User talk:Wetman/archive3Sep2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

NEW TALK:

Question[edit]

I am terribly sorry to damage your beautiful talk page, but, regarding the following extremely insulting diff [1], I wonder if something could be done about User:Slike2 ? ~~~~ 29 June 2005 23:37 (UTC)

Ah! That is part of why the Wetman is not an administrator... --Wetman 1 July 2005 09:20 (UTC)

Council of Jerusalem/King Izates[edit]

Have you been following the lengthy discussion on this topic? From what I can tell it is either original research or an extreme minority opinion. It's been over a week now, and our IP editor has still failed to produce a credible source making this link. I've removed the section, and would appreciate your comments on the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 30 June 2005 15:03 (UTC)

I have seen and avoided following it. Why not in the "History" subsection at Circumcision? Robert Eisenman draws much more interesting conclusions about the so-called Council of Jerusalem. This isn't the moment to add them in, however. --Wetman 1 July 2005 09:20 (UTC)

Viennese Cafe[edit]

Good point. Do you think cafe or café should be used in the new title?

(Fixed a redirect so that no one need be left behind.)


Layout dogma I: New York City illustrations[edit]

I'm not entirely sure what you were trying to say in your message. When there are mutiple pictures in an article section, it usually helps to have them at a uniform size. The article contains pictures of many different sizes, but they look differently depending on various factors such as screen size & resoultion, as well as the browser settings of the viewer. I certainly have nothing against using both left and right aligned pics within a section, but in "History" they have tended to be just right aligned due to the prescence of the large info box above and to the right of the section. --Jleon 5 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)

Why would uniform size "help"? Is this a feature of handsomely-presented illustrated books? It's worth considering why it is not: it might help sometimes, where the feature of interest within the illustration, its point, is the same size. In other cases, varying picture size helps suggest scale. Or it suggests to the eye that details are what are being offered as illustrative examples. Or at a smaller size, that it is the general forms that count. A balance between consistency, which orients the viewer by fulfilling expectations, and variety, which keeps the viewer fresh, is simply more desirable than the consistency that Thoreau despised. I'm in complete agreement as to finding ways to eliminate glaring white space in layouts, but a block of four photos of identical size, presented as a pane of postage stamps—well, just look. --Wetman 5 July 2005 18:29 (UTC)

Of course there are instances when different sized pics look better within a given section, but the whole reason for that structure in "History" is because there was a long standing sequence of pictures until someone replaced the steel worker pic with one of central park. The orginal purpose of this was to have pictures of New York in the 19th, 20th, & 21st centuries aligned evenly for the viewer's easy comparison. The picture of the WTC was added later due to its historical significance. I think the recent action over the central park pic was ill conceived and I would personally like to revert it. --Jleon 5 July 2005 18:50 (UTC)

You may not realize the image is already at History of New York City (1898-1945) and has been uploaded again and used elsewhere. The idea of comparing city views is excellent:make the point in the captions. The Central Park picture with its caption makes a small historical point of a comparable "then-and-now" nature. Revert it if you find it not to your taste. I did some formatting because the page as it stood, with a strip of images down one edge— well it never ocurred to me that someone wanted it to look like that. --Wetman 5 July 2005 19:44 (UTC)

Layout dogma II: TOCright proposal[edit]

Hello. Since you were part of the discussion of the Template:TOCright template once it was moved from VfD to the MoS, you might be interested in the draft proposal currently posted there. We appreciate any comments and suggestions you may have. -- Titoxd 23:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC) . Please stop unilaterally adding this template to articles where it is not remotely needed. I have responded to your claims that it improves the layout, please stop ignoring it. The majority of the Wikipedia community expressed their concern that TOCright and TOCleft should only be used in extreme circumstances and none of the articles you are adding it to fit the bill. User:Steinsky 21:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Other readers will doubtless agree that, in general, formatting is greatly improved by using the template "TOCleft" to "wrap" the text around the table of contents box and eliminate those ugly gaping holes of blank space that disfigure many Wikipedia entries. "TOCleft" is preferable, unless there are reasons for setting it at the right: see Gallaecia. Setting it at the very top corner is not particularly attractive I'd say.
This particular editor has been going about making a mess of carefully formatted articles to satisfy some obscure personal agenda: instead of simply replacing the "TOC right" template that makes him foam at the mouth with a "TOCleft" template, or—scarcely to be hoped— adjusting the format to improveit, he vandalizes the careful new formatting (even—just twice—my own). I have had to go through every one of these abused formats and restore visual coherence. I am never cowed by abuse from a bully with a formulaic agenda, but I have had to turn down Administratorship twice precisely to avoid contact with this sort of individual. The usage "unilaterally" at this cultural level means "using your intelligence and educated eye to produce a result differing from mine." Unspeakable, eh. --Wetman 22:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Are you going to respond to the fact that your edits go against the guidelines for use of these templates? Unless you do they will be reverted again. You can misrepresent the situation and spread rhetoric about my "agenda" and "vandalism", but that will not change the fact that your edits go against the guidelines, and the fact that when this was pointed out to you, you first ignored it, and then were dishonest about it, will not look good. If you fail to acknowledge that the guidelines (and several other users) disagree with your use of TOCright I will take this to the next level of dispute resolution. Joe D (t) 22:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
(There was no response from Wetman, needless to say.)

The Venetian[edit]

What does The Court of Honor at the World Columbian Exposition, Chicago, 1893 have to do with the hotel/casino in Vegas? Seems like a misplaced see also. Vegaswikian 7 July 2005 00:22 (UTC)

Cleaned-up and idealized European-influenced structures that embody cultural icons ranged round a pedestrian mall centered on an artificial lake plied by gondolas at a resort that combines entertainment with a high-minded atmosphere... what is the thing that seems misplaced to you? --Wetman 9 July 2005 16:28 (UTC)

verses[edit]

Hiya,

you recently abstained at a vote for deletion against Matthew 2:16

however, a proposal by User:Uncle G covers a much larger group of verses.

would you be prepared to make a vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, which covers the full list of verses in Uncle G's suggestion?

(So tiresome. I voted anyway.)


retronym[edit]

Why did you link "surface street" to retronym in the Wilshire Boulevard article? Yes, the phrase "surface street" is a retronym, but that linkage certainly doesn't fit the Principle of least astonishment, because most Wikipedia users would expect the link to go to something on roads or streets. BlankVerse 07:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Goodness. Forbid the connection then, with the Wikipedia reader's best interests firmly in mind. But don't inform me of your decision, whatever it may be. --Wetman 08:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

thanks for fixing my muckup[edit]

Thanks for fixing the problem I had with my Pauline Hopkins entry muckup. I shall be more careful in the future with that sort of nightmare. --David Hoag 02:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I was looking through New Pages, where there are few of sufficient value to inspire one to work on them. Thanks for the note! --Wetman 03:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

could use some help[edit]

Please check out the Talmidaism page which Jayjg has marked for deletion. It seems that Jayjg has been blocked in his efforts to merge this page with the Nazarene page, and now he is trying to accomplish as an administrator what he could not do as an editor. Please help prevent a hi tech lynching. Thanks. --Ovadyah 14:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Berries and Berryessas[edit]

I removed the merge tag you placed on Berryessa, San Jose, California because Lake Berryessa is a completely different location from Berryessa in San Jose. They are located in noncontiguous counties, Santa Clara and Napa counties, respectively. — J3ff 02:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

My error. A not unnatural one. That would surely make good material to flesh out the very slender articles. A word on who the eponymous Berryessa was would not be amiss: so that we may stop wondering whether he was the Berry, and whether it was his lady in fact who was the Berryessa... --Wetman 02:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


Help would be appreciated[edit]

Hi Wetman, I invite you to copyedit my latest articles on Niasvizh Castle, Decani, Soltaniyeh, Söyembikä Tower, Aleksey Shchusev, &c. Thanks. --Ghirlandajo 00:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration[edit]

Melissadolbeer has opened a request for arbitration against you (at WP:RFAR). ~~~~ 09:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You have stated that you do not know why you are involved.

The reason is simply that you added a merge tag to Authentic Matthew. I subsequently merged it. Melissadolbeer therefore has been spamming user's talk pages (under the sockpuppet User:Mikefar) claiming you are my sockpuppet or vice-versa. Similar accustions have been made by her/him against pretty much everyone who voted delete at the articles VFD.

It also seems like this happened the previous time someone (an IP address) attempted to merge the article, the talk page spamming sockpuppet at that time was User:Angel77. ~~~~ 22:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Population transfer[edit]

I realised that you were the one having added the Armenian deportation. The definition of the word presented there is not really accurate. Your edits idea was clarified with this statment: "Though the statement is self-explanatory, it should be noted that even the origin of the Turkish euphemism tehcir is Arabic, not Turkish." But since this statment had a POV tone, the deletion, I believe, changed the purpouses of the rest(of the section regarding the Armenian deportation) being posted there in the first place. Fadix 16:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Sokratikoi logoi[edit]

Thought you might be interested --Jpbrenna 20:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I was. Socratic dialogue is the familiar English phrase readers will tend to enter in search for this. --Wetman 22:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Auxentius[edit]

Dear Wetman, I have seen the revert and rerevert on the John 17:3 bit - involving you and 63.201. On July 18 63... included "The Father is the only true god [John 17:3]" at the end of the first paragraph of the origin section. I removed the bible citation, since this verse only provides the wording "only true god", but nothing in relation to the Arian dispute. I also inluded the disclaimer: the Father was seen. Now, since this has gone back and forth between you, I'm asking whether this sentence has anything to do with Axentius' letter, whether Axentius actualled used "John 17:3 as proof text of that belief" and whether it should be included in this paragraph or not (, as the paragraph starts with reference to the letter). Str1977 15:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed the question was simply whether John 17:3 was quoted in the letter of Auxentius. I have added a link to the text of the letter. "The father was seen" is not a disclaimer; it appeared to continue paraphrasing Auxentius. No harm done. --Wetman 18:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


Tudor style[edit]

Could you just cast your eye over this which I have just quickly re-written, its my interpretation but is it POV? I am just begining to wonder if we do have a different interpretations on our differint sides of the Atlantic, also do you think perhaps the page should be moved to Neotudor No! that sounds like some form of parasite - Neo-Tudor - don't like that much either, interested, as always, in your views Giano | talk 08:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

We always called it "Stockbroker Tudor", which would never pass our Wikipedia critics, so I can't help with the "PoV" part. But I think a mention of Jacobethan, Merry England, and jettied half-timbering (all suitable for your Watchlist) built right into the text would be better. Some interior details: "Tudoresque" lent itself to the new "open plan" floorplans, with "living halls" with the stairs running up one sidewall, and "inglenooks" incorporated into overscale fireplaces. Casement windows. Clustered chimneys. Upper storey overhangs. stress the overlap with the Queen Anne style. Just some thoughts. --Wetman 08:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I'll expand tonight if no angry editor has not reverted in the meantime (there seem to be quite a few who have inputed and taken away) I could not live in a house with an "inglenook" even writing the word makes me cringe Giano | talk 09:07, 20

July 2005 (UTC)

That's my lot on the subject, I'm actually quite confused - why was it called Queen Anne? - and why did anyone ever start that page in the first place, beginning to wish I had minded my own business. Thank God we don't do Tudorbethan or Tudor style where I come from. Giano | talk 22:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Looks excellent, Giano! I'd inserted a note at Queen Anne style ("In the late 1850s, the name "Queen Anne" was in the air, ever since William Makepeace Thackeray's novel, The History of Henry Esmond, Esq., A Colonel in the Service of Her Majesty Queen Anne had appeared (1852).") Maybe it should be extended more emphatically. The phrase "Queen Anne" was a buzz-phrase through the 1880s: everything was "Queen Anne"— even the newly-collectible early Georgian chairs that are still collected as "Queen Anne" today. "Free English Renaissance" was a broad contemporary style designation (emphasis on "free" needless to say) that covered all of these Merrie England tastes... --Wetman 22:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

dog (term)[edit]

The article titled "dog" is about an animal. If there's an obscure rock band called "Dog", one may put a cross-reference at the top saying something like this:

For the rock band, see Dog (band).

But it does not make sense to make "dog" into a disambiguation page, moving the article about the animal to dog (term). The animal is the main meaning, and the band uses that name ONLY because there's that main meaning. Besides, dog (term) would be a really stupid name for an article about the animal.

That's why I think it's a bad idea for you to change links back to anathema (term). I'm going to add anathema (term) to "votes for deletion". Michael Hardy 02:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

It looked like a good idea to link anathema. I see now that Anathema contains all the text at Anathema (term). It certainly is always preferable for a reader to land directly at the main meaning. I'll vote delete too. --Wetman 05:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


Tudorbethan/Tudor style[edit]

Something for you to ponder - What is the difference between Tudorbethan and Tudor style, I'd forgotten I had contributed to Tudorbethan. Could Tudorbethan be said to only incorporate the more romantic elements of Tudor architecture? - but then really so does Tudor style. My own view is one of the pages should be deleted and both incorporated with a redirect from one to the other. I realy don't know. Confused of Palermo

I'm all for merging everything into big articles with plenty of subsections headed Main article at... Merging is harder than chopping, though. "Tudor style" is misleading to the unwary: could it actually be the style of the Tudors? they wonder. I like the vivid macédoine of Tudorbethan myself. Could the material at "Tudor Style" be inserted as a subsection without much re-editing? But what of Jacobethan? The one style is really a vernacular-inspired reflection of the high-style other: "quaint" was the word of the day, akin to the 1680s "curious", that these structures were all meant to satisfy. Though Harlaxton is too grand—and too symmetrical— to be quaint. The escapist motivations are similar. Should concise paragraphs encapsulating each of these be at Merry England? --Wetman 07:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Those individual Bible verses[edit]

Firstly let me say that I am sorry that I feel I need to bother you yet again.

Secondly, I wish to let you know that a recent VFD that you took part in has closed. The result was that 32 people voted to keep all individual bible verses as seperate articles, and 34 voted that they shouldn't (2 abstensions, and 3 votes for both). This is considered by standard policy not to be a consensus decision (although the closing admin stated that it was a consensus to keep them).

Thirdly, the subject has now been put to a survey, so that it may remain open until there is a clear consensus for what appears to be a difficult issue to resolve. You may wish to take part in this survey, and record a similar vote to the one you made at the VFD there. The survey is available at Wikipedia:Bible verses.

~~~~ 18:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bible verses[edit]

I added another section for "verse-by-verse Biblical analysis should be transwikied to a WikiBible instead of left on Wikipedia with the possible exception of "notable" verses" as something that could take votes *in addition* to votes for other section, so if you support that idea go check it out. Thanks! — Phil Welch 22:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

SimonP (the creator of the 100 or so gospel verse articles) has tried to claim that the votes for the "only notable verses" section would include most of the 30,000 verses of the bible because he sees them as notable. To avoid such a POV twisting of the votes, I have added a new section - [2] - for voting on whether the number of notable verses is more like 30,000, or more like 30. Would you care to vote there as well? ~~~~ 00:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

All so tiresome. The motivations for extracting single verses from Scripture have an abysmal track record. "The Devil quotes Scripture to his own ends," they say. So does Jerome. --Wetman 12:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Wetman[edit]

Did you just add the picture of the Shaw Memorial? If so [and even if not] it is backwards. this would suggest that Shaw led his troops in retreat - and that was not the case. Carptrash 20:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. No, it was already at Wikipedia. How could an image be reversed in this day-and-age? --Wetman 20:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Crystal Flower Avengers[edit]

July 7th you created a VFD page for Crystal Flower Avengers but it doesn't seem to have had the {{VFD}} template added to the article and does not seem to have been listed on the WP:VFD page. I finished up the nomination and fixed the formatting of the page (you need to use the {{subst:vfd2.... template or it will look really strange, I know from experience). RJFJR 21:30, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Franks[edit]

Hi Wetman

I just reverted your changes to Franks because I thought you weren't being serious. It then occurred to me that you might really think that it needs to link to Anne Frank's family and hot dogs. If so, I apologise. However, I can't see that they're really likely to come up.Palmiro 21:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

(Gentle Reader: When a reader enters Franks, is it genuinely a service to reach a "disambiguation" at all? Or is some furtive agenda at work instead? If a disambiguation of "Franks" is authentically required, then, is a disambiguation that is incomplete actually useful? The actual agenda of User:Palmiro's remaking of Franks as a "disambiguation", then, is revealed by User:Palmiro's reversion: it is simply to remind readers that among the lowest class of street-Arabs, Europeans are still called "Franks". User:Palmiro reveals this purpose by reverting any additional meaninings of "Franks" &mdash as I thought he might, to tell the truth.)

Talk:Tudor style[edit]

Care to express an oppinion here? It's quite a while since I attended a white wedding. Giano | talk 22:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Harder to make a notable gaffe in Tudor style. But there's a thatched cottage in Belair, California with a pair of palms flanking the well-cemented crazy-paving walk, and when you look close, the "thatch" is bundled blond plastic spaghetti wire. But I digress, fortunately. --Wetman 12:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
So has your family owned this country estate for long? Giano | talk 21:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • PS We need a photo, you take it, I'll write it up!

Varro[edit]

Hi Wetman. In the article Parchment you added in April, that "According to the Roman historian Varro, Pliny records, it was invented about the beginning of the 2nd century BC, in Pergamon". Would you please say which Varro, and which Pliny (I'm assuming the more famous ones) you mean? I've come across this edit because I'm trying to clean up after an editor (in September) moved the "Varro" article to Marcus Terentius Varro, and made "Varro" a disambig page, without fixing any of the links. So now there are 50 or so links to "Varro", most presumably wanting Marcus Terentius, now linking to a disambig page instead. And it often isn't easy to tell for sure from context which Varro is meant. But I'm willing to assume that, where it is not obvious from context that some other varro is meant, and if the date of the addition is prior to the date of the page move, that "Varro" should link to Marcus Terentius. I'm also wondering if it would be good to move "Varro" to "Varro (disambiguation)" and redirect "Varro" to "Marcus Terentius Varro". Do you have any thoughts on this? Paul August 18:34, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'll go and puzzle out what it should be: I was re-editing somebody else's material there, I think. But in general, where there's Famous X and Not-Famous X, an italicised mention of Not-Famous X at the head of the Famous X article (and vice versa) seems best to me. For an egregious example of the wrong way (with a somewhat tasteless personal agenda to boot), see Franks. --19:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Leningrad Codex[edit]

Do you have a source for saying that this was written in Cairo? RachelBrown 21:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the colophon. --Wetman 12:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Porgy and Bess FAC[edit]

I noticed that you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera. It'd be great if you could give your two cents at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Porgy and Bess/archive1; this is the first opera up for FA status, and we'd like to start setting a standard to strive for with other articles. Thanks much. --BaronLarf 22:04, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I gave it a number for tweaks to refine the rhythm and emphasis, and mention blackface in the Al Jolson connection. But it's way out of my league in the facts. The condensed scene-by-scene is outstanding. But so is the production history. It's bound to make a fine featured article. --Wetman 12:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Would it be too much to ask for you to mention your opinion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Porgy and Bess/archive1?  :^D Thanks much. --BaronLarf 13:42, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Give me a note[edit]

Have no fear there is not about to be a series entitled "hum that tune" Bishonen asked to me to fill in a few redlinks on a major page she is writing, until last night I knew virtually nothing of Albion and Albanius. Its all just little snippets gained from the internet and my one old book on the subject, the French bit came from a webisite obviously wrong. If you know anything, anything at all, I'm sure Bishonen will be thrilled. I also did Rutland House, and The Siege of Rhodes yesterday using the same limited resources so if you know anything...Regards Giano | talk 11:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah ha! see you've already spotted them - well done! Giano | talk 12:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I can't put my hands on my copy of McCollum's The Restoration Stage. It's in a box somewhere just now. Hah! Here it is, and it contains Dryden's Preface to Albion and Albanius (abridgment) --Wetman 12:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Fun People[edit]

I'm just looking at this article and wondering how you concluded it was a self-insertion. I see nothing to indicate such. I spent some time Googling and visited their website, and I'd say they meet the first three WP:MUSIC criteria for inclusion. Denni 03:33, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

No hard, that is specific, information, no hit albums with titles, nonentities, minimal text featuring a link to a website, and finally the edit history shows this insertion and another inserting Fun People in an alphabetical listing, and nothing else ever. Isn't that how anyone would conclude it was a vanity insertion? What other critera are there? --Wetman 03:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

History of Basse-Normandie[edit]

Hi, Tying History of Basse-Normandie to other historical links was useful but it's orphaned généralité. Dlyons493 12:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The history before 1956 is part of the history of Normandy, which needs your attention, by the way. In a larger view, that means a part of the History of France. On a local plane that means the histories of the three départements, Calvados (with a historical unity), Manche (without a historical unity, just an administrastion of post-Revolutionary France) and Orne, or of individual cities, towns and seigneuries. Before 1956, there's no such configuration to have a history. Why not set your attention on Normandy and make the subsection "History" so rich and full that eventually it needs to be separated as History of Normandy? That would fill a need and not simply duplicate existing effort. --Wetman 20:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Fairies all arownd us![edit]

I actually did a google search to check you had not made that up! (51,0000 entries suggest you "may" have not - but I'm not convinced) When I'm back in London on Monday I'll see what Mr Pevsner has to say on the subject. Giano | talk 17:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


Barony of Dirleton[edit]

Dear Wetman: Thanks alot for the edit, I appreciated I'm trying to learn my way around it I need to do the same for the Barony of Fulwood too.--The Baron of Fulwood 04:21, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

So pleasant to hear a friendly word (see above). When I'm going through New Pages at a rapid clip, sometimes I make errors, raisingf howls of injured fury. BtW, You can automatically sign and date your posts in Talk pages with four tildes. Welcome to Wikipedia! --Wetman 05:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


Tudorbethan[edit]

Please take a look and see what you think. I would be grateful if you would edit and change what you think needs changing. I'm not very good at merging. Nice to see your still being contraversial! Regards Giano | talk 13:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I have plumped the cushions, and lo! see how I "wrapped" the table of contents, employing a Template "TOCleft" (within double brackets, as you'll see from the html). No need to struggle now with illustrations to fill those awkward white spaces opposite the contents box! This has caused the very clamor you noted— a clash with one of those over-directive types who seem to have majored—recently—in self-esteem. Went about unformatting wrapped tables of contents, with pert remarks. Then he did it to Central Park: that strained my tolerance, you may imagine. But cooler heads than mine have prevailed. (BtW, you've been in my mind these last ten days.) --Wetman 21:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Very clever indeed, but I've just added anothe image here [3] so I think you need to go and mash some more. Thanks for the thoughts, I've taken to walking quite a bit, wish I could say I felt better for it! Giano | talk 21:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Irredentism[edit]

I've made some revisions to my edits. I'm not going to make any further edits to that page or revert again. If you are going to revert, I would appreciate it if you reverted only the portions you dispute and kept what seem to me completely uncontroversial corrections of wiki markup. — Mateo SA | talk 03:02, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

That was lazy of me. I just couldn't do the triage. --Wetman 03:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


Red or blue blood?[edit]

Please can you check out the reference to aristocratic here Torlonia, I though Americans were not allowed to be "aristocratic" by some ammendmaent or law, (even poor dear Consuelo Marlborough was proud of her egalitarianism) which is why equally poor dear Ronald Reagan (even with his final boots reversed)and Bob Hope etc did not use their British knighthoods. Giano | talk 19:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the sister of Hon Pamela Digby (Lord D's sister), who successively married Winston Churchill's son, Leland Hayward, and Averell Harriman (railroads), and was the only woman to have slept with both p. Aly Khan and b. Elie de Rothschild (not on the same night let me add), was Hon Sheila Digby, who married Charles Arthur Moore, the brother of Mary Moore. But I changed the text to "rich and stylish American blueblood"—breezy enough to pass? --Wetman 20:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
But would she have been acceptable at Palazzo Gangi - the acid test for the like of me? Giano | talk 21:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
The ballroom in Il Gattopardo? The Moores were a bit "sporty" for Sicilian princes. Her enormous brother had a "manor house" on a big chunk of property in Greenwich Connecticut, with famous stables and a trout pond, and used to give annual Scottish games because his mother was a Camnpbell (!). He was still an undergraduate at Yale when he was buying horses in Aleppo in 1906, about the time she wed ppe Torlonia.
I was about to turn off for the night, and flicked the "diff" to read your response and in the small print, and without my glasses I thought you had written "his mother was a cannibal" which could have been a page in itself, Ah well, we know the aristocracy across the pond is different, but that would have been something! Good night Giano | talk 23:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Dropped special characters[edit]

Thanks for the hint - for some reason, jEdit, which I use with the WP plug-in, decided today that it didn't like special characters any more. I noticed a bit later, and I think I have corrected everything, but that is indeed annoying. I'll check for that in the next time, to be sure. -- AlexR 15:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I simply didn't want to revert a second edit of yours, having done the one. --Wetman 20:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


Don't want to be Blunt[edit]

Hi, Thanks Holkham Hall will be a very lucky page indeed if it succeeds, but life's a little dull at the moment so why not give Holkham an outing, it really needs pictures of the interior, but there are non available - anyhow I think the page is quite complete so we'll see what happens. I've run out of inspiration form my big project which no doubt you've spotted! (please add if you feel like it -( I'm trying not to get too bogged down on Anthony Blunt, I sometimes think he over simplified, and I may change the three phases) That too needs photos, I'm back there for a couple of weeks in September - trouble is the place is slightly larger than most people imagine - and there are more important things to do there - patch up the pool, chop down a tree, paint a damp course - need I go on...Oh aint life just fun Giano | talk 19:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for additions, t's a large subject, and I've rather lost my way on how I want it to develop, I don't really like Blunts three stages, bit don't really see a way around them, shall give it some thought for a few days while filling in the red links. In the meantime if you see any free images, it must have the Palazzo Biscari , I've found an old photograph eligible of the Gangi ball room - but its a double page spread with the book spine in its centre - how cruel is that? Regards Giano | talk 05:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You need a movie still of Claudia Cardinale in that ballroom, is what you need: would that be a "screenshot"? Worth renting a DVD of "The Leopard" and downloading a frame or two? (Not that I could do this, mind you, any more than land a helicopter). I agree: not every cultural phenomenon divides in three stages, as the generations of Sir Arthur Evans through Antony Blunt configured them. So, how about: Germinal Phase --still in its provincial chrysalis-- and Mature Phase. Isn't that what you're seeing after all? So where did these Sicilian architects train? Turin? Rome? Naples? The clients may have had the broader horizons: books of expensive engravings sent over? "Eccola, Luigi. Giusto! Un portone proprio così." --Wetman 06:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Just posted on the talk page, for some reason iyour comments did not show up there last night. I do mention the architects only having seen drawings, this is the poor work, I beleive it was seeing the mainland architects that inspired them later - will give it all some thought - for now off to do theday job - less interesting but marginally easier! Giano | talk 06:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

West Dakota[edit]

I was just glancing at your user page, and saw the "west dakota" award. You might be interested in knowing that some of us western Montanans refer to eastern Montana as "West Dakota," partly because it's geographically and culturally more similar to the Dakotas than to western Montana, but mostly because we don't want to be associated with the place ;). -Matthew Cieplak (talk) (edits) 03:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! that's quite delightful to know. On the analogy of West Kansas, which is also East Colorado. I recall the thrill of pleasure Westbound at the first slight hillocks in western Kansas. The West Dakota Prize is due to be awarded this month, but the list of winners is so long this time ... --Wetman 03:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy tagging[edit]

Hi. You tagged "Snaparazzi" for speedy deletion, but "neologism" is not a reason for speedy deletion. Please only use speedy tags on pages which meet the criteria. Kappa 09:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

(The reader may agree that Snaparazzi is not an encyclopedia heading.)

Camilo Agasim-Pereira[edit]

You wondered whether this article was by the baron himself. It was, but much of it is not now.--Facethefacts 21:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I doubted, indeed. It had a directory-entry look. But it's much more interesting now. Wikipedia: combining Almanach de Gotha and Police Gazette.Thanks for tipping me in! --Wetman 21:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Cloud Peak[edit]

I didn't begin the article on Cloud Peak...I stumbled onto it as I was creating Bighorn National Forest...there is a wiki projects mountains that uses a template for articles like Cloud Peak and they must have not have seen the mountain article since it doesn't appear to have linked to much. I've been working on National Forest articles lately and like to concentrate that information primarily into that main discussion, linking major peaks in separate articles. Give me some time to expand both of those articles and then see how you feel about a redirect. Thanks.--MONGO 07:43, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

For the reader's sake, some condensed version of all the related material should be at one site, with "Main article:..." headings to the subsections. What is the right main trunk article? Bighorn Mountains should be the one, with a brief Bighorn National Forest paragraph in it. Do you agree with this format? General readers have to be able to orient themselves, but "peak baggers" will want an article of their very own for each baggable. That's why I left Cloud Peak untouched. --Wetman 08:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure which items gets precedence...I'm working primarily on Federally designated forests, monuments and parks (and a few other obscure points hoping no one Rfd's them) that showed up as empty links in some articles. I supppose since there wouldn't be a forest, river or a peak without the main mountain chain so maybe that should be the main article...but I also think that National Forests deserve their own article, especially in this case as it is one of the oldest national forests in existence. I guess I am more familiar with the region than many, having hiked over 200 miles in the forest myself and climbed cloud peak. I also wikilinked to a future article I will probably do on the wilderness area, as I have done a few of those recently too. I recognize that it becomes a mess when there are so many stubs showing up...what are your thoughts?--MONGO 08:55, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
"Precedence" is a concept here that I can't apply. If articles could be nested, though, readers could find them, that's all. Bighorn Lake has a redlink that suggests a coming article on the dam separate from the Lake... I don't know how to begin to explain. Never mind... --Wetman 09:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay, let me explain...I have been following the trail of missing links and creating articles to fill the gaps such as this one: List of U.S. National Forests and this one: List of U.S. Wilderness Areas. When I do this I end up cross linking into other articles. I will make the bighorn mountains the main article and link to the rest and I understand that you think the main article should provide some overview of the link, but keep the detail in the link itself. I can take the redlined link out until I actually do create an article on the cloud peak wilderness. The only article I created is the forest one...the rest were as you and I found them.--MONGO 09:24, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Oh I see. I was simply following up "New articles" and expecting too much at the very beginning. I do agree that every US National Forest and Wilderness Area deserves a separate article, which should guide the reader to the larger contexts, both ecological and geological. --Wetman 20:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Trust me on this as well: I hope I never seemed to imply ownership. Please always feel free to edit and correct me and I do appreciate you bringing this mess to my attention.--MONGO 00:46, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Coxcombry: a pert reply[edit]

Dear Wetman, With reference to the comments you have left on my Talk page, please study the arts and skills of tactfulness and diplomacy. Do not simply leave italicized orders on others' talk pages. You will find that, in general, much better results will ensue. With friendly regards, Kwertii 16:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

(The following note had been left at Kwertii's Talk page concerning an "NPOV" tag applied to Skull (symbolism)—: "Should you detect statements that offend your sense of a neutral, intelligent, mainstream response to any subject, please copy them into the talk page and present your personal opinions. Do not begin with an "NPOV" tag at any article where you have not made a single previous edit. Perhaps you will make some contributions to the encyclopedia report at Skull (symbolism) from your own reading and observations, or provide some quotes that show how a skull is used as a symbol in your cultural background. The "NPOV" tag is a last resort." —Diplomacy indeed! How does one diplomatically address the kind of User who applies a tag at an article which they have not previously edited in any way? The effrontery of it.)

Eusebius of Caesarea[edit]

Thanks for your comments about Eusebius of Caesarea. Unfortunately, they are completely irrelevant to the article on Saint Addai. I suggest you update the article Eusebius of Caesarea, instead. Thanks for your understanding in this matter... --Sophroniscus 16:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, since you seem to wish to comment on the Doctrine of Addai I have created a page for that subject... --Sophroniscus 20:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

(The reader should know that the Doctrine of Addai is the standard telling of the fully-developed legend of Saint Addai. Why would it be set into a separate article? Hamlet without Hamlet.) --Wetman 20:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Illusionistic crocodile on a stick[edit]

Hello, Wetman! With you being the only man for the baroque, can I ask you a question about baroque "illusionistic" painting, if you're at leisure? Google finds a bewildering multitude of discussions of it, I haven't really been able to pinpoint anything reliable out there. Would you say illusionistic is synonymous with trompe l'oeil, or can I use it more loosely, to mean painting that makes a flat surface look more rounded and fleshly and "real", without necessarily deceiving anybody? See, I've written an article, Restoration spectacular, about the Restoration "machine play". Basically, I think I'm done—it's been Featured—but I've got a niggle about the illusionism. I talk about scenery and props being "illusionistically painted". Would you say that's true and relevant, or is "illusionistically" merely an ugly word? Like in this passage: "How were such effects produced, and how did they look? The crocodile etc. obviously used the floor trap, but was it an illusionistically painted figure on a stick or a man in a crocodile suit?" (What I would really like would be to be able to link that to an Illusionistic painting stub, hint, hint!) Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 21:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Read your excellent article, Bishonen! Trompe l'oeil is best used to describe paintings where a minutely real illusion is essentially the only goal: still-life subjects. Your broader "illusionistic" much better describes theater scenery and the kind of spatial representations that includes Veronese's folks on the balcony looking down into the space or topless architecture with Olympian romps among clouds, or the Empress of Morocco sea battle on a backdrop. Wouldn't "forced perspective" be a useful term in your article? "Feigned" helps avoid the perfectly ok but too ponderous "illusionistically". The Dutch word landskip appears in English ca 1690, though not in a theatrical context. Illusionistic painting is a huge topic: just those Baroque ceilings would be more manageable: Annibale Carraci, Lanfranco, Pietro da Cortona... Surely that crocodile was 3-D, built of stiffened and painted buckram and worked on multiple sticks from the trap. How old is the word "scrim" in theatrical usage? --Wetman 07:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I made a flimsy start with Baroque illusionistic painting. --Wetman 09:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Wow, you're wonderful—I should have known it would be a huge topic. How old is scrim? I didn't even know what it was, till you asked. It's 20th-century, apparently. OED: "Theatr. and Cinemat. Gauze cloth used for screens or for filtering theatrical lighting; a screen of this material. orig. and chiefly U.S." You think like a papier-maché croc? Mmmm. The shape-shifting Proteus should be struggling, I guess, and a flat figure couldn't do that very convincingly. Unless the legs were articulated and worked with strings or sticks... that would look hilarious, perhaps too much so. I don't suppose it was meant to raise a laugh, the context being patriotic. Though indeed it's hard to believe it didn't. Feigned, feigned ... a touch of Restoration parlance? :-) Well, maybe. To begin with, I'm off to link to your so-called stub! Thank you very much! Bishonen | talk 10:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


Crocodiles?[edit]

What is this talk of crocodiles? Prioritise! The Leopards at home needs a kick and some direction. Please don't be afraid. this Leopard is going to bed, so its all yours for the next seven hours, so no fear of a nasty bite. Giano | talk 22:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy tagging[edit]

Hi, please do not place speedy delete tags on real topics like Anal leakage, even if they are somewhat disgusting. Kappa 09:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

John Major[edit]

Re. Merry England. The comment you reverted refers to an actual speech made by [[John Major], referring to a comment by George Orwell. Here are a variety of references.

Matthew Platts 09:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Merry England[edit]

Re John Major. My addition may be misplaced, incorrect or irrelevant. However, I am going to revert, and place a link to a source of this info. I think the better way would be to improve, rather than remove. I don't think it's appropriate to revert though using the subjective rather than objective terms: rv (i.e. vandalism), a "joke" or "sarcastic" are rather subjective. I will also add a comment on the articles discussion page to ask others if they think my addition is inappropriate. Thanks--jrleighton 10:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Also I have just noticed another users comments on your discussion page - the comments immediately above this section. No worries.--jrleighton 10:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Belshazzar[edit]

I wonder if you might have a look at Talk:Belshazzar. User:Kuratowski's Ghost seems intent on making the article primarily apologetical. john k 17:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I have it on my Watchlist, but I'm trying not to notice what goes on there. --Wetman 19:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


Sic.Bar.[edit]

Hi, thanks that's avery good idea, I hadn't thought of that. Tha page has slowed down, I've not lost the impetus, just the time, the day job and various minor domestic crisis seem to be taking over. I'm actually exploring the possibility of another chapter, how much Sic bar is genuine? My own house there for instance starrted life a monastery in 15 something , then became a barcacks, rebuilt in 1700+, but here is the interesing thing, did not get "baroqued" untill the 1870s. However, I suspect the tourist authorities would not welcome this investigation! Regards Giano | talk 09:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Hawthorne studies[edit]

I merged Hawthorne studies into Hawthorne effect, come have a look when you find the time. User:Sam Spade 21:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, excellent. Now I can't imagine how they were divided. There were a couple of circuit re-directs I fixed, and I bolded "Hawthorne studies" to help orient readers who have been redirected.--Wetman 22:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


Tudorbethan[edit]

I have tried reverting Tudorbethan back to Tudorbethan, but it won't move. Do you know how to do it?. I've also left a not on his User:Neutrality's talk page asking him to put it back! That though may take a while Giano | talk 06:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I honestly haven't the foggiest. Otherwise I'd just do it. Do you have Nicholas Cooper, Houses of the Gentry 1480 – 1680? --Wetman 06:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC):
We shall just have to wait and see!, (as my Mother used to say). No I don't have that book. Why? I don't suppose it has a chapter on Sic bar does it?. There is so little written there, in Italian or English! For some reason English libraries won't allow reference books to be loaned, and I've better things to do than spend hours in a public reading room, reading in bed is my forte and that is rather frowned upon in the local library! Shame! Giano | talk 06:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I ask because I have it here and thought you should have it. --Wetman 06:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Found it. [4] I'll telephone them after 9, and see if they will do a deal, I've found that's often better than just paying what they ask on line! Thanks Giano | talk 06:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I meant I thought you should have mine. It's very good, in the Mark Girouard school of social history exemplified in architecture.--Wetman 07
34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Wetman, I'm stupid I didn't realise what you meant. That is incredibly kind, but no way could I accept. What would you do without it? Thank you very much for thinking though. I have already ordered a copy, so sincere thanks for the recommendation, the offer, and the obvious trust that came with it. I appreciate that even more than the offer of the book. Giano | talk 10:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

VMI[edit]

Thanks for your comments on the merge between VMI and Ratline. If you have a free moment, someone keeps reverting the VMI page, deleting picture captions, and other major edits, and I could use your help in restoring the content. Users are Marshall3 and its apparent sockpuppet, 153.26.176.34. Thanks Rillian 03:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Courtney Cox[edit]

Please be more careful when reverting edits by vandals. You ended up restoring vandalism that was deleted by another anonymous user. Cheers. --Madchester 23:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Philipp Franz von Siebold[edit]

Thanks for the positive feedback. JoJan 05:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Form/style/ordering/manner[edit]

You may be interested to note that User: Neutrality has yet again moved Tudorbethan this time to Tudorbethan architecture. As this was described in the edit summary as a "minor" move you may wish to update your watch list accordingly! Giano | talk 10:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

  • This moving about of pages, has made me start to think. Should pages like Tudorbethan and Palladian stand alone as styles rather than forms or orders of architecture. In fact is there a real difference in your view between an order, form or style, or am I starting to be pedantic and facetious. In my opinion an "order" is a characteristic that retains its individuality across various "forms" of architecture. A "form" is a true architecture such as Norman Architecture, Renaissance architecture, Baroque Architecture etc. and a "style" is a variation on a form of architecture, such as "Sicilian Baroque" or Mannerist which should not have architecture following its name. I've a feeling I am losing something in translation and cultural differences of definition. This must be clearly defined in English somewhere, any idea where? Regards Giano | talk 10:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

When I thought, "Well, is Tudorbethan a style beyond a form of architecture" I immediately thought of Christofle "François Premier" table silver of the 1870s and "Free Renaissance" Wardour Street furniture 1840s onwards and embossed wallpapers imitating gilded "Spanish leather", and "Genoa Damask" textile patterns of the mid-century, and "Jacobean" library tables, and great andirons with brass knights standing on them, all the "Free Renaissance" wares in the catalogue for the Great Exhibition of 1851... It's certainly a style, like Gothic Revival, that can also be embodied in the decorative arts. In English "order" always suggests one of the classic orders; "style" and "mode" should be synonyms, but "mode" for me suggests the musical modalities, something deeply inherent like E flat rather than something adopted for a surface. Yet "modish" sconnotes the most transient effects of style; no consistency there. "Form" suggests the genre of structure: oratory, loggia, gatehouse, basilica, rather than the style in which they are carried out: "baptistry" being the form, for example, and "Romanesque" being the style. I don't think I've read any disquisition on these usages though, and they may be merely personal. --Wetman 20:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC).

  • Ah, now you are helping me formulate my thoughts. Palladian architecture is rightly the work of Palladio himself (it bears his name) therefore what we term Palladian should truly be called "Palladianesque", of course we cannot do so because it is an assault on the ears, and would ever be accepted. However, one should never dignify an "esque" with the term architecture, but of course we do "Romanesque architecture". I shall ponder this long into the night! Good night! Giano | talk 20:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
The poor adjective "Romanesque", about as Roman as arabesque is Arab, exists only in English, doesn't it? Romanesca would be a pasta sauce, no? "Romanica" in other tongues: we might well have accepted "Romanic" in the 19th century too, if it had been offered to us at the beginning. "Palladian style" includes Matthew Brettingham; "Palladian manner" stands farther off and might include some residences in Florida. "Palladian mode" (too arty!) would suggest a spare classicism based on perfect ratios of numbers in floor plans and volumes. As for "order", it's used in the form "ordering" that we've adopted from ordnung—one can speak of "Palladian ordering of spaces", implying the whole nexus of conventions based on theory. And a typical Palladian form is the villa-form of the Terra Firma. I babble, for you already knew all that... --Wetman 21:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Forgetting the "Raviolian forms" of architecture, we are in danger of losing the layman and myself here, to clarify as I think I understand you: Palladian form is purer architecture than Palladian manner, I would if I had ever had to (so far I have not) described the Florida wonders as "Palladianesque" so does "esque" only apply to fussy ornate styles of architecture? Then does "ate" as in Italianate (ie Breakers), the same as "esque". Incidentally Italianate seems to cover a multitude of styles that once touched that peninsular, should it only be used for renaissance styles?. This seems to be a minefield for those with limited language skills! In the meantime I think I had better not turn my attentions to any examples of Florida (should that be Floridian?) domestic architecture. Have a nice day (as they say there) Giano | talk 07:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Your language skills are out of the ordinary, Giano: a veritable Joseph Conrad. The distinctions I was making are easily overplayed, and I didn't mean to be abstruse. But by "form" though I meant specifically the genre, aside from the style in which it may be expressed: the novel, the duomo, opera seria, the loggia. "Palladian forms" would include the villa, the basilica, the urban church, all shaped by use, convention, traffic requirements, rustic or urban setting... Style clothes the form. "-Esque" is simply "-izzante" in the manner of" which is often a better and clearer choice for a building that applies vocabulary without grasping the gist of a style: mannerisms without meaning, like Serlian windows on a stucco-finish wooden garage or Jacobean furniture in the Antwerp manner. "Italianate" was a builder's term that covered a Renaissance-inspired but very free vocabulary with somewhat generic Seicento originals dimly perceived at several removes through prints, from Cubitt's Belgravia to lively San Francisco carpentry. When the maniera is more specific, as in the Fitzwilliam Museum or Beaux-Arts building, it helps to be more specific than "Italianate". But McKim, Mead, and White's Racquet and Tennis Club here isn't a Florentine palazzo, really, nor Venetian in spite of the dark triple-arched entrance nor Roman precisely in spite of the rustication: it's "Italianate"! --Wetman 08:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Mmmmmmmmm! I see. In the meantime would you like to have a look at that most Italianate of residences the Pitti Palace (why it can't be "Palazzo Pitti" I don't know) where among other things I have just seen off Brunelleschi, that old "know all" Vasari did not know everything. I suspect this will be a contravertial edit, so perhaps a copyedit from you would lend some respectability to the page before its original owner comes home from his office tonight and is cross! Giano | talk 13:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Tradition und Leben[edit]

Hi! Thanks for your message. I've removed the npov tag from the article about which I had completely forgotten. I thought that, in the previous version, it was all too obvious why the tag was justified. Apparently, it was taken written by a supporter, and all the text following the phrase "We crown democracy" describing the effects of monarchy on Germany was completely speculative and written from the organization's point of view. I don't think I want to spend any more time on the article, since I am somewhat in doubt whether a fringe organization such as this is really sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Martg76 13:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for removing your tag. Perhaps you'd briefly scan the German Wikipedia articles to make sure there aren't salient points missing in this somewhat marginal English one. --Wetman 21:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Of Epigraphs[edit]

I recall there was previous discussion on the use of epigraphs in articles, but I can't find it now, except for something you said to User:Raul654. The subject has come up again on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Introductory Quotations. -Willmcw 23:57, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. I left the following brisk note to User:Infrogmation at his Talkpage:
"Introducing Epigraphs: Whenever you see a brief, apt quote at the head of a Wikipedia article, an attention-grabbing phrase that sums up some aspect of what is to follow, it's called an epigraph. It works like a chord opening a Haydn symphony: an attention-getter. Sometimes a succinct epigraph is a stylish way to start an article, unless it becomes overused. Very little chance of that, apparently. Do you always remove any epigraph you see, and create a lead-footed category Quotes for bald lists of quotes? As recently in Ashley Montague? ... Why will you not permit an epigraph to a biography? It's not forbidden by a Wikipediarule, is it?" (Wetman 06:00, 6 Jul 2004)
The unwarranted action had been at Ashley Montague. Infrogmation's reply:
"Hi. I'm quite familiar with epigraphs, and have used them myself in some of my music writing. I have no objection to them per-se, moving it to the "Quotes" section was done while I was doing other edits which I hope you will acknoledge made your fine article on Ashley Montagu in some ways even better. I sometimes like such quirky touches, but others at Wikipedia have impressed on me their opinion of the importance of formating, and I do think there's something to be said for the practice of having an introductary sentence or paragraph at the begining of each article. I suppose its a matter of taste as to whether the result is "pedestrian" or "encyclopedic"..." (Infrogmation 15:24, 6 Jul 2004).
For an example of a Wiki-permissable line at the head of an entry, see Beirut. That apparently is preferable. Use these quotes any way you see fit. --Wetman 00:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Mine fire[edit]

I see that you know when to laugh! It's not everyone at Wikipedia, let me tell you... --Wetman 00:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Wetman, Have to have fun, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

Check this one out Intercourse, Pennsylvania PS: You should see that mine fire from 40 Years ago still burning in Centralia, Pennsylvania, Coal Region my hometown area. The state had to buy the town of about 1000 people, LOL So no one would get hurt.

  • Maybe I can get a barnstar for laughing on Wkipedia? LOL
  • "Life is much to short! Eh?"
  • "Keep in touch, stay tough , and Try and have fun"

Thanks,

Scotty

Talmud of Jmmanuel[edit]

I came across your VfD tag on this, and added my vote to the page Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Talmud of Jmmanuel, then I realised that your nomination was in July and was never listed on VfD. I was going to list it for you, but I wondered whether you would still want it deleted. The Talmud does seem quite bogus, but also notable, and I'd have to vote 'keep'. Perhaps you'd let me know what you want to do. Cheers --Doc (?) 00:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you can make it into a stub that gives editors a hint on what to build upon. I was rash in the heat of July, wasn't I? Delete my VfD aif you can get this on the road! Should this indeed be Jmmanuel, not Immanuel? --Wetman 00:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't want to embarrase you by completing what looked like a sign of frustration with a vandal. I've removed the VfD tag. I'm not an admin, so can't delete the VfD page, perhaps if you (as the creator) tab it for a speedy? I'm intrigued by the Talmud itself (I'd never heard of it 'till I googled) I'll see what I can find out and add to the stub. --Doc (?) 07:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's not send down for deletion any topic that has value, even if the stub was below the bar. Give it a paragraph if you can, and send it down the chute with some appropriate categories, so folks'll find it. --Wetman 07:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I've not made myself clear. I agree, keep the stub. I was suggesting you tag Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Talmud of Jmmanuel for deletion. --Doc (?) 07:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I labeled it a Speedy Deletion. --Wetman 08:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, PS the title seems to be strangely correct. --Doc (?) 09:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

That's not a j it's a long i, an antiquarian affectation, like the spelling of the papal family Pamphilj, that hearkens back to 17th century printing practice and Shakespeare's tomb... "for Iesous sake forbeare" etc. Like Ierusalemme and Iohannes. But I'll do what I always do, make a redirect from Talmud of Immanuel so that the ordinary reader may find it. --Wetman 09:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Found Talmud Jmmanuel already existing - redirected there - end of story. --Doc (?) 19:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Philip the Fair[edit]

Thanks for your notice, but it must have crossed my proceeding to solve the double redirects - or did I forget any? I checked again, but can't see any. Please let me know if that would have been the case nonetheless! --Francis Schonken 09:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


Giacomo the Mad[edit]

Why does on bother? [5]. There are times when I think the 1911 should be publicly burnt! Giano | talk 19:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I've tweaked the text and removed the pointless tag. As I said to my dreadful Bavarian sister-in-law once, "The drawback to a lapidary style is, when you are good, everyone thinks you are quoting Voltaire."--Wetman 21:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Tudor style[edit]

The 1911 tag is correct, since I copied the articel directly from it ;) --J heisenberg 21:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

That's why I've recast the article, with links to other Wikipedia articles. Do add to it, if you have anything to contribute on the subject. --Wetman 21:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I wikified the article and added the pics. I just think that if it's from the 1911 Brittannica, why not the tag?--J heisenberg 21:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Sometimes when you edit, just as there are people who claim Elvis is alive a kicking in Pontyprith or somewhere equally obscure, I wonder if Nikolaus is not still with us and living across the pond. Incidentally, you should not call your sister-in-law dreadful in public, even if she is Bavarian. Some very nice people are Bavarian, although only one springs to mind at the moment, who come to think of it isn't particularly nice, although I'm sure J heisenberg (who is from Munich, is very nice) A great friend of mine has a Prussian mother-in-law but that's a very long story. Eltham when I went there last year did not strike me as Tudor, more medieval with an amazing decadent injection of art-deco (OK, I just checked) it has an "amazing" hammerbeam roof - as well by Henry VII, so it only "just "Tudor. Nice edits though. Regards Giano | talk 22:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah ha, Wikipedia's page on Eltham says Edward IV's great hall, now while my knowledge of Kings and Queen's begins at Elizabeth I (apart from 1066) I think Edward IV was not a Tudor - was he not? Giano | talk 22:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that Eltham! I hadn't twigged. There was a whole coterie there in the 20s I recall reading: theosophists or Tarot cards or something... Yorkic style... How can we imply that "Tudor" is a perfectly dreadful style designation, more misleading than useful in its double suggestion... oh I'll just pop that into the article... without exposing ourselves to cries of "POV" from the second balcony? --Wetman 22:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Vasco da Gama[edit]

An article that you've edited before (Vasco da Gama) is nominated for Article Improvement Drive. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 02:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Why the Hackney Wick thing?[edit]

Just looking at your stuff, you do not seem stupid, from your Hackney Wick idiocy I automatically assumed you were...

But - given the difficulty we are already having structuring the London (even borough-specific) project thing...

Are you helping? No, you are not. Please stay away. That's a polite please and a big happy nervous smile, oldbie :)

Tarquin Binary 06:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

(The astonished reader may want to know that Hackney Wick is simply an area in the London Borough of Hackney. The Wetman suggested back in July that it be merged into the more findable article on the London borough. Hackney Wick, as is quite clear, is in the wrong end of London. I once attempted editing at Ruthenia, which is in a similar position in Europe.)

Druid[edit]

On the one hand, good quote from the BM. On the other hand, its talking about many of our misperceptions (as the general public) being wrong. Which is sort of like telling Irone Age reconstructionists that Asterix is not completely accurate - its news to the general public, but not to them. Similarly the modern Druidic groups - not the meso-druids in white robes at stonehenge - are well aware of the historical reality and track historical and archaeological studies closely. So the quote lacks neutrality, in essence. --Nantonos 12:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

If this is a justification for suppressing the British Museum's comments on modern misperceptions of druids as "POV", then it's a classic that belongs at Talk:Druid. I shall omit the sender's name. --Wetman 19:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I added my name; and suggested that a suitable place for the quote would be in the introduction to the article. I further explained that the quote is fine, when applied to its original subject matter; it becomes non-neutral when used to apply to a different subject matter.--Nantonos 20:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
That's always right! Quotes out of context are insidious. I never mean to be guilty of that. I trust to the discretion of Nantonos now to set it in its best context. --Wetman 21:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks from Jahsonic[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks for your edit of Diderot's Bijoux and after having read your user page: respect for your stance on POV and NPOV. --Jahsonic 11:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Wetman[edit]

You have a random "A" near your picture center top of this page. Didn't want to touch it....LOL

Hey where are you located anyway?

Scott 23:25:03, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

Can't you tell I'm a New Yorker first and an American second?. I'll swat that "A" when I find it. thanks. --Wetman 23:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)