User talk:Wetman/archive16Oct2004

Archive:

Please add new sections at the bottom. Thanks Wetman 07:50, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Do you have any more of those chocolate-covered grapes?"

Eocene snafu

I am not sure what is meant by the recent message on User_talk:Livajo. The only modification I made to the Eocene page was add the link to eo:Eoceno. Livajo 00:11, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well then I don't get it either! I'm often confused by the History section. I'll just move it back to Eocene Wetman 00:21, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Peter / Pedro

So from Talk:Pedro II of Brazil, Pedro should be moved back to Peter, right? Would you agree? ---Rednblu 07:52, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What? No, don't we all recognize him as Pedro II? Much more natural-sounding, no? Thanks for making the change. Wetman 07:57, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gee! I already moved his bones back to Peter before I got your message. I definitely think that Pedro sounds better. I agree with you. I call Kaiser Wilhelm by his proper name and not King William. I think Pedro sounds better, but I don't think Pedro would want to be out of line with all the other Anglicized Kings in Wikipedia. I took a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) which would make the name of the page "Peter II of Brazil" under the rule at the top of the page "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem." Besides, I saw that User:Jorge Stolfi from Brazil had moved Pedro to Peter before. Move him back if you want; I won't complain. Use the Move tab on the page. Good talking with you. ---Rednblu 08:26, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to get in trouble. This is just what happens when no one will permit there to be any "best" usage, case-by-case, because that wouldn't be neutered point-of-view. Caesar William II indeed! Wetman 08:36, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How about I will change Wilhelm II of Germany to William II of Germany? That should get a happy tune from our German friends! ---Rednblu 08:54, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(You're kidding of course! Moving articles at Wikipedia should only be done after some pretty serious thinking. Stuff gets lost Wetman 09:20, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Architecture

Hi Wetman - see you've been tweaking in Ragusa - thanks. Do you know anything about Roman Villas? I know little, and have been editing (quite a bit actually]] at Mansion and have put in 'villas were first mansions', now I'm having second thoughts if that's correct or stretching a point a centimetre to far. Also I interfered there as I thought the bias was too 'America' now it's too European. Could you have a look and try to redress the balance. Roman Villas and American Mansions are not really my subject. Love your McMansion page - am I write in thinking your not a fan of them? I would love to live in a fully repaired non-leaking house, then perhaps - no I would not!Giano 10:19, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC) I stumbled upon your good work at Mansion-- and Ragusa, which I don't know (my tweaks were literary). I tried to keep the jokes subliminal at McMansion. Americans overuse "mansion"-- and underuse "house" which has been all but replaced with the real estatese "home" (and how we have shrunk "landscape"). Mansions go back to Domus Aurea etc. Roman villas functioned like Palladio's villas: self-contained social and agricultural units, perhaps on latifundia. Of course the villa at the heart of a latifundia could be quite palatial, and even in the 4th century, fortifiable... Wetman 18:04, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for casting your eye over that. I'm happier for it being checked over. And your links add some weight. I think the whole concept of what is a mansion is ambiguous and varies from country to country - Have you ever heard that 'Manse' (home of a Scottish priest/minister) and 'Mansion' both derive from a gaellic (I think) word meaning 'house built of stone' I did not put in in the page, because while I'm sure (I think!) it's true, I can't find a source for why I know it - it's bugging me, untill an remember whereGiano 22:56, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Wetman - Could you do me a huge favour, and go to Montacute House and make the image bigger, I have uploaded it, and the original is gigantic, I've followed all the instructions (this is a first attempt! - Quelle suprise) I can't make the original smaller, or the image on the article page larger. Problem is the very large image shows that I have airbrushed my charming children out of the picture, and a medium sized photo looks quite natural (children replaced by foliage!) If you could do this or tell me (in words of one sylable) how to do this I would be very grateful, I've quite a few other photos from Italy and Europe I want to treat in the same way, if I can work out how, I think they could enhance, or at least liven up, a few other articles. Regards Giano 22:07, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm no good either. I made the framing (and therefore the image) larger by adding "|300px|" in the html, but the image as presently downloaded is offcenter with free space to left and below. Try loading it again, using the exact same title, which will substitute a new loading of the image for the wonky one... Wetman 22:21, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That was quick! and an improvement, Thanks. My computer kept saying that the message was not saved on your page, so pleasant suprise. If I can sort these problems I have realised I have inumerable photos of renaissance palaces, chateaux etc. If I can subtly remove sulking children who would rather be in 'Disney land' Thanks Giano 22:33, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Public Domain images of architecture (and details) are sorely needed. English country houses, eh. And interiors. I wish I could give you advice but I scarcely know the difference between uploading and downloading.... Wetman 22:42, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi - Its been a while; would you care to have a look at Palazzo Foscari and Palazzo Barbarigo. I think they need some addittions, especially the latter, Ca' Barbarigo, which (in my personal view)is vulgar but as I had a semi-decent foto it seemed a shame to waste it. I chose Palazzo over Ca' in the titles as I thought palazzo would be more recognised in the English speaking world. However I think in time Ca' Rezzonico will have to be a title, but at present I am still working on it. Regards Giano 20:15, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In all my life, I cannot remember seeing the true front of Ca' Foscari, perhaps it's all a trick and it has never existed! Thanks for the tweaks. Giano 21:04, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Surly Ingrates

Ever check the history and see that it's being vandalized? You're a very odd man, not verifying if it should be deleted before deciding so. --TIB 22:48, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't think to check the "History of There." I am odd indeed. I'll be more cautious in future. Wetman 22:50, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Basque Ball. The Skin Against Stoneis not a speedy candidate, take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. In the future, please only mark things with {{delete}} if they meet one of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:24, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- (A redirect to a non-existent article. Seemed deletable to me. However, I'm sure by now The Basque Ball. The Skin Against Stone, is a fountain of valued information.)
After checking the Squirrel Hill history page, it does appear that you have some sort of highly bizarre vendetta against me. Keep it up; I do find it pretty amusing. Thunderbunny 19:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- (This person inserted "Squirrel Hill has a very high Jewish population." Nothing further on how that has affected the character and style of Rabbit Hill. "New York's Upper West Side" has a very high college graduate population." Vaguely irrelevant, unless one can make a point. I'm otherwise blissfully unaware of Thunderbunny.)
(Re Union Station (Chicago)): You are certainly being a troll today. The reference to Daniel Burnham is still there; I put it there when I wrote the article. I also did not remove the references to other great railroad stations. That was user:Meelar. Maybe you should rethink your actions. You owe me an apology. Stargoat 00:54, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- (Grand'mere said "a word of politeness is never wasted." Grand'mere was wrong. Wetman 20:09, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC))

Countess Maritza Mariza Maritza Mariza

I suppose it would be easier if only one of us tried to fix this at one time? The most usual English name is Countess Maritza; an alternative English name is Countess Mariza; the only German name is Gräfin Mariza, and I suspect the most complete article presently resides at within the history of Gräfin Mariza (it has the note about various spellings. Let me know if you want to do it or want me to...<g>. - Nunh-huh 07:42, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) I'll keep my paws off while you do it. As long as the main article is findable at Countess Maritza, where we'd look for it in the English Wikipedia. Maybe a redirect from Countess Mariza?... Wetman 07:45, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I shall procede to make it so. - Nunh-huh 07:48, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Slip disambig

On slip the text '( cetera desunt)', whatever that is, does not seem to be working, just showing up - what is it suposed to do? Leonard G. 04:48, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can you come up with good definitions of "slip" as it pertains to aeronautics and to engineering? I'd be hopelesss at filling in the blanks. I should have put text needed here. Can you help? I think these are important usages. Wetman 04:55, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I sure can, in general keeping a level of detail appropriate to a disambiguation may be difficult. What I find is often required is a reference to a subsection via <article title>#<section title>. If the article is not sectionalized then I have to do that, which can be tricky - it often exposes poor organization in the article, needing some thought before rearrangement and consolidation. No problem, and the article is improved, but somewhat of a snowball effect.

I have made the changes to slip and I think that they came out well. Feel free to give me a notice if you see something that needs technical work as I really enjoy that kind of reading and writing. My ignorance of Latin is the effect of a modern (1960's) North American college "education" - which I am finding to be quite deficient without the classical studies - Latin, Greek, Rhetoric, etc. Leonard G. 15:32, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Now that's a good disambiguation page: a hub of links that help set the direction the reader needs. In Wikipedia, if we add up our incomplete competencies, the total is greater than the sum of us "parts", eh. Wetman 17:54, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: San Francisco City Hall

I'm glad you liked the photo, but the only other ones I have worth putting up i already have done. You're welcome to comment on any of them too :-) Nick 14:00, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In gratitude for addition to your input to San Francisco City Hall i now give you: Hodge 301] (Nick)

How's that? Wetman 20:09, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Realia

Hello! Please take a look at the talk page of Realia. Thanks! AlainV 02:51, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wetman 04:17, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, it turns out that sometimes those objects are exempla (or exemplum?) but in other cases (games, toys, microscopic slides) they are most certainly not. and in others still the examples are lumped with the non-examples. More on the talk page. AlainV 03:42, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Let's carry this on at Talk:Realia. Wetman 04:09, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Padua

Thanks for the detailed updates! Quadell 14:59, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Tacoma Aroma

I actually lived in Tacoma for a summer and experienced the "aroma", but there's just not a lot to say about it - just about every pulp mill in the world has the same problem, and you could see that the article writer was struggling to come up with additional content. So I apply my usual two tests - can it ever grow into a 1-2 page article, and if not, will it be useful for any kind of cross-linking that ought not to go to the existing article? Stan 21:39, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Two fine tests. Wetman 20:09, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wildflower

Thanks for the suggestion, Wetman. While the individual wildflower images will be included in a "soon-to-be-released" article on Wildflowers of the Canadian Rocky Mountains (which I'm not at haste to stake claim on), there are a couple of images, such as this one, which I was wondering where to put. Great idea! Denni ☯ 22:16, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

Good images shouldn't lie fallow. Wetman 23:03, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Concerning "The Kochs"

I think categories for deletion would be more appropriate than speedy deletion, but I must confess that I have not yet developed the coinciding articles to make it a better category. It is better to have consent rather than arbitrarily deleting something and allot less pretentious. Arminius 20:45, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

- (This user thinks The Kochs makes a sensible category, when one suggests that an entry Koch family might do, as it does for, say, Medici family. "Arminius" indeed!)

Thanks

Just to say thanks for calling my picture "good" (Tower of London). I'm new and thus a little shy about putting my stuff up, so it means a lot to me. --Viki 17:45, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can only assume you mean Ewoks ;-) Will never cease to struggle to uphold the high ideals you've set out for me.

HH Richardson

Thanks - I'm getting on a roll, though will get rolled away soon. i took these 20 years ago while I was doing pilgrimages. I'm glad that they survived the intervening years - many times they almost did not. Carptrash 04:12, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm already formatting them and adding to the captions. Wetman 04:29, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, go for it. My attitude is, 'Here are some images - use them as you( ie. any & every one) see fit".

PS you've moved up from 104 to 95. In double digits now!

(How embarassing, really. You see I have no life... Wetman)

Dartmouth, England

Hi from Bristol, England. I don't think what you've done to the pic placement of "my" pics on the Dartmouth article looks good, I think the article is too short for the alternating system to work and I'm guessing it might make a real mess on an 800 by 600 screen (mine is 1024 by 768). The problem is that there's not enough text between the images to separate them satisfactorily. However, I won't revert. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 09:02, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, why don't you change the format, without reverting the new information? It's just a cut and paste thing. It looked better to me. The entry needs more text. Wetman 09:06, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I gave the impression I might revert the information, I wouldn't dream of doing that! :-))

I was only talking about the pic placement looking ugly to me. I don't intend to change back the placement because I don't feel that strongly about it. One day when more text is added the positioning will look fine. Off to Bristol Zoo now for the rest of the day - Adrian Pingstone 09:23, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

LotR movie trilogy articles

They do exist, and they are really in the movies, and people really talk about them. There are Lurtz action fictions and you can buy your own Hadhafang if you like. And Figwit, while absolutely absurd, is a rather bizarre phenomenon of the internet movie-fan community that is definitely encyclopedic. I think they're silly, too, but they are notable and not vanity (unless you are perhaps referring to Peter Jackson). I thought you deserved an explanation. ;) --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 21:17, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. Really I did. Pre-teen culture has been mysterious to adults for half a century now. Wetman 21:30, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dookie

Hi. Thank for the tag on Dookie. It was not deleted. The page history showed it was a real article before it was blanked. I have restored the article. - Tεx τ urε 17:26, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, sumthin wuz up! (I shoulda checked the History.)Wetman 17:30, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Flags

I didn't invent these flags. If you feel one or more are not really used, please specify which ones -- I made these for a project some time ago, for which the standard of notability is perhaps lower than here at Wikipedia. It is certainly possible I have made a mistake, but please don't be condescending. TheWhiteRussian 05:34, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do find out who did invent these flags and make sure that any flags you enter are authentic. An External link is all it takes. Wetman 06:10, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Editing my stuff

Thanks for taking the time to fix up my stuff. When it comes to adding things to the Wikipedia I feel like I am way out of my league and lost in space. That is why I have never become a member (no handle). I'm just a curious grunt with a passion about some pretty obscure things. I am sure you and other Wikipedians have guessed that by my abuse of Wikipedia formats and the english language. Thanks for making me look good. Charlie Turek 9 Sep 2004

Lindisfarne and Durham

Just out of curiosity, why do you feel that the Lindisfarne Gospels and Durham Gospels pages should be merged? They are two quite separate books and I feel each should have its own article. In time I hope to get each of the illuminated manuscripts up to the completeness of the Book of Kells article. Dsmdgold 02:53, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If I'm in error, please correct any blunders. The stub entry Durham Gospels had no description yet nor even a date for the manuscript, nor any external reference, so blunders are quite possible.Wetman 02:59, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stamp images

Just noticed your comment on my gallery page - in many cases I simply don't have the unused stamps, sometimes because they're extremely expensive. In other cases, the usage is itself interesting, connecting to a historical place for instance. It also inoculates against difficulties with governments - many have laws against accurate reproductions of unused stamps, for fear of counterfeiting (that's why you see little slashes through the denominations sometimes). It does reduce the value of the stamp as illustration of something else, but after seeing a number of designs compared to the originals, I would say that the stamp is a last resort for an encyclopedic illustration anyway. (At some point I'll probably put up an article on the subject of designers' alterations to reality.) Stan 15:36, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I could tell that your philatelic passions were in control. Philatelic illustrations are best at conveying a cultural response to a thing rather than the thing itself: Art Deco, Fascism, Nationalism, Romantic nationalism, Olympics, Propaganda, Modernism, Christianity, Military occupation-- these are all entries that would be improved with the illustration of certain postage stamps, IMHO. Surely fears of counterfeiting concern stamps currently valid for postage, not from the Kingdom of Italy, etc. Color illustrations of mint stamps are ubiquitous... Wetman 17:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're quite right; many stamp designs are illuminating in ways perhaps not originally intended. :-) If you ever have particular requests, I can dig around in my collection of 70,000-odd types to see what's available. On counterfeiting, some stamps are valid for quite a long time, for instance all US stamps since 1861 are still valid. I don't know how much governments pursue people putting up images, would certainly depend on image quality and site visibility. I like to put up large images (as good as if one were using a magnifying glass on a physical stamp) and WP visibility is getting up there, so I think it's worth being aware, if not paranoid. Stan 17:32, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Arab celebrations of 9/11 anniversary

Bravo wetman for your addition to Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks. I see you're getting that knee condition under control. JDG 01:25, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Trying to keep my Self well to the the background. It was a deeply skeptical observation, was it not?. Wetman 02:08, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Palladian

Thanks for the warm reception on my user page, Wetman. Unfortunately my expertise is not in architecture, so I'm afraid I won't have too much to add to Palladianism, though I might be able to write about William Kent. My nickname was chosen more from a general admiration of the early 18th century spirit in England, the birth of Reason and the 'revival' of classicism, not because I am expert in the specifics (other than the furniture, paintings and objets de vertu that populated those marvelous buildings).

As for your question about the provenance of my image, I got it from the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript library at Yale University. The complete title reads: "Andrea Palladio's Architecture in four books ... : The whole containing 226 [i.e., 222] folio copper plates / containing a dissertation on the five orders & ye most necessary observations relating to all kinds of building ... ; Carefully revis'd and redelineated by Edwd. Hoppus... and embellished w.th a large variety of chimney pieces collected from the works of Inigo Jones & others. Published : London : Printed for Benjn. Cole engraver the corner of Kings-Head-court, near Fetter-lane, Holbourn, & John Wilcox opposite the New church in the Strand, 1736."

So I can confirm the date of 1736 for the image, which occurs on page 185 of the Beinecke copy. Regards! Palladian 08:58, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Brandon Freels

Why do you think everything is a "ludibrium"? --Daniel C. Boyer 16:02, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(Regarding this foolish self-indulgent prankster— see his User page— here's a quote from Talk:Chocolate: "Daniel C. Boyer: Regarding "chocolate coulage", please stop adding it to this page. The only net references to "chocolate coulage" all point to you. I don't think you can be objective about it. It is, at the very least, self-aggrandizing and indirect advertizing of your own artistic works. Daniel Quinlan 21:53 28 Jul 2003" )

thanks for the laugh

Hilarious. —No-One Jones ^(m) 23:53, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to start extrapolating on what's actually in the text... Wetman 00:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin

Some time ago you commented that the Shroud of Turin article was "Wikipedia at its most craven". It hasn't substantially changed since then, but is now a candidate for Featured Article status. You can cast your vote at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Shroud of Turin. JamesMLane 16:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Even though I voted "Support. Wikipedia at its most preposterous, " User:JDG called me one of the "dyed-in-the-wool skeptical reductionists who, ironically, show the same tendencies to supress [sic] (under the guise of NPOV and rigor) opposing positions that religious authorities of old showed." Wasn't that a cheap shot! I scorn both the suppression of information and bogus "NPOV." Initial skepticism is the normal result of an elite education, where one is taught to doubt everything and to assess the motivations of the speaker. My private assessment of this furious Catholical apologist is not high... well, you can just imagine. Wetman 21:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopedia

In Susanna you added a paragraph out of the online Jewish encyclopedia. It says on the page there's a copyright on the material. Do you know if we have permission for this, or do we need to rewrite to avoid copyright problems? -- Mpolo 19:06, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

A few tweaks and it's fine. I recommend the Jewish Encyclopedia to you: though it was published between 1901-1906, put it on your Bookmarks. Consulting it always improves edits that rely on Easton's (1897) and the like. I hope you'll also check Wikipedia's quotes of Easton's and draw attention to any copyright issues you may perceive... Wetman 19:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I had looked at the bottom of the page you linked, which had Copyright 2002. However, that can only be a copyright for the page design and markup, since the material is public domain. Which means that like Easton and the Catholic Encyclopedia, we could quote with impunity. But I agree that it's better to tweak them. -- Mpolo 19:41, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

but but it can't be the first time you've seen the on-line Jewish Encyclopedia! Didn't the nuns tell you there was one? ;) In all seriousness the Jewish Encyclopedia attains a rational and critical assessment of literature and text traditions and cultural history that forms an interesting contrast to the Catholic Encyclopedia-- which I use daily-- of the same date. Wetman 19:52, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Image:Staatsoper Hannover

Thanks for the beautiful Image of the Staatsoper Hannover. Pleae provide some information about the source of your image, in particular where the image stems from (e.g. are you the photographer) and about the license of the image, e.g. something like {{GFDL}} - other tags for licenses can be found here: Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. If you could add the date of the image that would even be better.

Personally I would like to see a higher resolution image. If you made it on your own, then please upload a larger version. Anyway, thanks again for the image and best regards from Hannover -- mkrohn 10:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right, I asked the wrong one ;-) Thanks. -- mkrohn 11:52, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re: Elymian language at the Sicels entry

"the Elymian language, which some would consider related to Ligurian or to Anatolian." Would you be a little more specific here please. Even identify "Some" perhaps. "How" would help. Perhaps you'd best begin the Elymian entry. And please add an External Link to help us out. Thank you. Wetman 06:13, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I did not make any content changes to this article. I only fixed a link newkai 06:17, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)