User talk:Wetman/archive15Oct2006

On various dates 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the articles Salso River, William Lowndes, Secretary of the Treasury, Château de Meudon, Château de Choisy, Apoxyomenos, Château de Saint-Cloud, Charles François Paul Le Normant de Tournehem , Joseph Duplessis, Melbourne Hall, Jean Chalgrin, Tureen, Peace of Rueil, Cabinet des Médailles, Venus de' Medici, Giovanni Henrico Albicastro and Saint-Porchaire ware which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Mgm|^(talk) 21:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanticism

What if ii had a fink on the side made u cry wood da rules change up or wood they still iply. if i played u like a toy, sometimes i wish i cood act like a ... Hello Wetman, I thought I'd explain my motive in removing the link to history of ideas in the Romanticism article the other day. The problem as I saw it was that the link added an ambiguity (several actually) to the opening sentence: Romanticism was a secular and intellectual movement in the history of ideas that originated in late 18th century Western Europe. This could confuse someone who comes to it with little knowledge, as it seems to say that the history of ideas originated in 18th c. Western Europe. If the reader clicks the link, they find that "history of ideas" is a discipline founded by Arthur Lovejoy in the 20th century. So the confused reader thinks Romanticism is a movement in a 20th c. discipline. A reader of average intelligence should figure it out after a bit, but still it's a distracting stumble in the first sentence of the article. So that's why I cut it, especially since a few lines later in the Characteristics section there are links to Lovejoy & intellectual history, which occur in a better context and which permit access to the History of Ideas concept. I won't revert your reversion until I hear from you, but would you agree that a better solution might be to wikify the phrase "history of ideas" where it occurs in the Characteristics section? Or failing that, to move it into a new sentence in the opening, although I would vote for the first solution. Ewulp 04:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just reinsert the link to History of ideas into the text wherever you see fit. The history of ideas is the history...of ideas. There is no "confused reader" as idiotic as you seem to imagine. I can't imagine anyone could think it was irrelevant.--Wetman 05:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone is sophisticated; I assure you some folks are confused more easily than you'd suspect (I've had some job experience designing signage). Elementary school kids use Wikipedia too; I don't say dumb it down, just maximize clarity of thought. You can't deny that Romanticism was a secular and intellectual movement in the history of ideas that originated in late 18th century Western Europe is a badly carpentered sentence. Not to belabor (further), I'll go fix it. Cheers--Ewulp 06:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I embrace authentic clarity. Suppressing a connection between Romanticism and the history of ideas does not improve clarity. For the impaired, let me suggest that you re-edit the article on Romanticism for Simple English Wikipedia. --Wetman 16:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pella

Hi Wetman, I've noted you're the creator of History of Pella; since the article is quite short, I was projecting to merge it in Pella, since the article isn't very long. I was also thinking of this for the probably impending expansion of Pella through the French featured article fr:Pella, whose translation has been requested at Wikipedia:Translation into English/French.--Aldux 21:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My motivation for creating a separate article on that city in Antiquity may be approximated by a look at the articles and especially at the page histories of Smyrna and Izmir. As it stands, History of Pella is not subjected to strident irrelevancies: since the insoluble but intrusive contemporary issues are utterly without interest to some of us, why not instead concentrate on making each article extensive and complete in itself; for parallel examples, see Lutetia, History of Paris and Paris, etc. etc. --Wetman 21:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your preoccupations, remember that Pella is not Izmir or Paris, but at present a small village, not even the seat of the prefecture with its name; and all material pertaining the Pella Prefecture has just been removed to a separate article; Pella at moments treats almost exclusively the excavations and the ancient town, so I think history of Pella can stay there without being afraid of modern issues' irruptions, and the article treated as a history article like Amphipolis or Dodona.--Aldux 23:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps then— since there won't be lists of all the rapid-transit stops and the seating capacity of the soccer stadium— for simplicity's sake, History of... should be merged to Pella. --Wetman 01:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; I'm the individual who raised the issue; I take it then there should not be any problem with de-linking the talk page redirect either? (The Pella talk redirects to Prefecture of Pella talk) Bridesmill 16:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Talkpage contents should follow in the usual way. --Wetman 19:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desperately Seeking Name: Classical mediators of ancient Egypt

Denial of historic facts. Please check vote. A suggested Name is needed.

This note came to you because you have showed a related background in an earlier comment. Regards.--Connection 18:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the discussion of Category:Freguesias of Portugal

Delete, . It was the pre-emptive move that was bad form. --Wetman 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I don't think it was, I just moved the articles to the subcategories (Category:Parishes of Municipality). I would have done it whether or not the category is deleted. Mário 22:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lamia

More your turf than mine, and I can't quickly sort this one out, so I'm hoping you can. Large chunks of Lamia (mythology) seem to have been simply deleted over the last 10 weeks (which is about how long it's been since I last looked at it). Most of the deleted material looked fine to me. Could you please have a look? - Jmabel | Talk 20:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's made a page Lamia (disambiguation), and the deleted material, not very directly connected to the Greek Lamia, seems to be all there. --Wetman 20:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Shield of Heracles

It's a nice, useful article on The Shield of Heracles. Thanks! Andrew Dalby 11:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The contrasting quotes finally made it okay to my eye. --Wetman 11:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horseshoe Bend, Shirehampton

Hi. Do you feel my latest edit to this article addresses your point about why there is a saltmarsh here? SP-KP 17:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Tidal stretch" did the trick! --Wetman 18:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aladdin and China

I posted this at Talk:Aladdin:

It was more like "India" for 17th century European listeners: a mythic far-off place, definitely eastwards... --Wetman 05:25, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do you have evidence of this? China has been well connected with Arabia since the Tang dynasty and Arabs were quite prominent in China from the Tang to Ming dynasties (see: [1]). -AjaxSmack 16:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, an anon user has removed all China refernces form the article. AjaxSmack 16:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Honour, Chinoiserie: The Vision of Cathay (1961). Section I "The Imaginary Continent" will give you some basic grounding in this quite familiar stretch in the history of ideas.--Wetman 16:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -AjaxSmack 16:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work

Re:this edit - excellent work! Raul654 22:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you! --Wetman 23:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harpies in market-driven culture

Hi Wetman. As I'm sure you noticed, I prodded the above article. If I had seen before doing so that you were an established editor of long standing, I would have likely taken a different course; at the least posting here first. Nevertheless, I do think the article is indiscriminate and constitutes original research, and realize you didn't write the material but were cleaning it out of Harpy. I too grind my teeth when I find trivia sections, but how can it stand on its own if it can't stand there? Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I didn't edit it at all. The article Harpy has a condensed version of Harpies in market-driven culture, which in its turn links back to Harpy for context, just as one would do in turning any bulky sub-section into a separate article for streamlining. I haven't ventured to criticise the list as "undiscriminating", but since you've led the way... Oh well. At any rate, I see no reason to forbid the listmakers anywhere at Wikipedia, but the Saturday television ideas about mythology seem to get edited into the main section from time to time. I see now what prodding an article means: listing it for deletion. This might be an efficient way to rid mythology articles of appended lists of drivel. --00:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well if you think it's drivel (I had a feeling you did or why would you have cleared it out?) you can either leave the {{prod}} template (proposed+deletion=prod, thus prodded) remain and if not removed for five days (or longer somtimes because of backlog) it will be deleted, or you can tag the article for speedy deletion yourself under {{db-author}}. I hate the trivia lists in articles as you do too apparently—especially when the article is on a serious topic.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't take credit as the author, so I'll just sit tight and lurk. I try not to impose my undoubtedly elite views on the feckless merry-making down in the village square, unless I sense that the simple are going to be misled, which isn't really the case here... --Wetman 00:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you mean. Though you technically created the article, the material is 100% the writing of others. As for the village square, and the feckless, I wish they would stop merry-making so much.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(murmur of assent) --Wetman 01:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Anne Style architecture

Please review the section containing an image that I took of an American Queen Anne's - Stick Style house. I noticed that you made major contributions to the article. I am unqualified to modify the article. The section talks about an image that no longer exists. Please update the section. I have had a comment on the article's talk page asking for an update for quite some time. --Royalbroil 05:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does need an update, based closely on Mark Girouard's book that I added to the References, for outlining the English movement. Perhaps eliminating confusions like "In America, Queen Anne generally refers to an era of style, rather than a specific formulaic style in its own right." The only Queen Anne era is the reign of Queen Anne, 1702-1714: too many style designations in this period, and not enough clarity about them. Some direct quotes of contemporaneous usage of the style in U.S. publications are needed. I don't have the Girouard book... --Wetman 05:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Etymology

On 7/22/06 you added some history to the Etymology page, and noted "early etymologies mentioned and linked: a history of etymology section is needed". There already was a history of etymology section: Etymology#History_of_etymology. Just noticed your note and figured I'd point it out to you in case you want to move the addition to that section instead. - Ravenous 17:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foolish me. And I'd written much of that text myself, too! Still a very brief synopsis of the history of etymologies does belong in the opening pareagraphs. which are meant to sum up, for those who read no further. --Wetman 19:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winslow Hall

What's your personal opinion of the architect. I know the house quite well, and I would put money on Wren, the whole thing is pefectly proportioned, and Pevsner says "in all probability by Wren" yet current local thought is that it is not. It may wll come on the property market in the next year or so. It is lived in by one elderly gentleman and rather diliapidated - interesting to see the estate agents advertise it! Giano | talk 13:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only alternative would be Matthew Banckes, who knew the Wren style first-hand, inside-out, and who practiced as surveyor and as architect on occasion. I thought Bancks's name should appear in the article. The Board of Works by 1700 was a fine-tuned machine. No doubt that Wren oversaw the design I'd say. --Wetman 14:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)--Wetman 14:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting new page, I had never heard of him, he would probably overseen Wren's drawings, I must dig out the Buckinghamshire History Society journal I used as a ref, and see if I missed anything, actually it has some photos of the both interior and exterior B/W do you think it would be "safe" to upload them (published 1926) - 80 years ago? Giano | talk 15:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, I just don't know what cut-off date Wikipedia uses. The beginning of the C18 in England is still the golden age of knowledgeable patrons working with thoroughly-trained craftsmen, of designs adapted from a local existing house, of "surveyors". Lots of fine London streets were built at this time on speculation, with teams of craftsmen under a master mason or carpenter, with no architect in evidence. Banckes, like many master masons and master carpenters, was able to work up a house design: of Banckes's house for Lord Rochester, Colvin says "Many of the architectural details were to correspond with those at Ranelagh House, Chelsea,and the Earl of Ranelagh was to act as arbitrator in the event of any dispute" according to documents in the Surrey C.R.O. Richard Jones, first E. of Ranelagh was a forerunner of the "architect Earls" of the C18. I wish you could read Colvin's introduction to his Biographical Dictionary, "The Practice of Architecture, 1600-1840", which is written in two sections, "The Building Trades" and "The Architectural Profession". If I were to write a concise version for Wikipedia, what article should it go into? --Wetman 00:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good excuse to do Ranelagh House - I suppose it probably influenced Ickworth which too had an architect Earl - or perhaps even a biography of Colvin himself? Giano | talk 06:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Ranelagh Gardens! --Wetman 06:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Well I've had a better idea anyhow, how about Matthew Brettingham where I've always though his rise to stardom from mason was not very well explained - or even Holkham Hall itself where too it is not crystal clear what was going on in the design department. Giano | talk 07:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've just had a re-read of Brettingham, IMO it would fit very well into there if you agreed Giano | talk 07:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, I think it's much more general in scope and that situations in individual houses ought to link to it. What if I broke up Colvin's general picture and the bits were rewritten and condensed as subsections in, say Georgian architecture, with a heading like "The practice of building"? And what if I worked on it on a scratch sheet as you do? --Wetman 08:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes good idea, and then I might steal a bit and link to explain why Brettingham was as accomplished as he was. Giano | talk 11:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a quick look Georgian architecture could do with a major overhaul and explansion, so it's a very good idea indeed. Giano | talk 11:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basilisks in fantasy fiction and games

An article that you created, Basilisks in fantasy fiction and games, was proposed for deletion, probably yesterday. Please review the policy on proposed deletion and feel free to comment on the article's talk page. If no contest is made, the article will be deleted in four days from today.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, what a painless way to eject lists of fatuous prattle into hyperspace! Were one simply to delete this trash, there'd be tearful and furious confrontations, and one might develop a reputation of elite heartlessness.-Wetman 22:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Night (book)

Hi Wetman. In March of last year you nominated Night (book) for Featured Article status. It's been considerably improved since then, and is up for nomination again. You can find the discussion here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Night (book). Thought you might want to know. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thinking of me. I have since found that any attention paid to Featured Article status is largely wasted.--Wetman 04:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:SilvestreBattlefieldNancy1477.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SilvestreBattlefieldNancy1477.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Château de Meudon, Château de Choisy

Gosh - my redlinks are disappearing apace :) Thanks for looking at Jean-Baptiste Oudry and Château de Saint-Germain-en-Laye too. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, you may like to nominate these articles as candidates at WP:DYK, for a bit of Main Page exposure (it is usually good to get more eyes reading an artice, in my experience). If you don't want to nominate then, would you object if I did? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Apologies, but I have tweaked them somewhat, and moved them to 5 August (it is customary to nominate DYK articles under the date when they were expanded, not the day when they are listed). -- ALoan (Talk) 22:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any improvement is always welcome. Thank you. --Wetman 22:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, Château de Saint-Cloud is very good. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truthfully, it's a lightly condensed translation from French Wikipedia, often a useful start for these royal châteaux, but I added a bit from Fiske Kimball and found the Silvestre engraving. There is a good C17 bird's-eye view at Fr:Wikipedia. Do you know the preferred way to transfer it? --Wetman 20:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know :) I very nearly did a translation earlier that evening, but gave up and yours is miles better anyway. I am not very good with images, but I suspect the best thing would be to upload to Commons and use from there (a 17th century engraving ought to be PD on grounds of age, no?).

Apoxyomenos is great too, btw. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, but I have nominate a few more of your recent creations on T:TDYK. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferme ornée

Dear Wetman, could you check these edits? Should this lodge be split into a separate article? Is it really so outstanding as to claim the largest part of the article? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not outstanding, nor a very illuminating quotation, IMO, but the idea of using contemporary quotes in Wikipedia to illuminate the nuances of meaning as ideas unfold and develop in history should not be discouraged. I'd not make a fuss, but the paragraph needs to be better integrated into the article eventually. Maybe we also need to add some more illuminating C18 uses of the term "ferme ornée". --Wetman 08:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British cultural icons

Hi - I noticed that you'd left a message questioning the definition of this category and thought you might be interested in the deletion proposal which I've initiated. Warofdreams talk 00:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent proposal. --Wetman 01:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are online, so . . ....

I just wrote an article on a MINOR British sculptor named Connor Barrett, which was subsequently deleted and then restored and is now being voted on. I though that you might be interested. Carptrash 01:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walla Walla. I like it. Tyrenius 03:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished

Hi you made Église de la Madeleine/Temp, could you move it into the article space and make a redirect or delete it as necessary. Thanks. --Peta 04:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I've petitioned for deletion in the orthodox manner. --Wetman 08:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is a game"

...I've never heard it said better. Mind if I quote that section on my UserPage ? You will of course get attribution : ) thepromenader 09:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously you have the right point of view! (That would be RPOV in Wikipedish). Someone was highly insulted by the idea a while back. It's yours. No credit required—this is Wikipedia, after all. --Wetman 10:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe "RPOV" sounds like a shortcut to "POVA" ("POV accusation"). I know all is supposed to 'filchable' here, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't give credit where it's due. Cheers. thepromenader 11:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Talk:Heracles

I hope your removal of my comment on Talk:Heracles (see [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHeracles&diff=69528689&oldid=69516661 this diff) was an error. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly was. I think it was that my much-too-long watchlist may have been stale when I got to Heracles, and I wasn't alert enough. In fact I even agree with your edit "Beware of regarding the Etruscan myth as "older" or "original"; Hercle is a synthesis of Etruscan and Greek elements, so Etruscan iconography doesn't necessarily tell us much about the background of the Greek hero. The notion of an "original" form of a myth is highly problematic anyway." My apologies. --Wetman 20:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the gracious apology. I was pretty sure it was inadvertent, so I hope I didn't seem too touchy. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WurtzburgResidenz.jpg

You uploaded this image marking it as public domain. If you copied the description page properly, the image was originally published under GFDL. In future, please make sure to use the correct licence.--Hun2de Correct me! 17:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"In future" as in past, I do my level best. I simply moved the image from German Wikipedia, noting the fact. Next time I'll look for the GFDL licensing option. --Wetman 19:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes being here is like being back at school in the "good old days" before teachers had to respect their pupils. "Wetman minor" promises never to be so badly behaved again. Don't you Wetman minor? C'mon take your hands out of your pockets and agree! Giano | talk 19:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy lurking at your userpage too, Giano! --Wetman 09:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basiliscus

I currently revamped Basiliscus article. Do you care to comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Basiliscus/archive1?--BlaiseMuhaddib 17:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Overdoor

He did not delete it, he just blanked with the {{deletedpage}} template, but you can still revert :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay now, thanks to your action. --Wetman 00:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Sant'Angelo

Hallo, thanks a lot for copyediting my article about Sant'Angelo. It has been washed only in the waters of Tiber, not in those of Thames or Potomac ;-)...

Many thanks again,

alex2006 11:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, too! I hope you'll work on all the other rioni, and I'll just follow along behind with my little dustpan and broom... --Wetman 21:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talkin'

Now what did I ever do to you? [2] TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oop! What happened? We were certainly posting the same ideas! I reinserted your commernt that I inadvertently squelched!--Wetman 03:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it was something like that. On the other hand, I might have said it too stupidly to bother keeping around. ;) TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I that critical? Perhaps. I hope my sharpness is never undeserved. I never mean to slice off their hands. ...Just the tips of their fingers. --Wetman 04:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heavens, no. You're very sensible, which is why it's easy to assume you had a good reason. But I'd know if you sliced off a fingertip. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HELP on article: PONTIFEX MAXIMUS

Sir: I am trying my best to contribute to the wikipedia article: PONTIFEX MAXIMUS.

I was able to trace the following to you:

In Christian circles, when Tertullian furiously applied the term to Pope Callixtus I, with whom he was at odds, ca 220, over Callistus' relaxation of the Church's penitential discipline, allowing repentant adulterers and fornicators back into the Church, under his Petrine authority to "bind and loosen" it was in bitter irony:

   "In opposition to this [modesty], could I not have acted the dissembler? I hear that there has even been an edict sent forth, and a peremptory one too. The 'Pontifex Maximus,' that is the 'bishop of bishops,' issues an edict: 'I remit, to such as have discharged [the requirements of] repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.' O edict, on which cannot be inscribed, 'Good deed!' ...Far, far from Christ's betrothed be such a proclamation!" (Tertullian, On Modesty ch. 1)

Was Pontifex a word in common currency by early 3rd-century Christianity to denote a bishop? Tertullian's usage is unusual in that most of the technical terms of Roman paganism were avoided in the vocabulary of Christian Latin in favour of neologisms or Greek words. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>After Gratian put aside the pagan honour, it remained in desuetude.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Pontifex summus was an expression used to distinguish Hilary of Arles (died 449) as the bishop of the notable see of Gallian Narbonensis, in relation to those of less importance, by Eucherius of Lyons (Catholic Encyclopedia, quoting Pat. Lat., L, 773), but other such early instances are difficult to find. At the end of the 6th century Gregory I was the first Pope to employ it in a formal sense. It has remained one of the titles of the popes to this day.

The statement in >>>>>>>>BOLD<<<<<<<<<< is particularly troublesome. Where did you find that statement? Catholic Encyclopedia? I tried my best to find it in the Catholic Encyclopedia but I can't seem to find it. Desuetude: a state of disuse or inactivity. It would appear that if I maintain the above, the section where it belongs suffers from being contradictory or inconsistent. I want to delete that statement, reconstruct it, or maintain it depending on your inputs.

I am now working on expanding the pagan part of pontifex maximus. I worked on the Christian part first since it was manageable but the pagan part I realized is harder to chew.

I would appreciate very much your help, reply or direct edit of the article.

Sincerely, Dr mindbender 08:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Gratian's putting aside the honour, probably in 376, see this review, esp. fn5, of Françoise Van Haeperen, 2002. Le collège pontifical (3ème siècle avant Christ. - 4ème s. p. C.) (Études de Philologie, d'Archéologie et d'Histoire Anciennes, 39'. Brussels). It seems to be common knowledge. Van Haeperen's book should at least be mentioned under Further reading. --Wetman 09:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir:

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it very much. I will work on this section again. I have read the same review but not the book unfortunately since I understand very little of French. I will adjust the section accordingly.

Sincerely, Dr mindbender 16:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the book either, but the information in the review was what I based my information on. --Wetman 19:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mittelafrika

I added a picture of my own devising, is it accurate? Obviously remove if not, but at least it's something. HawkerTyphoon 07:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very crisp, and it looks right to me. If it's not, you'll soon hear! --Wetman 07:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger de Piles

Roger de Piles, some friends browsing your pages may be interested to know this creation. I double checked the marks but you know I'm not the greatest editor. Should you like it, consider it dedicated to your untiring contribution. En lieu of a Barnstar or something... Good Health! (Lunarian 20:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Oh goodness! What an excellent subject, and a very good start, I must say! He was no more than a name to me: I'm more flattered than with a "barnstar." (Someone attempted to give me a congratulatory high five in 1989, and I'm sorry to report I rather flubbed it.) --Wetman 00:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flattery...that creeping poison. (Hèhèhèhè...). Thanks for de Gournay ( that's what I meant ). (Lunarian 11:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Image:PalladioRotondaPlan.jpg

Hi Wetman, the tag is obsolete on this pic, and it is superb and we really need it! Can you re-tag it? Thanks for uploading it by the way-- so you know also I am nominating it for selected picture at the architecture portal. Regards, DVD+ R/W 03:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I change the tag? This is a two-dimensional work of art from Palladio's I Quattro libri de architettura first published 1570. I can't tell how to go about simply changing the tag. --Wetman 04:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You had tagged it as {{PD}}, I just changed it to ((PD-old}}. To change it you click edit like normal and re-write the info. The obsolete PD tag has suggestions of replacement tags on it and you pick one. I just wanted to invite you to do it since you uploaded it and knew the source better, and also as an excuse to drop by with the compliment that you are one of the better writer / editors that we have. DVD+ R/W 05:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's nice to hear. I'm also quite incompetent beyond the simplest html, as you see. We all have limits to our strengths. A few words like yours will double my limited stocks of tact and forbearance for twenty-four hours or so... --Wetman 06:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to know someone has tact and forbearance. I've had a rough night, I've recieved death threats, and have been blocked twice (once by myself and once mistaken for an impostor). Were I in a little better shape I would nominate you for adminship. You really would make a good candidate and admin, being an outstanding content editor, tactfull as you say, and also busy reverting vandalism. Let me know if you are interested.... DVD+ R/W 07:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, you would represent us well and deserve a promotion. DVD+ R/W 20:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, not a club I care to join. --Wetman 15:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Deleting external links

Hi Wetman! I have nothing against Dmill96 (talk · contribs), or the website that he/she was linking to. However, where I see external links that are outwith the guidelines described at WP:EL I delete them. There are many excellent websites out there, but we don't link to them all because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a web directory. JeremyA 12:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(This correspondence can be followed in full at User_talk:JeremyA --W)

DYK noms

Just a friendly reminder to list your DYK nominations at the bottom of the relevant date, rather than the top. BigHaz 23:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I've been doing it wrong all this time. --Wetman 00:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk on Greek Mythology page

I've decided to continue this discussion on your talk page (hope you don't mind) mainly because I have more questions for you than comments or criticisms. My first question is are you using the word "pagan" in the literal dictionary sense or pejorative sense that christians like to use? Literal sense, traditional, simply meaning non-Christian, performing the traditional rites. I'm not that kind of christianist, I'm Episcopalian. Not that the term is offensive, its just that its not really a correct term (in either sense) for Hellenists then or even now. A Hellenist is a student of Greek Antiquity, such as an educated pagan Roman of the first century CE, or a classically-educated Quintus Aurelius Symmachus. The pejorative you're thinking of is heathen. What is your preferred term for the Greek religion of Antiquity? My next question is that is it your contention that Greek peoples in part became literate and that's why they converted to Christianity? No. When I said "fifth century" you thought I mean "fifth century AD". Christianity is irrelevant here. The subject was "how much did Greeks believe their myths?" My answer implied that the change to a skeptical view occurred roughly over the course of the century centered on the death of Socrates (399). Literacy encourages comparisons of texts; illiteracy encourages uncritical empathy. C.A.P. Ruck and D. Staples' chapter "What is mythology?" touches on this I think. If so, how much do you believe this contributed to the overall conversion in Greece? Do you think that this sounds like Christianity was the "smart" choice for the Greeks? "Conversion" occurred over more than a century. Remember the old gods and old ways simply went underground (Seznec). Public conversion-- the aspect we can best judge-- was not "complete" until the closing of the Athenian Academy (529 CE) and the desecration of Eleusis. I ask all these questions because it's my contention that the vast majority of Christian conversion throughout most of history was from the point of a sword, not from anything benign like intellectual or philosophical premises and I have yet to find significant examples to the contrary. No, I think it varies. The tipping point came after 491, when if you wanted a public career, which traditionally defined the Roman upper class, you had to act "Christian." I know lack of evidence doesn't make an argument valid, but then again I'm still searching. I look forward to reading your response. User:MrFuchs

My thoughts are interpolated in italics. You really need to get two big fat paperbacks: Paul Veyne, editor, A History of Private Life: I: From Pagan Rome to Byzantium Harvard Universitry Press 1987, and Ramsay MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire, AD 100 – 400 Yale University Press 1986. The history of ideas is the hardest history to grasp. --Wetman 03:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Heathen" isn't necessarily a pejorative term either. It's commonly used by British neo-Pagans, particularly Ásatrú or similar, to refer to themselves. In older works, it's not infrequently used as a straightforward English translation of "paganus". (The word is probably an exact cognate of "pagan", describing the inhabitants of the heath as opposed to the cities just as "paganus" derived from "pagus".) TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thank you for responding to my questions. Now to answer the question you have for me; as far as preferred terms for people that follow the Greek Pantheon, there is no universally agreeable term to describe us. The independent and fractionous nature of Greeks at the time and the faith prevents one from forming. Our temple uses the term "Hellenismos" but many people of our faith (including myself) use the terms Hellenism and Hellenist. I myself understand this causes some confusion with the Hellenistic period of Greek history, but its just simpler to use. If you would like more information on it, you can go to the Hellenic Polytheism page. Those books you recommend sound very interesting I will have to check them out. If you have any other comments, concerns or criticisms please feel free to go on my talk page. User:MrFuchs

RE: Gloves

In defense of my statement about wearing gloves indoors in 1795-1820 in fashion:

Pool, p. 215, "For most of the century, ladies always gloves outside (so did gentlemen). In addition, they wore them for he most part indoors as well (always at balls, for instance). Coming down to breakfast (though they were removed for the meal), ladies wore gloves too, and in the schoolrooms in the sixties and seventies proper little girls wore them doing their lessons."

User: Vjsanborn 07:51 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed: ladies' gloves worn with evening dress under the Empire (but before? surely not under the Ancien Régime) and later in the century. Gloves worn outdoors. If you see that gloves are not being worn in portraits, and that no gloves are worn with day dresses in the fashion plates (not including outdoor wear of course) you can trust their testimony. --Wetman 17:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will look this matter up more thoroughly. I do know that ladies are depicted in paintings wearing mitts, fingerless gloves, indoors. And perhaps this is where the confusion lies. Here is a second-hand observation, which does not pinpoint the exact dates in the "19th" century:

"Since I run a website (http://www.operagloves.com/glovmain.html) devoted to glove fashion and history, I particularly appreciated the attention given to gloves (which were so much a key - indeed, mandatory - accessory of women's clothing throughout the century that women would often even go to bed wearing gloves!)."

The author is speaking about: English Women's Clothing in the Nineteenth Century: A Comprehensive Guide with 1,117 Illustrations, by C. Willett Cunnington.

User: Vjsanborn 18:20 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Remember that the period is 1795-1820. Not 1850-1870. --Wetman 17:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A young girl is seated in this painting, wearing one mitt. Granted it is from the 18th Century, but would glove/mitt use have altered so drastically between 1781 and 1821? [3].

User: Vjsanborn  18:34 3 September 2006 (UTC)

San Pietro in Ciel d'Oro

Why are you translating "Ciel d'Oro" with "gilded ceiling"? "Ciel" is sky.--BlaiseMuhaddib 17:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the note re: cielo di letto. --Wetman 17:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed, and did not understand that too.--BlaiseMuhaddib 17:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's not to understand: a cielo di letto is the tester of a bed. That explains the usage by a parallel instance, since you'd taken issue with "gilded ceiling". If you don't know what a tester is, I can't help. --Wetman 18:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind answer.--BlaiseMuhaddib 19:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It was as kind as I could make it. I'm not a patient person. --Wetman 19:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Achilles

Hey, Wetman. There's a response to your comment about the Homeric description of Achilles at Talk:Achilles/Archives/2012/March#Cutting Homer. I don't quite understand why you simply repeated your comment from Talk:Achilles/Archives/2012/March#Suppressing Homer! instead of responding to the discussion there; the point is that there's nothing wrong with giving a physical description of Achilles, but to assume that xanthos and hairy-chested="not of Mediterranean stock" is original research. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not giving a physical description of Achilles. Homer is giving a physical description of Achilles. If to assume that Homer's description implies "not of Mediterranean stock" is "original", that is what gets deleted. If Homer's description does not suit one's indoctrination, and one's reaction is to suppress it? Shameful. --Wetman 22:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant there's nothing wrong with the article giving a (Homeric) description of Achilles. I just don't understand why you don't reinsert the description yourself, instead of making insinuations about indoctrination and suppression of the truth... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and have it reverted again? That's all the time I can devote to this. The article is removed from my watchlist. Keep an eye on it yourself, if you wish. No further resaponse is required. --Wetman 02:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, in general

Just wanted to say that I often cross paths with your work & wanted to thank you for a lot of excellent work of all sorts. - Jmabel | Talk 01:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is a name that stands out from the multitude I must say. When I see your name in my bloated Watchlist, I often pass it right by with a sigh of security. --Wetman 01:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:DYK

Many thanks for the contribution Wetman. (It's quite the resumé: St-Sulpice, Collège de France, Palais du Luxembourg). Many thanks -- Samir धर्म 18:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Wycombe Park

Could you have an edit about in this for me. looking for architectural clarity and sense. I have the feeling I have lost my way a little in it, and can't see the woodwork for the tangle of trees. Thanks Giano | talk 08:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen the house, but I'll tweak as boldly as if I had, in true Wikipedian style! Glad to see you've recovered your wonted form. --Wetman 09:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maisons

Sorry it took me so long to respond. I fixed some wikilinks formerly leading to Maisons-Laffitte and added a link from Maisons. In truth, I had deliberately placed Maisons at the centre of French Baroque, secretly hoping that someone would start an article. Quite some time ago, having discovered that Mansard article was a pitiful stub, I pointed out to French wikipedians that the coverage of their stately homes was undistinguished and that they could expand architectural sections of articles about historic towns of France by using free Britannica stuff. Yet things did not change until you and ALoan nobly translated key articles from the French project. Your latest translation nicely caps it off. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 22:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antiquity

Hello, when you want to link to the article about antiquity, please do not link to antiquity, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as ancient history or classical antiquity by writing out [[ancient history|antiquity]] or [[classical antiquity|antiquity]]. Regards, Jeff3000 22:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll add that to my bag o' tricks! --Wetman 23:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinet des Médailles

Dear Wetman, I decided to let you know that one guy has trouble in pulling the stub through DYK. Knowing your interest in antiquity, I would not be suprised if you help him by adding a passage or two when you have time. Regards, Ghirla ^-трёп- 20:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wetman. Thank you so much for your amazing expansion of Cabinet des Médailles. I am very impressed! Best regards. PHG 05:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second PHG's applause. It was very impressive indeed. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vernanimalcula Pt 2

Hi, I've added a slightly longer reference to V. in the Proterozoic predecessors section of the Cambrian Explosion. I must admit that I am strongly of the opinion that this fossil is nothing more than a diagenetically overgrown blob with no affinities to the bilaterians at all. Indeed, I published a response in Science with one of my colleagues to push this view when the original paper came out. Despite the molecular date data (which in itself hardly gives a consistent picture, although it all tends to place the protostome-deuterostome split before the Cambrian), and the various stuff out of Duoshantuo, AND changing views of Ediacaran fossils. it is still hard to put one's hand on one's heart and say: "THIS is a Precambrian bilaterian!" without an act of faith being involved. Still, I hope I have managed to maintain some sort of NPOV.... Grahbudd 15:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a despicable amateur in this field, though I do read a certain amount of the literature for pleasure. Any relevant article published in a peer-reviewed journal is suitable for the References section. If the Wikipedian identification of V. as the earliest bilateral animal is too optimistic, you should tone it down a bit. Who better than you? Not me, to be honest. --Wetman 23:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Awsan

You created a page on the Kingdom of Awsan on June 12, 2004. The external link provided on the page, the only source, is in French. If possible, could you expand the sources or find a translated version of the page (per WP:RS)? I trust you, but this would make me feel better... Thanks, EFG 02:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've added three in English, none as informative or detailed. --Wetman 02:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venus de' Medici

I'm pretty sure copyright doesn't apply to that one. The page doesn't really fully work without it, does it? Also, about time that sculpture had an article! Eixo 23:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aye! It looks like a late eighteenth-early ninettenth century French engraving (from a book?). Any more from the same source? I'll provide text for anything you can come up with. The source would be nice to credit. --Wetman 00:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical-critical content

Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snow-white Miriam; the nominator seems to be on a campaign to rid wikipedia of all historical-critical content. --User talk:FDuffy 17:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The article seems to have been merged with Miriam, which seems perfectly sensible. If any salvageable content was left out in the process, it might go into Miriam. --Wetman 20:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ezekiel merge reopened

Hi! I'd like to merge Ezekiel into Book of Ezekiel on the grounds that there are virtually no sources of information on Ezekiel the prophet apart from the book that was written about him; I've posted more detailed arguments on the articles' talk pages. I'm writing to you because your comments on Ezekiel's talk page seem to indicate that you strongly oppose such a merge. If, after you read my arguments, you still strongly oppose a merge, please get in touch with me so that we can talk about it and attempt to arrive at some kind of agreement (or, if anyone else joins the debate, a consensus).

Thanks, Invisible Flying Mangoes 18:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the same attempt. I have posted at Talk:Ezekiel the following, which is strongly worded, so that there can be no doubt: "The motivations for blending the alleged author inescapably with the text, so that one may not discuss Luke for instance, without taking into account and tacitly accepting a perhaps spurious biography of a "Luke", etc. have not always proved wholesome. What of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomist? What of Nehemiah and Nehemiah, of Ezra and Ezra? Indeed, what of the "biography" of Daniel, the field of fools? Read the exchanges below and learn from them. Hagiographies as texts may be discussed quite sensibly, whether or not the existence of the saints and the adventures and miracles within the texts are childish nonsense. If some of the more fastidious Wikipedians prefer to discuss texts— which are incontrovertibly real— quite apart from these "biographies", and if there is intense resistance to this merge already fully expressed, why not leave it alone, if your "respect" is genuine?" --Wetman 20:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Egyptian Revival architecture

There is a little discussion on this page, as to which way the article is to evolve. Me and Mcginnly would appreciate your opinion. Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kresilas

Thank You. I had a problem with the notes.--Mario todte 15:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That <ref></ref> formula is the only one simple enough that even I can do it! --Wetman 22:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Thank you for correcting my oversite on Julienning - after a cursory glance I deleted what appeared to be a recipe. Editing it into a description of technique, as you did, would have been a better approach. However, please don't use belittling or judgemental language as you did in your edit summary. If you'd checked the discussion page, you would have seen that my 'thoughtless' edit had a cited reason, that I realized my action might be questioned, and that I'd taken the time to explain my thoughts beforehand. You're very active and well respected. Judging from your edit history, that remark looks very out-of-character for you. I'm assuming you were simply having a bad day. Tofof 00:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary was "thoughtlessly deleted; noticed stir fry, reset paras. for continuity of thought": "thoughtlessly" was incorrect. My correspondent's complete cited reason was "Removed the recipe. It can be placed in Wikibooks' Cookbook but doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article." I didn't say the text was "peremptorily" deleted, after all. I have a Watchlist of 3993 pages, which I'm trying to reduce. I do tend to move swiftly through the list of recent changes: one might equally say that mine was "hastily edited". --Wetman 05:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

☆

[[:Image:Goldenwiki.png|thumb|160px|right|To the most helpful, prolific and competent wikipedian I've met during my two years in the project. Presented by Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)]] Dear Wetman, here's an award to put you in a good mood after the attack above. Knowing your helpfulness, I came to you with questions, as usual. The first one - what do you think is the style of St. Francis de Sales Roman Catholic Church (Philadelphia)? It doesn't conform to my understanding of Byzantine Revival. Another one - should we start a separate category for ancient treasure troves, to classify Sevso Treasure and the rest? I would like to know your opinion. Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla, thank you for the gilded memento: it's all the more meaningful coming from you. Andrey, I think that when you have a Greek cross plan with a central dome surrounded by four subsidiary domes, you're already dealing with neo-Byzantine. The church helps define Byzantine Revival in that it exhibits the decorative vocabulary that appeared suitable in a neo-Byzantine context to the architect and his patrons. The style may be diluted in content, but it won't be useful to think of it as "corrupted" in any way: this is part of the "neo" in "neo-Byzantine". The church is dedicated to a Baroque saint, with the Roman Catholic Church paying the bills, in Philadelphia, where the upper class of the epoch was soundly Episcopalian, Lutheran and Quaker, and the working class solidly Catholic. So you can expect other styles to creep in, especially Romanesque. The best comparison is not Hagia Sophia but Saint Bartholomew's Episcopal Church, New York. --Wetman 12:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion. You know I bow down to your knowledge, although one may argue that "a Greek cross plan with a central dome surrounded by four subsidiary domes" is fairly common in Russian Revival architecture as well. I will ask User:Evrik to make necessary additions to his article. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your knowledge is really mmore detailed than mine. I just put down what I knew and could document! --evrik 16:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fata Morgana

A question has been raised on the Fata Morgana article about whether there really is an Agatha Christie novel by that name. I see that you originally added the information, but with the name Agatha Chrystie. If you could comment on the talk page that would be most appreciated. :-)

Thanks, Stelio 12:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. A comparison of the German and English pages for Agatha Christie shows that the novel must be They Do It with Mirrors (the only 1952 Miss Marple title). I have updated the page accordingly. :-) Stelio 11:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! thanks for filling me in on the detail! --Wetman 11:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ischia

Dear Wetman, I want to signal you a mistake in the article on Ischia: in chap. 2.1 (ancient times) i read

In the sixth century the earliest Greek colony on the mainland was founded from here

but actually the colony of Cuma was founded in the 8th century. Hope you'll edit it. --82.57.73.245 12:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC) (for reply, contact me on wikipedia.it, I am Fidio)[reply]

I moved the whole text to Talk. I think I was responsible for this error.--Wetman 13:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phiale or patera

[[:Image:Phiale.jpg|thumb|Wetman, excuse me my ignorance in artifacts of Greek antiquity, but could you explain to me what is this? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)]][reply]

Andrej, what we're looking at here is the richly decorated underside of a phiale omphalos (Latin patera), or libation bowl. The central section, called the omphalos, which looks in the illustration like a convex boss is concave on this side. When offering a libation the phiale was held in the hand with the thumb on the central boss, keeping the thumb out of the wine that was intended for the chthonic offering. What a beautiful object: Greco-Scythian. Here's a bronze Greek phiale omphalos that is a little later in date. And here's another Greek one, in black-glazed pottery, in San Francisco. --Wetman 16:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wetman, your explanation was most helpful. I think we should mention these details somewhere in main space, to keep our readers from guessing. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...save that some self- confident American whose view of Antiquity is through the lens of Xena Warrior Princess will tag it ^{[citation needed]}. --Wetman 19:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the average level of our readers is discouraging. Sometimes you don't feel like editing at all. But hey, why should we care about the feelings of the mob? They don't care about us, right? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ezekiel merge, part 2

Still waiting for a response to my comments about the Ezekiel merge from last week. Please write back when you get a chance.

Thanks, Invisible Flying Mangoes 18:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Ezekiel and Book of Ezekiel are no longer on Wetman's Watchlist.)

Vote

Hi Fellow-WikiPedian, This thing came up: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where Troy Once Stood. Would you like to vote? Antiphus 20:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Peoples

Dear Wetman, Pharaoh Merneptah/Merenptah ruled Egypt for almost 10 years from 1213-1203 BC (not 1213 to 1204 BC) between late July & early August 1203 BC to early May 1203 BC. Even if you set aside my comment on the Sea Peoples by J. von Beckerath, there is this 2002 on-line PDF paper by Kenneth Kitchen which discusses the chronology of Egypt during the Ancient Near East. On page 5, Kitchen clearly assigns 10 years to Merneptah/Merenptah which is close to Manetho's figure of 9 Years & 8 Months for his reign. [4] Regards, Leoboudv 08:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always revert anonymous changes of dates and other statistics, and apply an edit summary to alert reponsible adults. The support for dates of Merneptah presented above would be more useful if worked into a note at the relevant point in the relevant article. --Wetman 12:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wetman, I've taken your hint and applied the relevant footnote for the reign of Merneptah. All I have is Von Beckerath's 1997 German book, not Kitchen's but this makes no difference since Kitchen also assigns Merneptah a reign of almost 10 years. With kind Regards, Leoboudv 19:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:GreekWarrior / NickOfCyprus

Hi Wetman, I noticed that back in June you were reverting certain edits in Byzantine-related articles made by an anon, who you were suspecting of inserting unreliable material ([5], and some similar cases.) This anon was apparently GreekWarrior (talk · contribs), probably identical with NickOfCyprus (talk · contribs). GreekWarrior was recently banned and is now making an appeal at Arbcom. As his eagerness to contribute to Byzantine topics and the quality of his edits in that domain are probably going to play a role, I thought you might want to comment. I'd appreciate your opinion on how good or bad those edits were. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK on Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio

Good job with that article. I ran into an edit conflict when I was nominating it for DYK because you had already nominated it! I fixed the error you made with the image. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 17:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that! you were quick on the mark to notice the article. --Wetman 17:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silphium reference

I reverted your addition of the Tatman reference to Silphium. That very nice article is already referenced and linked to in the "References" section. There is no need to duplicate it under "External links".--Srleffler 01:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tatman, John. "Silphium: Ancient wonder drug?". Jencek's Ancient Coins & Antiquities. Retrieved 2006-04-20.

Yes, quite right. My oversight. I couldn't understand why it had been removed! --Wetman 01:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Adampromethe.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Francis Rague

I am interested in John Francis Rague who work for Minard Lafever in New York City and later moved to Springfield Illinois where he is credited with designing the Old State Capitol (not the New Capitol). The design of the Old Capitol has been attributed by some to be that of Town and Davis rather than Rague. Do you have any evidence that might resolve the question of who designed the Old State Capitol of Illinois? By the way, the link on the Davis biography page to the "Illinois State Capitol" is not to the Old State Capitol, but rather the New Capitol which neither Davis nor Rague designed.

Richard E. Hart.

No, I have no specific documentation identifying any architect. Since the structure has been dismantled stone by stone and rebuilt with new interiors, it might be speculative to base any attributions on details of style. Is the attribution made by Richard D Carreno in Ithiel Town: An American original? I haven't seen the book. Is it perhaps a question of Town and Davis sending designs and Rague performing as the on-site architect? Minard Lafever needs a Wikipedia bio: are you game? --Wetman 14:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blond Kouros's Head of the Acropolis

I Thank You for Cleanup. --Mario todte 12:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me encourage you to do more articles on any outstanding Greek sculptures that should be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Don't worry about details of English idiom. Get the facts together and I or someone will clean up.--Wetman 14:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]