User talk:Wetman/archive16Jun2004

Please add your new remarks at the top, so we can find them. I'll know where to file them when I have time...

Stone circles

Uhh Wetman, I ought to point out that your edit to Stone circle is in the wrong place. You see, stone circles are circles made from stones. The Gosek circle you talk about is an earth bank and ditch, as attested by your own SciAm extract. Only visible from the air you see, in a flat wheatfield, a 'shadowy ring'- no stones. I suggest you find a more relevant entry in which to insert yourself. Kind regards --adamsan 19:51, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

(Adamsan has presented Wikipedia with the following definition of Henge: "A Henge is a circular or sub-circular prehistoric enclosure unique to the British Isles defined by a raised circular bank, and a circular ditch which normally runs inside the bank." So you can imagine the character of his User Contributions. See them for yourself, Gentle Reader. This is not just chauvinism, it is disinformation. Even a well-informed archaeology buff knows that twenty or so such circles have been excavated in Europe, out of 200 that have been sighted. No point in arguing. The point is to keep Wikipedia honest. See Stone circle, Nebra skydisk, Henge, Goseck circle for some illuminating context.Wetman 01:23, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Wetman, these are not henges. The important difference is that the ditch runs *inside* the bank rather than outside which is more normal. It is a name for a monument peculiar to the British Isles. Certainly other regions have banked enclosures, to suggest otherwise would be ridiculous. Nowhere however are they described as 'henges'- I'm sure they have other names, derived from their respective languages. To suggest that the entry is chauvinist is I suppose partly correct but only in the same warped way that an entry on moundbuilders in the USA is 'chauvinist'. We would all welcome further entries on continental European earthworks and I hope you will apply your expertise to these. Best wishes --adamsan 08:04, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Lunettes

Hi Wetman, I like the new architecture stuff in Carnegie Hall. I put in links to the existing articles on cornice and pilaster, but when I linked lunette, nothing turned up--could you perhaps provide a little article? Opus33 17:45, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Images seem to be needed not just for lunette, as you mentioned, but everywhere in architecture; it's an area where pictures really help. Opus33 20:55, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

<followup:> Oops, just reread your message. Were you saying you could use advice on how to post images? Happy to oblige if that's what you meant... Opus33 23:25, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good to me--maybe just a tad bigger?

For images in general, there's one trick that you may find useful: if your original image is quite large, then you can use this nice system somebody invented to make both a smaller version and a big detailed version available. The user clicks on a little magnifying-glass icon to get the big version. Here's an example, taken from Piano:

thumb|400px|View from below of a 182 cm. grand piano. In order of distance from viewer: softwood braces, tapered soundboard ribs, soundboard. The metal rod at lower right is a humidity control device.

By editing this page you can see the "source code"; all you have to do is insert your own image name, image width, and caption. Have fun, Opus33 03:28, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Land reform in Zimbabwe

I have put a timeline on this page. I did not feel that the already overburdened Robert Mugabe page was the right place to discuss this issue, but I was not willing to add information to a page named Problems of. I had previously added discussion on Land reform on the 2000 referendum section, and felt that was enough for his page. Have at it, should you feel inclined. Wizzy 13:53, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your copyediting of Garden of Eden. Good stuff, new info, and a littel extra context. You seem to be quite the symbol buff. Quadell 14:09, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You wrote on my talk page: "Splendid photo for Les Invalides!"

Thanks! Believe it or not, that picture was actually taken by my 13-year-old brother. Andrewlevine 18:48, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC) (feel free to delete this message once you've read it)

Plagiarism or Five degrees of Separation?

It seems that some of the information you posted on Al-Mutawakkil was copied directly from us-israel.org, and pasted this, despite the copyright on that page. I have for this reason removed it. DigiBullet 04:30, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

DigiBullet is referring to a decree of 850 A.D. as reported by the 10th century writer al-Tabari (d. 923) in an English translation by N. Stillman, that was reprinted in Bat Ye'or, The Dhimmi Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985, and posted at a website that I credited in Extnernal links (where DigiBullet found it) at the Al-Mutawakkil entry. I initially gave a digest and part paraphrase of the Stillman translation in my edit at Al-Mutawakkil. But I have gone back and restored historical information suppressed by DigiBullet, entirely in my own words. I wouldn't want people to think I was sloppy and unscrupulous giggle Wetman 10:53, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wetman's Gaffes

The thing is, is it spelt right? Twice now you've called him Jacques Villion (with two 'i's) yet the article is now back at Jacques Villon where it started. If you move the page again, remember to alter the redirects. -- Graham :) | Talk 21:23, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) I was hopelessly twisted on this one, First of all, I had it in my head that the poet Francois Villon was Jacques Villon, that the artist and the poet needed disambiguation, so I was meddling and... well it took a couple of folks to sort out my mess. Sorry, folks, and thanks. Wetman 23:34, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I made a general topics sidebar for biology - at Mediawiki:biology - use {{msg:biology}} tag to put it on articles as needed. Sub-field article sidebars like psychology can be worked on as well. -SV(talk) 18:11, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Infancy Gospel of Thomas/copyvio

Wetman: I replaced the material at Infancy Gospel of Thomas with the copyright violation notice because the text there was exactly the same text as on the website http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/infthom.htm, which seems to be the original work of one Geoff Trowbridge. He then holds the copyright on that work, and I see no indication that he has released that work into the public domain.

Under the terms of US Copyright Law, only the copyright holder (in this case Geoff Trowbridge) can license his works under the GNU Free Documentation License (a condition for submitting to this site, as stated below every edit window on Wikipedia). Unless you are Geoff Trowbridge (which it doesn't seem that you are), or have his express written permission to put his original work on Wikipedia and license it under the terms of the GFDL, submitting his work to this site is illegal.

This has nothing to do with the subject matter of the posting (as a matter of fact, Wikipedia is relatively weak on Chrisitan topics and could use more help in this area -- we could use the knowledge and expertise of folks like you), but with respecting the intellectual property rights of authors (a major tenet of the open content movement, of which Wikipedia is a part.

The original posting is available through the "page history" option at the top of the screen (keeping old versions is one way in which we comply with the GFDL). If you want to refactor the material (e.g. paraphrase in new, original language), feel free to do so in a /Temp page (as described in the instructions in the copyright violation notice). If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask. -- Seth Ilys 00:11, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You may also be interested in reading Wikipedia:Copyrights, which discusses copyrights, copying, fair use, the GFDL and other related topics as they apply to Wikipedia. -- Seth Ilys 00:33, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Refactored articles/copyvios

Wetman: I followed establish Wikipedia procedure for dealing with copyright violations, as posted at Wikipedia:Possible copyright violations. Please don't chew me out for adhering to community standards.

Again, I'd point you to the "Page history" link at the top of each Wikipedia page, which can take you to old versions of the article (including the original text which contained the copied material). It's not "gone;" your original post is still available, and can still be seen here. -- Seth Ilys 00:50, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

About Eisenman

I see you added Robert Eisenman to the article James the Just. You found a far more favorable review of his book than I would have given it. While Eisenman clearly is knowledgeable about his topic (he is, after all, a professor in the field), he tends to allow himself to speculate, rather than to substantiate his arguments; for example, much of Eisenman's thesis relies on rewriting Acts, a step for which he provides no explanation of his process, nor of the need. (And as it stands, Acts has many problems of its own.) I got about a quarter of the way thru it before my skepticism made put it down; I felt that if I was this hard on David Rohl's book, I could not be any easier on someone who actually finished his doctral thesis. But I admit, the point of Wikipedia is present all POVs. -- llywrch 19:16, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

First, Wetman, I hope you didn't read my above paragraph as being critical; I'm not convinced by Eisenman's arguments, but my point was to blather at someone who knew something about them more than to criticize.

Second, I agree about your point about Nazarite. I'm a bit amazed that no one else has written an article about this, since it is one of the problems surrounding the historical Christ (some scholars speculate if the various references to "Jesus of Nazareth" aren't a misunderstanding of "Jesus the Nazarite", since they appear at least a few decades later when the term wasn't well understood). However, I just need some time to get this researched & done; I am glad you added some information about the Dan fragment/stela to Wikipedia. -- llywrch 03:09, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You wrote:

Is this a variant of Nazarene then?

Not exactly, although the Nazarite vow is mentioned in that article. -- llywrch 03:52, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay, Wetman, you guilted me into doing it. Take a look at Nazarite to see my contribution, before I get flamed by someone who knows more ;-) -- llywrch 00:18, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! It is a complicated topic and I wish I actually knew a lot more -- I hope others keep contributing without trying to over-simplify it. Slrubenstein

Wetman,

Your reversions of my edits are restoring (to my mind at least) a point of view regarding the identity of biblical/Anatolian Hittites. I posted some comments on the Hittite discussion page a while ago, and when there was no further discussion I changed the page a bit. I don't have a problem leaving your (and Brice's) opinion on the page, but I do have a problem with dismissive reversions of my attempt to smooth the waters. Let us discuss this.

Regards, Fire Star 22:03, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One-drop rule

Updated as much as I knew how to, cited Supreme Court decision. Do you agree now that it exists? At least as a popular concept? Gets 1500 google hits. May I re-add the mention to Mulatto? jengod 23:00, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

music for the zillions

Care to express an opinion as to whether WP should include "suggested repertoire for the new listener? See: Talk:Classical music. -- Viajero 09:16, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mithras

Hey Wetman, just read your message; I dig your point. I'm planning to fill out the Indo-Iranian section a bit more in the next week. I like your revised stub, though. Bacchiad 18:03, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Apostolic Fathers

I don't follow the point of your changes to this article. I wasn't aware that I wrote anything (1) that was contrary to "orthodox" Christian teaching (whatever that means); or (2) required a mention of the followers of James the Just. -- llywrch 01:31, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi Wetman, sorry for the delay in responding, but I just now found your response on my User page, & not on my Talk: page. (I've since moved it to the proper place.)

First, I was not affronted in my comment above (although from its terseness, I see how it could be misunderstood in that manner). I was simply puzzled at the introduction of individuals who were not relevant to the subject in my eyes. (And we've both have had dealings with people who insist on introducing irrelevant material into articles, so you can understand that I was concerned where this new material was intended to lead.) Your comment that your intent was to provide some "historical context", & a slightly more careful reading, now explains your contribution. That was all I wanted in the above comment -- an explanation. I'm sorry that it didn't come over as I had intended.

Still, I don't feel James the Just is relevant to the subject of the Apostolic Fathers. Yet since what I wrote was a beginning based on some cursory reading (& thus subject to change & rewrite), I don't want to belabor his relevance. My further reading may prove you right -- or someone with proper training on the Apostolic Fathers at part of her/his seminary training may rewrite the entire article & prove us both wrong! -- llywrch 20:07, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

City Beautiful

Thanks for your comments. They are much appreciated. Regarding American Renaissance, that seems like an undertaking... :) -- Decumanus | Talk 17:56, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rio Cuarto craters

(from my talk page) I haven't been able to track your "see also" Carolina Bay reference. Tell more! Wetman 18:47, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Both Carolinas and some of Georgia are pockmarked with craters, especially along the coast, called Carolina Bays. I have been meaning to do an article on them (and I will as soon as I can) but have been so busy, I only have time to check in for a few minutes at Wikipedia. Maybe I can do a stub right now, and add an image and some detail later. Pollinator 19:49, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Greek history

Re History of Greece: I considered a History of Roman Greece but I decided against because (a) there isn't much to say, and (b) culturally Roman Greece was a continuation of Hellenistic Greece, until the arrival of Christianity when it began to become Byzantine Greece. The only difference was that it was ruled from Rome. As to Pelasgians, I think they are at best semi-historical and don't merit a separate period (besides which I don't think they were actually Greeks). Adam 02:18, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You may be right - feel free to write History of Roman Greece and insert it in the table. All the articles in the series need work, by the way. I have some sources for the Ottoman one which is just a stub at present. Adam 02:31, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This does get complicated. The question really is: does History of Greece mean "History of the geographgical area now called Greece," or does it mean "History of the Greek speaking people"? I might add a note on this issue at the article. Adam 02:56, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have ended the redirect of Western culture to Western world and have been giving substance to Western culture. I was thinking of melding the section "Western thought" into Western culture. Please notify me. Thanks.WHEELER 00:18, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mongolian death worm!

What - you don't embrace the existence of the mobile cow intestine of Mongolia??? Such skepticism, sir! You will never be asked to edit the giant frog of New Jersey ... - DavidWBrooks 02:03, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pardon my intrusion, but on the death of its childless uncle, the mobile cow intestine fell heir to the micronation of the Grand Duchy of the Peoples Republic of Ulaanbaatar, and has adopted the style of By the Grace of God, His Most Imperial Squishiness, the Grand Duke Vermiformis, and of his other realms, Grand High Cecum, and has announced the intention to issue imaginary artistamps. -- Nunh-huh 02:18, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Pelasgians, again

I just made some edits to this hotbed of an article, would you care to have a look? (And good point about linking to the Leleges, I had forgotten about them.) -- llywrch 18:44, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to split some hairs with you about some of your last edits to Pelasgians. (BTW, Did you change the article name, or am I misremembering it?)

"Pelasgians spoke a language unintelligible to any of the Greeks." What Herodotus actually says (1.57) is that they spoke a barbarous language, which only means it wasn't Greek. IIRC, about the only people the Greeks did not consider barbarous were the Romans, & probably because of superior Roman military power. All we can really understand by this adjective was that it clearly wasn't Greek.
"... and to Zeus as honored at Dodona." Actually, Zeus's temple at Dodona was widely considered one of the most ancient (only the temple to Artemis at Ephesus, the legacy of the Leleges, was believed to be older); one would call it "the temple to Zeus at Dodona". Further, Homer's lines at Il. 16.233-235 refer to "Zeus, lord of Dodona, Pelasgian" (Lattimore's translation), so the reference clearly is to the temple.
About Minyans: since they are the descendents of Minyas, wouldn't it make sense to link to that article, short & stubby as it is? -- llywrch 00:34, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

PS - Making my changes, I see what you were trying to say at point 2. And yes, I agree the article is nicely shaping up; it needed something like the quotation you found to conclude the section on "Modern Interpretations" -- llywrch 00:41, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

About Zeus at Dodona: I'll have to concede the point to you, since I don't read ancient Greek, & I haven't thought to look at any archeological records for Dodona. But as I indicated above, it's not a major issue for me. -- llywrch 18:14, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Request for Comments

If you have evidence or any remarks to add at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nico, please do so.212.76.57.103

Request for Comments

If you have evidence or any remarks to add at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nico, please do so.Halibutt

Selected anniversaries

Read Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries before editing those pages again please. --mav 00:07, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oop! I had no idea the rules were so complicated. Wetman 00:27, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is a protocol Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries which involves updating the day of the year April 8 with the items that you want to nominate for the selected anniversaries. You have to ensure that the articles reference that day of the year. Once that is in place, then you can put up to 5 anniversaries in the MediaWiki April 8, but Mav is the steward of this feature so if it gets changed, then please don't feel hurt. Just so you know, October November December January and February could use some more anniversary selections. Feel free to jump in with five events per day.Ancheta Wis 00:41, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) I saw that you were using past tense for the events, which obeys the rules. good.

Unsolicited encomium

I like the ~~rants~~ thought-provoking observations and assertions on your user page. More of that needs to be said, possibly louder. ...Ehh, it probably wouldn't do any good. Ensiform 22:50, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Triskelion

You should put your comments on Talk:Triskelion, not on Triskelion. Rick K 09:49, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To me, it reads like a comment. It really should have a "maybe" or "pssibly" or something like that. Rick K 10:08, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Armory Show

Thanks. I'm actually trying to add most or all of the Celebrating the Century stamp series from 1999. Eventually I'll have an index of them all on my user page so people can use whatever else they need. But thanks! jengod 01:10, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

St. Michael the Archangel

Sorry I can't help, My involvement was just moving the picture from a duplicate article at St. Michael the Archangel. - SimonP 00:00, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

Antediluvian Kings

Thanks for the link Wetman, but you know what some people think everything I touch turns into thanks to you know what, so I will pass this time. Are we ok with each other now? My appologies for confusing you with Llywrch back in January. It seems you & I have some common areas of interest. I would like to know your views on a few things not just read your reports (not that I don't enjoy reading them). Keep up the good work, but try to use more emoticons to avoid being misinterpreted :o) Zestauferov 09:46, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Skull (mythology)

Just an encouraging word about that article, and I mean to do what I can to make sure it is kept. Smerdis of Tlön 16:08, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Crown of Thorns

I noticed your edit summary on Man of Sorrows . . . would you mind looking it over? Thanks. —No-One Jones 03:36, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

?

Was that a reply to my comment from several months ago at Talk:New Amsterdam? I removed material to the other article because there is a lot you can be written about New Netherland before one even mentions New Amsterdam. I thought the article should get more to the core subject. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were implying. -- Decumanus | Talk 15:27, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK. No problem. I agree with you in principle, by the way. I generally avoid large-subject history articles because I find them to be less than satisfactory. -- Decumanus | Talk 15:44, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

About q.v. and over-linking

Consider this a pet peeve, but with the use of hyperlinks, I feel adding "q.v." next to any link is redundant. This was necessary in the print encyclopedias because a given word might not be the subject of an article; those major 2 letters signalled to the reader that further information, which might be of use, did lie in article with that subject line. However, a reader of Wikipedia who finds a word (which is clearly linked) in an article that piques her/his curiosity knows that a simple click will let her/him to see if there is any useful information there. (In case you wonder why I routinely remove this phrase from Wikipedia.) -- llywrch 00:21, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

With every third word linked, and with contributors wandering about wikifying every month day and year, when a link is actually a source of further information, the reader can't see the forest for the trees. A useful flag is (q.v.). With User:Llywrch travelling along behind me, I am reduced to notifying the reader that essential further information is available at such-and-so link. I shall de-Wikify every article I edit from here on in, to make the remaining links useful. Wetman 01:22, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, mea culpa about linking. For example, I didn't realize I had linked to Jerusalem 3x in the James the Just article, which is something I try to avoid. -- llywrch 18:27, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Historicity of Jesus Christ

I hope you'll take a look here? I did answer the question you asked, and I think we can work together on this. Sorry if I made assumptions about your viewpoint -- I thought I was reacting to things I was reading, but I must have been a little confused. :-) Anyway, I've given you the name of "one historian" as you asked, so perhaps we can sort out how to fix the text? Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 16:20, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re: James the Just

I made the change because (1) when I saw "Nag Hammadi Gospel of Thomas", I momentarily thought you meant to allude to the entire Nag Hammadi Library (okay, I'll admit it's a weak argument, but I was surprised to think that this was the change), & (2) while that version of the Gospel is the only complete version, comparing it with the Oxyrhynchus fragments show that there are some significant textual differences between the two versions (e.g. the Nag Hammadi version omits at least one sentence that is in the earlier version). It is possible that this passage may not have been in the earliest version of that work; while I don't believe that to be the case, it's a possibility that must be considered in any argument.

But I see your point about disambiguating about the two Gospels (although my impression from surfing the titles at the local library is that the Nag Hammadi is currently the more familiar one of the two). Perhaps rewording this passage to something along the lines of "the Gospel of Thomas which was part of the Nag Hammadi library" might solve both problems. -- llywrch 22:20, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Go for it! "Sayings" GoT is another was of disambiguation. As for variant lines, remember that the full text GoT had been translated from Greek to Coptic (probably with an Aramaic original?). As for current best-seller, my impression is that whenever there has been a mainstream reference to a "Gospel of Thomas," 3rd century to 1945. it's always been the "infancy Gospel" that's being dissed.Wetman 03:24, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Done, & took the opportunity to correct an error I made. -- llywrch 16:28, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've nominate you for adminship. Please indicate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship whether you accept. Maximus Rex 07:27, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Per your request on my talk page, I have un-nominated you. Sorry for any inconvenience. Maximus Rex 19:16, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

admin

c'mon dude, you can handle this.. Just do yer normal job, and keep this as a feather in yer cap. You deserve it, you've earned the trust ;) Sam Spade 07:39, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanx for deciding to accept. To be honest it was a bit self-serving to ask you to, since it does mean at least the potential for more work on your part, and of course a benifit to the community at large. We clearly need a larger percentage of good admins. I have seen you in a variety of situations (having taken a stroll or two thru your contributions list, along w bumping into you editing a time or three) and its clear to me you'll be a fine addition, regardless of how much time you spend admin'ing (as opposed to donating beautiful writing, such as this. :) Cheers, Sam Spade 17:00, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nice, I always wanted to eat one, have you? My best contribution is probably pantheism. Sam Spade 17:31, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oregon County

Aw hell. I was basing it off discussion on the Adams-Onís Treaty, which in retrospect was probably a typo. For some reason I thought that text was quoted from the text of the treaty, but I just checked and it is not. I'll remove the reference. Sorry. older ≠ wiser 21:40, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Caucasian etc.

Wetman, thanks for the support re the Caucasian pages. BTW, I deleted your comments around Varietas Caucasia not because of their contents but because the wording sounded rather POVish and provocative.
All the best,
Jorge Stolfi 17:53, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy is never POV. The Caucasian "subspecies" of Homo sapiens is being given an unauthorized Latin designation, not according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, mis-using "variety" and making a blunder in the Latin. No reason not to say so. Wetman 19:20, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well... one can always express the same fact in many ways, and the choice of the words can be used to convey feelings or subjective judgements by the author: that is still POV. The phrases "hypothesis unsupported by evidence", "ridiculous belief" or "genial intuition" often mean the same thing, but the last two are definitely POV. (Or at least more POV than the first one, because what is not enough evidence to some may be more than enough to others.)

That's absolutely right. I did overstate previously. But to point out the intended sub-text of a statement, such as the use of Latin being intended to supply a scientific tone that is actually unwarranted by accepted usage or the facts-- that's a way to throw the daylight of logic on a subject. Rhetoric may always be identified and analyzed. Wetman 16:57, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Baal

Thanks! I am about to do some more on it. I noticed you are interested in cults. Have you ever successfully edited an entry on one without one of its members changing it to match the cult's official position? --Administer 01:23, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Gulp, I'm actually interested in cultus, the ritual through which the Virgin or the Goddess or the Saint etc. is venerated. "Cult" in the other sense is a long tiring uphill climb, and the scenery is not inspiring. But I think we are in perfect agreement... Wetman 01:43, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's funny! I guess I misunderstood the reference to Scientologies. --Administer 05:06, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Shh! you're the only one who's noticed. Wetman 05

20, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I was surprised to see your post on Talk:Lord's Recovery. It's a small world.--Administer 06:02, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn

Hey, regarding "unicorn": If I'm using bad grammar, go ahead and fix it. If you feel I need to site my sources, go ahead and let me know. Don't assume I'm making things up. In the language analysis department, I suggest you go back to your Shakespeare. Compare the unabridged to the abridged editions of Macbeth, especially the scene with the play. The particular methods of capturing the unicorn have been recounted in every story involving unicorn lore that I've ever read- try "The Unicorn in Myth and Legend". thanks, Pat User:Patterson

(This discussion is continued at Talk:Unicorn Wetman 22:55, 5 May 2004 (UTC))[reply]

Wetman's first image: Classical orders

Looks good to me. More information on image syntax can be found at Wikipedia:Image markup and Wikipedia:Extended image syntax, (I'm no expert on HTML or image syntax I must admit). I actually edited for about a month w/o an account and only made one to upload an image. The image looks good, keep up the good work. Maximus Rex 01:04, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

1911

Hey Wetman, why are you reverting to 1911 text and then re-reverting? Have I missed something somewhere? :) Adam Bishop 22:25, 9 May 2004 (UTC) Then you can check the history for yourself, and see just what text is actually identical. Sometimes there is some. Even a chunk within a paragraph. I often start with EB text and work on it, with the expectation that only a phrase here and there ("mother of Alexander the Great" etc.) will survive the process. Feels like an awful lot of hard work is undercut by this bot, but maybe my basic technique is flawed. I certainly would be embarassed if copyright text turned up like this. You know: "Crete is a large island in the Aegean" or something... Wetman 22:34, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, I didn't realize a bot was adding the 1911 msg. Adam Bishop 06:07, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Naxos

Hi again! I just wrote Duchy of the Archipelago, and then I noticed you had just added a big chunk of text about that to the Naxos article. Do you mind if I take that text and add it to the Duchy of the Archipelago? I thought I should ask since it was so recent (and I never even saw it until after I wrote mine...). Adam Bishop 03:52, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The trick is to work explicit links into the texts: "for more detail...", working both ways, don't you think. Wetman 04:49, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that I shall do. Adam Bishop 04:57, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Corny query!

Hi. Nice work on Baalbec. Why "wheat" rather than "corn" as it originally said, though? Am I missing the point? Thanks, Nevilley 16:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at Nevilley's page, "Wheat" seemed more neutral. It's a sheaf of grain, like the one displayed at the Eleusinian mysteries, not an ear of maize that's in the god's hand. But what if it's actually barley.... oh dear oh dear.... Wetman 21:12, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I had forgotten that corn is maize in US usage, which of course does give a ludicrous impression! Sorry - you're quite right. :) Nevilley 22:46, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Theodosius

OK...I'm confused again :) There is already a Theodosius II article, so why conflate the two in Theodosius I? Adam Bishop 02:56, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Revert me. I'm hopelessly confused myself. Wetman 03:02, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-French sentiment in the United States

Please explain how I "control" Anti-French sentiment in the United States, considering the revert of your POV, bolded first paragraph was the first edit of mine of the article since December. And even then, I haven't done much at all on the article. Rick K 02:38, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding was a clumsy typo quite typical of me. I wrote a cautious an balanced introduction, quite unsuitable for this redneck entry. Suppression of text is always unattractive.

My edit and the censored version are worth comparing:

Anti-French sentiment or Francophobia in the United States is an exaggerated discrediting of all things French, which is given a rationale through disapproval of the actions and attitudes of the French government, but which can be recognized by its undertones of moral censure ("treacherous" "cowardly" or "frivolous") and by implicit jingoism.

Censored version:

Anti-French sentiment or Francophobia in the United States is a strong disapproval of many or all things French. It is often motivated or justified by disapproval of the actions and attitudes of the French government or the perceived attitudes of French people, and often takes the form of moral censure ("treacherous", "cowardly", or "frivolous").

Words of mine that remain in the text reproach me. The substitution Strong disapproval has such a noble ring to it, don't you agree? This entry is actually all about justifying bluecollar jingoism in the US. Note the introduction of many, a fraudulent imitation of neutrality: note how "balanced" it appears. The context is now quite as dishonest as ever, and I feel dirtied. How can Anti-French sentiment in the United States be discussed if jingoism is not permitted to be mentioned? It's absolutely my fault for intruding on what is so obvious a crackerbarrel entry: tabloid patriots only. I rarely encounter RickK and his ilk, and not by accident.Wetman 04:11, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't explained how I "control" the article. What I did was to delete an extremely POV entry in which you attempted to claim that the only reason why people in the US are against the French is because of US "jingoism". You also call it "an exaggerated discrediting". That's not exactly netural, is it? Isn't there any possibility that there might be SOME legitimate reason for the US feeling? But that first paragraph doesn't give any room for that, does it? Your digs at Americans ("bluecollar", "redneck", "crackerbarrel", indeed) only show your own elitist prejudice. And what is my "ilk"? Rick K 05:28, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

(Readers may contrast the original with the bowdlerized and falsified version, and judge these assertions for themselves. From some perspectives, anything more than marginal literacy is elite.)

Apparently it is also left up to the reader to see that Wetman refuses to answer my questions as to how I control the article, and what my "ilk" is. Since he doesn't have any answers for these questions, he keeps trying to duck the issue. Rick K 19:56, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthenian stuff

Since you were previously involved in edit conflicts regarding Ruthenian stuff, I just wanted to let you know that I've recently reorganized that group of articles a bit to accomodate for separate articles about the Rusyns as an ethnicity and the varying geographical terms. Have a look, I think it should be fairly satisfactory. --Shallot 21:29, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

(I did get involved with a furious nationalist with a dishonest agenda. A low point at Wikipedia, for me. I can't believe that Shallot has made such a fair and rational explication of what "Ruthenia" has mean historically, out of such unpromising materials!) Wetman 22:16, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Felice Romani

Felice Romani: Care to add anything? -- Viajero 18:37, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

mille grazias. -- Viajero 20:19, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Russian history

It looks like once again all the stuff about Russian history is being thrown into turmoil. I know you were quite interested in this earlier, and frankly, it's in such turmoil right now that I'm not tracking until the dust settles a bit. You might want to look at Wikipedia:Russian History Harmonization, the project where the overview is supposed to be sorted out. -- Jmabel 04:54, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Diadochi

Thanks for the praise. The article was awful, and really quite misleading before, and seemed to be confused if it was talking about the period of the Diadochi, or the Hellenistic period in general (I've never heard the term "Diadochi" to refer to events after the 270s BC before), as when it talked about the then non-existent Achaean League. At any rate, it's still not really perfect, but a good start, I think. john k 01:09, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(Now, thanks to John Kenney, it's filled with names that need entries...)

Well, actually, a lot of those people probably shouldn't be high priorities. Although the provinces probably should be filled in, and probably some of the names. The weird thing about Macedonians is how many of them share names with figures from mythology (Meleager, Laomedon, Menelaus, and so forth). john k 01:20, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Israelite in Category:Mormonism

Upon careful consideration, I do not dispute the removal of Israelite from Category:Mormonism, considering that it is also not in Category:Judaism, nor in Category:Samaritan, etc., but only in indirectly-related categories such as Jewish history. However, if Israelite were to be added to such categories at a future time, then it would only be fair to add it all the categories who have similar self-associative sacred beliefs regarding the Israelites. - User:Gilgamesh 11:26, 14 June 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Re: IE

Hmm. I don't want to be overly agressive, or to give offense, but I'd like to question your assertion that "The language family is possibly related to other language families such as Caucasian languages, Altaic languages, Uralic languages, Dravidian languages, Afro-Asiatic languages" is a "perfectly reasonable and relevant sentence"; first, this is fairly fringe linguistics we're talking about, and NPOV would dictate making clear that this "possibility" is generally not regarded highly in the field, and second, this sentence merely repeats the Nostratic hypothesis discussed in the paragraph above, which covers it quite adequately. If we think it's important to specify the languages covered in Nostratic, then that can be incorporated into that paragraph; otherwise, the sentence is redundant and POV and should not be included. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 05:45, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Not my addition, nor do I personally think that the Nostratic idea is useful, (not that that's relevant) but look at all those links to languages in the "Nostratic" super-family. Thjey're helpful. Why suppress them? Why don't you ake an improved brief paragraph suggesting the "Nostratic" range of languages. Wetman 05:56, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, my reasons for not doing so would run something like (1) It's a dumb idea that doesn't deserve extensive coverage on the IE page, (2) Anyone who cares can bloody well click through, and (3) If someone thinks its genuinely important to include, which it's clearly not, they should take the trouble to write something that makes sense, and it certainly shouldn't be my job to craft mediocre prose for them.

Looking back at that, I can safely say it's a little gruff side. Pardon me, as I just fell over a large object and am in some pain. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 06:06, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The merged para looks good; thanks. (Kukkurovaca=much nicer when not having just fallen over large objects) -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 16:57, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Doric and Ionic Architecture

I saw an image you uploaded to the web site on Doric and Ionic architecture. It's from the Encyclopédie, ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers. The image is one I've been searching for and I need to get a high res. digital image to use in a textbook I'm putting together for the ancient Greeks. Do you have scans of this image? If so, do you release them as public domain for these purposes? Thanks! Giulia Rossi - GRossi@abc-clio.com or 303-385-1608 June 16, 2004

Hi! I found the Public Domain Encyclopédie illustrations through Wikipedia:Public domain image resources, which I downloaded to my homepage and uploaded to Wikipedia. Wetman 20:59, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)