User talk:Wetman/archive3July2006

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


Peer review requested for Deconstructivism[edit]

Hey there, I was wondering if you would be at all interested in peer reviewing Deconstructivism. We have got it to a stage where some criticism would be beneficial and we'd be very grateful for your input. Many thanks --Mcginnly 11:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I made many small changes in pursuit of stronger verbs, fewer verbalisms, and some "dab" guidance to orient the reader. --Wetman 22:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for all your help on this - it reads much more fluidly now. PS. what is 'dab' guidance?--Mcginnly 00:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Dreadful Wikipedian jargon: "disambiguation", as in added appositives or places or dates in parenthesis; a form of reader guidance. I hope I haven't intruded my own misunderstandings into the article. --Wetman 01:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Athena and Phevos[edit]

The claim that the mascots represent two children instead of ancient gods comes directly from the official mascot page [[1]]("And yet the two siblings are children of modern times").Please read beyond the first sentence this time.The content of the first 20 google hits for Athena and Fevos say pretty much the same.Might I ask where are you getting the "The "dolls" are not "children" "claim from?.--Jsone 23:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Then, why not quote the official website directly, word-for-word, and credit it? Otherwise "children" applied to Athena and Apollo is simply nonsense. --Wetman 23:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the article already makes a clear distinction between what the mascots are (Dolls representing children) and what they are named after (Ancient Gods).If you can propose a clearer way to phrase this, be my guest.I will add a more thorough quote of the official webpage now.--Jsone 23:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

A plain quote without any dishonest spin will be just fine. Your allotted time is up. --Wetman 02:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Superceded Scholarship and "The Key to All Mythology"[edit]

Hi; cacn you help me as to whether there is a category (or description) within Wikipedia that covers theories and speculations that - while no longer debated within the relevant scholarly discipline - nevertheless have a continued (and often very committed) support within popular culture; and especially on the internet?

I am thinking of such theories as

- "The Golden Bough"; all religion is based on the fertility myth of a dying and resurrected god. Articles: The Golden Bough Life-death-rebirth deity and James George Frazer.

- "Wisdom from the Stars"; all achievements of antiquity derive from extraterrestial vistors. Article: Ancient astronaut theory

- "1421"; Western/American achievements derive from a phantom chinese fleet circumnavigating the globe in the fifteenth century. (Or Meso-american achievements derive from Egyptian/Babylonian ditto) Articles: Zheng He, Thor Heyerdahl, Diffusionism. You might make expand the article Gavin Menzies and report more fully on 1421: The Year China Discovered the World and its popular reception.

- "The Jesus Myth"; Christianity is really some Classical mystery religion dressed up (Mithras, Isis/Osiris, Dionysos, take your pick) Suggested article: Christianity as a mystery religion, with a heading Main article... at the "Early Christians" subsection in Mystery religion.

- "The Jesus Conspiracy"; The Christian church (or specifically the Vatican) is engaged in a pervasive subterfuge to cover up christian origins (e.g. in the Dead Sea Scrolls). Article Conspiracy theory might have a Vatican subsection.

You may have others - and may indeed disagree with some on my list

Clearly the proponents of such opinions should not, and cannot be excluded from posting; but it would be useful if one could add a category to the bottom of an article - "Controversialist Views" or some-such - and propose that speculations that are not supported by evidence recognised in the relevant discipline should be posted there. But is that a valid move within the rules of the Wikipedia game? should the Neutral Point of View favour the current arena of scholarly debate on a subject, when many posters really prefer to retread earlier ground? TomHennell 16:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

These delusions are discussed on their individual merits, with their individual histories exemplified in publications... or they should be: History of ideas is also a Category. Look at Priory of Sion, The Da Vinci Code etc etc, and avoid their puerile pitfalls. Such an article needs to be a report not a personal excursus, however. I'm sure you understand that a reader should not be able directly to assess your own personal conclusions (easier said than done!). I've added some of the relevant article topics to your subject headings above. There are already general subjects like Conspiracy theory or Pseudoscience. A Category for Follies is inherently dismissive, don't you agree? Should one really begin discussion by categorizing ideas in terms of Heterodoxy or Heresy? Instead, why not outline how such misconceptions have satisfied contemporary desires and unspoken questions and have provided simplistic answers.
P.S. You may be interested in Sir Thomas Browne, Pseudodoxia Epidemica. --Wetman 17:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
many thanks, but my difficulty is not when such theories are dealt with in specific articles - but when their proponents pursue their specific interests in mainstream articles. I find the category of Pseudoscience helpful - but but that depends on the principal (itself questionable) that natural scientific method is sufficiently well formulated that unscientific thoeries may be dismissed on methodological grounds alone. In the humanities - this is less easy to defend; and in the study of religions, probably not at all. I take your point on explanation of the context of misconceived ideas - but those who continue posting them may well consider my approach inherently dismissive and hence not POV. But thanks anyway, and I'll let you know what come-back actually results. TomHennell 23:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind that "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" must from its very nature mean constant compromise with mediocrity, and keep your sense of humor. I have to remind myself of that each time I log in. --Wetman 06:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Good points; but is there a variety of Gresham's Law in operation: i.e. that where the rules require current and superceded arguments to be accorded equal respect, then the superceded tend to displace the current. Admittedly the dynamic mechanism is not equivalent; bad currency dominates in circulation because users trade the bad and retain the good. Bad (i.e. superceded) arguments tend to dominate (in volume at least) in certain areas of Wikipedia, because the practitioners of good argumentative method respect the POV rules, whereas the practitioners of bad method (at least to my observation) tend not to do so? Not tht its just a Wikipedia problem, my local book-shop has three book-cases of "Mind, Body, Spirit" books, to every one of "Religious Study" TomHennell 14:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Just something![edit]

Oh Wetman, I have just been watching a program on the BBC which will no doubt come to your shores shortly on Holkham Hall: the commentator kept making architectural statements which sounded as though you or I had written them (Well you mostly!) but then the program moved on to the social side and the present gamekeeper was interviewed, the narrator enquired in a home counties accent "Lord Nelson used to shoot here, and you have the game books, was he a good shot?" and the reply in broad Norfolk "......Well before he lost an eye and an arm I expect he were" Giano | talk 19:46, 30 March 2006

Ha! ha! ...and delivered as dry as gin! so there is some common sense in the world, after all! Thank you, Giano! --Wetman 19:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA Results and Thanks[edit]

Wetman/archive3July2006, thank you for your constructive opposition in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. In the meantime, I will do my best to address your concerns in the hope that when the opportunity for adminship arises once again, you will reconsider your position. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path.

--- joturner 05:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Religious symbols.png



I was just changing Sol Bloom from a senator to a congressman when I got blocked by your amazing addition. I'm searching for my copy of his autobiography right now - with only marginal success. Good article. (Anon. from User:Carptrash: please sign your notes, especially when they are amusing and complimentary!)

Whooooops. Well then just think of me as a secret admirer. Carptrash 19:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi! I happened to come across a warning that you left a vandal. Could you please add your sig, or at least a timestamp, to your warnings? That way, people leaving a next warning, will know when the last warning was left without having to look at the history. Also, it's always a good idea to leave {{subst:test2}} instead of {{test2}}, for several reasons, see WP:SUBST. Kind regards, --JoanneB 09:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. I was unaware of {{subst:test2}}--Wetman 09:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


(See Image:Potsdam schloss sanssouci b.jpg:The garden facade. The King ignored his architect's advice to place the piano nobile upon a low ground floor. The result was that the palace failed to maximise its location. Its windows are devoid of a view, and seen from its lower terraces it appears more an orangery than a palace.

Would you do me a huge favour a keep a watching brief (well, edit if you want) on Sanssouci, for some reason the logic of which escapes me I am re-writing it. It is currently on FA (where I have objected - and then felt mean) where it was placed by a very sincere bunch who seem to have made it a group effort to translate and nominate. It will fail this time, but it would be nice to see it pass next. I know little of Fred the Great and less of his palaces. I've thrown out several paras and mistakes I have spotted or disagree with, but you are the "Baroque and Rococo Man", so could you yell if I ignore something seemingly obvious error. Also, I find I keep referring to the baroque traditions etc, when perhaps there is something Rococo I am missing! For you information an amusement is a foto with a blatantly POV caption inserted by me - I think it's true - do you - and more importantly can I get away with it? I've reached so far half way down the "Exterior" section, so don't bother to edit below there! But will probably change a lot I've already done. As ever.........Giano | talk 18:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Excellent edits - thanks. I feel happier knowing you are watching over my shoulder. I inserted the rococo explanation as I there is so many references to Baroque I thought the difference need to be explained. The para is an almost direct paste from Rococo, could you give a better explanation. I think an awful lot need to be removed from the page, but when it's all ib order it will be easier to assess exactly what. Once again thanks. Giano | talk 06:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

History Wiki-troubleshooting[edit]

Hello Wetman. I could use some advice or help in a matter like the one that happened to the Mario Alinei article. On the Slovenian and English page I tried to add some historical mentionings of the Veneti (see Veneti, but people removed me and on the Slovenian site keep on insulting me, etc. I am not a historian, but the one rejecting me is not one either! Whereas it seems it is only his "primat" to write articles on Veneti. What can I do?

Thanks in advance, --R. P. 19:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't identify any of your edits at Mario Alinei, nor see any issues in its Talkpage, beyond a simple-minded initial vote for deletion, doubtless as "non-notable" (Wikipedia's editors are more familiar with comic-books, where anything is "notable"). I couldn't see any problems in the history of the article Venedes—if you mean the Baltic people— either. Perhaps you weren't logged in: old hands tend to think anonymous contributions are more likely to be irresponsible. Do your historical mentions concern a people in Gaul, a people in the Adriatic or a people in the Baltic area? --Wetman 20:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is my contribution. It is a listing of HISTORICAL TESTIMONIALS on all of the VENETI tribes, or peoples.--R. P. 19:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


Homer (9th century B. C.) records in Iliad [1] the Veneti in Paphlagonia as Enetoj (the Greek did not know the letter v).

Herodotus, historian (5th century B. C.), writes about Illyrian Veneti, about Veneti living around the lower stream of the Danube, and finally about Veneti inhabiting the Northern Adriatic territory. [2]

Polibus (2th century B. C.) added to the description of events during the years 219 to 146 B. C., following: "The land to the Adriatic coast was mastered by another, very old folk, named Veneti ... They speak a different language as the Celts, but what their habbits and their clothing is concearned, they differ from them only slightly ... Veneti and Gonomani were persuaded by Roman representatives, to join the Romans". [3]

Demetrius of Scepsis, grammarian, archeologist (2nd century B. C.), mentions the capital of the Veneti (Enea) in Troas (Asia Minor). [4]

Strabo, historian, geographer (1st century B. C.), designates the (V)eneti in Paphlagonia as the major tribe moving towards Thrace (nowadays territory of Bulgaria) after the fall of Troy (Asia Minor). [5]

Julius Caesar, historian (1st century B. C.), reports about the Veneti living in Gaul (Brittany). [6]

Titus Livy, historian (1st century B. C.), describes how Veneti came up to the coasts of the (northern) Adriatic, also mentioning the river "Timava", which flows through the duskiness of the Škocjan caves (Slovene Ti(e)ma means the darkness). [7]

Pliny the Elder (1st century B. C.) talks about an extensive land, named Eningia, where Sarmatians, Venedi, etc. lived. He also mentions the Venetulani in central Italy. [8]

Tacitus, historian (1st century C. E.), places Veneti on the border of Suebia together with Peucinians, Sarmatians and Fenns. [9]

Ptolemy, geographer (2nd century), mentions exceedingly large nations - the (O)venedi on the whole coastal region of the Venetic gulf (The Baltic sea). [10]

Emperor Julian (4th century) presents evidence of Veneti, who settled in the proximity of Aquilea (Italy). [11]

Jordanes, historian (6th century), notes a numerous nation of Veneti, populating the area between north of Dacia (now Romania) and up to the Visla delta (the Baltic sea), who call themselves Slavs and Ants. ( "termini Venetorum qui et Sclavi dicuntur") [12]

In Vita s. Columbani [13] (7th century) (the Alpine) Veneti, who call themselves Slavs, are recorded.

In the Fredegarius Chronicle (7th century) we can read about the Slavs designated as Vinedi. [14]

Adam of Bremen, chronicler (11th century), mentions an extensive land Sclavania, settled by Winulians, who used to be called Vandals. The land could have been ten times bigger then Sachsen, especially if we include Bohemians (Czechs) and Polians, since they are not distinguishable from each other, nor by their appearance, or by their language. [15]

In Denmark (from latest 12th century and until the year 1972) the title "King of the Vends" (Latin Vandals) was used for enthroning Danish kings.

Helmold, historian (12th century), records a vast Slavic country, where the ancient Vandals are now named Wends or Winulians. [16]

Wincenty Kadłubek / Vincent of Cracow, historian (12th century), affirms that Poles used to be called Vandals. [17]

Heimskringla, the Chronicle of Norwegian kings(12th century) mentions, that the Black Sea "divides three parts of the earth, from which is the eastern part called Asia, whereas the western part is by some called Europe, and by others Enea." [18]

Miersuae Chronicon (13th century) equates Vandals with Slavs. [19]

Albert Crantz, historian (15th century), reports about Wandals or Wends, and says that they are Slavs, living as a single nation from Poland to Dalmatia. According to him, the mighty acts in France, Spain and Africa are ascribed to the Wends. [20]

Marcin Bielski (16th century) says that Wandals was once the name for Slavs. [21]

Christophorum Entzelt von Saluelt (16. century) records ancient populousness of the lands east from the Elbe (Laba) river with Wends. At the same time he equates Veneti and Sclavenes. [22]

Sebastian Münster, cartographer (16th century), mentions a once mighty nation on the East sea (Ostsee) named Vandals or Wends. [23]

Antol Vramec, chronicler (16th century), writes in his chronicle for the year 928 the following: The Heneti, who name themselves Sloveni, were at that time knocked down in Germany. [24]

Adam Bohorič, linguist (16th century), links Heneti, Vene(d)ti, Vinds, Vandals and Slavs together as a single nation. [25]

Mavro Orbin (16th century) numbers Veneti, Vends, Vandals, Illyrians, Sarmatians ... among Slavs. [26]

The Chronicle of Brandenburg (16. century) emphasizes the mighty predecessors of Wends, the Vandals, who sacked Rome and Carthage, and mentions their king Genserich as the king of Vandals. [27]

Johann Weichard Baron von Valvasor, historian, geographer (1689), wrote: "Wends and Sclavenes are one folk, Wandals and Wends one and the same nation". (Wenden und Sclaven seynd ein Volk, Wandalen und Wenden einerley Nation.) [28]

V. N. Tatiščev, ethnographer (17th -18th century), classifies the Heneti as Slavs, as well as the Vandalic or Vendenic state as the first known Slavic state. [29]

A. L. Schlözer, historian (18th century), defended his thesis about Slavs originating from Illyrians and the Veneti. [30]

Vasilij Trediakovski (18th century) classifies Dalmatians, Serbians, Bulgarians ... among Vandals. [31]

Davorin Trstenjak (19th century) wrote about the ancient Adriatic Veneti, who belonged to a Vindish-Slavic family. He accented their affinity with the Aremoric (Brittany) and Baltic Veneti. [32]

In Helmolts Weltgeschichte (end of the 19th century) [33] is written, that the Veneti (Beneti), Wends and Winds were actually ancestors of Slovenes, and that they used to settle provinces Vindelitia, Raetia, Noricum, Pannona, Istria, Venetia and Dalmatia during roman period.

[1] Ilijada, 851

[2] Herodotus, History vol. 7 / G B Pellegrini, A L Prosdocimi, La lingua venetica, Padova 1967, V, 9

[3] Polibios, Obča zgodovina, Državna založba Slovenije, Ljubljana 1964, str. 88; str. 92

[4] On the Martialling of the Trojan Forces

[5] Strabon, Geografija

[6] De Bello Gallico

[7] Titus Livius, History of Rome, Loeb Classic Library, William Heinemann, London, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1933 / Titi Livi, Ab Vrbe condita, liber I,

[8] Historia naturalis, Liber IV: 96-97

[9] Cornelius Tacitus, De origine et situ Germaorum liber (Germania), 64

[10] Ptolemej, De Geographia, III 5. 21.

[11] The Works of Emperor Julian, Engl. transl. Wilmer Cave Wright, I. vol., Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann , Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1954, The Heroic Deeds of Constantius, str. 190- 193

[12] Iordanes, De origine actibusce Getarum (Getica), Roma 1986, str 43 (XXIII poglavje); S Rutar, Kako važnost ima "Jordanis" za slovensko zgodovinopisje, Letopis Matice slovenske, Ljubljana 1880, str. 86

[13] J Bobbiensis, Vitae s. Columbani

[14] Fredegar Scholasticus, Historia Francorum, I, 48

[15] Adamus Bremensis, Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum (et Scholast), 11. stoletje, II, 18

[16] Helmoldi presbyteri Bozoviensis, Chronica Sclavorum et Venedorum, 1171, str. 2, 14

[17] W Kadłubek, Mistrza Wincentego Kronika Polska, Warszawa 1974

[18] Heimskringla or The Chronicle of the Kings of Norway, The Ynglinga Saga, or The Story of the Yngling Family from Odin to Halfdan the Black, Snorri Sturluson c. 1179 - 1241, Online Medieval and Classical Library Release #15b,

[19] Miersuae Chronicon, Monumenta Poloniae Historica II, 1872

[20] Albertus Crantzius, Vandalia, lat. Hamburg 1519

[21] M Bielski, Kronika Polska

[22] Entzelt von Salfeld, Chronicon der Alten Mark, Magdeburg 1579

[23] S Münster, Cosmographiae Universalis, Basileae 1572

[24] A Vramec, Kronika, Ljubljana 1578

[25] A Bohorič, Zimske urice / Arcticae horulae, Vitenberg, 1584

[26] M Orbini, Il Regno degli Slavi /Kraljestvo Slovanov, naslov "Historiografska knjiga o izvoru imena Slave in o razširitvi slovanskega naroda in njegovih carjev ter vladarjev z mnogimi imeni in z mnogimi carstvi, kraljestvi in provincami", 1722

[27] Angelus, Chronik der Mark Brandenburg, 1598

[28] J V Valvasor, Slava Vojvodine Kranjske / Die Ehre des Herzogthums Crain, Nürnberg 1689

[29] V N Tatiščev, Slovani in Rusija, str. 21 / Собрание сочинений. Т.1. История Российская. М. 1994, частъ 1. См. также фрагментъі в сборнике "Славяне и Русъ"с. 16-23

[30] Х А Шлецер, О происхождении словен вообще и в особенности словен российских, М. 1810

[31] B Тредиаковский, РИ, I-XVI - Римская история ... сочиненная г. Ролленем ... а с Французского переведенная тщанием и трудами В. Тредиаковского ... Т. I - XVI. СПб., 1761-1767

[32] D Trstenjak, Raziskavanja na polji staroslovanske zgodovine, Letopis matice slovenske, Ljubljana

[33] H F Helmolt, Weltgeschichte, vierter Band, Bibliographisches Institut, Leipzig und Wien 1900 (english: London 1902, ruskij: Petrograd)

I must say, this is very impressive indeed. But what is the text to which these are the footnotes? --Wetman 20:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The text is intentionaly not added, since it is a strong debate, how to interpret these HISTORICAL MENTIONINGS. So I tryed to prepair a text without interpretation, but I have to know, where could this be added. Perhaps I could write a short introductory text, without any position? And should I add a link on the disam. page of the VENETI, "MENTIONINGS OF THE VENETI" or "HISTORICAL TESTIMONIAL OF THE VENETI"? --R. P. 07:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia simply reports the debate. The original context in which these instances of the term "veneti" occur are an intrinsic part of the nugget of information that they transmit: briefly reporting the context—there's your paragraph for each reference right there! To which geographical Veneti each belongs should be apparent from the original context. The uses that historians have made of these references are also encyclopedia material, especially if their names and the book titles can be mentioned. Only one's own personal interpretations are irrelevant: they come under the heading "no original research". --Wetman 15:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

So, you think, I could make a link on the site Veneti, refffering to "A COLLECTION OF HISTORICAL TESTIMONIALS AND MENTIONINGS OF THE VENETI" ?? Would this be wise? Later on, I could add some intro-text. --R. P. 09:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for your note! - PKM 16:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

(Wetman had noted PKM's excellent editing in the field of European fashion)

"clean-up for Michele Sanmichele[edit]

Hello, Wetman. I'm sorry for the confusion. The Michele Sanmichele article was tagged for wikification but it had already been wikified, as I explained, perhaps ineffectively, in the edit summary. I applied a general cleanup tag because I assumed that the person who placed the tag believed the article needed some kind of cleanup, but does not understand that wikify is an inappropriate tag for this article. I suppose that I could have asked at his talk page what he meant, but we've got thousands of articles to wikify per month and a large percentage are inappropriately tagged. The issue of what to do in this situation was brought up on the wikify category talk page and a note in the edit summary or talk page seemed like an appropriate solution. You are welcome to remove the tag or replace it with something more appropriate. Thanks, Kjkolb 04:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's my sense that tags are too easily applied that makes me reluctant to resort to them myself. A sense that applying a tag is a cheap action, in the sense that it requires no energy. I go through even quite thoroughly wikified—even over-wikified—articles to improve the usefulness and relevance of their linking, without resorting to tags. I suppose many of us do the same. --Wetman 05:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Johann Melchior Dinglinger[edit]

I have announced your new article at Portal:Germany/New article announcements and also on the short list on Portal:Germany. If you create more articles about German artists, please add them to our announcement page. Thank you, and happy editing! Kusma (討論) 00:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Feeling energetic?[edit]

I seem to have discovered this late [2] - never been one to let that stop me. Giano | talk 20:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


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

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Peter of Eboli, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. 07:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:The wrath of Achilles.jpg[edit]

Wetman, I am still unable to understand, why should I warn you before deletion of the image. I assume you were not uploader of the image. I warned the original uploader earlier before tagging "no copyright information tag". As per you are providing information about this image, assuming good faith, I am tagging the image with it. Cheers, Shyam (T/C) 08:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No, no. I mean to request, would you warn me when you tag for deletion any image of a pre-20th century painting. I will do the research and get the title, artist and dates information to the image's page and ensure that the copyright information is correct. (The correct copyright is PD-old, but you needn't worry about that!) Try me, and see if this isn't highly effective. Of course, I take it for granted that you don't actually want to delete these images. I have reloaded the image of The Wrath of Achilles by François-Léon Benouville (1821-1859) (Musée Fabre) and replaced it at the article Achilles. --Wetman 18:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the response Wetman, but I am really sorry because it is very difficult to distinguish the paintings-age, whether it is pre-20th century or not. If it is mentioned on the image page itself, then I try to tag it with {{PD-old}}. I have tagged the previous image for speedy deletion. I would suggest you that rather creating another image, try to tag previous image, if it has not been deleted, because of avoiding extra work of deletion of the previous image. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 18:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
If you're incompetent to judge the approximate age of a painting, then if it's any "realistic"-looking painting, just notify me (your message need only be ":Image:Image name") and I'll do the rest. Try me! Of course I would have inserted the tag, but I saw no warning that the image was tagged for deletion at the article site where it was being used, which is on my 3500-article watchlist, and so wasn't alerted in time. --Wetman 18:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


Could you have a look at the above page which someone asked me to write. My problem is I'm not too sure what is understood by Neo-Renaissance in other parts of the world - especially yours! I've never used the term at all. I have lost my way a little with "Second Empire" in the page - would you say that was a sub species of Neo-Renaisance, or just some form of corrupt Baroque that cropped up in the middle. To be honest, I've always thought of that period as a complete hash of semi-classical styles of no great merit, and never bothered to pay it great attention - perhaps I should have kept it that way! Thanks for the words about Caserta, I can't be bothered to argue further with the man, I've never called it anything other than "Caserta". As ever Giano | talk 18:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"A complete hash of semi-classical styles" covers it pretty well. In my circle "Sinquesento" (with a knowing look), used to denote this "Victorian Mannerism". Today each garage band declares its own "-rock" style designation. Does "Neo-Renaissance" cover a sublime design like McKim, Mead, and White's Boston Public Library? Or does it merely echo Italianate? --Wetman 19:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I had begun to think I had lost the plot completely. I had never before seen Boston Public Library, perhaps that should be in the article - it does indeed seem to be Neo-Renaissance. While it is accomplished, I'm afraid I don't share your view it is sublime though, like all 19th century buildings in that style, something still smacks wrong. I recently was taken over a 21st century house that was built externally to the almost exact proportion of a 16th century Villa of the Veneto, inspite of perfect stone - it still smacked wrong - like the Boston Library there is something in the proximity of the floors and windows, and height itself, that to my eye never seems quite correct - which is fortunte for the tourist industry of my country! - Thanks for the help there .

Get involved in social nudity naming convention debates![edit]

Hi, I'd like to invite you to get involved in establishing consensus in discussions concerning naming conventions for social nudity topics.

Please join in this community discussion regarding the name of Portal:Clothes free.

Participate here: Portal_talk:Clothes_free#Votes

Please also join in the discussion about what to name an article dealing with social nudity. I believe the the latter term is a better term to use than naturism or nudism as it is more WP:NPOV and is in use currently. Formerly the article was titled Clothes free movement.

Participate here: Talk:Naturism#Move_to_Social_nudity


User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 20:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

As long as Nudism redirects the Wikipedia reader to the appropriate article, under whatever title, all will be well. --Wetman 20:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Australian Banks[edit]

It must be the ANZ bank described as Venetian Gothic here [3] which explains why I thought here [4] it was not very Venetian. I'm struggling rather with this page, hopefully will come back to it sometime! Thanks for the message - Social nudity? Be careful one can be arrested for that where I come from! Giano | talk 09:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Human sacrifice in article Ancient Rome[edit]

Umm, would you mind taking a peek at the garbage being added by a persistent anonymous there? I risk running afoul of the 3‑revert rule, so am casting about for help, once I stupidly allowed my goat to be got by it. Leaving aside the issue of the level of importance to be attached to the question in the ancient Rome entry (at best, a footnote under the Religion section), the guy reverts even to his typos and falsehoods. . . . I did a partial cleanup, which I put in the narrower article Religion in ancient Rome. More cleanup is needed, but jeepers, my time is better spent churning out continuing chunks of Lacus than fighting the stubbornness of some anonymous person who is none too weel informed. I'd clean up further, but won't do so if this is the reception that gets. This is a crystal-clear example of why Wikipedia articles almost never attain excellence, rather oscillate around a level of popular mediocirty and half-truths. .nbsp;.nbsp;.

No need by the way to navigate to my own Talk page to reply, I've set yours on Watch. Best, Bill 00:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I've set Ancient Rome on watch. I'm always glad to help you, Bill. --Wetman 01:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for help[edit]

Dear Wetman, User:Kmorozov started today the article about Fyodor Petrovich Tolstoy. I added several details and wanted to nominate it for DYK, but upon rereading I see that the article's English leaves much to be desired. Would you be so kind as to have a look? Thanks for your time, Ghirla -трёп- 13:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, I've given the article some tweaks for idiomatic flow, but I wasn't sure whether the ballet's subject was "The Aeolian Harp", or "the Harp of Aeolus". There's a better word than "laconical" for art that is achieved with minimal apparent effort, with a sense of "efficient", but I can't find it in my brain. --Wetman 14:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Terseness? --Ghirla -трёп- 15:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Edit conflict! I'd just made it "a spare and economical classicism" which is what I was looking for. "Terse" would usually apply to words. Please do check that I haven't intruded unintended meanings into the article. --Wetman 15:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh thanks. You've done a really great job! I put the article on WP:DYK now. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Snake Island (Black Sea)[edit]

You mentioned in the introduction to the article that (1) the island is administrated by Ukraine, and (2) Romania is questioning Snake (Serpent) island status in the International Court of Justice. You wanted it to write it as NPOV, but I think in order to get it to NPOV, both points need additional clarification. This is what I think my edition is providing (As I failed to clarify it in the edit summary, please consider the explanation below).

First of all, Romanian request to the court is available at the court website (in English, 80 pages, pdf). It's a big file, but please take a look, if you are interested in the question. It does include texts of related treaties.[5].

Next, speaking on the status of the island, it's not only administrated by Ukraine, but it's actually a part of Ukraine. This status follows from standing Romania-Ukraine treaties on the border. It's true that the island is administrated by Ukraine, but it naturally follows from the island being a part of Ukraine, and the latter is the more important to be mentioned. It seems for me that using the word "administrated by", instead of "is a part of" undermines the authority of Ukraine. (It's like saying that Alaska is administered by the U.S. The truth is, as of now, Alaska is a part of the U.S., like any other state).

Finally, official Romania has only asked the court for Maritime Delimitation, not questioning the belongings of the island. While it's true that some parties in Romania do question the belongings of Snake island, it should not be mixed with the official view of Romania. 19:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That was my error, trying to clarify the existing statement in the article. --Wetman 20:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Probably, the last subsection of the article (Maritime Delimitation) requires wikification. Somebody elaborated on possible decisions by ICJ but for me it seems to be too subjective. Anyway, thanks for your interest in the article. 21:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Amalienborg Palace[edit]

I would like to ask your advice about the style of this palace. The lead says that the residence consists of "four rococo palaces", yet I can see nothing Rococo in the pictures and we actually learn further in the text that at least one of the palaces "was erected in 1804". Please help sort it out. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Your hunch is right: the four main facades are no more Rococo than the Petit Trianon. Rococo is essentially an interior style, of boiseries and decorative objects. German art historians talk in terms of "Late Baroque", which is more usefully descriptive, I think. "Period" talk, as in the "Rococo period" is also awkward when discussing the rococo interiors of the Moltkes Palae, installed at the height of the French Empire. One of my professors once remarked that style is rarely in complete control of any object. "Classicizing' is a useful way to avoid distracting discussions of whether a facade is Late Baroque or Early Neoclassical: Would "four identical classicizing palace facades with rococo interiors" do?--Wetman 18:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I will make necessary changes. By the way, the author explained on Talk:Amalienborg Palace that "1804" date resulted from an old vandalism which passed unnoticed up to this day. In truth, the Moltkes Palace dates back to the 1750s. This explains my puzzlement. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

A humble request[edit]

Hi, for a while I've been collecting myths about the origins of language, finally I decided that I should make an article out of them, Mythical origins of language. Unfortunately I've been crippled by a complete inability to write good prose. My parents blame Fighting Fantasy books as a child, but I don't know... Anyway, I was hoping if you had a spare moment — as you seem to be interested in mythology — you could look over it. My writing is horrible, but the subject is interesting and I hope it piques your imagination. Thanks, and keep up the good work - FrancisTyers 21:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You bet the subject is interesting! Your writing isn't horrible. I'd be glad to go picking at it, to improve its clarity and emphasis. (Then you can adjust my tweaks!) But first, go through it and separate out all the Deluge (mythology) material. Where a Universal Deluge is directly made to explain the diversity of languages, it rates a brief paragraph keeping to that theme. In the on-line Dictionary of the History of Ideas, see if you get fruitful suggestions by searching "Language." I'll check back to see how this interesting article is coming along. --23:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, when you say separate out, do you mean separate out the deluge material into a section of the article, or into the Deluge (mythology) article? — I had the idea of perhaps sectioning the article into some of the larger recurring themes — deluge, dispersal, punishment, etc. — but then I realised that most of the myths overlap these in some way, and by that time, someone had already come along and split it up into geographical areas. I'll check out the History of Ideas, thanks :) - FrancisTyers 23:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't discard any of your material. If any myth connects the origin of language with the Universal Deluge, that connection deserves a paragraph and links. Otherwise, edit your Deluge material into Deluge (mythology) if it's not already there. Keep clearly to your subject. BtW, the Greeks attributed writing to Cadmus, but I can't think of any Hellenic myth concerning the origin of language itself. --23:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've made a short addition to the Americas section, putting the two myths that mention it explicitly in context. I've also added the (wonderful) Doré woodcut. From [6], i got "In Ancient Greece there was a myth that for ages men had lived without law under the rule of Zeus and speaking one language. The god Hermes brought diversity in speech and along with it separation into nations and discord ensued. Zeus then resigned his position, yielding it to the first king of men, Phoroneus.", although I'm not sure quite how accurate or reliable the site is. - FrancisTyers 00:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! I'd never noted the myth element in the story of Phoroneus, which I've now tweaked, to link back to Mythical origins of language.--Wetman 04:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


hi Wetman, you once voiced your opinion about the disambiguation of the page Bolzano, I wonder if you could share some input? thanks alot... Gryffindor 22:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Second Empire[edit]

Do you think the above need to be re-written and merged with the ever growing Neo-Renaissance of just ignored? As it is it seems to have a very strong USA bias, allthough my Neo-renaissance was coming to that chateau that once housed the Vanderbilts on 5th avenue (I don't suppose you know of an image?) I see my Russian friend Ghirlandajo is above with the Amalienbourg - he shoud take a look at the exterior of England's greatest rococo house Claydon.

The more research I do for Neo-Renaissance the more diversity and co-incidence, I seem to find - have I immagined the similarity between Opera Garnier and St Peter's? Can you see it, or am I finally succumbing to madness? Giano | talk 11:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've ignored Second Empire— a not-useful style category that is applied to some commercial building and speculative housing in the US, c 1870-90. The lower illustration of the article, after all, is of a Queen Anne-Colonial Revival house with a wraparound veranda and a corner tower. As for Neo-Renaissance, I feel you're stretching the style category, which was designated "Free Renaissance' in some texts of the period, to be including Palais Garnier at all. But the article Neo-baroque does seem lame from the start. --18:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I've heeded your advice: all traces of the opera are removed. I shall have to give the page an overhaul and rethink tomorrow. I think our respective countrey's seem to understand different things by Second Empire. To me it's the Hauseman Boulevards in Paris, and very little else - are those big "Transylvania meets Mansard, House of Horror" mansions really called Second Empire too? Funny isn't it? and "Queen Anne" here refers to just that, which can cause confusion too. Funny old world! Regards Giano | talk 22:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I think your point is worth making in the Second Empire article. Charles Eastlake's Hints on Household Taste was hugely influential in East Coast US style: American Eastlake style redirects to Queen Anne style however. Note Eastlake Movement. Was he more influential than in Britain? I think so. For a great (lost) example of American commercial "Second Empire": see Grand Central Hotel. Another aspect of French style under Napoleon III that scarcely appeared in the US: Néo-Grec. --Wetman 22:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


when giving a warning, don't forget to sign it with four tildes. Also, try to subst it (once you do the two brackets, type subst: before the template name.) SWATJester Flag of Iceland.svg Ready Aim Fire! 03:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Cupid and Psyche[edit]

Done! :) --Vegalabs 03:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


Re: Silphium. The link I deleted was redundant because a link to that article also appears in the references section. I have deleted the second link, again.--Srleffler 05:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know[edit]


if you saw my cry for help regarding Daniel Chester French or not, but thanks for reverting it, something I'm not good at. Carptrash 21:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I missed your cry for help, but do I have Daniel Chester French on my watchlist! --Wetman 22:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
So do I and when I got there I sort of freaked out and posted something, somewhere, and then like an Angel you appeared. Life is good. Carptrash 23:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC) - PS not quite the link I had in mind for freaked out, but . . . oh well, tackle that another day. Carptrash 23:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Historicity of the Iliad[edit]

thank you (although I see it has evolved somewhat since I touched it) -- sadly, it cannot be more than a pale shadow of the actual history of the debate so far; I have been meaning to add depth for some time now, but I never got round to doing it. regards, dab () 21:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


The justification was not "unnecessary imagined" as it is important context for understanding the practice. If you insist, that it is unneccesary, then the statement "he did put inclusive politics before any religious sentiment" has to be removed also. Since his being baptised only shortly before death does not prove that. -- Aethralis 06:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Commonplace 4th-c. practice needs no belaboring. --Wetman 06:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Still the statement "inclusive politics before any religious sentiment" is belaboring on something, that the reader may be unsure of. In my opinion - is the remark about Constantines religiousity unnecessary, or if it sounds useful, the context must be provided also. -- Aethralis 07:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The subject remains labarum. You may want to look at the article Constantine I And Christianity. --07:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. As the sentence "In fact, Constantine was only baptized...etc" is unrelevant to the labarum, I suggest removing it.-- Aethralis 11:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your edits to Epona, in particular the Spanish reference. There are several other Epona finds in Spain - did you draw attention to that particular one because of the variant spelling? I also see you asserted that most Celtic deities were specific to a particular place - what sort of geographical extent are you thinking of there? A single temple, a city, a province... withot knowing exactly what you mean there I am not sure whether I agree or not. --Nantonos 11:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The Simón reference that I added to the article was my source: it's a good essay. I'll link it better, because it's on-line. Do please add a reference to other finds in Iberia: the former text stated there were none, as I remember. By specifically localized, such as Sulis at Bath, I meant local to a spring or pool or some other very particular location like a peak or glen, or to a tribal group—which might then become widely dispersed through legionary service. A comparison to a Greek nymph is just. By the time we reach the cultural level of inscriptions, the local deity has been linked by interpretatio to a Roman one: look at the source for my additions at Chedworth Roman villa. --Wetman 20:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
On Iberia, you remember incorrectly; I checked both the current page and the history, and it does not say that there were no finds in Iberia. Perhaps you misread the nearby list of recruiting grounds for the equites singulares augusti? As to adding a reference to other finds - there are over 340 finds across Europe, adding them all would be unweildy. There is already an external link to a site with a distribution map. --Nantonos 17:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
For localized deities, do I understand you to be saying that Celtic deities only spread beyond an extremely localized point by interpretatio? This is clearly not correct,see Sirona or Borvo (the latter article is poor, not yet upgraded, but see the distribution maps in Jufer, N. and T. Luginbühl (2001) Répertoire des dieux gaulois. Paris, Editions Errance. ISBN 2-87772-200-7 for further examples. For Epona, although sometimes having epithets like Augusta or Regina, she was never linked with a Roman deity. --Nantonos 17:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Santa Maria della Pace and Tempietto[edit]

Hi! Thanks for your copyedit of my recent article of Santa Maria della Pace. However, you made a mistake as the Bramante's Tempietto is located in the cloister of San Pietro in Montorio. Ciao! Attilios 07:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh good grief! And I was sitting with the page open before me for twenty minutes or so. Thank you for fixing that gaffe! You may know whether the original church was central-plan— the octagonal space— and whether Maderno extended the nave, as he was asked to do at St Peter's. Are Giuseppe Vasi's prints engravings, or are they etchings rather? --Wetman 07:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
they should be engravings. I wanted now to raise a thing that interests me. You reverted, in Condottieri, my singular condottiero to condottiere. Well, this is an Italian word, and in my language the correct word is condottiero, condottiere not existing at all. I know that, for unknown reasons, the latter has spreaded into English language, but it seems very stupid to me. Let me know your opinion (also about the things NPOV-prayers, which I have personally raised). Ciaooo!! Attilios

Roman Empire/reorganization[edit]

Hi Wetman, just wanted to thank you for the energy you put into Roman Empire/reorganization. I have all but abandoned the project some time ago, as I don't see it getting much better than the old article. Editors who arrive at the page just write and write without paying attention to what others did before them, and without a masterplan, creating a lot of bad prose. Never mind, it was a nice project for as long as it lasted.--Hippalus 08:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It is still urgently needed. The concepts of "nesting" articles and of a "trunk article" are hard to grasp, apparently. Oh well, plenty to do. --Wetman 08:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Saints Wikiproject[edit]

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints. You can sign up on the page and add the following userbox to your user page.

Gloriole.svg This user is a member of the Saints WikiProject.

I also invite you to join the discussion on prayers and infoboxes here: Prayers_are_NPOV.

Thanks! --evrik 18:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

(A discussion about prayers in infoboxes, O Curious Reader! In general, infoboxes are for the para-literate, who struggle with text. They're bloated enough without prayers in them. --Wetman 20:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC))


Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Capitoline Wolf, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. 07:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

We need some law and order[edit]

I'm wondering what your views are here [7] Giano | talk 13:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The conversation has moved here User:Giano/19th century architectural rethink forum without wishing to sound obsequious, I think you are possibly the one person on Wikipedia who has the knowledge to pass a sound opinion on this. Giano | talk 19:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikimania discussions[edit]

Dear Wetman,

I hope you are considering coming to Wikimania 2006 this summer in Cambridge. I would very much like to meet you, and you have some well-considered opinions on all manner of Wikipedia topics. Would you be interested in organizing some discussions or BOFs at or around the conference? If you are thinking of coming, would you be interested in moderating a workshop or panel?

Cheers, +sj + 21:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Goodness! your confidence in me is ill-placed, I'm sure of it: I'm perfectly illiterate as far as anything technical is concerned. I didn't know of Wikimania . Thank you for considering me. --Wetman 15:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Good copyedit on Codex[edit]

Thanks for your copyedit on the Codex article. You were not only able to create a(n even) better article flow, but added additional tidbits that made the article sparkle. Effusively yours, Madman 18:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you showed the way to go. --Wetman 19:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Moorish Revival[edit]

Dear Wetman, I deredlinked this entry in Template:Revivals, but have too little information to proceed any further. If you have something to add on this obscure subject, please help me. Thanks, Ghirla -трёп- 16:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added references to Olana, Sheringham, Tiffany, Carlo Bugatti. There are more, if I could think of them. The adoption of pseudo-Moorish mumbo-jumbo by jovial but declassé fraternal groups like the "Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine" and the "Mysterious Order of the Veiled Prophet of the Enchanted Realm" together with "Little Egypt" hootchy-kootchy dances on the Midway of the World's Columbian Exposition, 1893, swiftly eliminated Moorish motifs from fashionable vocabulary after c. 1895, but merely to mention such things at Wikipedia is like a firecracker in a henhouse... panicky chicken noises--17:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Gosh! I've just read those links - Have you? I thought they just had a few drinks, swopped dirty jokes, chucked a few euros at the poor, and made useful contacts - all very complicated. I wonder why the middle classes like to make life so difficult for themselves. Giano | talk 18:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
A vague disquiet that they might not be distinguished disturbs the waking dreams of the middle class, I fear, Giano. They'll do anything to be special. I've had to rescue Social Register from well-intentioned history correctors who were blithely informing the reader that Jews and African Americans were included from the start (only Felix Warburg was in the 1950s NY volume, I recall) and claimed the American Social Register was the direct heir to Almanach de Gotha. Oi! --Wetman 19:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that is interesting, I had no idea Jews were not allowed in. Good job we were a little more tolerant here or half the aristocracy would have failed completely, and been forced to join the "Mysterious Order of the Veiled Prophet of the Enchanted Realm" in order to meet useful contacts to make their own way in the world. Now I know which option I would have preferred; but then I don't like things "daintily served" Giano | talk 20:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the present suppliers of the Social Register would rather forget that part. The thing was, if anyone was such a fool and a snob to look you up—he ought to find you! Meanwhile, no one else would be any the wiser. It feels like a hundred years ago... --Wetman 20:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Moorish Revival, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. 14:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Accademia Gallery[edit]

Please see my comment at Talk:Accademia dell' Arte del Disegno. Thanks, DLandTALK 18:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestive alleys[edit]

Just so you know where they came from: Italian suggestivo = "picturesque"; Italian vicolo means both "hamlet" and "narrow street". Bill 10:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Lubyanka (KGB)[edit]

[8] You are the expert so you get to decide what is the Lubianka? Check the diff. This is the first time in history and American citizen has been asked to ponder this question. Giano | talk 18:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The truth is that I never gave a second thought to this intimidating building, which routinely figures in all Russian references as Neo-Renaissance. The building has a tortuous history; it was erected in the last years of the 19th century; then built up for the NKVD bosses in the 1940s, but reconstruction was suspended half-way at the time of WWII and was not resumed until 1983. I inserted your wonderful appraisal of Lubyanka's architectural derivation into the article although it still needs much work. Thanks again, Ghirla -трёп- 22:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wetman, Played with the Gospel of Mark User:Kazuba 11 May 2006

Union Theological Seminary[edit]

Hi Wetman, I would like to know if my photo featured in the Union Theological Seminary page is solely belong to UTS and not part of the Riverside Church buidling clusters? Geographer 23:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi! No, if it's released, it can be used at any article—and even be picked up by non-Wikipedia sites. --02:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


As you have probably seen, the organization of all the Victorian styles is well underway, one problem what would you say was the correct definition of such house as Chartwell, there are dozens like it. "Gothic revival" is wrong, "Tudorbethan" is too twee, and "Tudor domestic revival" which is the name that tempts me would probably be peculer to Wikipedoa, and is anyhow too long winded - any suggestions? Regards Giano | talk 08:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

See how I slipped "Tudorbethan" in sideways! I thought early Lutyens was a useful style analogy: The Deanery for E. Hudson, and Munstead Wood. Richard Norman Shaw lurking in the background. "Latitudinarianism". Don't get trapped by the Victorians' own label-mania. --Wetman 09:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't follow you, most of those buildings pertain more to the Arts and Crafts movement, I have a very tidy mind! There has to be a better descriptive name for buildings such as Chartwell that are neither strictly Jacobethan, Tudorbethan, of Gothic Revival. Lutyens was all chimneys and roofs - and as for that Jeckyll woman, with all those untidy flower boarders give me lawns, gravel and fountains anytime, all that colour is vulgar. Giano | talk 18:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Morton Smith[edit]

You may find it of interest that I corresponded with Morton Smith. His handwriting was terrible. I was the only conjuror who ever contacted him. So much for the interest of conjurors in Jesus the Magician. I riled him on history sometimes. I found him a bit short tempered but aways responsive. I quizzed him with classical questions about history and went over his head. He did not recognize them. Perhaps he was just unfamiliar with histography. After I explained them he calmed down. I found his theory that Jesus was thought of by some as a magician, a wonder worker, not necessarily a sorcerer, supported, but could see nothing closer than the 2nd or 3rd centuries to the "historical" person. The Secret Gospel of Mark looked like it was just another Gnostic gospel, of which there were many. (Probably more to come). The charge that Smith forged his discovery and then left clues that he did so, does not make much sense and is a a bit out there. Why should a forger expose himself? I have never come across a charlatan who did such a thing, except in fiction, and I have studied charlatans for many years. (To show he was smarter than others? I don't think so, especially from Smith. I'm not so sure he had that much creative imagination). Lastly, I think Smith took his discovery (The letter) out of proportion. That one would discover a one piece of evidence that solved the historical Jesus problem, very, very, unlikely. His interpretation of the Secret of Gospel of Mark looked very selective. I kept these things to myself. User:Kazuba 13 May 2006

Nor shall I trumpet about my own ambivalent feelings about Smith's posthumous accuser, whom I have found to be intellectually more eelish than frank. It is most interesting that you corresponded with Smith—and found his handwriting less than perfectly controlled, eh! You'd expect an accomplished forger to have highly controlled handwriting, wouldn't you? I doubt, though, that Morton Smith was truly unfamiliar with historiography: you'd have to agree that your own approach, C, is idiosyncratic. I have just finished a first reading of the "Gospel of Judas": more firecrackers in the henhouse... --Wetman 19:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
It would take me an hour to read just a small letter (document).

I would try to figure out one word at a time. Isn't everyman his own historian? I would expect to be understood. When it is a classic historiography statement. Smith missed it. Indubitably my methods are very peculiar. It is who I am, a conjuror who gets into some interesting puzzles as an exercise of thought and fun. Just reread some of Ramsay Macmullen's "Enemies of the Roman Order". Talk about magicians and book burning...back to fiction and magic routines.User:Kazuba 13 May 2006

Changes to Nazirite[edit]

I have added a new section to the article Nazirite and I would appreciate your input on those changes. Jon513 18:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

A very good explication of Nazirite vows, well referenced. Aside from some tightening needed in the style, I have nothing material to add, though I miss a sense of development: having a historical context (and everything that people do does have one) does not reduce any subject to a "historical curiosity". If there was no difference in the meaning of Nazirite between the seventh century BCE and the destruction of the Second Temple, that is a very interesting continuity. Likewise, if the essence of Nazirite vows have not changed since Antiquity, that too is notable. --Wetman 21:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it would be nice to know what historical development, if any, these types of ideas had over time. But the sad truth is we can't say one way or another. It is possible that there were no changes at all to these laws for the past 3000 years, or they have had significant changes in the first 1000 years. Certainly the talmud viewed their own teachings as historical, and the later sources would also claim that their views were also practices in ancient times. So if there were any changes it is impossible to ascertain from these source and there are few if any external source (Josephus says very little, and doesn't contradict anything). Adding such a perspective without any sources just because there must have been some development is not really appealing. Likewise saying that it is interesting that there have been no changes is also not appealing as the only source for that is the talmud itself. I purposely left it as it is so the reader could decide for themselves how much to believe the talmud. If there are any historians who have a theory on how this idea changed that would be interesting. Jon513 21:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
If the development of Nazirism in history hasn't been inspected, that's interesting in itself. --Wetman 22:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Église de la Madeleine[edit]

I've been working through the copyright violation backlog and after reading the discussion on the talk page and the evidence provided, have removed the copyright tag and restored the content. However, you noted the creation of Église de la Madeleine/Temp. I wasn't sure what you wanted done with this content, so I thought I'd ask you here. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 04:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for inquiring: it is partially rewritten and expanded and it'd be a shame to lose my effort. It would be great if it could substitute for Église de la Madeleine: then Page History would show just what changes (improvements I hope) I made to the temporary version while the other hung in limbo. This is beyond my tech capabilities: I can barely handle the tv remote... --Wetman 04:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
It's possible that you could request an admin to do a history merge, but as there was only one edit that I could see on its history page, copying and pasting (which, I see, is what you've done), should reflect all your changes. If there were more edits, you could ask an administrator to delete the original page, move the temporary page there, then undelete all the edits. :-) Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Biblioteca Marciana, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. 07:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Good grief, what has happened to the Longinus article? --Quadalpha 03:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Which Longinus? --Wetman 03:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC) you left a link to a decent version of the page. --Quadalpha 19:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Some sensible material was lost in this transition. Should one trouble to slip any of the deleted material back into the article? --Wetman 02:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Rv of "Idylls of the King" Clean up[edit]

Hi. Just wondering why you reverted my clean up of that page. The discription in the edit box simply said "Alfred, Lord Tennyson is right" but instead of just re-instating the "correct name", you reverted my edits. I don't know if it was a mistake; if it was please rv back to the cleaned up version because that page was in terrible need of one! Stoa 03:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad you saw the humor[edit]

Hi Wetman. I was cleaning out one of my bookcases and accidentally came across this. I immediately remembered why I saved it for better days. There is a photo of a labor crew and their taskmasters on the matching page. Wasn't Cyprus Gordon a trip? I just could not let his scholarship, "unsoiled" hands, and whips go unmentioned. These are the methods of the Christ-like deans of Biblical archaeology? Whatever... I thought you might get a kick out of it. Looks like you did. User:Kazuba 21 May 2006

Castle x Château[edit]

Dear Wetman, I would welcome your comments on Talk:Kroměříž Castle. We have to decide whether there are any châteaux in Central Europe :) --Ghirla -трёп- 10:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I followed your advice and moved the article to Kroměříž Bishop's Palace. When you have time, could you take a look at the pitiful stubs about bucranium and ferme ornée? I spotted these when writing about Wieskirche and Dessau-Wörlitz Garden Realm, respectively. I tried to fix them as well as I could, but I'm not competent to assess the content or to expand it. Cheers, Ghirla -трёп- 15:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Your edits were most proficient and helpful. By the way, don't you think that English garden and landscape garden should be merged? --Ghirla -трёп- 17:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Go for it Ghirla - there is an FA waiting there, and poor old Humphrey Repton hasn't even had a mention. (Sorry to but in Wetman) Giano | talk 18:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Saluti, Giano! Fold them together under English landscape garden, at present a redirect, with a post-script on the Continental Englischer garten, which takes all the features of the landscape park and packs them into a small "pleasure grounds" with many a waggling serpentine walk. I'm thinking of Alexander Pope, Charles Bridgman, Stephen Switzer, William Kent, Ha-ha (garden), Horace Walpole's Essay, Painshill, Claremont Landscape Garden, Prior Park Landscape Garden, Stowe, Stourhead, Capability Brown, Studley Royal Water Garden and Fountains Abbey, Humphry Repton, Desert de Retz, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Ermenonville, Villa Borghese, Villa Torlonia, Rome, Andrew Jackson Downing, Green-Wood Cemetery, Central Park Claude Lorraine, Folly, Picturesque, Richard Payne Knight --Wetman 20:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
...and of course the greatest stroke of genius - the flooding of Vanbrugh's grand bridge at Blenheim Giano | talk 21:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Excellent! and the creation and re-creation of Virginia Water?--Wetman 05:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Claude François Chauveau-Lagarde, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. 15:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Politicians, sex and architecture[edit]

This house Dorneywood is very much in the English newspapers at the moment, (politicians, sex and scandal, the usual) but more interestingly pictured here [9] and built in 1920, is it in what I (and that most definitive and reliable of sources the British Press) call "Queen Anne"? - what would you call it? Oh and while I'm here is there really an American architectural style called "Tuscan Villa"?....... Regards Giano | talk 18:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

But Giano, Dorneywood really is authentic ersatz "Queen Anne": an H-plan gentry house in the vernacular classicism that was introduced by John Webb and perfected in the circle of Sir Christopher Wren. A proper reproduction of a Late Stuart house: imitation Grinling Gibbons carved fruit over the Parlour chimney breast? Convex pulvino friezes in the architrave of important doorcases? Boiseries of large fielded panels over low dado panelling, all left in the natural cedar? Not Norman Shaw's "free Renaissance" Queen Anne Style. Not picturesque. Not hectic-eclectic. No "living hall" with the stairs running up one side. Not "Queen Anne Style".
As for those wide-eaved American Tuscan villas with corner towers that Alexander Jackson Davis popularized, c. 1840-60? Call them Italianate too: "Picturesque Italianate" for Republican gentlemen, rather than Charles Barry's "Palazzo Italianate" at Cliveden or Harewood House! What do you think? --Wetman 19:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but how does the Disneyland "whateveritis" Image:Z-5371.jpg on the Queen Anne page qualify as Queen Anne anything? I wish I could find a proper book on "American Queen Anne" - I'm just not getting it! Giano | talk 22:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Walt Disney's design team reinterprets c. 1955 at three-fifths scale an already generic impression of a "Second Empire" commercial structure without a single feature of the "Queen Anne Style" ...of course you're confused. Not as confused as the contributor of this image must be. --Wetman 22:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you said Second Empire. Why can't your side of the Altantic just name styles after the reigning President/monarch like every one else, then if we heard of the "Clintonesque" bungalow we would all know exactly what was meant? Giano | talk 08:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Age of the Great Sphinx and the Giza Necropolis.[edit]

It has to pre-date the cretaceous period and the original physical collision with the planet Mars as it is this collision which produced all the damage.

The Saqqara 'bird' is a *cross* between a Bird And Fish (BAF|FAB). Like a flying fish. (Ptah the fisherman/ fish-er-man?)

If the wings are painted with the feathers of Isis or the Winged Sun you'll see the whole picture.

Splitting Isis in two...

Is ... it ... a bird?

Is ... it ... a fish?

They understood everything there was to understand in these times.

I would quote Cèline Dion's song 'Vole' but might be ridiculed by academics.

Ian Chattan 08:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

tears of is it enlightened joy streak the Wetman's cheeks...

Most appropriate.

Ian Chattan 15:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Opera vs. Rock Opera[edit]

See the opera talk page. I agree with you. Rock opera is a legitimate form of opera. --Ssilvers 15:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi Wetman. I wanted to hear your advice on this; I noted that there was no specific article on the Greek underworld so I started translating fr:Enfers Grecs, when I noted that Hades did not only cover the God, but also had a section on the underworld. So know, what do you think should be better? Separating the underworld section of Hades and merging it with Greek Underworld, following the French wikipedia example, or make Greek Underworld a redirect of Hades? Thanks for any advice you can give me.--Aldux 20:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Since in English Hades does refer to both, why not continue with your editing of Greek underworld (why the capital?), inserting a Main article: Greek underworld heading to the subsection at Hades that covers the locale. Hades should remain complete, but Greek underworld should offer much fuller detail. How's that? --Wetman 04:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Seems a good idea, even if I'm not certain I have right now the time implied by such an expansion. Thanks!--Aldux 20:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Threat or treat?[edit]

It is definitely a TREAT to have you watch the article (Les Neuf Soeurs). Thank you. (Lunarian)

Just One Of Those Things...[edit]

Thanks for directing me toLucian of Samosata.If Cyrano de Bergerac was aware of him this might explain his dealings with the dogs on his return to earth. BTW I find all this Wiki editing vastely rewarding if this is the kind of recompense one can expect. Take care. (Lunarian)

William Gannaway Brownlow was "regarded by many .."[edit]

I saw your February comment:
"Authenticity check: A search reveals that the phrase "regarded by many" appears in the text. Is the phrase a symptom of a dubious statement? Could a source be quoted instead? Perhaps the "many" could be identified? Might text be edited to more genuinely reflect specific facts?"
on the talk page for this article. I have responded to your comment and also made changes to the article--A. B. 03:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I had run a search at Wikipedia for the phrase "regarded by many"—a warning flag for the experienced reader— and I pasted a note at each Talk page where the phrase occurred. A. B.'s voluminous references in response will enormously improve the article on William Gannaway Brownlow. --Wetman 18:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleting all magazine covers[edit]

I noted TheProject's deletion of The New Yorker magazine cover at Monocle and posted a note at that editor's Talkpage, "I trust then that you are eliminating all Wikipedia images of magazine covers and all DVD box cover art as well as all illustrations of CDs. If you are not, I'd be most interested to know your justification, at [User_talk:Wetman|my Talk page]." We may expect some response here. --Wetman 18:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On June 5, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Venus Anadyomene, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. 12:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Venus Anadyomene[edit]

great work on this new paintings related article. we need more such insights into the art world. regards. keep up the good writing Anlace 13:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I saw your comment at Talk:Mautam. Do you know the pronunciation for Mautam? Please add that so that I can create a Tamil wiki article on this interesting subject. Thanks. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 14:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi! no, I don't: I made my inference at Talk:Mautam on the meaning of mau tam simply from what I read. --Wetman 15:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh OK. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 15:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Etymology of York[edit]

Nosing around the York page, I was baffled by the inclusion of an article about Iberia by someone called Simón down in the section called History. I had a look at the article's history and discovered that you put it there, and that it related to something in the Roman York section which has recently been moved to a new History of York page. So I moved the reference across, but only as an external link, as it really isn't about York at all. Hope that's OK. While I was doing this, I discovered that there is some overlap between what is said under Roman York on the History page and the section Etymology of "York" which is rather uncomfortably positioned near the bottom of the main York page. I think that what's required is a one-sentence piece near the top of the main page and a fuller discussion on the History of York page (but preferably not under the heading Roman York!). I'm not confident that I can get it right, but I can have a try, or would you fancy doing this? I'll probably put a note on both Talk pages before doing anything. Any thoughts? --GuillaumeTell 16:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely any external links that relate only to a section of an article should be separated out and moved to a relevant new article. At present History of York has no References section at all. If my link didn't refer to York at all, it may have been an inadvertent bit of clumsy cut-and-paste maneuver on my part. I think no one would object to your suggestion about the etymology of York section: the main body of it might well be collected together at History of York, with a linked reference to it at York. Give it a try: any move that smoothes the reader's path and doesn't drop information is usually right on target! --Wetman 16:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Greece[edit]

Hi Wetman. I see you reverted my changes in Ancient Greece. As for those regards the garrisons, I understand, and was going to change it myself. Could you tell me the reason, please? Have care--Aldux 17:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Oop! my error. I meant simply to exchange the bronze's identity from "Greek" to Nubian. I didn't mean to revert any recent changes at all. --Wetman 19:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Venus Anadyomene/The Birth of Venus[edit]

I'd like to second Anlace's comment: you've done some fine work on Venus Anadyomene. The Birth of Venus, by contrast, is paltry: a sentence about the actual birth that's better told on Aphrodite, then a list of four items, one of them a red link. Should I turn The Birth of Venus into a redirect for the newer article, possibly adding a disambig message at the top? Something along the lines of:

"The Birth of Venus" redirects here. This article is about the subject of Venus arising from the sea in art; for the most famous painting of this subject, see The Birth of Venus (Botticelli); for the mythological event, see Aphrodite

Or is the theme of The Birth of Venus, as in Botticelli, Cabanel and Bouguereau, quite different from that of the Venus Anadyomene, as in Apelles, Titian and Rimbaud? Regards, HAM SaintPierre4.JPG (PS, I found a Paris, France in The Wedding at Cana just this afternoon, now deleted.) 20:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like one of several good ways to handle it: a list of treatments of the theme might be appended to Venus Anadyomene. BtW, I wasn't sure whether Aphrodite Anadyomene wouldn't be better than the macaronic Venus Anadyomene. The Birth of Aphrodite purely as a mytheme is best treated as a subsection of Aphrodite, foam from the severed genitals etc etc... This theme might be illustrated by Botticelli or Cabanel. Botticelli's painting is one of maybe two hundred paintings that deserve their own Wikipedia articles. So! do you share my distaste for Paris-France and Rome-Italy? Or are you just being kind? --Wetman 23:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Is Apelles's painting mentioned in any surviving Greek sources? If Pliny is the earliest we've got to go on, I'd say stick with Venus Anadyomene (I assume that's the way he styled it), even if it does sound burlesque to some. I've never heard the form Aphrodite Anadyomene being used; in fact, come to think of it, I can't think of a single work of art where the goddess's Greek name is usually used rather than the Latin.
Also on the subject of the burlesque, I reserve my special ire for London, England! HAM SaintPierre4.JPG 09:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I think in none. Pliny's Natural History xxxv.91 notes, in assessing which of Apelles' paintings was of highest rank Venerem exeuntem e mari divus Agustus dicavit in delubro patris Caesaris, quae anadyomene vocatur, versibus Graecis tantopere dum laudatur, aevis victa, sed inlustrata. ("[Another of] Venus emerging from the sea, dedicated by the late Augustus of blessed memory in the shrine of Caesar his father, which is called "The Anadyomene", praised in Greek verses like other works, conquered by time but undimmed in fame." (I'll put that into the article). So that is Venus Anadyomene, after all. --Wetman 14:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Gothic Protestant Church of Avas[edit]

Hello, Wetman. I find myself in the dispute with User:Alensha after I removed Gothic Protestant Church of Avas from Category:Gothic architecture. My opponent provided the following links to prove that the church is indeed built in the Gothic style: [10] [11] [12]. I would appreciate a third opinion on the subject. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Vernacular Gothic. Ghirlandajo, consider first that 14th-century Hungary is a long way from the originating centers of architectural style, and agree with me that the vernacular architecture of those Central European buildings that immediately preceed Renaissance styles are called "Gothic"— admittedly sometimes a distinctly Vernacular Gothic. Where there is no touch of a high style at all, one resorts to phrases like "medieval vernacular". The sturdy utilitarian buttresses against the Avas churches' apse wall suggest that a more ambitious roofing had been contemplated. The tall lancet windows that have been inserted between the buttresses do break into unmistakeably Gothic tracery patterns at the very top. Isn't that fair? Not that I'd employ this building to illustrate what Gothic architecture means.... --Wetman 18:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I was somewhat baffled at the building's inclusion into Category:Gothic architecture, which is supposed to contain representative samples of the style, I believe. After Alensha provided the links to clear up the situation, buttresses and lancet windows settled the issue for me. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Mid-Eastern Analogies[edit]

Hi Wetman. I 've added some stuff at the Bible and History and getting a lot of flak, a comparison between Bible stories and the stories contained in the Arabian Nights. Would you please take a look at it and put in your 2 cents on the discussion page. It is hard for me to know if I am being unfair or out to lunch. As you should know by now, I look at things in an uncommon way. (Biblical archaeologists with whips! The Isrealites in Tennesee!Good Lord!) Thanks User:Kazuba 6 Jun 06

Kazuba, without hunting through your User contributions in search of your unnamed article, I'd note that detailed parallels betweeen Old Testament stories and the Arabian Nights tradition would not be any more unexpected than parallels that were similarly drawn from Greek myth or— most appositely of all— from Hellenistic Romance: all common cultural property. Reports of what students of comparative literature and cultural anthropology have said in print are always the best foundation in making unusual connections at Wikipedia, or even connections that may appear abstruse to the Incurious.... as I've learned after numerous irritating conflicts with Unfounded Self-Confidence. --Wetman 17:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On June 7, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aristides of Miletus, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Archimedes Palimpsest[edit]

A more accurate edition of the manuscript, including its drawn geometrical figures, is expected.

Any idea whether this means (a) before the year 2500, or (b) next Tuesday, or (c) other (specify)? Michael Hardy 22:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the link at Archimedes Palimpsest that is concerned with the on-going Archimedes Project at the Walters Art Museum, "The project is due for completion in 2007, when a considerably improved edition of Archimedes will be a realistic prospect, and this edition will not be the sole outcome of the collaborative enterprise." (William Noel, Curator of Manuscripts, The Walters Art Museum). --Wetman 00:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


I think if you're going to revert an edit for which another editer has supplied lengthy reasoning, you should provide a bit more comment than "rv babble". I personally am not convinced by the reasoning they gave, but it'll be very difficult for them to argue their point if you don't even say what your issue with it is. Be nice! Fuzzypeg 04:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

One always should probably have puzzled out a wholly rational explanation in ten words or less, even when one is reverting irresponsible anonymous editing by User: at Triple Goddess (a contentious subject where editors are generally cautious), in which unexamined parallels are fetched from afar, with text offered such as
"(cf. Egils Saga) and Indo-European and Egyptian myth and folktale (cf. Sleeping Beauty, The Westcar Papyrus)..."
Babble. In brief, the Wetman's reserves of tolerance, kindness and tact are in extremely short supply; he cannot afford to expend them where they are inappropriate. --Wetman 04:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


We've got a small categorization-war brewing over clothing articles (see discussion at User_talk:TheEditrix#European_clothing_.28historic.29. Can you come be a neutral voice of reason? - PKM 03:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On June 14, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jean-Baptiste Alexandre Le Blond, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

"a useful illustration"

"Cathar cross"[edit]

User:Brookie has applied a yellow cross logo as a "Cathar cross" but without information on numerous articles with a Cathar connection. The Wetman left the following message at User talk:Brookie:

"This "Cathar cross" is new to me. I find no mention of it in LaDurie's Montaillou. It strikes me that an article Cathar cross would be specifically informative, whereas pasting a large invented logo over all pages with a Cathar connection is no more informative than graffiti. Please respond at my talkpage."
If you read the articles on the various Cathars there is reference to them being forced to wear a yellow cross by the inquisition - similar to the jews being forced to wear a star of David! I am planning a n article to back it up. cf "He too died after only a few years of marriage. In her older years Béatrice took up with a young vicar Barthélemy Arilhac. After a number of years this relationship ended as Barthélemy worried he would be placed in danger by Béatrice's Cathar past. He was correct in his concerns and in 1321 they were both arrested by the inquisition and held for a year. Barthélemy was not punished, but Béatrice was sentenced to wear a yellow cross on her back." Béatrice de Planissoles

Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 18:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"She lived to see her sentence commuted to the wearing of double crosses" says the excerpt from Montaillou that is referenced at Béatrice de Planissoles. Am I missing something? A simple "See also: Cathar cross" will carry information, once the stub is filled out. Can the crosses be removed without tears? The equivalent of taking a roller and a bucket of yellow paint and applying yellow crosses wholesale to Wikipedia pages with some Cathar connection doesn't actually impart any information. Do you see how this is true, not merely my "point-of-view"? --Wetman 18:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
New article started - will pad it out when I have my reference book to hand which I don't just now. The cross is a useful illustration in my view Brookie 18:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Images on Byzantine literature[edit]

Hi, I was wondering about a revert you'd made on this article--would you mind dropping by the talk page and letting me know about it? Thanks. Demi T/C 01:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You're a smart, helpful person[edit]

so I'll bet you can help me. Recently the well known New Mexican/Texan sculptor Luis Jiménez died in a freak accident. One of his large works fell on him. So, i wanted to start a stub that goes:

Luis Jiménez, America sculptor, 1940 - 2006

nothing fancy, just something to get back to after I find a couple of pictures that i have of his works and locate my copy of a book about him, "Man on Fire." [Did I mention that I am moving?] , only there already IS a Luis Jiménez who is a footballer. So . . . ... how do I get my Luis in here? Carptrash 03:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Easy! The Wikipedia convention is Luis Jiménez (sculptor). A more sophisticated convention would have been Luis Jiménez (1940-2006). There's always a trade-off. --Wetman 05:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Clothing edit war[edit]

I have proposed a solution to the current edit war over categorizing clothing articles at Talk:History_of_Western_fashion#Resolving_the_Edit_War. Please join the discussion. - PKM 03:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for information. Not so big on lists, multiple categories and "infoboxes". I'll help at History_of_Western_fashion any way I can. --Wetman 05:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. For the record, I am not big on lists, in favor of multiple categories when they describe different aspects of the subject, and ambivalent on "infoboxes".  :-) - PKM 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On June 17, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dover Straits earthquake of 1580, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.


Thanks a lot for your copyediting in Altamura. Can I ask you help also for Bitonto, Bari and Basilica di San Nicola (Bari)? Ciao! --Attilios 13:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can apply my usual on-line reference collecting techniques, if you'll vet the results. By the way, is Constantine the bishop the same Constantine as the founder of the Gaeta line of dukes and princes? --Wetman 13:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Thanks a lot for your addings in Bitonto. I confess my former history section was rather bad and hastily written. I'm intensively working on Italian communes histories lately: if you periodically give a check to my contributions section, you'll see some articles maybe needing some similar copyediting. Ciao!!--Attilios 21:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Culture of Greece[edit]

Curious, why do you feel this is "hardcore vandalism" [13] ? Perhaps explain on the talk page instead of reverting? ++Lar: t/c 03:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Since every other edit from this anon. is vandalism, including offensive vandalism on this Userpage, (see "contributions" here) I'm surprised to hear that there is value somewhere in just this one series of edits. To be sure, after you have gone carefully through all this User's "contributions"—it shouldn't take you more than half an hour— do restore anything you consider an improvement. --Wetman 04:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Overthrow (structure)[edit]

I haven't even bothered to check the edit history at Belton House to know that you are entirely responsible for me having to write this stub! So c'mon there's a nice picture how about a few (say 25) words to pad it out?.....Please? Giano | talk 18:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You identified my handwriting? Done! With hardly a new redlink (I'll stubbify Okeover Hall without shifting from my seat: Colvin now at elbow. But this should be a subsection of Decorative wrought iron. It wouldn't suit well with the current article Wrought iron. Giano, beware of linking to pier when you mean to link to pier! --Wetman 21:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Very nice thank you. If you think it should be a sub-section elsewherem then please move where you think best. Did you notice in the photograph that old bycycle, I didn't notice it before even when I took the foto, untill I blew it up and cropped it for this page - what could be more atmospheric of good old country house England? Giano | talk 22:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
This "User:Giano/Rosings Park" is a bit of fun and conjecture probably breaking all the rules too, do you have an opinion, Chatsworth claims it is Pemberly how do you see Rosings? Giano | talk 17:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Sheilrod's self-links[edit]

I removed the links not because they were bad, but because they link to the website of the person who placed them. If you have no connection to User:Sheilrod, and believe his links are useful, I don't object to them staying in, but it would be nice if there's more than one user's opinion that the links should stay, since they were originally placed in violation of WP:VAIN. Argyriou 17:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no personal connection with the author of that web site, but surely this is not the intention of a rule against "vanity insertions"! A glance at the content shows that this is a serious effort and on-topic. There are more than one way of exercising vanity at Wikipedia. --Wetman 19:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that Wikipedia should rely on reliable external sources. One cannot know if an author's work is notable if the author is the person who has inserted it into Wikipedia. If other people have referred to the author's work, or the link is inserted by someone with no connection to the author, then it's likely to be more reliable (provided it maintains NPOV, etc., but I don't see that as a problem in Sheilrod's links). I do see a problem in that he's using Wikipedia to promote his personal website. His papers don't seem terribly notable - other people have said the same things, and his book was published by a non-selective publisher (looking around, they're not quite a vanity press).
If Sheilrod would insert more than a sentence and a link at a time, or if his link were to someone else's work (he draws on an old tradition, he can at least acknowlege his predecessors), I wouldn't mind. Argyriou 03:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Poison or Poisson ?[edit]

"POISSON! He was a member of the Society of Arcueil." ( Wetman) Poisson... I tell you just in case... (Lunarian 18:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

Cf Miss Fish! --Wetman 19:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Byzantine architecture[edit]

Dear Wetman, I just noticed an interesting discussion concerning Image:Hagia Sophia 08.JPG and Image:Saint Sophia Interior (Istambul).JPG on Talk:Byzantine architecture. The guys clearly want a third opinion on the subject. May be you could look into the matter? --Ghirla -трёп- 18:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ghirlandajo. I'm no expert in Byzantine architecture, whioch In only know at second hand in photos.--Wetman 19:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)