Jump to content

User talk:Wetman/archive10Aug2007

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DYK

[edit]
Updated DYK query On June 27, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the articles Antonio del Duca, William Benson, Leone Leoni, Hochstetter, Maes Titianus, Harrogate hoard, Abbey of Vauluisant, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your work Wetman. Kindly nominated by Ghirla. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


About balustrades

[edit]

According to the dictionaries (both askoxford and dictionary.com), a balustrade refers to a railing supported by balusters, rather than the whole railing baluster assembly.--Jcvamp 07:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A row of balusters surmounted by a rail or coping" 1644. OED. How could it be otherwise, since baluster is right there in the word balustrade? Most certainly it is the whole assembly, as writers on architecture use it, as you'll come to find. And how could a reader searching Balustrade be well served by a redirect to Handrail? That's why I changed the redirect. --Wetman 07:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language evolves. There are lots of words that mean totally different things from what they did originally. For example, a cupboard was originally a place where cups were kept. 'Cup' is right there in the word. Yet, in modern English, a cupboard is a small cabinet or what Americans would call a 'closet'. It's obvious that in 1644 the term balustrade did, indeed, refer to a row of balusters, but in over three centuries, the word has evolved. That's why my modern dictionary sources; one of them Oxford; define the word differently.

If you have an architectural source that you can cite that shows that balustrade is still used in the way you describe, by all means add it to the article, otherwise, I think my modern dictionary definitions are more reliable than your obsolete one.--Jcvamp 07:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The obsolete OED! Though you seem resistant to information, when you do come eventually to read about classical architecture, you'll find that I was correct. A balustrade is still a row of balusters surmounted by a rail or coping, not simply a handrail, which is a handrail.Wetman 17:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Nicholas may not be a household word in Jcvamp's household. On a more domestic level John Gloag, A Short Dictionary of Furniture, among illustrations of baluster splats on chairs and baluster legs on tables, shows a balustrade of vase-shaped balusters (p. 97) in a garden setting : "The architectural prototype is shown on the right: the units of a classical balustrade suggested the shape, though often in reverse." I might add that balustrade also necessarily involves a footing, upon which the file of balusters stand. For a comparable feature in which balusters are not present, the native speaker of English may resort to railing. --Wetman 17:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite so. Well you may care to comment at Handrail where I have removed what I consider to be erronious information, and on its talk page to whence I have removed erronious information. Some how the very term "handrail" makes me think of Lady Bracknell whereas a balustrade does not! Giano 17:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, if you could find a modern architectural source to cite, I would consider that to outrank the dictionary (I recognise that dictionaries are sometimes wrong on more specialised information). Giano has provided such information, and so I'm willing to concede that this information is correct.

All I was doing was working with the information I knew, and for which I had references. When the information in the article is unsourced, and I have information that I can cite references for, I am willing to update the article, which is what I did. In this instance, you contested that, which is fair enough, but all I was questioning was the validity of the definition from a centuries old edition of the same dictionary of which I have a modern edition that says otherwise. I don't see why this had to turn into a big issue where you had to resort to insulting my intelligence.

I am willing to admit when I am wrong, (nobody knows everything) and at least this had lead to the article having a citation to back up its information. My goal is to improve the articles. Hopefully next time we disagree on something, you can do it calmly.--Jcvamp 22:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have become irritable and prickly at Wikipedia, where every commonplace statement seems to be challenged on the basis of ignorance: "I've never read that". I really don't need to be told that "language evolves": I have witnessed it evolving at firsthand, as one day, if you're lucky, you will have too. Modesty is an attractive quality. Anything that results in a better article is worth a few cross words. --Wetman 06:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, here's a view from the far reaches of the Commonwealth. Speaking as an architect and academic I've always understood "balustrade" to refer to the whole assembly of verticals together with the top and bottom horizontals. However a NZ Historic Places Trust book along with two other texts Ive looked at defines balustrade as "a row / series of balusters supporting a handrail". The New Zealand Building Code defines balustrade as " The infill parts of a barrier ( typically between floor and top rail ). " Ive never heard "handrail" used to describe the whole assembly. The Code defines handrail as: "a rail to provide support to, or assist with the movement of, a person". Interestingly a totally panelled or glazed or mesh barrier (with no rails or balusters) is called a balustrade. Perhaps a look at the US and UK Building Codes (Definitions sections) could help resolve this? Mhicaoidh 11:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A staircase with a very grand balustrade indeed
  • You are not as prickly as some I could mention Wetman! My own personal take on this, and I say this with no references to support me, is that half these confusions are the result of Real Estate Agents (British: Estate Agents) who like to "enhance" every feature of a house in order that it appears grander and thus more expensive. I have seen houses advertised with "balustraded staircase" when in fact it is a handrail supported by some more ornate than usual bannisters. Similarly a mundane living room with two windows in Britain becomes a "double aspect drawing room" and a house too small to own a dining room but has just room enough for a small table within the swing of the front door suddenly becomes possessed of a "dining hall", and more recently I saw a modern three bedroomed house, so small that the stairs were thrust out into a small extension had become the proud owner of a "Baronial staircase turret" The point I'm trying to make is that yes language does change, but let us realise the difference between genuine language changes and pretentious hype. The easiest way to define the difference between a handrail and a balustrade (or if the language has indeed changed) is spot the reaction of your child when you say "Oh Marvin - please do not smear your sticky little fingers up the the staircase balustrade" If he looks at you as though you are completely barking mad, then you probably have a handrail, if he says "Oh, I do appolagise pappa, I will instruct the butler to polish the marble" then you may just possibly have a ballustrade, then again you may just possibly have a pretentious irritating little brat. Giano 11:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Jcvamp, please look here - the term is in wide usage across the industry......'. UK Building regulations refer only to 'guarding' - to allow for various permutations of mesh or glass in addition to traditional balusters with handrail on top. The NHBC however refers to, and distinguishes between a balustrade and a handrail - "6.6 - S10 A handrail shall be correctly located and fixed to provide a safe handhold...........throughout it's whole length the handrail should be 1. fixed securely 2. continuous 3. smooth and unobstructed 4. at least 25mm from any surface." "6.6 - S11 Balustrading shall be securely fixed and constructed to reduce the risk of it being climbed up or fallen through. Statutory regulations require that balustrading 1. is fixed securely 2. cannot be easily climbed 3. has no gaps which would allow a 100mm diameter sphere to pass through - unless the building will not be used by children under 5". There are some terms in building which do have regional variations - dwang timber in scotland for instance is a type of noggin used to carry a flying rafter - balustrade however isn't one of these. The correct nomenclature for architectural writing is important - it is usually more specific than general language and allows for greater precision of meaning - joists vs. beams, soffit vs. ceiling, Sedilia vs. seat etc. etc. regards --Mcginnly | Natter 13:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion sought

[edit]

I would value your opinion here [1], where an editor would like to shorten a FA of which I was a principle editor. Giano 10:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did give my opinion. Have you seen William Benson? Is there anything you can add? --Wetman 15:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guglielmo Fiammingo

[edit]

Hi Wetman. You are off to such a great start on the article Guglielmo Fiammingo that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leone Leoni

[edit]

Hi Wetman. You are off to such a great start on the article Leone Leoni that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arch of Titus "plagiarism"

[edit]

Text you added to Arch of Titus has been reverted, due to probably being a copyright violation. It appears to be a direct copy from this page. If you are the author, or have permission to reproduce the content, feel free to document that and restore the text. Cheers! Mdotley 22:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, quite to the contrary, text that I added at Arch of Titus in October 2004, quite recognizably in my style, has been appropriated at Essential-Architecture, where you will find other Wikipedia article used to describe Roman antiquities here. --Wetman 23:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't know "your style" well enough to distinguish between your writing and anyone else's, but my reasoning was thus: 1, I posted on the article's talk page eight months ago that it looked like there's a problem, and no one said anything; 2, the writer of the text seemed to have some expertise, which I would expect to find at a site named "Essential Architecture", and which I saw no claims to on your User page; and 3, after several different explorations of the outside site, I found neither a grant of permission to share the info, nor an acknowledgement of its origins. By not disclaiming authorship, the outside site's owner is essentially claiming copyright, which I have no firm basis to dispute. Mdotley 23:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comparision of the WP article and his on Notre Dame de Paris might prove relevant. Both contain a large amount of the same material, including much of the WP trivia we all know and love. I suspect this was added by many editors, so either they all independently copied from this obscure site, or ..... Your argument no 2 is flawed as there is no claim of authorship or expertise anywhere. Many arts-related sites, notably www.wga.com, consist entirely of material taken from the web or copyvios of books. Johnbod 00:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pay attention, Mdotley: The website Essential-Architecture has taken Wikipedia texts for its articles on Rome. Example: Eseential-Architecture on Domus Aurea and Wikipedia Domus Aurea. The Wikipedia article's transparent history will show you how that text was assembled, piece by piece. Now even you have "a firm basis to dispute" the unclaimed copyright of a mirror of Wikipedia. I am copying this to Talk:Arch of Titus. Have you been deleting other text on this senseless basis? --Wetman 00:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you three good reasons, any one of which would normally be sufficient to establish the likelihood of a copyvio. If anyone is being senseless here, it's not me. Mdotley 02:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "violation" goes the other way; the Wikipedia text has been copied, as is often the case, because we retain no copyright. I have given you sufficient information to get it together: please look at the identical discussion at Talk:Église de la Madeleine. I have checked your last thousand edits and find no further irresponsible deletions of this kind, so you're off the hook. --Wetman 03:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, he did first raise the matter on the talk page [2] and then wait 8 months before acting, which is the right way to do it in my book. Johnbod 03:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, indeed. One can't constantly scan talk pages to check that existing text is not in imminent danger of being deleted, though. Now, if you thought I were in copyright violation, you'd probably alert me first, wouldn't you. Just on the general principle that there must be some error. The better sort of Wikipedians are even more careful of what they delete than what they add. --Wetman 03:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True Johnbod 03:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite amusing in this context to see that our article on Federico Brandani already appears at [http://yousurp.com/node/12604].--Wetman 10:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modtley's ill-informed allegations are revolting, but in fact one of our 1,700 admins could have stopped chatting for a minute to send a standard GFDL violation letter to www.essential-architecture.org before throwing bold accusations on fellow wikipedians. --Ghirla-трёп- 23:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's an administrator! I should have known from the style. --Wetman 23:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excalibur

[edit]

Dear Wet,

Liked your work on the Excalibur page. I've added a section which explains the origin of the sword in the stone; Don't worry, it's not "original research"! It is in fact a matter of historical documentation, but for an easy reference, look out for a book entitled "By the Sword" by Richard M. Cohen.

Hope it helps

STEALTH RANGER 08:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me? I wish I could take credit, but that was ages ago: I haven't contributed at Excalibur for over a year, except to zap some drivel. Your section is sound, but you need to express it in terms of a report of what Cohen states in By the Sword. I'm sorry to warn you that the Munchkins will be along momentarily shrieking "Original research", or in their language "OR! OR!". Better go adjust your good section! --Wetman 08:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha ! STEALTH RANGER 16:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"survey"?

[edit]

At speculum literature, you linked to survey. The article titled "survey" does not seem to be what you had in mind. Do you know of any other article that that word could appropriately link to? Michael Hardy 00:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... and now I've changed the link to one that seems more appropriate, but still less than ideal. Michael Hardy 00:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, better. I've given the link some specific context. The basic idea is good, I think: that a speculum provides a wide-angled survey. Maybe you can further improve that speculum literature stub I started. --Wetman 00:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your ref is wrong, very wrong

[edit]

The his genitive exists in two forms. As an intensifier, it's nearly dead by 1680. As a hypercorrective and bizarre introduction, it begins to appear around 1680. These are different matters entirely. The -es genitive was normal ME, but ME speakers had a reflexive intensifier form where the "his" and "her" would be reintroduced, and that died as people began to regard it as an accidental doubling. Then, though, there is this odd little phenomenon, and I can give you many examples from primaries, of a "his" genitive that appears to be a mistaken belief that the "his" was always there. (And Curme beats College English anyhow, and Baugh beats Curme.) Geogre 02:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply reporting. --Wetman 05:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment

[edit]

Re:Talk:Proglacial lakes of Minnesota. Your comment was totally useless and unnecessary. This encyclopedia is built on people writing about what they like. Shame on you. -Ravedave 22:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may well wonder at this, Gentle Reader. I had posted "Ah. we look forward to Dinosaurs of New Jersey. The map itself is revealing, like those familiar US weathermaps in newspapers and TV that show the weather ending along borders with Canada and Mexico. This is not an encyclopedic subject, except in The Minnesota Encyclopedia. Very American in thinking. --Wetman 18:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
So, I have posted the map in question at the right for you, Gentle Reader: do look at the apparent outline of Glacial Lake Agassiz! That's actually the tail-end bit of it that once covered paleo-Minnesota. My remarks were cutting and characteristic, and too accurate: can we not in fact look forward to Dinosaurs of New Jersey and Flora of Central Park? This encyclopedia is indeed built on people writing about what they like, all too often from their own limited perspective. There is much in Wikipedia that is not in fact encyclopedic. And much that is angry (Islamofascism) and silly (Cocoa Puffs), too. --Wetman 01:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that the user should have taken his time and hand created a map over 6 times larger than the one created? Lake Agassiz is huge, no to mention all the other lakes extending out of the state. Did you look at the site it was taken from? You can only Zoom in so much without having to take many images and stitch them together. Instead we have a map of a limited area instead of no map at all. You should think before just spouting off. You should put your money where your mouth is and stop wasting time on something useless like Trinità dei Monti and work on core articles in weak condition like Cone (geometry) or Anatomy. -Ravedave 01:50, 6 July 2007 (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.

Camptown Races

[edit]

Hi, I was reading Camptown Races earlier, and noticed whilst doing related searches that the text is duplicated at [3]. I wasn't sure who was copying who, so added a copyvio tag. I just now got back to it, in order to search the diffs for the origin, which is you! If they copied us, obviously rvt me and rm the entry at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 July 6/Articles. Ta :)

There's also a thread at Talk:Camptown Races#Rising Sun Newsletter that you might know the answer to. Much thanks. --Quiddity 05:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a comedy act, Gentle Reader, a follow-up, I imagine, to Talk:Arch of Titus. It's quite clear from Wikipedia's transparent history how this text, or any Wikipedia text, has been assembled. I recognize my own contributions, from 31 January 2006 but I don't care one way or the other whether it's deleted by these people or not: Camptown Races is not on my Watchlist.--Wetman 06:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Attention everyone!: do not attempt to report to me on the progress of this flea circus. Do not justify, apologize, explain, query or involve me further in this perfectly ridiculous business in any way. I have provided a simple literacy test at Talk:Camptown Races, which is no longer on my Watchlist. And that is all. --Wetman 07:23, 7 July 2007 (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.

Mirepoix

[edit]

Please appreciate that Mirepoix is the place to discuss…mirepoix.Proabivouac 08:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re this diff: "This User took offense at a reference to the "holy Trinity" of cooking (which was indeed perfectly unnecessary) and deleted the entire passage in pique...blanking text for personal reasons is an all-too-familiar technique of vandalism."
There was no "personal reason" at all, e.g. aversion to Trinitarianism, as your wording suggests, except that I personally believe that articles should stay on topic (and should be sourced, for that matter.) The only thing at which I've "[taken] offense" is the deeply uncivil manner in which you've chosen to converse with me.[4], [5], [6]Proabivouac 02:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please appreciate that Mirepoix (cuisine) is the place to discuss…mirepoix.--Wetman 02:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Further offensive bullying, threats, challenges and accusations intended to draw Wetman into confrontation— quite unsuitable for this page, and so deleted— may be inspected at the Page history at the lefthand menu, for those with sufficient morbid curiosity.)

Tips of an iceberg and Palladio

[edit]

Care to advise here [7] none of the books concerning Villa Barbaro mention the fact that it was the inspiration for The Capitol, knowing the booming and somewhat odd claims to fame of many Italian stately homes I feel it would have been claimed had it been true. While Palladio was almost certainly at the bottom of the design, I feel it was more like Palladianism rather than one individual building, especially as there seems little resemblence, I can think of several more akin to it. Giano 18:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, I must have closed down without saving, for I can't find my response to you. It was that I could see no source for Thornton's Capitol in Villa Barbaro at Maser in Quattro Libri. Dr. Thornton's original drawings are lost. I seems that Stephen Hallet was called in to rectify discrepencies between plans and elevations. The architectural history is very complicted. --Wetman 02:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)-Wetman 02:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I have seen your responses. There are some fairly wild claims being made on Barbaro family especially the talk page. Some people think it is a hoax, I don't because there is a grounding of truth. I suspect it is a citizen of your country trying to round up some illustrious ancestors and then give them greater credence in the US of A. than perhaps they deserve. I was asked to cast my eye over the page, which I have done and that is my conclusion. Giano 10:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've long been told that there are no European families with authentic genealogical connections to Antiquity, not even through Goths. I'll give 'Barbaro family" a wide berth, I think, though I'm drawn to the individuals, like Marcantonio Barbaro.--Wetman 10:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having started Descent from antiquity, I may assure you that any claim of proved Roman descent is a hoax. See Christian Settipani's "Continuité gentilice et continuité familiale dans les familles sénatoriales romaines a l’époque impériale: mythe et réalité" for some intriguing speculations on the issue. Nathaniel Taylor's review is available here. The Barbaro genealogy was formerly available on sardimpex.com, but the content was deleted for copyright reasons. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't the French Royal family used to claim some amazing descent, of have I been reading too much "Da Vinci Code"? Giano 14:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably you have. With the current documentation of the Early Middle Ages, nobody can prove his descent even from the Merovingians. See Christian Settipani, Ancestors of Charlemagne, 1989, ISBN 2-906483-28-1 and various addenda to this book. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This chat got me intersted to see how far back my family roots go. The earliest date so far is Ansegis, "murdered" in 685. His parents, Arnulf and Doda ended up as a monk and a nun. But not, it seems before they produced him. Or maybe he came later. Those were different times. There is a family line back to Adam produced by Marshall Haukur Erlendsson (d. 1334), but, it seem like a long shot, at best. Carptrash 15:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having read Nathaniel Taylor's review of Settipani (thanks Andrej), have I made errors at Ruricius of Limoges concerning his Gallo-Roman connection? Apparently he's a key link. In Gaul, villa organization seems to be a major link with Late Antiquity: the personnel installed in the villas come and go, but aristocratic villas granted to monks, abbots or bishops survive to the Revolution and beyond. There is extraordinary continuity of this kind in the demes of Egypt down to Nasser. --Wetman 16:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is a reasonable conjecture; see here for details. Settipani's reconstruction revolves around his idea that Sacerdos of Limoges was the grandson of Ruricius. The whole story invites the article on Anicii, of course, but I'm not competent to start it just now. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How'd you be on Gondi bank, since Gondi is a dab page? --Wetman 21:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article you created up for deletion

[edit]

Hello! An article you created is being discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hydra_in_popular_culture

I have been working on improvements, but I urge you to contribute to the discussion and perhaps help with the cleanup effort to save this article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me as very revealing, that though one may not delete these lists of cruft, as soon as they are spun off into separate articles they are quickly recognized as junk. --Wetman 18:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War of the League of Cambrai

[edit]

Just in case you miss it on your watchlist, please take a look at this; since you presumably have the book close at hand—I don't, unfortunately—it'd be very helpful if you could dig up the requisite page number(s). Thanks! Kirill 14:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put Shaw's Julius II: The Warrior Pope on my library list. I couldn't see that the supportive references were still in place. --Wetman 19:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About "confusing" fasces with feces

[edit]

Re [8] — it was good faith and not coarse humor. If you look at my contribs I had been going around adding {{distinguish}} to various pages with similar titles or typo-sensitive titles.  — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 16:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please use good sense. No Wikipedia reader, not even you, truly needs to be told at the head of the article Fasces not to confuse them with Faeces. To assume that the Wikipedia reader is a moron is condescending. --Wetman 19:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop being a jerk. Faeces and Fasces is only one letter different. This is an educational tool; please be mature and realise some people using Wikipedia will be doing so to actually learn, not just to inflate their own ego.  — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 22:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(Doubtless you'll agree, Gentle Reader, that it would be cruel to pursue this furious creature, where the cultural advantages are so unequally marshalled. I leave it to you, then, to judge whether, at the cultural level that would identify faeces as the Latinate form of feces, any genuine confusion might obtain with Fasces. Shall we see the Wikipedia reader warned not to confuse Schmit with shit? One might hope not. --Wetman 00:33, 17 July 2007 (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.
I leave the above to prove my last point  — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 12:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(rolls eyes) Super, I don't care about the rights and wrongs of the personal spat you seem to be having with Wetman. To me wikipedia is written for an average person who's completed an average education. The lexdyxic amongst us are always going to struggle with the rather nice way that English has very different meanings for similiarly spelled words. But we don't need to disambiguate everytime there's a possibility of a mis-reading. regards --Joopercoopers 12:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Upper West Side

[edit]

Thanks for following up on my cite request on the Upper West Side article, specifically Edgar's Cafe's claims that Edgar Allan Poe wrote "The Raven" there. I'm still suspicious because, though the poem was published in 1845, it was first read aloud in 1843, leaving this location just as dubious as all the others that claim The Raven's composition (I know of four, this one in New York, one in Delaware, one in Pennsylvania, and one in Massachusetts). Anyway, more importantly, I was wondering if you knew for certain if the road named after him spells it "Edgar Allen Poe" as the reference says or if it's correctly spelled "Edgar Allan Poe." Thanks! --Midnightdreary 13:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC

I'll check that spelling for you from a street sign. This really should be a footnote at 'The Raven". Its interest at Upper West Side is peripheral. --Wetman 19:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Wetman. I've been thinking about adding a small section on "The Raven" regarding legends, folklore, and those sorts of things; this reference would fall under that. The page has been undergoing a heavy overhaul the past couple weeks so I'll bring it up over there. Anyway, thanks for the collaboration! --Midnightdreary 05:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling: Edgar AllAn Poe, as you'd hoped. --Wetman 13:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHEELER

[edit]

Hi Wetman. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this request for arbitration. Thanks, Paul August ☎ 17:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style for disambiguation pages

[edit]

Hello. For edits to disambiguation pages (such as this one) please refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 04:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what has Ewlyahoocom done with this fragment of useful information instead? --Wetman 05:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franks FAR

[edit]

Franks has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Peter Andersen 20:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abbey of Vauluisant

[edit]

Hi Wetman. You are off to such a great start on the article Abbey of Vauluisant that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Helots

[edit]

Hi Wetman. Could you please have a look at Talk:Helots#the_Context_section? User:Segregold deleted a whole section from the text which he considers apologetic for the Spartan behaviour towards Helots. Being the author of the said section, I naturally resent that. I agree that the text could be reworded (it was translated from a not-so-recent French article), that more details could be added and so on, but pure and simple deletion seems outrageous to me. I'd welcome your input on this matter. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Bruce (architect)

[edit]

I know you don't like the FA circus, so I would not ask, if I did not desperately want to encourage an editor doing very good work. There is a nice page languishing here, it just needs a little polish and clarity. I refer you to my comments here [9]. The only reason I ask is that I'm far from home with not a proper book within reach - and there is only one man who will know how to do it!!! Cringing flattery is not my strong point - you don't have to vote just give credit to my compatriots and a little clarity. Regards. Giano 18:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a pleasure to vote for that as a Featured Article. I did give it a few tweaks, though, to tune it up to concert pitch... --Wetman 03:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chettle House

[edit]

Thanks I thought it was very nice too but not as nice as this, I just stumbled across it by chance looking for something else [10] I'd never seen it before now that is what I call a perfect little gem! Though you might like to see it too. Giano 16:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano I can't open your link; however, I can reach :http:www.ruraldorset.com/days/. What should I search for when I arrive in rural Dorset? --Wetman 20:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chettle House, possibly one of the most perfect things I have ever seen in English architecture - it needs a page of it's own, but all my books are elsehwere. Giano 20:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So much Baroque in such a succinct package, Giano, and Colvin says it had an open pediment that was removed in the C19. Built for George Chafin by Francis Smith of Warwick and his brother, working, Colvin suspects, to designs of Thomas Archer. It does look as though it should have some good plasterwork, but it's not mentioned in G. Beard. "Between Sixpenny Handley and Blandford Forum": what a locale! Hmm Smith of Warwick gets no Wikipedia space... Garden archaeology at Chettle and a splendid air view showing its unspoilt surroundings. Notes from Pevsner and interior photos. --Wetman 21:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is so Baroque it is almost not true, perhaps it is not! the second I return I will research it - the only other house I know in that leaugue of rural English Baroque is Chicheley Hall [11] which if you have a few millions to spare like its near neighbour Winslow Hall is for sale - I always think the provincial ones are always better and more fun than the Castle Howards of this world. Giano 22:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An effective way to rid articles of lists of "appearances" of mythic figures in video games

[edit]

Create articles on the order of X in popular culture. Once separated the lists are soon recognized as cruft and you'll evenbtually receive satisfying reports such as those that follow. Attempts just to delete lists of junk often result in edit wars with overweight teens. Wetman 20:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well now, that's the kind of message I always hope to read! You continue ever a gentleman of discernment, Sir. --Wetman 16:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flutters cap with a flourish. --Joopercoopers 09:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is cruft to be deleted, can you clarify why you added it back on the Lernean Hydra article [12] Canuckle 00:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erk! thanks for the heads up, Canuckle! Re-deleted. --Wetman 01:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tocharians

[edit]

Dear Wetman, I am greatful to you for your attempt to resolve a contention http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tocharians&oldid=146837173. However, in your re-phrasing, there are inaccuracies: Zuev is not Turkish, he is Russian, judging by his name; He does not advocate that the Tocharians were Turkic, but observes what languages they spoke in space and time; Kidanes reportedly were proto-Mongolian speakers, and a splinter of Tocharians were absorbed in their polyethnic state, as a separate and distinguishable group. Another group was absorbed by Turkic Kangar (Kangju) state, and later was associated with Yantsai/Alans/Ases, a third group remained in Central Asia and was sequentially absorbed into Hunnish, Seyanto (Xeyanto), Jujan (WP:Ruran), and finally Turkic Kaganates. He lists more splinter groups of so-called Little Yuejies, which were not little at all after all. My comments are not directed to diminish my appreciation, quite the opposite, I hope you will find a refined phrasing. Thanks, Barefact 10:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you will be able to find a rephrasing that satisfies you. In this area, "reportedly" always needs a name attached to the report and preferably a footnote, too. The allegedl tracability of Tocharians through the incredible sequence "Hunnish, Seyanto (Xeyanto), Jujan (WP:Ruran), and finally Turkic Kaganates" needs to be identified by its advocate, and not presented as historical fact by Wikipedia. In these ways Wikipedia does not join any advocacy forces. The present text sets an example: "According to the theory of former USSR scholar Ü.A. Zuev..." Seems good to a generalist like me; I hope it satisfies your more critical eye.--Wetman 21:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Bruce (architect)

[edit]

Hi Wetman, thanks for your input into this article. Could I ask you to double-check the page numbers for the new edition of Colvin's Dictionary.... Some of them still seem to be the old numbers, but I dont have access to the newer version to check for myself. Many thanks, Edward Waverley 16:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! That should have been done more consistently. I've rechecked against Colvin now and tightened my page references. At the end I quoted Colvin whose assessment of Bruce in the "prehistory of the picturesque" ("prehistory" is very just!) needed to be read more closely in relation to Bruce's single picturesque decision. The surroundings of Bruce's houses continued to be formal plats. A featurable article! -Wetman 19:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for that, Edward Waverley 11:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radcliffe Camera

[edit]

When categorising recently I just recatagorised Radcliffe Camera from Baroque to Category: English Baroque architecture - now on reading it I see it is stated that it was built in the Palladian style - I'm pretty sure it is fair to call it Baroque - allthough it is late - what do you think? Giano 12:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's such a sculptural object that I've always seen it as baroque. If the façade were flattened out, would it have a Palladian palace-front analog?--Wetman 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rime of the Humanities Desk

[edit]

I see you turned my reference to The Rime of King William in to a blue link. Very well done, Wetman! Clio the Muse 15:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On not imposing BC/AD in existing articles

[edit]

Wetman had been obliged to post the following note at User talk:Lo2u:

BC/AD is a convention always used in Wikipedia articles on specifically Christian subjects. In non-Christian subjects, changing BCE/CE to BC/AD is a discourtesy, rather like "correcting" spelling to American practice. I'm sure you understand that whatever convention is established in an article, we simply go with it. You'll notice that no one ever "corrects" BCE to BC: why do you suppose that is? --Wetman 09:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

[A most impertinent self-justification ensued, wisely withdrawn after several further rispostos]

When in any doubt, I check the page history for the first appearance of a dating convention, and go with that, whatever it may be. In creating articles I never use BCE/CE for a Christian subject, or BC/AD for a secular one: it's just my taste.--Wetman 21:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[etc etc, very sensibly withdrawn]

I'm scrupulously careful never to make "corrective" edits in order to impose BCE/CE on existing articles, even in articles on Greek mythology or ancient history, for that would be a tasteless intrusion. So, quite to the contrary, it's well worth a bit of research to avoid a coarse gaffe. The perfectly simple alternative is to follow my rule: Avoid unnecessary interference. To the wise, a word suffices, so that's enough about that. --Wetman 08:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Gentle Reader, this [deleted] user's further attempts to create an argument over this unarguable point, to "edit "my talkpage and to delete his hostile remarks may be traced at Page history, if you really care.

[further attempts were deleted unread]

I do understand. I have read the history. Even so, it will help if you can replace the phrase "problem user" above with "user". I can see why you might put it in; but leaving it up while also deleting all responses is not quite kosher, I think. Your feelings still come through nicely even with omission of the word "problem", and it would resolve a wikiquette alert that has been placed. If you agree, please delete this comment from me at the same time. Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the word problem in reference to this user, since you are so generous as to feel that this hostile reaction is not a problem. If a wikiquette alert had been posted somewhere, I would surely have been informed of it. There will be nothing further on this post. --Wetman 04:59, 10 August 2007 (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.

Image tagging for Image:RomanDoricOrderEngraving.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:RomanDoricOrderEngraving.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

[edit]

Regarding your recent edits to Homeric Hymns, I draw your attention to the following paragraph of MOS:DATE:

This part of the Manual of Style aims to achieve consistency in the use and formatting of dates and numbers in Wikipedia articles. Consistent standards make articles easier to read, write and edit. Where this manual provides options, consistency should be maintained within an article, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. In direct quotations, the original text should be preserved.This part of the Manual of Style aims to achieve consistency in the use and formatting of dates and numbers in Wikipedia articles. Consistent standards make articles easier to read, write and edit. Where this manual provides options, consistency should be maintained within an article, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. In direct quotations, the original text should be preserved.

Best wishes, --Lo2u (T • C) 07:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have corrected the minor inconsistency. --Wetman 08:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restarted FAC

[edit]

Debate has been restarted at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago Board of Trade Building and your voice has not been heard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 06:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hesbaye

[edit]

Dear,

Just to inform you of a change I made in your article on Hesbaye (Haspengouw). Some changes had been made prior to mine, but unfortunately nobody saw that it's geographical description was wrong. Hesbaye is not the area around Namur (Namen), it hardly even reaches Namur. Namur is actually on the border of several regions, as the river Maas (Meuse) seperates two totaly different regions. You can consider Sint-Truiden as the heart of Hesbaye.

Best regards,

Arne

Thank you for being so watchful. I couldn't tell whether the geographic term had unofficial modern currency or not--Wetman 16:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The third Mediolanum

[edit]

Well spotted! Apparently, though, there are quite a few more. A Storia di Milano page lists 18 attested occurrences of the toponym and another thirteen probables. —Ian Spackman 11:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediolanum (disambiguation)? Hah! I see you've pipped me at the post, as my nanny used to say.--Wetman 11:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Art Deco expo

[edit]

Sorry I got off on a tangent about the exceptions at the exhibition, and thank you for elaborating here [13] D. Recorder 01:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tangent was excellent. We also need notes on the stuff exhibited by Sue et Mare, J.J. Rateau, Edgard Brandt to balance your exceptions. --Wetman 02:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wetman/archive10Aug2007&oldid=1140652707"