User talk:Wetman/archive14Sept2009

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

Contents

Pillow lavas[edit]

The lava entering the sea on Hawaii is a nice image and thanks for adding it, but it's more appropriate for the hyaloclastite article, so I've added it there instead.:-) (It also forced me to expand the article, which is never a bad thing) Mikenorton (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the forcing part. It looked too good to miss entirely. Thank you for giving it an appropriate setting. I lurk at Commons:Gallery of new files sometimes, for random surprises.--Wetman (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Nah, it's good to be forced occasionally, all to easy to think 'I must sort that out sometime' and then do nothing about it. Mikenorton (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Roman Religion[edit]

Hi Wetman - I saw your username on the article talk-page. I've been eyeing this one up for a while from my quiet, safe corner (a bit of a monster, isn't it?) and have finally plucked up enough idiocy to have a go. D'you have an interest in the article? Honour to your ubiquity... Haploidavey (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't know much about Roman cultus but the article could use some dedicated editing. My excellent book on the History of Private Life doesn't cover much religion, which seems to me either unremittingly civic and dull, or else obscurely rustic, aboriginally ancient and scarcely knowable. Decline of Graeco-Roman polytheism is more for me. I could work in a report of Ramsay Macmillan, The Christianization of the Roman Empire there, then make a condensed version of that article for the closing section of Religion in ancient Rome, shall I?--Wetman (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
A closing section would be very useful. For the rest, I too know very little of the groundwork, but am using Brent's Imperial Cult (and others) for other articles, and might be able to provide a cautious anthropological basis. Leastways, I think so. Aboriginal, ancient and scarcely knowable it is. So here's to it... Haploidavey (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, Imperial cult has the distinct advantage of being constructed, in part following Hellenistic rulers' examples, with later (third century) input from Persia , and better documented too. Women's religion is an aspect usually underepresented, as it's so scarcely documented (by men, eh); there should be something directly following "Household religion".--Wetman (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of History of bread[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article History of bread, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

This appears just to be a copy of the existing "History of bread" section on Bread

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

De mirabilibus urbis Romae[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of De mirabilibus urbis Romae at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

Oop!I've added to that footnote the reference I'd dropped in the editing process, which is M. R. James, "Magister Gregorius de Mirabilibus Urbis Romae" The English Historical Review 32 No. 128 (October, 1917:531-554) p. 531.--Wetman (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
What rat? I only see a python.

Evidence demanded for a Userpage statement[edit]

Under the headline I don't buy this. Evidence?: "Virtually every European or Near Eastern basilica or cathedral founded before 600 CE occupies the consecrated site of a pagan temple of one kind or another." Building materials used from a near older structure. But not the site of pagan temple of one kind or another. Show me.Kazuba (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No one can "show" you. You need to read. It's never too late to begin.--Wetman (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a tad overstated, & I'd question the date. Most operational temples remained so until 397 (was it?) when pagan ceremonies were forbidden, and apparently temple sites were actually shunned by Christian builders for a couple of generations after, by which time a great number of major churches were already established. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Showing the choir of San Salvatore, Spoleto, within the cella of a Roman temple
The titulus churches of Rome on the one hand, and gifts of imperial sites (which naturally couldn't have been temple fanes) are some exceptions. Even among the tituli of Rome, however, see how many are built on previously consecrated space. Another set of exceptions are provided by the great institutional churches that developed from abbatial churches: abbeys, as far as the Rhineland and as late as the tenth century were founded on gifts of intact Roman villas, rather than on previously consecrated ground. The great number of those Christian foundations Johnbod mentions date to the fifth century, rather than the fourth, when the Christians weren't powerful enough yet to take over pagan sites. In hagiography, of course, temples collapse of their own accord,, ruins to be quarried and in Italy, they are spared destruction specifically when Christian churches are built within them: examples abound, though the Parthenon is not the only temple that has been cleared of its church. In the fictitious vita of Porphyry of Gaza the narrative includes the physical occupation of a temple as one of the details intended to build verisimilitude, a detail all the more instructive as it is probably not history, though "routinely cited as real history... because it is full, specific and vivid", as Ramsay MacMullen notes in Christianizing the Roman Empire (p 86). Control of the local holy places, what's more, is always an essential in creating a new establishment, from post-Augustinian England to the Sultanate of Delhi. Perhaps a revised statement should read "Virtually every European or Near Eastern Christian basilica or cathedral founded after the outlawing of pagan temples in 391 occupies the consecrated site of a pagan temple of one kind or another."? Where there is contentious opposition— who normally posts "I don't buy this. Evidence?" of a Userpage?— one should be scrupulously accurate. --Wetman (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Wetman, I'm sorry if I came across harsh. It is just the way I talk. I am no good with words. The environmental world of conversation I am accustomed to had little or no finesse. In my world contentious is down and out profanity, kicking you in the head when you are down, killing you with a baseball bat and threatening the lives of your loved ones. I grew up in the street world of the uneducated and dog eat dog and it shows every now and then. Please forgive me for being awkward with words. I lack the skills. Kazuba (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The Maison Carrée, one of the Paestum temples, & of course the Pantheon are other ex-temple-ex-churches. We are a bit vague on when the Parthenon was churchified - given the churches at Hadrian's Library next door, I suspect rather late. The "temple of Concordia" at Agrigento was 597 apparently, just in time for your deadline! I wonder if temples of the Imperial cult were especially prone to be converted? Johnbod (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, look at the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina! Near the Parthenon, the Temple of Hephaestus owes its coherent survival to its churchification. The very name of Santa Maria sopra Minerva would alert one to this phenomenon; it was churchified so late that there were few remaining standing pagan structures left in Rome to sanctify.
I like them re-classicising A&F for the visit of Charles V; that must have puzzled the pilgrims. Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm now making it a practice to link text to Christianized sites every time I come upon a mention of a Christian structure occupying a pagan sacred site. The truth is in the mountain of examples--Wetman (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't seen that before. So far it notably lacks a "mountain of examples". As mentioned above, I doubt if "Few Christian churches built in the first half millennium of the established Christian Church were not built upon sites already consecrated as pagan temples or as high places.." is true; I think this is characteristic of a later stage, including just the end of that period, or does the "half millennium" just begin in the 4th century? - that could be made clearer. To some extent it is just the handiness of materials, or the obvious choice of prominent sites in a city. About the 2 oldest churches in near-original condition in England, Church of St Peter-on-the-Wall, Bradwell-on-Sea and All Saints' Church, Brixworth, both use Roman secular materials from what were already ruins nearby, respectively a fort and villa, but I doubt there is much significance to that beyond convenience. And to the ancient Romans & Greeks cemetries were the opposite of "high places" - they insisted theyt were placed outside the city walls, like modern sewage works. Johnbod (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Why, yes, John. "The first half millennium of the established Christian Church" couldn't be thought of beginning before the fourth century; the Christianized sites before that are more typically in the domus of a patron (San Clemente, etc) and never a pagan holy site. The beginnings can be dated about the time the Christian mob destroyed the Serapeum. Not previously Romanized areas were not being evangelised until Saint Boniface in the eighth century, with his legendary felling of Thor's Oak. You're right of course about the convenience of pre-cut stone; I was thinking of Italy and Gaul really, in writing that... but do you think there is ever a "Saint X's Well" in England or Wales that is not a pagan site?
Setton (Athens in the Middle Ages, 197) places the consecration of the Parthenon "certainly after Justinian's time". And the Pantheon is still a church, right? I observed a Catholic service there in 2003. Srnec (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I expect you're right about the wells, but wells are not a usual location otherwise for Christian worship; isolated high crosses are similar. An instruction from one of the Borgia Popes survives to end the practice of holding services in "the cave with the painted bulls" in a northern Spanish diocese - don't ask me where I read that though. Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for De mirabilibus urbis Romae[edit]

Updated DYK query On April 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article De mirabilibus urbis Romae, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow![edit]

Working miracles now, are we? Amandajm (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The 1951 Venice ball of Carlos (Charles) de Beistegui[edit]

Hi, Wetman. Just in case you don't have Talk:Alexis von Rosenberg, Baron de Rédé on your watchlist, the celebrated 1951 Venice ball is now covered at Carlos de Beistegui, although it could, as you say, merit an article of its own. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)\

Very well done, too. Now I know something about Beistegui beyond Palazzo Labia and Groussay. The throwing the dishes in the canal tale was originally said of Agostino Chigi; was it ever really said of Beistegui I wonder. Weren't the Duck and Doochess forbidden to go, while Britain was still on rationing?--Wetman (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
If only I'd been invited, I could have told you. A shocking social faux pas on Beistegui's part, don't you think (let's just ignore the fact that I was only 10 months old at the time). In the absence of personal evidence, I can but report what others have written about it. You're welcome to challenge those bits if you're so disposed. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
What? and risk Original Research? I was nine myself. The best contemporary report was in Vogue in the winter of 1952. Click here for a good Internet report. I don't have Alexis de Redé's memoirs, which doubtless give good quotable details. The extraordinary thing, looking at Beaton's photos, is how knowledgeable all the details were-- Jacques Fath in a Louis XIV court ballet costume, Daisy Fellowes as La Regina d'Africa, all drawn from porcelains and tapestries. Today, even actresses don't know how to move in those clothes. --Wetman (talk) 06:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I can't help thinking that Elton John must have been inspired by Beistegui's own costume, for that absolutely off-the-planet wig-encrusted garb he wore at his 50th birthday, that looked like it took up the entire room. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Political dinosaurs[edit]

Saw this & thought of you! Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_25#Category:Dinosaurs_of_Niger. Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, and under that header I expected a comment about Arlen Specter. You were recalling the zany map at right?--Wetman (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
That's right. We are sheltered from news of the Spectersauros here. Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for La Porta[edit]

Updated DYK query On April 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article La Porta, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK issue[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Woolmer Forest at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! NuclearWarfare (Talk) 00:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Massacre of the Innocents[edit]

I reverted an edit you made to Massacre of the Innocents, but as I respect you as an editor perhaps I've misunderstood. Yet it seemed to me that you were advancing something that had no foundation in published sources - an opinion that was your own. Anyway, let us talk this out if you think I was wrong to revert you. PiCo (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what it is that you don't like. My edit restored the fact that Macrobius was writing four centuries later, an incontrovertible fact that had been suppressed, perhaps thoughtlessly. You've noticed, I'm sure, that I did not retain the assertion, questionable itself, the reliability of this account is questionable. And my edit Macrobius' statement shows that the tradition of the massacre of the innocents had become firmly established in the culture at large even though he was not Christian himself, doesn't seem to be a statement that anyone would resent, so I'm a bit at a loss, PiCo. --Wetman (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I put it back. :) PiCo (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for setting it to rights; your habitual courtesy is not invariably found at Wikipedia, regrettably. --Wetman (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Gasparo Contarini[edit]

"Though he participated at the Diet of Worms, April 1521, he never saw or spoke with Martin Luther." Did you write this edit? If so, upon what source do you base this information? Thank you for your help. Wikimeow (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I vaguely remember reading this, perhaps in the Wikipedia article. I just sought "Gasparo Contarini Luther" at Scholar Google and read a footnote from Kenneth M. Setton, The Papacy and the Levant (1204-1571), p. 298. Their itineraries overlapped. Perhaps you'd like to drop the Luther [mis]connection.--Wetman (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Chimera (mythology)[edit]

I honestly have no idea how the reference to eyes got in. I added the citation of the sight of the chimera indicating disaster. I will ensure that the eyes reference is not in my contribution and will attempt to add the correct information again. I try to assist Wikipedia, not vandalize it.Merotoker1 (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

(Wetman made no reference to vandalism. He noted at User talk:Merotoker1 "Having two different eye colors, though a symptom related to the biological meaning of 'chimera' given in a dictionary, is irrelevant to the subject of this article. Can you see why the following sentence just isn't good enough, even if its sense were relevant: 'The term chimera has also come to mean more generally, an impossible or foolish fantasy, or if you have two different eye colors' . This is not the first time this particular red herring has been dragged across the Chimera's track, however. Wetman (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

Medieval cuisine[edit]

Thanks for adding new material. I made some edits and added som comments about the new content on the talkpage. Do you think you could take a look at it?

Peter Isotalo 21:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I've done so, and responded at Talk:Medieval cuisine.--Wetman (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Praise of the Two Lands (ship)[edit]

I am doing research for above potential new article. All I know now is that it was 100 cubits long, of cedarwood, and made by Sneferu about 2613 BC, some say 2680 BC. It is the first known named ship. Does JSTOR have anything on it or do you have suggestions on how to research further? Google and Google books reveals little. Need 1500 characters of info for _________. Yep, you guessed it! Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 17:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the expression "Praise of the Two Lands" hasn't appeared in any of the articles archived at JSTOR; the Two Lands would be Upper and Lower Egypt. Perhaps it is discussed by Egyptologists under an Egyptian name. The Argo is noted in Homer. Sorry not to be much help here, D.C. --Wetman (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 19:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing so quickly I put up the article today. Many thanks for the improvements!! I can always count on you for great edits. --Doug Coldwell talk 23:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You often find interesting subjects worth an article, D.C.. I think you should parse your sentences at the end, to make sure that they really are saying what you actually do mean: this sounds simplistic, but it's advice I've successfully given graduate students in writing a thesis, and it untangles many snarls. --Wetman (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for advice. You are my mentor. Any advice you can give me I'll take to heart. I'll try to look things over closer on the grammer etc to make sure they are saying what I mean. --Doug Coldwell talk 11:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Ladies' Mercury[edit]

The Ladies' Mercury contained the first advice column for a periodical. Do you have any advice you can give me for the new article? Thanks! --Doug Coldwell talk 22:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Let me rephrase that: The Ladies' Mercury is the first periodical for women and it contained an advice column. See, you were right! I didn't word it correctly to really mean what I intended. --Doug Coldwell talk 22:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I've made my usual tweaks, each intended for a specific reason, which I hope you'll detect and approve. None intended simply to substitute my word for yours. Check this diff: see how I substituted a more vivid verb for "was". The UK not existing, I made it "England and Scotland", which keeps the frame of reference in 1693, not to distract the reader with today. The "publication" didn't do any deciding: it was the editor who did. I shifted "printed in London" away from a sentence where it wasn't part of the immediate topic of the sentence. I managed to build parenthetical phrases into the texture of a sentence. Added a useful link, too! --Wetman (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow, what great improvements. I always learn a lot from you. I like that link to The Athenian Society. Interesting that UK didn't exist at that time, didn't know that. Sorry about the confusion of The Ladies' Mercury having the first advice column. Famous First Facts, which I have found to be a reliable reference source, says "The first advice column appeared in the first issue (dated Feb 27, 1693) of the first magazine for women, The Ladies Mercury"; however this reference says, "To cater for the popularity of these topics, the editors announced on 3 June 1691 that the issue of the first Tuesday of each month would be set aside 'to answer reasonable questions sent to us by the fair sex' and in February 1693 Dunton launched a short-lived spin-off publication, the Ladies Mercury, to answer similar quieries." So it looks like to me that an "advice column" (or similar) was already going shortly after 3 June 1691. While the February 1693 issue obvioulsy contained an advice column, perhaps it was not the first time the idea was introduced by Dunton or the editors of the Athenian Mercury. I got confused on that point, so left out the bit on the advice column and just entered the article into DYK as the first periodical for women (which I figured was safe). I was excited and surprised to be able to find the first copy of The Ladies' Mercury from 1693. Didn't think such would still exist. Thanks again for your improvements. They are always automatically approved, as far as I am concerned. --Doug Coldwell talk 12:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The Athenian Mercury[edit]

Finally figured out that The Athenian Mercury published by John Dunton did use the advice column format first in 1690 when I researched for the new article on it. It was not The Ladies' Mercury, which I figured there was something wrong there. You got me thinking on that and it turned out to be another article, which I will submit for DYK tomorrow. Thanks again, since you got me thinking on this subject of the "advice column." --Doug Coldwell talk 23:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Been expanding the article and looking over your reference of "Lacedaemonia, or Sparta, being the antagonist of Athens in ancient Greece." Tom Brown was the chief editor of The Lacedemonian Mercury, the copycat of Dunton's Athenian Mercury. I believe Dunton was trying to be sarcastic here at the bottom of page 190 but I am not sure how to word it. Low priority, but if you have any ideas on this in the next couple of days, could (or should) there be additional added about this to the article? --Doug Coldwell talk 21:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think he was being ironic; it all seems directly and frankly narrated, though season'd with the author's many underlinings. The "Mr. Settle" who wrote the skit was Elkanah Settle. Thank you for introducing me to Mr. Dunton, who seems to afford most aimiable company. That is a nice compliment of Nahum Tate's. And I see that Jonathan Swift also laid a compliment tribute to the Athenians. Among Mr Dunton's many Projects, I knew that "The Post-boy robb'd of his mail" was carried to fruition, though I never did yet suspect Mr. Dunton of complicity in the scheme..--Wetman (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Attributing Author (Photographer: Louise Bialik) for Simon House's Wiki Page[edit]

Hello, the photo linked to Simon House'spage was photographed by Louise Bialik and there is a condition in the free use license that the photo must be attributed to the author, so you should make note somewhere on the Simon House page that the photograph was taken by Louise Bialik.

The Photograph was taken on July 15, 2008, in Cornwall, England. (Details of location are helpful)

To help your revision run more smoothly, the URL for the Simon House page is at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_House

And photo from Wikimedia Commons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Simonhouse2008LB.jpg

Permission detail leads to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License

Note the conditions:

Material licensed under the current version of the license can be used for any purpose, as long as the use meets certain conditions.

All previous authors of the work must be attributed. All changes to the work must be logged. All derivative works must be licensed under the same license. The full text of the license, unmodified invariant sections as defined by the author if any, and any other added warranty disclaimers (such as a general disclaimer alerting readers that the document may not be accurate for example) and copyright notices from previous versions must be maintained. Technical measures such as DRM may not be used to control or obstruct distribution or editing of the document.

Kind Regards, and thank you for all your efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hergart (talkcontribs) 06:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I just found it among "Latest files" at Commons. What do I know? Will I get Points Off? Serves me right for touching anything post 1910. --Wetman (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Aha! fixed it.--Wetman (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Riace Warriors?[edit]

Hi Wetman. I'm surprised to find this article at "Riace Warriors", instead of "Riace bronzes". Paul August 03:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

In the Category:5th-century BC Greek sculptures the only object titled "Such-and-so Marble" or "Such-and-So Bronze" is the Artemision Bronze: is that a good precedent? Thus, shall the Ludovisi Throne— "it's not a throne", the recent graduates cry, as with one voice— be Wikipedified as the Ludovisi Marble"? Truly, as long as redirects from the most obvious search terms do land the reader in the right spot, I've learned not to care much. Or be too surprised. --Wetman (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Well I'm familiar with them (I've got a place in Calabria) and I've only ever heard them called the "Riace bronzes" in English, see for example [1]. Would you object if I moved the article? Paul August 04:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
...no, not even to Bronzi di Riace.--Wetman (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Council of Bourges[edit]

Updated DYK query On May 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Council of Bourges, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Woolmer Forest[edit]

Updated DYK query On May 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Woolmer Forest, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Antonio Latini[edit]

Updated DYK query On May 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Antonio Latini, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


Gardens[edit]

Just re-reading comments on my page regardimg gardening; in your desire for a front and back garden, you are clearly unaware of the gardening book (I think by a Rothschild - i must look it up) that began "All gardens, no matter how small, should contain at leat 2.5 acres of woodland." A view with which I completely agree. Giano (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

From a talk to the City Gardening Society in about 1910 I believe. "All gardens, no matter how small, should contain a few acres of rough woodland." is how I remember it. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I confess I read your comment, Johnbod, and my first thought was "My goodness, just how old *is* he?" I really need to get out more. Risker (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Please excuse my sudden appearance here, Wetman; I like to keep a few intellectually stimulating pages on my watchlist. This one is much more interesting than a lot of other places I hang out.
Don't worry, I wasn't there! Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Lionel de Rothschild seems to be the usual suspect, though the precise dosage of woodland required varies from 1 to 15 acres, with 2 the statistical mode: [2]. Personally I think the vagueness of "a few" is better. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Lionel was a very odd man, used to dress fleas up and have them perform. Sorry nothing to do with garening, but quite interesting in a strange sort of way. I had thought the comment was probably by Miriam Rothschild, she was also odd and let her house become covered in creeper so she could not see out. Giano (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I've heard that remark, and it is worth tracking down; I'd have guessed Miss Jekyll, describing her own "little garden", Munstead Wood. Even a detached villa (English expression) on an American street or subdivision has a front and a back, though, with a driveway on one side and, on the other. the perilous "side yard" with the property line vigorously marked, sometimes by both a fence and hedging. Even for people who have bought such a house to make it as attractive as possible and re-sell it, it goes against the grain, I've found, to throw this passageway space together into one and share it. You'd have thought I was a Bolshevik!--Wetman (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
They're probably right; there's nothing that alarms buyers and their lawyers more than a shared passageway or space, here anyway. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Sarcophagus[edit]

I noticed that this article does not agree with the mention of the sarcophagus in the Alexander article. Knowing nothing of the issue myself, I thought I would draw it to your attention. Also the Schefold name, I think, is misspelled Schefield in your reference note. Rmhermen (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

..and 'Schefeld', too! Thanks for that: I've fixed it, and the text about the Alexander Sarcophagus at Alexander the Great, too, I hope to your satisfaction. (As for me, I only know what I've been reading.).--Wetman (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Gaddi Torso[edit]

Updated DYK query On May 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gaddi Torso, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Typhon NPOV tag?[edit]

Hello. I saw that you removed the NPOV tag from the Typhon article; it was added last week by Next-Genn-Gamer. I left a message at his talk page asking why he added it, and have yet to receive a reply. This weekend, I plan on grabbing my copy of the Oxford Classical Dictionary and my Hesiod and cleaning this article up a bit. Regards. MWShort (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you: drive-by taggers are essentially scribble-vandals, though as long as they've logged in, one dare not say so, eh. Perhaps you'd begin by tying the article more closely to a range of specific classical sources (Theoi.com assembles them in English) and introducing some themes under sub-headings, such as "Typhon and Delphyne". That would start to clean it up. Robin Lane Fox's new Travelling Heroes In the Epic Age of Homer has opened up the meaningfulness of myths that are reflected in non-Hellene places round the Mediterranean shores and the Greek homeland. Delphyne is one of these refracted figures, and Robin Lane Fox is always remarkable for clarity of thought. --Wetman (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Gertrude Jekyll[edit]

Dear Sir: Do not refer to me as a "prankster" or to any sort of vandalism. The only difference between my last edit (over a month ago) on the Gertrude Jekyll page and the current version were the tags I placed (tone, POV) and if I placed them then I had good reason to do so and stand by them.

Your offensive comments and your placing your ridiculous message on my userpage and not my talk page where it belongs -- actually does not belong -- indicate to me that you lack good faith (WP:AGF), wikietiquette (WP:CIVIL) and basic wikicommunication skills, all of which are essential. I suggest you brush up. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wetman is neither so easily bamboozled or intimidated. He never sees "Wikiquette" and "assume good faith" templates brandished by any serious editor with a modicum of collegiality. This prankster's tagging of the article Gertrude Jekyll for tone and POV [sic] was not accompanied by any opening of discourse at Talk:Gertrude Jekyll, which would have more convincingly demonstrated a serious purpose. No pert suggestions of "brushing up" are welcomed. Further trashtalk from this User will be deleted without comment. --Wetman (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2009 (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.

DYK[edit]

I have commented on your DYK nomination here. Cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I mistook it for the pendant of the Order of the Holy Spirit, in which the dove is superposed over the center of the Maltese cross. I shall correct my error at the DYK page--Wetman (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Procopio Cutò[edit]

I noticed that you have edited several times Café Procope in the past. I have a new biography article on the founder Procopio Cutò.

You can't say "Francesco Procopio dei Knives", DG, any more than you can translate Mme de Pompadour as "Mlle Fish". I'm sorry to see fragments like this: the man's biography is just part of the story of Café Procope; without the café he's just not notable. That he's a noble is very unlikely.
Thanks Wetman for correcting that of "dei Knives". Apparently he is also associated with gelato as this article and several other similar ones point out. This article says: Francesco Procopio dei Coltelli, born in Sicily, is reported to be the first gelato entrepreneur. So would he not be notable by his association to being the first in the gelato business? The article on gelato points out the importance of Procopio to the gelato history as is also shown in this reference. --Doug Coldwell talk 22:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

However, perhaps you could help me on a pair of articles I have expanded on May 11 of Marc Sautet and the philosophy cafes he founded called Café Philosophique. The hook I submitted is: that Marc Sautet (pictured) started the philosophy cafes known as Café Philosophique? I think it needs a little more pizazz. It has not been selected and approved yet. This was the first of the modern trend of "philo cafes" since I believe Socrates had something similar in his time period. Any ideas? --Doug Coldwell talk 20:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The plural is Cafés Philosophiques. Wouldn't a more grammatical English version be "philosophical café". How about

...that Marc Sautet (pictured) started the kind of open philosophical discussions gatherings in Parisian cafes under the rubric "Café Philosophique"?

Wetman (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Great! Have submitted that as an ALTERNATE. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell talk 21:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have submitted 6 alternate hooks for the DYK submission under May 18 since I have done additional research and expanded the article on Procopio Cutò. If you have further ideas on these or any others I would welcome them. Thanks Wetman. --Doug Coldwell talk 22:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have submitted as ALT9 a hook I believe would get much attention, especially if it happened to be first in the queue. If you have time, look it over for any copyediting it may need for improvements and perhaps you know the litature term I am speaking of. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell talk 15:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Suffolk Mills Group[edit]

The SMG would make a good article. Main problem is that the vast majority of material about the group is in print form, which I don't have. Of course, once one group has an article, the others will all want one too! Mjroots (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I had searched "Suffolk Mills Group" at Wikipedia, and the number of hits suggested that its record of accomplishment forms a kind of node for those researching East Anglian mills. Just a brief note of when it was founded, and linked mentions of Wikipedia articles on mills whose restoration it has fostered would make a healthy start. At Wikipedia, others are sure to come along and fill in our blanks!--Wetman (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)--Wetman (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Strangwish[edit]

I'd taken my lead from the NPG article. I try not to look at ODNB until I have a 90% finished article as its too easy to commit plagiasism without having any intent. (If I look later then I have I hope a novel structure). I have seen other 19C geneologys of Strangeways who call the ancient ones "Strangwish". I'll look at ODNB and rethink. Actually he should be findable under all these names I guess. Thx Victuallers (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. Then "Henry Strangwish" appears in other contemporary documents under that name, I assume: Stranguish is another obscure spelling. The Fox-Strangways family of a later time are especially well-known through Henry Fox and the Earls of Ilchester.--Wetman (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I added to his article that Gerlach Flicke, the pirate's pal, was often recorded in England as "Garlicke" - one of their more creative manglings of names. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Guivre[edit]

Please read my response. As I stated there the guivre is most often portrayed as serpentine, and the rest is at the talk page. ceranthor 23:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A condensed (and perhaps improved) version of guivre is at wyvern, where English readers will find it. It will not come as a shock to most lurkers here that the two words are cognates for the same imagined beast.--Wetman (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Liber Floridus[edit]

I have expanded this article you started. One issue I am confused on is the New Advent reference. It says: He is probably identical with Lambert, the Canon of St. Omer who wrote the famous "Liber floridus", a kind of encyclopedia of Biblical, chronological, astronomical, geographical, theological, philosophical and natural history subjects, a detailed description of which is given in the "Historia comitum Normannorum, comitum Flandriae". Are they one and the same? This seems to be backed-up in The Medieval Bestiary source

There could probably be a DYK from the article if you want to self-nominate, something like:

... that the Liber Floridus is one of the most famous encyclopedias of the Middle Ages?

I am going on a ten day camping trip tomorrow morning. Will let you take it from here. Cheers. --Doug Coldwell talk 14:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


Since the Abbey of Saint Bertin is at Saint-Omer, the Lambert of one is the Lambert of the other.--Wetman (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Marcello Massarenti[edit]

Has to be Wetman‘, I thought, as the first sentence approached its period. ‘Good.’

I’ve attempted a typo fix towards the end: but of course you may want to fix my guesswork. By the way, are the pages you cite from William R. Johnston covered in this adapted extract? If so, a link might be useful for future editors. Ian Spackman (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool, Ian Spackman! I've added your link as a footnote. That first sentence doesn't seem to bear my hallmark convolutions— my failing, according to those whose lip muscles ache from following them— but actually quite succinct!--Wetman (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I enjoyed the ‘Cool’, although sadly the term was an archaicism—as ancient and dreary as Elvis—when the English language made its attempt to embrace me in my teenage years. And, having being born on the wrong side of the pond, I was quite unaware that its birth had roughly coincided with a much less interesting parturition. Still, I wouldn’t like you to think that I found that first sentence over-wrought. Unlike the other Italy-related new articles I was skimming through it was a wrought sentence: by Wikipedia standards extremely cool. Ian Spackman (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'm too hip to be cool. And too old to be either...--Wetman (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies[edit]

Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wyvern[edit]

We need the Shuker, Rose, and Dickens references to support your citations. Thank you. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I supplied the references for the text I transfered from the unnecessary duplicate article Guivre. Taggers who pepper articles with [citation needed] are seldom regarded at Wikipedia as the models of intellectual probity to which they aspire. A tagger is not an editor. --Wetman (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Was that comment necessary? I rarely leave more than one or two of these tags, but I simply don't have all night to hunt down the sources. As I said in my edit summary, I will work on hunting them down later. If you wish to impeach my editing prowess, I would suggest you first work on providing complete citations! ;-P Wilhelm_meis (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Very pert indeed. Next!--Wetman (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I didn't tag any of your stuff, and I didn't ask you to provide all of those. I will get to it later. In all seriousness, though, I agree a tagger does not an editor make. But the tags can be useful. If you look back just a little bit in the history, you will see that all that stuff was unreferenced listcruft before I condensed it into prose. I'll get to the references later in the week if nobody beats me to it (and looking at the article history, nobody will). Have a good day. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Better start[edit]

From what I've gathered from other sources too, it is the most common version of the tale. ceranthor 19:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles simply report published sources: telling the bedtime story of the Dragon of Mordiford as if the creature had a biography as a little girl's pet, is too simple-minded to be helpful. If you'd absorbed the "other sources" credited in the article, you'd have a grown-up account centered on the image of the dragon painted on the interior west wall of the church at [Mordiford, Herefordshire, remarked upon in the 17th century by John Aubrey yada yada yada. "From early life, the dragon, green in colour, loved a small girl named Maud who resided in Mordiford and had nurtured it from infancy." etc etc "Maud, insane with rage, burst from the surrounding forest and came to mourn her past pet" is too childish to be improved simply by editing. A better start, as I said at Talk:Dragon of Mordiford, can be made using the better of the two references, which you must have overlooked. --Wetman (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Château du Grand Jardin[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Château du Grand Jardin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

Specifically, the article doesn't say anything about whether the chateau does or doesn't have bedrooms. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite right! I've made the interior arrangement clearer.--Wetman (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the tweaks! Good to know others are keeping an eye out for Byzantine stuff. :) Cheers, Constantine 19:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I had been unaware of the Church of St. Polyeuctus, in fact: good article!--Wetman (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Worcestershire[edit]

Hi! A WikiProject Worcestershire has now been created to better manage all articles that relate in any way to the county even if they overlap with other categories or projects. Please visit the project pages and if you see listed any articles you have written or contributed to, or if you would like to see more active development of them, don't hesitate to join the project.

Need a better word[edit]

I just wrote up the article on Jayco, Inc. I am looking for better phrasing or a better word in the current sentence:
The company name is derived from his middle name.
Something to the effect:
The company name is a __________ of Bontrager's middle name. ("Jay" + "company") I don't know this word or the correct phrasing it needs (if any). Help please. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 20:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't help this time: I don't have a word for a letter spelled out, as in dee or ess. Perhaps one of you lurkers do? But Doug's sentence looks fine as it stands. --Wetman (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reply Wetman.--Doug Coldwell talk 23:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Prometheus etymology edits.[edit]

Hey, Wetman. I think I may have led you astray in your recent editing of the etymology. When I originally did the footnote, I labored under the misapprehension that the pramanthas derivation had become definitive -- I certainly prefer it. But the "folk etymology" pro-manthano also has its adherents, so I rewrote the note to reflect that. I shall leave it to you to edit your own prose. Ifnkovhg (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Does pro-manthano have modern adherents? A footnote would be good, but I avoid tagging, which generally puts one in undesirable company.--Wetman (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association[edit]

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Please put all discussion here.Peter Damian (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

XN4[edit]

Thank you for nomination suggestions. But what is the story on XN4? Appears to have been blocked for socking. Peter Damian (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh goodness. My error, based on a couple of well-informed encounters. There is never a legitimate reason for duplicate accounts, I've found. Please delete my suggestion.--Wetman (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Le Maistre Chat, ou le Chat Botté (Puss in Boots)[edit]

Thanks for the heads up on the title! I'm not sure what to do. The title "Puss in Boots" is taken as are variants. Your suggestions are very much appreciated. I need some help on this one. Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I see the problem: unthinking Wikipedia runaround. Puss in Boots (fairy tale) is required only because "Puss in Boots" is taken up as a disambiguation page, which should be Puss in Boots (disambiguation), with the main article at Puss in Boots. Le Maistre Chat, ou le Chat Botté should be limited to Perrault's text: does this separate article serve the reader's needs better than a single, encyclopaedic article? I simply make these suggestions: you must distribute the text as you see fit, keeping the reader firmly in mind.--Wetman (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions and expertise! I created the Puss in Boots (disambiguation) page but have met with some difficulty in moving Le Maistre Chat, ou le Chat Botté (Puss in Boots) to simply Puss in Boots. I've requested admin help. I believe a separate article on Perrault's tale is necessary as the article Puss in Boots (fairy tale) is focused more on 'The Cat as Helper' in fairy tales rather than the background, publication history of, and commentary upon Perrault's tale. Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Right on! Make sure a concise version of Le Maistre Chat, ou le Chat Botté is inserted at the right moment in Puss in Boots, alerting the reader with a "hatnote" {{main|Le Maistre Chat, ou le Chat Botté}} right under its section heading.--Wetman (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Château du Grand Jardin[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Château du Grand Jardin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! hamiltonstone (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Some munchkin brandishing its high school equivalency diploma was informing us that foreign expressions, like Château du Grand Jardin, needed to be italicized. Abort: who has the time?--Wetman (talk) 06:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice one![edit]

I was chuffed the new article got a quality and interesting contribution so early in its life. Theres a lot more I might add about our pals the twins, but I didn't know the handle was a reference to the Dioscuri . FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hah! There ya go! and I was wondering whether it was too obvious. Keep on target with text that refers to them as a team at the Versailles talk. --Wetman (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

David Runciman review[edit]

Thank you for posting the link to this review on your user page. It will be very helpful for people who misunderstand the aims of Wikipedia and how editing culture here has evolved to read the piece. Two points which I feel were under-emphasized are: that in discussing a Los Angeles Times attempt to set up an editorial wiki, Runciman (and also Andrew Lih?) fails to mention that the advertising-driven commercial nature of such an effort differs significantly from Wikipedia in that it can discourage many contributors from wanting to add to something that generates profits for someone else without getting paid themselves, and: in discussing the brevity of the Columbia Encyclopedia entry on Ayn Rand and others, Runciman conveniently avoids calling attention to the production costs and portability limitations involved in publishing a bound volume that don't exist here. Again, overall it's an excellent link and I hope it provides food for thought to many readers. I'm posting it on my user page as well - crediting you for alerting me to it. Sswonk (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Now, don't go crediting me: I think I was cued through a remark by Peter Damian. Besides, not getting credit is part of the Zen of Wikipedia.--Wetman (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

WP edits as moves in a game[edit]

Hello Wetman. I liked your summary of WP edits as moves in a game, at the top of your user page. You used some quotation marks there - does this mean someone else made this proposal earlier? And, in a game there is usually a player and an opponent, and I wonder who the opponent is in this case. For extra credit, could you help quantify the value of moves in different areas? For those of us with limited time. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The quotes and italics are simply to set the Rules apart from my commentary. Glad you liked it: an earlier editor read as far as "Wikipedia is a game..." and rushed here to berate me and furiously kick at my shins. There is no "opponent": Wikipedia is also an expanding four-dimensional neural network with links for nodes and synapses, of which the edges are receding faster than one can read. Do you think there are further rules to the game, leaving aside interaction with other players, with whom one brushes past or collides at nodes?--Wetman (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Established Editors[edit]

Discussion of objectives here. Peter Damian (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That will take some absorbing. If this group starts to become political, I shall fade soundlessly like the Cheshire Cat.--Wetman (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Pantheon[edit]

Thanks for the hello and recommendation about creating a user page. Yours is a masterpiece. Mgsobo (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I just didn't want you to remain one of those red-link editors.--Wetman (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies[edit]

Sorry, Wetman. You caught me on a bad day. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

My post may have seemed a little sharp. I meant it merely as cautionary, not to lose salvageable text. The result, anyway, is an improved article (Knickerbockers (clothing)), which is what counts in the long run. Thank you for your post: it quite melted my ice.--Wetman (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Muslim settlement of Lucera[edit]

many thanks to everyone for the editings only 2 points: 1. Sicily became majoritarian latin speaking and RC Catholic between 1240 and 1300, possibly later then 1300 (1400-1500 the greeks became a negligible minority and the last speakers disappeared probably in the XVI century, the last basilian monks dismissed the last remnats of greek between 1700 and 1761 - in 1761 the monastery San Michele Arcangelo di Troina was rebuilt and reorganized as fully western and roman), when Frederick became the King the RCs were the dominant group but possibly not yet the majority, may be "dominant" could be more correct 2. Louis IX is frequently titled "Re Santo", particularly in the catholic sources, that's the reason I used "Holy King", may be "King and Saint" would be a better solution in english regards Cunibertus (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

La Dauphine[edit]

should the last change you made to La Dauphine have a final e -- in a clean-up it was replaced where a stray quote mark was, might not be what you intended -- inserted a hidden note there with the same question -- 83d40m —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.169.194 (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Your hunch was right: if I added an extra e to La Dauphine it was a typo.--Wetman (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Autoreviewing[edit]

Well, as far as I know, flagged revisions is going to be added but not at the moment. This flag contains the single 'autopatroller' right, which formerly belonged to the admin group, to replace the bot's whitelist (notoriously unreliable). The page detailing this group is at WP:Autoreviewers. Keep up the good work and best wishes. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! My vanity is deflated to be whitelisted, if the list is unreliable. Oh well! I should be sorry to think that the administrators are automatically moved onto the list of autopatrollers ("hands outside the covers!") without any winnowing process. Privilege creep: I'd be cross to be winnowed out myself, I admit. --Wetman (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we want change?[edit]

I don't expect you to want to involve yourself in the probably heated debate which is likely to follow, but as one of the great content editors, it would be unseemly and discourteous to not notify you that I have started a ball rolling here User:Giano/The future all comments welcome - whatever their view! Giano (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Giano. I do feel that it's time for a discussion of Wikipedia's social structure, though I feel the best way forward— for me— is not to attract undesirable attention, of which there seems to be an endless supply.--Wetman (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC).

Unicorn alert[edit]

Bernt Notke Gregorsmesse Arhus.jpg

Any idea what is going on here? From my Mass of Saint Gregory - no unseemly levity please. Johnbod (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

On the right? Looks more like a peacock to me - believed to have flesh that did not decay by the Ancients (clearly very long before the empirical method) - thus symbol of immortality. Also sometimes used as a symbol of Easter, for similar reasons I guess. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
No the narwhal tusk (aka uni-horn) held by the guy on the right. Has he dipped the tip in blood/wine? Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Johnbod's article tells me more than I ever knew, which was just the miraculous appearance of the corpus on the altar-table: even the transubstantiation reference had escaped me. Certainly looks like a narwhal/unicorn horn; though he looks as if he's lighting it like a taper, Albrecht Dürer]'s representation of the Mass of St Gregory exhibits the Instruments of the Passion: is the narwhal's horn tipped with iron to represent the Spear of Longinus? --Wetman (talk) 04:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The Arma Christi are often shown as part of the vision, but I don't think it can be that. The appearance of the Holy Lance is pretty consistent, following the various relics. I suppose it could just be a candle, but I don't think even this provincial an artist would show the flame going off at 45° like a blow torch; and why show it so prominently, held by a courtier? Long candles can be prominent in other versions, but always held by the other officiating clergy, as you'd expect. I wonder if it is a test on the communion wine for poison? Perhaps advisable in the late 15th C Vatican. Maybe the tip of the horn is stained red from regular use? The figure is clearly lay, & doesn't seem at all military, with his purse & pattens. Johnbod (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's more sensible.--Wetman (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Virginia (Mercadante)[edit]

Thank you for the excellent proofread Wetman. The article is certainly clearer and flows better. I found no problems with any changes you made. All the best.Singingdaisies (talk) 06:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That's good to hear. Thank you. --Wetman (talk) 06:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a note[edit]

I would like to say thanks again for all the help and advice you have given me in the past. Your scholarly words and good common sense advice mean a lot. --Doug Coldwell talk 11:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank you. But but this is not a good-bye, yes?--Wetman (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Nope! I only have 150 DYKs and have to go to 200 before I quite = years. Thinking up new subjects and ideas now. --Doug Coldwell talk 20:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

English Wikipedia's 3 millionth article[edit]

  • I say we hit it 3 August.--Wetman (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Nerthus[edit]

While your comments are welcomed, the text in question here needs to be removed from the "Nerthus" article. There are a couple of problems with the content. From one angle, it is unsubstantiated, and unable to be substantiated since there is a scholarly consensus concerning 'earth mother / great goddess' theories. Pushing an opposite POV without evidence is irresponsible for the article's authors to do. From another, the information that was given was not even particularly substantial. It is a brief rambling assertion; not very encyclopaedic.

I have been working in academic research in pre-Christian northern European subject areas for over a decade, and I respectfully ask that you revert the 'reversion' of my changes. Wikipedia has enough errors already without adding to the list because you do not like how a change is implemented. Thanks. 216.69.219.3 (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This commentary would be more effective at Talk:Nerthus. Wetman does not ordinarily take anonymous calls.--Wetman (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Rasa or Arsa[edit]

Did you see [3]? Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No, even the springs at Pićan are new to me: there's nothing yet about the springs of the Raša at Wikipedia. --Wetman (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Raša River[edit]

Haven't properly reviewed this for DYK, but i think you'll hit a snag unless you improve the in-line citations in the second half of the article (10th century onward) - there are no inline cites in this part, making it hard to substantiate the claim that it has functioned as a border for 2K years :-) cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The statements that I assembled from Wikipedia articles, I shall now hasten to substantiate in Shepherd's Historical Atlas, the first place an informed doubter would look.--Wetman (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Ink bamboo[edit]

Thanks for your slightly acerbic, but clearly good-faith concerns about the title of the new article Ink bamboo. A case can be made that the use of bamboo brushes and ink to paint a still-life depicting a section of a living bamboo plant is a genuine motif of East Asian visual art worthy of enumerated recognition.

Titling is a problem as you have pointed out - don't know if there is a solution. Any completely accurate title will appeal to the genuinely circular operation of mental consciousness required to appreciate this motif. The appreciation of infinite recursiveness is not a subject that is fully appreciated west of the Indus River, maybe because it is problematic in a mental world where supernatural monotheism is the default World view. Bigturtle (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been quite aware of the Chinese tradition of Ink paintings of bamboo since I was twelve or thirteen, and no case need be made to me. Still I sense that "Ink bamboo" [sic] is a not-quite-English translation of something, or perhaps the figment of some obscure personal struggle with a less-than-familiar subject. --Wetman (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Title changed to bamboo painting, which is the most common noun-adjective combination currently used to search for this subject on a prominent English-language search engine. Best wishes. Bigturtle (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think that works. It's much better, Thank you.--Wetman (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Raša River[edit]

Updated DYK query On July 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Raša River, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Charles Boit[edit]

Thanks for the work on Boit. Enamel painting seems rather badly represented in Wikipedia. --Hegvald (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

...well, that's where you come in! Post a note here any time on anything in that line you do, and let me sweep through it, making links. It was a pleasure.--Wetman (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Italian Renaissance garden[edit]

I don’t know if you have spotted this new article, but it struck me as one with which you might wish to meddle. Best wishes, Ian Spackman (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I did spot it, but I thought I wouldn't meddle just yet: to insert names and dates and footnotes would alter its character.--Wetman (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Delmonico's Restaurant[edit]

Hi. I'm not really sure how you saw my edit as being a shut up revert. Sylvain and I have gone back and forth on the subject several times as to whether or not his edits constituted synthesis. Following the discussion on the talk page (where a third party agreed it was synthesis), Sylvain opened a thread at WP:ORN, where two other outside editors also agreed that it was synthesis. I was just reverting since I thought that the issue was over based on that, and I indicated as such in my edit comment. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you just can't just blank someone's post on a Talkpage, simply because you don't like it, or feel that the point has already been made. It is unspeakably rude, and someone should have explained that to you before now.--Wetman (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
What? It wasn't on the talk page, it was on the main page. You reverted my edit on the main article. I didn't revert anything on the talk page, and I would never do anything like that. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh goodness, I see that you are absolutely right, and that I have accused you of an act of which you would never be guilty, and I apologize for my hastiness. I struggle as you do, to keep pushers of personal attitudes out of the Wikipedia main space, and sometimes I just move too fast.--Wetman (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Heh, that's alright. Would you mind undoing your revert and leaving a message on the talk page to reflect this? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Done.--Wetman (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello again[edit]

Back about a year ago you were so kind as to help me by reading through some of my new lace articles. I was wondering if you'd mind horribly doing the same for shed (weaving), which I fear is greatly in need of someone who isn't me reading through it and making it make sense, or telling me where there should be more explanation. I'm not sure how much of it will make sense to someone who doesn't know how to weave, for example. Loggie (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, for a technical article, I think you've already got it admirably clear. I have a new use of shed in my vocabulary now. --Wetman (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks-both for reading over that one and for selvage-I really appreciate having someone read over what I've written. Not quite sure what you meant by repetition-your comment in the knitted fabric section though-could you elaborate? Loggie (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Gramercy, Manhattan" [sic][edit]

I'm a bit perplexed as to your note of 19 June after my signature here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gramercy,_Manhattan&action=history

Could you elucidate? Thanks.Terrapin7 (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

My posting should have had a new section heading: Terrapin7 was not being addressed. Some officious Wikipedian— not Terrapin7— had "emended" Notes to References. Tiresome bullying of the familiar kind. I scrupulously didn't say so, however, but merely returned the edit to read Notes again, with the summary footnotes called "Notes" below the text are a perfectly normal protocol around here: no need to "enforce". Quite aside from this (which I have fixed) Terrapin7's posting about "Gramercy Park" vs. "Gramercy" [sic] is accurate, though I didn't comment upon it. --Wetman (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification.Terrapin7 (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Flash-lamp[edit]

If you have some time, could you shed some light on the subject. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 13:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Outstanding editing, thanks. You always come up with the brighest ideas. I wished I could come up such flashes of inspiration.--Doug Coldwell talk 18:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The best I can do is shed some light on the person that introduced the flashlight to the world and the person that had the world's first practical facsimile machine, some 11 years before Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone.--Doug Coldwell talk 13:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Nice, Doug. I asked a question re: the pantograph principle at Talk:Pantelegraph.--Wetman (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Earthquake of 1348[edit]

Updated DYK query On July 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Earthquake of 1348, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Carbon neutral" (Eleventh night article)[edit]

I find it a bit hard to believe too, but according to the BBC it is carbon neutral, although of course they're not infalliable. I'd reword this, but more than likely that involve 'weasel words', ect. Would I be better to just remove this line? --Recipe For Hate (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, why not offer it as a direct quote, footnoted. That way scientific literacy won't be branded "Original Research".--Wetman (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Letters on a Regicide Peace[edit]

In this edit, you say: "the sentence is not completed". This on p. 320 has it shown that the sentence is completed. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No, just as I said, the sentence— as you had transcribed it— is incomplete: That reigning party no longer touches on its favourite subject, the display of those horrours, that must attend the existence of a power, which such dispositions and principles, seated in the heart of Europe... "Which such dispositions and principles do what?" I wondered. I see— do you?— that one word was mistranscribed: Burke did complete his sentence indeed; as it reads at Wikipedia it is not complete.--Wetman (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I would wish that you would use the actual definition of "complete", as a parenthetical clause inside of a sentence does not make a sentence incomplete in any definition of the word. As such, I was looking at the end of the sentence and not the parentheticals within the statement. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
...and yet, I see, Ottava Rima has corrected the transcription, thus now rendering the sentence complete, as Burke wrote it: That reigning party no longer touches on its favourite subject, the display of those horrours, that must attend the existence of a power, with such dispositions and principles, seated in the heart of Europe. There is no doubt at this end about what makes a complete sentence: Ottava Rima was confused by the sequence of clauses in apposition perhaps, as there is no parenthetical clause. --Wetman (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The clause is blatantly parenthetical. Wetman, stop it right now. You could have easily looked up the sentence yourself and fixed it instead of acting snarky and rude. You messed up with your choice of terms while treating another like a jerk. That shows poorly on you. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
What is the matter with you, Ottava Rima, that your every encounter with every editor is an occasion for an unappealing display of your personality. If I could have parsed the tangle you made, "as such"— as you're so fond of inserting— I'd have done so. Like many other editors, I generally avoid articles where Ottava Rima, as such, is in possession. Your manners are atrocious. --Wetman (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Wetman, you know that taunting someone and then claiming that they have a problem is not accepted behavior, right? And parse tangle? That is just code for "I couldn't bother to look it up even though it is a quote and would be easy to check" or "I looked it up and decided to pull this stunt anyway". Two possibilities and both definitely show that you are acting highly inappropriately. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)#Dispute over single articles having multiple infoboxes - VOTE!!![edit]

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)#Dispute over single articles having multiple infoboxes - VOTE!!!. Thank you. Sswonk (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

By all means, delete this thread if not concerned, just an FYI. Sswonk (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

J. L. Mott Iron Works[edit]

Thanks for your work on this! I started it because they produced some of the many statues of The Boy with the Leaking Boot (as featured on DYK earlier today), and it's a pleasure to see the article expanded. I'm going to try and sort out the article on Jordan L. Mott too, but confusion between father and son seems abundant. PamD (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I added a couple of images and left one on the talk page. Do with them as you wish. - Josette (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I feel like PamD, that it's always rewarding to start an article and see it grow organically. The images look good just as you have done them, Josette.--Wetman (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

New York Times[edit]

Do you know how one might get access to the New York Times archives, without signing up for a paid subscription? Example: I am interested in an obit on Conrad Hubert of 18 March 1928 (Sunday, p. 25) to supplement the article I started a few days ago.--Doug Coldwell talk 20:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've pulled it up under the headline "Conrad Hubert, 70, died in France" as a pdf file but I can't transfer it. I've incorporated its details into the article. Try googling the headline for Time Magazine squib and other stuff. The New York Times obituary, for Sunday 18 March 1928 gives the date of his death "on Wednesday", which would have been the 14th: I didn't change that, however.--Wetman (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for entering in the additional information and the tweaks. Yes, the 14th is correct per Who Was Who in America reference, p. 678 as it sits right here in front of me on my desk. Nothing gets past you. Just happen to have obtained a copy of his short bio from my local library the other day. Interesting is that on Misell's patent 617,592 Hubert happens to be a witness. Misell, a British subject, was working for Hubert at the time of the patent. The assignee company of the patent was owned by Hubert and eventually became Ever Ready. Misell happens to have several electrical device patents, most closely related to this flashlight idea. Trying to get information on David Misell to write up an article on him, however can not find anything. New York Public Library so far has not been able to find anything and my contact at the Library of Congress so far has not been able to find anything either. I think he was born in London. Perhaps the Bodleian Library might have biography information. Thanks for the idea. You get me thinking every time.--Doug Coldwell talk 22:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Viola d'arco, alas[edit]

Thank you Wetman -- and it is very funny you should point that out, for that was exactly the one nagging problem I had as I began to write the article. What exactly was this instrument, mentioned in Grove but not in Einstein, and which, as named, had only a total of two occurrences in the entire online database of the great music encyclopedia? This is where it makes me crazy I don't have access to JSTOR at home. Dalla Viola gets mentions everywhere as a great instrumentalist, but the primary researchers don't list what he played! Next time I'm at the library I shall try to figure it out. All the best, Antandrus (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Gulp, I've got JSTOR open in another folder as I write this, but having googled "viola d'arco", I'm too incompetent to edit in material from Kathleen Moretto Spencer and Howard Mayer Brown, "How Alfonso della Viola Tuned His Viols, and How He Transposed", Early Music 14.4 (November, 1986), pp. 521-533, where the term is mentioned. There are other hits, too.--Wetman (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Seven Lamps of Architecture[edit]

I found a rare (these days) redlink. Would you care to take a glance over it, my sources, save a last pass from Malgrave tomorrow are now exhausted? --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I inserted a commented-out biblio. ref. to the best article on Seven Lamps. And a paragraph with quotes.
Many thanks for your help there Mr Wetman. I must confess I'd never heard of the transcendentalists - only of Thoreau of course, what an interesting time. Modern architectural education is really lacking I think, we zoomed through 5000 years of history in about 6 months to arrive at 1919 with the Bauhaus with barely a nod to the interim. Our prof was a bit of a Victorian specialist so we did linger a little on the 19th century - but not enough for my liking now it seems. Its important I think, particularly as we have so many extant buildings from the period which we're expected to work on. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I received the following notification - I'd asked them to credit you too, but it seems 'bots' don't do requests......or think......or social niceties. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On July 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Seven Lamps of Architecture, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Era-style in "Temple of Artemis"[edit]

Regarding the era-style used in Temple of Artemis, Wikipedia's Manual of Style makes clear that this article, having been begun in BC/AD era-style and still using that style mainly, should consistently keep to that style. Please see particularly, within Wikipedia:Manual of Style, "1.1 Internal consistency", "1.2 Stability of articles", and "10.4 Longer periods".
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 06:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking into the article history I now see that in 2002 it began by using the BC/AD convention. My error. Only the coarsest vulgarian would attempt to force a change, one way or the other, I'm sure you'll agree. Personally, I like to insert a commented-out note <!-- This article has used the BC/AD convention since its inception --> at the head of the html text, to prevent such time-wasting confusions. I find that thoughtless editors delete that from the html, however.--Wetman (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Categories: Historical sources on Alexander the Great[edit]

Hi ,would you comment on the Categories for discussion ? thanks a lot Catalographer (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

A Category is useful to the reader only as an index to related articles: by multiplying indices, by breaking them down into the smallest possible category, they are rendered inutile. As utility is the essence of a reader's guide, such as Wikipedia, categories have little to draw me.--Wetman (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Mundat etymology[edit]

How sure are you about the etymology? I have seen many different claimed etymologies, and this one doesn't look more convincing to me than most of the others. I thought the most accepted was that it's a cognate of immunity (German immunität, some Latin-based languages immunitat or emunitat). That seems to contradict your explanation unless immunity and mandate are cognates. Wouldn't that imply that the Latin words mandare and munis are cognates? Are they? If I had to decide between the two I would certainly prefer immunity, because the a <-> u connection in Latin seems very odd to me.

The formulation of your two footnotes suggests to me that you misunderstood the sources. Your first source seems to say it's related to mandat d'amener, your second source that it's from immunitas. The obvious way to reconcile the two sources is to interpret the first as saying that amener (a likely cognate of immunitas, I would say) is the cognate of Mundat, not mandat.

For the moment I have changed your explanation. I would appreciate it if you could convince me that this wasn't a misunderstanding or original research, or if it was the latter, that you are an expert. Hans Adler 07:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see that I have been misinformed: the connection is indeed, as you say, with emunitas, which Jacques Baquol and Paul Ristelhuber, in L'Alsace ancienne et moderne, ou Dictionnaire topographique, historique et statistique du Haut et du Bas-Rhin (1865) quote, as if from a charter. I have emended the footnotes, with your permission.--Wetman (talk) 08:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I am still a bit worried that the etymology takes an undue amount of space in the lead and is written in a somewhat inaccessible style. I would prefer to have only a very short summary in the lead, and the details further down, if you don't mind. How about something like "Mundat (probably related to immunity) is not a normal word in modern German or French."
By the way, "dans le Haute-Alsace" is ungrammatical and Google Books doesn't give me access to your source. (No 1923 rule in Europe.) It's a bit embarrassing to have WP as one of only 10 Google hits for this phrase, could you please change this to whatever the source says or add a "sic"? Hans Adler 08:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Googlebooks reassures me that I made no error in transcribing the phrase by Béatrice Weis that Hans Adler finds embarrassing. Rather than the pretentious "[sic]", which draws attention to the superior editor, I prefer simply to insert in the html <!-- dans le Haute-Alsace in original -->, which serves to keep RandyinBoise and the like at bay without public affectation. I've further streamlined this brief reference to Mundat/emunitas in the opening. I thought it unnecessary to add [sic] after emunitas.--Wetman (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


Stanford Memorial Church[edit]

I have been asked to take a look at this - what are these things called in English [4] "transept balconies" I can only translate as "gallery of the clerestory", but I am sure there is a better word - any ideas? Giano (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd think that you're right, but without a photo of the transepts I can't tell. It looks to me like a well-detailed, well-referenced article. Googling images I see that the organ is in its loft against the west end and that there is no triforium passage down the nave. Oh! No, here I can see that the transepts are all but filled with deep balconies with swept front balustrades echoing the curves of the crossing dome, its low ring and its semi-circular arches. Very nice ensemble. --Wetman (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but what are they called? I have a feeling it to do with the theatre, or is at least in French churches, perhaps I am going prematurely senile, hardly surprising considering what one has to contend with here! Anyway, it is a good page, we need to lose "Jesus' outstretched arms" and such like, I don't care for all this happy clappy nonsense, if God wanted that he would have made seals Christians and us clapping at the North Pole. Giano (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
If they were intended for antiphonal choirs, they might be "choir lofts" but I suspect the seating is raked: is it? Proud Moms & Dads? Agnostics? Lepers?--Wetman (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd plump for galleries. Curl generally gives them as passageways in churches, but also as "mezzanines at the end of a large hall or room for access between rooms or to accommodate musicians etc." and "upper level of seating in a theatre" it's not quite on the money, but closer than balcony perhaps? --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, Pevsner gives gallery as "in church architecture upper storey above an aisle, opened in arches to the nave. Also called Tribune and often erroneously as Triforium". Not quite from the Aisle to the Nave as they're in the transepts, but this is getting closer I think. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if an article that had a few plans, sections and elevations of cathedrals, chapels etc. which you could click and get a glossary definition of would be a good addition to WP? (anatomy of the church) perhaps a bit like this, but with more detail--Joopercoopers (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you are correct, think of the term "press gallery" and so on. Giano (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If I have this right, Gail Stockholm in Stanford Memorial Church: An Appreciative Guide For the Not-causual Visitor, Stanford University 1980, refers to them as the "transcript galleries." Carptrash (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Galleries does seem right, but— these things slip past print editors too— surely "transcript" was a slip for transept.--Wetman (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Definitely. Unless parishoners are very studiously noting the sermons......well maybe....it is Stanford. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Finally found a decent picture of them [5] (sorry Wetman, you're reception has become a coffee house again). --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Transept indeed. I've been doing too much non-architecture stuff recently. Bad habit. Carptrash (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A slip that's worth a chuckle is well slipped, Carptrash. Joopercooper's image from flickr is very desirable for the article: whenever I make a transfer from flickr our police cadets sic their bot on me.--Wetman (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
How do you do the copyright thing with flickr? Just email the person and work out a deal? Some folks there are very fussy about their copyrights but most just like their work to be seen. I've not tried wikiing other's work from there. Carptrash (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
For Flicker copyright and wiki uploads I'm incompetent to offer advice. Can any of you lurkers make a useful suggestion?--Wetman (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Now here is one I have an answer for since I would be called a Flickerer. Now don't flicker me off, but this is how I do it. The results are that 75% will do as asked, which gives you some million plus more pictures than to use based on those that have now "All Rights Reserved" tagged. Send this form letter by Flicker email:

I use these pictures in my articles all the time, which greatly enhances the article. Check out my 150 DYKs on my User Page and additional ones on my Talk Page. Many of those pictures came from Flickr using the form letter. Click on picture to see. Example: Blue Ridge Parkway tunnels are all Flickr pictures.--Doug Coldwell talk 23:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. I'm already at flickr (more than you probably want to know about me here http://www.flickr.com/photos/60188803@N00/ ) and will look around with wikipedia in mind a bit more. Your template letters seem as if they would do the job most of the time. Carptrash (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll bet I have uploaded more pictures to Flickr than you.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22738816@N07/
Some interesting recent uploads are from Dollywood. Check out movies MOV08807 and MOV08812 and MOV08804.
Glad I could help. It works for me. --Doug Coldwell talk 11:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Johann von Klenau[edit]

Thanks. I don't mind touch ups to pages. I'm glad someone notices! However, I'm going to remove the causeway reference with respect to the combat of La Favorita. It's actually a villa or a palazzo. See the Boycott-Brown book, an excellent source. You can see La Favorita on Google Earth. Start at the dot of the Citadella suburb of Mantova and go NE 1.75 km. It sits in a field. Djmaschek (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This Villa La Favorita, sometimes called the "Palazzo La Favorita", is associated with the battle. There seem to have been two military encounters. Sorry about the causeway: now I can't call up the source that mentioned a causeway. --Wetman (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Alice[edit]

I too am uncomfortable with calling the Alice books "novels", but that's what Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and all the other articles linked to in Template:Alice (as well as the template itself) seem to do. Maybe one of us should pursue this matter at the appropriate talk pages? :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"That sounds rather like an invitation to experience Alice in Wonderland", Wetman replied after a moment. "At Wikipedia might not one be told that The Fellowship of the Ring is a novel?" --Wetman (talk) 05:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Serapio[edit]

Could you give me any input, if you have ideas on this Serapio?

Never heard of this dude with the fancy names. "Sacrificial victims" had to be ritually acceptable in ways of which the details are obscure to me.--Wetman (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I also never heard of him, however he became part of Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio's name. Apparently frankincense was used in public sacrifices. Thanks for answering my questions at the Reference Desk.--Doug Coldwell talk 12:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The warehouse man at the Roman end of the Incense Route! I hadn't thought of that.--Wetman (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Bingo! --Doug Coldwell talk 20:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
...no victims with frankincense, of course.--Wetman (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course! In Plutarch's Lives of the life of Tiberius Gracchus he writes where Tiberius negotiates with the Numantines and accepts nothing ...but some frankincense, which he used in his public sacrifices... Type in Find the word "frankincense" here at Plutarch's life of Tiberius Gracchus. Is this then just a burial ceremony he is talking about that Tiberius would perform from time to time; the reason why he wanted frankincense? --Doug Coldwell talk 21:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
No, not specifically a burial: frankincense was the most general incense offered a deity on every minor occasion: the Aesopic fable The Crow and Mercury commences "A Crow caught in a snare prayed to Apollo to release him, making a vow to offer some frankincense at his shrine..."--Wetman (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
O.K., now I get it. Thanks!--Doug Coldwell talk 22:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancient sources[edit]

Do you know of some excellent English translation websites for Livy (From the Founding of the City) and Polybius (The Histories) where they would be searchable. I am interested in biographical information of Scipio Aemilianus Africanus, associated with the Third Punic War (more than Wikipedia has). Plutarch does not seem to have a specific "Life" on him, however there are some references of him in other Lives.--Doug Coldwell talk 17:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that I don't know how to apply a "Search" feature to the on-line English translations.--Wetman (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Found a couple of ways around it then. 1) Look in each chapter here or 2) download from Project Gutenberg the books onto my harddrive, then search.--Doug Coldwell talk 14:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Roman History, Books I-III
The History of Rome, Books 09 to 26
The History of Rome, Books 27 to 36
Livius.org: Livy

Medusa[edit]

Hey Wetman, I think you were fooled by the automatic edit summary here. It looks like the IP was trying to help. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. How embarrassing. It goes to show that old men like me shouldn't be left alone with computers.--Wetman (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Walter Horn[edit]

Thanks for correcting an error of the sort I dread to make (Saint Gilles). Odd that you should notice the article so promptly, because I almost asked you to look at it. First, because I felt I was doing it in haste and without focus, to get it off my plate; and second, because footnote 6 made me nervous and I wondered whether you thought it would only attract arguments … of the sort I dread. I also laughed at what you said about the links, as at one point I was thinking to myself (I swear this is the truth), "you must do something about this addiction to linking." Cynwolfe (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I lurk at the bot depot User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult‎ like a trout below rapids, ready to snap at anything promising that washes down. Highly recommended when one temporarily runs out of redlinks. The "Spear of Destiny" does attract the Wrong Sort.--Wetman (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Middleton Place – reference[edit]

Wetman:

On the Middleton Place article, you cited someone named "Tanner." Can you give me the title of this book or article? Bms4880 (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've tried googling it, and JSTOR, and I can't call up "Tanner 1984" yet. Hold on! here it is!--Wetman (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Maiden Castle, Dorset[edit]

Hi, thanks for your tweaks to the article. I was wondering if you have a reference for Hardy's house being within view of the castle? It sounds vaguely familiar and I know he lived somewhere close-by but I don't know of a source so help would be appreciated. Nev1 (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The house, "Max Gate", is mentioned in Ralph Pite, Thomas Hardy: the guarded life p. 267f: "Maiden Castle, an Iron Age fort visible from Max Gate". Also mentioned in Hardy's first magazine interview, 1886 (Pite p. 268) --Wetman (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I've added the reference to the article. Nev1 (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
That's a distinguished article.--Wetman (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
My only regret about the article is not getting some more impressive photos; ground level doesn't really do the site justice. In 2010 some aerial photos from the 1930s excavations will come into the public domain and something like the second image down in this article would have been nice. It would have looked great on the main page, but unfortunately I didn't realise the article was slated to be TFA until it was moved protected and already on the main page! Ah well, my target was to get it onto the main page as I think it's an interesting subject, so mission accomplished. Nev1 (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
My reservation about the first image "Rampart and ditch at Maiden Castle" is that it conveys no sense of scale. I haven't the patience to follow the process of approving "FA"s, even from a great distance. --Wetman (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nicolas-Joseph Thiéry de Menonville[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Nicolas-Joseph Thiéry de Menonville at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dabomb87 (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Lindow Man[edit]

Hi again, it was I while ago you made the edit, but I've reverted this edit as, according to Dougweller (talk · contribs), it's a fringe theory. It is reported in The Times so may be worth a mention, but I'm unsure. WP:FRINGE says such theories shouldn't be given too much weight, but I didn't think it was. I'm thinking that if it was to be mentioned, the theory would have to be explained (with any notable rebuttals) as would the other theories. Nev1 (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Grigsby's reference to a "sacrificial king" is much preferable. Thanks.--Wetman (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Nicolas-Joseph Thiéry de Menonville[edit]

Updated DYK query On August 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nicolas-Joseph Thiéry de Menonville, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

WP:DYK 20:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

castro[edit]

Castro is just a derived latin word from "Castle". Castro culture is a specific civilization between the Douro river and southern Galicia, with specific cultural traits, although can be found in northern Galician and over the Douro river. it is more or less the same thing as the Callaecian peoples. Archeologists just saw the archeological remains of villages and towns, called castros, in the area had strong semilarities, so they named it "castro culture". I've read books about it to create the article about the castro city in here, sometime ago. So i know. -Pedro (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. All that I know too. I actually made some early edits at Castro culture. I just thought you'd check the text at Castro Verde ("Green Castle" eh) which makes a (legitimate? not legitimate?) connection to Castro culture that existed so far to the north. --Wetman (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
there is a huge number of castro settlements in this region, much more than anywhere else. so that's why they choose the name "castro", which is a word like cividade that reached us by the common people (they knew these places by these names) and there are people with "castro" surname, that can be also a clue for their origin. Most without any archaeological study, some were not even villages, but defensive outposts for the cities. Unfortunately this culture is not very studied, so it is normal that people make a confusion out of it. they see something with a similar name, they think it is the same. -Pedro (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
...no doubt they do, but that won't be good enough for the Wikipedia reader: there's no connection between Castro culture and the town of Castro Verde, so I'll just remove the link.--Wetman (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Roman Colonna and a Tyrolean castle[edit]

Coat of arms of Leonhard von Völs (aka Leonhard Colonna, barone di Fiè) in Schloss Prösels, South Tyrol.

Having copy-edited a very early version of Prösels Castle, and remembering the link to the Colonna, I was not at all surprised to see your edit to the family article. Obviously the ethnic cleansers who creep over Wikipedia’s South Tyrolean articles had been at work. It is so tedious. Anyway you can see the Colonna column in a sixteenth-century fresco from the castle right. Ian Spackman (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, much better now that you've actually mentioned the Colonna in the caption. The armorial reference alone was too subtle for me--Wetman (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I later tracked down and restored the suppressed paragraph of text which attempts to explain the links. (I suspect that the only armorial reference I would ever be likely to spot would be if the Colonna were to hitch up with the Colleoni.) Ian Spackman (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge[edit]

If you want to propose a merge, you need to put banners on all articles affected, with a link to 1 discussion. --Philcha (talk) 06:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course. But I did: Halofolliculina corallasia and Skeletal Eroding Band.--Wetman (talk) 07:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Central discussion! Read the proc. --Philcha (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't using templates {{merge}} amd {{mergefrom}} have automatically centralized the discussion? Didn't it used to? I understand now anyway that merging the two articles doesn't make sense.--Wetman (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
If you now oppose the merger, please say so at Talk:Halofolliculina corallasia. Then we can put this to bed in a week. --Philcha (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Oops, I see you've put this to bed. That's the trouble with taking my watchlist in chrono order. Thanks! --Philcha (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Horns of Consecration[edit]

Thank you for putting together the excellent article on the horns of consecration! Was so happy to see you're still contributing to the Minoan article-writing effort :> k. da-ma-te (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

04:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[edit]

"Part of a string of self-promotions inserted by Mark Chandos: see Special:Contributions/Snizhana for list.--Wetman (talk) 04:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)"--Snizhana (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Wetman, I've got this message from you. Please explain me why? And tell me what to do not you to have the impression of "self-promotion" that is not true.

Thank you very much --Snizhana (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Article talkpage alerts aren't personal messages, but messages to alert editors in general: see Special:Contributions/Snizhana for list of self-promotions.--Wetman (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

De viris illustribus[edit]

Wetman, could you take a look at my question on the talk page of De viris illustribus? I saw that you were prominent among the recent editors. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't got a handle on it.--Wetman (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edit summary[edit]

Here is quite inappropriate, and also false since I haven't ever unprotected this page. Kindly refrain from singling out users in edit summaries, please, or anything to deliberately upset your fellow editors. As for my recent unprotections, they are trials and done initially to remove the latest unfriendly protection log entries from the edit window, the protections will be restored if the articles are targeted by vandalism again. There's no problem I can see here. Regards, Cenarium (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Though Cenarium announces that he's are "on vacation" he has found time to unprotect Odysseus, Demon, Athena, Apollo— but quite right: not Hades. I recommended at User talk:Cenarium that he keep these articles on his Watchlist, now that he's unprotected them just before the seasonal abuses connected with the public school year commence, and I requested that he do his fair share in reverting the constant vandalism that these pages are subject to, as a look through their page histories would show him. --Wetman (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

thumb|Original heraldic logo

[edit]

Hi, saw yur edits to Sirens and thought I'd bring your attention to this which quotes multiple sources that the logo is a "siren". I accept the folks at Starbucks - and the graphic designers - are probably mistaken as to the classical depictions of sirens, melusines and mermaids et alii but it does seem to be their intention that it's siren-based (from an original Norse woodcut). Thoughts? Dick G (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't want to transmit our confusions to the Wikipedia reader. Or those of Valerie O'Neil, Starbucks spokeswoman. Starbucks was founded in Seattle, where books of heraldry and classical myth may be rather far to seek. Or so it seems. Is the following text unclear?
Twin fishtails in the Gigantomachy in the Pergamon Altar
The sirens of Greek mythology are sometimes portrayed in later folklore as mermaid-like; the fact that in Spanish, French, Italian, Polish, Romanian or Portuguese, the word for mermaid are respectively Sirena, Sirène, Sirena, Syrena, Sirenă and Sereia, and that in biology the Sirenians comprise an order of fully aquatic mammals that includes the dugong and manatees, creates visual confusion, so that sirens are even represented as mermaids. "The sirens, though they sing to mariners, are not sea-maidens," Harrison cautions; "they dwell on an island in a flowery meadow."
Starbucks' crowned heraldic sirena holding up her two fishy tails, is a purely medieval/Early Modern mermaid whose Classical antecedents, if there are any at all, are in depictions of Typhon (see that article), or the aquatic Gigantes (see left). As for sirena, or Sirenians for that matter, the concept false cognate might help. And for the "Harrison" who's being quoted, pace Ms O'Neil, see the article Jane Ellen Harrison. As for Starbucks "siren [sic]" she's actually a heraldic melusine. For google images search " heraldic melusina ": see? --Wetman (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
All sounds good to me. Why couldn't they have just drawn a star and a buck? Pish! Siren remains as edited. cheers Dick G (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this is all more confusing than I realise, and the articles Siren, Mermaid and Melusine need to address these issues better.--Wetman (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
...in attempting to clear up text concerning Starbucks' melusine logo, I seem to have stirred up undesirable quantities of Wikipedia's copious sediment (I haven't looked further into Talk:Starbucks) and have dropped Starbucks from my Watchlist.--Wetman (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Stefano Bardini[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Stefano Bardini at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Smartse (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Travelling Heroes[edit]

Well, I have my problems with the book (I was glad you said "the soundest ideas"!), but yes, it's an enjoyable read with lots of juicy details, and it's always fun adding that kind of thing to Wikipedia. (I'm currently reading a book on eighteenth-century German biblical scholarship, which results in my Contributions now including articles on Louis Cappel, Jean Morin (theologian), and the Paraphrases of Erasmus!) --Languagehat (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Oi! better you than me! But where did you think Fox went astray? I was modestly prepared in my amateurish way, with Burkert's Orientalizing Revolution and some articles at JSTOR, and it all seemed well supported in the notes. I must say he's one of my favorite gardening writers too... --Wetman (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's my review of the book, but I warn you, I was in a bad mood when I wrote it! (The discussion winds, as is the way with LH comment threads, down unpredictable byways and ends up in an amusing discussion of Balliol history.) --Languagehat (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear. I'd have expected his synthesized history of the generic "Hipposthenes" to have been the thing you most disliked. He doesn't seem to build much upon Betyllion/Bytyllion beyond the derivation from beit-el that "confirms that Canaanite-Phoenician culture never entirely died at the site". Which seems likely enough anyway: do vet what I've added at Ras Ibn Hani when you get a flush of generosity. --Wetman (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if you read my post on "Betyllion," but I could find no evidence that it was ever spelled thus; every edition of Malalas I could find has Bytyllion, and as far as I can tell "Betyllion" is Lane Fox's invention. If I were you I'd amend the Ras Ibn Hani article accordingly, but I'm too absorbed in copyediting the damn biblical scholarship book to deal with it myself. Sorry to be so negative; I've liked other stuff he wrote, which is why I preordered the book, and my disappointment was correspondingly acute. --Languagehat (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I did indeed and modified what I'd written at Ras Ibn Hani accordingly, without going into critical original research, just reporting.--Wetman (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a tenet of Wikipedianism that I will never understand. You feel comfortable quoting Lane Fox, even though he's demonstrably wrong, because he's a Printed Source. When you say "who identified the site as the harbor later Greeks knew as Betyllion," you're implying that he is correct that later Greeks knew it by that name. My showing that the alleged spelling does not occur in Malalas is "original research" and thus does not count. I'd be happier if you deleted the entire passage; if not, when I have the time and energy I'll rewrite it to reflect the facts as known to me, though of course without citing the dreaded "original research." Wikipedia should not be a repository for every cockamamie thing anyone who's managed to get a book printed has ever said. --Languagehat (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
We're quite in agreement on this head.--Wetman (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Counselor[edit]

Since you are my mentor, I need some advice that has to be kept confidential. Could you e-mail me. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell talk 22:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Doug, I've never linked up an email address with Wikipedia. I'm sorry that anything at Wikipedia should need to be confidential. I wish that I could give you advice that would be good for everyone.--Wetman (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you can. Below is some text that I am not interested in having changed or modified. Just would like you (or others that may be following this) to look over and give any comments that come to mind. It might not be good English, as we know it today, however I do believe you can get the jest of the short biography on Appius Claudius. The sources where the information came from originally is Livy and Plutarch. No need to Google as you won't find this text there. I understand Appius Claudius is associated with the first Roman aqueduct.

Above Homily 9 - Appius Claudius Caecus can be found in Plutarch's Lives. (Appius Claudius, pp. 673, 675, 677; Great Books of the Western World, The Dryden Translation, University of Chicago (1952), Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 55-10323) AND Livy "The History of Rome" books ix.29; xxvii.23,xxxi.1, xxxii.35, xxxiii.36, 43, 44, xxxiv.10, 17, 28, 51, xxxvi.10, 13, 22,30 --Doug Coldwell talk 12:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The only real question I would like you to answer is what would you consider the main feature of the Appian Way? --Doug Coldwell talk 18:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The most historic feature was that it was the first of the military lifelines that held the Roman world together. The main features today are the tombs along it. What is the text with the literal translation above?--Wetman (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I must agree with you of that of the "first of the military lifelines that held the Roman world together." This was for the movement of troops. What instigated this was the Second Samnite War and because of the construction of this "Straight Street" the losing war changed in favor of the Romans because they were able to move troops and supplies quickly down this straight street (with an occasional turn here and there). I appreciate your answers and must agree with you. On your question of "the text with the literal translation" I would like to hold off for now - however I promise I will ultimately give you the answer to your question. Give me awhile (I'm am old retiree and move slow) and I will get back to you later on this. Bye for now. --Doug Coldwell talk 00:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC) P.S. The second half came originally from Livy book ix (29) as the reference source that the medieval writer used.--Doug Coldwell talk 00:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile perhaps you can tell me the total number of books in the bible (Old Testament + New Testament). --Doug Coldwell talk 11:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That depends on how you divide Kings etc and whether you include 3 Daniel etc. Don't you just tot them up in the table of contents? --Wetman (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I come up with 39 books for the Old Testament and 27 for the New Testament, which seems to be the consensus in the articles.--Doug Coldwell talk 13:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe we both can agree that the number 66 has significance in that in many cases, many (while not all) would agree there are 66 books to the Christian bible. The article on the New Testament says, ...the majority have settled on the same twenty-seven book canon... and the article on the Old Testament says, ...The Old Testament in the Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Greek Orthodox Bibles have 39 books in common. I understand that some will feel differently on this, however from a non-technical viewpoint many seem to go with this information since it appears in the articles. Being such an important item, by now something different would have come up IF many felt differently. So, bottomline, the number 66 has significance - would you not agree? --Doug Coldwell talk 17:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Please bear me on these questions and you will see later the significance. These points are quite important and not just random points. Its something I have been working on for years and need help with. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 13:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The collection of books we call the Bible is essentially a library. Thomas Jefferson's library has been recreated (not with the actual editions he owned) at the Library of Congress. Would the total number of works, or the total number of volumes (a different number), in Jefferson's library be significant? His choices would be significant. There is no significance in the total one arrives at of books of "the Bible", in part because the division into "books" has been an arbitrary one; there is significance however in the historical process by which these books, and not others, came to be considered canonical. That's an interesting story, which you might follow in Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version. --Wetman (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Knowing that Petrarch has many important works, what would you say is his most important work (from his viewpoint)? --Doug Coldwell talk 17:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

De Viris Illustribus ? I say this not knowing. Petrarch will surely have said which was his most important work in one of his letters, I should think.--Wetman (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps by his actions he did. The article on him says, With his first large scale work, Africa, an epic in Latin about the great Roman general Scipio Africanus, Petrarch emerged as a European celebrity. On April 8, 1341, he became the first poet laureate since antiquity and was crowned on the holy grounds of Rome's Capitol.
Petrarch also has an extensive work hardly known worldwide called Chronicle of Universal History. It is structured and consists of famous Roman military leaders much like his work of De Viris Illustribus. It is also in chronological order like this, however it covers not only famous Roman generals but Persian and Greek kings. It is much more extensive, however I don't see anything in Wikipedia on it. It has similar people like Cornelius Scipio, Alexander the Great, Cato the Elder, and Scipio Aemilianus Africanus, but also has Cyrus II the Great, Darius I, the Great, Darius III, Philip II of Macedon and Artaxerxes I Longimanus among others. While Liber I of De Viris Illustribus has 24 moral biographies, Chronicle of Universal History has 28 moral biographies. Are you familiar with it?--Doug Coldwell talk 20:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm not; usually I read of "his one wholly historical work, a collection of biographies of Roman statesmen and generals, one version of which was posthumously published as De viris illustribus (1379)" (quote from Benjamin G. Kohl, "Petrarch's Prefaces to de Viris Illustribus" History and Theory 1974). Universal history is a familiar medieval literary genre, usually based on Jerome, and gaining interest for us-all, once it moves into the particular continuator's own lifetime.--Wetman (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting you should note that Universal history is a familiar medieval literary genre, usually based on Jerome. Looking at De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) it says in his own little bio, I, Jerome, son of Eusebius, of the city of Strido, which is on the border of Dalmatia and Pannonia.... Looking at Stridon it says it was an area of unknown location. But of course we both now know where that is at. It is on the border of Dalmatia and Pannonia. How obvious! Jerome sure does have a long Latin name and some funny Greek letters. Note that Petrarch's De Viris Illustribus consists of 2 books, Liber I and Liber II. Liber I is of Roman statesmen and generals (in chronological order starting in the 8th century BC) with both Scipios, while Libre II is of biblical figures. So this then is a list of apostles with biblical names secondary, describing their actions - while I am your disciple. --Doug Coldwell talk 12:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Therein lies my dilemma and the main reason I am coming to you. Thanks for staying with me on this. Only you, from all the people I know, will be able to help me on this problem. First let me answer your original question as I promised I would. The text you asked about is the ninth moral biography in this series of 28. Number ten is of Cornelius Scipio. I have a seventeenth century copy and believe am the only one that knows of the existence of this manuscript. The copy I have is Early Modern English. Petrarch placed his manuscript where no thief could take. It requires special keys to get access - which I have. I don't wish the world to know where it is and hope I have obtained your interest for you to e-mail me. If you e-mail me I will tell you exactly where this special Universal History is.--Doug Coldwell talk 21:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that you should happen to have mentioned that of Jerome. Looking at his Illustrius Men I see he lists "Cornelius" as number 66 - a significant number. Now here is a very easy question, and not a trick question in any way, however is important : How many letters in Carthage? --Doug Coldwell talk 22:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is homily 9 decoded showing the keys. One of the main keys used is the meaning behind the biblical names. The other main key is to use the opposite meaning of that written. There are other minor keys also that come into play. I know of most of the keys. Now it has been exposed to the world and all anyone has to do is a close inspection and apply the keys. Look at chapter 9 and you will see where it talks of the "Straight street." Chapter 10 talks of "Cornelius", an Italian commander. --Doug Coldwell talk 10:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The second half of this chapter 9 came originally directly from Livy book ix (29) as the reference source. This you can see the result of after the decoding. You know I could not make this up as it matches Livy way to close. Please take a look at the Livy source I provided to verify. Petrarch is known to have used for his ancient sources for his De Viris Illustribus and Africa that of Livy, Plutarch and Polybius. All 28 chapters after decoding show information from these sources. One of the arguments you may propose is that Petrarch did not know English, which of course I know, however some of his associates he worked closely with did. You do realize what I am implying by showing you all this material. That was the reason I wanted to keep it more or less quiet, however now it is exposed to the world to see. If I discovered this (and I am not all that intellegent) then soon others will find also - mostly I think because of the information now available on Wikipedia.--Doug Coldwell talk 11:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


Cornelius bio.--Doug Coldwell talk 22:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Seven. Phoenicians didn't include vowels in writing. Do you mean Latin Cartago or Punic qrt hdst? That th in our Carthage is only there because we don't have Greek θ, which comes in with the Greek version of the Punic name; so one becomes "two". Doug, number magic is a a cul-de-sac: a dry road to a dead end. I'm not going to follow very far. --Wetman (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
All right. But in Middle English it would have had 8 letters. So, this anyway is not that important - however did you find Universal History? Hint: try this: Chronicle of universal history, 28 homilies. Keep in mind I have a 17th century copy. --Doug Coldwell talk 23:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hannibal bio. --Doug Coldwell talk 23:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Above is Homily 15 I decoded today - Tiberius Gracchus, brother of Gaius Sempronius Gracchus. They both can be found in Plutarch's Lives. (Tiberius Gracchus, pp. 671-681; Great Books of the Western World, The Dryden Translation, University of Chicago (1952), Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 55-10323 --Doug Coldwell talk 20:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Homily 17 - Cato the Elder, source reference can be found in Plutarch Lives (Marcus Cato, pp. 276-290; Great Books of the Western World, The Dryden Translation, University of Chicago (1952), Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 55-10323 --Doug Coldwell talk 23:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Homily 18 - Gaius Sempronius Gracchus (Caius Gracchus, pp. 681-689; Great Books of the Western World, The Dryden Translation, University of Chicago (1952), Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 55-10323 --Doug Coldwell talk 23:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Doug, I'm sorry to discourage you, but you're chasing phantoms, connections that aren't really there. Few works of literature require secret "keys", a favorite theme, though, of occultists. I think you should stick to factual articles: working on them keeps the mind clear.--Wetman (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Vista-trashcan empty.png
Appreciate your reply. However I know that I have found something here and it is definitely systematic. No matter what chapter I decode it follows the same keys. Previous to this discovery I knew nothing of ancient Roman history - but now I am sure learning alot of this fascinating subject. All I ask is please look over homily 9 and the Livy source provided and if you can tear it to shreds (as with your intellegence you should easily be able to do) then perhaps I may be discouraged , however if you can't then I will be encouraged to pursue my quest which I now have the keys to decode. I am presenting this challenge to you (or anyone else) to tear apart (which I am betting the farm you can not). Keep in mind I consider you a person as smart as Plato, Aristotle, Petrarch and Wycliff.
I would like to thank you for the compliment above. When you say, chasing phantoms, connections that aren't really there you are implying that I am making this up. Wow, you just gave me a storage of knowledge that I wished I had. I wished I knew that much about ancient history that I would be able to make these kind of "connections" - but you and I both know the truth. That is I do not. So since I don't have that kind of knowledge then how am I making these "connections"? You are the one with the Harvard Degree. I am just a High School graduate. The main three tools I have to keep up with someone of your caliber is Google, the public library, and common sense logic. With common sense logic I figured out that this material I am decoding has a system. Basically it is the opposite meaning of what is written and the meaning behind the biblical names. To prove this is correct, it turns out the decoded ancient history is in chronological order - for 28 chapters! It starts in the seventh century BC and goes to the first century AND for you think I have the ancient history knowledge to make that "connection" - geee thanks! I'm flabbergasted. The truth is that I am using the same sources that Petrarch used to put these 28 chapters together - however I am having to look it up through Google. Example is that of Gaius Gracchus of above Homily 18. You asked for references, well here it is. All I ask is that you verify. By not verifying this source, then you are remise in your duties and your claim of me "chasing phantoms" is no longer valid. But then come to think of it, IF you do verify this source then your claim of me "chasing phantoms" is no longer valid. Either way your claim of me "chasing phantoms" is no longer valid. AND I again thank you to even think I had that kind of ancient knowledge to make these kinds of "connections" to make it come out in chronological order for 28 biographies of Illustrious Men. Would a Harvard graduate be able to do that?
Petrarch is known for writing in secret codes, i.e. De secreto conflictu curarum mearum and Liber sine nomine. I wouldn't dare say "The Book without a Name" has 19 letters, but it does. My friend, you have helped me alot. Talk to you soon, hopefully after you have verified this ancient source information.--11:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Homily 19 - Lucius Aemilius Paulus Macedonicus, the father of Scipio Aemilianus Africanus. Reference source is Plutarch's Lives. (Aemilius Paulus, pp. 214-231; Great Books of the Western World, The Dryden Translation, University of Chicago (1952), Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 55-10323 --Doug Coldwell talk 13:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Homily 10 Scipio the Elder (Cornelius): Scipio the Elder, source reference can be found in Plutarch Lives (Scipio Africanus, pp. 28, 152-154, 214-215, 261, 278-337, 419, 451, 505, 671-679; Great Books of the Western World, The Dryden Translation, University of Chicago (1952), Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 55-10323) --Doug Coldwell talk 11:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Homily 20 Scipio, the younger: (Scipio Aemilianus Africanus Minor, pp. 215, 223-230, 280-289, 672-689, 874; Great Books of the Western World, The Dryden Translation, University of Chicago (1952), Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 55-10323) --Doug Coldwell talk 11:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is chapter 10 of Scipio Africanus, decoded. The main original source references are Livy, libri xxvi and xxxviii and in various Lives of Plutarch. Of course you did look at chapter 10 to see "Cornelius" there. AND you looked at chapter 9 line 11 and saw where it said, ...the street which is called Straight... Here also is chapter 20 of Scipio Aemilianus Africanus, decoded. The original source references are Polybius (book xxxviii part 5 "The Fall of Carthage") and in various Lives of Plutarch. Now I realize you don't like number coincidences, however notice Scipio, the elder, is chapter 10 and Scipio, the younger, is chapter 20. Now assume you ignore this, you can not ignore that all these chapters happen to be in chronological order for time periods ("Chronicle") which I provided. I would love to have you actually believe I could make this up, however we both know that I do not have that kind of knowledge. Giving you this additional material so you have something more to shred to pieces. I am not at all afraid you will be able to as I have done my homework and realize there is a system here. I have applied the keys and they work for every line. Please show me where this decoded information is not that as recorded by these ancient sources. Keep in mind that IF you can't then you have proven to me that I have found something hidden for over 600 years. It has been in front of millions of people over this time. You should easily be able to give me details and shred this to pieces IF there really is something wrong with the discovery. Notice that I have provided only a small trash container for the pieces of trash, since at best all you will be able to do is give me a few pieces that are incorrect. I can see you are obviously the smartest person on Wikipedia by far, hundreds of times smarter than myself. You have knowledge about most anything (or can find it quickly), so if anyone can shred this to pieces then it is you. By not answering my requests to e-mail me you have solved my dilemma. There is no doubt that I have found Petrarch's Chronicle of Universal History, 28 homilies - known today by a different name. It is recognized by most scholars that the New Testament has 27 books. These decoded homilies are shown with much detail line-by-line to show how each line got decoded. If you want the complete set of keys, just e-mail me. If you have any questions as to how a line got decoded, feel free to ask me as I will have the answer since I am the one and and only that decoded it. --Doug Coldwell talk 21:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Livy[edit]

Note that Jerome wrote only in Latin, as did Petrarch. Livy lived in or around Padua, as did Petrarch from 1368 until his death in 1374. Obviously he had access to Livy's works. This would be like setting up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and having 24 hour access to the Library of Congress. It's no wonder much of his sourses are from Livy. He also lived 4 years in Carpentras, being a Carpentra citizen. Another favorite source of his also was Polybius. It should be noted that it can not be proven through DNA that Petrarch's body is in his tomb. Also it should be noted that no existing document or any copy thereof of Jerom'e exist today that can be proven to be written before the fourteenth century (i.e. his De Viris Illustribus) - you would be remise in your duties IF you didn't follow up on this one! --Doug Coldwell talk 14:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Petrarch wrote in both Latin and Italian (and applied Provençal poetical models). He owned not one but two incomplete copies of Livy, which he was at pains to improve, annotate, emend, and complete, even transcribing text himself. Both copies survive: Bibliothèque National MS Paris Lat. 5690 and MS. Harleian 2493 in the British Library. The story of Petrarch's role in the painful partial reconstruction of Livy is examined by G. Billanovich, "Petrarch and the Textual Tradition of Livy" Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 14.3/4 (1951), pp. 137-208. Billanovich gives an outline of the piecemeal reconstruction of De urbe condita from the 14th century onwards. Livy's Paduan connection was long cold by the time Petrarch was there. Hope this helps.--Wetman (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it does! I must admit that I did not know that and it is very useful information. Like I say, I consider you an outstanding scholar - in the order of John Wycliffe - whom I happen to notice lived in the same time period as Petrarch. It is interesting to note that apparently Wyclif's Bible is the first complete translation of the New Testament into English. There are verifiable copies of the bible as early as 1382 and 1395 and into the early fifteenth century. Let me know when you come across a verifiable copy of Jerome's De Viris Illustribus before the fourteenth century - since this would be of upmost importance. Since I already know you will not be able to find such a copy, you know what I am implying. --Doug Coldwell talk 18:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, there's a late 12th century text of DVI right here in New York, in the General Theological Seminary. It was first published by William Henry Paine Hatch, "A Manuscript of Jerome's De Viris Illustribus Belonging to the General Theological Seminary in New York", Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 23 (1912), pp. 47-69. There's a work by Gennadius with the same title, and a well-known anonymous one too, sometimes formerly attributed to Sextus Aurelius Victor; an inscription on one of two mss of it at the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, attributes it to Pliny! unlikely. I see now that Guido Martellotti edited Petrarch's De Viris illustribus (Florence:Sansoni) 1964. You see how I am ignorant of the work. Jerome mentions his DVI in a letter. --Wetman (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
While I can find Harvard Studies in Classical Philology in Google Books, I don't see that particular article you speak of. I see it mentioned, however can not locate the article itself so I can read the article myself. Could you give me a link to that article? Do you know how they verified that it was of the 12th century, because of course I have my doubts. I'll try to find a way to contact someone at that seminary about that and how they happen to have come in possession of Jerome's DVI. The oldest verifiable copy I have been able to find that I have confidence in is 1470 at Niedersaechsische Staats-und Universitaetsbibliothek, Schriftliche Auskunft / Historisches Gebaeude, Papendiek 14, 37073 Goettingen.--Doug Coldwell talk 19:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
As you know by now I started and am the major contributor to both these articles of De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) and De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch), so have done years of research to locate the oldest available copy of Jerome's DVI. Talking to several Universities worldwide I have not been able to locate and find anything earlier than 1470. --Doug Coldwell talk 20:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Just sent off an email to one of the V.P.s, so should hear from them concerning this matter. Will let you know what I hear.--Doug Coldwell talk 20:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Doug, This manuscript is no longer owned by the General Theological Seminary, as it was auctioned off by Christie's October 1, 1980. Regarding the manuscript's provenance, the auction catalog reads: "The script which has been dated as early as the twelfth century, is more likely of the early fifteenth century." The current whereabouts of the manuscript are unknown. Regards, Patrick Slaven
Reference Librarian
St. Mark's Library
General Theological Seminary
175 Ninth Avenue
New York, NY 10011
Also started and am the major contributor to Liber sine nomine. That's the reason I know much of this subject also.--Doug Coldwell talk 20:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You do of course know the Greek meanings of Jerome's names Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus? --Doug Coldwell talk 20:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Found it! It was right there all along in External Links of De Viris Illustribus (Jerome). Forgot about it, as they can not trace it back any further than 1849. I long since had put it out of my mind because of this. If you find any other leads, please let me know. Now, of course, you know what I am implying. --Doug Coldwell talk 22:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You know how Wikipedia wants references, references, references - likewise I'll need papertrail, papertrail, papertrail to be able to verify where Jerome's DVI came from. Otherwise perhaps carbon dating might be another backup - however even that gets a little shaky. DNA would be good, however I don't think it applies to objects outside animal analysis. DNA would have been good to prove that it was actually Petrarch in his tomb, however apparently the results did not prove this. Beyond that, I would say it is purely guesswork. Wyclif's Bible has an excellent papertrail, so can be verified on dates of the copies.--Doug Coldwell talk 22:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Funny you should bring up Wycliffe. It was you that brought him up, wasn't it? Anyway, in his article I note that there sure was a lot of events that went on with him concerning the church around 1375 to 1380. Apparently also The books and tracts of Wycliffe's last six years include continual attacks upon the papacy and the entire hierarchy of his times. Come to think of it, this sounds a lot like that of Petrarch. Petrarch supposedly died 1374. Apparently Wycliffe came out with his complete translation of the New Testament in 1382. Many say it is possible he translated the entire New Testament, while his associates translated the Old Testament. Wycliffe knew Latin well (as did Petrarch) and wrote in Middle English.--Doug Coldwell talk 00:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Jerome[edit]
Meanwhile here is another bit I just decoded. --Doug Coldwell talk 11:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me I am chasing phantoms and that there really are no connections on this of Petrarch's Greatest Work. You could not give me a better compliment. Now of course for me to believe you, you must use words that are convincing. You have that capability. I know as I have been persuaded by you many times before since I trust you. Then IF you actually think I can pull this off, I will be blown away. Then I will know that I no longer need to go for further education as I believe for someone to pull this off it would take more than a Harvard degree.--Doug Coldwell talk 15:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Jerome is Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus. Eusebius means "respectful, pious"; Sophronius means "temperate, moderate"; Hieronymus means "sacred name." I am implying Petrarch is Jerome. That's why you will never find a copy of Jerome's De Viris Illustribus before the fourteenth century, since it was written in the fourteenth century by Petrarch. That's why the "coincidence" of bio # 66 is "Cornelius", a most important figure for Petrarch. Bio # 67 is Hannibal, arch enemy of Scipio. If you look into it you will see that it was established by 1400 that there were 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament = 66 books total. You may find a papertrail of the Old Testament books before the fourteenth century, however not the New Testament.

There is a Petrarch-Wycliff connection, however don't know exactly how. You can see that Petrarch's and Wycliffe's philosophy toward the papacy is very similiar. AND like I said above I note that there sure was a lot of events that went on with him concerning the church around 1375 to 1380. The Avignon papacy was moved back to Rome in 1378 - an event Petrarch wished very much. The period has been called the "Babylonian captivity", coined by Petrarch. Sounds a lot like "Avignon captivity" to me. Since DNA did not prove Petrarch died in 1374 and can not even prove it is his body in his tomb, then I have reason to believe he died shortly after 1378 instead. That's my belief. Some believe in Christianity and historical Jesus.

You now have seen that chapter 10 of Acts of the Apostles is about Cornelius. Decoded it is of Cornelius Scipio. I had no way of knowing that chapter 20 was to come out as Scipio, the younger. It turns out chapter 19 (above decoded) is Lucius Aemilius Paulus Macedonicus, the father of Scipio, the younger. I hope and pray you actually think I have this much ancient Roman knowledge to pull this off to be able to make "phantom connections" like this. Like I say, all 28 decoded chapters of Acts of the Apostles are in chronological order starting in the seventh century BC and going to the first century - involving not only ancient Roman history, but ancient Greek and the ancient Persian Empire. Please tell me that I made this up and am able to pull this off, as I believe not even a Harvard graduate could do that.--Doug Coldwell talk 10:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A possible connection for Petrarch and Wycliff might be Bruges, as this is an important city that both Petrarch and Wycliffe are known to have been at. Wycliffe went to Bruges in 1374, the year Petrarch supposedly died, for a peace congress. Wycliffe was an opponent of the Avignon system, as was Petrarch. It was after this date that Wycliffe came significantly to the fore. Ultimately the Avignon papacy was moved back to Rome in 1378. Around this time Bruges was a chief commercial city of the world. There was a decree dated July 26, 1374, to remove ecclesiastical annoyances, of which Wycliffe was considered one of them. Petrarch supposedly died July 19, 1374. This same month of 1374 Wycliff was in Bruges. Some have doubts of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. --Doug Coldwell talk 11:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I fear you think I am disloyal, but I cannot help you in this.--Wetman (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Obsolutely not. You have helped me considerably. I didn't know that of Petrarch having two incomplete copies of Livy, which he was at pains to improve, annotate, emend, and complete, even transcribing text himself. This is a very important bit of information as that tells me he "transcribed" the 28 homilies of Chronicle of Universal History from Classical Latin to Vulgar Latin - the language he wrote in. This is a very important key I was never clear about before, which you helped me to clear up on my quest. I already researched this out and know both Petrarch and Wycliffe have been in Bruges - a common connection between them. Thanks again for all your help. IF you happen to come across a verifiable copy of Jerome's DVI then this blows my theory. However as much research I have already done on that and the related material I have described above, I am not afraid you will. As you can probably tell I am not a religious person. Just someone that likes to solve mysteries and I have found one that is a lot of fun to work on - because all the dots are falling into place. Its like knowing the Periodic Table exists and that certain "elements" are there because it is mathematical, but just don't know the exact details of all these "elements." I have most of the "elements", now I am just plugging in the details. My quest is to get the details, since I already know the "elements" exists. AND did I mention, its fun. Let me know if you want the Petrarch "keys" and then you can also decode the New Testament. There is some interesting stories there of Avignon and the Ascent of Mont Ventoux. OR at least you can verify what I am saying. Keep in mind I consider you the best scholar Wikipedia has and am not at all afraid you can disprove this material. You have already proved dozens of points for me and I can give you details about this if you like. --Doug Coldwell talk 12:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I am glad to have helped in any way. I think that Petrarch, who established many orthographic conventions and many of whose textual emendations in various works are still accepted, would have been chagrined to hear that he wrote in Vulgar Latin. The manuscript tradition of Jerome's DVI has been thoroughly worked out over the last century and more: not that I know anything about it. But you shouldn't confuse the trackable provenance of a ms with what can be securely understood of its origin by palaeographical study and examination of the ms as a documentary object.--Wetman (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Would like to reply to this, as then you will know I am paying attention to what you are saying and put much weight on it. Keep in mind, that I put just as much weight on what you don't say - because it speaks volumes! Understand and agree with you on not to confuse the trackable provenance of a ms with what can be securely understood of its origin by palaeographical study and examination of the ms as a documentary object. Apparently this applied to the above e-mail response from General Theological Seminary's catalog when selling Jerome's DVI in saying, ...is more likely of the early fifteenth century.." I'm not surprised to this response, as I know De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) was written in the fourteenth century, so obviously there can not be any copies before the fourteenth century.--Doug Coldwell talk 17:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Petrarch Code[edit]

Wetman,

Since you have helped me much in my quest, here are the Petrarch "keys" I am using to decode the material.
I tweak some of these from time to time, however most of the time they are this way and will work just fine.
I figure by you not being able to tear this decoded material to shreds, then you have automatically shown me this decoded material is good.
With the knowledge you show me daily that you have, you should not have had any problem in tearing this to shreds, IF there was something wrong with the discovery.
Also you have reference sources that I do not have (i.e. JSTOR subscription) and can research this even further than I can, which in many cases you have already done. Apparently you were not able to find anything drastically wrong with the decoded material or else you would have torn it to shreds.
I gave you a lot of material and several chapters of Petrarch's Chronicle of Universal History (aka Acts of the Apostles) and noticed that you were not able to tear it to shreds.
If you don't mind, perhaps you can leave this on your Talk Page for awhile after you archive your page - which it looks like you might be doing soon.
There probably are dozens of "lookers" that are following this or will stumble across it in the future. I'd be interested to see what they have to say - especially if they can give me outstanding reference material and details as you have been able to provide me. IF however they throw in religion or the like OR do not provide excellent detailed reference material as you have done for me, then I will ignore them.
I have provided you with all the ancient sources where I obtained the history to apply to each chapter after I figured out whom Petrarch was talking about.
Thanks again for your scholarly help. If you don't mind, let's see where this goes.............--Doug Coldwell talk 15:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Noticed as I am following up on the many leads you have provided, that Jerome has a Chronicon. It consists of a universal history from Chronicon (Eusebius). Here we go again, a chronological timeline - just like the one I have discovered. Noticed Darius I of Persia is in the list, just like my list I discovered. In my list he is chapter 2. I wouldn't dare say Pentecost in line 1 means the year 500 BC, but it does. Notice the time period for Darius. You have provided so many new leads, you won't believe it. One thing leads to another, to another, etc. I am having way too much fun with this discovery. The "keys" work and all I have to do is connect the dots and fill in the form (change the biblical names to its meaning). I have the "elements" and know where they are. Now I am just gathering the details and decoding (and a fairly simple Code it is).

It is always open to you if you have any further questions on my material I have discovered. I'm sure there must be some questions after you have read it over. Just ask and I will do my best to answer to the best of my ability, which for general knowledge-wise is only a fraction of what you already have. However, for simple everyday common sense logic, I can give you a run for your money. Remember, I am still looking for an honorary Harvard degree. --Doug Coldwell talk 19:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Acts 2 line 14: But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
{decoded}
But society’s foundation (Darius I, the Great, brother-in-law of Smerdis and grandson of Arsames, ruled 521–486 BC) stepped forth with the eleven apostles (1. Cambyses II, son of Cyrus the Great, ruled 529–522 BC;. 2. Smerdis (Bardiya), alleged son of Cyrus the Great, ruled 522 BC 3. Xerxes I, son of Darius I, ruled 485–465 BC ; 4. Artaxerxes I Longimanus, son of Xerxes I, ruled 465–424 BC ; 5. Xerxes II, son of Artaxerxes I, ruled 424 BC ; 6. Sogdianus, half-brother and rival of Xerxes II, ruled 424–423 BC ; 7. Darius II Nothus, half-brother and rival of Xerxes II, ruled 423–405 BC; 8. Artaxerxes II Mnemon, son of Darius II, ruled 404–359 BC; 9. Artaxerxes III Ochus, son of Artaxerxes II, ruled 358–338 BC; 10. Artaxerxes IV Arses, son of Artaxerxes III, ruled 338–336 BC; 11. Darius III Codomannus, great-grandson of Darius II, 336–330) and lifted up his voice and said to them: You people of the praise of the master of practiced traditions and all you that inhabit visions of peace; be this known to you and with your ears, hear my words.
{coded}
15For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
{decoded}
These are not drunken, as you suppose, for it is yet but third ruler of Achaemenid.
Wikipedia article: He reigned from September 522 to October 486 BC as the third Achaemenian King and called by some arguably "the greatest of the Achaemenid kings".

Remember I said there was ancient Persian history here. AND I looked all through my desk and only found a High school diploma.--Doug Coldwell talk 20:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Acts 2 line 1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
{decoding instructions: No decoding to the comma since it starts with the word "and." Next "they" is changed to "he" and "he" is equal to "it." "It" in this case is the Achaemenid Empire.}
It becomes then: When the time of 500 BC had fully come, the Achaemenid Empire was all with one accord in different places.
Wikipedia article: At the height of its power, the Iranian Achaemenid Empire encompassed approximately between 7.5 and 7.7 million square kilometers. This was the largest land mass of any ancient empire ever under one rule which contained many different countries. See the caption under the map picture with the description for 500 BC. That was an easy one. Others require a little more thinking, however here you can see the general idea and concept of the Petrarch Code and its "keys."--Doug Coldwell talk 22:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, if you didn't notice in line 14 above with the names of the rulers - this just happens to be all the rulers within the Achaemenid Empire. Darius I just happens to be the third ruler. Darius III Codomannus was the last king of the Achaemenid Empire. Please tell me I already knew this knowledge ahead of time and just slipped this in here to make it match up with lines 14 and 15 - in a time period of around 500 BC ("Pentacost") to 300 BC. That would not be the truth, however I will accept an honorary Harvard degree.--Doug Coldwell talk 23:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

KJV: But Peter, standing up with the eleven,...
AND this is the description I said in the Petrarch Code keys" Peter is associated with something big, large, major, senior or superior. AND this is the description of Darius I in the Wikipedia article: ....called by some arguably "the greatest of the Achaemenid kings". See how the dots connect slicker-than-slick. I am having way too much fun with this.--Doug Coldwell talk 23:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

KJV 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
{decoding using the instructions of the Petrarch Code}
They gave forth their lots. The lot fell upon the gift of the ruler. He was numbered with the eleven apostles.

1. Cyrus the Great, founder of the Persian Empire under the Achaemenid dynasty, reigned 559 BC - 530 BC.
2. Cambyses II of Persia, son of Cyrus the Great, ruled 529–522 BC;
2b. Smerdis: Smerdis/Gaumata usuper reigned as a Persian king over the whole Achaemenid Empire for seven months.
3. Darius I, the Great, brother-in-law of Smerdis and grandson of Arsames, ruled 521–486 BC;
4. Xerxes I, son of Darius I, ruled 485–465 BC ;
5. Artaxerxes I Longimanus, son of Xerxes I, ruled 465–424 BC ;
6. Xerxes II, son of Artaxerxes I, ruled 424 BC ;
7. Sogdianus, half-brother and rival of Xerxes II, ruled 424–423 BC ;
8. Darius II Nothus, half-brother and rival of Xerxes II, ruled 423–405 BC;
9. Artaxerxes II Mnemon, son of Darius II, ruled 404–359 BC;
10. Artaxerxes III Ochus, son of Artaxerxes II, ruled 358–338 BC;
11. Artaxerxes IV Arses, son of Artaxerxes III, ruled 338–336 BC;

If you think I previously had this kind of ancient Persian history knowledge and was knowledgable enough to be able to slip this into Acts 1:26 decoded, then I will accept the honorary Harvard degree and go on my merry way. Keep in mind these 28 chapters are going in a chronological timeline. I hope and pray you actually think I can pull this off. Matthias (8 letters) = Smerdies (8 letters). --Doug Coldwell talk 13:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Chapter 1 of Acts of the Apostles (aka: Jerome's Chronicle of Universal History, 28 homilies) decoded turns out to be Cyrus the Great. What's fasinating about this chapter is that Petrarch describes the Cyrus cylinder to a tee. Chapters 3 through 5 are of additional ancient Persian rulers. Chapter 6 is of Alexander the Great, a Greek king. Chapter 7 is of Seleucus I Nicator. Chapter 8 is of Alexander's half brother, Philip III of Macedon and Alexander's son Alexander IV. The rest is history.........I mean, the rest is ancient history.

Noticed, so far, nobody wants to tackle this material. I can understand why. If you cann't tear it shreds, then who can? You are the best Wikipedia has (by far), not to say there aren't many other good Wikipedia scholars - there're just not as smart as you. I believe for someone to pull this off and be able to have enough ancient knowledge of ancient Persian and Greek empires, along with ancient Roman history, to make it come out correctly for 28 biographies of ancient rulers in descending chronological order placed into Acts of the Apostles as not really ancient history connections, but merely "chasing phantoms", it would take more than a Harvard graduate. Have I convinced you yet that Petrarch wrote this, OR have I earned my honorary Harvard degree? I wouldn't dare say I just looked all this information up on Wikipedia (plus the internet through Google) and used a little common sense to figure out the codes, but I did. The complete truth is I went to the local library also to get some information, however my local library is really small and there were few books I could find on ancient history. I wouldn't dare say who started that article with all the pictures, but I did. --Doug Coldwell talk 19:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This discovery I have made is way too much fun. Am I allowed to have this much fun on Wikipedia? You're missing out. There is some really neat ancient history here and to see it unfold before your eyes is incredible. In the process of decoding, just now came across something very similar to the Rosetta Stone, except it was done in 239 BC and called the Canopus Stone. The invite is still there, if you want to help uncover something greater than KV62. Keep in mind, have I told you a falsehood yet? --Doug Coldwell talk 22:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you never have, Doug.--Wetman (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --Doug Coldwell talk 10:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I do believe I just came across something that nobody knows yet. Check this out with the sources you have and see what you discover. We all know Alexander the Great's father is Phillip II. His mother is Olympias. The story goes that there is a good possibility that Ptolemy I Soter is the half brother of Alexander the Great, since sources seem to indicate that Phillip II had him through a concubine named Arsinoe of Macedon. Now here is where it gets very interesting: my sources say Arsinoe and Olympias are sisters. What do your sources say? My prediction - they don't say. IF they do say this, then perhaps we should include this valuable information in Arsinoe of Macedon and Neoptolemus I of Epirus, father of the sisters. --Doug Coldwell talk 17:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
If Arrian is the source, he had Ptolemy's memoirs in front of him as he wrote Publically. Lagos was the father, but Arsinoe had been a concubine of Philip, and was pregnant when she married Lagos, according to John Watson M'Crindle's appendix of personnages in Ariian, The invasion of India by Alexander the Great as described by Arrian... etc (1896). Philip had so many wives, concubines and lovers, and Alexander's court historians operated such a rumor mill, and so much of the original material is lost, replaced by the Romances, well, it's hard to keep track.--Wetman (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Yup, I do believe we are on the same track. Thanks for the follow-up. Yes, it is hard to keep track - however my source (definitely unauthorized) says Arsinoe was the "bitter" sister of Olympias. Now what I surmise from her being "bitter" is that she was the older sister of Olympias and since she was a lover of Philip, she was either promised to be the queen of Macedon OR at least was trying to seduce Philip. Philip was born in 382 BC. Wikipedia doesn't say, however I figure Arsinoe was born in 383 BC - making her 16 when she had Ptolemy. Arsinoe was dumped and passed her off to Lagus when Olympias was 7 years old. I am speculating the reason Arsinoe was "bitter" is because Olympias became the queen and she became only a concubine. Makes for an interesting story and who knows what is right - however this is the way it comes out in my decoding.--Doug Coldwell talk 19:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Finding further on Arsinoe, there is a good possibility that Olympias is the "aunt" of Arsinoe. That would make sense because of the age difference. Meleager is the son of Neoptolemus I of Epirus and according to above genealogy Arsinoe is the daughter of Meleager - bingo! See how much fun this is solving this discovery I have come across. Therefore another part of the Petrarch Code would be that "sister" is "niece" - exactly the style he has been following all along. Now all I need is the children of Meleager and the dots will connect. Then Arsinoe is the bitter niece as she is apparently from Royal blood and what an insult to be just a prostitute. No wonder she was married off quickly to Lagus - to save face. Just a thought....--Doug Coldwell talk 14:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Jerome's Who's Who[edit]

Found another list of Jerome's Who's Who that has not been discovered yet by anyone else. It also can be decoded by using the Petrarch Code. The short biographies listed consists of a dozen dozen minus Desmite. Desmite doesn't really belong there and should be removed from the total list. Wouldn't dare say that the sum of the biographies of the Chronicle of Universal History and Boccaccio's Famous Women (which is known to have been based on Petrarch's work) is the amount of biographies in this work, but it is. --Doug Coldwell talk 22:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mythographus Homericus[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Mythographus Homericus at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Problem: the text is still short. ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Stefano Bardini[edit]

Updated DYK query On September 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stefano Bardini, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 17:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:NFromentBurningBush1476.jpg[edit]

File:NFromentBurningBush1476.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:NFromentBurningBush1476.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:NFromentBurningBush1476.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Étienne Soulange-Bodin[edit]

Updated DYK query On September 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Étienne Soulange-Bodin, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 05:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Toussaint-Samat[edit]

Hello, Wetman. You might want to take a look at my comments on the reliability of Toussaint-Samat under History of coffee. --macrakis (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Poor Robin[edit]

I found myself merging Poor Robin's Almanack, a sub-stub, into Poor Robin that you created. There seems a fair amount to do in checking out the various sources, and tracing the later history. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I wish you could do something similar to Aesop and Aesop's Fables. It is not encyclopedic thinking to have a separate article for an individual whose identity is inseparable from the attributed text, as with Poor Robin's Almanack and Poor Robin ...and Aesop.--Wetman (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

do you know how to delete a category that's just, uh, wrong?[edit]

Wetman, Not sure why I come to you for this, only that I hope you'll also see it as nonsense and know what to do. I don't know the proper way to propose deletion of a category. I wanted to use the deletion template for "nonsense," but evidently my definition of nonsense is too impressionistic. I refer you to Category:Ancient Roman-writing philosophers. What does "Roman-writing" mean? Please don't tell me it means Latin — well, calming down a bit, I guess then the issue would be renaming to the cumbersome "Ancient philosophers who wrote in Latin." If one must. There are some general issues pertaining to category-creation from this editor that I think you may have addressed earlier. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't struggle over Wikipedia Categories, Cynwolfe. The only real use of a category, for the Wikipedia reader, is as an index: the creation of a myriad of the minutest possible indices each with two or three items in them suffices to keep idle minds busy, but shouldn't detain you. Putting a category up for a "vote" by the kind of people who like to vote on things, is an exercise in futility. Categories should be displayed at the bottom of pages, where they may be permitted to run luxuriantly and self-indulgently to seed. --Wetman (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Phooey - CFD is this way - it's not hard as templates go. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Engraved gem[edit]

I have just started this, having cleared out a very weak "Ancient glypic Art" or something. It should be up your street, I think? Any help welcome. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What a minefield! Ten Renaissance or post-Renaissance fakes to every genuine one. Plus the "signatures" added to good ones. Oi! I'll have a look, and add some stuff like Philipp von Stosch's Gemmae antiquae caelatae if it's not yet in. --Wetman (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hapax legomenon[edit]

Hi there. I regard as uncivil your description of my request for citations as "clownish". The examples are assertions which should be verifiable, just like every other assertion made in this encyclopedia. I'm not interested in edit warring, so I'll not re-insert the cn tag without giving you a chance to explain your reason for removing it. Best regards, Timberframe (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I certainly had no idea that the demands had been made by such a very noble and serious Wikipedian. Had I but known I would never have dared suggest that a demand for a citation for the statement "Some examples of hapax legomena in a given language or body of work are: was clownish.--Wetman (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The thing about the written word is that tone of voice doesn't come across. Maybe you could consider enhancing your response with some form of markup such as: <sarcasm>...</sarcasm>.

<Brass tacks>Check the article's recent history: someone tagged each example which someone else objected to and the upshot was to tag the opening line once rather than overtagging the section. The fact remains that the each given example makes an assertion and in line with WP:V they should be verifiable by reference to reliable sources in which they may be found. That's the substance of the recent edits and </Brass tacks><slightly bitchy>it won't go away because you can pick holes in the precice location of the cn tag.</slightly bitchy> <humour but with a serious unlying purpose>Now, if you could furnish some citations, that would be a great step forward.</humour but with a serious unlying purpose> <dashes>--</dashes> <squiggles>Timberframe (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</squiggles>