User talk:Wetman/archive5Apr2010

Question: Why did you move the intro paragraph to the top of the article? Jonyungk (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was beginning without an introduction. Then this paragraph appeared lower down, introducing facts that had already been introduced. Wikipedia articles generally have a first paragraph that gives a summary of the whole: does this not serve that purpose well? ...Splendid article, by the way.--Wetman (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. Problem is, we now have the same information stated twice—once in the first paragraph, then again in the four paragraphs that follow. For all good intentions, the entire intro now needs to be rewritten to avoid the redundancy. I've kept al paragraphs in their place for the moment until I can figure out what should go where. Jonyungk (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for my pique over your moving that paragraph. I was not loooking forward to the rewriting, moving of links and so on that the move demanded—things that were not done when the paragraph was moved and, it seemed, were left to me to do. The move in itself seemed a good one, which was why I left all five paragraphs in the intro for a day and mulled over what to do. Thanks very much for your help in making the initial move; I was just upset that other related factors were not followed through. Hope you understand. Jonyungk (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to leave cleaning-up work for you: that's always irritating when some editor breezes in and makes changes that create unwanted work. A first paragraph should be an abstract of the whole article, making all the essential statements, which get repeated and expanded upon in the body of the text. So it's not the same as a good narrative opening, which simply sets the scene and establishes the tone. It's the somewhat repetitive technique of a newspaper article, encapsulated in the head paragraph. It is rare to see a Wikipedia article that provides some cultural context, as

Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle does.--Wetman (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

An excellent point, well taken. Thanks! Jonyungk (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wet. I have a few questions on your edits to

"Based on interpretive reconstructions of

King Solomon's Temple before you decide.--Wetman (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the explanation. I was just adding this addendum but edit conflicted: "Sorry if I seem rude. I was just wondering if there was something I was missing. I appreciate you having a go at fixing the article. If those bits caught your attention for tweaks they probably need to be revised anyway. I was just curious about getting your perspective. Anyway, take care and have fun. And feel free to help out on article I'm hacking away at any time." I will look into Solomon's Temple. I'm more familiar with his adjudication methods, which I invoked once to resolve a dispute (unsuccessfully). ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...Demonstrating first with a chicken and poultry shears I hope. I hope my post didn't seem cross: I was trying to be quite clear. About the semi-colon: it replaced a long clause beginning with "and" used in the sense of "plus also, another thing". Such loosely linked thoughts often make good complete sentences, without the semi-colon's suggested link.--Wetman (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help - anything is appreciated! ceranthor 22:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have not given a reason for why you think the article should be moved, nor have you even said what you think it should be moved to. TJ Spyke 23:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd just done that at

Talk:Charles Towneley. Where should I repeat the simple reason for correcting the preciously "authentick" Wikipedia spelling?--Wetman (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Your opinion is sought here.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently he knew of Suetonius as he talks of the The Twelve Caesars. Amoung these in the later part of the mss are Julius Caesar, Augustus, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian (the last one). Be sure to check out 123 of "the Pontifex" in both versions. Now I thought Vercingetorix was most interesting because how many times do you come across a person's name with 13 letters.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There happen to be thirteen letters in my own name, if I leave out the middle ones.--Wetman (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still skeptical. AND thanks for the compliment! Obviously you think somehow I squeezed this person in at that position where he fits into the chronological timeline. If I had 1/1000th that knowledge and capability I would be ecstatic. Since you are skeptical then I see no harm in showing you

Lucius Calpurnius Piso where it refers to him as "the Pontifex". I've never edited the article, so it was someone else that put that in sometime after 2004 when the article started. Apparently history records that is his title he is known by, backed up with a couple of good ancient historians. In the mss it refers to him as "the Baetican" (8 letters). Notice the use of the word "the" as emphasis on the title. It turns out there are over 1000 coded words and all the stories of the ancient Roman history of each fit perfectly with the decoded English words AND they go in a chronological timeline. I tried to figure if all these were just coincidental as to each story fitting correctly with these words AND in a chronological timeline, however my calculator only has 12 digits. I estimate it must be somewhere around a googol

.

I'll leave that sandbox up for awhile and make improvements and expansions to it. Anytime you wish to make any comments, I welcome them from you - even if they are skeptical comments. In fact I welcome them the most as I have worked on this enough to know that the rules of the system work correctly. They will stand up against any specific criticism as I can show that they apply correctly dozens of times throughout the mss AND other mss that I won't bring up at this time. Thanks again for your remarks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me throw in one more item of the picture. Many times the coded word and the decoded word have something in common (i.e. they BOTH start with the same letters, they BOTH end with the same letters, or they BOTH have letters in the middle that are common). In the case of "Baetican" vs "Pontifex" it is the "ti" in the middle. Then you know for sure you have the correct decoded word. I wonder what the odds of that happening just coincidently dozens of times are?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just nominated this article for Featured Article status and would really appreciate your input. Thanks very much. Jonyungk (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I'm not patient enough to witness the process of self-appointed juries "vetting" articles for "Featured" status, so I must beg to be excused. Might I simply read through it (it's sure to be interesting!) and tweak it very lightly for improved emphasis and clarity? --Wetman (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead. Have fun! Jonyungk (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's really splendid: Wikipedia is maturing.--Wetman (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mr. Wetman, I have updated the above article spending a considerable amount of time in doing so. If you have time, can you kindly review it for flow, language and grammar. Thank you. Taprobanus (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly. Very interesting, I must say. Do discard any changes I made that don't actually improve the text, or that introduce errors.--Wetman (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am so glad that I asked you, a few tweaks and you've made it flow so much better. Thank you.Taprobanus (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking. Always feel free to call on my help in anything.--Wetman (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-editors who apply ^{[citation needed]} liberally to articles, though they may offer a truculent justification of their discourtesy, are invariably boors. Those who have content add content. ...Odd, though, how I have found through life, that whenever one finds oneself wielding a large cream pie, there is always someone who leaps up on a chair and shouts "That pie is for me! That pie is for me!"--Wetman (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your tweaks; they are appreciated. I fear your user page is more interesting than the article, however. Thanks also for that, and for the link to the article about WP. Very interesting. And I am chuckling over Paris, Kentucky. With best regards- Wilhelm, Kaiser von Shatner. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This edit of yours opens a can of worms. The term taifa is tricky. Córdoba, for example, considered itself a (the?) caliphate, and Granada an emirate. They retained the title of "kingdoms" down to 1833: technically, the Crown of Castile was a dynastic union of several kingdoms. I think if your edit stands, we need to explain at least some of that. (Right now, it's covered in the linked articles on the respective kingdoms.) - Jmabel | Talk 00:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I simply thought taifa needed to be available to the reader in a link. What do you think should be done, to keep the article both accurate and useful as a reader's guide? I certainly trust your take on this. --Wetman (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four Kingdoms of Andalusia: I tried a rewording, see what you think. - Jmabel | Talk 22:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem clear enough to me, if "all four were former taifas", as I'd thought.--Wetman (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've restored the footnote text "the first of many archaeologists who have worked at Knossos" (in Minotaur). According to David McCullough (The Unending Mystery, p. 34) there were "at least eight" archaeological teams before him, and EB also indicates that he was not first. Have you sources that say otherwise? Elphion (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sense from "at least eight" that alleged identifications of the labyrinth here and there on the island of Crete, starting with Cristoforo Buondelmonti in the C15 are being instanced, rather than archaeology on the site that was called Kefala. Do add the information on the historical hunt for the Labyrinth, at Gortyn etc etc, with a citation of McCullough or Rodney Castelden or whomever you like best; btw, is McCullough refering to casual and unreported investigation on the actual site by the merchant and amateur antiquarian from Iraklion, Minos Kalokairinos? That might be noted too. But simply deleting "the first" from the text might make you seem like a penelope, unweaving text, rather than contributing to knitting it together.--Wetman (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 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 .

You commented in the last Article for deletion discussion. This article is up for deletion again.

You are welcome to comment about the discussion for deletion. Ikip 19:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 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 .

at

Happy 2010 to you!. It's a good split: "Queen Anne' is a broader category in the US, as your Harper's illustration demonstrates. Btw, Wikipedia needs more images of mainstream c16-c19 furniture. --Wetman (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the deal. I do exteriors, my wife Vi (her www name used only here, by me) does interiors. I'll see what I can do but . . ...
But look what I discovered yesterday. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/digitalrevolution/2009/10/rushes-sequences-einar-kvaran.shtml The internet. What a place to live. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent, E.! You speak for me: we have very similar spiritual approaches to this project, though I'm no anarchist. The major difference is, I think that Wikipedia is merely a reader's guide— even though it's one that's covering everything. Too much "encyclopedia" talk encourages grandiose self-appraisals. --Wetman (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The project, wikipedia, in the largest sense, means a lot to me and any project that invites the whole world to be involved better (

Okay. So I dug out, (with help from Delilah, my faithful puli) some copyright free materials that might have old furniture, but, what? old furnature? How about a link or two and I'll see what I can do. Or, can't do. Carptrash (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well. I'm hoping for examples to illustrate

bergere etc etc. Any French royal furniture. Any Italian C15-C19 furniture. Furniture at the V&A, Metropolitan Museum, Louvre, Versailles, Musée des arts décoratifs. Furniture in English country houses, etc etc..--Wetman (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

You see that I confined my edits to the opening remarks. My enjoyment of fractals is just a child's pleasure, alas!--Wetman (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mine too! I made another one, uploaded it to the page, and linked it to Leptosporangiate fern. I get it that the fern genes are mathematical models. Three examples may be enough, but it is pretty cool. DSP-user (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted a question to the Reference desk/Humanities on January 8 concerning how many official Dictators there were. Would you like to take a guess on it? I will not hold you to anything. You can answer here or on Reference Desk IF you care to answer. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So long ago, you can't possibly remember, you wrote an comment in

Your comment makes a lot of sense. I don't think that the Portuguese became aware that the Thomas sect was "Christian" for many years, leading me to suspect that their Christian practices were considerably different than not only Roman, but even Eastern Orthodox, which would have seemed familiar, if "heretical." When they did discover it, they assumed "heresy", somewhat understandably since they were undergoing an Inquisition back home. A Thomas-worshiping sect, in an Hindu-like temple, might likely incite their wrath!

Another problem I had, which this would "solve", is did Thomas make it beyond the Indus River, where India ended for early Europeans? I'm not sure when the term "India" was extended to Karala, but the assumption that this was done by the 1st century, must certainly be incorrect. Student7 (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I merely shifted some contentious text to Talk:Thomas_the_Apostle#Thomas_in_India, noting "Can we get a source for the following text and present it as a report not as an essay, make it more accurate and keep it relevant to the subject Thomas (apostle)?" The other sentiments weren't posted by me.--Wetman (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I hadn't read your remarks closely enough. The unregistered editor has long since left our ranks. But I agree that the material definitely needed a reference, even though I tend to agree with it! Student7 (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References would even make it more interesting.--Wetman (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's a lot of great info you added to the article. However, I'd like to point out that you should use the group attribute in the <ref> tag as per

(Though Wetman hasn't actually made any edits to Draco, he's moved this new post to the bottom, where new posts conventionally go.) --Wetman (talk) 06:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you may have done so once, back in December 2008, and indeed added a reference. Incidentally, I believe you may have been looking for this link earlier. Risker (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention to

The arches are seen to be low, four-centered arches in the illustration to the article; the link I made to

Gothic revival context. Isn't the general look meant to evoke something akin to the gateway arch at right? The Birkenhead offices cum bank building, after all, are not meticulously antiquarian in intent. --Wetman (talk) 10:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I took the architectural details from Images of England, but have since been back to Hubbard's book on Douglas. Hubbard does not say a lot about the architecture of this particular building, but what he does say is relevant to our discussion, namely "the shop fronts were uniformly designed within elliptical arches, and the upper windows are elaborately Gothic". Although Douglas mainly used Gothic details in his work, he was not a slave to Gothic but rather was eclectic in his use of styles (see John Douglas (architect)). The architectural historian Edward Hubbard (at one time a colleague of Nikolaus Pevsner) was the world authority on the work of Douglas (his book The Work of John Douglas was originally an amazingly detailed MA thesis, published after his death), so I think we can take his opinion as the best possible. I have amended the article and added Hubbard as a source to the relevant section. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well and good. Much better in fact than "Tudor". The freedom of Douglas's treatment remains unmentioned in the article: a useful point, I should think. I leave it to you. --Wetman (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Aras Habib - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. El Cordobés - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Lawrence Stager - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wetman,

Merci for your note on my talk page. The reason I used capital letters was not exactly out of "exasperation", I simply wanted to be sure it would get someone's ATTENTION... and it caught yours, so it worked. Unfortunately, it caught the attention of someone who is already aware of the problem.

Most of the time, I do exactly as you suggest & have even reverted back to several weeks. However, what caught my attention at l'Arc de Triomphe was the date of 1926 given in the sentence ...three weeks after the Paris victory parade in 1926, marking the end of hostilities in World War I, Charles Godefroy flew his Nieuport biplane through it,..., and I traced back to my last edit (exactly what you do) and clicked on "next edit" until I found the culprit! And there were a couple more carcasses. But as one cannot be everywhere all the time, every so often, I read an article all over again & try to find ces carcasses enfouies.

Nice having met you. Aurevoir ! Frania W. (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nous écrivons sur le sable ici, je trouve. Chaque prochaine vague vandale efface tous nos efforts.--Wetman (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparaison joliment trouvée ! Frania W. (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wetman. With regard to your recent spelling change of Maya to Mayan in the Bejucal (Mesoamerican site) article, the accepted use is Mayan when refering to the language(s) and Maya for everything else. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Mesoamerica/Guidelines#M03._Maya_vs._Mayan. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And there I thought it was just carelessness, or worse. Who knew there were guidelines? So shall we be doing the same for French/France? The France Riviera, etc etc. That would represent precisely the same level of literacy.--Wetman (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately,

When I was at the Williamsburgh Savings Bank Tower on Sunday, I didn't yet know it was Chambellan at work there. Brooklyn Flea took up the whole floorspace, so we couldn't get good general shots.--Wetman (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in shots of the details (if any) on the main entrance surround. Some of the Romanesque details look (opinion) very Ulysses Ricciesque and I'd like to see more. However Brooklyn is about 2222 miles away, more in kilometers. I did go through my RCP archives and should be posting one of his reliefs at Mayan Revival shortly. Carptrash (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are much less suave than Ricci's work in Lansing looks: bluff, four-square, self-consciously crude. My camera partner was saying we should go back for more.--Wetman (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More is More

Meanwhile, welcome to the wonderful world of Caspar Buberl, one of American's much ignored artists.Carptrash (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I happen to be cruising the new image uploads and fitting them into articles. Buberl is not even a vague name for me... --Wetman (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since he did Architectural sculpture (one of wikipedia's weakest articles) I've had my eye on him for a while. "till you showed up pretty much all the images at his article were mine. But I am a firm believer that More is More, so go for it. Caspar Lives, Carptrash (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coast Veddas

Helllo, I just created it. If you have time can you look at it from a grammatical and lnaguage flow point of view. Thanks in advance. Taprobanus (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly. An interesting article. You should stick with one designation, and as you've selected Veddas in your title, I've made the usage consistent: is Vedar a better adjectival form? if so, do be consistent about it. If you'll look through this diff, my edits should be self-explanatory. Sometimes I've conflated parallel sentences. Often I've shifted phrases so that the sentence ends with the emphatic point in the thought, always a stronger finish. Do keep number, either singular or plural, consistent within a sentence. Hope I've helped.--Wetman (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I will work on your suggestions. Taprobanus (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WM. I have a question about buildings. When they are referred to and the date follows, Wikipedia Temple (2014), it is fairly clear the date is when it was (or in this case will be) constructed. What about date ranges though? It seems to me that if we put Wikipedia Temple (2014-2017) it looks like it may have lasted three years, not necessarily that it was built over three years. For a while I was just putting the finished on date, but the period of construction can also be interesting. How is this handled? Do you have any suggestions? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are more than one way to handle it. If Wikipedia Temple no longer exists, you'd expect to see something on the line of Wikipedia Temple (2014-17, demolished 2327). Sometimes the period of construction can be illuminating: Wikipedia Temple (designed 2011, built 2014-17, demolished 2327) is succinct. The point is, how can you pack in the information clearly, with the least interruption of the flow of thought, which is not essentially about the dates, for if it were, you'd be expanding the whole thing to something like: "Midnight's early drawings date from 2011, but delay in collecting the necessary funds repeatedly put off the start of construction until 2014..." etc etc. There are many conventions: the parenthesis way is nice and tight: Summerson, Ackerman, Wittkower all use it from time to time. --Wetman (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. I think I like sticking with the finished date and then including the full range in text if additional dates are significant. But you've given me food for thought. There's a balance of including a lot of information and having the information be highly accessible. I don't know what that balance is. Come to think of it I'm not even sure what the MOS is on (born 1814 - died 1916) except that people like the long dash, I think. Interesting. I guess my feel is that if it's worth giving the date range on a building's construction it can be done in the text, and that the parenthesis is best kept simple and obvious when it is used. But the (designed 2011, built 2014-17, demolished 2327) format works too. It does get a little long. I tend to favor plain English. Maybe I should be on the Simple Wikipedia. Hey thanks for the help. A lot of people did some great clean up. Sometimes I feel a little bad if something isn't quite polished, but it is a collaborative endeavor here right? Cheers. Thanks again. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every version of a Wikipedia article is an interim version, that can be improved. I favor the plainest English myself.--Wetman (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to see my own tpyos.--Wetman (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, mine are worse--esp. since my fingers are freeeeeezing. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 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 .

Hi, your article for dyk is too short. Please see here. Perhaps you can enlarge it. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 20:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. Fortunate his titles were so long. Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Johnbod. I added a good substantial quote and some more details. It shouldn't be too lightweight now for our critic, eh.--Wetman (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In

Spanish Wikipedia says En España, la catalogación de Monumento Nacional fue sustituída en el año 1985 por la figura de Bien de Interés Cultural.. They say you should never trust what you see in Wikipedia...--Wetman (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 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 .

I've nominated Anthony Roll for FAC. The nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anthony Roll/archive1. You are most welcome to contribute to the review of the article.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with it! I haven't the patience required.--Wetman (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you contribute here Liburnians if you can? The article is still a mess despite my efforts. ThankouMegistias (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the references are to Croatian texts, even where English ones exist. There doesn't seem to be a clear distinction maintained between Liburnia and Liburnians: why are there two articles, except that one might discuss people, culture, history and the other stick to geography? I edited an early version of these articles but I really don't see how to help now.--Wetman (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution. Question. Since the proper name of the book is SKYSCRAPERMAN (ie., upper case only), what is the rationale behind changing it to upper and lower case for Wikipedia purposes? Thank you in advance for your assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimiken (talk • contribs) 21:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For purely promotional purposes it made equally be insisted that a title be in

black letter, in order to make it JUMP OUT IN A VULGAR FASHION. Yes?--Wetman (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for the clarification.--Mimiken (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.89.137 (talk) [reply]

I thought about how it could be changed, but I realize that I lack the appropriate knowledge to be able to do so. The reason is that in order to change it, so far as I can see, I would have to know more about architectural trends and/or about Post's specific intentions. In other words, perhaps something like this: Equitable Life Assurance Building, 1868–70: the use of exterior cladding may deceive the viewer into thinking there are only a few floors, while in fact there were eight floors. What you describe as a "high sense of intellectual honesty" is just a reluctance to use semi-literary/art criticism or conversational language, believing an encyclopedic should be more technical, scientific, and very clear in its descriptions, avoiding the figurative or normative. --Dpr (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have only to count the apparent floors in the steel engraving and compare your total to the actual floors as reported in the citation. Then, I know you will be able to phrase this to your satisfaction, since the present wording offends you in some way. Your normative prescription for encyclopedic wording may not be applicable across the board (to use a metaphor).--Wetman (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a stab. No, I'm not opposed to metaphors universally.--Dpr (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A metaphor is a figurative comparison that brings out similarities that might not be noticed otherwise. Good image captions draw the reader's attention to things in the text that might not otherwise be noticed. They make the reader look again at the image and once more at the text. The critical literature of art and architecture is built upon descriptive analyses that might not pass untutored criticism at Wikipedia.--Wetman (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it might not pass criticism, tutored or otherwise, at Wikipedia, doesn't negate its importance or value. I would be the last one to negate the value of descriptive analyses of art/architecture/literature, etc. My assertion is simply that these genres are distinct from that of the enyclopedia.--Dpr (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I appreciate your contribution to the article of Saint Valentine that I have edited. Please have in mind that I added the information concerning the Greek Orthodox Church, not the Eastern Orthodox Church. I am not pertaining to know facts about the Saint for the later. Please, do provide me of references from official web sites that support the removal of the information I have added. Since I have placed the upmost relevant and commanding source of my denomination (the Typikon of the Great Church of Christ, from the official site of the Ecumenical Patriarchy-http://www.ec-patr.org/default.php?lang=en), I have no other more relevant data. I am not pertaining that Saint Valentine does not exist, however he is NOT venerated in the Greek Orthodox Church. Wolfymoza (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My error occured in repairing the falsified date.I shall restore your edit immediately. Do please always check that you are not editing a vandalised version.--Wetman (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit here[5] seems to contradict common sense, he was not canonized as a saint until after his death, and our

Actually you have made a large number of edits to various St. / Pope articles without substantiating your reasoning that appear to be in contravention of our policies such as returning clearly inappropriate

WP:POV language and the manual of style such as [6] , [7], —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.146 (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Wetman! I've left a message for you on the talk page for Bacchylides. I'd love to see you there for a discussion - it's been lonely there till now! Thanks. Amphitryoniades (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for copying the refs and comments to the article's talk page. That is a way the Ref Desk can improve articles. Take a look at the 1908 sci-fi story about a Tesla disintegrator being used to bring down skyscrapers. Before 9/11, few supposed that anything could bring down steel-framed skyscrapers.Edison (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The work you did was too useful to permit it to be archived into oblivion. Reference desk should more often work to the advantage of articles. --Wetman (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even though your fixes on my DYK nominations are small, they are highly appreciated. Thanks.

Thank you for taking the trouble to say that! You don't realize how unusual it is to say 'thank you' at Wikipedia, and you give me heart.--Wetman (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just created this new article. If you have the time pls take a look. Thanks in advance. Taprobanus (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on the first half of the article, for your approval, though I know nothing of the subject but what you have written. Perhaps you should proof-read the rest one more time.--Wetman (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I will do just that. Taprobanus (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciated the look and suggestions - yes hidden cmts are a better way to communicate; talk pages can be adversial and anyway its better to wash one's linen in private. Having dificulty with my three sided rectangles (!); I can see in the painting what I want to describe, but can't verbalise and the sources I have are skant and brief on the matter. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claro! If ever the gift of gab fails, you know where to come! I've been reading and writing about looking for decades. And anything you're working on is very likely to be interesting, Ceoil. --Wetman (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might live to regret those words Wetman! And touché; I've enjoyed your articles for a number of years now. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those edits. I'm not sure about removing the wikilinks from "Parisian," but soit--you did a real nice job cleaning up ChildofMidnight's prose (cause it was him, of course, in all cases). Hey, I just got Guillaume in, in translation, from U Penn P. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I simply thought that the article Paris was too general to be useful in this context: if there were an article Parisian cuisine, then aha! Too many blue links make the essential ones disappear, like the trees in the proverbial forest. Nice food article, eh!--Wetman (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. I did look for Parisian cuisine, haha, and didn't find it--the section on cuisine in Paris is entirely useless. BTW, I vividly remember a delicious wilted salad I once had in Paris, with lardons and practically raw egg and all. Also, I found some salt pork in my fridge. Guess what I'm making this weekend. Thanks again for your cleanup! Drmies (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too many in my household are wary of cholesterol for lardoons, as I knew them, to be in cook's repertory.--Wetman (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blenheim's corp de logis

Well, rather than a triple pediment, I'd say that it was a structure assembled from an ordinary pedimented central 3+2-bay entrance portico, behind which looms up another, unique three bay pediment with a deeply-recessed center, that of the Hall. The two pediments are separate: a pedimented Hall behind a pedimented portico: clear in this plan. "Cleft" too strongly suggests narrowness, while a "divided" pediment is simply that on a bookcase or longcase clock etc.. How is that second pediment expressed in the floorplan? I can't see why in the image you don't see that the second pediment is pierced by the clerestory windows that light the preposterous— but thrillingly Brobdignagian— Hall: which way is the camera pointed here? back toward the entrance portico? Or is this Seaton Delaval? Btw, to help you jumble all these Vanbrughian images together into a Palace of Malplaquet, have you read T.H. White's Mistress Masham's Repose? --Wetman (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that, but what there is, is a conventional prostyle portico with pediment, the internal piers of which suport a broken pediment (which appears completely needless) but almost certainly is the necessary wall width which becomes redundant at that height, having served its purpose, to support the lighter clerestory. A clerestory which would collapse without the width disguised by that central section. No, I have not read "Mistress Masham's Repose" because I feel were the 1st Duchess of Marlborough to edit Wikipedia, she (Described by the Oxford DNB as "convinced of her own intellectual superiority over those around her, and expressed her opinions as if this were self-evident.") and I would probably be in the same camp.

 Giano  21:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

PS: There must be a term for the hinter-section or a pediment - Buckingham Palace emulates it (although it's uneccessary there) with a box like structure.

 Giano  21:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hmm. Lyme Hall has a central pediment against a "blind balustraded ashlar attic block", yes?--Wetman (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does, and it is emulating 15th/16th century attempts to hide a higher building behind a portico/pedimet that was lower because it has to fit the proportions of the lower, but wider facade - (often the was a convent or seminary flanking a taller central church, being incorporated into the overall facade) there has to be a term for this - hidden hinter-section, but I don't know it, you're the only person on Wikipedia who might.

 Giano  22:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

...or you yourself, Giano: at Lyme you (surely it was you) called that attic block a "hamper", which was a new term to me. In Mistress Masham's Repose there's a frantic search for one of the Lilliputians' tiny sheep that's got lost, and the room-by-room description of the search party devolves into a parody of country-house guidebooks that will make you, Giano, weep with laughter. "It was a glorious day in June— for that matter, it was the Glorious First of June— and the sun was resounding on the great, green sweep of lawn..." --Wetman (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did call it that because it looks like a "picnic hamper" this is when my English betrays me - I hope it has not gone into the English language as an accepted architectural term (actually, I think they call it that there)! There's a specific church in Rome I am thinking of, in a back street I used to walk down every day when I was younger - I know not the church's name or the street's - I shall be there next month, I will retrace my steps and point the camera, then we shall all be the wiser. I will obtain Ms Masham's Repose - the "guidebook" problem is hard to overcome, I am currently reading Blenheim's, everything is so "beautiful" and "pleasing" that one wonders where the contoversy over the design ever originated. However, one illustrious book instructs me to look high on the roof and not miss "protesting French cocks being devoured" I think I shall just avert my eyes and concentrate on writing the page.

 Giano  22:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The article as I've left it is otherwise improved, I trust. So, how shall the article express the difference between the urbane culture of Ugarit and the Canaanite folk culture that ensued? No problem with the interpretation, I surmise, just with the phrase "Canaanite High Culture". I'll open this at Talk:Ugarit and we can work out something satisfactory to you there.--Wetman (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

21:16, 12 March 2010 Wetman (talk | contribs) (5,772 bytes) (there are lots of ceramics made at Arita that aren't "Imari": del. confusing image) (undo)

In this case, "Arita" should have an article and not redirect to 'Imari'. --

The (copyright?) image, with an explanation of why it's distracting in the article

Arita porcelain should indeed have an article! the current redirect is merely a stop-gap: the field is open for you.--Wetman (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello! One of my hobbies is tropical fish and I have several tanks. Upon reading your user page I see that you have a web site called "The Skeptical Aquarist". Went there and found some interesting information. Would have liked to register but was unable to. Is their a technical problem with the site? Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The site needs some major up-dating. There are many broken links, for one thing, and signing in is still in the future. Tech work is on-going; then I'll start editing. But meanwhile, is there anything specific I can help you with?--Wetman (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the moment. However it's good to know that I'm welcome to contact you in the future. Funny how things come to pass. At the

tiger barbs this spring. Your tract on the subject was most enlightening, but also a little intimidating (lots of water changes, etc.). And to think I was seriously considering breeding my Oscars. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Puntius are generally very willing to spawn: buy them small. I have P. nigrofasciatus in a dense jungle at my elbow, as dither fish for a ten-year old pair Botia modesta, and they were spawning repeatedly a few weeks ago. Caviar for all! The trick is to have another tank prepared to take the spawners as soon as they've finished!--Wetman (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Coldly dispassionate and brutally realistic strategies for success in society" is the ticket, but is there a succinct word or two that conveys this? That would be great.

I buy all my fish small, it seems to work out the best. Honestly, can't remember seeing Black ruby barbs anywhere in the recent past. Live in Chicago, they're probably around, but it's the P. tetrazona that I'll take a stab at. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC) p.s. I know that loaches live a long time in ideal conditions, but ten years, congratulations. Caviar for all indeed![reply]

please take a look at Category:Museums in California it doesnt belong at that level. It's already correctly categorized by location (eg: greater la area) and by several types in California eg: art/historic house dm (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The

fingerpainting.--Wetman (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Wetman. You added this part a while ago to the Ras Ibn Hani article.

This coastal site lies only a two hour's walk from the site of Bronze Age Ugarit, and survived in modest fashion Ugarit's collapse at the end of the Bronze Age: "Ugarit's inhabitants dispersed, but no crisis could neutralize their invaluable asset, the coast's best natural harbour on the promontory of Ras ibn Hani; it became known from its low white cliff as the 'White Harbour' in later Greek coastal guidebooks, a name which persists in modern Arabic as Minet el-Beida", observes Robin Lane Fox,[2] who identified the site as the harbor later Greeks knew as Betyllion,[3] possibly a Hellenized version, he suggests, of the Semitic bait-El or "house of El, a name which, if that is the derivation, "confirms that Canaanite-Phoenician culture never entirely died at the site".

I might be a bit confused, because I understand that it suggests that Ras Ibn Hani and Minet el-Beida are two names for the same place, which is incorrect. Ras Ibn Hani is 5km south and served as a secondary residence for the Royal family of Ugarit, while Minet al-Beida, was the primary port town of Ugarit located just next to the city. see this for example. Yazan (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're more competent than I. I was simply adding a report of what I understood from Robin Lane Fox's recent book. It's the name that persists, is my understanding of Fox's remark: al-Beida, "the White", yes? I'm illiterate in Arabic. Fox, coasting (in a sailboat, I think) northwards, passed the "good coastal plain and the then-modest site at modern Lattakieh (which was only developed after Alexander), the next significant marker after 5 miles is the coastal promontory of Ras ibn Hani," (p. 90). Fox seems to have passed by Minet al-Beida. You might want to add to the footnote 2 an observation of the separate location of Minet el-Beida, south of Ras ibn Hani, as given by Adrian Curtis, Handbook, 1999: I can't view his distinction between the two sites. Fox's identification of the later Greek name Betyllion is new. Do please correct my errors, but leave the quote. --Wetman (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried to clarify it a little more. It's a very tight geographical space anyway, but what we know for sure is that Minet el-Beida (yes, the White "Minet" = harbor), is the natural bay that comes 5km northwards from Ras Ibn Hani cape. It was Ras Ibn Hani that was later resettled by the Greeks, so I think that's what Fox was referring to. I am working on the Minet el-Beida article, and I'll link to it once I'm done to make it clearer that they are two different spots. Thanks. Yazan (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With Minet el-Beida northwards I was confused to be thinking Robin Lane Fox passed it by on his way up the coast to Ras ibn Hani.--Wetman (talk) 08:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I couldn't access Fox's book, but for reference, here's the three relevant coords:

• Ras Ibn Hani (or Betyllion) (the cape) 35°35′8″N 35°44′45″E / 35.58556°N 35.74583°E / 35.58556; 35.74583
• Minet el-Beida (the port town of Ugarit) 35°36′26″N 35°46′36″E / 35.60735°N 35.77672°E / 35.60735; 35.77672
• Actual center of Ugarit (Ras Shamra) 35°36′07″N 35°47′03″E / 35.60204°N 35.78423°E / 35.60204; 35.78423

If he's sailing northwards, he must first see the large cape of Ras Ibn Hani, and then the white rocks of Minet el-Beida bay. Yazan (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minet el-Beida, I should expand it more later. Yazan (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind reviewing

..mm... was it referenced enough, d'you think? The secret, I've learned, to peaceful editing is a truly pretentious quantity of supportive references. I think I should keep clear of

Mob wars, though, as I really know nothing about them, and I imagine that they are the scene of strenuous struggle among Wikipedians who may still be blissfully unaware of my existence— sleeping dogs etc. And I'm always so short on patience and the right level of understated tact. (I linked Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan in your post for the lurkers here, always avid as they are for fresh entertainment.)--Wetman (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

What Wikipedia is not

").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to

sign your comments

with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the

articles for deletion

template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a

talk) 01:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Re Paradise Lost

Don't know if Milton is your thing, but if you have any interest you might want to opine here. Paul August ☎ 03:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I haven't read Milton lit crit for almost forty years, and I thought Milton's "heavenly muse" was Urania. I'd better take down my Paradise Regained( 1.8-17) in the morning. I do think "'Heavenly Muse' = 'Holy Spirit'" lacks nuance. --Wetman (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)--Wetman (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Cronus and the Scythe

Cronus is also often pictured with a scythe (rather than a sickle) for example see the image on the right. See also: [10]. Paul August ☎ 20:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is Giorgio Vasari (C16, not a classical source). Notice that Cronus is identified with Chronos, in the wheels of the cosmos, also a late development. The sickle was used to castrate Uranus: see how awkward it has been for Vasari to render the gesture with a scythe. The scythe is the implement of the reaper of men. As long as the article is clear...--Wetman (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Winter Quarters

Wow that was quick! I wasn't even done posting about my concerns over copyright to Wikiproject Oregon! Heh, well instead of pointing out which page it *might* be good for I'll point out which ones it *is* good for! Pfly (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes cruise through new listings at Commons: many images disappear into the void, so I grab the good ones, or the ones I understand, and put them where I think they'll do some good. Do edit my caption and place the image where you intended it.--Wetman (talk) 10:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I hadn't gotten far enough to consider captions or where to place them. I was all wrapped up in amazement over this PD-Art tag and its implications. I had no idea. Pfly (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hennin

I have messed about with your edits here; Norris is a rather dubious source, and not only did the friar, or his army of urchins, use "hennin", but he seems to be about the only source that did at the time. Pending seeing the very expensive book of Margaret Scott, knowledge in this area seems to have progressed little since 1819. Johnbod (talk) 04:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edit reported that friar Thomas Conecte had not employed the word, but gave the quote: but isn't he the source for the statement "recorded as being used in French in 1428"? OED gives among the uses of cornet (all connected with "horn", naturally): "A form of head-dress formerly worn by ladies." The connection made with lappet seems unlikely on the face of it.--Wetman (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - did you see the bottom where I added the actual source in the Chronique of

Arnolfini portrait. See here for example. Some sources do use it for the "steeple" as well, but as usual in 15th century fashion they all contradict each other. I don't mind changing it, but I'm not sure I want to do so based on Norris. I'll copy this to the talk page, as it is may be relevant there. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Chaucer coming in contact with Petrarch or Boccaccio

If you have some spare time, could you tweak this article that I started and have been working on. Also if you have any recommendations for improvements, I'll keep a "watch" at the article Talk page. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinon Parchment

I have added a paragraph to explain the most likely interpretation of the document. I am not in agreement with the idea that the Pope was innocent in the affair of the templars. The overwhelming evidence is quite to the contrary. If you have any comments after reading my insert, I would welcome them in connection with improving the accuracy of this and other related articles which mention the document to which I have also added the same paragraph. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the interpretation of absolution you offer is incontrovertible.--Wetman (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a avenue of thought you would like to pursue in furtherance of the relevent articles, Chinon and Jacques de Molay I will be happy to research it and place it in the article for balance. Mugginsx (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-revert?

Please view Talk:War in Heaven again. Esoglou (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wetman has recently purchased Neil Forsyth, The Old Enemy: Satan & the Combat Myth, which was good enough for Princeton University Press, 1987, and might be good enough for Esoglou. He recommends it, to smudge away the perfect bloom of innocence, and assures Esoglou that he is perfectly capable of finding ways to waste his own time. The familiar attitude that items in Christianity are unrelated to anything else, because those are "just" myths is discrediting, without exception, whenever it pops up.--Wetman (talk) 20:54, 26 March 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.

Wetman's resources of (to be filled in) are in plentiful supply for reverting an edit supported of two other users without giving an intelligible explanation of why he thinks the war in heaven story, which in the article on the matter is attributed only to Christian sources, must be classified as a Judeo-Christian topic. Do you mean that the book you refer to says the war in heaven theme was part of Jewish story-telling also? In that case, would you please be so good as to put that information into the article and in that way justify calling the war in heaven a Judeo-Christian and not just a Christian topic? And who said that the war in heaven story is unrelated to anything else? The Satan story is Jewish also; but is the war in heaven story Jewish? Esoglou (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arts and Crafts Movement

I'm trying to improve that article, in particular by adding citations. The section on the USA has no inline citations and as I'm unfamiliar with the movement outside Britain I wonder if you could add some. (I see you introduced the topic here). Thanks.

talk) 09:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, I added one and started Grueby Faience Company, with lots of citations. Supplying citations to satisfy some Tagger is less than inspiring, to be frank.--Wetman (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minyans

Hello Wetman, I notice that you were once among the main authors of the Minyans article, until it was heavily edited by Deucalionite (talk · contribs) and subsequent sock accounts and sock IPs of his. Ever since early 2008 there seems to have been little input to that article from editors who were not Deucalionite socks. Since this user (who has been indef-blocked since) has always had heavy OR and POV-pushing tendencies, and this article was one of his ideological favourites related to pushing his POV of ethnic super-continuity of the Greek race since pre-history, could you perhaps give the article an expert check to see if much damage was done? This would be the diff between your last 2007 version and the most recent version; the differences are likely to be almost exclusively D.'s work. Thanks, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, I was following my usual practice of dropping articles from my Watchlist rather than suffer some toxic bully. I hadn't heard the editor in question has been blocked indefinitely: just as well. I'll have a look: the "α β γ δ ε" footnotes are a shade pretentious, but all I know about Minyans is what I read.--Wetman (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serpent (Bible)

Can you comment on this

Talk 03:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Right you are

Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a slip, I knew. Even Homer nods.--Wetman (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I'll take that as a richly undeserved compliment. I also run an educational assignment here, and my students don't seem to be able to figure out how to find something interesting to write about. This article started when I found a bookmark with the title, the editor, and a picture of the cover in another book by the same press. I love Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest local history. How thoroughly are the physical landmarks in their own lives treated in Wikipedia articles? Wikipedia is a splendidly authentic introduction to learning how to research any topic, and an object lesson in being sceptical of your sources. Plus the Zen of not getting credit for your work: healthy and astringent.--Wetman (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]