User talk:Wetman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

		The Epic Barnstar
		For tireless vandalism reverts and all-around improvements to classical-themed articles, I hereby award Wetman the epic barnstar Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The 100 DYK Medal for Wetman Thanks for your first hundred. Keep up the good work. With 50K plus edits then we need a few more for DYK, however we have over 100 articles so far. Thanks again Victuallers (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 Pillow lavas 2 Roman Religion 3 Proposed deletion of History of bread 4 De mirabilibus urbis Romae 5 Evidence demanded for a Userpage statement 6 DYK for De mirabilibus urbis Romae 7 Wow! 8 The 1951 Venice ball of Carlos (Charles) de Beistegui 9 Political dinosaurs 10 DYK for La Porta 11 DYK issue 12 Massacre of the Innocents 13 Gasparo Contarini 14 Chimera (mythology) 15 Medieval cuisine 16 Praise of the Two Lands (ship) 17 The Ladies' Mercury 18 The Athenian Mercury 19 Attributing Author (Photographer: Louise Bialik) for Simon House's Wiki Page 20 Riace Warriors? 21 DYK for Council of Bourges 22 DYK for Woolmer Forest 23 DYK for Antonio Latini 24 Gardens 25 Alexander Sarcophagus 26 DYK for Gaddi Torso 27 Typhon NPOV tag? 28 Gertrude Jekyll 29 DYK 30 Procopio Cutò 31 Suffolk Mills Group 32 Strangwish 33 Talk:Guivre 34 Liber Floridus 35 Marcello Massarenti 36 A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies 37 Wyvern 38 Re:Better start 39 Château du Grand Jardin 40 Thanks 41 Worcestershire 42 Need a better word 43 Re: Prometheus etymology edits. 44 You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association 44.1 XN4 45 Le Maistre Chat, ou le Chat Botté (Puss in Boots) 46 DYK nomination of Château du Grand Jardin 47 Nice one! 48 David Runciman review 49 WP edits as moves in a game 50 Established Editors 51 Re: Pantheon 52 Apologies 53 Muslim settlement of Lucera 54 La Dauphine 55 RE: Autoreviewing 56 Do we want change? 57 Unicorn alert 58 Virginia (Mercadante) 59 Just a note 60 English Wikipedia's 3 millionth article 61 Nerthus 62 Rasa or Arsa 63 Raša River 64 Talk:Ink bamboo 65 DYK for Raša River 66 Charles Boit

CURRENT & NEW TALK

[edit] Pillow lavas

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

Sorry about the forcing part. It looked too good to miss entirely. Thank you for giving it an appropriate setting. I lurk at Commons:Gallery of new files sometimes, for random surprises.--Wetman (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it's good to be forced occasionally, all to easy to think 'I must sort that out sometime' and then do nothing about it. Mikenorton (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Religion

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

No, I don't know much about Roman cultus but the article could use some dedicated editing. My excellent book on the History of Private Life doesn't cover much religion, which seems to me either unremittingly civic and dull, or else obscurely rustic, aboriginally ancient and scarcely knowable. Decline of Graeco-Roman polytheism is more for me. I could work in a report of Ramsay Macmillan, The Christianization of the Roman Empire there, then make a condensed version of that article for the closing section of Religion in ancient Rome, shall I?--Wetman (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A closing section would be very useful. For the rest, I too know very little of the groundwork, but am using Brent's Imperial Cult (and others) for other articles, and might be able to provide a cautious anthropological basis. Leastways, I think so. Aboriginal, ancient and scarcely knowable it is. So here's to it... Haploidavey (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Imperial cult has the distinct advantage of being constructed, in part following Hellenistic rulers' examples, with later (third century) input from Persia , and better documented too. Women's religion is an aspect usually underepresented, as it's so scarcely documented (by men, eh); there should be something directly following "Household religion".--Wetman (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion of History of bread

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

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

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

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

[edit] De mirabilibus urbis Romae

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

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

[edit] Evidence demanded for a Userpage statement

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

No one can "show" you. You need to read. It's never too late to begin.--Wetman (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a tad overstated, & I'd question the date. Most operational temples remained so until 397 (was it?) when pagan ceremonies were forbidden, and apparently temple sites were actually shunned by Christian builders for a couple of generations after, by which time a great number of major churches were already established. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The titulus churches of Rome on the one hand, and gifts of imperial sites (which naturally couldn't have been temple fanes) are some exceptions. Even among the tituli of Rome, however, see how many are built on previously consecrated space. Another set of exceptions are provided by the great institutional churches that developed from abbatial churches: abbeys, as far as the Rhineland and as late as the tenth century were founded on gifts of intact Roman villas, rather than on previously consecrated ground. The great number of those Christian foundations Johnbod mentions date to the fifth century, rather than the fourth, when the Christians weren't powerful enough yet to take over pagan sites. In hagiography, of course, temples collapse of their own accord,, ruins to be quarried and in Italy, they are spared destruction specifically when Christian churches are built within them: examples abound, though the Parthenon is not the only temple that has been cleared of its church. In the fictitious vita of Porphyry of Gaza the narrative includes the physical occupation of a temple as one of the details intended to build verisimilitude, a detail all the more instructive as it is probably not history, though "routinely cited as real history... because it is full, specific and vivid", as Ramsay MacMullen notes in Christianizing the Roman Empire (p 86). Control of the local holy places, what's more, is always an essential in creating a new establishment, from post-Augustinian England to the Sultanate of Delhi. Perhaps a revised statement should read "Virtually every European or Near Eastern Christian basilica or cathedral founded after the outlawing of pagan temples in 391 occupies the consecrated site of a pagan temple of one kind or another."? Where there is contentious opposition— who normally posts "I don't buy this. Evidence?" of a Userpage?— one should be scrupulously accurate. --Wetman (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The Maison Carrée, one of the Paestum temples, & of course the Pantheon are other ex-temple-ex-churches. We are a bit vague on when the Parthenon was churchified - given the churches at Hadrian's Library next door, I suspect rather late. The "temple of Concordia" at Agrigento was 597 apparently, just in time for your deadline! I wonder if temples of the Imperial cult were especially prone to be converted? Johnbod (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, look at the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina! Near the Parthenon, the Temple of Hephaestus owes its coherent survival to its churchification. The very name of Santa Maria sopra Minerva would alert one to this phenomenon; it was churchified so late that there were few remaining standing pagan structures left in Rome to sanctify.

I like them re-classicising A&F for the visit of Charles V; that must have puzzled the pilgrims. Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm now making it a practice to link text to Christianized sites every time I come upon a mention of a Christian structure occupying a pagan sacred site. The truth is in the mountain of examples--Wetman (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that before. So far it notably lacks a "mountain of examples". As mentioned above, I doubt if "Few Christian churches built in the first half millennium of the established Christian Church were not built upon sites already consecrated as pagan temples or as high places.." is true; I think this is characteristic of a later stage, including just the end of that period, or does the "half millennium" just begin in the 4th century? - that could be made clearer. To some extent it is just the handiness of materials, or the obvious choice of prominent sites in a city. About the 2 oldest churches in near-original condition in England, Church of St Peter-on-the-Wall, Bradwell-on-Sea and All Saints' Church, Brixworth, both use Roman secular materials from what were already ruins nearby, respectively a fort and villa, but I doubt there is much significance to that beyond convenience. And to the ancient Romans & Greeks cemetries were the opposite of "high places" - they insisted theyt were placed outside the city walls, like modern sewage works. Johnbod (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Why, yes, John. "The first half millennium of the established Christian Church" couldn't be thought of beginning before the fourth century; the Christianized sites before that are more typically in the domus of a patron (San Clemente, etc) and never a pagan holy site. The beginnings can be dated about the time the Christian mob destroyed the Serapeum. Not previously Romanized areas were not being evangelised until Saint Boniface in the eighth century, with his legendary felling of Thor's Oak. You're right of course about the convenience of pre-cut stone; I was thinking of Italy and Gaul really, in writing that... but do you think there is ever a "Saint X's Well" in England or Wales that is not a pagan site?

Setton (Athens in the Middle Ages, 197) places the consecration of the Parthenon "certainly after Justinian's time". And the Pantheon is still a church, right? I observed a Catholic service there in 2003. Srnec (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I expect you're right about the wells, but wells are not a usual location otherwise for Christian worship; isolated high crosses are similar. An instruction from one of the Borgia Popes survives to end the practice of holding services in "the cave with the painted bulls" in a northern Spanish diocese - don't ask me where I read that though. Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for De mirabilibus urbis Romae

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

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

[edit] Wow!

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

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

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

Very well done, too. Now I know something about Beistegui beyond Palazzo Labia and Groussay. The throwing the dishes in the canal tale was originally said of Agostino Chigi; was it ever really said of Beistegui I wonder. Weren't the Duck and Doochess forbidden to go, while Britain was still on rationing?--Wetman (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If only I'd been invited, I could have told you. A shocking social faux pas on Beistegui's part, don't you think (let's just ignore the fact that I was only 10 months old at the time). In the absence of personal evidence, I can but report what others have written about it. You're welcome to challenge those bits if you're so disposed. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What? and risk Original Research? I was nine myself. The best contemporary report was in Vogue in the winter of 1952. Click here for a good Internet report. I don't have Alexis de Redé's memoirs, which doubtless give good quotable details. The extraordinary thing, looking at Beaton's photos, is how knowledgeable all the details were-- Jacques Fath in a Louis XIV court ballet costume, Daisy Fellowes as La Regina d'Africa, all drawn from porcelains and tapestries. Today, even actresses don't know how to move in those clothes. --Wetman (talk) 06:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I can't help thinking that Elton John must have been inspired by Beistegui's own costume, for that absolutely off-the-planet wig-encrusted garb he wore at his 50th birthday, that looked like it took up the entire room. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Political dinosaurs

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

Ah, and under that header I expected a comment about Arlen Specter. You were recalling the zany map at right?--Wetman (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's right. We are sheltered from news of the Spectersauros here. Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for La Porta

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

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

[edit] DYK issue

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

[edit] Massacre of the Innocents

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

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

I put it back. :) PiCo (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for setting it to rights; your habitual courtesy is not invariably found at Wikipedia, regrettably. --Wetman (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gasparo Contarini

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

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

[edit] Chimera (mythology)

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

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

[edit] Medieval cuisine

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

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

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

[edit] Praise of the Two Lands (ship)

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

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

Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] The Ladies' Mercury

The Ladies' Mercury contained the first advice column for a periodical. Do you have any advice you can give me for the new article? Thanks! --Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that: The Ladies' Mercury is the first periodical for women and it contained an advice column. See, you were right! I didn't word it correctly to really mean what I intended. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've made my usual tweaks, each intended for a specific reason, which I hope you'll detect and approve. None intended simply to substitute my word for yours. Check this diff: see how I substituted a more vivid verb for "was". The UK not existing, I made it "England and Scotland", which keeps the frame of reference in 1693, not to distract the reader with today. The "publication" didn't do any deciding: it was the editor who did. I shifted "printed in London" away from a sentence where it wasn't part of the immediate topic of the sentence. I managed to build parenthetical phrases into the texture of a sentence. Added a useful link, too! --Wetman (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what great improvements. I always learn a lot from you. I like that link to The Athenian Society. Interesting that UK didn't exist at that time, didn't know that. Sorry about the confusion of The Ladies' Mercury having the first advice column. Famous First Facts, which I have found to be a reliable reference source, says "The first advice column appeared in the first issue (dated Feb 27, 1693) of the first magazine for women, The Ladies Mercury"; however this reference says, "To cater for the popularity of these topics, the editors announced on 3 June 1691 that the issue of the first Tuesday of each month would be set aside 'to answer reasonable questions sent to us by the fair sex' and in February 1693 Dunton launched a short-lived spin-off publication, the Ladies Mercury, to answer similar quieries." So it looks like to me that an "advice column" (or similar) was already going shortly after 3 June 1691. While the February 1693 issue obvioulsy contained an advice column, perhaps it was not the first time the idea was introduced by Dunton or the editors of the Athenian Mercury. I got confused on that point, so left out the bit on the advice column and just entered the article into DYK as the first periodical for women (which I figured was safe). I was excited and surprised to be able to find the first copy of The Ladies' Mercury from 1693. Didn't think such would still exist. Thanks again for your improvements. They are always automatically approved, as far as I am concerned. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Athenian Mercury

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

Been expanding the article and looking over your reference of "Lacedaemonia, or Sparta, being the antagonist of Athens in ancient Greece." Tom Brown was the chief editor of The Lacedemonian Mercury, the copycat of Dunton's Athenian Mercury. I believe Dunton was trying to be sarcastic here at the bottom of page 190 but I am not sure how to word it. Low priority, but if you have any ideas on this in the next couple of days, could (or should) there be additional added about this to the article? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he was being ironic; it all seems directly and frankly narrated, though season'd with the author's many underlinings. The "Mr. Settle" who wrote the skit was Elkanah Settle. Thank you for introducing me to Mr. Dunton, who seems to afford most aimiable company. That is a nice compliment of Nahum Tate's. And I see that Jonathan Swift also laid a compliment tribute to the Athenians. Among Mr Dunton's many Projects, I knew that "The Post-boy robb'd of his mail" was carried to fruition, though I never did yet suspect Mr. Dunton of complicity in the scheme..--Wetman (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note the conditions:

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

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

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

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

Aha! fixed it.--Wetman (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Riace Warriors?

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

In the Category:5th-century BC Greek sculptures the only object titled "Such-and-so Marble" or "Such-and-So Bronze" is the Artemision Bronze: is that a good precedent? Thus, shall the Ludovisi Throne— "it's not a throne", the recent graduates cry, as with one voice— be Wikipedified as the Ludovisi Marble"? Truly, as long as redirects from the most obvious search terms do land the reader in the right spot, I've learned not to care much. Or be too surprised. --Wetman (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm familiar with them (I've got a place in Calabria) and I've only ever heard them called the "Riace bronzes" in English, see for example [1]. Would you object if I moved the article? Paul August ☎ 04:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

...no, not even to Bronzi di Riace.--Wetman (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for Council of Bourges

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

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

[edit] DYK for Woolmer Forest

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

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

[edit] DYK for Antonio Latini

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

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

[edit] Gardens

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

From a talk to the City Gardening Society in about 1910 I believe. "All gardens, no matter how small, should contain a few acres of rough woodland." is how I remember it. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I confess I read your comment, Johnbod, and my first thought was "My goodness, just how old *is* he?" I really need to get out more. Risker (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Please excuse my sudden appearance here, Wetman; I like to keep a few intellectually stimulating pages on my watchlist. This one is much more interesting than a lot of other places I hang out.

Don't worry, I wasn't there! Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Lionel de Rothschild seems to be the usual suspect, though the precise dosage of woodland required varies from 1 to 15 acres, with 2 the statistical mode: [2]. Personally I think the vagueness of "a few" is better. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Lionel was a very odd man, used to dress fleas up and have them perform. Sorry nothing to do with garening, but quite interesting in a strange sort of way. I had thought the comment was probably by Miriam Rothschild, she was also odd and let her house become covered in creeper so she could not see out. Giano (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've heard that remark, and it is worth tracking down; I'd have guessed Miss Jekyll, describing her own "little garden", Munstead Wood. Even a detached villa (English expression) on an American street or subdivision has a front and a back, though, with a driveway on one side and, on the other. the perilous "side yard" with the property line vigorously marked, sometimes by both a fence and hedging. Even for people who have bought such a house to make it as attractive as possible and re-sell it, it goes against the grain, I've found, to throw this passageway space together into one and share it. You'd have thought I was a Bolshevik!--Wetman (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

They're probably right; there's nothing that alarms buyers and their lawyers more than a shared passageway or space, here anyway. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Sarcophagus

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

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

[edit] DYK for Gaddi Torso

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

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

[edit] Typhon NPOV tag?

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

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

[edit] Gertrude Jekyll

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

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

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

[edit] DYK

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

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

[edit] Procopio Cutò

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

You can't say "Francesco Procopio dei Knives", DG, any more than you can translate Mme de Pompadour as "Mlle Fish". I'm sorry to see fragments like this: the man's biography is just part of the story of Café Procope; without the café he's just not notable. That he's a noble is very unlikely.

Thanks Wetman for correcting that of "dei Knives". Apparently he is also associated with gelato as this article and several other similar ones point out. This article says: Francesco Procopio dei Coltelli, born in Sicily, is reported to be the first gelato entrepreneur. So would he not be notable by his association to being the first in the gelato business? The article on gelato points out the importance of Procopio to the gelato history as is also shown in this reference. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Suffolk Mills Group

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

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

[edit] Strangwish

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

I see. Then "Henry Strangwish" appears in other contemporary documents under that name, I assume: Stranguish is another obscure spelling. The Fox-Strangways family of a later time are especially well-known through Henry Fox and the Earls of Ilchester.--Wetman (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I added to his article that Gerlach Flicke, the pirate's pal, was often recorded in England as "Garlicke" - one of their more creative manglings of names. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Guivre

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

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

[edit] Liber Floridus

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Marcello Massarenti

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

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

Cool, Ian Spackman! I've added your link as a footnote. That first sentence doesn't seem to bear my hallmark convolutions— my failing, according to those whose lip muscles ache from following them— but actually quite succinct!--Wetman (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I enjoyed the ‘Cool’, although sadly the term was an archaicism—as ancient and dreary as Elvis—when the English language made its attempt to embrace me in my teenage years. And, having being born on the wrong side of the pond, I was quite unaware that its birth had roughly coincided with a much less interesting parturition. Still, I wouldn’t like you to think that I found that first sentence over-wrought. Unlike the other Italy-related new articles I was skimming through it was a wrought sentence: by Wikipedia standards extremely cool. Ian Spackman (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm too hip to be cool. And too old to be either...--Wetman (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Wyvern

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

I supplied the references for the text I transfered from the unnecessary duplicate article Guivre. Taggers who pepper articles with ^{[citation needed]} are seldom regarded at Wikipedia as the models of intellectual probity to which they aspire. A tagger is not an editor. --Wetman (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Was that comment necessary? I rarely leave more than one or two of these tags, but I simply don't have all night to hunt down the sources. As I said in my edit summary, I will work on hunting them down later. If you wish to impeach my editing prowess, I would suggest you first work on providing complete citations! ;-P Wilhelm_meis (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Very pert indeed. Next!--Wetman (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't tag any of your stuff, and I didn't ask you to provide all of those. I will get to it later. In all seriousness, though, I agree a tagger does not an editor make. But the tags can be useful. If you look back just a little bit in the history, you will see that all that stuff was unreferenced listcruft before I condensed it into prose. I'll get to the references later in the week if nobody beats me to it (and looking at the article history, nobody will). Have a good day. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Better start

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

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

[edit] Château du Grand Jardin

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

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

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

[edit] Thanks

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

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

[edit] Worcestershire

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

[edit] Need a better word

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

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

Thanks for reply Wetman.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Prometheus etymology edits.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] XN4

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

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

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

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

I see the problem: unthinking Wikipedia runaround. Puss in Boots (fairy tale) is required only because "Puss in Boots" is taken up as a disambiguation page, which should be Puss in Boots (disambiguation), with the main article at Puss in Boots. Le Maistre Chat, ou le Chat Botté should be limited to Perrault's text: does this separate article serve the reader's needs better than a single, encyclopaedic article? I simply make these suggestions: you must distribute the text as you see fit, keeping the reader firmly in mind.--Wetman (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions and expertise! I created the Puss in Boots (disambiguation) page but have met with some difficulty in moving Le Maistre Chat, ou le Chat Botté (Puss in Boots) to simply Puss in Boots. I've requested admin help. I believe a separate article on Perrault's tale is necessary as the article Puss in Boots (fairy tale) is focused more on 'The Cat as Helper' in fairy tales rather than the background, publication history of, and commentary upon Perrault's tale. Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Right on! Make sure a concise version of Le Maistre Chat, ou le Chat Botté is inserted at the right moment in Puss in Boots, alerting the reader with a "hatnote" {{main|Le Maistre Chat, ou le Chat Botté}} right under its section heading.--Wetman (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK nomination of Château du Grand Jardin

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

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

[edit] Nice one!

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

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

[edit] David Runciman review

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

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

[edit] WP edits as moves in a game

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

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

[edit] Established Editors

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

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

[edit] Re: Pantheon

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

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

[edit] Apologies

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

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

[edit] Muslim settlement of Lucera

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

[edit] La Dauphine

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

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

[edit] RE: Autoreviewing

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

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

[edit] Do we want change?

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

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

[edit] Unicorn alert

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

On the right? Looks more like a peacock to me - believed to have flesh that did not decay by the Ancients (clearly very long before the empirical method) - thus symbol of immortality. Also sometimes used as a symbol of Easter, for similar reasons I guess. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No the narwhal tusk (aka uni-horn) held by the guy on the right. Has he dipped the tip in blood/wine? Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Johnbod's article tells me more than I ever knew, which was just the miraculous appearance of the corpus on the altar-table: even the transubstantiation reference had escaped me. Certainly looks like a narwhal/unicorn horn; though he looks as if he's lighting it like a taper, Albrecht Dürer]'s representation of the Mass of St Gregory exhibits the Instruments of the Passion: is the narwhal's horn tipped with iron to represent the Spear of Longinus? --Wetman (talk) 04:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The Arma Christi are often shown as part of the vision, but I don't think it can be that. The appearance of the Holy Lance is pretty consistent, following the various relics. I suppose it could just be a candle, but I don't think even this provincial an artist would show the flame going off at 45° like a blow torch; and why show it so prominently, held by a courtier? Long candles can be prominent in other versions, but always held by the other officiating clergy, as you'd expect. I wonder if it is a test on the communion wine for poison? Perhaps advisable in the late 15th C Vatican. Maybe the tip of the horn is stained red from regular use? The figure is clearly lay, & doesn't seem at all military, with his purse & pattens. Johnbod (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's more sensible.--Wetman (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Virginia (Mercadante)

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

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

[edit] Just a note

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

Well, thank you. But but this is not a good-bye, yes?--Wetman (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope! I only have 150 DYKs and have to go to 200 before I quite = years. Thinking up new subjects and ideas now. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] English Wikipedia's 3 millionth article

• I say we hit it 3 August.--Wetman (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Sweepstake? I'll take the 31st July. --Joopercoopers (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nerthus

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

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

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

[edit] Rasa or Arsa

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

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

[edit] Raša River

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

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

[edit] Talk:Ink bamboo

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

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

I have been quite aware of the Chinese tradition of Ink paintings of bamboo since I was twelve or thirteen, and no case need be made to me. Still I sense that "Ink bamboo" [sic] is a not-quite-English translation of something, or perhaps the figment of some obscure personal struggle with a less-than-familiar subject. --Wetman (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for Raša River

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

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

[edit] Charles Boit

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

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