User talk:Wetman/archive23Jun2005

For deleted ephemera, see Page history)

History_of_New_York_City#Lenape_inhabitants

we meet again. take a look at the history of nyc article, as it pertains to the lenape. seems to be based on the bob kraft research. 'lenapehoking' is an invented term of kraft's; the correct historical one (in munsee) is 'scheyischbi.' Auto movil 00:04, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's brand-new to me. Add the source to the Further reading section why don't you. --Wetman 02:54, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

article's already been updated. if it was your text -- and i'm not sure it was now -- i beg the customary pardon for walking through with the heavy boots on. Auto movil 03:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Critique

I noticed your edits on the Sibylla page, and read your front page here... I would welcome your critique on the whole "Kings of Jerusalem" series, and if you could place your critique on my talk page. I would wish you to see anything that needs more atribution or creditation. I rewrote a large portion of this series, with copy editing suport, and would welcome further review. Thanx! Drachenfyre

Thank you for the edit! Also, might you glance at Melisende of Jerusalem, Baldwin III of Jerusalem, Amalric I of Jerusalem? I have contributed much to those and wish for objective review. Additionally, do you know how one would site a particular essay found in a larger book?

Well, all I can do is tweak the entries for idiom and flow, not for facts probably; I can help you here at least:

• Surname, Firstname, 2005. "Brilliant essay", in Serious tome (Jack Alltrades, editor).

This way you can cite the listed source in the text where it applies (Surname 2005 p. 123). (Wikipedia may have a slightly diffferent preferred format listed somewhere; with all the information presented, someone can come along and tweak it someday.) --Wetman 05:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

for your attention, sir!

hiya, care to embellish Peter Sellars in any way? I expect you have probably seen your fair share of his productions. FWIW, I actually saw the Orlando in Cambridge; I was still a college student at the time. At the time, I recall greatly enjoying it, but I kinda got tired of modern stagings. That being said, his Giulio Cesare in Brussels (~1988) was superb, with many of the same gang from the Boston scene. Ah well. Saludos cordiales, 17:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Viajero)

I saw his "sandpit" rearrangement of Carmen here in New York sometime in the 1980s, when he was still a wonderchild. Tried to Google some hard information on it but failed... I missed the staged Bach cantatas a couple of years back. --Wetman 18:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

De âlde Friezen

Hi, W. This is just to let you know, in case you shouldn't happen to pass by there again, that I have now, I hope, provided some answers to your questions at Talk:De âlde Friezen. -- Picapica 20:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(Wetman had been curious about the author of these anthem lyrics.)

Cowslips, Marsh marigolds and those cows

I enjoyed thos cows busy crushing Cowlsips into Caltha. A novel form of gentic modification perhaps. I was a coward however and simply edited around them, leaving the imaginative, tho' erroneous text on the cutting room floor without comment. Neither Caltha palustris nor Primula veris bears any of the scars. (but I still have to find a way to edit legend states out of Caernarfon Castle !)--Velela 15:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stuff can be very funny. People get so surprised and upset if one laughs unexpectedly. You are the only person who has ever thought the West Dakota Prize had any merit whatsoever! I tweaked Caltha palustris, with which I have personally struggled. ("POV" no doubt.)--Wetman 15:25, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC).

Re: Kipper and Sicilian Vespers: Wetman, I've now unearthed and debunked two of the West Dakota prize legends (kipper and Sicilian Vespers), do I get a prize, a North Dakota? Do they stay on the list even when debunked? Stbalbach 21:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nah: they'll just have to give their prizes back. Should we delete the notices? There are bound to be more prize-winners come July-August... --Wetman 23:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well kipper is a shut and close case. Sicilian Vespers there is still some small ambiguity on exactly where the legend came from, even though it's clear from the sources it is almost certainly false, some question remains. An etymology of mafia would clear it up. I'd suggest revoke the kipper and keep Sicilain Vespers for now. Stbalbach 02:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: "Considered by many" on the User page

While I agree with your general point in this regard, I have some notes about your point here. First of all, there are many are phrases that serve the same purpose as this one, and I would be suprised if at least one of them did not appear in your writing. Second of all, if you feel that people are putting personal opinion or deception in the place of fact, remove said text! Be bold!! In situations like this, it is better to make the modification, rather than complaining about it. In addition, please see Talk:Missionaries of Charity for a related note. Superm401 00:19, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, a full list of phrases that flag self-deception to an alert reader would be a long one, and none of us is wholly free of petty and self-serving dishonesties: I catch myself so often, I'm sure many must slip by. But rethinking the ideas clouded by the expression "considered by many" in, was it 383 entries? is a dispiriting task. Missionaries of Charity sounds like just the kind of Wikipedia article I never look into... I only swim upstream to spawn. --Wetman 03:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Né-sayers

I only use né when someone tries to change many of the pope articles I then revert the edits. If I am making an article I use born. The pope articles have typically used that and because it does not suit your style does not mean that you should change such things. gren 15:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(Wetman had noted: "I notice that you "correct" "born" to "né" and "née" in biography articles. You are quite right to say né is not incorrect; however, it is an unnecessary little genteelism, redolent of small-city newspapers' wedding announcements, one that good writers avoid— except at Scrabble. If you'll try mentally substituting "né" whenever you meet "born", you'll soon understand. No issue, though.)

(The best kind of editors revert mostly vandalism and graffiti, and work to edit new material. Wetman only edits "né" in passing, when editing more essential stuff, needless to say.)--Wetman 15:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)G

"Apostolic Fathers" and The Apostolic tradition

I disagree on this one with you. I think the present written evidence indicates the so-called apostolic tradition seems to go back to the oral traditions behind the gospel of Mark. The writings of Ireneaus defended the tradition that there are only four gospels.(As screwy as his arguments get, at least to me.) It would seem the birth of Christian gnosticism comes later. If one sees the Gospel of John as gnostic (others say it is the work of meditation) it looks like John draws material from the Gospels of Mark and Luke and is the last gospel. This would indicate Christian gnosticism a late comer. Certainly gentiles brought it with them as they accepted Christianity. But supposedly the first Christians were not gentiles. Charlie 4 April 05

My point— I may have made it badly— was that the surviving apostolic connection has been selected after the fact. Whether selected as "apostolic" or rejected— even rejected, in Irenaeus' expression, as "heretical"— all of this literature ultimately depended upon oral traditions and "sayings" texts like Q Gospel and Gospel of Thomas. However, some other interpretations with perfectly sound apostolic connections were ignored or actively suppressed, some as too gnostic, some accused of Docetist tendencies— I think of the Gospel of Peter, which might perfectly well have been accepted, except for Irenaeus' insistence upon four. The writings of Irenaeus did not defend "the" tradition as you suggest, they— and Justin's— actively established it, based on some remarks of Paul. Is that not more fair? --Wetman 13:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, until something else is found that will make it even more confusing. I think the ancient Christians of the 4th century tried to do their best with the information that was on hand at the time. We can see they tried. They were just bias and they could only look at the past from the present. I cannot imagine the problems of doing critical research in the ancient past and bringing up something unknown and unpopular. 4 Apr 2005 Charlie

Part of the sense of confusion may come from discovering that there was more than the one familiar "Apostolic" orthodox mainstream in the early churches. The empowered groups, represented by the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, were increasingly in control during the 4th century, actively shaping the available tradition, collecting and burning discordant texts, casting out "heretics". The Nag Hammadi texts were hidden away to protect them from Christians not from pagans. There were other 4th century Christians besides the mainstream: Arians and Valentinians and the followers of Priscillian. That sense of a Christian uniformity— "the ancient Christians"— is an artifact of careful editing and tailoring of what was in the 2nd and 3rd centuries a far more varied Christian experience. This is the lesson 20th century archaeology and text discoveries should have taught, though the Christian reaction has largely been limited to angry fear and denial.Wetman 17:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very true, still the 4 Gospels, the interpolated letters of Paul and the early Christian art inside the catacombs are the earliest evidence of the original roots of Christianity, the Apostolic tradition, until something else comes along. Blind obedience to any cause is dangerous. It ain't just religion. Perhaps it is the desire for certainty and the failure to question one's own bias. Anyway, you can have the last word then I'm outta here, man. Critical ancient historians say is unlikely that truth can be determined from the remote ill-documented ancient past. Magic taught me long ago you see what you expect see and our senses are easily deceived 4 Apr 2005 Charlie

Well something else hasn't "come along": it was vigorously suppressed but survives in fragments. They are easily avoided, however. The history of ideas is indeed what you make it. --Wetman 20:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Baha'i and syncretism

I notice that you have put back in a reference to the Baha'i Faith which I had removed from the syncretism article. I'm not sure that your edit adds to the sense of that article - the section before has a mention of the fact that some religions openly encourage syncretism while others see it as heretical or diluting. As to the fact that some scholars think the Baha'i faith is syncretic while other don't - well, I'm not so sure as that is relevant to an article on syncretism as a philosophy. Basically, I appreciate the spirit of your edit, but I'm not sure it actually reads very well now.

The history of this is that there is a guy who has been revert warring Baha'i articles recently, and this mention of syncretism is one other thing he's latched on to. Well, that's just how I noticed this article, I guess. PaulHammond 20:46, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

If you have any further interest in the subject, someone referenced this essay by a Baha'i on the subject at the Baha'i Faith article. PaulHammond 20:50, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

(Wetman's cautious revision read: "Not all syncretism is embraced: scholars of comparative religion may see syncretic elements in Bahá'í, for example, while the adherents of Bahá'í deny any syncretic influence. See Bahá'í Faith." Very carefully rewritten for accuracy and balance, actually, giving the contention simply as an example of the more general statement "Not all syncretism is embraced" Not merely "put back" by any means.)

Wetman, you slut

You know damn well that ol' Jack Derrida would say that there is no personal/nonpersonal distinction within the concept of "agenda"--an agenda is always already a personal agenda, even if that personal agenda is to heal the world like Michael Jackson--so to say that one has to "leave one's personal agenda on the porch" is just like Buckshot threatening to "slay [so-and-so]'s personal agenda on [his] doornail"--and in a general theory of Wikipedia, there would have to be a thorough hashing-out of what "agenda" is and is not--for example, does asking Ronald McDonald for a packet of mayo to squeeze all over my greasy fries--does such an activity fall under my personal agenda, or is it what Freud has called a "sick joke"--sickness for Derrida, as for Freud, being always already unto death, if even it's the death of a particular, localized identity?

And the Village Pump does not even contain fool's errands--perhaps certain admins could be granted the authority to start more specific Village Pumps; for there ought to be different villages within Wikipedia; something like the boroughs of NYC or the "areas" of Los Angeles--that way someone could say, "I'm a Manhattan Wiki" or "I'm from Topanga Canyon, Wikipedia," etc. You could also have personal pumps, for example, "Wetman's Village Pump" or "Axman's Grinding Wheel"--but you could have some sort of permission-mechanism, or some sort of application procedure, whereby one has to have established one's credibility--one's credit rating, if you will--within Wikipedia in order to have one's own Village Pump or Grinding Wheel or Pulley Crank.

Merely stating that all of Wikipedia is one village is like the myth of the global village--really it is a metavillage, with many different villages participating in it--get it?

And for Wikipedia to be truly said to have been a game, it were necessary for strictly enforced rules--for which you would need referees with whistles, not Salemites with slurs. A basketball player is not a "fouler" just because he "fouls"--and one is not a "vandal" just because one "vandalizes"--the action of vandalism being an easier phenomenon to recognize than the identity of a vandal, which, qua phenomenon, is necessarily slipperier and relates to the phenomenon of personhood, rather than the phenomenon of "action".-Shel S.

I had to reset the heading in lowercase: all capitals offends. I still prefer "personal agenda". Gratifying to find that my Userpage is read by anyone. --Wetman 14:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your edit at Burgundians

Thanks Wetman, the piece of text I removed looks better where you reinserted it.--Wiglaf 13:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Information wants to be groomed! --Wetman 13:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Surely. BTW, I saw at Nordic Bronze Age that you had requested a bibliography. I have added some and will add more.--Wiglaf 13:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cool. All history articles are better with some guidance to the mainstream literature, for people like me. --Wetman 13:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Poppy

Can you please re-check your edits on Oriental poppy, Papaver orientale? This plant is not the source of opium (that would be the Opium poppy, Papaver somniferum). The rest of your edit seems to apply to the Opium poppy as well. Rl 18:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oop. Opium no. The rest is good for P. orientaleI'll strike the opium reference! --Wetman 19:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Old European culture

Hi: Could you please provide a bit more explanation for your original statement, "There has been a tradition of reticence among archaeologists about any attempts to recapture the living culture of preliterate peoples who are known only through archaeology. All such connections are speculative, and archaeological speculation leads to controversy" in Old European culture? Although I've edited it in an attempt to make it less general (e.g. substituting 'ethnohistory' for 'living culture'), these two sentences still don't make much sense to me (as an archaeologist), and they seem a bit POV (notwithstanding many archaeologists would disagree with them, as many claim the point of archaeology is to first reconstruct, then explain, social and cultural history). I think I know what you're trying to say (e.g. that the weaving together of mythology and ideology to create a history for an archaeological culture is problematic?), so perhaps we could agree on a reworded verson?--Rattus 16:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"In a classic statement of this reticence, A. Leo Oppenheim provided for his Ancient Mesopotamia a somewhat pessimistic subtitle, Portrait of a Dead Civilization and wrote a prefatory section outlining why a history of Mesopotamian religion cannot be written." I shall add that text, to satisfy those who don't already know this. "Ethnohistory" is simply inflated jargon for a "recreated living culture", but other points are better discussed in public at Talk:Old European culture, where this exchange will be continued... --Wetman 16:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sibyls

Do you agree with my comments on Talk:Sibyl? (anon. post by User:Lectiodifficilior)

Too harsh. We have many recent edits there from a recent graduate who seems to have majored in self-confidence. But let's work to make the entry deeper and more accurate. Most classicists have a higher opinion of 19th century scholarship than you seem to have. As for the Christians, I've tried to let their record speak for itself. --Wetman 23:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Magical Realism, and you're not a slut unless you're a Virgo

Neither you nor anyone else has responded to my comments on magical realism as pertains to any or all conceptions of American literature. Let me be not brief, lest they think I am a lawyer: magical realism seems to me to have been created in either a lab or a professor's office on the New Jersey Turnpike. It presupposes a duality that is not necessarily pertinent: for example, why is it unrealistic to say that life is, or sometimes appears to be, magical? Yes, I know it's a loaded question, and I don't fire blanks from my question-gun. If you could give me some info on magical realism--ie, where did it come from?--or point out an example of magical realism in American Literature, I should be most grateful. I take it Poe, who exists in the figure of a drunken statue in Baltimore, might have taken issue with the concept of magical realism--the spookiness is always already there for Poe, as for us. Buckshot 06:32, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot Charley! I've highlighted some of your text so I could get at magic realism, which hasn't been on my Watchlist. Let me look at it and think about it a bit... Welcome aboard! --Wetman 11:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Harvard

Couldn't tell, huh?  ;) Yes; the beautiful language just comes to you. :D I'm poking you, of course. After all, what if you went to Harvard because of that beautiful language?.. --VKokielov 05:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) Mmm. What if I'd actually lived up to my Early Promise....--Wetman 17:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ROH

Hi, a minor taxonomy(?) issue: earlier this year, someone created a short entry for Royal Opera, London. A couple of weeks ago, I merged this with our long-standing Royal Opera House article [1]. Now, someone else has reverted that. For various reasons that I list on Talk:Royal Opera, London, it makes great of sense to deal with opera companies and opera houses on the same page, where possible, even if it is not an ideal arrangement, and I am hoping that practical considerations will carry the day. Care to weigh in? Thanks. -- Viajero 12:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see your point, and in theory I agree. The thing is, for better or worse, the original article, for at least two years, has been at [Royal Opera House]. [Royal Opera, London] was the new fork. Perhaps ROH should be moved to [Royal Opera] (is there any other?), but personally I won't undertake this kind of move until I have a free afternoon to fix the many scores of redirects. -- Viajero 19:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A request for an opinion about the Taiwan article

Hi, I saw you contribute to the nation article, and so I thought you might have an interest in how that term would apply to the Taiwan article. The current state is that there are two articles: 1) Republic of China and 2) Taiwan. The ROC article covers the state, which has controversy surrounding it, but its scope is not challenged. There was a recent vote that essentially supported a change in the scope of the article to cover basically the geographical and cultural aspects of the ROC rather than just Taiwan Island, as Taiwan is almost never used to mean the island only anyways. I took a look at the nation article and it looks like from what I can tell, given the self-identification of 90% of ROC citizens as Taiwanese, the existence of Taiwanese cuisine, film, language, common democratic institutions, etc, etc, that it is accurate to simply say that the article is about the Taiwanese nation (even though China disputes the political state), in the same way there was a Jewish nation prior to Israel's establishment after WWII. If you agree or disagree, would you mind joining the discussion at the Taiwan article? Thanks a bunch.--160.39.195.88 05:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I couldn't contribute anything that would be considered relevant in that discussion. --Wetman 05:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image placement

It is better to place an image at the top right of a page because the top left is where the reader expects to see the text. I for one do not want to see a picture, and then have to go looking for the text. As an example of how silly it is, see above. DunceHarris 17:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(This person vandalized this page to make his point. Wetman 19:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Bad example. I for one am grateful to Wetman for breaking a lance for an aesthetics-driven approach to image placement, for it mirrors my own instincts. I have found that in biographical articles, for example, shoulder-head portraits are admirably suited to the upper-left corner, provided of course the angles are correct. Wetman's user page exhortation fortifies me in reverting people who think otherwise. -- Viajero 18:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

M document

"Christianist"...I like that.

I replied at Talk:Gospel of Matthew.

Blenheim Palace

Perhaps you would be kind enough to cast your eye over Blenheim Palace. It's needed doing for some time, I expect it will be criticised for being too long, but it seemed a pity to leave anything out! There is a lot more I could add too. The grammar is my weak point, so if you spot anything - or feel there is something of importance missed please add it. Giano | talk 08:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First I'm just enjoying it as a read! Great stuff, Giano! --Wetman 15:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Glad you think so, a correspondent on the talk page thinks its too glowing. Glowing? from me, I loath the place, and though the page was full of reined in criticisms. I just thought England's (debateable) most famous house needed more than just a few lines (check-out Montacute House) my favourite, but one, not a very good page but a very attractive one. Giano | talk 18:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Ovidthepoet.jpg

Hi, the caption for this image in article Ovid says it is the 1640 edition and on the description page you have added that it possibly is the 1717 edition. I'm only asking because I uploaded what to me looks like the same engraving to commons, commons:Image:Ovidius Metamorphosis - George Sandy's 1632 edition.jpg, from a site who claims it is the 1632 edition. The fact that there are three different claims makes me wonder who is right.... Regards, Thuresson 20:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) The University of Virginia's Ovid Illustrated: The Renaissance Reception of Ovid in Image and Text shows that I'm wrong. Click on "title-page of George Sandys' Ovids Metamorphosis Englished." for frontispieces. It is the the most extraordinarily fluent, fully Baroque engraving for a London book of 1632. (I'll add this note at the image. Thanks for drawing my attention to the error.) --Wetman 22:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's trivial in the Gospel of John is a matter of personal judgement

Hi Wetman. Jesus asking Thomas TO touch him and telling Mary Magdalene NOT TO touch him in two stories very close in proximity to each other in the same gospel I do not find trivial. Instead I see the contradiction very puzzling. Is Mary unclean? Charlie 26 Apr 05

Are any details in Scripture or myth trivial? Perhaps not. Some seem merely inmcidental details in a narrative. But if they embody an unspoken agenda, or if they parallel some though not all other versions, like the "touching", then they are most certainly not "trivial," and sources and agenda need to be inspected. Otherwise, such details are apparently just details. "Structural" versus "decorative" is not merely a matter of personal judgment: any detail worth mentioning needs to have its relevance explained. There is a further Johannine reference to "touching" the real Jesus, btw, in the attributed 1 John: "... and our hands have touched– this we proclaim concerning the Word of life." (Anti-Docetist?) --Wetman 18:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)--Wetman 18:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Praise such as that you left on my talk page is the oil in the mechanism of Wikipedia. --Theo (Talk) 13:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

centered!

I centered the gallery in Plate tectonics, seems to work, I was experimenting and clicked save instead of preview :-) Used {| align="center" border="0" . At least it works in my browsers - Opera & Netscape. Vsmith 02:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes indeed! The very thing! --Wetman 03:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Chalk period

Beg to differ, but the Cretaceous is known as the Chalk period, although obviously the name is not so often encountered. I believe you said that the Cretaceous is never known as the Chalk period, which is demonstrably false. Try a Google search -- you'll find it -- or visit the geological museum at Cambridge Univ (UK) and you will find that is the only term they use in their displays.

However, given that Cretaceous is virtually universal, this small piece of information is not crucial to anyone or anything. It is possibly no more than a historical aside and presenting it as a current alternative to 'Cretaceous' is quite misleading. Since I'm certainly not on a crusade to reinstate the name 'Chalk period', I won't be trying to restore what you've deleted.

I do find rather regrettable, however, that you automatically and unreflectingly rejected something because it lay outside your own range of experience.

Bathrobe 12:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Upon reflection the parochialism was simply distracting to a reader who was intent on the Cretaceous, the chalk connection being retained in the etymology anyway. English books used to refer to "the Trias" as well as "the Chalk. My use of "never" was informal. --Wetman 17:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

You have to put in a destination for the link to work. That should be parochialism.

Bathrobe 11:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Palazzo della Cancelleria for supper

A nice page. I've expanded a little from memory, and some checking of dates, while I have walked and driven past it a million times, I'm ashamed to say I have never visited, or indeed even been inside the courtyard. When we go home in August I will have a look at a book I have which has a very detailed description and record of it and add some more, I've a feeling there is some greater connection between the Palazzo Ducale, Urbino, but I'm not sure enough to commit myself. Please check my English, people keep picking up on my grammar these days, if you want a laugh check out [2] it seems nuances of grammar are more important than facts. Giano | talk 21:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• There! [3] That's made me feel better, all my own fotos too, who needs the genuine when a pastiche is better and more comfortable! I suspect Consuelo felt the same way. Giano | talk 18:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you! Wasn't that good for the soul. Now I need a proper building to get my teeth into! Giano | talk 20:08, 9 May 2005

So have a bite of something by Soane? Dulwich? You haven't touched your Soane. A taste of George Dance the Younger? Sir John Summerson said his own "list of the great English architects from Wren onwards would consist, besides Sir Christopher, of Hawksmore, Vanbrugh, Gibbs, Robert Adam, Chambers, the younger Dance, Soane, C.R. Cockerell, Pugin, Butterfield, Lutyens, and perhaps one or two more." ("The Past in the Future" 1947: I've been rereading it after thirty years and entering Summerson's aperçus in Wikipedia...) I suppose he omitted Kent as too slapdash. We'd probably add Norman Shaw. The Shaw's delicious: have some Shaw. Summerson's "one or two more" would have to cover all of Modernism I figger. ...Oh, how about Ruskin? ...at least a subsection at Gothic revival specifying what's so especially Ruskinian in Ruskinian Gothic. That's a plate that still has a folded napkin on it... --Wetman 21:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• Ah!, I had forgotten about Soane, now he does interest me, all those austere curves, and that Soane house in Norfolk that had the atmospheric poem by John Betjeman ".....Lord Couzens-Hardy in you mausoleum", I've probably got the wrong county, house,architect and poet, but do you know the place I mean , big Grecian portico and little else - must look it up. Waddesdon's fun isn't it, I know it quite well, amazing art collection though, almost as good as that late of Mentmore, now there is a very sorry tale. I am making a return trip to Rowsham in a couple of weeks so will take a decent camera and have some better shots for that page Giano | talk 21:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• I had to look it up, its Leatheringsett Hall, Norfolk. (sadly not by Soane)

"

• .....And even in the Summer
• On a bright East Anglia day
• When round your Doric portico
• Your children's children play
• There's something in the stillness
• And your waiting eyes are drawn
• From the butler and the footman
• Bringing tea to on the lawn
• From the silver spirit lamp
• That burns so blue and still
• To the half seen mausoleum
• In the oak trees on the hill.

• But when Lord Cozens Hardy
• November stars are bright
• And the King's Head in Leatherinsett
• Is shutting for the night
• The villagers have told me
• That they do not like to pass
• Near your curious mausoleum
• Moon-shadowed over the grass
• For fear of seeing walking
• In the season of all souls
• That first Lord Cozen's Hardy
• The Master of the Rolls

John Betjeman. - Pity the house is not by Soane I rather fancy doing it after that poem. Giano | talk 22:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Not a great poet, Betjeman, but a maker of brilliant verse. I'm seeing a color lithograph by Rex Whistler to illustrate. Portrait of a Lady opens with similar afternoon tea on a lawn... "The implements of the little feast had been disposed upon the lawn of an old English country-house, in what I should call the perfect middle of a splendid summer afternoon...." [4] ...as to Soane, check this out, Dude. I've never actually seen the Dulwich Art Gallery: been in his house, though. (Mentmore must rate with the Chandos sales at Cannons, the Stowe sale and Hamilton Palace. Just not "British" enough I suppose.)--Wetman 22:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes there's lot of potential there, I didn't know Kingston Lacy was one of his, doesnt't look like it is, perhaps I'm thinking of the wrong house. Some free time next week to think about it. I keep meaning to read some Henry James, I would probabaly enjoy them. He is reputed to have written a book staying at Mentmore, he certainly wrote a gloomy description of the house from it one can tell which bedroom exactly he was given. Bishonen told me about a book set in Venice by him I would enjoy - time to go to Hatchard's I think. Giano | talk 06:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Dorians and Dorus

Hi Wetman. Thanks for improving my edit to Dorians. I've posted some remarks on its Talk page.

Crusade

Heh, I knew I would get a message about that :) That bit has been removed before - I suppose it makes an uninformed reader feel like an idiot. I'm not saying its inaccurate, but the basic messages seem to be, firstly, "genuine history is so erudite that we don't even care about the present" and secondly, "ha ha, popular history is stupid, and not even real history at all." If Wikipedia was a scholarly journal, that's the sort of self-congratulatory introduction I might expect to find :) The general reader does not need to feel insulted...of course popular history usually gets the facts jumbled, but can the reader not discover this by simply reading the article? Is it necessary to tell them they are wrong right away? That is the impression this introduction gives. I don't mean to "suppress" anything, but as I said, the article flows better without it, and the point is still made in the article as a whole. Adam Bishop 15:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I think this quote:

Genuine history is as unclear as the motivation of strangers, and often has little immediate relevance to current events. Popular history is crystal clear and full of implied prophecies and other vividly direct relations to modern times.

Is pretty good and could fit in well with the current rendition of Historical revisionism, which has somehow become the philosophy of history article for Wikipedia. Stbalbach 18:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Mythical Chronology of Greece

Hi, I notice you've done some work on Greek mythology, and I was wondering if you'd like to comment on Mythical Chronology of Greece. The user who created it seems to be something of a crank, and it seems to me that the article in its present form is definitely original research. On the other hand, I think it would be useful if we actually could have some kind of basic chronology of the traditional chronology of Greek mythology. Any help with this user would be appreciated, though - he is taken with lecturing me on how I have no standing to comment on the article unless I can and have read texts in their original ancient Greek or Latin. john k 17:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't waste your time with such tripe, John. There's no way to begin to explain. That article I imagine is a result of home-schooling. Have you looked at Cradle of Humanity? Young earth creationism? Historicity of Jesus? So many ways to be a fool... --Wetman 08:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I've had another look at "Cradle of Humanity", and it's now been set into some sensible historical and cultural context (by Wikipedians more courageous and optimistic than I), so perhaps there's hope. --Wetman 09:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Middle Ages

Leaving WikiProject Middle Ages? After all your good work? I hope you are just busy or temporarily overwhelmed. I haven't worked very heavily there yet, but I always enjoyed reading your contributions. WBardwin 08:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Why, thank you. I'm just drawing back a little, to avoid abrasive contact. --Wetman 10:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Wetman, I apologize for being abrasive the other day, I obviously don't want you to leave the project either. The whole crusade page is really frustrating right now, as I'm sure you've noticed. I'm sorry that it appeared I was taking my frustrations out on you :) Adam Bishop 18:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Chin Up

Thanks for your message; you're quite correct, of course. I'm not usually this impatient (I shouldn't be worried a high-profile page like dinosaur would be left marred for very long), but certain offline issues have (at least for the present) shortened my fuse. E.g., I just returned from visitng my very sick diabetic dog in the veterinary hospital. But again, you're right; I shouldn't let the boobies (heh!) bother me so much. I hope you're well. -- Hadal 05:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

bathos

So THAT"S what bathos means! The things you learn wikipedia-ifying ... - DavidWBrooks 18:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I had a chuckle, DWB, but I couldn't tell just where you'd been wikifying when bathos lowered its delightful head. --Wetman 19:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

opera lists

The fellow that created the second list does not seem overly attached to it; he is amenable to a merge I think. My idea is to move the historically significant but seldom performed operas to a separate section on the same page of the original list. That way, we get a genuine list of the current standard repertoire and no loss of information; in fact an enhancement. Our neophyte opera fan chancing upon that page will then know why she doesn't see Peri's Euridice on the boards. Ok with you? -- Viajero | Talk 15:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds excellent. The "standards" list loses any quirky personal choice aspect it might have had. The "historically significant" opera list, though, might have some overlaps with it. Should that list be of operas that changed the direction opera took, operas the define a new style, operas with major innovations, each with two sentences or so of what its innovations were and why it's included? --Wetman 19:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Lady of Elche

I was speaking more about how the two pictures of the bust seemed to be stretching out the article... I was thinking maybe removing the "side-view", and linking to it. Unfortunately I don't think it is possible to put wikilinks in captions, is it? Also - West Dakota Prize! Heh, I had actually seen your userpage before - what a surprise! :) — flamingspinach | (talk) 04:49, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

Legend has it that "some" are offended by the West Dakota Prize. *snicker* I shall try to fix the format so both Ladies may stay. More good text is what it really needs... --Wetman 05:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Looks good! O_O Thanks! — flamingspinach | (talk) 06:18, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

To cap or not to cap

Do you have any suggestions on how to formulate a policy for capitalization of opera names? It may seem trivial, but yesterday a newcomer, DrG (of opera lists fame), went on a binge, renaming the "La Bohème" article to "La bohème", then later changing fifty of sixty references to it in other articles. In Italian, the second spelling indeed appears to be correct, but it is almost never written that way in English texts. How about Aïda with diaresis? We are trying to impress upon him the need to discuss these things in advance. Care to weigh in? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera Thanks, -- Viajero | Talk 10:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Your Al-Andalus reversion

Please could you look at my comments in Talk:Al-Andalus on your reversion to the article - which as well as reinstating a section of text on dhimmi status also (possibly unintentionally) removed another section of text later in the article on the same subject that I had originally written a few days back. Thanks. PWilkinson 19:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

(I certainly meant not to suppress anything myself, since... oh, well; continued at Talk:Al-Andalus.)

Plague!

Hi, Wetman. Would you please chime in with your thoughts on the purpose of the page, and some additional notes I've made on Talk:Plague? I've left notes on some of the additional links/talks about our effort and the new disambig. page. Perhaps we'll get other comments as well.

And,thank you for your ("btw - Welcome to Wikipedia") on my talk page. But, you were the very first to welcome me when I was an anon signing -W. We were working on something Middle Eastern, Phoenician, I think. So, by Wiki standards, we have a history. Thanks for the double duty. WBardwin 20:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

WBardwin probably thinks I greet all and sundry! Consistently good editing elicits consistent applause. I go from edit to edit myself, carry few grudges, and tend to re-welcome the welcome! --Wetman 20:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

While muttering and looking around at plagues I found this stub:

Naple's Plague: "In 1250, a plague nearly eradicated the population of Naples, Italy. It was prevented by forcible quarantine of the poorer districts, and the efforts of a Martinus Ludheim, a visiting physician from Bavaria."

Source? I have no materials on this particular plague, although it could be related to the movement of Crusaders during that period. If so, the causal agent could be typhoid. Mr. Medieval Scholar, please take a look. Thanks. WBardwin 00:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm no scholar, but that's the winter that Frederick II died, but of dysentery, at Castel Fiorentino in Apulia. There were armies on the move all over central Italy, as Innocent's crusade against Frederick faltered, but not in Naples. But it is a port. Louis IX was a captive in Egypt that year. Wasn't plague endemic in North Africa? Louis X died of it in Egypt in 1270. But I don't know a contemporary reference to plague in Naples, 1250. Matthew Paris? --Wetman 00:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Constantine revisited

Hi Wetman. I am looking for material on a Christian sacking of Athens by Constantine. This looks fishy. I can find single statements, and that is all, saying Athens was sacked in 268 A.D. by the Goths. (Maybe this what is meant by Christians). Are you familiar with this thing? Is there anywhere I can find more detail then just a sentence? User:Kazuba 31 May 2005

Xi Xi's "Shops"

That's not a newspaper essay, but something like a prose. In fact, it is a narrative, descriptive, and poetic Chinese essay. Jerry Crimson Mann 06:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

thank you!

Wetman, I wanted to quickly thank you for your reverts of Rovoam's vandalisms. I am grateful to you, to Nohat, and many other editors (perhaps about 10 of them, and the number is still growing) who have been regularly tracing down all his spurious edits and vandalisms. Rovoam is indeed the MOST obsessive and persistent vandal in the history of Wikipedia, this is no exagerration. This is an unprecedented case of a person, who is motivated by 1) personal hatred to me for whatever reasons he has in mind, and 2) fanatical and obsessive nationalism. There is simply no way to stop this person by administrative means. As I wrote in regular disclaimers, the *only* way to stop this person is for other editors to join and form a sort of unofficial one issue-based coalition, which would trace all his spurious edits and neutralize them. And I am very glad to see, that there are so many Wikipedians who are willing to engage in this rather unpleasant business for the sake of principle and justice. Thanks. --Tabib 13:18, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Tudor and Tudoresque

If you have a moment could you have a look here [5] and confirm that that particular building is known as Tudor on your side of the Atlantic, because it's not on this side. I was going to insert the cottage picture from Mentmore, currently enjoying the name "Tudorbethan" over here. I've been having a break from writing long boring pages but beginning to feel the urge returning. Regards Giano | talk 17:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No it's not, Giano. Someone's beloved home I fear: I hesitated to edit it out, remembering "White wedding"! Our commercial Tudor product generally has flat cusped lintels to windows, and usually some half-timbering somewhere. Even on apartment buildings. "Jacobethan" was a term I remember from decades ago to describe the English grand builders' vernacular Antwerp Mannerism. Coined by your John Betjeman in 1933, I've read, perhaps in Architectural Review --Wetman 18:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I'm so relieved, I thought our two cultures could not be that diverse. Your white wedding (or to be exact wikipedia's white wedding) is forever etched on my mind. I see we now have a tasteful Edwardian bride with what my Grandmother would have called a "discretely placed bouquet". I wonder what happened to that unfortunate couple. When the time is right, if you are quite sure that is not "Transatlantictudor" I will make some edits there. Regards Giano | talk 21:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC).

PS:It seems Tudorbethan actually has a page, I made some edits there this evening!

Mirabile dictu so does Jacobethan! In Osbert Lancaster's brilliant illustrated essay, From Pillar to Post which introduced to me at a too-tender age "Pont Street Dutch" as a style designation, lancaster ended with the Modernist style "Pseudish". Giano, really you should own his collected architectural essays Here of All Places, which includes his Homes Across the Atlantic. (Wicked U/non-U usage of "homes" of course) Now I realize I'd entirely forgotten his subtitle: A Pocket Lamp of Architecture Now that's brilliant foolishness! --Wetman 21:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I have a book of Lancaster's cartoons on bourgeois puns! Must have a warped sense of humour. Until yesterday I though Tudorbethan and Jacobethan were terms of derision, (Ah! but they are not in the "spellcheck" of this computer) not accepted architectural styles, so one learns something new each day. Tried to find a pictorial example of Jacobethan, but can't sure there was one of Sandringham but it seems to have disappeared, perhaps I should do a page Cosy bijou royal homes Giano | talk 09:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jacobethan: I've added a bit on its initial impetus, and an illustration of Harlaxton Manor. Have you a photo of Mentmore itself? Sir James Pennethorpe's remodellings at Dillington House, Somerset] might also be looked at. But the great extravaganza of Jacobethan is Harlaxton.--Wetman 17:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I've already uploaded my favourite of Mentmore. (the early 20th cent one[6] I probably know that house and its former collection better than anyone else left alive, (not many of us left now) but is that great pile really true Jacobethan? Its a copy of Wollaton, admittedly, which is of that period, but not a true example more Italian renaissance meets Orson Wells on 1890s 5th Avenue, with Boris Karlov as a house guest while good Queen Bess was staying the night prior to being murdered by the Borgias who were simultaneously plotting the St. Valentine's day massacres, which resulted in Maria Stuart being beheaded in Mentmore's great hall. A better example would be Aston Hall in Birmingham. Now for Tudorbethan I am thinking Bletchley Park, a much better example than Ascott which I have already on its own page banged on about not being a mere pastiche of Tudor architecture, I think I'll swop them over 81.131.72.7 19:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)Sorry that was me, don't know why I was suddenly loged out Giano | talk 19:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Well you have truly taught me something! I have a house less than a hundred miles from Harlaxton, I have seen many photos of it (all black and white) and just assumed it had been demolished "post war". You are quite right that IS Jacobethan - what a monster. It is never mentioned, advertised, or spoken of - how strange, bizarre almost I wonder why? Giano | talk 20:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• No, just had second look at Bletchley Park, that's not Tudorbethan just plain horrible! Giano | talk 20:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Harlaxton houses an extension program of a US college, just going into summer sessions in a couple of weeks, I should think. It shouldn't be hard to be permitted to look about-- and take photos of definitive "Jacobethan" details! the golden stone looks delicious. A bit frenetic though: makes Waddesdon seem sublimely serene eh. --Wetman 21:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ordovician-Silurian extinction events

Which two extinction events is it refering to, and what is the evidence for more than one event? Dragons flight 02:13, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Publish and be damned

Wetman, you forgot to sign your vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Publish and be damned. Would you take a moment to sign? Oh, and I agree with you, BTW. You said "perfectly obvious vanity advert. Why are we voting?" I agree. The reason we're voting, however, is because "Spam" is not a CSD, and that bugs me to no end. The latest major rewrite accepts as CSDs articles that are just an external link, but that doesn't cover someone using Wikipedia to host blatantly obvious adverts. Those have to go through VfD. I could get up on my soapbox about trusting people's integrity and letting them delete spam when they see it, but I would probably be preaching to the choir. Anyway, that's why. SWAdair | Talk 10:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done! and thank you for the heads-up, SWAdair. Looked like "Spam Spam eggs and Spam" to me. --Wetman 16:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eaton Hall

Much better format, can't bear all this regimentation and every article appreasing the same! Have not forgotten about Soane but appear to have been sidetracked in New Zealand (again!) Giano | talk 06:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:BerniniEcstacy.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BerniniEcstacy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 19:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Apostolic Council and Council of Jerusalem

These pages sure could use some help, perhaps you're interested?

Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus 1997 has the accurate historical take on these inventions. Most unwelcome to the kind of people with these on their Watchlists, however. Clever to give these "official" titles, guaranteeing their historicity from the outset. I might be tempted, but honesty is so rarely the best policy in that arena. --Wetman 19:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

minor edits

I have looked over your contributions and it seems that you very rarely mark your edits as "minor", though they often qualify, as per Wikipedia policy. An example of such an edit, is that which you made to Sylvia, changing "done" to "designed" and specifying Jules Chéret's first name. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what should be considered "minor". -- Rmrfstar 03:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I shall certainly try to set a better example. --Wetman 04:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dang! that ought to have been flagged "minor".

Bosporus and Granada edits

Hi.In "Cimmerian Bosporus" I just added that the last Paerisades was Paerisades V,and the year when he fell - 108 B.C. Source - "Большая советская энциклопедия" The list of Granada sultans was took from the Deutsch version,the article "Nasriden",and some research in German articles about various Nasrid sultans.I think the better variant is the list to be separated in "List of Rulers of Granada" or something,cause therefore it can be linked to the Deutch article about Nasrid. Whatever. (anonymous)

Well since the German Wikipedia links from Granada to [[|Nasrid|Nasriden]] then that's okay. The Nasriden article gives among the Literatur Geschichte der Arabischen Welt Ulrich Haarmann, C.H. Beck München, 2001. Since that's the source, I'll enter it at Granada myself. Thanks. --Wetman 21:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nasrid/Granada

Hi Wetman... I see you've moved Nasrid into Granada. Well, there was a certainly a better list of Nasrid rulers in the city page than the dynasty page, and both were decidedly stubby, so it certainly made sense as a move. But in the long run, I think we need separate articles on the two... The city page needs to grow quite a lot, and the Nasrids are relevant to quite a bit more than the city. At least, that's what I think (though I'm not going to do anything about it, for lack of time, just now); I just wondered if you had principled reasons for putting the two together, beyond the current thinness of both? seglea 00:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

uhuh, I missed the comment above, which gives some background. Long term there probably needs to be a page on Granada (kingdom), which Nasrid might well redirect to. seglea

(...continued at Talk:Granada for the general benefit. --Wetman 00:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Roman law

Hi Wetman, I made a few changers to your addiotions to the Roman law article. I think your paragraph on the practical consequences of Roman law for people in the Empire did not belong in the middle of the chronological narrative on the development of the Roman legal system. I hope this is ok for you.--Thomas Ruefner 23:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good job! --Wetman 23:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Puerta de Alcalá

Hi mate. I've seen you have re-added Puerta de Alcalá in the list of Triumphal Arches, adding also the image I uploaded yesterday (the article is in the works and it should be ready 20 minutes from now). However, Puerta de Alcalá has never been a triumphal arch, since it was built as a gate for the old city walls (in comparison, Arc de Triomphe was never meant to be used as a gateway). I think it certainly qualifies as a monument, but its place at the list of Triumphal Arches should, at least, contain a comment telling that it just 'resembles' a triumphal arch. Sarg 10:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But it just is a triumphal arch. What have you been reading? The Brandenburg Gate would not fit your private category either. Just edit in a comment at Triumphal arch, explaining why the Puerta de Alcalá is not a Triumphal arch, in spite of every appearance, that is just 'resembles' one and that neither is the Brandenburg Gate, if you think that's sensible. --Wetman 16:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No need to bite. If you want my opinion I don't think either of the two monuments would qualify as a Triumphal arch and probably the description should be changed with a narrower criteria of inclusion. However, I'd rather translate some more articles than start discussions in some minor issues. Sarg 18:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. Rather spiky today: see below! --Wetman 18:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No problem, I understand, we all have a tough day from time to time. Stay cool! Sarg 18:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dogwood

Well spotted! - I've done a fair few too, there's only 3 or 4 left now - MPF 16:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm working my way backwards. Has this IP been blocked? --Wetman 16:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I worked from the bottom; they're all done now bar the necessary page moves. No idea about blocking, I don't have the ability to do it - MPF 16:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Moving the disambig content to Dogwood (disambiguation) seems entirely unnecessary unless you are planning to write an article about some third use of the word "dogwood".

All that's needed is:

Dogwood (disambig)]] content linking to Dogwood (plant) and Dogwood (band))

Dogwood (plant)

Dogwood (band)

Or (if the tree/plant deserves primary disambiguation):

Dogwood (plant/tree article with disambig header at top)

Dogwood (band)

In general, simpler is usually better. Niteowlneils 17:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand and completely agree. The primary article Dogwood had been moved to Dogwood (plant), in order to accomodate some marginal San Diego band at Dogwood, which was thus being highjacked to serve as a disambiguation page that advertised the band. The Wikipedia reader entering "Dogwood" is not well served by a disambiguation where there is no real ambiguity. On the whole, a disambig header avoids advertising cultural trash n' trivia at the top of a page. I'm clearing the garbage from the tops of mythology pages in just this fashion, as they become unbearably irritating to the post-pubescent reader.--Wetman 18:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dogwood

It's not "promotion", my intent was not vandalism, and attacks against my age are childish. Dogwood (the band) should be included in Wikipedia, as they are a very influential Christian punk band. It seemed to me that the best way to add the band would be by adding a stub band page, adding a disambig page, fixing the link to the plant, and then fleshing out the band page. I apologize if I was wrong in these steps, but there's no need to be rude. Jpers36 17:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No doubt you understand why I was irritated. If some very influential little band takes the name Pepsi and edits Wikipedia so that a reader entering "Pepsi" is faced with a "choice"— well, they wouldn't have the nerve in the first place, would they? --Wetman 22:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)--Wetman 22:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Serapeum

A great puzzle! Will I ever stop editing my own stuff? User:Kazuba 17 Jun 2005 .

I added a trenchant review of Chupin. --Wetman 18:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mir iskusstva

I invite you to improve this new article. Thanks. --Ghirlandajo 22:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nice! Was I right to inject "Paradoxically, few Western Europeans actually saw issues of the magazine itself." The style came to Paris in the baggage of designers like Bakst. I've never seen an issue of the magazine, even in an exhibition. --Wetman 23:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Sphinx

Hi Wetman, I moved a Talk section to the head of the article because I made a comment and it is a current issue with the article. Please do not revert. Thanks--AI 02:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Athlone press

Just a query -- you may know more about wiki policy than me -- but I put in a very short entry on the Athlone press, hoping to perhaps get some more information when I had time and because I wanted a link to it. You digested it into the University of London, but appear to have thrown away some of the information in the form of an external link. Why is that useful?

Also, someone who did look up Athlone press would be redirected to the University of London and might not be able to find on the page the (rather short) reference to it. Was there anything wrong with the way it was before? Furthermore, is could you put back the lost information?

Francis Davey 11:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was working through dozens of new pages last night and certainly didn't mean to leave anything out. What a gaffe! I've found the link and entered it. If you think the line of text, which is not buried but in the opening paragraphs at University of London, should have a header Main article Athlone Press with a link to a one-line separate article, using a capital P, I'll do that for you too. --Wetman 20:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. I am still learning how wiki works. If I have some time I might see if I can get a look at any of the fonds. Francis Davey 20:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Macedonians vs. Macedonian Slavs

Dear Wetman, at the moment there is a poll taking place on the Macedonian Slavs talk page to which you could make a significant contribution. Thank you in advance for your participation. Ivica83 13:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

Hey thanks for helping fix up the articles I moved over from the 1911 'pedia. I've been working on the encyclopedia topic lists and some of the stuff I've moved is kinda scraggly. Still, you are making excellent improvements, such as at Chafing-dish. Anyway, thanks for helping with my messes ;}. --DanielCD 15:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Not everyone is happy when stubs are merged. Wasn't I delighted to illustrate Chafing-dish by Diego Velasquez! --Wetman 20:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Elch

You placed a Candidate for Speedy Deletion template on the Elch page. However, I have yet to see an explanation for this anywhere, except a single word in the template. Please explain your reasoning on the article's talk page.

Thanks,

--Alex12 3 21:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hooters everywhere

Regarding your proposal to merge Hooters with Hooters, Inc: what would you also do with Hooters of America, Inc? It's useful to keep the two chains separate in discussions and links. This also means that not every reference to Hooters would necessarily be also a statement about Hooters, Inc. For example, Hooters Air and the Vegas Casino both need to point to separate pages. --Randal L. Schwartz 01:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a yellow pages business directory. Simple think of a Wikipedia reader entering Hooters and getting more than they expected. Keeping that in mind, serve the reader, keeping all information and links. Anything else is an error. "Your assignment, should you care to accept it,...."! --Wetman 01:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, that still doesn't answer my question. When I think "hooters", I could be talking about a store, or the chain that runs it. And since there are two chains that run Hooters, do all three of those mearnings go into one article, with separate headings in the article? I guess that would make sense. But that also means that I should put a redirect at Hooters, Inc and Hooters of America, Inc so that the similarities and differences and relationships are all in one ariticle. Correct? --Randal L. Schwartz 02:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd pull it all together for the amateur who's not in the catering business, with See also bullets to links to the really peripheral stuff like the airline, owned by either (rival?) parent company. But first answer the questions: "What's 'Hooters'? Where when by whom....etc? That's just my take: each cluster of entries is unique. --Wetman 02:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aristides

Hey again, I merged Aristides (Apologist) with Apology of Aristides per your merge note. I am a little iffy about putting the bio information in with the article on the Apology itself though without changing the name, perhaps Aristides and his Apology? Anyway, thought you might like to give it a once over. --DanielCD 02:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The thing about this particular Aristides, is that he has no historical existince apart from his Apology. Everything we know about him is derived from what can be gleaned in the work. Very like the "Longinus" who wrote On the Sublime. So in this case there's no genuine way to make two articles (as Christians like to separate "Luke" from Luke. Not good practice in the real world.

--Wetman 02:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Constantine

Hi Wetman. I shuffled some paragraphs around so there was better sequence. Your last entry is still there, but moved towards the end. I think it reads better this way. User:Kazuba 19 Jun 2005 Hey! Happy father's day.

Vicarius Filii Dei

I'm puzzled about your reversion of Vicarius Filii Dei. The version you reverted stated that it was a forgery. We both agree on the point so the reversion puzzled me as you accidentially dumped out a lot of important new work in the version. Also you removed a VfD notice that should be left in. (I have been wikistalked by a troll on wikipedia over the last week. The user in question put the VfD notice on when he found that I had edited the page. (He is that sort of asshole!) I've reverted back to the version that has all the new stuff, including new images, says that it was a forgery and has in the VfD. (I've reported the troll to the ArbComm by the way!) FearÉIREANN^(talk) 06:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh. I see where the confusion came from. It is mentioned as a forgery in the body of the text but a user removed it from the opening paragraph a few edits ago. In case there is any confusion I have reinserted it there too. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 06:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No permanent damage then? Certainly none was intended, and we are agreed that Lorenzo Valla got it right. A culture hero of mine since about 1962... --Wetman 07:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Botticelli

The bottom line is that I added the category tag because he was on the List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people; I really don't know enough about him to add anything biographical. Bearcat 22:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's "de-Out" him. The list loses any interest if it gets fuzzy edges. --Wetman 23:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A Matter of Trust

When Eusebius talks about the "bad guys" in Paganism how far do you trust him? Give me a percentage of trust 25%, 50%, 75% What do you think the word (from an english translation of Eusebius' text) victim, means? Human or animal? Should I seek more data? Any suggestions as to where outside the members of the Association of Ancient Historians? Already made contact. (They have always been nice to me). Do you trust them? How much? Preconception and sensitive stuff! Is anyone on the Wikipedia interested in duplicating the experiment (besides myself), or checking my results? How far do you trust my judgement? (That'll be interesting.) Love a good puzzle! This one is juicy.User:Kazuba 22 Jun 05

On a general culture level, most of the Patristic writers are deep but narrow: would a modern parallel be a college-educated "creationist"? Does Eusebius ever casually paraphrase a thought from a non-Christian philosopher or poet? He has no cultural referent outside his sect. Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus thoroughly demonstrates the extent of the cover and rewriting that began in the first century. Eusebius had a copy of Hegesippus and "lost" it, as Irenaeus had a copy of Papias and it got "lost" too.

Still, I trust Eusebius more than Epiphanius of Salamis or Lactantius, about as much as I trust Jerome or Pope Gregory XVI. These guys are most honest when they inadvertently let something slip, something neutral or that does not particularly advance their program. For the Christian approach to truth, read Clement's not-for-publication Mar Saba letter. None of these guys is "honest" the way Thucydides, Pausanias, Livy are honest, or honestly mistaken. In discussing Christian affairs and the history of these times, we must be scrupulously careful to be as honest as we are capable, to make up for the essential dishonesty of the sources. One question is always, is this guy talking from personal experience, has he read any of these heresies? Or is he repeating what the others say? In this Irenaeus is pretty good.

"Victim" is always in a context of formal sacrifice, so that when a Catholic prays "Cor Iesu, victima peccatorum, miserere nobis" (a modern prayer), the "victim of sins" is the sacrificed lamb on the crucifix. There's no "victimization" possible in Latin, I don't think. Language does shape thought: Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. --Wetman 17:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Lost" books

There are many, many ancient books that are lost. My favorite is out of the 142 books of Livy's Ancient History of Rome we have only 35.

Why? Because people read epitomes instead. What's read is copied and has greater chances of survival. Isidore of Seville and Martianus Capella were inadvertently the cause of many losses, for they contained "all you need to know". The Etruscan books survived to the time of, was it Augustus? but only a handful of scholars could read them; perhaps they were never copied from their old linen codices.

Look at the small amount of ancient bibles. Only 3 or 4 from the 4th or 5th century.

Why? Is that few? Because once the Vulgate was published, earlier texts were searched out and "withdrawn." Diatessaron is utterly "lost"; it once existed in many, many copies. Books in constant daily use, even careful reverent use, eventually get used up. There are very few 19th century children's books, an apt analogy. And what good is an old codex in a hand that's no longer easily read? Did books in the Beneventan hand survive, if the text was available more legibly?

The Aleppo Codex was recently destroyed in a museum fire.

An excellent point! it was intentionally damaged in Aleppo. But precisely! It is kept in the Museum of the Book, Jerusalem. When Stilicho burned the Sybilline books, it was also a political act. Any historian will agree that books have been selectively lost; one among the forces of selection has been the development of an orthodoxy. Of course books do get burnt by accident, and single copies are especially at risk, like Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. One accident, and it's gone.

If I remember correctly we only have 7 primary copies of Eusebius' History of the Church. Would you say something as valuable as these were to the early Christians were purposely lost?

Why? Is seven so few, when the text was widely available in fresher formats? "Valuable" is precisely the point. If the history were being rewritten, then incunabula might prove every bit as awkward as, in a more authentically tramsmitted tradition, they'd be valuable. If only Syria's soil were even sandier and drier than it is, and parchment no more biodegradable than cellulose...

Supposedly in Ephesus stood Celsus' private library. The story is it was destroyed by the Goths. Do you doubt this too? (Eisenman never impressed me. If I remember correctly he really took off with those Dead Sea Scrolls...But not as bad as John Allegro..Jesus was a code word for a hallucinogenic mushroom!!! and Paul Kurtz thought he was sharp?? He is so easy.) Love your fancy language. User:Kazuba 22 Jun 05

Much has been lost, we agree. Not all losses are random, as you would have me believe. Eisenman put the photocopies of those Dead Sea Scrolls in everyone's hands: that's what Eisenman did. I'm sorry that your curiosity does not extend to James the Brother of Jesus— it would broaden your agenda. As for my language: succinctness, simplicity and accuracy are the three Graces. Isn't "fancy" a codeword for "pretentious" at a certain cultural level? I rarely employ "fancy" myself, save in the sense of a whimsy. --Wetman 20:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Taifa of Baeza

I fear I don't know the ethymology of Baeza but, in principle I would doubt of your suggested from Baetica. Latin AE becomes E in Spanish, so this Baeza, like in Baez (like Joan Baez - where does that surname come from?) seems rather the dissapearence from a consonant... which one ? No idea. In any case Baetica is writen Bética in modern Spanish and Baetis, as Betis (which is by the way the name of one footbal team of Seville).

Glad you liked the edition :-)

--Sugaar 04:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Added my stuff to ancient history

Ancient history: What is written ancient history? Thanks for Isidore of Seville, Martinus Capella, and Stilico, entirely new to me. Didn't know Robert Eisenman was the one who found the Dead Sea Scroll photos. Guess if he hadn't they would have become lost, like a lot of that stuff they rediscover at the Smithsonian. Have you noticed how older books just seem to disappear? They are popular for a while, then SHAZAM! They're gone. I 'm outta here! User:Kazuba 23 Jun 05