others justification of the appearance or format - is what I was suggesting. Anyways - trust you understand me now! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SatuSuro (talk • contribs) 14:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC). Oops! SatuSuro 14:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

(Wetman has copied the above to Talk:Periplus, to which it applies.)

DYK: setting a poor example

On January 10, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Victorious Youth (sculpture), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! Nishkid64 22:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

...so far so good...

By the way, I renamed the article to Victorious Youth (sculpture). I don't believe the museum that the sculpture belongs to really should be included in the article title. Nishkid64 01:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I await your title changes to the Borghese Vase and the Giustiniani Hestia! --Wetman 10:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Why'd you change it back? You don't put the museum title in the actual article name. Nishkid64 21:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, be honest: you have never read one word of any serious article on any Roman bronze in your life, have you? Look at the names of other articles following forward from the Category:Ancient Greek sculptures or Category:Hellenistic and Roman sculpture or Category:Ancient Roman sculpture. These are the conventional names an educated reader will enter, looking for the articles. Notice at Getty Victorious Youth under "What links here" the redirects I made: The Fano Athlete and the Getty Ephebe are two other names an educated reader might enter, looking for this material. And don't be impertinent. And that's quite enough about this from me. --Wetman 22:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You might also look at List of illuminated manuscripts and the list at Codex for similar conventions, not to mention madonnas etc in painting. You have to use something to distinguish them when the artist is unknown Johnbod 22:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wetman. Your post at the talk page seemed a little hostile, but maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, when I asked the question about the article's name, it was just that - a question. I don't see what's wrong with asking a question, or how it merits a hostile response. None of the external links or on-line references had "Getty" in the title of the sculpture. Since I'm not an expert on sculpture, and the title didn't make sense, I asked. Why does asking a question like this merit a hostile response? --Duk 22:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

When you post "I don't see that Getty should be in the title" you're bound to be laughed at by someone. Imagine hearing this: "I don't see why we have to call it the Mona Lisa: why isn't it Portrait of Donna Lisa del Giocondo?" Do you see how that might sound to the grown-ups like the whine of a fretful child? Now see here: there's a sculpture you've never heard of called the Apollo Belvedere. Read up on it with a click of the mouse, and see if you can't discover for yourself why it's called the "Apollo Belvedere". Glance at the article Getty Victorious Youth and notice that J. Frel published it as The Getty Bronze. If the article were titled Victorious Youth (sculpture), then every time one mentioned it, one would have a create a piped link, wouldn't one? There! now that's a reason to leave it be that you can comprehand. And now let's all move on to more important things...--Wetman 22:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I don't mind that much being laughed at :) But, still, after doing some searching most links don't use "Getty" in the title. --Duk 22:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the personal attacks, Wetman. Some other admins at IRC said it was awkward to have the name of the museum in the title. I changed it, as it did seem a bit strange. You could have said something, and your failure to do so prompted me to ask you as to why you reverted my page move. Don't make accusations on me, when you failed to inform me on this issue. I don't appreciate being called "impertinent" or the emphasis on "educated". Nishkid64 22:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

So, was laughing at the cheek of it really a "personal attack", Gentle Reader? Laughter is traditionally the best corrective: a word is sufficient... to the wise.

Wetman's resources of patience and forbearance are in perennially short supply. Principles of triage require that no more of these reserves be expended than any one situation requires. Your understanding is appreciated.

Request!

The never ending debate here [7] is asking if you could reference a Summerson quote. Sorry to be a nuisance. Giano 07:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more! Problem is here, even when I try to edit trouble just seems to folow me arownd, I can't even look at my watch list - yes, I know remove a page, then what happens every shack in Idaho becomes an image of perfect Palladianism! Giano 09:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You have never been a nuisance, Giano; you have ever been a stimulant. But you've been keeping low company lately, one hears. Your architectural critic reports of her Wikipedia role as Mostly adding infoboxes to album articles. Commenting upon FA articles under review. Added a VH1.com inline citation to all song articles featured upon VH1's "40 Greatest Metal Songs. Commentary would be too cruel even for me. --Wetman 09:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that. For the first time ever I'm speechless! Giano 15:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Mieux vaut rire de tout que pleurer de rien. Did you see the colorful popinjay just above?--Wetman 15:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey

hey i hope this is cesar .. you are my project for household management....and i was wondering if you were still alive .....Leighanne

...and a hey-nonny- and no, I'm sorry to say that you have the wrong number. --Wetman 14:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

A deleted ext. reference at Cambrian explosion

In which article was this reference? Sorry...lots of edits tonight and I don't recall that one. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

(Quite right. Wetman re-edited the note to include the link to Talk:Cambrian explosion. Wetman 11:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC))

Ah ok. I see it. Yeah I discussed all of that with the user. He uploaded a whole mess of external links, making him look like a serial spammer. He's going to repost them, but he's going to be more careful about it. He's a newbie. I removed that link when I thought he was a spammer. If you want to reinstate it, be my guest. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

(The Wetman always undoes his own damage.)

totally disputed

We have a raging edit war going on over at Ebionites. Please help. Ovadyah 18:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"The heat of an argument is inversely proportional to the information available." I wish I'd detected that axiom all on my own... --Wetman 19:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Abednego

I confirm (educated) hackers consider Abednego as an ancestor. Disdero 19:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

...because he walked through a firewall'... we get it: haw haw haw. Perhaps a quote from a published source would "legitimize" this frivolous, not-encyclopediaworthy reference.--Wetman 21:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure! The first time I saw that was in Scientific American in 10/1998, but it could be older (no cue). As of today, if we can use it as a benchmark, Google gives 950+ hits for abednego + hacker

Maybe I can put back the contrib, along with the sci-am "genesis" (pun intended) of the association Disdero 16:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Pauline Christianity

Thank you for your note and for your kind comments about my other work. I suppose one person's POV is another person's rebalancing. There was a lot wrong with the previous version. It supposed an official line which ignored the role of the eastern church in controversies. It used fourth century sources like Epiphanius on Ebionites when Justin Martyr and Irenaeus are much nearer the period. It jumped from second to fourth century and was hopelessly assured about the Council of Nicea. No record exists of the Council and the fact that disagreements followed over the next 56 years until Constantinople (note the venue) and then Chalcedon in 451 all of which tends to weaken the Roman imperial claims thesis. I thought the failure to note that the expression originates with Hans Lietzmann and the ideas with Baur was wrong. Baur, who is quoted in some of the supportive literature has been pretty well exploded. He relied very much on a Hegelian (thesis/antithesis= synthesis) model. I am, in fact, very sceptical of attempts to harmonise Luke-Acts and Paul and need to look at the article again. The trouble is that the article was full of POV. My use of 'pejorative' is surely right: those who use the expression are mostly critical of Paul's as having either invented the faith or distorted it. My difficulty is that, as I have tried to indicate, PC is a fluid notion. I have tried to give space to its various uses. If I have overbalanced, please tell me where Roger Arguile 13:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Your historical understanding is what must lead you at Wikipedia. No, I don't suppose one person's POV is another person's "rebalancing" at all: to begin by dismissing the subject as "pejorative" is a technique of your training. There's no quibble about "balanced" I'm sure. I've noted the suppression of Pauline Christianity in a covert piped link at Talk:Paul of Tarsus. I don't for a moment suppose you were responsible, Father Arguile. --Wetman 14:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I beg you to red the talk page. The word 'pejorative' wass used simply to mean that many of the writers who use the expression, don't approve of Pauline Christianity. Most of the websites I have looked at are very critical of it. That is fine. I was simply recording the fact of its being a way of referring to Catholic Christianity which implied a criticism. I don't attribute that opinion to you; I read it on the web. As for any covert action, you will have to explain what you mean. I am always in favour of openness, heartily dislike sarcasm and irony and am very happy to be known by my user name, Roger Arguile 17:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Bernardo Cennini

Hey there, Wetman. I nominated Bernardo Cennini (and image) for DYK, so it should be up soon. Feel free to alter or create a new hook. Thanks again for the articles! Nishkid64 18:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! All is forgiven. Do be cautious with the old man. --Wetman 19:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Catholic-link

A deletion discussion in which you voted, that of Template:Catholic-link, is up for deletion review, where the template may be deleted or retained depending upon the review discussion. You are welcome to comment and/or vote at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Template:Catholic-link. The key point of this discussion is whether the "default keep by no consensus" result was correct; discussion of the template itself is secondary (but may still be important). — coelacan talk — 04:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Alphius (martyr)

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Alphius (martyr), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Pastordavid 22:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RM request for parterre: question

I should've remembered to post this here, but I left a question for you at your move proposal for parterre. The current content of parterre (theatre) needs to be merged to theater (structure) in order for your suggested disambig to work. While theater (structure) is currently poor enough that I probably couldn't make it worse with ham-handed attempts to do so, I thought you might have specific plans for it. Opabinia regalis 02:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I have no plans. But having separate articles for each element of a larger conception, ones that mean nothing on their own, such as this, is an example of "dictionary thinking". One can break down an article like Theater (structure) into such fragments no overall sense can be made of the theater structure: "parterre" stripped of context becomes no more than an expanded dictionary definition. Similarly one could not reconstruct King Lear from a dictionary, though all the words are there. "Encyclopedic thinking" seems more difficult for the average person to grasp than I could ever have imagined. --Wetman 02:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, done and delisted then. I'm more of a splitter than a lumper, myself, but these contextless substubs just don't work. (I don't find it too surprising that "encyclopedic thinking" is outside the average person's range of cognition; rather more surprising that it's outside the range of the average person who voluntarily chooses to spend his time writing an online encyclopedia. You'd think some degree of selection bias would prevail.) Opabinia regalis 07:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The structure you've created functions clearly for the reader: "You've got that right" my cousin would say. --Wetman 15:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary

That is the best edit summary I have seen. Thanks for the entertainment. Rintrah 02:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Mm-hm, if it's meant to be sexy, I always note it "pre-adolescent". Vandalizing Wikipedia should be a discouraging experience, don't you think? --Wetman 04:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but we shouldn't be too harsh on the pre-adolescents and rednecks who vandalise wikipedia. They ought to be cared for in a home for special people. Rintrah 05:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Permissions Request

Wetman, How do I contact you for an image use request? Sarah 17:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

But I possess no rights to images to be requested. What is the image in question? --Wetman 17:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You do not own the image of Reading from Moliere by Troy you put up on November, 2005?

No, it's a documentary photo of a two-dimensional work of art made by an artist who has been dead more than a hundred years. --Wetman 19:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Then, is it correct to say that the photo can be used in a stictly non-commercial educational publication free to all on the internet without any problems?

I'm not a lawyer: read Wikipedia:Image. --Wetman 12:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Bernardo Cennini, was selected for DYK!

On January 20, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bernardo Cennini, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 18:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

On February 6, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pseudo-Seneca, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Keep up the great work Wetman! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

unicorn

I wanted to explain some of the changes that I made to the article (including the "pointless deletions"):

• I removed the reference to "unanswerable rhetorical questions" because that only referred to the Job quotation and not the others. (This is why I'm going to remove it again.)
• I removed the reference to the Qilin because it had been clumsily added to the front of the paragraph and repeated info from the "Overview" section at the top of the article. Your placement at the end of paragraph is fine.
• I didn't "demand" a citation, nor did I need to. Wikipedia always wants citations. Plus by having a source listed it helps prevent copyright violations where text is copied intact without praphrasing or quotes.

Hope this clears things up. Tocharianne 21:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Second Punic War

Take a look at my User page at the bottom under "Articles I'm working on Improving" of the title "Second Punic War". It's a "discovery" I've make concerning Acts of the Apostles.
Could I get your comments on this? Thanking you in advance for your input. --Doug ^talk 23:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Kara Darya

Oops. Sorry about that. I will move the article to proper name. - Darwinek 17:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep the note, though: it's useful for the reader to know: Amu Darya etc etc. --Wetman 17:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Americanise spellings

On the Human migration page you stated (we don't Americanise spellings) after an edit of (→Industrialisation - i changed industraliasation to industralazation) Please teach me how to look up the Wikipedia standard on this issue. Thanks!--al95521 06:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk. (Wikipedia:MoS).

Equally tasteless, I might add, is "correcting" BCE/CE to BC/AD. It is an easy matter at Wikipedia to find something useful to do. --Wetman 06:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sutton Hoo

Thanks for your input. I've added all the text I want, incorporating everything useful that was there before and ditching what wasn't. Now that's done I feel although it is long it could and preferably should remain as one, but would value your input on this and other things discussed since your comment on that page. Cheers, Dr Steven Plunkett 07:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I was looking through it yesterday and admiring your efforts. --Wetman 17:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

== Abbey ==

Thank you for restoring all of the text I deleted from "Abbey" -- including all of the material about priories which is factually completely ubtrue, all of the material about friaries and other monasteries which are not abbeys at all, and all of the minutiae about a handful of abbeys picked out for mention above the 1,000s of other abbeys for no discernible reason. You ahve done a great service to making Wikipedia more useful.HarvardOxon 22:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The better sort of Wikipedia editor is at least as careful about what one deletes as what one adds. Deleting is not editing. Blanking sections of text is a form of vandalism. Quibbles about monasteries that are not abbeys but friaries etc. need to be addressed in the text— by someone who is competent to do so. Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 text needs thoughtful revising, not trashing. These posts are being copied at Talk:Abbey. There need be no further discussion here. --Wetman 00:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Pauline Christianity

You may be interested to know that I hasve added a brief reference to Russell and Nietzsche in 'Pauline Christinity'. I thought that their earlier inclusion in 'Paul of Trassus' was otiose since niether was a Pauline scholar. Having referred to their works, it now seems ot me that they warranbt inclusion in the above article. Their textual understanding does not warrant inclusion, but as Nietzsche was, in my view, one of the most important contributors to moral thinking in the nineteenth century, a reference to his moral objections is a good idea. I have not expanded it, but can do if you think so. Roger Arguile 11:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping me abreast. A brief, characteristic quote on the subject by Nietzsche would certainly be a propos. I haven't looked through German Wikipedia's article Paulinismus, but I've added Ulrich Müller, widely referenced, and a few other titles. --Wetman 19:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am interested

Vote early, vote often

in getting people to vote about this picture which was just removed from the sacrifice article, so am contacting everyone recent on my talk page. Please consider taking a few minutes, looking it over, and voicing an opinion. Thanks. Carptrash 03:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your stopping by and offering an opinion. As a bonus, here is the rock paining nearby the scene that watched the whole thing, sacrifice, road kill, whatever, but is not talking. Carptrash 18:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Castelseprio

Since Attilios has for some reason left you off his mailing-list for this:

Help in edit war Can I ask your help in the poll to dirime this edit war at Castelseprio (see talk:Castelseprio)? I've stumbled in somebody with awful style layout, and probably one of those guys getting stuck like children in their version of any article. Bye and good work. --Attilios 09:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

- perhaps I could ask you for your comments. Johnbod 16:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(Wetman doesn't slow down to view blood and broken glass in the opposing lane: just can't bear it.)

Capitoline Venus and Colonna Venus

Welcome back to the ancient-art historical enterprise! Sorry about our tiff way back, and congratulations on some really useful edits to those pages. Just a thought - have you thought of researching and making an article for Adolf Michaelis? - he crops up so often in classical sculpture articles, he could do with one of his own, and I think you'ld be the ideal editor for it. Let me know since, even if you're on other projects at the mo, it'ld be very useful to have a watching eye on it from you if I manage to get round to writing one for him myself. (Oh, and one more thing - improving Guilford Puteal anywhere up your street?). Many thanks. Neddyseagoon - talk 23:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your upbeat forgiveness for my cranky outbursts, Neddyseagoon!

Wetman 00:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for saying so, but it was mea culpa too. Anyhow, case closed as they say!Neddyseagoon - talk 09:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've been thinking I should work up Adolf Michaelis (1835-1910), whom I only know as the author of the repertory Ancient Marbles in Great Britain. He was an originator of modern connoisseurship in the field. I'd look in de:Wikipedia first, and there's this on-line directory entry... maybe it's not so hard after all... --Wetman 00:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There! How long did that take? Two hours with a supper break! -Wetman 02:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Phewee! All that in 2 hours? Your German must be better than mine. :-) Nice work Neddyseagoon - talk 09:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I admire what you do on Wikipedia. Is is it possible, however, that your standards for a public domain encyclopedia like Wikipedia are a little too high? I am a Latin & Greek graduate student so I am in sympathy with your intellectual professionalism, but preemptive deleting will only cause internecine feuds. I am of two minds about wikipedia myself. I basically have an m.o. of research which is I start with grassroots searches in Wikipedia and google and then I go to a professional academic database and use the keywords I got at Wikipedia. You can't really site a wikipedia article anyway in most departments. This may be shortsited (pun) but that's how it is now. It would be nice in life if superior knowledge were graciously deferred to, but look at Iraq. In academic departments being right can cost you tenure. Maybe you might think about your own sites which you could try to link to wiki articles? Tony

"User:Tonyodysseus" can sign his name and datestamp it with four tildes thus: (~~~~). Any project that presents itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is from the start a compromise with mediocrity. I protect what I write from challenging accusations of "original research" by limiting myself to reports on what has been printed: thus the footnotes. As for my own website, which is The Skeptical Aquarist, I didn't link to it myself for fear of a "vanity insertion": I've noted, however, that some Wikipedian has officiously deleted the link from External links at Aquarium: so much for "my own sites". In deleting vandalism from the 4332 pages currently on my Watchlist I avoid the word "vandalism" in edit summaries, because at a certain cultural level the word has punk cachet: I use "scribble" instead. Vandalizing Wikipedia should be a humiliating and demeaning experience that a joker would hesitate to repeat: surely User:Tonyodysseus agrees. Which case of "preemptive deleting" on my part was intended, may I ask? --Wetman 19:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

(Gentle Reader, lest you be confused, "User:Tonyodysseus" is the false front that has been erected by some thoroughly accomplished Wikipedian politician too furtive to post here under their own usual Username. Among the class of Wikipedians who deal in such things this is known as a sock puppet. "Preemptive deleting" seems to be the theme of this doubly-veiled complaint. -Wetman)

[[:Image:Humanyu.JPG|thumb|200px|left|Humayun's Tomb compared with......]]

Taj Mahal

I'm interested in sorting the Taj Mahal article out a bit. One question that isn't really dealt with in the article at the moment is the influence the Taj may have had on western architecture. Its fame travelled quickly after its construction completed in the late 1600's and by the early 1800's the British were effectively in control - the traditional conception of the Taj as a 'monument to love' presumably had some resonance with the romantic movement, but other than the Royal Pavilion (I assume), I wonder what buildings in Europe might trace a significant influence from the Taj. Any pointers gratefully accepted. thanks. --Joopercoopers 20:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC) [[:Image:Rashtrapati Bhavan (Dehli).jpg|right|thumb|200px|Rashtrapati Bhavan - seems to be a formal blend of mughal, indian and neo-classical styles - similar massing - symmetry, plinth, dome, rising above broadly triangular composition, there's even little Chhatri's if you look closely.]]

You've got the main structure right there. Sezincote is the other English classic of what was in essence an offshoot of chinoiserie and was largely an influence in interior decoration and some textile design (paisley patterning). Though the British East India Company was in political control by c. 1800, British awareness of any of the authentic details of India was a product of the nineteenth century, transmitted by woodcuts and after mid-century through steel engravings: see this website. Indian architecture was reproduced as "picturesque": I wonder who made the first measured architectural drawings of an Indian building: might it have been as late as ca 1910 in connection with the 1911 Durbar? To what extent did the official structures built in India under the Raj present Indian details, I wonder?

The Taj may have had a daunting perfection that protected it from vulgarized copies. The Taj Mahal's reputation in the West had its start in the late nineteenth century, I think. My American grandmother had a little ivory Taj Mahal under glass on a chimneypiece. --Wetman 20:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Daniell's Oriental Views (1808) was a key work here, plus his other Indian watercolours and paintings, which were turned into etchings etc (but not woodcuts - wood engravings conceivably). He advised on Sezincote (but mainly re the gardens), which was visited by the Prince Regent in 1812, before he built Brighton. Later buildings, both more the interiors, and not necessarily particularly influenced by the Taj, were parts of Osbourne House for Q Victoria, and Elveden Hall in Suffolk, after Duleep Singh went to live there. I think soon after the "Mutiny" there was a proposal to demolish the Taj for the materials, the rejection of which may have marked a further turning-point in attitudes. Also Kuala Lumpur has a very fine Moghul railway station (called "Moorish" for political reasons I think), apart from the neo-Moghul buildings in India.

Johnbod 21:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hah! yes, the Daniells! I had forgotten them, a major oversight. The nephew in the team was William Daniell: how awkward to have two dictionary-style entries rather than a joint encyclopedic one! A joint Wikipedia article would need to improve the EB1911 assessment. I'd not heard of the proposal to demolish the Taj Mahal: Northumberland House was pulled down for its materials in 1866-74. Your point about the style-designation "Moorish" concealing design vocabulary that was in fact Indian strikes the right note: Frederick Church's Olana, despite its Victorian picturesque massing. --Wetman 21:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all that, absolutely great. There's a really interesting chapter in Ebba Koch's book "The complete Taj Mahal" called Everybody's Taj Mahal - Francois Bernier was there in 1659 and wrote about it - the 18th century, things become a little quiet, Josef Tieffenthaler, one of the last jesuits of the Mughal mission visited sometime after 1743, wrote an account. The British east india company got to agra in 1785 and from 1786-1798 Major William Palmers, when in agra would stay in the garden towers of the Taj. Apparently the first artist to arrive from europe was James Forbes (artist) in 1781 swiftly followed by Johan Zoffany in 1786. The first overall views of the Taj were made by William Hodges (1783)and Thomas Daniell and William Daniell who came in search of 'the sublime, picturesque and exotic'. Thanks again. --Joopercoopers 23:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

To what extent did the official structures built in India under the Raj present Indian details, I wonder? - that's an interesting lead - I'll have a look at Lutyen's New-Delhi. --Joopercoopers 11:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, New Delhi definitely - synthesis of Indian, including Mughal architecture and neo-classicism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joopercoopers (talk • contribs) 13:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

There are others; in Mumbai: Gateway of India - a bit half-hearted,Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus - Moghul-romanesque; nothing much in Calcutta. See Indo-Saracenic , the other thing they called the style. Lutyens certainly. Here is fun, but more stuff built by maharajahs etc. Johnbod 02:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The Mughal garden in India is pretty directly drawn from the Persian garden tradition via Babur. Lutyens' use of viewing pavilions, axes, narrow canals, fountains and geometrically articulated spaces, which he recognized in India, have a more convoluted cultural history: Persian bagh-> Islamic traditions-> twin Islamic traditions of Andalusia and Sicily-> Norman garden tradition inherited by Angevins in Naples-> seen by Louis XII and Charles VIII's courts-> formal C16-C17 French garden-> Le Nôtre-> Lutyens. --Wetman 02:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

please help me do a report