You may be interested in this here[1] which has led to an interesting debate at Talk: Montacute House - beautiful house, one of the first English country houses I ever saw (aged 7 or 8) and it just grabbed me and led to a life long obsession with ancient buildings. I suppose we ought to give it a better page some day. Giano 09:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just written this Henry Lane Eno as pennance for thinking he was a member of the laxative family (or whatever Eno's salts were), I wonder how such a fugure came to Montacute; I would like to think it was through Elinor Glyn, with whom my Grandmother once told me many people "like to err with, upon a tiger skin" Whatever, if you or Johnbod know anything further, that would be great. Giano 18:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Fifth Avenue Hotel was the engine of the family fortune. And you'd get how he came to Montacute as an Anglophil American self-identifying as a dreamer by reading a few pages of his 70-page poem "The Wanderer". He must have been quite satisfied by the marriages of his two daughters. He was also what Americans call a "birder".--Wetman (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both - Eno and the poem, now I have seen it above, it has come flooding back and taken me back 30 years - it's funny what sticks in the mind - I was told the stories of these beautiful rich Americans (they obviously did not realise she was English) suddenly descending on rural Somerset in the 1920s showering the local children with sweets and parties were still being fondly remembered on the 1980s. I wonder what he died of (fairly young), that's unusual at the time for a very rich person to die in the country dependent on a provincial doctor or cottage hospital - a mystery, perhaps that is what comes of taking so young a wife. Giano 23:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting what one can research, but I think I have done all I can do on him, I supect the poor man will never be much more than stub - good job he published or the non-notable brigade would be after him. I still wonder what makes a man leave USA marry again quickly to a young girl and then die in a beautiful rented house in the middle of nowhere - life is one big mystery to me. Giano 23:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All a fantasy. Don't let the rental aspect throw you: this fortune was founded on a hotel. A young wife and Montacute. No one enjoyed the life of an English country gentleman, 1890-1940, more than the Jamesian Americans. They virtually invented Broadway, Worcestershire, and it was an American of this genre who invented the "Sissinghurst"-type modern English garden: Maj. Lawrence Johnson at Hidcote Manor. It was a lovely time to be rich.--Wetman (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, I didn't know that - that would fit in with the munificence (my newly learnt English word of the week) to the locals, all happy beaming faces touching their forelocks. I was also told, that the very grand, but diminuitive, old-cloth wearing ever-gardening Mrs Clive-Ponsonby-Fane at nearby Brympton d'Evercy (a neice of Montacute's owner) did not approve at all and was very sniffy. Was his work any good? I started to look at Activism on Googlebooks, but it was not my box of chocolates at all, so I was unable to judge. Giano 08:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and there was the Astors too, I'd never realy thought about it, I know they practically took over Venice, but then I suppose we were away at the time, in the USA riding up and down in novel elevators all day. Giano 08:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Wanderer is amazingly poor poetry— 70 pages of it— but it confesses Eno's fantasy life. The Americans at Broadway ended with Mary Anderson, Mrs Navarro, who survived there til 1940. Edwin Austin Abbey and his great friend Frank Millet formed the linchpin of the liberal-minded artistic group described briefly here. Americans of the best sort, in a Mapp and Lucia world of remade cottages, and painter-studio tithe barns, which did at times include John Singer Sargent and Henry James himself, who said "'furnished apartments are useful to the artist, but a furnished country is even more so... This is the great recommendation of Broadway: everything in it is convertible". It really ought to be made a Giano article: the Broadway group are not mentioned in the Wikipedia articles on any of the people involved.--Wetman (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
And of course Broadway has the Lygon Arms (a very overated and overpriced hotel in my limited experience of it) I wonder if Waugh and the Madresfield crowd were involved (probably too late), I think I will do little research on Broadway, that rather appeals - something a little different. Giano 23:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They were all justifying their leisure, as Americans of the best sort are expected to— in writing and painting, but also putting on plays for one another, making music and playing strenuous tennis: Maj. Johnson at Hidcote had a live-in tennis pro, but that's another story: he has the unique distinction of being the only person ever 'outed' in Horticulture Magazine.--Wetman (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I left a message on town article's talk page as well. I'll 100% confess to being very dumb and not investigating your redirect recreation further. I undid it and hopefully it's fine now; I'm sooooo ridiculously sorry, and this is a general note to redo my watchlists from scratch. If there are any problems whatsoever with things, please let me know. ♪daTheisen(talk)08:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now, there's nothing to mollify me that's more effective than a nice note like that at my talkpage. Thank you. Oh. And Welcome to Wikipedia!--Wetman (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good good. When I do make mistakes I nearly scream! It'd be so incredibly rude to ignore, hide or pretend errors never happened.. and what kind of person would I be with a userbox showing my support for civility if I didn't quickly jump on my mistakes and correct them?! Since I'm no author and only do maintenance, I figure this kind of the equivalent to someone adding a {{fact}} on an article you'd spend good time with. Take care, and thanks again for your understanding~ ♪daTheisen(talk)08:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of tinkering with your userpage and talkpage headers, and I hope you won't consider it vandalism. But if you want them gone, I do profoundly apologize, and the code to remove from these pages is the top line on each (invoking "{{User:{{BASEPAGENAME}}/Title}}"). If you'd merely like to tinker with fonts/colours/sizes/etc., these are set at User:Wetman/Title and User talk:Wetman/Title. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 09:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no difference on Firefox myself (with table of contents disabled, as I have it), so I'll just return to the previous version. But thank you anyway, Sizzle Flambé.--Wetman (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It also breaks into parts for me also. Top one third is split and shifted to the left alittle. Way beyond my knowledge how to fix. Just wanted to show it to you as it appears on my screen. I use no fancy software.--Doug Coldwelltalk15:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My dear Mr Wetman. I very much approve of your emphatic tweaking. I can only assume you have had much practise, so skilled an exponent you appear to be.
Why thank you, Serenissima. Hoards always intrigue me. I only tweak the articles that are already well worth while. A good start you've made. --Wetman (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my dear sister Catherine, always so bitter, so jealous, but I forgive you. Given what I now know, I feel perfectly correct (if not a little vulgar) in saying that you have some cojones to make such an assertion. Of course I didn't plagiarise it. My man did. Talking of whom - he has just arrived with my early evening g&t, bonbons and slimming pills, so I bid both you and Mr Wetman good evening as I turn my attention to more pressing matters.
(Two most extraordinary Wikipedians, Good Friends and Lurkers, and so similar in profile, that if they were carved cameo-fashion with overlapping profiles of the capita jugata variety, you would think you were seeing double—— save for the tell-tale Adam's apple of the late Lady Catherine, as I think we must still call her.)--Wetman (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spot the Adam's apple
Well of course, you silly boy - we're siblings (I would have had my man type sisters) - so what do you expect? And what, pray tell, is a "lurker"? It puts me in mind of that Harry Lime chap, all dark shadows, sewers and zither music. Most distasteful.
This handy little spy tells me that this talkpage has already been viewed 350 times this month, and we're scarcely half through it. Many lurk unnoticed. Some post delightful missives. Others (rarely, for they get short shrift here, brevissima confessione) post smartalecky and rude ones. There's another little spy who would tell me how many Wikipedians have this on their Watchlist, but I've lost touch with that little Valsacchi-bot.--Wetman (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you work for MI6? Oh, silly me, no, it would be the FBI as I see you are one of our colonial cousins. I expect you have lovely teeth. And what an extraordinarily interesting tool. Using it, I see I had 43 visitors to my salon yesterday, although I only had intercourse with two. And I mean that in the old-fashioned sense, before you think my salon is akin to that scene from Eyes Wide Shut, all writhing bodies and whatnot.
I'm sure "Princess" you will not be surprised to learn that the "Eyes wide Shut" orgy, was filmed at my late aunt's old stomping ground, Mentmore Towers. I beleive it was the one result of her, sadly, all too brief career as a technical director. Giano 09:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Little Giacomo! How perfectly delightful. I remember once dandling you on my knee, although not for long as you were a most wilful child and soon squirmed your way off to go and play "French Revolution" with Cookie and the parlourmaid. We had to pension Cookie off as her nerves were never the same and the gash on the back of her neck went septic and took a while to heal. And less of your insolence with the use of inverted commas around my title: jealousy is a most unattractive trait. You take after your great-aunt in that respect. I remember that appalling hice well - Catherine had duped yet another duffer into leaving her a mouldering pile of no architectural merit. I tried to persuade her to demolish it for a golf course, club house and luxury maisonettes, but she was always so stubborn.
Do you still have those little night-time problems? Dr Runcible may be able to help.
Giacomo! Put that knife down at once and leave this to me. Venetia this is Mr Wetmans page and you are uninvited. A habit with you, many of us still remember that distressing occasion at the gates of Buckingham Palace, in 1927, when you did not have an invitation; you on your knees in front of that guardsman was a shameful sight, (as was the indecency trial which followed). Now return to your own page, Mr Wetman does not want you here, he's only smiling because he's American and has to get his money's worth out of those every expensive teeth. Now be off with you, and leave this page for intelligent debate and those of us of a more intellectual persuasion. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the impossible glamour! The virginal bride, trembling in anticipation ...
I stumbled, I tell you, I stumbled! It was not my fault my hands flew up to break my fall and had the unforseen and unwanted effect of slightly disengaging that handsome young guardsman from his trousers. To this day, I carry the scars on my knees.
I think you are jealous of my budding relationship with Mr Wetman, Catherine. He calls me Serenissima, leaves charming sonnets around the place for me, and is courting me with all his considerable and gallant New World charm. I expect a spring wedding will be in order. Where do you recommend for a honeymoon, considering you've had so many of them?
No, not FBI Serenissima you may be sure: we're more a State Department/UNESCO family. I have a set of cousins whose name is synonymous with politics, though if I told you in which state (not locally), il gatto sarebbe fuor di sacco, as we always say. Do you enjoy E. F. Benson, Serenissima? There was a splendid dinner party when an Italian opera diva was in town, and Lucia would have had the chance to show off her Italian, only... O but that would be putting my thumbprint in the custard, if you haven't enjoyed Mapp and Lucia. --Wetman (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Mr Wetman, I fear you may fall out of love with me as precipitously as you succumbed. As with all true, blue-blooded British families, we do not bother ourselves with learning other, inferior tongues. English is our lingua franca. We simply talk at the poor unfortunates more loudly and more slowly, enunciating perfectly until they either understand, or go away. So part of what you wrote above means nothing to me. And as for reading - pshaw. The only book I have ever read is Burke's, to check on the standing of potential suitors. Why would I waste my time with such frivolities when I could be out with the horses or at Monte Carlo?
Our 24 hours of mad giddy passion are at an end, and I must away. Try not to grieve over your lost love. One day, you may be ready for love again, but clearly not for a very, very, very, very long time. If at all.
I think Venetia and I had better vacate this page for good. It's attracting poor Mr Wetman rather worrying attention from whatever the secret police is known as in these parts Secret Intelligence Report on Suspect Wetman. It takes me right back to the happy days just before the war, when I was a carefree girl partying in Munchen. Silly sausages if they can't work out who the man is - after all, the Disinfo-Boxes have been living in Derbyshire since the middle-ages. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so glad that I wasn't even informed during the few hours of intense investigation that I was under owlish scrutiny by Munchkins. A gentleman would have told one, and that would certainly have been irritating. "Where ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise." A sockpuppet I think is a kind of homemade toy which Nanny stitches to distract a fretful child recovering from... well in my day it was chicken pox, today perhaps chlamydia. But, no laughing at Wikipedia: Wetman's suspicious post was considered "odd"! by a User — not an Editor, but a bit of a Penelope, you know, an unraveler of disrespected edits — with a rather dispiriting contribution history. Actually, I had dropped Ponte Vecchio from my watchlist after a couple of unenlightening go-rounds with some Listmaker who apparently has "never bin anywhere, never read anything, never met anybody." Trying to force a disinfobox designed for US highway bridges upon Ponte Vecchio: so cheeky. There are many such at Wikipedia. And often with the most awful self-confidence.--Wetman (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry you'll get used to the scrutiny, the first five years are the worst. The Ponte Vecchio, I can never think of it now, without also thinking of the foot-stamping editor who demanded I provide a scholarly reference for my assertion that its corridor was designed by Giorgio Vasari. Giano 16:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ventriloquist's trick, I find, is to select a sensible published quote that includes the phrase "Vasari's Corridoio", or, better, Corridoio Vasariano, and edit that in, with a footnote. That way you rarely cross paths with some RandyInBoise, who thinks, "Well, I've never heard that!" (My private thought is that, for hearing some wide-ranging enlightened dinner-table conversation touching upon Vasari and his corridor, one might begin by getting a dinner table.) --Wetman (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This caller must have the wrong number: I know nothing of the Wikipedia squabble that seems to be reflected in this. Generally speaking, I'm unmoved by soccer-stadium nationalisms and politically reinvented histories. And I have no "agenda" at all. --Wetman (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wetman's resources of patience and forbearance are in perennially short supply. Principles of triage require that no more of these reserves be expended than any one situation requires. Your understanding is appreciated.
"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Hades. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Cooperative vandalism working with blanker IP User:216.235.231.40--Wetman (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)"
I was left this note because I edited Wikipedia anonymously. I am confused though because I edited the article because someone had written "hey stupid" in the article, which I removed as can be seen in the link below. I was fixing and not vandalizing.
If that is so, then I was the one who was confused. I intended to revert the vandalism myself, and leave a standard notice for the scribbler, who, then, was not you.--Wetman (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify for the anonymous editor who may have less knowledge of how Wikipedia works. Both of you were doing almost the right thing at almost the same time. 68.109.26.219 saw rubbish and removed it while Wetman saw more vandalism and reverted all of it. Unfortunately, the way that the software works, it appeared to Wetman that 68.109.26.219, as the most recent person to touch the page, was the vandal. Naturally he issued a warning, but was mislead as to whom to fling it at. So, 68.109.26.219, please don’t stop editing – please do more of it. (Wetman will whatever I say.) Oh, and keep a watch on this talk-page: people much more interesting than I am turn up with great regularity.Ian Spackman (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exiting times for Palladian architecture[2]. However, the anon in question is asking for a fact to be cited or removed [3], I think it may be one of your edits, it could be one of mine, but I don't recall adding it and I'm a several hundred miles from all my books. So if you can find a ref..... Giano 14:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Baroque as a symbol of foreign absolutism" is a 20th-century idea rather than an 18th-century one: baroque music and baroque architecture, hence "baroque" politics. The English neo-Palladians' own contemporary problem with the "modern style" of architecture was not political, but one of licence, of playing fast and loose with the "rules". Burlington hated writing, and when he wrote, wrote ill and stiffly: all that lively correspondence consists of letters to him. So I think our censor may delete at will in this case.--Wetman (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take it out, I wonder where I got it from "foreign absolutism" is not my turn of phrase so I must have stolen it from somewhere. Have to hunt about for that. Giano 17:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've stolen everything that I appear to know, you may be sure. James Lees-Milne's The Earls of Creation is a book you'll just eat raw in a sitting, if you don't know it already. It's in paperback. I had just re-read the Burlington chapter before I posted.--Wetman (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well Christmas is comining so I'm hoping for a few more Pevsners to argue with, I'll put Mr Lees-Milne on the wish list. I usually get a few coffee table type architecture books too, but they are generally only useful for saving the cofee table from ring marks made by wine glasses. In fact, last years though pristine and untouched by human hand inside are looking pretty scruffy on the outside, so we could do with some new ones to impress our friends with. Always make a "home" look "refined" and "cultured" do coffee table books. Giano 18:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a nice big square book to protect the varnish, I'd suggest Nicholas Cooper, Houses of the Gentry, 1480-1680. Designed for Giano: you'll move right in, once your suitably impressed guests have departed.--Wetman (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtless they chatted about it, and they were certainly great friends. When Nancy Lancaster used to visit Major Johnston at Hidcote in Norah's company, Hidcote was already maturing. Hidcote was purchased in 1907, however. According to Wikipedia's article Hidcote Manor Garden, by 1910 Johnston had begun to lay out the key features of the garden and by the 1920s, when Norah Lindsay first began to design professionally, Johnston already had twelve full-time gardeners working for him. Look at the dates of the other commissions listed at www.norahlindsay.com. The highly manicured style of Hidcote's garden rooms, inspired by Reginald Blomfield, The Formal Garden in England, 1892, was never a feature of Norah Lindsay's signature style. I have Gervase Jackson-Stops' Hidcote article in Horticulture here somewhere, but I haven't located it since I read it upon publication two decades ago. The thoroughly revised and expanded second edition of Ethne Clarke, Hidcote: The Making of a Garden, published this year, would make the Lindsay role at Hidcote clearer. Johnston's social diaries have turned up, and in the revised book there is much else new, I gather. Til recently there has been precious little documentation on either figure.--Wetman (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your encouragement. When Gilbert Murray failed to be elected MP for the University, Bowra comforted him by remarking that he should have stood for a more intellectual constituency. I must try and work that in there at some time. William Avery (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wetman, tut tut, surely you know that literary works are referred to in the present tense in attributions: "Broteas is said" in the perpetual present of the source text "to have carved the most ancient image ..." The text of Pausanias has never stopped saying that. Previously, however, the article said "Broteas carved," which was indeed an outsized assertion. I won't change it back, however, as perhaps this is one of those remnants from the Jurassic era during which my education occurred. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the insertion of "is/was said to be..." into a statement never makes a wrong statement right: omitting it generally improves the text: compare "legend states" and the West Dakota Prize. Nowadays, however, no one is saying that Broteas carved that rock sculpture, which is currently dated to the 13th-12th centuries BCE. I have added some citations to the article Broteas that should make it both more secure and more circumstantial, to make up for the nit I picked.--Wetman (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wetman, I corrected your edit in the Francis Tregian the Younger article as you must have been exhausted or stressed out when you wrote it! Joking aside, I am unclear as to this manuscript, and after an admittedly cursory Google for it, am I right in thinking that Tregian wrote more than what is known as the Fitzwilliam Virginal Book while in prison? Articles mention three "Tregian manuscripts" - did he write the FVB and two others (for different instruments/voices)? If so, the article needs to reflect this.
I know that Minkoff is preparing a facsimile of the FVB, but it's not out yet, and as far as I know there is no other facsimile available. Reading through the David J. Smith article again only puzzles me more - what, exactly, is/are the Tregian Manuscript(s)? I should love to know more, and what you added to the Tregian article only serves to make my mouth water (and, with my apologies, is actually not clear at all in the light of the article)! Many thanks if you could inform me about this. Nick Michael (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sir George Wheler, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.dur.ac.uk/m.d.eddy/HoSinDurhamWheler.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be ongoing copyright concerns with this article, which I have explained at the article's talk page. The article has been blanked and listed at the copyright problems board to permit more time to address these concerns. --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please fix it with deletions or delete the whole thing, whichever seems to you the best way to speed the progress of the encyclopedia. Do not inform me of your action: this article is not currently on my Watchlist.--Wetman (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Sir George Wheler requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. IShadowed ✰ 02:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article was beginning without an introduction. Then this paragraph appeared lower down, introducing facts that had already been introduced. Wikipedia articles generally have a first paragraph that gives a summary of the whole: does this not serve that purpose well? ...Splendid article, by the way.--Wetman (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment. Problem is, we now have the same information stated twice—once in the first paragraph, then again in the four paragraphs that follow. For all good intentions, the entire intro now needs to be rewritten to avoid the redundancy. I've kept al paragraphs in their place for the moment until I can figure out what should go where.Jonyungk (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for my pique over your moving that paragraph. I was not loooking forward to the rewriting, moving of links and so on that the move demanded—things that were not done when the paragraph was moved and, it seemed, were left to me to do. The move in itself seemed a good one, which was why I left all five paragraphs in the intro for a day and mulled over what to do. Thanks very much for your help in making the initial move; I was just upset that other related factors were not followed through. Hope you understand. Jonyungk (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to leave cleaning-up work for you: that's always irritating when some editor breezes in and makes changes that create unwanted work. A first paragraph should be an abstract of the whole article, making all the essential statements, which get repeated and expanded upon in the body of the text. So it's not the same as a good narrative opening, which simply sets the scene and establishes the tone. It's the somewhat repetitive technique of a newspaper article, encapsulated in the head paragraph. It is rare to see a Wikipedia article that provides some cultural context, as Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle does.--Wetman (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wet. I have a few questions on your edits to Frederick Heath (architect). Why is it better to say "Frederick Heath (April 15, 1861 — March 1953) was an architect practicing in the U.S. state of Washington" as opposed to "Frederick Heath (April 15, 1861 — March 1953) was an architect in the U.S. state of Washington." Is it wrong to say "Fred is a governor in New Hampshire?" Should it be "Fred is a governor governing in New Hampshire"? Seems redundant to me. Also, I find "based on interpretive reconstructions of [[King Solomon's The first version seems redundant and can actually be a bit confusing because it can be read to suggest the design is based on interpretive reonstructions, instead of being based on King Solomon's Temple. The Greek theater thing I get, although it was capitalized because I believe he's the architect for the Greek Theater (Los Angeles), but wanted to make 100% sure. The long dashes look okay in some spots, but I might have used parentheses in others. And I don't like semicolons except where particularly necessary. :) Cheers. Happy Holidays. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Based on interpretive reconstructions of King Solomon's Temple" is simply more accurate than "based on King Solomon's Temple", as it more closely identifies the source of the design. As you suggest, it will indeed be understood to state that the design is based on interpretive reconstructions, instead of being based on King Solomon's Temple itself, which eludes even modern archaeology after all. The Greek theater may have had the formal title The Greek Theater, as your capitals indicate. You'll change any suggestions I made to suit yourself, I hope, but it's worth looking into what we do actually know of King Solomon's Temple before you decide.--Wetman (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I was just adding this addendum but edit conflicted: "Sorry if I seem rude. I was just wondering if there was something I was missing. I appreciate you having a go at fixing the article. If those bits caught your attention for tweaks they probably need to be revised anyway. I was just curious about getting your perspective. Anyway, take care and have fun. And feel free to help out on article I'm hacking away at any time." I will look into Solomon's Temple. I'm more familiar with his adjudication methods, which I invoked once to resolve a dispute (unsuccessfully). ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...Demonstrating first with a chicken and poultry shears I hope. I hope my post didn't seem cross: I was trying to be quite clear. About the semi-colon: it replaced a long clause beginning with "and" used in the sense of "plus also, another thing". Such loosely linked thoughts often make good complete sentences, without the semi-colon's suggested link.--Wetman (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have not given a reason for why you think the article should be moved, nor have you even said what you think it should be moved to. TJSpyke23:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently he knew of Suetonius as he talks of the The Twelve Caesars. Amoung these in the later part of the mss are Julius Caesar, Augustus, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian (the last one). Be sure to check out 123 of "the Pontifex" in both versions. Now I thought Vercingetorix was most interesting because how many times do you come across a person's name with 13 letters.--Doug Coldwelltalk20:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are still skeptical. AND thanks for the compliment! Obviously you think somehow I squeezed this person in at that position where he fits into the chronological timeline. If I had 1/1000th that knowledge and capability I would be ecstatic. Since you are skeptical then I see no harm in showing you Lucius Calpurnius Piso where it refers to him as "the Pontifex". I've never edited the article, so it was someone else that put that in sometime after 2004 when the article started. Apparently history records that is his title he is known by, backed up with a couple of good ancient historians. In the mss it refers to him as "the Baetican" (8 letters). Notice the use of the word "the" as emphasis on the title. It turns out there are over 1000 coded words and all the stories of the ancient Roman history of each fit perfectly with the decoded English words AND they go in a chronological timeline. I tried to figure if all these were just coincidental as to each story fitting correctly with these words AND in a chronological timeline, however my calculator only has 12 digits. I estimate it must be somewhere around a googol.
I'll leave that sandbox up for awhile and make improvements and expansions to it. Anytime you wish to make any comments, I welcome them from you - even if they are skeptical comments. In fact I welcome them the most as I have worked on this enough to know that the rules of the system work correctly. They will stand up against any specific criticism as I can show that they apply correctly dozens of times throughout the mss AND other mss that I won't bring up at this time. Thanks again for your remarks.--Doug Coldwelltalk22:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me throw in one more item of the picture. Many times the coded word and the decoded word have something in common (i.e. they BOTH start with the same letters, they BOTH end with the same letters, or they BOTH have letters in the middle that are common). In the case of "Baetican" vs "Pontifex" it is the "ti" in the middle. Then you know for sure you have the correct decoded word. I wonder what the odds of that happening just coincidently dozens of times are?--Doug Coldwelltalk14:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I'm not patient enough to witness the process of self-appointed juries "vetting" articles for "Featured" status, so I must beg to be excused. Might I simply read through it (it's sure to be interesting!) and tweak it very lightly for improved emphasis and clarity? --Wetman (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mr. Wetman, I have updated the above article spending a considerable amount of time in doing so. If you have time, can you kindly review it for flow, language and grammar. Thank you. Taprobanus (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gladly. Very interesting, I must say. Do discard any changes I made that don't actually improve the text, or that introduce errors.--Wetman (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sub-editors who apply [citation needed] liberally to articles, though they may offer a truculent justification of their discourtesy, are invariably boors. Those who have content add content. ...Odd, though, how I have found through life, that whenever one finds oneself wielding a large cream pie, there is always someone who leaps up on a chair and shouts "That pie is for me! That pie is for me!"--Wetman (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your tweaks; they are appreciated. I fear your user page is more interesting than the article, however. Thanks also for that, and for the link to the article about WP. Very interesting. And I am chuckling over Paris, Kentucky. With best regards- Wilhelm, Kaiser von Shatner. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This edit of yours opens a can of worms. The term taifa is tricky. Córdoba, for example, considered itself a (the?) caliphate, and Granada an emirate. They retained the title of "kingdoms" down to 1833: technically, the Crown of Castile was a dynastic union of several kingdoms. I think if your edit stands, we need to explain at least some of that. (Right now, it's covered in the linked articles on the respective kingdoms.) - Jmabel | Talk00:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I simply thought taifa needed to be available to the reader in a link. What do you think should be done, to keep the article both accurate and useful as a reader's guide? I certainly trust your take on this. --Wetman (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've restored the footnote text "the first of many archaeologists who have worked at Knossos" (in Minotaur). According to David McCullough (The Unending Mystery, p. 34) there were "at least eight" archaeological teams before him, and EB also indicates that he was not first. Have you sources that say otherwise? Elphion (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I sense from "at least eight" that alleged identifications of the labyrinth here and there on the island of Crete, starting with Cristoforo Buondelmonti in the C15 are being instanced, rather than archaeology on the site that was called Kefala. Do add the information on the historical hunt for the Labyrinth, at Gortyn etc etc, with a citation of McCullough or Rodney Castelden or whomever you like best; btw, is McCullough refering to casual and unreported investigation on the actual site by the merchant and amateur antiquarian from Iraklion, Minos Kalokairinos? That might be noted too. But simply deleting "the first" from the text might make you seem like a penelope, unweaving text, rather than contributing to knitting it together.--Wetman (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On January 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Giovanni Sulpizio da Veroli, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On January 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anthony Roll, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Happy 2010 to you!. It's a good split: "Queen Anne' is a broader category in the US, as your Harper's illustration demonstrates. Btw, Wikipedia needs more images of mainstream c16-c19 furniture. --Wetman (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's excellent, E.! You speak for me: we have very similar spiritual approaches to this project, though I'm no anarchist. The major difference is, I think that Wikipedia is merely a reader's guide— even though it's one that's covering everything. Too much "encyclopedia" talk encourages grandiose self-appraisals. --Wetman (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The project, wikipedia, in the largest sense, means a lot to me and any project that invites the whole world to be involved better (opinion) believe in anarchy. I couldn't help sniping a few times at Britain (this was the BBC after all) and I am a yank (of sorts) but it was fun having those folks show up.
And I might as well make a clean sweep of the BBC thing and show you this. http://www.flickr.com/photos/60188803@N00/sets/72157622199565367/
Mostly my pictures except those Mia took while I was drumming. Carptrash (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So I dug out, (with help from Delilah, my faithful puli) some copyright free materials that might have old furniture, but, what? old furnature? How about a link or two and I'll see what I can do. Or, can't do. Carptrash (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well. I'm hoping for examples to illustrate fauteuil, commode, bonheur du jour, bergere etc etc. Any French royal furniture. Any Italian C15-C19 furniture. Furniture at the V&A, Metropolitan Museum, Louvre, Versailles, Musée des arts décoratifs. Furniture in English country houses, etc etc..--Wetman (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edits to Barnsley's fern. I came here to thank you and when I saw all your DYK entries I thought why not submit mine? So I did. I really like the idea of using mathematical equations to show nature; in this case ferns. The two pictures of the two varieties sort of says it all. I am now curious whether I could reproduce more fern varieties with the same math! DSP-user (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I submitted a question to the Reference desk/Humanities on January 8 concerning how many official Dictators there were. Would you like to take a guess on it? I will not hold you to anything. You can answer here or on Reference Desk IF you care to answer. Thanks.--Doug Coldwelltalk14:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So long ago, you can't possibly remember, you wrote an comment in Talk:Thomas_the_Apostle#Thomas_in_India. It explains that there was no written record of the church in Karala before the 15th century; that the church there venerated Thomas as a god, etc. Are you aware of anything WP:RELY online that might substantiate that?
Your comment makes a lot of sense. I don't think that the Portuguese became aware that the Thomas sect was "Christian" for many years, leading me to suspect that their Christian practices were considerably different than not only Roman, but even Eastern Orthodox, which would have seemed familiar, if "heretical." When they did discover it, they assumed "heresy", somewhat understandably since they were undergoing an Inquisition back home. A Thomas-worshiping sect, in an Hindu-like temple, might likely incite their wrath!
Another problem I had, which this would "solve", is did Thomas make it beyond the Indus River, where India ended for early Europeans? I'm not sure when the term "India" was extended to Karala, but the assumption that this was done by the 1st century, must certainly be incorrect. Student7 (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I merely shifted some contentious text to Talk:Thomas_the_Apostle#Thomas_in_India, noting "Can we get a source for the following text and present it as a report not as an essay, make it more accurate and keep it relevant to the subject Thomas (apostle)?" The other sentiments weren't posted by me.--Wetman (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. I hadn't read your remarks closely enough. The unregistered editor has long since left our ranks. But I agree that the material definitely needed a reference, even though I tend to agree with it! Student7 (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, that's a lot of great info you added to the article. However, I'd like to point out that you should use the group attribute in the <ref> tag as per Wikipedia:Footnotes#Advanced if you want to add a non-reference footnote. That way your footnotes are placed in a different section, like Notes, instead of being grouped with the references. Also, these citation templates may be of use in the future. They make it much clearer what your sources are and automatically lists them in MLA format.--71.104.230.120 (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Though Wetman hasn't actually made any edits to Draco, he's moved this new post to the bottom, where new posts conventionally go.) --Wetman (talk) 06:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you may have done so once, back in December 2008, and indeed added a reference. Incidentally, I believe you may have been looking for this link earlier. Risker (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your attention to Bank Buildings, Birkenhead – and even for spotting it! But I am not sure that the arch is a Tudor arch. I know little about architecture, and nothing much about Tudor arches. However the article on Tudor arch says that, in addition to being four-centred, the arch should be pointed (which is what I had thought). I can see no point in the image in the infobox, or in that on the Images of England website. Also, the arch is not described in any of the sources as being Tudor in style, and I am not sure that we as editors should be adding information not contained in the sources. Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The arches are seen to be low, four-centered arches in the illustration to the article; the link I made to Tudor arch was for the reader's use, as Wikipedia is more a reader's guide than a storehouse of brilliant information of diamond-like precision: I can't vouch for every word in that article. So, you are suggesting then, that they are catenary arches, or sections of an ellipse? Those wouldn't be very idiomatic in a Gothic revival context. Isn't the general look meant to evoke something akin to the gateway arch at right? The Birkenhead offices cum bank building, after all, are not meticulously antiquarian in intent. --Wetman (talk) 10:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took the architectural details from Images of England, but have since been back to Hubbard's book on Douglas. Hubbard does not say a lot about the architecture of this particular building, but what he does say is relevant to our discussion, namely "the shop fronts were uniformly designed within elliptical arches, and the upper windows are elaborately Gothic". Although Douglas mainly used Gothic details in his work, he was not a slave to Gothic but rather was eclectic in his use of styles (see John Douglas (architect)). The architectural historian Edward Hubbard (at one time a colleague of Nikolaus Pevsner) was the world authority on the work of Douglas (his book The Work of John Douglas was originally an amazingly detailed MA thesis, published after his death), so I think we can take his opinion as the best possible. I have amended the article and added Hubbard as a source to the relevant section. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well and good. Much better in fact than "Tudor". The freedom of Douglas's treatment remains unmentioned in the article: a useful point, I should think. I leave it to you. --Wetman (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Wetman! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 5 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 160 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
Merci for your note on my talk page. The reason I used capital letters was not exactly out of "exasperation", I simply wanted to be sure it would get someone's ATTENTION... and it caught yours, so it worked. Unfortunately, it caught the attention of someone who is already aware of the problem.
Most of the time, I do exactly as you suggest & have even reverted back to several weeks. However, what caught my attention at l'Arc de Triomphe was the date of 1926 given in the sentence ...three weeks after the Paris victory parade in 1926, marking the end of hostilities in World War I, Charles Godefroy flew his Nieuport biplane through it,..., and I traced back to my last edit (exactly what you do) and clicked on "next edit" until I found the culprit! And there were a couple more carcasses. But as one cannot be everywhere all the time, every so often, I read an article all over again & try to find ces carcasses enfouies.
And there I thought it was just carelessness, or worse. Who knew there were guidelines? So shall we be doing the same for French/France? The France Riviera, etc etc. That would represent precisely the same level of literacy.--Wetman (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested in shots of the details (if any) on the main entrance surround. Some of the Romanesque details look (opinion) very Ulysses Ricciesque and I'd like to see more. However Brooklyn is about 2222 miles away, more in kilometers. I did go through my RCP archives and should be posting one of his reliefs at Mayan Revival shortly. Carptrash (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are much less suave than Ricci's work in Lansing looks: bluff, four-square, self-consciously crude. My camera partner was saying we should go back for more.--Wetman (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I happen to be cruising the new image uploads and fitting them into articles. Buberl is not even a vague name for me... --Wetman (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since he did Architectural sculpture (one of wikipedia's weakest articles) I've had my eye on him for a while. "till you showed up pretty much all the images at his article were mine. But I am a firm believer that More is More, so go for it. Caspar Lives, Carptrash (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gladly. An interesting article. You should stick with one designation, and as you've selected Veddas in your title, I've made the usage consistent: is Vedar a better adjectival form? if so, do be consistent about it. If you'll look through this diff, my edits should be self-explanatory. Sometimes I've conflated parallel sentences. Often I've shifted phrases so that the sentence ends with the emphatic point in the thought, always a stronger finish. Do keep number, either singular or plural, consistent within a sentence. Hope I've helped.--Wetman (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WM. I have a question about buildings. When they are referred to and the date follows, Wikipedia Temple (2014), it is fairly clear the date is when it was (or in this case will be) constructed. What about date ranges though? It seems to me that if we put Wikipedia Temple (2014-2017) it looks like it may have lasted three years, not necessarily that it was built over three years. For a while I was just putting the finished on date, but the period of construction can also be interesting. How is this handled? Do you have any suggestions? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there are more than one way to handle it. If Wikipedia Temple no longer exists, you'd expect to see something on the line of Wikipedia Temple (2014-17, demolished 2327). Sometimes the period of construction can be illuminating: Wikipedia Temple (designed 2011, built 2014-17, demolished 2327) is succinct. The point is, how can you pack in the information clearly, with the least interruption of the flow of thought, which is not essentially about the dates, for if it were, you'd be expanding the whole thing to something like: "Midnight's early drawings date from 2011, but delay in collecting the necessary funds repeatedly put off the start of construction until 2014..." etc etc. There are many conventions: the parenthesis way is nice and tight: Summerson, Ackerman, Wittkower all use it from time to time. --Wetman (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. I think I like sticking with the finished date and then including the full range in text if additional dates are significant. But you've given me food for thought. There's a balance of including a lot of information and having the information be highly accessible. I don't know what that balance is. Come to think of it I'm not even sure what the MOS is on (born 1814 - died 1916) except that people like the long dash, I think. Interesting. I guess my feel is that if it's worth giving the date range on a building's construction it can be done in the text, and that the parenthesis is best kept simple and obvious when it is used. But the (designed 2011, built 2014-17, demolished 2327) format works too. It does get a little long. I tend to favor plain English. Maybe I should be on the Simple Wikipedia. Hey thanks for the help. A lot of people did some great clean up. Sometimes I feel a little bad if something isn't quite polished, but it is a collaborative endeavor here right? Cheers. Thanks again. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On February 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Simon-Joseph Pellegrin, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thank you, Johnbod. I added a good substantial quote and some more details. It shouldn't be too lightweight now for our critic, eh.--Wetman (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Monumento nacional (Spain): where did you get the (uncited) statement that 'The designation of a Monumento nacional in Spain was substituted in 1985 for the former designation Bien de Interés Cultural, "Property of Cultural Interest".' I don't think that's accurate at all. I believe Bien de Interés Cultural is a term still very much in use, and that it covers a range of designations, of which Monumento nacional is only one example. See, for example, http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2004/07/28/pdfs/A27382-27386.pdf. This dates from 2004. "DECRETO 346/2004, de 18 de mayo, por el que se declara bien de interés cultural, con la categoría de monumento, el Colegio-Universidad de la Purísima Concepción en Osuna (Sevilla)." In other words, the building is being declared a monumento and that is a category within bien de interés cultural. - Jmabel | Talk06:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On February 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Antoine de Léris, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
All the references are to Croatian texts, even where English ones exist. There doesn't seem to be a clear distinction maintained between Liburnia and Liburnians: why are there two articles, except that one might discuss people, culture, history and the other stick to geography? I edited an early version of these articles but I really don't see how to help now.--Wetman (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contribution. Question. Since the proper name of the book is SKYSCRAPERMAN (ie., upper case only), what is the rationale behind changing it to upper and lower case for Wikipedia purposes? Thank you in advance for your assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimiken (talk • contribs) 21:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about how it could be changed, but I realize that I lack the appropriate knowledge to be able to do so. The reason is that in order to change it, so far as I can see, I would have to know more about architectural trends and/or about Post's specific intentions. In other words, perhaps something like this: Equitable Life Assurance Building, 1868–70: the use of exterior cladding may deceive the viewer into thinking there are only a few floors, while in fact there were eight floors. What you describe as a "high sense of intellectual honesty" is just a reluctance to use semi-literary/art criticism or conversational language, believing an encyclopedic should be more technical, scientific, and very clear in its descriptions, avoiding the figurative or normative. --Dpr (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have only to count the apparent floors in the steel engraving and compare your total to the actual floors as reported in the citation. Then, I know you will be able to phrase this to your satisfaction, since the present wording offends you in some way. Your normative prescription for encyclopedic wording may not be applicable across the board (to use a metaphor).--Wetman (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A metaphor is a figurative comparison that brings out similarities that might not be noticed otherwise. Good image captions draw the reader's attention to things in the text that might not otherwise be noticed. They make the reader look again at the image and once more at the text. The critical literature of art and architecture is built upon descriptive analyses that might not pass untutored criticism at Wikipedia.--Wetman (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it might not pass criticism, tutored or otherwise, at Wikipedia, doesn't negate its importance or value. I would be the last one to negate the value of descriptive analyses of art/architecture/literature, etc. My assertion is simply that these genres are distinct from that of the enyclopedia.--Dpr (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I appreciate your contribution to the article of Saint Valentine that I have edited. Please have in mind that I added the information concerning the Greek Orthodox Church, not the Eastern Orthodox Church. I am not pertaining to know facts about the Saint for the later. Please, do provide me of references from official web sites that support the removal of the information I have added. Since I have placed the upmost relevant and commanding source of my denomination (the Typikon of the Great Church of Christ, from the official site of the Ecumenical Patriarchy-http://www.ec-patr.org/default.php?lang=en), I have no other more relevant data. I am not pertaining that Saint Valentine does not exist, however he is NOT venerated in the Greek Orthodox Church. Wolfymoza (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My error occured in repairing the falsified date.I shall restore your edit immediately. Do please always check that you are not editing a vandalised version.--Wetman (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you have made a large number of edits to various St. / Pope articles without substantiating your reasoning that appear to be in contravention of our policies such as returning clearly inappropriate WP:OR / WP:POV language and the manual of style such as [6] , [7], —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.146 (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for copying the refs and comments to the article's talk page. That is a way the Ref Desk can improve articles. Take a look at the 1908 sci-fi story about a Tesla disintegrator being used to bring down skyscrapers. Before 9/11, few supposed that anything could bring down steel-framed skyscrapers.Edison (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The work you did was too useful to permit it to be archived into oblivion. Reference desk should more often work to the advantage of articles. --Wetman (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the trouble to say that! You don't realize how unusual it is to say 'thank you' at Wikipedia, and you give me heart.--Wetman (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked on the first half of the article, for your approval, though I know nothing of the subject but what you have written. Perhaps you should proof-read the rest one more time.--Wetman (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciated the look and suggestions - yes hidden cmts are a better way to communicate; talk pages can be adversial and anyway its better to wash one's linen in private. Having dificulty with my three sided rectangles (!); I can see in the painting what I want to describe, but can't verbalise and the sources I have are skant and brief on the matter. Ceoilsláinte23:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Claro! If ever the gift of gab fails, you know where to come! I've been reading and writing about looking for decades. And anything you're working on is very likely to be interesting, Ceoil. --Wetman (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those edits. I'm not sure about removing the wikilinks from "Parisian," but soit--you did a real nice job cleaning up ChildofMidnight's prose (cause it was him, of course, in all cases). Hey, I just got Guillaume in, in translation, from U Penn P. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I simply thought that the article Paris was too general to be useful in this context: if there were an article Parisian cuisine, then aha! Too many blue links make the essential ones disappear, like the trees in the proverbial forest. Nice food article, eh!--Wetman (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True. I did look for Parisian cuisine, haha, and didn't find it--the section on cuisine in Paris is entirely useless. BTW, I vividly remember a delicious wilted salad I once had in Paris, with lardons and practically raw egg and all. Also, I found some salt pork in my fridge. Guess what I'm making this weekend. Thanks again for your cleanup! Drmies (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blenheim's corp de logis File:Blenheim main entrance.jpg do you think it is correct to describe this as a treble pediment? Do you think it may be a unique? - I know the successful execution of a double pediment was a problem Palladio failed to really solve in his churches, and contrary to Pevsner's view, I'm not to sure that Vanbrugh solved it either. I'm really struggling with an accurate description. What would you call the centre pediment, it's not really a broken pediment - a "cleft pediment" a "divided pediment." In my reference book, Summerson wisely avoids it altogether and waxes musically about the composition of the wings instead and just calls it a crescendo - more of a crashing one in my view - your thoughts will be welcome. Giano 19:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, rather than a triple pediment, I'd say that it was a structure assembled from an ordinary pedimented central 3+2-bay entrance portico, behind which looms up another, unique three bay pediment with a deeply-recessed center, that of the Hall. The two pediments are separate: a pedimented Hall behind a pedimented portico: clear in this plan. "Cleft" too strongly suggests narrowness, while a "divided" pediment is simply that on a bookcase or longcase clock etc.. How is that second pediment expressed in the floorplan? I can't see why in the image you don't see that the second pediment is pierced by the clerestory windows that light the preposterous— but thrillingly Brobdignagian— Hall: which way is the camera pointed here? back toward the entrance portico? Or is this Seaton Delaval? Btw, to help you jumble all these Vanbrughian images together into a Palace of Malplaquet, have you read T.H. White's Mistress Masham's Repose? --Wetman (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that, but what there is, is a conventional prostyle portico with pediment, the internal piers of which suport a broken pediment (which appears completely needless) but almost certainly is the necessary wall width which becomes redundant at that height, having served its purpose, to support the lighter clerestory. A clerestory which would collapse without the width disguised by that central section. No, I have not read "Mistress Masham's Repose" because I feel were the 1st Duchess of Marlborough to edit Wikipedia, she (Described by the Oxford DNB as "convinced of her own intellectual superiority over those around her, and expressed her opinions as if this were self-evident.") and I would probably be in the same camp. Giano 21:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS: There must be a term for the hinter-section or a pediment - Buckingham Palace emulates it (although it's uneccessary there) with a box like structure. Lyme Park does this too (there, it only contains servants' rooms, not a high hall) - there must be a name or term for the structure behind the pediment. Giano 21:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does, and it is emulating 15th/16th century attempts to hide a higher building behind a portico/pedimet that was lower because it has to fit the proportions of the lower, but wider facade - (often the was a convent or seminary flanking a taller central church, being incorporated into the overall facade) there has to be a term for this - hidden hinter-section, but I don't know it, you're the only person on Wikipedia who might. Giano 22:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...or you yourself, Giano: at Lyme you (surely it was you) called that attic block a "hamper", which was a new term to me. In Mistress Masham's Repose there's a frantic search for one of the Lilliputians' tiny sheep that's got lost, and the room-by-room description of the search party devolves into a parody of country-house guidebooks that will make you, Giano, weep with laughter. "It was a glorious day in June— for that matter, it was the Glorious First of June— and the sun was resounding on the great, green sweep of lawn..." --Wetman (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did call it that because it looks like a "picnic hamper" this is when my English betrays me - I hope it has not gone into the English language as an accepted architectural term (actually, I think they call it that there)! There's a specific church in Rome I am thinking of, in a back street I used to walk down every day when I was younger - I know not the church's name or the street's - I shall be there next month, I will retrace my steps and point the camera, then we shall all be the wiser. I will obtain Ms Masham's Repose - the "guidebook" problem is hard to overcome, I am currently reading Blenheim's, everything is so "beautiful" and "pleasing" that one wonders where the contoversy over the design ever originated. However, one illustrious book instructs me to look high on the roof and not miss "protesting French cocks being devoured" I think I shall just avert my eyes and concentrate on writing the page. Giano 22:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary isn't appreciated, it looks like a personal attack. I removed "There is growing scholarly agreement that the material culture of Ugarit should be properly designated Canaanite High Culture" because I can find no reference at all to "Canaanite High Culture", which suggests strongly to me that there is no scholarly agreement to use the phrase to designate the material culture of Ugarit. You put it back in, how do you justify that? I'm not saying that Wyatt doesn't make such a comment in his translation (although I can find no evidence he does), but it would surprise me very much if he did, given the fact that Google Scholar and Google Books don't turn anything up using that phrase. I didn't just delete, I searched first and made it clear in my edit summary why I was doing it. Dougweller (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article as I've left it is otherwise improved, I trust. So, how shall the article express the difference between the urbane culture of Ugarit and the Canaanite folk culture that ensued? No problem with the interpretation, I surmise, just with the phrase "Canaanite High Culture". I'll open this at Talk:Ugarit and we can work out something satisfactory to you there.--Wetman (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21:16, 12 March 2010 Wetman (talk | contribs) (5,772 bytes) (there are lots of ceramics made at Arita that aren't "Imari": del. confusing image) (undo)
Hello! One of my hobbies is tropical fish and I have several tanks. Upon reading your user page I see that you have a web site called "The Skeptical Aquarist". Went there and found some interesting information. Would have liked to register but was unable to. Is their a technical problem with the site? Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The site needs some major up-dating. There are many broken links, for one thing, and signing in is still in the future. Tech work is on-going; then I'll start editing. But meanwhile, is there anything specific I can help you with?--Wetman (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at the moment. However it's good to know that I'm welcome to contact you in the future. Funny how things come to pass. At the Le Père Goriot article, I found realpolitik to be awkward [8] and inappropriate. Likewise, you found verisimilitude needing to be expressed differently [9] (didn't really care for it myself). "Harsh reality" may not convey the Machiavellian nature (again, not of the political stripe) of the dilemma that Balzac was trying to bring forth in that part of the book. Harsh reality for "high society" may indeed be the elimination of rivals by the sword (or dueling pistol), but to me it conveys the burdens of the less fortunate. Oh well. In the mean time I was contemplating breeding some tiger barbs this spring. Your tract on the subject was most enlightening, but also a little intimidating (lots of water changes, etc.). And to think I was seriously considering breeding my Oscars. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I though realpolitik was inappropriate, too, in discussing a book published in 1835! —but I thought it should be italicised at least! Verisimilitude has quite another meaning and didn't express the sense. Should "harsh reality" become "coldly dispassionate and brutally realistic strategies for success in society"?
Puntius are generally very willing to spawn: buy them small. I have P. nigrofasciatus in a dense jungle at my elbow, as dither fish for a ten-year old pair Botia modesta, and they were spawning repeatedly a few weeks ago. Caviar for all! The trick is to have another tank prepared to take the spawners as soon as they've finished!--Wetman (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Coldly dispassionate and brutally realistic strategies for success in society" is the ticket, but is there a succinct word or two that conveys this? That would be great.
I buy all my fish small, it seems to work out the best. Honestly, can't remember seeing Black ruby barbs anywhere in the recent past. Live in Chicago, they're probably around, but it's the P. tetrazona that I'll take a stab at. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC) p.s. I know that loaches live a long time in ideal conditions, but ten years, congratulations. Caviar for all indeed![reply]
Hello Wetman. You added this part a while ago to the Ras Ibn Hani article.
This coastal site lies only a two hour's walk from the site of Bronze Age Ugarit, and survived in modest fashion Ugarit's collapse at the end of the Bronze Age: "Ugarit's inhabitants dispersed, but no crisis could neutralize their invaluable asset, the coast's best natural harbour on the promontory of Ras ibn Hani; it became known from its low white cliff as the 'White Harbour' in later Greek coastal guidebooks, a name which persists in modern Arabic as Minet el-Beida", observes Robin Lane Fox,[2] who identified the site as the harbor later Greeks knew as Betyllion,[3] possibly a Hellenized version, he suggests, of the Semitic bait-El or "house of El, a name which, if that is the derivation, "confirms that Canaanite-Phoenician culture never entirely died at the site".
I might be a bit confused, because I understand that it suggests that Ras Ibn Hani and Minet el-Beida are two names for the same place, which is incorrect. Ras Ibn Hani is 5km south and served as a secondary residence for the Royal family of Ugarit, while Minet al-Beida, was the primary port town of Ugarit located just next to the city. see this for example. Yazan (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're more competent than I. I was simply adding a report of what I understood from Robin Lane Fox's recent book. It's the name that persists, is my understanding of Fox's remark: al-Beida, "the White", yes? I'm illiterate in Arabic. Fox, coasting (in a sailboat, I think) northwards, passed the "good coastal plain and the then-modest site at modern Lattakieh (which was only developed after Alexander), the next significant marker after 5 miles is the coastal promontory of Ras ibn Hani," (p. 90). Fox seems to have passed by Minet al-Beida. You might want to add to the footnote 2 an observation of the separate location of Minet el-Beida, south of Ras ibn Hani, as given by Adrian Curtis, Handbook, 1999: I can't view his distinction between the two sites. Fox's identification of the later Greek name Betyllion is new. Do please correct my errors, but leave the quote. --Wetman (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tried to clarify it a little more. It's a very tight geographical space anyway, but what we know for sure is that Minet el-Beida (yes, the White "Minet" = harbor), is the natural bay that comes 5km northwards from Ras Ibn Hani cape. It was Ras Ibn Hani that was later resettled by the Greeks, so I think that's what Fox was referring to. I am working on the Minet el-Beida article, and I'll link to it once I'm done to make it clearer that they are two different spots. Thanks. Yazan (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With Minet el-Beida northwards I was confused to be thinking Robin Lane Fox passed it by on his way up the coast to Ras ibn Hani.--Wetman (talk) 08:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I couldn't access Fox's book, but for reference, here's the three relevant coords:
If he's sailing northwards, he must first see the large cape of Ras Ibn Hani, and then the white rocks of Minet el-Beida bay. Yazan (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind reviewing Mob wars? You, on first impression, appear to be a well-seasoned editor, and as I am not very good with this kind of thing, I would appreciate your assistance. As to how I found you, I saw that 3k increase for the Hell's kitchen article.— DædαlusContribs07:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
..mm... was it referenced enough, d'you think? The secret, I've learned, to peaceful editing is a truly pretentious quantity of supportive references. I think I should keep clear of Mob wars, though, as I really know nothing about them, and I imagine that they are the scene of strenuous struggle among Wikipedians who may still be blissfully unaware of my existence— sleeping dogs etc. And I'm always so short on patience and the right level of understated tact. (I linked Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan in your post for the lurkers here, always avid as they are for fresh entertainment.)--Wetman (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Vulgarism. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vulgarism. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I confess I haven't read Milton lit crit for almost forty years, and I thought Milton's "heavenly muse" was Urania. I'd better take down my Paradise Regained( 1.8-17) in the morning. I do think "'Heavenly Muse' = 'Holy Spirit'" lacks nuance. --Wetman (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)--Wetman (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, that is Giorgio Vasari (C16, not a classical source). Notice that Cronus is identified with Chronos, in the wheels of the cosmos, also a late development. The sickle was used to castrate Uranus: see how awkward it has been for Vasari to render the gesture with a scythe. The scythe is the implement of the reaper of men. As long as the article is clear...--Wetman (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that was quick! I wasn't even done posting about my concerns over copyright to Wikiproject Oregon! Heh, well instead of pointing out which page it *might* be good for I'll point out which ones it *is* good for! Pfly (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes cruise through new listings at Commons: many images disappear into the void, so I grab the good ones, or the ones I understand, and put them where I think they'll do some good. Do edit my caption and place the image where you intended it.--Wetman (talk) 10:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I hadn't gotten far enough to consider captions or where to place them. I was all wrapped up in amazement over this PD-Art tag and its implications. I had no idea. Pfly (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have messed about with your edits here; Norris is a rather dubious source, and not only did the friar, or his army of urchins, use "hennin", but he seems to be about the only source that did at the time. Pending seeing the very expensive book of Margaret Scott, knowledge in this area seems to have progressed little since 1819. Johnbod (talk) 04:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My edit reported that friar Thomas Conecte had not employed the word, but gave the quote: but isn't he the source for the statement "recorded as being used in French in 1428"? OED gives among the uses of cornet (all connected with "horn", naturally): "A form of head-dress formerly worn by ladies." The connection made with lappet seems unlikely on the face of it.--Wetman (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - did you see the bottom where I added the actual source in the Chronique of Enguerrand de Monstrelet, with links to the full text in English and French. "Cornet" is variously described, but see chaperon (headgear) where "cornette" is well-established as the usual French term for the liripipe or trailing tail. In female contexts the cornet, according to most sources, was a low cap that was under the "steeple" bit, and (less clearly) would extend out to make the lappet. The term remained in use into the 16th century (indeed 17th century America) for set-ups with no steeple, and seems to derive from "coronette". If it comes from "horn", it is the earlier types of hair-in-net horns going 2 ways, as in the Arnolfini portrait. See here for example. Some sources do use it for the "steeple" as well, but as usual in 15th century fashion they all contradict each other. I don't mind changing it, but I'm not sure I want to do so based on Norris. I'll copy this to the talk page, as it is may be relevant there. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have some spare time, could you tweak this article that I started and have been working on. Also if you have any recommendations for improvements, I'll keep a "watch" at the article Talk page. Thanks.--Doug Coldwelltalk12:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a paragraph to explain the most likely interpretation of the document. I am not in agreement with the idea that the Pope was innocent in the affair of the templars. The overwhelming evidence is quite to the contrary. If you have any comments after reading my insert, I would welcome them in connection with improving the accuracy of this and other related articles which mention the document to which I have also added the same paragraph. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a avenue of thought you would like to pursue in furtherance of the relevent articles, Chinon and Jacques de Molay I will be happy to research it and place it in the article for balance. Mugginsx (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wetman has recently purchased Neil Forsyth, The Old Enemy: Satan & the Combat Myth, which was good enough for Princeton University Press, 1987, and might be good enough for Esoglou. He recommends it, to smudge away the perfect bloom of innocence, and assures Esoglou that he is perfectly capable of finding ways to waste his own time. The familiar attitude that items in Christianity are unrelated to anything else, because those are "just" myths is discrediting, without exception, whenever it pops up.--Wetman (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wetman's resources of patience and forbearance are in perennially short supply. Principles of triage require that no more of these reserves be expended than any one situation requires. Your understanding is appreciated.
Wetman's resources of (to be filled in) are in plentiful supply for reverting an edit supported of two other users without giving an intelligible explanation of why he thinks the war in heaven story, which in the article on the matter is attributed only to Christian sources, must be classified as a Judeo-Christian topic. Do you mean that the book you refer to says the war in heaven theme was part of Jewish story-telling also? In that case, would you please be so good as to put that information into the article and in that way justify calling the war in heaven a Judeo-Christian and not just a Christian topic? And who said that the war in heaven story is unrelated to anything else? The Satan story is Jewish also; but is the war in heaven story Jewish? Esoglou (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to improve that article, in particular by adding citations. The section on the USA has no inline citations and as I'm unfamiliar with the movement outside Britain I wonder if you could add some. (I see you introduced the topic here). Thanks. Marshall46 (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Wetman, I notice that you were once among the main authors of the Minyans article, until it was heavily edited by Deucalionite (talk·contribs) and subsequent sock accounts and sock IPs of his. Ever since early 2008 there seems to have been little input to that article from editors who were not Deucalionite socks. Since this user (who has been indef-blocked since) has always had heavy OR and POV-pushing tendencies, and this article was one of his ideological favourites related to pushing his POV of ethnic super-continuity of the Greek race since pre-history, could you perhaps give the article an expert check to see if much damage was done? This would be the diff between your last 2007 version and the most recent version; the differences are likely to be almost exclusively D.'s work. Thanks, -- Fut.Perf.☼18:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hmm, I was following my usual practice of dropping articles from my Watchlist rather than suffer some toxic bully. I hadn't heard the editor in question has been blocked indefinitely: just as well. I'll have a look: the "α β γ δ ε" footnotes are a shade pretentious, but all I know about Minyans is what I read.--Wetman (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I'll take that as a richly undeserved compliment. I also run an educational assignment here, and my students don't seem to be able to figure out how to find something interesting to write about. This article started when I found a bookmark with the title, the editor, and a picture of the cover in another book by the same press. I love Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest local history. How thoroughly are the physical landmarks in their own lives treated in Wikipedia articles? Wikipedia is a splendidly authentic introduction to learning how to research any topic, and an object lesson in being sceptical of your sources. Plus the Zen of not getting credit for your work: healthy and astringent.--Wetman (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
