User talk:Wetman/archive11Jun2010

Archived Talk: 11 June 2010

DYK for Casco de Leiro[edit]

On April 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Casco de Leiro, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Chantilly porcelain[edit]

On April 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chantilly porcelain, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you edits on Violante Visconti![edit]

Mahalo for your edits on the Violante Visconti article! Aloha, Peaceray (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Peaceray[reply]

...I just intended to simplify some tangled sentences and put emphasis where you intended. Thank you for noticing.--Wetman (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2003[edit]

I thought you'd find this interesting;

User_talk:Milkunderwood#History_prior_to_last_500_edits_archived.3F

Chzz ► 02:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by 5 October 2003, a month after my initial edit, I had already discovered that the simplest way to get information into Wikipedia is in the form of quotes, with dependable citations. --Wetman (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of the innocents.[edit]

Hi, please have a think about your rv of my edits. The material is still there - just not in the summary. Some of the stuff I rm'd is also a little weaselly - eg here [[1]]: "seen" is I think NPOV. I am about to add some sourced further stuff on historicity btw. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seen is a red herring: in actuality the idea that you'd like to suppress is Like much of Matthew's gospel the incident is introduced as the fulfilment of passages in the Old Testament read as prophecies. That this is the organizing principle of "Matthew"'s narrative runs counter to your indoctrination no doubt.--Wetman (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting assumption, but your view of my beliefs is wrong (and your assumption that I have been indoctrinated impolite - please follow WP:CIVIL). I agree that much (actually I would say all) of Matthew has the idea of fulfilment of OT scriptures as a theme directing his narrative structure - and of course not all agree that the scriptures involved are prophesies, or are fulfilled as Mt says they are. I will have a go at addressing your concerns. Springnuts (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are agreed in my only assumption, that the fulfilment of passages in the Old Testament read as prophecies is the organizing principle of "Matthew"'s narrative. That the passages in question actually were "prophesies" is impossible of course, but insisted upon by Christians.--Wetman (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least an organizing principle, maybe not the one. And that the passages are prophesies is insisted upon by some Christians no doubt, but by no means all - see for example the nuanced treatment of the Jer material by RT France among others: France (who is a conservative) seems to me to say that Matt, following his narrative structure, has to find a scripture, so casts around and comes up with Jer, which is not immediately apparent as related - that is one reason why he regards the incident as not deriving from the scripture in fact. Be that as it may, I have rejigged the historicity section, added France's views from the recent NICNT commentary, and moved it to a more logical place in the article. I am still not entirely happy with the layout of the section, but it is the best I can do tonight! Springnuts (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Christian Tobias Damm[edit]

On April 16, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Christian Tobias Damm, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Elephantine papyri[edit]

Hi, It is offen said "anti-Semitic rampage". I didn't delete the phrase, but better would it to write "anti-Judean rampage". Anti-Semitism is a phenomenon from the End of the 19. century. And in the matter of Elephantine there is an argument about the reasons. Kottsieper and Kratz (the most recent contributions) think that it was the achievement of a political and religous authonomy by the persians that raised the haitred of the Egyptiens. According to an elder thesis it was the sacrifice of rams esp. at Pessach that raised the hate of the priests of Khnum the ram-headed God in the neighborhood of the Yaho-Temple.

Best wishes Steffen le (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I surmise that your unusual personal limitation of Anti-Semitism to the late C19 would effectively let the RCs off the hook altogether. Your concise report of the published arguments and conclusions of Kottsieper and Kratz re the occasion provoking of anti-Semitic riots and vandalism at Elephantine would certainly make a useful addition to that article, or to Elephantine.--Wetman (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too many articles[edit]

Any thoughts on how many we actually need of Charbagh, Persian gardens, Paradise garden, Mughal gardens, & Islamic garden? Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I sense that people award themselves paste-up stars for the number of articles they start. Other people invent Categories (Persian art) and wish to complete them. The Persian garden tradition informs Mughal gardens and the Islamic gardens of the maghreb and Andalusia, as well as— somewhat indirectly— Hortus conclusus. My editing was at Paradise garden, years ago. A single, coherent master article should contain concise summaries of the sub-articles (Charbagh, etc). If it wasn't in the bookcase of garden books I gave a sister-in-law, I should have a good history of the Persian garden tradition still here somewhere...--Wetman (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this is online & seems very good on the Mughal tomb-gardens I was looking for. I suspect they were all started unaware of each other, with some nationalist/religious angles in mind. I've left a note at the Gardening project, though of course it's the wrong time of year. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add Bagh (garden) to the list. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started discussion at Talk:Bagh (garden). What do you think is the best general title? Persian is an unfashionable word in modern Iran, but this garden tradition isn't "Iranian".--Wetman (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scipione's house[edit]

Regarding your edit [2]. Please add anything you like - courtesy of a volcano, I was kicking my feet, with nothing to do, for a couple of days in Rome last week; it was funny I thought I knew every building - so I just wandered around snapping things I had not greatly noticed before - that building is just one of several that caught my interest whiches I snapped and will attempt to write a page about. There's not much documented about it, so it will prove a challenge. Rome's a good place to be stuck. Giano 21:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close friends were also stuck— in Barcelona!--Wetman (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I think I met most of your compatriots in Europe last week. It must have been quite lonely on your own in USA. However, it was not all culture and architecture that I snapped; I also discovered that mobile phones and texting were a little older than previously thought. Giano 22:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O excellent!--Wetman (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln's Tomb[edit]

I was amused to see that the disinfobox here has: "Architectural style(s): No Style Listed". Johnbod (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...mm, and they got the dates wrong and missed out the designer, Larkin Goldsmith Mead. Disinformation fills the space allotted to it.--Wetman (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hôtel de Condé[edit]

How is your French? The article Hôtel de Condé does not seem to at all agree with the French version with the same title fr:Hôtel de Condé. One source I found on Brongniart gives the name of house built for the Prince de Condé's daughter as the Hôtel de Bourbon-Condé. See Braham, Allan (1980). The architecture of the French enlightenment, pp. 210–219. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. ISBN 9780520041172. View at Google Books, check the caption for the omitted image.

Another one gives it as the Hôtel de Mademoiselle Condé. This one also says the building was demolished: See Bauchal, Charles (1887). Nouveau dictionnaire biographique et critique des architectes français, p. 615. (in French). Paris: André, Daly Fils. View at Google Books, near the bottom of the page.

Perhaps we should move the article to one of those names. Also what might account for the discrepancy of whether the structure still exists? --Robert.Allen (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hôtel de Bourbon-Condé, with the present text moved there, and a new article Hôtel de Condé translating the French Wikipedia article on the main Paris seat of the Condé would be good. A Move, then a rewrite of the Redirect created by the move would preserve the edit history. Hatnotes would guide the perpolexed. Make the move and I'll do the translation, as my French is quite good enough.--Wetman (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)--Wetman (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I did the move and I am editing the target page. I also copied this discussion to the new talk page. Thanks for doing the translation. I barely got thru 3 semesters of French in high school, and that was ages ago! --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. And I've just inserted a translation at Hôtel de Condé.--Wetman (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added Hôtel de Condé to the lead in response to the earlier edit by User:LouisPhilippeCharles. I think this may be better. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Now I think we have these two articles squared away.--Wetman (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I know much more about the subject, I'm still not certain we have made the best choice for the name of the article. Among the sources we have, I would give the most weight to the Parker article, in particular because he worked for the organization that purchased the Clodion bas-reliefs, and also because his article is the most extensive and detailed. We might consider making another move to a name such as Hôtel de Condé (rue Monsieur). Then we could put Hôtel de Condé as the first choice in the lead and use it as the name in the image captions (like Parker ref). I think this might also make User:LouisPhilippeCharles happier. He seems to be somewhat a specialist in the area of French names. (I've held off making a redirect page with this name, since a move like this will be quite simple if the target page does not already exist.) What are your thoughts on this? --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either one is the "Hôtel de Condé", and no distinction need be made— as long as only one is discussed: certainly no distinction was being made by contemporaries. James Parker was a fastidious writer. No doubt he followed the names as given in M. Gallet, Demeures parisiennes, l'époque de Louis XVI 1964. (I don't have it here.) Allan Braham, "Charles de Wailly and Early Neo-Classicism", The Burlington Magazine 114 (October 1972, pp 678, 671f) discusses the theatre built in the gardens of the "Hôtel de Condé", signifying the architecturally less distinguished but socially grander main hôtel particulier of the Condé. Braham illustrates Charles De Wailly's early (1770) Projet de la nouvelle Salle de Comédie francaise dans le Terrace de l'hotel de Condé, fig. 35, p. 676. J.-M. Peyre, in his Oeuvres d'architecture, 1765, illustrated a project, whether executed or not, for a symmetrical staircase in two curving flights placed in the vestibule of the "Hôtel de Condé"; he had exhibited it to the Académie in 1763, according to Braham 1972:678 note 34. As long as there are hatnotes, even the well-prepared reader will not get confused between Hôtel de Condé and Hôtel de Bourbon-Condé— as long as Wikipedia is consistent. The articles seem perfectly fin as they stand. Permit me copy this to both talkpages, as my only contribution to discussion of the article titles.--Wetman (talk) 10:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I feared User:LouisPhilippeCharles has moved the page without discussion, to what I feel is the least satisfactory name. I hope we can reach a consensus name that will keep him happy. I am now thinking that Hôtel de Condé, rue Monsieur may be a good choice that everyone could agree on. It was used on the web page of the Bibliothèque nationale. (Actually I now see that they used Bourbon-Condé. I'll have to fix that. Arghh!) What do you think? (I know you are probably tired of this issue, as am I, but I hope you can indicate on the talk page of the article whether you feel this suggestion is satisfactory for the title.) And thanks for all the information and help!!! --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really I don't care enough. Good bye.--Wetman (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't blame you. Who is "Vanity"? (I'm guessing LouisPhilippeCharles.) BTW, I'll add back the hatnote. And perhaps I should just delete the banner and let it go! --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoins[edit]

I have just made an edit here) and noticed the term "quoinage", while my English is dodgy at the best of time, I have never heard that before and always thought it was quoining - am I right or wrong? You are sure to know. Giano 23:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your ear is truer than you think. "False-quoinage", say I: "this is clipt quoinage that will ne'er pass i' the market". I've checked, and OED gives, under quoin, "hence quoining..." as if that were the natural extension. But no quoinage.--Wetman (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, coinage of the realm - I had forgotten that. While I am here can you take a look at my Via della Scrofa, it is coming on quite nicely - lots of lovely cites for those that like that kind of thing - However I stall can find where Aragona comes into the name or who actually built it. Was it an earlier Aragona family, or from an earlier Aragon married into the Gonzagaga - I wonder? Giano 08:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My immediate hunch would be Aragona of Naples. Where is Via della Scrofa 117 being incubated?--Wetman (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More born now Via della Scrofa 117, Rome not very happy with it or its title, but have rather exhausted the limited references available and the house is referred to by too many names for me to elect one, no doubt someone will vociferously beg to differ, and I'm not too fussed if they do, so long as all the redirects work. It could do with some attention from you. Giano 08:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's about as good as it'll get. I unscrambled the Percier and Fontaine title. Papal nephew has no Wikipedia article. Not even a list.--Wetman (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Papal nephew is a cardinal-nephew? 78.144.20.252 (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! of course! good catch, Mysterious Stranger!--Wetman (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not always, of course. Johnbod (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks nice edits, you are quite right, I don't think a lot more will emerge - none of my Italian reference books give it so much as a mention, it was after getting my hands on those that I decided to put it into mainspace in the hope someone else may see it and know something; it was only stagnating in user space. I only wrote it because I saw the place for the first time last month while going elsewhere and crossed the street to see what the plaques said, so took a couple of fotos. I started the re-write of Montacute House today as I had a few hours to spare - I drew the plans in 2007 and never got around to doing any more; I must try and make myself finish it - have an edit if you like; it's here - after the Negroni, its great to have so many reference to choose from. Regards Giano 21:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS, if you talke the tour at the Palazzo Doria Pamphilj, "the Prince" on his audio tells you that the term nepotism was quoined as the result of one of his "ancestors" - the Velasquez pope, Innocent XI. - I wonder if that is true. Giano 21:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it should be true. The word entered English only in 1670 (OED) and the nepotist Pamphilj pope Innocent X ruled 1644–1655. --Wetman (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it - as cardinal-nephew explains, it is far older than that, and that just covers the ones who were cardinals. Johnbod (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubted it too, but there was certainly some nepotism going on with the Pamphilj Pope and his relations. For instance did you know that the Popes sister-in-law Olimpia (and some say more) convinced the Pope it was wrong for the Vatican to tax illicit brothels, so bought the right to do so off the Pope and then proceeded to tax them herself, going so far as to place the family coat of arms over the door's of the most profitable to keep the aithorities away; so another great family fortune was added to. Interesting what you can lern sheltering from a giant hail storm in Roma. Giacomo 09:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Johnbod's point was that the phenomenon is far older than the word nepotism in English.--Wetman (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:PBrueghelElderIcarus.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:PBrueghelElderIcarus.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxing[edit]

Any chance you could take a look at a question I asked at Johnbod's page? --Hegvald (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hôtel de Bourbon-Condé[edit]

Wetman,

What does this statement mean? "very confident but unlettered confusion": [3]

Definition of "unlettered":

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xo8N46DbBcYJ:www.answers.com/topic/unlettered+meaning+of+unlettered&cd=1&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Thanking you from the bottom of my heart on this one! Will you also qualify my comment on the Hôtel de Mademoiselle de Condé talk page "unlettered confusion" ?

A "menuisier" is a cabinet-maker, not a chair-maker! And an "ébéniste" was, from the 17th century on, a "menuisier working with ebony wood"; then the name was given to "cabinet-makers" who worked with "luxury wood", such as mahogany, sandalwood, rosewood etc.

French Wikipedia article on "menuisier" : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menuisier, will take you here [4]when you click on "English", not to chair-maker.

Furniture made by "ébéniste":

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:i0pKdDbQAKYJ:sparrows.com/Furniture.htm+luxury+woods+such+as+ebony,+mahogany+in+French+18th+century&cd=1&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

--Frania W. (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. Too tiresome to hear that I'm to be informed by you in such insulting terms. Rather than limiting your education to being told that a (modern) menuisier may be working with PVC (!), as in French wikipedia, see the rather thin little article Ébéniste here, though Menuisier hasn't been written yet. Menuisiers still specialise today: a menuisier en boiseries will not make even you a chair. To tell Wikipedia readers that Georges Jacob was an ébéniste is the sure sign of someone who's never read anything, never been anywhere, never met anybody. My "unlettered" was tactful.

In kindness let me recommend to you, to take the perfect bloom off and to cut this quite short, Alexandre Pradère, French Furniture Makers: The Art of the Ébéniste from Louis XIV to the Revolution, 1990, which I've added to the article but which you'll doubtless want to read in the original. And, after your insults and effrontery, don't post here to quote Wikipedia:Civility and tell me you've read lots n' lots about ébénistes, or I shall shrink you to the size of a cockroach and make you dance in a teaspoon. --Wetman (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wetman's resources of patience and forbearance are in perennially short supply. Principles of triage require that no more of these reserves be expended than any one situation requires. Your understanding is appreciated.

This sign should be up permanently: had I read it beforehand, I would have skipped your page. However, before I disappear out of your life, would you mind telling me what made you write this : "Too tiresome to hear that I'm to be informed by you in such insulting terms" and "after your insults and effrontery,"? Where have I insulted you when you are the one who qualified my change of "unlettered"?

As for the "cockroach in a teaspoon" allusion, you're way off as those who know me usually compare me to a papillon [5] or a libellule [6]

Have sweet dreams [7]... if that's in any way possible. --Frania W. (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beauvais Tapestry[edit]

I have added Beauvais tapestry to the selected article rotation on the Textile Arts Portal. I have no idea how I missed this one all this time! - PKM (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, PKM! I'm clueless in regard to portals and projects. Perhaps its temporary prominence will encourage some improvement on my slender effort.--Wetman (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuraghe[edit]

Ciao! It seems you're more expert than me in Nuragic civilization. Thanks for your help there. Let me know and good work! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading Robin Lane Fox's recent book on 8th-century Euboeans, and editing bits of it into Wikipedia. I could add more detail from JSTOR...--Wetman (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goya[edit]

Im struggling with Witches' Sabbath, with no progess in sight. A look from you in terms of sources, idiom, coverage, etc etc would be appreciated if you get a chance. Ceoil (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proper nouns[edit]

You are wrong. Summer, Autumn, Winter, Spring, North, East, South, West, Sun (the sun of our galaxy), Moon (the Earth's satellite), Universe (the material universe) and Earth (in the sense of our planet) are proper nouns by definition and by definition according to standard English Grammar (that is Traditional English Grammar) they should be capitalized. Traditional English Grammar was historically quantified and qualified by those of the UK who were versed in the grammars of Ancient Greek and Latin. American Grammar (as in the dialect) and other English speech varieties are different and are generally much looser compared to Traditional (which is very prescriptive) and have developed their own conventions and grammars. Many books on simplified grammar do indeed say that they are common nouns but that is not the case historically or now. Proper nouns are not just people's names or the names of places but also archetypal entities of which the Seasons and the Cardinal Directions partake. Achetypal entity? The first of a class. The first of a class of entities is a difficult concept to understand in general and was erroneously equated with personification. But if the penchant is for sloppiness or loose conventionality or indeed American Grammar then, by all means perpetuate ignorance. Did you know that even as a class of entity Proper Noun is a Proper Noun and my usage above was in error?B9 hummingbird hovering^{(talk • contribs)} 11:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, traditional English grammar was codified by people uninterested in the actual grammar of the language, which is not derived from Latin or Greek, and who tried to squeeze it into a formula derived from those languages. In any case, we have guidelines at WP:MOSCAPS that you should be following, and if you are unhappy with those you should discuss your feelings on the guideline talk page, not here, if you want to have any effect. Dougweller (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone is capable of becoming informed. Notwithstanding, and largely for the Lurkers here: Yonkers is north from here. See you next summer. The culture of the East. North by Northwest. A bronze sculpture of Winter. --Wetman (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chimera-response[edit]

If it says that the Chimera has a lioness body, why does it have a mane? Rtkat3 (talk) 4:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The last lions seen in Apulia disappeared in the Stone Age; their depiction in Greek art, as in Assyrian, is conventional: the image at right, taken from Chimera (mythology), I have also posted at Rtkat3's talk page: an image is worth a thousand words, and verbum sapienti satis est, to the wise, a word suffices: today's new word is dugs.--Wetman (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a building name[edit]

to the Weinman spandrel in Davenport. Which was a bit complicated because my computer died, taking to its grave everything on my hard drive and one of my external hard drives. However Walt and I have a secret on-line data base where I got the some information, including a better date than my first attempt. Life is supposed to be interesting. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! thanks, Einar. My curiosity was getting the better of me, to the extent that I'd started hunting through Davenport pages, hoping to snag it! I thought the hard drive components could always be retrieved: you should have taken it to the FBI! --Wetman (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Guillaume Beneman[edit]

On May 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Guillaume Beneman, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Boloria eunomia[edit]

I can only add what the reliable sources tell me. If you can find more information, add it. Joe Chill (talk) 11:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have fixed it myself, if I'd been competent.--Wetman (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I fixed two of the three problems. I fixed the Serbia sentence. As for it being threatened with extinction, apparently its just vulnerable according to sources that are more reliable. Joe Chill (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are the "breeding circles" that one must not damage? Are breeding cycles intended: that would suggest that the cycles must not be interrupted, which sort of goes without saying, unless something more specifically interruptive is intended: draining wetlands? forest fires? DDT?One of the subspecies is vulnerable to local extinction perhaps? --Wetman (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, that source pisses me off. I don't consider it reliable anymore. First; I find out that it's vulnerable. Then I find out that the word breeding circle is only used to refer to breeding domestic animals. I wonder what person or people wrote that crap. I'll remove the sentence. Joe Chill (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this and thought of you[edit]

Category:Canadian Meteorites. Did they wipe out the Dinosaurs of Minnesota? Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh heh heh. You have a long memory. I'd forgotten that zany map. I see that the category is being considered for sobersides renaming, to Category:Meteorites found in Canada: much less fun..--Wetman (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abraxas sylvata[edit]

I forgot to add Northern Ireland to the sentence. Joe Chill (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! well done. Locally rare.--Wetman (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wetman, why the aversion...[edit]

to calling the Theogony an epic? Thanks. Ifnkovhg (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the meter that's epic meter; it is written in the same artificial epic diction used by Homer. But what makes you think that the material is epic? Are the narrative sections of the Homeric hymns epic too? Is everything expressed in dactylic hexameter "epic"? How do we best help the Wikipedia reader?--Wetman (talk) 11:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wetman, you're putting the cart before the horse. Dactylic hexameter is sometimes called epic meter because it is the meter used in epics; epics are not called epics because they use epic meter. Theogony = epic is not my own pet theory; it is a conventional designation found throughout Hesiodic scholarship. It is in a Wikipedia reader's interest to know that. Beyond its meter and diction, I would say the Theogony also rates as "true" epic by virtue of its length (which is not inconsiderable) and sweeping, grandiose mythic content -- cosmogony, Titanomachy, Gigantomachy, Typhoeus, etc. I would agree that the Homeric Hymns don't qualify as proper epic due to their relative brevity and narrow scope. Works and Days is a bit trickier. Probably best to call that a didactic poem in epic meter. Ifnkovhg (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to declare that Theogony is "an epic" is jejune. If your concern is with helping the Wikipedia reader understand what epic entails, do report published opinions of what is "epic" about Hesiod's Theogony. That will be authentically helpful. Shall the section be headed 'Epic aspects?

I see at Epic poetry that Works and Days, Lucretius' De rerum natura, and Ennius' Annales are all listed as "epics", so any way you want to deal with it will be harmless I'm sure. --Wetman (talk) 07:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the tyranny of specialists! For my money, if there isn't a good part for Brad Pitt it isn't an epic. I'm sure Milton & Pope would have felt the same. Johnbod (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wetman, it is no more "jejune" to identify the Theogony as an epic than it is to identify Joyce's Ulysses as a novel or Citizen Kane as a film. And Johnbod, your remark about the "tyranny of specialists" is petty and unhelpful. Is the tyranny of the non-specialist to be preferred? In any event, I don't see that this is a mountain worth dying on. Ifnkovhg (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jejune simply means unfruitful and lacking nourishing nuance. Like this thread. --Wetman (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wetman's resources of patience and forbearance are in perennially short supply. Principles of triage require that no more of these reserves be expended than any one situation requires. Your understanding is appreciated.

Porcelain[edit]

You're very welcome. Glad you like the photographs! Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 04:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just can't have a good article on Chantilly porcelain without illustrations. They're a fine addition.--Wetman (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Cathedral[edit]

Good suggestion! I've started on it .. do add some if you get the urge. Victuallers (talk) 07:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bernard II van Risamburgh[edit]

On June 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bernard II van Risamburgh, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sleeping Ariadne[edit]

On June 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sleeping Ariadne, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

I've sought to address your concerns here. Tx for your suggestions.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I seem to be a stiff-necked old man. My ideas of what is tasteful are seriously out of date, I'm sure. Thank you for trying, nevertheless.--Wetman (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though its possible that I'm wrong, there's a fair chance I'm the older of the two of us! I'm just looking for a way to address what seemed to be the greatest concerns raised, by 1) deleting the shoe-icide reference completely; 2) clarifying better what the term describes; and 3) offering that the example be Colleen LaRose, who did not engage in any violent activity. But you may still have a different view ... after all, I would guess we live on opposite sides of the same park, and gather that we went to competing universities.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are brilliant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camusrajmohan (talk • contribs) 12:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something I posted at Reference Desk perhaps? Well, it's nice to hear and I shouldn't be looking a gift horse in the mouth. Thank you.--Wetman (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Augustin Blondel de Gagny[edit]

On June 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Augustin Blondel de Gagny, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]