User talk:Wetman/archive25Jun2007

=Archive:25 June 2007=

Wandering Jew
The article on Wandering Jew has had some substantial changes made to it since you left a comment on the talk page under the heading of 'Sermonette". If you have the time, you might want to look over the current text and leave more comments for me on the Article Talk Page.  I have an interest in the subject.Lisapollison 17:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The section on literature in this article has become so long that it now seems best to split it off into an article titles, for example, [The Wandering Jew motif in fiction]]. I could use some input as to which literary references are sufficently historical and notable that they should remain a part of the primary article.  In addition, any suggestions you care to make about the title of the split off article and its content are also welcome.  I have a section for this discussion on the article's talk page.  Thanks.LiPollis 02:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * All references to the legendary "Wandering Jew", as I'm sure you understand, are "in fiction", save the scholarly writings that examine those fictions, to shed light on recurrent themes in European cultural history. "The Wandering Jew motif in fiction" ought not to be suggesting to you that there is a "Wandering Jew in historical fact".  The Wandering Jew" is part of Christian mythology— a concept which was not even mentioned or linked at the article: I have just now added the briefest reference to it.  Lists are cruft: a separate article would need to discuss the changing uses that have been made of the theme, in order not to remain a mere list. To avoid sermonettes or other "original research" you'd best read what's been published and simply report on that. --Wetman 04:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it should be The Wandering Jew motif in literature! I agree that lists aren't great.  I'm not the person to write the article that should be written, unfortunately.  So, would it it be better to simply leave in all the mentions under the literature section, break them out pretty much as they are with an introductory paragraph, or trim the section in the current article and keep the idea of the new article in mind?  I ask you because of your continued attention to the article. Your recent edit fixed a fairly glaring ommisson.LiPollis 12:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Levée, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  21:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Original research
I just saw your thoughts on original research and am feeling like tossing in my two cents worth {now worth 7 cents because of the price of gas}. I am constantly skirting the edges of OR and -we can be honest here, right? - sometimes cross over it. Take the Angel of Grief issue. In 1994 John Gary Brown published Soul in Stone: Cemetery Art from America's Heartland and on page 107 shows a monument with the caption stating that this is a copy of Story's Angel of Death located in the Cimitero degli Inglesi in Florence, Italy. I got the book as soon as it came out and soon there after wrote the author that the original work was in fact in the Protestent Cemetery in Rome, and not in Florence. A bit after that I got a letter from him thanking me and agreeing with me. This factoid is fairly easy to prove in other ways, but, if that were not the case, if this were a very obscure work of art, do I go with the published, but wrong version, or my own, OR version? A few pages later he shows a monument that I know to be based on Chauncey Ives statue of Undine, but only because ...... I am familiar with that work. Someday someone is going to do a complete OR evaluation of my postings and they will get ripped to shreads. I mention this because it has been on my mind and when I saw your posting, and since I feel pretty safe and comfortable discussing it with you, decided to send off this note. So. .  how is YOUR comfort level now? Carptrash 19:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My, but you're quick, Carptrash: I'm glad to be on your reading list. Where I've drawn on my own fifty years' reading, talking, listening and looking, I've been pulled up short by the public-school sophomores. I'd say, edit what you know is correct, it's the only intellectually honest route, and cross your bridges when you come to them. I've decided to take the other path, and begin with the references, working outwards. Or upwards is it?--Wetman 19:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my wife says the same thing. Anyway I think it's moving ONWARDS.  I have just recently figured out how to cite referneces using the >ref< thing and am frequently starting there too.  I had a section on phallic architecture removed from the phallic article because I did n't have references.  i wanted to say "Get a gripe on yourself !  Now look ->at the picture I posted, then look --> at that thing in your hand, then look --> back at the picture.  GET IT"  But I didn't.  But noticing that a building looks like a big dick is not exactly like adding a new electron to a hydrogen atom.  I've got one going right now at Talk:2007 Catania football violence.  I'm NOT asking you to comment there, I'm happy backing off, but, do you think what i posted is OR ?  sigh.  Carptrash 20:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Point 0f View
Good Wetman, Some worthy contributors threw me a stub Jean René Bazaine which I lighted with great satisfaction. It cured me of the New Year blues. It may also be a treat for history of art lovers scavengeing your talk page. I was able to dig up a fabulous (related) point of view by Fernand Leger on Picasso. However, in the lines quothing the POV -describing Leger's work on the stained glass windows at Audincourt, I may have used the word ambulatory incorrectly (there are pictures of Audincourt in external links). I am not that familiar with the appropriate architectural wording. The POV is great fun though. The w.c. also guided me into fabricating Marie-Alain Couturier, stylistically not one of my best (when was there ever) but as a move ONWARDS it can perhaps survive.
 * With grave thoughts on yourself and the usual Wild Bunch (including an inconspicuous Ghirlandajo) let me be allowed to remain,
 * as a friend (Lunarian 13:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC))


 * Moonman, I've made some tweaks, for your approval. Retrospective exhibition: is it an excyclopedia article or just a dictionary definition? Emile Mâle needs covering, even just with a translation from Wikipédie. I completed some names who aren't household words. Your use of "ambulatory" seems right on, but I smoothed the sheets a bit. A mint on your pillowcase-- Wetman 19:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Retrospective exhibition, sounds like a Freudian slip...what with the Carp throwing his phallic trash around. No, but seriously who is the Wetman here, you or me. If its alive its an encyclopedia entry. If its dead, well...let's blow some life into it.
 * And believe it or not: there was actually -in real life, on my real pillowcase a real mint...
 * Thanks, Lunarian (forgot to sign in:(84.193.174.177 12:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)))
 * P.S. Freud, eat your heart out! ( I told Carp about 30 St Mary Axe smirky,smirky hèhhèhèhè )

Thanks
Thanks a lot for your contribution to Azzo VIII d'Este. Do you have infos also about Azzo VI and VII? and Jacopo and Marsilio da Carrara, perhaps? If you check my contribution page, you could find some other articles about Middle Age Italy maybe needing cleanup from you... if you've time. Ah, not last days, I get involved with some edit wars with several very poor-style guys, fortunately I won, as I tried to be reasonable, but it was too stressing to save time for add anything Wikipedically interesting. Bye and continue your good work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Attilios (talk • contribs) 15:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I came upon that interesting article while pursuing Charles II d'Anjou. Estensi are more interesting really. I'll have a look in my newly-open repertory, JSTOR: I find that, if I begin with a quote that succinctly states what I do know to be true, rather than beginning at my end with deathless prose, I avoid those tiresome and ignorant stickers. Sorry to hear you're experiencing frictions. I tend to turn my back on bad behavior now: "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is in essence a recipe for compromise with mediocrity, isn't it? It's a lot better already than it deserves to be, I find. --Wetman 15:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Mayonnaise
This is a very late response to a message you left me last month:

{{blockquote|text=Please read paragraphs all the way through before applying {{fact}] tags. If there is any step of the logic in the simple presentation of well-known historical facts that outlines the history of the origin of mayonnaise that is over your head, please present your personal confusion at Talk:Mayonnaise. Thank you. --Wetman 18:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}}

In fact, I had read the paragraph all the way through. The "sauce from Mahon" paragraph abruptly ended with the sentence "This often-repeated story seems flawed, however," with no further explanation. The next paragraph began by describing a different theory of the word's etymology. This read quite jarringly, and as I was in a hurry, I applied a tag. After reading your message, I found that the "seems flawed, however" comment was finally resolved with statements buried in the following paragraphs. That's anything but a "simple presentation of well-known historical facts." The paragraph has since been edited (by you, then others) to end "This often-repeated story seems flawed, however, for reasons given below," which is much better.

Even though I apparently misapplied the tag, the article was improved as a result of its brief inclusion. Self-righteous, arrogant, insulting comments like the one you left on my talk page help nobody and in the end will only drive well-meaning people away from Wikipedia. --Romanempire 11:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (Ah, Gentle Reader, you must be wondering! Wetman had long since revised the sentence to read "This often-repeated story seems flawed, however, for reasons given below." This was intended to aid those, like Wetman's deeply wounded correspondent above, who struggle to retain a thought long enough to carry it from one paragraph, through a brief digression, on to the next. Perhaps Wetman finds those little tags more distasteful than most Wikipedians do: they are so often, as in this case, the leavings of an editor "in a hurry". --Wetman 12:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC))


 * You really are unbelievably arrogant. At the time I edited the paragraph, it ended with the sentence "This often, repeated story seems flawed, however," as can be seen here.  Your clarifying addendum had been removed before my adding the  tag.  In fact, I cannot find a revision of the article containing the phrase "for reasons given below" going back to 1 December 2006.  Why do you insist on repeatedly insulting my intelligence?  Is it so hard to believe that your preciously watched mayonnaise article might have been, at the time, confusing in places?  Why not focus on improving articles instead of callously writing off anyone who disagrees, even very slightly, as an imbecile?  --Romanempire 19:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Venus Genetrix (sculpture)
Ah, good, I hope your expert eye would soon alight on here! :-) Two issues you might be able to help with re citations:


 * 1) The Louvre site only says 'from paralleling with the image of Sabina', and not whether it's the coin or the statue where the term originated, or both. Both seem good candidates for me.  Might you have a citation for which one it was (eg an RIC one for the coin?), or if it was both?


 * I think the parallel is with existing coinage. The other possibility is that there are examples of Venus Genetrix with the recognizable features of Sabina. This I don't know.--Wetman 15:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've found the coin, and on looking again at the Louvre catalogue, I think it means comparison between the coin of Sabina and the statue of Sabina. Neddyseagoon - talk 15:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Pio-Clementina sculpture has an 'associated' head of Sabina, based on the coin identification, which is mentioned as common knowledge in Cornelia G. Harcum, "A Statue of the Type Called the Venus Genetrix in the Royal Ontario Museum" American Journal of Archaeology 31.2 (April 1927, pp. 141-152) p 143, which also shows the photo illus. in the Wikipedia article, which is a bad copy of an illus. from E. Pottier and S. Reinach, La Nécropole de Myrina. Isn't that 1887 Waldstein article abysmal! --Wetman


 * 1) Does the citation on the temple of Venus Genetrix give any link between this sculpture type and the cult statue in the temple? And if not, could we find a citation that does say why that link has been made and on the basis of what sources?


 * No. There has been no cult statue in the temple in modern times.--Wetman 15:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know there hasn't. But we need to establish a link between Callimachus's statue and Arcesilas's statue - or rather if and why such a link has been made in the past.  Does the AJA article you used not do that? Neddyseagoon - talk 15:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help (see also Venus of Arles and Tauride Venus). Neddyseagoon - talk 15:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Get the quotes from Pliny: he's on-line. See what he actually says. (I didn't do that.)--Wetman 15:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Was doing that as you answered! :-) See the more precise citation I've put in.Neddyseagoon - talk 15:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: The César Franck MySpace page link
Please do not remove this on the grounds of WP:EL. This page has information about and music by Franck. As WP:EL says, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. My Franck page fits this as closely as any deceased composer's page would. His music is all out of copyright, he has no official record label. Therefore, this is a page which should be linked to. --Vox Humana 8&#39; 22:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There are many frivolous external links, but that was an error on my part, for which I hope to be forgiven.--Wetman 22:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Thanks for the apology.--Vox Humana 8&#39; 12:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Classical author portraits
Hi, Two things: 1) Other than the one from the Roman Virgil, do you know of any pics of classical author portraits (or later copies) on WP? Wanted for Evangelist portrait, and Author portrait which I am contemplating doing.
 * Interesting. Yes, the portrait bust of the classical poet was a genre firmly established in Hellenistic times, which Romans took up. Busts of Homer and Hesiod (recognizable types, but without historical validity, nts) adorned classical Roman libraries the way they decorated eighteenth and nineteenth-century bookcases. So there are "type-portraits" for Menander, even. The "Pseudo-Seneca" is now thought to be Hesiod, where there's a good illustration for your article. The Evangelists are present first in the form of their symbols, lion, ox, angel, eagle, are they not? Giving them individual identities in "portraits: a Renaissance idea? This I don't know. -Wetman 23:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm - better read the article! I've just found 2 on Commons from the Vienna Dioscurides, but i think there are others.


 * Right! I was headed in another direction! --00:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

2) I saw from one of your articles that there was no Category:Iconography, which I have now set up, and am trying to populate.  But there is very little suitable pagan stuff that I can find.  any thoughts?  Thanks  Johnbod 23:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, and thank you for noticing that: I was just hoping someone would help out... The pagan stuff is integrally built into the articles on each major figure. There's a haloed Apollo at Halo I'm especially fond of.--Wetman 23:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I've got halo in already, & will look round the major figures. Johnbod 00:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

St. Barnabas edits??
Wetman, what was the point of adding the obvious vandalism to Barnabas: "St Barnabas lived in Cyprus for 2 years with his beloved friend Dr Dan(Dr Daniel Stollenwerk)." You seem like a serious wikipedian, so I am confused why you would make such an edit.


 * So am I. That was precisely the edit I was trying to erase. --Wetman 14:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. It was rather confusing!Argos&#39;Dad 16:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wetman, don't worry about it -- the same thing has happened to everyone who reverts vandalism at one time or another. -- Pastordavid 16:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Links
''You've recently passed through a number of Ancient Near East articles, deleting professional information as "bad links". What is your issue here?''

You mean the links to the horrible Tripod pages which add little information, are full of ads, and fail WP:EL standards? That "professional information"? What profession would that be? --Calton | Talk 14:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rather than fruitlessly argue, Wetman inserted the following perfectly neutral notice at the Talkpages in question, to let readers judge for themselves:
 * "External link or links have recently been deleted by User:Calton as "horrible Tripod pages which add little information, are full of ads, and fail WP:EL standards." No better external links were substituted. Readers may like to judge these deleted links for themselves, by opening Page history. --Wetman 15:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)"

''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.''

Sense of humour, (and incidentally, truth)
Thanks for your message. I laughed out loud at that. The person who directed me to your userpage and I were standing at the computer together laughing at some of the clever and pointed prose on your userpage. Actually I haven't read it all yet but look forward to doing so -- and discussing some of the related points with you!

Incidentally, I'm trying to insert "merely" into the Attribution policy to make it "not merely whether it is true", to combat those who insist that Wikipedia policy supports or even requires that Wikipedian editors knowingly insert or leave in false statements in Wikipedia articles. I'm not sure whether you agree with me on that particular edit or not but your userpage suggests you're interested in that sort of thing. See Wikipedia talk:Attribution. --Coppertwig 20:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Re Paris, France: Again, laughed out loud.  I think there's also a Paris, Ontario (and an Ottawa, Kansas).  London, Ontario is occasionally referred to simply as London, if the relative proximities are favourable.  In French, there's no problem:  Londres is in (um, the UK or whatever they call that country now), while London is in Ontario.
 * And Valence, Drôme. How could I forget Valence, Drôme, after I timestakingly disambiguated it from electron states and other, smaller places in France named Valence? I wonder what department Paris is in. --Coppertwig 03:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Speaking of humour, check this out: Uncyclopedia:Attribution  --Coppertwig 18:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What? There's some funny business going on: I thought this was Uncyclopedia. Have 39,563 edits been in vain?--Wetman 18:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Bastards
I've just written this stub Bastard brothers following a request - I may have been a little POV, would you cast your eye over it for me and/or see what Mr Colvin has to say on the subject. Thanks Giano 10:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I gave it a tweak with Colvin in the other hand... and added the Dashwood connection. A nice feeling to be back to normal, Giano.--Wetman 14:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Very nice indeed - i shall go and add a link to the masoleum secrion at West Wycombe Park - I dodn't know that. Thanks Giano 15:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to add a few spontaneous words aboyt the architecture at Hestercombe House which is listed on DYK, then I ded a little research and decided to leave it to you! Giano 16:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just found another brother Benjamin - Could you be very kind and see if Colvin give any dates, or further information for him? - I found him in Pevsner's Dorset - looking at Sherborne House - i wonder if he was not the better architect of the three? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Giano II (talk • contribs) 15:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I'll put the Colvin ref. into the article. Would Bastard family be a better title? Giano, Colvin consistently calls Sherborne House "Sherborne Castle" though it looks most uncastellar. (There's an unrelated Sherborne House in Glocs., too.) --Wetman 16:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I know Sherborne castle well in RL, completely different place (Shernorne castle is a much rebuilt country house with castle like pretentions), I am confused though that in my Pevsner's Dorset he does not mention Sherborne House, but I found the image of Sherborne House on our very own Sherborne page -I'll do some further re-search - at the moment I suppose they are still Bastard brothers - I don't see the point of giving Benjamin his own stubby little page, but if any more turn up I suppose a page move is inevitable Giano 17:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Know it is definitly there or in a village nearby Newland, I just cannot inderstand why Pevsner does not mention it - I must be missing something. Giano 17:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Solved it! I had aleady mentione it in the page by another name "In 1931 the (Shernorne) House was first leased and then sold to Dorset County Council and became the home of Lord Digby's School in 1932. Following the 1944 Education Act it became a Girls' Grammar School and remained at the House until it closed in 1992" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Giano II (talk • contribs) 17:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Colvin does make Benjamin the nephew of the brothers John and William, I surmise as the son of Thomas (†1720); Benjamin was apprenticed in 1718, and by c. 1725 would have been in a position to contract for Sherborne House. --Wetman 18:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Pevsner (Dorset P 383) says Benjamin was the brother og the BBs, but I think Colvin is probably the most reliable source so Benjamin Bastard (I bet he suffered at school) now has his own page, but I thik I wil put a note in to say there is a difference of opinion - I always feel Pevsner is like a much loved great grand uncle - who though wise can be a little absent minded and wwanfering off at tangents - I don't know who else would know, such an obscure fact. Giano 11:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Rawlinson Excidium Troie
Wetman, thank you for writing this article. I'd never heard of this manuscript before, and thanks to your succinct and informative article, I've learned something new. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I stumbled upon a reference to it and thought I should look into it. Thanks!--Wetman 17:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your reversion ...
... at Attribution. Please see discussion at WP:ATT/FAQ. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Want to laugh?
This thread just may appeal to your sense of humour, it certainly has mine, the first and very last time I join an "improvement drive" Still choaking as I go to bed. Giano 23:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I never thought you hung out with those bumper-sticker people, Giano! Those "improvement drives" where people pass through, labeling articles' talkpages "Class: Start" and the like... The idea of "balancing" articles by removing material has never struck me as a real step forward. The fundamental problem is that an article Castle, which covers Japan as well as the Hudson River Valley, is never going to be very deep, whereas Motte-and-bailey or donjon for instance might well add up to something in time, given some careful Gianifattura. --Wetman 03:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to add "and now somebody with an Italian sounding name has removed the German Castle placed by someone with a German sounding name which replaced the Mexican castle and replace it with a Scottish one". (I had already removed the Japanes castle!). No, I can quite see why the castle mania sent poor Ludwig mad. I'll find a page of my own to write. Just after my time alone in Monte I wanted some company. I found it! Giano 07:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Once upon a time......
I came across your userpage a few weeks ago and loved it. So I started looking at your user contributions to see what you'd been up to (I'm not wikistalking you, honest. Well, OK, maybe just a teensy weensy little bit), and from these I've built up a mental picture of Wetman. Here's what I think :
 * Wetman lives in a high-ceilinged apartment overlooking Central Park. It is elegantly but austerely furnished.  The walls of his study are lined with floor-to-ceiling library shelves, filled with obscure tomes on Greek mythological figures and the lives of Catholic saints. He has a faithful man-servant, Collingwood, who feeds the tropical fish in the 12-foot long aquarium in the centre of the room on the dot of eight every morning.  Wetman likes to watch his fish as they go about their piscine business.  It gives him a sense of calm and helps to focus his thoughts for the upcoming article he plans to write on the inscription on the 4th century silver and carnelian ossuary in the Vatican.  Wetman writes his articles with a fountain pen : he then dictates them to Collingwood who types them into the infernal computing machine that glows malignantly in the corner of the room.  To type would ruin his perfectly-manicured nails. At mid-day Collingwood brings a freshly-ironed copy of the Wall Steet Journal in on a silver tray and Wetman checks on the progress of his not-inconsiderable holdings.  Then he returns to his ponderings.  At nine the Bentley arrives to take him to his favourite restaurant.  Wetman is a small eater but a good tipper.  He never eats fish.  He returns to the apartment for a final session of dictation with Collingwood, and retires to bed (a seventeenth-century English oak tester) at around midnight.  He sleeps well, untroubled either by dreams or worries.  Tomorrow, an article on the powdering of Marie-Antoinette's wig beckons...... Piepacker 16:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Close enough. Central Park is within very easy reach but not directly in either of the views. Books overflow into the living-rooms and bedrooms as well, but a public library is a street away. The (smaller) aquariums are against exterior walls, as the floor joists are over a century old. Wetman hunts-and-pecks his articles directly at the keyboard and has never had a manicure: think Wilfred Brimley. Wetman is an excellent cook who can scarcely afford to eat in restaurants the kind of cuisine he expects at home. The paper is The New York Times. Glad you enjoyed levée. Right about fish, wrong century for the bed. --Wetman 16:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Wild man of the woods Walden Wilfred Wetman. Quite shattered my illusions....... I had you down as an immaculately-groomed aesthete and you're really a big old hairy lumberjack. Thanks for welcoming me, by the way : s'nice to belong! Piepacker 17:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

thumb|left|100px|Trashin' Xerxes?

Comment.
About this edit, please consider WP:BITE. Also, your moving of the contents of the Xxs talkpage to talk:300 was very ill-advised. In case somebody tries to re-add a similar image later, a record of the previous arguments made on the subject would be useful. Editing of other people's comments on talkpages other than for archiving should be done fairly rarely, as I am sure you know. Hornplease 03:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No editing was done, needless to say: I would not have stooped to that, as you would agree if you knew me at all. But ranting indirectly about the political correctness of the kitsch movie 300 is as irrelevant at Talk:Xerxes I of Persia as rant about the cultural politics of Disney's Hercules would be at Talk:Heracles. I did bite this particular newcomer, and at his own Talkpage too, as follows: "The wikipedia article Xerxes I of Persia concerns a historical figure, not a 2007 movie with the cultural weight of Anna Nicole Smith's funeral. All discussion of that movie has been moved to Talk:300 (film), where it will not interfere with adult discourse. Do please feel free to continue your inflammatory rant at Talk:300 (film). I can imagine that your "deep interest in ancient civilizations" will begin to produce some constructive content at Wikipedia in the near future."


 * Harsh words indeed. But fully informative. My final remark might have been interpreted as pointed encouragement— to one who claims in edit summary of his rant, "Added info which a troll removed." however; his User contributions so far make me privately doubtful that anything of value is likely to come from this incipient troublemaker. Time may prove me wrong: I certainly hope so.--Wetman 03:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

''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.''


 * Editing, as I understand it, extends to removal of comments unless to a clearly marked archive. Please note that while I agree with you about irrelevance, a clear statement of that on the talkpage as a marker to potential future editors would have been more helpful than moving the discussion on its relevance. Thank you for your time. Hornplease 04:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My correspondent is misinformed: "editing" does not extend to re-filing to a page that has been clearly marked at the former location. My work in this has been unexceptionable. But enough of this.--Wetman 17:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

300 (film)
I am not sure that I understand. Folks are upset over the placement of the Xerxes image in the 300 article, or in the Xerxes page? Arcayne 13:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You'll find all the former rant about 300 (film), which was inappropriately at Talk:Xerxes I of Persia, now safely cut-n-pasted (and out of adult earshot) at Talk:300 (film). That's all there is to it. The image is pointless as an illustration of the historic Xerxes, and needlessly irritating to Iranian nationalists and grown-ups alike. --Wetman 16:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

European Libraries
Well thank you for those very kind words at the pump! There is in fact a problem, which is Special:Contributions/Fleurstigter, who has been adding links & starting hopeless little stubs in a reckless fashion & works for the Dutch Royal Library who host the site. From her talk page & elsewhere I think they have been reasonably patient with her in fact; & she has been rather difficult. The en:wiki blacklist page is #1 here. I have now suggested they block her for a bit & unblock the site, which seems the right way round. If they had told me that earlier at Meta-Wiki .... Sorry if I have shot too soon on this one, & led you to do the same in referring to it, but the general problem as given at the pump does exist, and not only has this one not been dealt with correctly, but the process happens in an obscurity, which we are both discovering more about, it seems. Johnbod 05:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, block the spamming user, instead, and inspect the site. Last September a newbie (see User talk:Dmill96) posted external links to Professor Mary Ann Sullivan's website with excellent architectural photos and instructive commentary, which were methodically deleted by User:JeremyA. I posted the following query at User:JeremyA's talkpage: "You seem to be methodically deleting external links recently added by newbie User:Dmill96 to Professor Mary Ann Sullivan's pages of excellent architectural photos and informative text. What is your motivation?" He responded at my Talkpage: "Hi Wetman! I have nothing against Dmill96 (talk • contribs), or the website that he/she was linking to. However, where I see external links that are outwith the guidelines described at WP:EL I delete them. There are many excellent websites out there, but we don't link to them all because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a web directory." User:Dmill96 was repelled and did not edit after 9 September 2006. Like most problems with offensive and intrusive editors, this is a systemic toxin. A class issue, to be quite frank.--Wetman 06:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Teeheeee
Wow. I could swear I reverted that last nonsense change to the French Revolution - thank you very much for catching it! I need more coffee. Kuru talk  03:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent Edit to Fable
You must be tired of all the kudos, but your edit in Fable was precisely what I was grasping at. Putting it in context, as you did, was spot on. Thanks. -- Lloegr - Cymru £ ¥ 12:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Lloegr-Cymru, that's always encouraging to hear! and together our edits inspired User:Logologist to make the article even richer and tighter! I'm three-eighths Welsh myself. --Wetman 19:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to come back a week later (almost), but I completely agree. What occurred is precisely what ought to happen much more often here. I only hope that my measly little edits can have as much impact in future. As a side note, let me just say that any amount of Welsh makes you all Welsh in my book.-- Lloegr - Cymru £ ¥ 18:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Of the Borghese Vase and other pots…
Thanks! I have some pictures of French furniture from the Petit Palais, I'll upload them to Commons. I don't know if the Musée des Arts Décoratifs allows photography, I'll try and check. Concerning Greek ceramic, what do you mean by “close-up details”? I've tried recently to shoot details like Image:Detail Douris CdM 539 n2.jpg in order to show the painter's stroke. Is that what you were thinking about? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A beautiful image, like so many of yours. I meant illustrations of the mythic content, a less sophisticated level. Visual definitions. --Wetman 19:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You might want to look at categories commons:Category:Greek antiquities in the Louvre - Room 39 to commons:Category:Greek antiquities in the Louvre - Room 44. I've shot almost all shootable vases in the Campana Gallery at the Louvre, but the curators keep setting up new vases from time to time. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sainte Chapelle
I'd added three references, summoned from the web, but quite respectable, with Runciman etc. The odd thing is how low down the list it comes (3rd ref). It doesn't, unlike the star Crown of Thorns, seem to be reflected in the iconography of the SC, but there seems no doubt that an item with, by medieval standards, a pretty plausible provenance, was in Paris. but I'm of course willing to listen to arguments otherwise. Johnbod 02:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, pretty sound, with Runciman. I'll open up his article on JSTOR and get better informed. ...and there it is! sanctam toellam tabulae infertam, the Holy Towel in the papal bull! Thanks! --Wetman 03:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem - meanwhile I'm getting into some heavy laundry on the Veil of Veronica; I'm not sure how much I can be bothered to run the full cycle it needs. Of course do edit the Image as you see fit,   Johnbod 03:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Lost Houses
The book you recomended has just arrived - have you read it? One could weep! Giano 10:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I've seen it in a house where I was a weekend guest. In days past I used to travel from one person's library to another's, staying up to all hours and coming down puffy the next morning at the last stages of breakfast. --Wetman 10:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Proper Do you know!
Do you know what is the correct architectural term for the type of domed roof on the tower at the centre of this picture Image:Tong Castle Shropshire.jpg? Onion dome does not seem quite right - I'm sure I've heard they do have a name - but it escapes me. Giano 14:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Cupola? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, ALoan - wrong! Giano 14:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not? Looks like an upturned hexagonal (octagonal?) cup to me.


 * Gothic dome? Hexagonal dome?  Ogee dome?  It is a bit too slim and angular to be a bulbous or onion dome. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ogee dome I think - I'll check my dictionary tonight but this site  shows similar (althought smaller), described as an Ogee dome. --Joopercoopers
 * yep I think you are right - that sounds right and looks right. Giano 16:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a faceted ogee dome - no doubt to remind the patron of his days at The House- [] Johnbod 17:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK I will go with that, but why am I thinking it is more a feature of the English Renaissance than Gothic - as seen at Burghley House etc, or am I barking up a wrong tree completely? Wonder where the kindly Mr Wetman is ? - he is bound to know Giano 18:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's right - the Oxford one was added by Wren to Cardinal Wolsey's unfinished base of the 1520's, which is late Perpendicular. I think there are examples that early in England, though I can't remember where.  So I suppose it's a Renaissance element in the English late Gothic style, which of course lagged a long way behind Italy. Johnbod 18:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good that's good - so going further with my instinct and gut feeling am I correct referring to the house here as "Strawberry Hill Gothic" with English Renaissance anomalies, I don't want to be hauled over red hot coals when it goes onto mainspace! Giano 18:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * English domes in the 1520s? Predating the dome at St Peters?  Presumably inspired by Brunelleschi's dome in Florence? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your text looks fine. They are commonest under Elizabeth, but the small ones on Wolsey's facade at Hampton Court are original 1520's, I'm pretty sure. Johnbod 18:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK thanks a lot Johnbod, I'll stick with it - like the new additions to the lead ALoan? Giano

I have found references to an early ogee dome at the Attarine mosque (previously church of St. Athanasius) in Alexandria, but the spam filter ate my post and link. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (wakes up with a snort) You're a quick lot: can't take a nap on me own sofa... Johnbod had it pegged with "facetted ogee dome" and his allusion to Tom Tower must be apt. At Tong, the Gothick taste seems to have embraced even the latest Gothic survivals, though George Durant doesn't sound like he'd appear in Alumni Oxonienses.  --Wetman 19:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No it appears he was a "trader", alas not of the variety found on Wall Street Giano 20:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder - do any of your book mention this house "Carclew" in Cornwall Image:Carclew House.jpg inspite of being built just after 1800 all my books and references call it Palladian. In spite of the selian windows in the pavilions I want to put it in the neoclassical section of my "depressing page" - do you think I'm wrong, in photographs (all copyright) it looks even more neoclassical - if you look the piano nobile is on a pediment in the neoclassical style rather than above a service floor - I would appreciate your view? I can't call it Neoclassical if all references oppose me! Giano 14:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah don't worry too much it seems it was destroyed by fire in 1934 and not demolished, so is inelligible for my page! If we can decide on its style, I'll dump it somewhere useful - I keep looking at it, I suppose if those pavillions did not have pediments it would look less palladian, in fact rather like Castle Coole. Giano 15:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Yes, in Colvin, 3rd ed., it is shown to be by Thomas Edwards (died 1775), who lived at Greenwich but had an extensive practice in Cornwall. Of Carclew, near Penrhyn, Colvin says (p 335) "The latter house was begun by Samuel Kempe in the 1720s, but was still incomplete in 1749 when it was sold to the mine-owner William Lemon. Lemon is said to have employed Edwards to add the portico and offices to the central block built by Kempe." The colonnades were added in "18——" according to Colvin (p. 336)— were the paired outbuildings quite separate before?— and the house gutted in 1934. By fire? I wondered, and you've confirmed it. In its rhythm and blocking and its rustication (less bold in the photos perhaps?) it actually seems fully Palladian to me. --Wetman 15:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ....but built on a pediment not a lower floor like Bavaria, recessed portico and it does look like Castle Coole, and it was built in 1800s.........OK no matter..I'ts not going in my page anyway - you would be amazed (perhaps you wouldn't) how many burnt down almost as many as were demoloshed, including an astounding and highly suspicious amount in the weeks immediatly prior to the grading and preservation system being introduced in teh early 1960s. I'm learning more about the 20th century English and their attitdes to their heritage than I really want to know. Giano 15:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Were gaslight and early electricity also culprits? When I first saw Erddig in the 60s, uninsulated electric wires ran through some rooms, held away from mouldings by ceramic insulators. --Wetman 15:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I once heard that at Hatfield House in the 1920 and 30s the Salisbury's used to sit after dinner in a pannelled drawing room, with bare wires running along the panels - periodiacally one would hiss, spit and smoke - without breaking conversation a member of the family would just throw a cushion at it! So yes probably, I should think so Giano 16:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just found this gutted appears to be something of an understatement for poor old Carclew! Giano 17:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are inexpressibly mournful. You've picked a tragic subject, Giano. --Wetman 17:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But it is going to have a happy ending Montacute House was saved from demolition at the very last moment, so was Hartwell House - I shall end it on a very upbeat note - on the other hand = I am rather fond of grand opera and a good weep, there is one rather spectacular photo of a scottish castle exploding into a million peices - I could perhaps have one of those sound tracks with Callas "O Scarpia, avanti a Dio!" Giano 17:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The Hatfield story dates from more like the 1880s - Hatfield was almost the first house to have electricity. The PM Marquess experimented with electricity himself. The cushion story is in David Cecil's book called I think the Cecils of Hatfield or similar.

Johnbod 19:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What was the château in the Ile-de-France that was imploded for tax reasons (1970s?) with a champagne going-away picnic to mark the occasion? I wasn't invited... By the way, I tried googling "blow up chateau" and all I got was 'Allo 'allo plot outlines... --Wetman 21:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno, but I do remember my parents generation having a very surreal time when this place was abandoned. Giano 21:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Racisim
This user is a racist against Turks and Turkish culture. See his support on the unrealistic events on the Hagia Sophia topic.
 * (The unsigned post is a discourtesy fully characteristic of this furious anonymity. Wetman's distaste for soccer-stadium fascism is not especially directed at gutter Turks, but across the board, at intellectual dishonesty, bullying and the instinct for censorship. In real life, Wetman's personal contacts over the years have been limited perforce to stylish and educated Turks, secular and internationl in outlook and unshadowed by the culture of denial that is Turkey's malignant cancer. This poster's User contributions speak for themselves to show a consistently toxic presence at Wikipedia.)
 * Sorry, i forgot the signature. Reality is, the mosaics are not destroyed or deleted or moved by Turks and there is no evindence to that. It is not censorship to correct the article about Hagia Sophia. But it is racism to blame Turks with something that they did not do. And this topic has nothing to do with soccer-stadiums or the user's real life friends, it is about the views and acts.--hnnvansier 12:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Re. Semi-protecting Zeus
No problem. :-) Keep up the good work. Regards, Hús  ö  nd  19:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: This user's attempted censorship
This User's censorship continues unabated: see Hagia Sophia. --Wetman 14:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What I did is removing the articles without any sources. I stand against racism that many including you are in. --Lardayn 12:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Pedro copied the whole discussion from User_talk:Lardayn
 * All - please see WP:NPA. Thankyou. Pedro | Talk  12:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Pitreavie Castle
Do you do Scottish defended houses? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice start! No, Scotland's outside my ken. It's always wiser to know the limits of one competence. --Wetman 14:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How about Spains Hall then? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked it through. Too vernacular for Howard Colvin, it ought to have been in Nicholas Coope, Houses of the Gentry but wasn't. Some of Victoria County History: Essex is on-line but a search there didn't fetch up any goodies. --Wetman 20:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks anyway for the tweaks that you have made. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Marianna Mayer's quote about unicorns
Hello,

I'm doing a little research on some anonymous user, attempting to figure out, whether they are vandals, or potentially constructive, albeit at times misguided, contributors. What initially sparked my suspicion was their recent addition to the Signumd Freud article.

In your revision of the Unicorn article as of 21:11, 14 March 2004 you added a quote from a book by Marianna Mayer. In the revision of that article as of 20:46, 8 April 2006 the anonymous user affixed another sentence to that quote. This addition was later removed. Could you please let me know, whether the added sentence is taken from Ms. Mayer's book? Itayb 22:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd have to make a trip to the public library. --Wetman 05:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Never mind, then. Only if you happen to go there anyway. Thanks. Itayb 06:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you happen to check it out, please leave me a note in my talk page; i'm removing your talk page from my watchlist for now. Thanks. Itayb 07:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

T&B
Hi Wetman, I just saw that you undid all of the links I had posted. I do have many pages of content and photos on my site. Of the links I posted, there is only one (Senlis) that has photos for sale which to be honest I had overlooked, so it was an innocent mistake. I thus understand removing the link to the Senlis page, but not the other pages of cathedral photos. Have a nice evening, Narayan
 * The best way to incorporate external links is as a supporting footnote embedded in the text following the statement that is supported by the link, using html and a  following the See also section. Photos-for-sale galleries are deleted whenever they're discovered at Wikipedia, I've noticed. Four tildes will sign and datestamp your posts on talkpages. --Wetman 12:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Moorish?
Just re-working some one others text here to work with some fotos I took the other day, on the third foto (the inner courtyrard), is there (do you think) a justifiable resemblence to the Alhambra - if so how? I'm going to dig some weighty text books out later - just wondered what you thought. Giano 20:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice edits - but the text is not mine - I just plonked it there ready to edit and expand, we actually have a page Ospedale degli Innocenti, I can claim the fotos though as all my own work! Giano 21:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I think it's more generic, a Romanesque cloister that has been regularized by mathematics and rendered all'antica in details. Rome or Palermo offer examples that were more available than Granada. I think 'late Gothic' is not in Brunelleschi's range of models: he's consciously jumping over that style to return to Roman-Romanesque precedents. I tweaked your text, with my ancient Guida d'Italia in hand.

comments on my removal of external links, also posted at Talk:Red-rimmed_melania
Hi Wetman, Wikipedia has a policy on external links WP:EL. Basically they need at add something unique to the article, beyond that which would be included if the article was of Featured Article quality. The links you cite above do not contain content which is unique or should not be present in a future WP:FA version of the article. Sure, I've not contributed text to this article, but that isnt a requirement for me to edit an article. Please dont take the removal of external links personally, it certainly wasnt meant that way. It might be worth you reading over Assume good faith. Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 20:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A quick glance at the texts presented in the deleted links would show you that you are mistaken. Some of the material you dismiss on principle would improve a mediocre stub if it were worked into the Wikipedia text— not by you, needless to say: I've noted the deletions at Talk:Red-rimmed_melania as a starting-point for an alert editor. --Wetman 21:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Your images Image:AaachenChapelDB.jpg, Image:AmiensDB363. and Image:BourgesDB362.jpg
These appear to be scans - are you able to rescan at a higher resolution and resumbit them? Or do you have higher resolution versions available you can submit? SVG conversions of these images have been requested, and they would be much easier with a higher-resolution source file. Cheers, Stannered 21:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I'm sorry that I don't have the actual nineteenth-century texts. Hapless and techless, I sorely strained my competence simply in downloading these floorplans as they are.--Wetman 21:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Never mind - thanks anyway. Stannered 22:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Anton Chekhov
I've replied to your comment and mildly attacked one of your edits on the talk page. qp10qp 13:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (Wetman had had reservations over the word "shambolic", Gentle Reader, and had asked at Talk:Anton Chekhov, "What would a 'shambolic' theater production be, if "shambolic" were a word? Did the writer mean it was a shambles? Not knowing about the historic production, I'm unable to supply a real adjective." Next I suppose we'll be reading at Wikipedia that the poor production was "simply chronic". Americans are not the only mindless users of English. Wetman 18:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC))


 * I've agreed to remove "shambolic". I've posted a description of the performance, and you are invited, quite genuinely, to suggest a better word for the purpose. We can't, however, compare the exquisite word "shambolic" with poor old "chronic", because "chronic" is often misused, whereas "shambolic" was used precisely. I would remove it for being too informal, yes; but because Wetman hasn't heard of it? No, not for that. qp10qp 19:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ...and why not for that? Wetman has perfect pitch, and would never willingly lead you astray.--Wetman 20:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's certainly a word in the UK, though I was surprised to see not in the hard-copy OED to 1933 or whatever. I doubt if any school/amateur/university productions reach the stage without it being used many times.  Think yourself lucky if you don't know what a shambolic production is! Not very encyclopedic perhaps. Johnbod 19:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A bit like Essex's rebellion being uncool. ...not that it wasn't uncool. "Uncool to the max," as Gloriana said herself. --Wetman 20:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a bit more military/schoolmasterish I'd say Johnbod 20:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My poor mind has just been shambolicized. El_C 20:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * actually a quick Google implies it is most commonly used of the implementation of Government schemes for anything, and the defence in football games. Johnbod 20:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just had a trawl for examples of the word in context, and these were among the closest I found to the usage I intended:

"Opera will never fully escape from its Bad Old Days: days filled, or so the demonology has it, with waddling prima donnas, woodenly semaphoring tenors, shambolic choruses, and far too much quite unmotivated warbling." (The Oxford Illustrated History of Opera, Roger Parker)

"After a week of rehearsals, the production was predictably shambolic..." (The Cambridge History of British Theatre, Joseph W. Donohue)

"For us today the main interest of the libretto is its running debate about the relative merits of French and Italian opera, culminating in the shambolic rehearsal in Act II of a burletta called 'Didone cotta arrosto'..." (Opera in Late Eighteenth-Century London, Judith Milhous, Robert David Hume)

"Ricketts’s diary for the month or so preceding the performance reveals that personal squabbles added to his mounting anxieties as he embarked on increasingly frantic attempts to complete the preparations in time. The entry for 10 June records both the rather shambolic final preparations, and some details of the performance itself..." (Wilde: Salome, William Tydeman, Steven D. Price)

qp10qp 20:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ediacaran biota
Many thanks! { | Verisimilus 18:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Aphrodite
Wetman, your revert on Aphrodite restored the text "She had sex with ares while her husband was working." This sure looked wrong to me--are you sure it belongs? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good grief! I'll fix it, if you haven't already. Thanks for consistently keeping an eye on the constant vandalism, btw! --Wetman 05:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that article seems to be getting hit pretty badly. I wonder if it should be protected... --Akhilleus (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not try semi-protection first? --Wetman 05:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, I should have said semi-protection. However, the article hasn't been edited since then, so I guess the schoolkids have moved on to different articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

De Brazza
Thank you for correcting my grammar on the De Brazza page. Thanks a million!Nzingamina 08:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

oops
Obviously Wikipedia isn't as advanced as I thought. (User:Ajuk)


 * Nope. Some things have to be done one at a time, by hand. I can manage to fix the relevant ones among the ca. 600 double redirects from Muse to Muse (Greek mythology), if I can have some help. Let's work out what to do at Talk:Muse (Greek mythology) --Wetman 21:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind I reverted my efforts.Ajuk 21:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Reverted? But Muse still redirects to Muse (Greek mythology), as I fixed that one, so as not to drop the inquiring reader at the disambiguation page. But perhaps you will be able to clear up these redirects of Muse without me, nevertheless. --Wetman 21:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Deal with the devil
Actually, I created no double redirects. A double redirect is defined as (per Double redirects) "a redirect that points to another redirect." I made sure none did; see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Deal_with_the_Devil&limit=500&from=0. There are a lot of links to redirects, but a link to a redirect is not the same as a redirect to a redirect. Wikipedia policy only says to avoid double redirects; it doesn't say to prohibit links to redirects, because unlike double redirects, links to redirects do not actually result in any sort of failure of redirection when clicked upon. The MediaWiki software handles them just fine. That said, if you want to change the links to redirects to avoid the redirect entirely, feel free to do so, and best of luck with the project. Happy editing. :) &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 07:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Medici
Could you have a look at some of the information I am adding here - I have incorporated some of your information, but am unsure to whom exactly was the villa was transferred after il Magnifico tried to raise money, was he using it as collateral. Also I know it was his favourite residence but I don't like ny sources for it (internet sites) my books don't actually confirm it - do any of yours - I note you added it was a favoured residence of Piero and Lorenzo any chance of a page number, I'm always afraid sites will just disappear overnight! Thanks Giano 12:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Jointly in 1485 to the Popolano brothers: Giovanni was betrothed for a time to Lorenzo's daughter Luisa; the brothers established the fabbrica of maiolica there in 1495. Rather than collateral, it was part of the repayment of the "loan" (Lorenzo was their guardian in the 1470s: an offer they couldn't refuse) Yes, Shearman says explicitly that Cafaggiolo was Lorenzo's favourite retreat, but Shearman is already over-referenced. The fact that the Grand Dukes were descended from these Medici di Cafaggiolo of the younger line isn't noted; too distracting and confusing do you think? I feel you stray too far from Cafaggiolo, Giano, into the origins of Renaissance architecture, that your view should be more strictly of Michelozzo and the phenomenon of castles-turned-villas— what was Alfonso of Naples rebuilding in the 1440s? I'm ignorant, but what is the first of the Neapolitan castles-turned-villa? ...but I'd suggest you not distract the reader with so many also in France (Château de Gaillon, begun in 1502) and England. --Wetman 18:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I take your point, to be honest I'm more interested in the Renaissance than a crumbling old pile in the Mugello - don't know why I started the page - Yes I do, I thought I had loads of fotos of it, but when I came to look they all had my children grinning like Cheshire cats in their Sunday best in all the best shots. I remember you from long ago your love of "white weddings" and that is indeed why we were there, one cannot realy ask people to step aside in such occasions. I willendevour to concentrate on the sunject in hand and see if we can get a half decent page into mainspace sometine in the near future! It will be good for my soul. Giano 18:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah! now, Cafaggiolo is very much Wetman's idea of a "destination wedding"! Giano, a book that—— disgracefully—— I have not read is James S. Ackerman, The Villa: Form and Ideology of Country Houses (Princeton University Press) 1989; it has a chapter "Early Villas of the Medici" that really ought to be be incorporated into your Cafaggiolo article before it goes Mainspace. (I'd forgotten about "white wedding": that's really how we met at Wikipedia, wasn't it? I'm glad you now know I'm not always so reprehensible.) --Wetman 19:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I hadn't forgotten anything - watching you try ro extricate yourself from that was one of the funniest wiki-moments I can remember. Anyhow, I don't attend "destination weddings"! This was in the local church, solemn and high with a nuptial mass! - I'll look for the book and Cafaggiolo can go on the low oven for a while :-) Giano 19:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Adelin of Seez
Well, since I already named it Adelin of Séez, I think I'm going to stick with it. I made a redirect from Adelheim. Not ideal, but getting an admin to take care of it would be a lot of work. Anyway, thanks for the dabble of serious scholarship on Opportuna. Alekjds talk 21:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Snowball Earth - Potential Good Article?
Hi, I'm currently working, with others, on the article Snowball Earth, with the aim of restoring it to Good Article status. I noticed that you made a few contributions to the article quite some time back, and have seen your name around on quite a few of the articles I've been noseying recently... there's quite a bit that could be done to make a large improvement, so I was wondering whether you might be interested in helping out? I've knocked together a 'wish-list' of what the article could to with which you can view on the article talk page; if you're keen to address any of those points, or make any other improvements, it would be much appreciated! I'll be working through them myself as much as my busy schedule allows. Hope to see you there!

All the best,

Verisimilus  T  19:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for alerting me. It's a subject that grips the imagination. All I can do as a layman is edit for clarity and emphasis. I've gone through the article now: do please vet my changes. --Wetman 21:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Villa Medicea di Cafaggiolo
I hve put Villa Medicea di Cafaggiolo into mainspace, because I can find only limited reliable research on the subject and thought it stands more chance of improvemnent in mainspace than lost in userspace. Thanks for your help with it, I want to now get back to exploding houses with some new vigour which interests me more - though the boring legal stuff and foundations have to be written now, although I found a briliant quote in anunrelated source about the Shah of Persia visiting Trentham in the 1870s which I want to work in as it is too good to loose! Regards Giano 06:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Red-Headed Merovingians
I notice that you removed my brief contribution to the Merovingian article concerning their red hair. Why? It is well-documented that Merovingians had red hair; it marked them as unusual, more so than the fact they wore it long. Pooua 23:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it is well-noted around the Internet, where you have doubtless picked it up, but as I know a little something about the scanty Merovingian-era documentation, which is not rich in personal descriptions, I'm not entirely uninformed in my doubt that red hair as a Merovingian family trait might be documented. What "documents" are you referring to, that would turn this current "pop" assertion into information? --Wetman 00:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

commons' images: User:Yrithinnd/Commons/A
Yeah, you've to remove image from the list :) Yrithinnd 15:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That keeps your list interesting! I'll hit the Bs now. Some of you folks who lurk at this page might be interested in Yrithinnd's lists of orphan commons images paired with likely articles.,,,--Wetman 15:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Marathon Boy
Well, the picture's not mine but Marsyas'. He leads excavations at Philippi, so he's frequently in Athens. Very useful :-) Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Antiquities
Any additions most welcome to this rather skimpy article, which at least no longer redirects to antiques. Btw, M. Watelet & his splendid dressing-gown are/recently were at the Royal Academy in London - a pleasure to see him again! Johnbod 00:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Splendid undress! Silver satin is a great challenge to the painter. You've given Antiquities the right tone and set it on track, it seems to me. Is not an "antiquity" always moveable- leaving out the Parthenon, you see, as not an antiquity- and thus a collectible— leaving unappealing remains of material culture to the archeologist? Are there Chinese antiquities? evoking thoughts of Shang bronzes on drawing-room side tables. There are the fields of antiquarian horology and antiquarian bookselling: these include old objects one doesn't call "antiques". Josephus merits noting, and various other books Antiquitates.... History of archaeology, with its roots in antiquarianism, needs a concise paragraph with a Main article... heading. I fear to edit except by reporting on published sources, however, as my world-view and life experience are "original research" to the general. --Wetman 00:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've just this second added a bit on the antiquarian angle. Locke or Hume or some such are in the OED saying the Pont du Gard "is a great antiquity". Of course the ones in museums have by definition been transported, but the various Middle Eastern govt departments so titled would certainly regard tombs etc as antiquities. The Brits certainly called Indian remains antiquities & the BM Asian departments are for "Far Eastern Antiquities" (or whatever) etc. It's a slippery word when you get down to it - I came on to it because of a recent CfD on Category:Borghese antiquities where the WP antiques definition was quoted at me.   Johnbod 00:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm, yes, I think you're right. Stuart and Revett published The Antiquities of Athens, and various Antiquities of Ionia etc etc appeared into the C19. But Sir Henry Layard's book (1849) was Illustrations of the Monuments of Nineveh, and I'd have thought "monuments" have largely displaced immovable antiquities— if that were not a paradox. Then there's the best-left-untouched aspect of antiquities simply as items of antiquarian interest, such as The Popular Antiquities of Great Britain of Brand and Ellis: but Boy bishops as "antiquities" would confuse the general. Funny about the Borghese antiquities, though: there's that misplaced self-confidence again.. Bad category, btw, but Borghese collection is potentially a good article, I'd think... --Wetman 01:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll leave the boy bishops out of it, though I once saw a Feast of Fools at Trongsa Dzong. The Borghese collection article - link corrected above - is already not bad. Thanks for the see also's - Illicit antiquities had no examples, but there must be more articles than Sevso Treasure? Johnbod 02:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How about Euphronios krater and Robert Hecht Jr.? I'd better get into a serious mood before settling down to Palazzo Borghese, etc.--Wetman 04:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes - I found Category:Art and cultural repatriation, with Marion True etc. I see Antiquarian book trade in the United States is only a few days old - strange synchronicity, as often here. Johnbod 15:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Etymologies in articles
You are right that WP:NOT is mostly about subjects which don't shed much light on whether Spermatophyte should give the greek origin of this word. Do you know of any policies, guidelines, essays, or other discussions which are more directly relevant? This comes up in a lot of articles and with regard to other things other than just etymologies (pronunciation springs to mind), so it would be helpful if I had a bit more to go on than just my own intuition about whether a particular piece of information enhances the article or distracts from the core topic (in this case, plants). Kingdon 22:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Is it useful to the reader and relevant in its place in the article?" You can't go wrong with such a question. --Wetman 22:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Shrubbery
Please accept my humble canadian lumberjack apologies if I have inadvertaantly reverted you constructive edit to ''shrubbery' - it would be great if you could give evidence - sorry - I reverted first and then looked closer and realised protocol would have been better served if I had put something here first - my ancient memory of the movie is such it didnt ring correct - however if you are willing and able - please prove me wrong. Ta SatuSuro 09:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Gardens in the English manner" means gardens in the English mode, or English taste. Manner is not "manor". Please fix it yourself, if you feel up to it. --Wetman 09:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * heheh NI Ni ni SatuSuro 09:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Did so - apologies for that SatuSuro 09:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * One ought to be even more cautious in reverting than one is in in adding text. Added text reveals itself. Lost text may remain lost.--Wetman 10:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Point taken - SatuSuro 10:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * interesting an attempt at a see alsso got reverted within minutes as well - this is all beginning to feel like unencylopedia in the monty area - I think I'll go back to tagging categories asap - cheers SatuSuro 10:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

At Lupin
Serrated? CApitol3 12:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Serrate is already a past participle. Serrate, like dentate, is sufficient without -ed. But I have not edited at Lupin and can't find the word serrated there. I did find the verb nodulate in a context that suggests its meaning "made to form nodules", which was also a barbarism that could surely be avoided. A very whining section on escaped lupines in New Zealand, too, I see... --Wetman 21:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Wetman. Apologies. I was actually following the thread regarding shrubbery, and as it leaned toward Monty Python I borrowed a line of script from a MP scene involving lupines, and a description of leaves where a woman with an exaggerated Midlands working-class accent queries "serrated?" CApitol3 21:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hope that clears it up. CApitol3 14:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Council of Jerusalem
Care to get involved in Council of Jerusalem again? Looks like User:Roger Arguile is proposing some major edits. 64.149.82.195 21:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * With Christian subjects, if intellectual dishonesty becomes too abrasive, I find that it's best to write about texts. --Wetman 22:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Atlas (architecture)
Hi, Wetman, have you seen the article? It is pathetic to read that "the most famous atlantes today could well be the ones placed at the entrance of the Hermitage Museum in Russia", etc. I'm sure the text would benefit from your learned attention! --Ghirla-трёп- 13:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked it a bit. Alantes in Antiquity were pretty much out of the mainstream. The revival of them is in Mannerism, from which there is a single stream through Beaux-Arts. The article does need work.--Wetman 00:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A favour
Ah, I see our Russian friend is above, I'm sure he won't mind if you do me a favour first. I don't know he is complaining about anyway, he normally like the "most famous to be in Russia" and I'm sure they "could well be". My favour is Justor, I'm bringing Harriet Arbuthnot up to scratch and I think you may have access to If you do, could you possibly have a scim through it and add anything that you feel may be relevant to the page - I would be in your debt if you did, and it would be more interesting for you than Ghirlandajo's tattered, and out of date, old atlases (or whatever the plural is in English). Thanks Giano 14:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have just moved page to here User:Giano/Mrs A. Too many edit conflicts even while I had inuse template on. Help yourself. Giano 19:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, Giano, you didn't specify, and so I've edited at the current article, Harriet Arbuthnot. Could you pick out whatever pieces of html you need for the Mrs A project and cut n' paste? --Wetman 00:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So I see, no problem. Thanks a lot will have a big edit there later today if time and real life allow. Many thanks - I appreciate it. Giano 07:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Linenfold
How can we not have an article on such an important decorative element?

Not sure if this is one for you or Giano, but I am sure he will see it here anyway. Contributions and corrections welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added some notes, but I don't have Penelope Eames, Furniture in England, France and the Netherlands from the Twelfth to the Fifteenth Century (London: Furniture History Society), 1977, which will doubtless have the most up-to-date discussion (and bibliography). --Wetman 23:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Dysnomia
I just happened to be reading the article Dysnomia and found that I was intrigued by it, you put in the changes which are the bit I don't understand. You said that she was poetical and had something to do with poetical contexts. This was intriguing and I'd love to have it explained more, and sources given. What poetical contexts? Please do tell:) And why 'poetical' not just 'poetic'?  Not criticising, so much as intrigued.:)Merkinsmum 16:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just tinkered with this a bit. I think what you meant by poetical contexts is that she is mentioned in Hesiod's Theogony.  But http://www.theoi.com/Daimon/Dysnomia.html shows a mention in Solon as well, so I have changed it to 'literary.'  Hope this is o.k.Merkinsmum 16:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll give it some more specific context for you. --Wetman 22:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Solon wrote in verse. The problem with theoi.com is that it gives no context. (But the present dab is fine.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (www.theoi.com, Gentle Reader, is simply a repertory of quotations, in English, of Greek and Latin authors referring to classical gods and heroes. The "context" is provided by the Wikipedia article, which makes a reference to the quotation that supports an assertion, thereby making it difficult for even the most tiresome sophomores to insert and sometimes flushing into the open those who have the cheek to delete referenced facts, if they don't suit their indoctrination.)
 * As opposed to those who quote their sources out of context, as here. A site which either described Solon or gave the Greek would not have led Merkinsmum into assuming that the fragment is from "Solon's Laws" in prose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Image:ADurerCardinalAlbrecht.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ADurerCardinalAlbrecht.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
 * N.B. All images, regardless of copyright status require source information - i.e. where the digital image came from - this applies equally to images that are in the public domain because of their age. Madmedea 22:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Like Alberto Gonzalez, I don't remember. Delete it if you think that serves Wikipedia. --Wetman 00:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Image:ADurerFortunaengraving.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ADurerFortunaengraving.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
 * N.B. All images, regardless of copyright status require source information - i.e. where the digital image came from - this applies equally to images that are in the public domain because of their age. Madmedea 22:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

{{subst:image source|Image:ADurerSudariumengraving1513.jpg}
 * N.B. All images, regardless of copyright status require source information - i.e. where the digital image came from - this applies equally to images that are in the public domain because of their age. Madmedea 22:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Like Alberto Gonzalez, I don't remember. Delete it, if you think that serves Wikipedia. --Wetman 00:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Pallant House Gallery
Apparently Giano does not "do" Sussex, so I have come here with my tail between my legs.

Here we have a substantial Queen Anne townhouse in Chichester, with ostriches, containing a significant gallery of modern British art, with a modern brick block bolted on to one side (the same architect who designed the delightful new British Library). Any additions / comments / etc. would be most welcome. -- ALoan (Talk)


 * I got in a juicy tidbit from Colvin and fixed a redlink, but I've just lost my text on Bow porcelain factory, though I did manage to enter Thomas Frye.--Wetman 17:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A Chancery case! Thank you muchly! Yes, Bow porcelain/Bow porcelain factory should be created (ditto Lowestoft porcelain). -- ALoan (Talk) 18:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There! got Bow well started. Lowestoft has many subtle issues of connoisseurship: I'm not up to it. --Wetman 20:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow - DYK? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The Gallery won the 2007 Gulbenkian Prize! -- ALoan (Talk) 11:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The article needs a photo. I'll make a request at its Talkpage. --Wetman 12:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Sculpture
Would you like to help me setting this up? Seems remiss that there's one for architecture, and one for all the visual arts, but not for this major plastic art. Neddyseagoon - talk 13:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll certainly keep plugging away at individual sculptors, but I'm not much one for the Projects. --Wetman 17:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine, just thought I'ld let you know. Tell your friends, as they say, and keep up the good work! Neddyseagoon - talk 11:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Appreciate it; and while I'm at it, I've always been a fan of your work as well. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

re:Poseidon

 * I've protected it again. Thanks for the report. alphachimp  23:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Chippendale and a scary crank
i note your lofty contempt for my concerns about your chippendale birthdate "facts" on WP. Vandalism may apply to my clumsy method but absolutely not to its sentiment.There is every reason to deeply question the poor quality assumption that a historically scribed Thomas Chippendale birth record in Otley is a revelation as to THE Thomas Chippendales actual birth. I really have no sound idea who the hell you are but I can tell you that the study of this C18 artisan has been my life for nearly 30 years and nothing else. I own more data on him (currently over 300 books, manuscripts etc dating from 1756 onwards). My Great Uncle, Edwin Leyton wrote many papers on the subject of TC and all of his not inconsiderable specific estate on the subject forms the majority of my collection. He researched and wrote when Cesinsky and MacQuoid were alive and he knew them both personally. I own signed first editions appended to my relative and given to him by these authors. I will go to the expense and effort of challenging your status on WP in print and broadcast media if you continue to ignore the need for factual accuracy on this specifc matter. The very public judgement of your peers is my ultimate sanction should you need it. Frankly Sir, you rather sicken me. I am of the opinion your informed editorials come from a well stocked library only and are not the result of learned acquired wisdom.

Mark this moment; I suspect dark things shall this way come with all haste.

m.edion medionmedion@hotmail.co.uk


 * Perfect nonsense. Christopher Gilbert, 1978. The Life and Work of Thomas Chippendale 2 vols. (New York: Macmillan) 1978.. The standard work.--Wetman 00:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

(This is sufficient motivation not to use one's own name at Wikipedia.--Wetman 11:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)) ''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.''

"Bullfinch" [sic]
I haven't used Bullfinch since I was about twelve. I would appreciate it if you would cease jumping to these conclusions; doing so in the future could be considered incivility. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * All one knows of other editors at Wikipedia comes from what one reads. If you are reading more modern books on mythology, I expect that will begin to show in your understanding of it before long. I reccomend Walter Burkert, Greek Mythology. It's available in paperback. --Wetman 22:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)--Wetman 22:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I was graduated before the translation came out, so I am not as familiar with it as I should be. A quite good textbook; does not have as large a hobby-horse as many English works. The emphasis on archaeology is different than most, and doubtless helps keep theories within bounds.   Not as detailed as Farnell or Rose, and seems to be being used around here with insufficient care; but that is par for Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

History of Perugia references
I'm going to reference all the article Perugia. I referenced your former contribution to the section history as coming from the Umbria Touring Club Guide. You should insert more accurate notes introducing the number of the pages and maybe the international standard book number (ISBN) of the publication. Many thanks for your time. Yours faithfully,--Grifomaniacs 17:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to say that my Touring Club Italiano guides predate ISBN numbers, as I do myself. I'm sure yours are more up-to-date. --Wetman 22:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right about ISBN, I forgot that these standards were recently developed in the history of literature. Of course, I've a lot of resources to reference all your formerly editing. But I've lack of time because I've to reference also other sections of the article. I will be very grateful to you for all your help at the page.--Grifomaniacs 20:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being so helpful, you did a great work ;). I did a few corrections, anyway.--Grifomaniacs 08:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

James Gibbs
Don't worry, he's on my "to do" list. Let's stick to constructive edits please. Edward Waverley 08:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (You may wonder at this rebuke, Gentle Reader. Wetman removed a huge largely empty "infobox" almost half as large as the slender text, with the edit summary: "let's add an infobox when we have a little more info". Not very harsh. Indeed, truly constructive edits do add content, which in this case Wetman's failed to do.)

''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.''

Abraham van der Doort
Another begging missive. This chap seems to be quite elusive. There appears to be a short biography in the edited catalgoue from 1960... -- ALoan (Talk) 17:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, hm. hm, hard work. I thought he was the Dutch guy who painted those cows' asses in the sunset with the clouds in the water and all. Then I had a peek. It's the catalogue that's interesting to me; it does need to be talked about with more context and detail. My brain is too soft right now... --Wetman 21:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No hurry - he has been dead these 367 years... -- ALoan (Talk) 22:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ohgosh - I am almost indescribably happy :) Thankyouthankyouthankyou *bounce* -- ALoan (Talk) 10:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you deliberately remove my comment at User talk:Filiocht? Not being a Yates afficionado, perhaps I am qualified to comment? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I took it was a mild, fatherly rebuke for my schoolboy sarcasm. :) -- ALoan (Talk) 18:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah. ...but what about my schoolboy sarcasm? --Wetman 21:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Altogether a different class of schoolboy sarcasm :) -- ALoan (Talk) 22:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In all the excitement, I forgot to nominate this chap at DYK, and it is too late now! It has such a good hook (his suicide). Ho hum. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Clio is back
Clio is back, Wetman, thanks you you and others like you. You will find an explanation on my talk page. Love Clio the Muse 00:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ediacaran biota
Thanks a lot! Glad you've enjoyed it... Verisimilus  T  09:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing image Image:Altar Selene Louvre Ma508.jpg
is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image. --Android Mouse Bot 2 12:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Information cannot be added here for an image located on Wikimedia Commons. You can follow the "description page" link and add information there, but the goal is to keep information in one spot for all Wikimedia projects and languages.  Ral315 » 18:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I see. So, rather than move the information to its rightful place, you've deleted it? Can you cut and paste it here, so that I can incorporate it in the prescribed manner, for the Wikipedia reader? --Wetman 19:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, you've done it! Excellent! I'd better keep my tidbits of information in the mainspace articles. --Wetman 19:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

thumb|right|250px|Well, now I'll need the hat...

The 25 DYK Medal

 * Please count again. I suspect Wetman is the most prolific DYK contributor ever. --Ghirla-трёп- 18:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks re: Cretaceous
Hi, thanks for your note on Talk:Cretaceous. I admit that I pounced somewhat vindictively on that call for a cite to a simple definition/derivation, which like you I thought was rather overkill.... cheers Geologyguy 14:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Illegitimi non carborundum --Wetman 23:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Italian Wars
It'd be nice if people tried to provide something more insightful for an edit summary than the pre-scripted one left by the "undo" button, no? I would have hardly considered myself a vandal to be reverted on sight, or some such. Kirill Lokshin 15:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (Infobox "content" issue: my correspondent changed "Holy Roman Empire"— among the combattants I'd thought, too hastily— to "Germany" with an edit summary reading in full: "HRE isn't a geographic entity". Quite right, too: the Infobox lists location rather than combattants. My correspondent has reverted me, quite correctly, so that now the location reads "Throughout southern, western, and central Europe, including Italy, the Holy Roman Empire, the Low Countries, France, Spain, and England".  Infobox bloat doesn't really convey useable information. --Wetman 23:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

Delacorte Theater
hi wetman - just wondering if you'd be willing to move your recent addition about the 2007 season from the Delacorte article to the New York Shakespeare Festival article. i think the theater article should be about the history of the building. instead it's turned into an article almost exclusively about the NYSF productions. thanks, J. Van Meter 02:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The history of the building is without encyclopedic interest. Perhaps you'd conflate the two articles under the more encyclopedic heading.--Wetman 11:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Perugia
Thank you very much for taking the time to improve the history of Perugia and to create a great article about the Palazzo dei Priori. If I had been able to create one, I would give you a gryphon barnstar. All the best,--Grifomaniacs 14:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! it looked like a gaping deficiency, and I tried to fill it. I'd rather have your note than a barnstar any day. --Wetman 14:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Cockatrice
I have replaced the section “Analogous creatures” in Cockatrice that you removed. It is properly referenced and relevant to the article. From looking at the history of the article I see that you have been removing references to such analogous creatures since 14 December 2005. If you have an issue with such creatures, please discuss it on the article’s talk page, not simply remove. 81.158.163.199 08:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

(Wetman does not take anonymous calls, Gentle Reader, but you may be amused by the antics of this cheeky hoaxer at Talk:Cockatrice and at the spurious article Drachentaube, spectres from the culturally paraliterate world of Dungeons and Dragons. --Wetman 17:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC))
 * Please see my comment at Talk:Cockatrice. No antics, no hoax.  Please do not be so suspicious.81.158.163.199 17:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please desist from accusing me of vandalism on my talk page. I am not a vandal, I have simply contributed something you do not like. 81.158.163.199 01:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

''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.''

Talk:Drachentaube
I don't know what google you are using, but it didn't take me long to find Dragonlore, the very issue, in fact! See [] 81.158.163.199 17:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read your message on my talk page, and hope what I have written at Talk:Drachentaube clears up your concerns. Ednan 21:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Ednan
You say on my talk page: "You seem from your edit history to have no other interest in Wikipedia but this." Well, all I can say is that one has to start somewhere. Ednan 21:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fop
Please help to finally get rid of the silly vanity (look at that article you may find my addition amusing) image on the fop article! --Counter-revolutionary 13:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Gorgon
For your thoughtful and well taken contribution to the talk page of the article here, I wish to express my thanks. Dr.K. 08:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Take it past stub?
Raft of the Medusa. Marskell 21:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem at Wikipedia is that you can't just point out to the reader what is there to be seen: you'll be challenged by the visually impaired, with a brisk little edit summary into the bargain. So it means hunting up quotations in order to make the simplest points by ventriloquism. Not very rewarding for an awful lot of struggle. No wonder the articles on works of literature are plot summaries, which in a good school would be returned to a fourth-grader. There must be a good quote in From David to Delacroix. --Wetman 22:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ho hum. I noticed you on one of the related talk pages suggesting the painting, rather than the ship, should be the main target of a search (I agree). I was just thinking you might, say, have a print source to ref and expand from 1k to 3k. That's all—no meta opinions involved. Marskell 22:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Ho hum" is rather pert. Off with you. --Wetman 22:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is rather. Apologies. Marskell 07:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I did give you rather a good title. Google "David Delacroix Raft Medusa" for some ext. links and useful material to flesh out the Raft. --Wetman 15:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. But I face a dearth of print books, given my location, which it makes it hard to do justice to arts topics. And weblinks are often dubious policy-wise. I'd really love to see Raft done well; possibly my only [real] opinion on painting, is that it's my favourite. Perhaps I can construct a passable bringing-google-together page on it. Marskell 22:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Two Furietti articles
Wetman, you don't have to worry. We were talking about this edit which was promptly reverted by Neddyseagoon. If your article about the cardinal was cluttered with images, I would not have uploaded his portrait and nominated the page on DYK. You did a very good job on that page, as usual. By the way, I have added some additional considerations about a Trojan language; you are welcome to see if they hold water. Latacz seems persuaded that Hector and Paris were bilingual. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed your nice work on Troy. Now we have at least one brilliant passage in that sadly neglected article. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Renaissance humanists
If you have a moment, please take a look at this, which I have just extricated from entanglement with the likes of Richard Dawkins and Björn Ulvaeus of ABBA. Plenty of articles need adding, I'm sure, and probably some need pruning. The same goes for the list at Renaissance Humanism - Donatello didn't make the cut. Many of the articles have links to humanist or humanism also. Pass it on if you know anyone else with an interest. Thanks, Johnbod 21:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What a shame that localists have broken down the category by modern nationality, when it was the very nature of humanism to transcend localism, through Latin. A category is simply a form of index: a text with fourteen indices is not very handy. I'll keep my eye out for stray humanists. --Wetman 05:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Johnbod, I flushed 77 humanists in 2½ hours by checking "What links here" at Humanism. I was generous: not everyone with a humanist education really counts among the humanists. Someone might want to go through the List of Erasmus's correspondents to see who has slipped the net. --Wetman 08:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks! Johnbod 20:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've done the correspondents. Johnbod 21:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The categories are now functioning as indices. Great. --Wetman 22:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Orion (mythology)
So what do you think of the present version? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Orion (mythology), my first, naive effort at Wikipedia, is no longer on my watchlist. I am not quite sure why you want me to look at what it has become. It has that curious obtuseness that I can only suppose is intentional: "this may well be the original story, since Hyrieus is presumably the eponym of Hyria." A thought worthy of Isidore of Seville. I do not think that this is naively done, and it doesn't encourage one to scrutinize carefully or take issue with any particular point, if legend cannot be distinguished from myth. The result is a scattering of apparently perfectly arbitrary unconnected myth elements: "Silly old Greeks! they just made it all up!" Enough. Why would you have the least interest in what I may think of it? Let's not get into a discussion about it. I shall continue to leave it alone. --Wetman 05:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. I see no consensus on when a legend becomes a myth, if indeed there is a systematic distinction. I join the long list of complaints on the talk page in holding that Wikipedia should not endorse Kerenyi's, or Graves', or Fontenrose's, or anybody 's Key to All Mythologies, but should state what we have from antiquity independent of theory. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Drachentaube redivivus
It won't die! . --Akhilleus (talk) 02:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ludibrium stultissimorum --Wetman 03:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Message
hi Wetman, thanks for your kind words of welcome! i am really glad that my pictures can find a good use here. and yes, please continue helping me to describe and organize them. my regards! Tetraktys-English 23:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Châteauneuf-du-Pape, etc: a brief, but toxic interlude
I am not "deleting the useful links as 'commercial'", I am deleting the commercial links even if useful, which is in line with wikipedia recommendations. Vincent Lextrait 05:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah yes. And then you expect to return and request for the statements based upon the deleted links, I suppose. Or someone else on automatic pilot will do so. In general, I feel that if one pauses for a moment to ask oneself, "is this action in the best interests of the reader", one can avoid many errors of judgment. I don't for a moment suppose that you have glanced at any of the links you are deleting, as your User contributions history demonstrates the mechanical rapidity with which you accomplish these thoughtless deletions. --Wetman 05:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your aggressivity does not reflect the constructive courtesy that wikipedia expects. I kindly invite you to read wikipedia's recommendations for external links insertion, which are not simplistic. I have not questioned the usefulness of the links, which is not important. You can debate the external links rules on the relevant page if you wish so. Your remark on requesting references for the statements is irrelevant and unfounded, I am not asking for that. Your assumption on my typing and judging abilities is rude, and I do not have to justify myself to you. But for your information, I access the links I delete (if you spend enough time checking, you'll see that I remove dead links too...). Vincent Lextrait 06:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (A most revealing response. Now just imagine, Gentle Reader, the level of thought that has gone into these mass deletions, one after another, a minute apart, dozens and dozens of them.--Wetman 07:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Futile. Vincent Lextrait 07:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * At least we are in agreement, in the end. --Wetman 08:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do not think this deserves a dispute. Vincent Lextrait 08:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

''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.''