It's not really relevent to DYK anymore, but I remain totally perplexed at your comments about the Samuel Jarvis tag needing the date. What kind of "context" are you talking about? Really, what information does the date convey at all, in that context? If it were different, so what? I'm not trying to come off as rude or anything, I just can't work out what you're getting at. WilyD17:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! In the statement "...Samuel Jarvis was acquitted of manslaughter after winning Toronto's last duel..." the phrase "Toronto's last duel," requires a date, in order to fix the information so that it can be reused by the reader in another context. Without a date, the idea of last in "Toronto's last duel" can't be applied to any other context, and thus it remains trivial. With the date, it joins the reader's fund of information. I'm pretty well-prepared, but I couldn't have placed "Toronto's last duel" within a decade: if I'd been quizzed, could have been 1840s, no?. By comparison "Toronto's most notorious duel" doesn't so urgently require a date. Similarly, "best episode ever" isn't information until we are given "Simpson's tv series"; then we can apply it, modify it, agree or disagree. Does that seem clearer? --Wetman (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. I'm not convinced I really understand what you're getting at, but maybe I just don't totally agree. Either way, it's not terrible important. WilyD18:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The important thing, is that Wikipedia is simply a reader's service. Eveything is done with the aim of putting usable information in the hands of the reader. The rest is minor. --Wetman (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just discovered the whole of this has been a copyvio from the Metropolitan Timeline (discovered when I added it as an External link) since 2005, despite the original editor so labelling it, & someone on talk noting it a year later! Meanwhile about 500 edits seem to have added virtually nothing to the text. I have started again; I don't think it's your favourite period, but any help welcome. I intend to put it up for DYK & after that will probably borrow bits on monumental sculpture from Amanda's very solid Regional characteristics of Romanesque architecture. Johnbod (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been in the building - actually crawled all through it in the pursuit of the commission to convert it to an arts center (which we didn't get). It's a fine building, but very hard to adapt to modern fire code requirements. Acroterion(talk)01:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Back in 1973, the liaison officer for Historic Sites was not permitted access to the interior because it held "top secret" FAA files!--Wetman (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it - the real mission of the facility was to be an emergency relocation center outside the blast radius of Washington. The comm center was stripped out when the FAA abandoned the place, but the vault doors and walls are still there. I doubt there were ever any actual files stored there - a most impractical building for that purpose. Acroterion(talk)02:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time and editing another page that I worked on. I tend to get too busy to give it a careful read through. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I avoid Wikipedia "Peer" reviews: a very little of "Please avoid POV language about neurological disorders (I know it is common in British English to say a person "suffers" from a condition, but that is offensive in the USA)" goes a long way. --Wetman (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I did a five fold expansion on this article, I thought of you - as you are are also full of it, that is you are full of knowledge and know a lot of "first facts" (wanted to make sure I clarified this!). Do you use any of his books sometimes? I know you know a lot of stuff, however I'll bet you didn't know George Washington was not the first one to be called the "President of the United States" (or perhaps you did)? It was Thomas McKean. --Dougtalk19:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Trowbridge and Livingston requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ninety:one17:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, after this [1] and your perpetual trustworthiness I just gave you rollback. If you don't want it let me know. Kind regards, dvdrw05:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; that was a handy tool to be given. I'll be very careful only to use it in the most obvious cases. It will save me a considerable chunk of time every day. --Wetman (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, it should be no problem. I'd give you the block, delete, and protect buttons too but for those you have to go through WP:RFA. If you ever want a nomination / co-nom let me know. Re: [2] I read your contributions quite often, you are an excellent writer and editor. Regards, dvdrw23:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, DVD R W! I'd much rather be called "an excellent writer and editor" by you than become an administrator. Early in 2004 I detected that it was a club I didn't want to join, and declined. And now there are quite a few townies ready to throw vegetables, were I to be nominated! Some of them even lurk at my Talkpage, hoping for a mis-step. --Wetman (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I drafted a nomination on my desktop in case you ever change your mind. I forgot to write the protect button earlier, but added it now. I wonder, how to turn vegetable projectiles into co-nominations and supports... dvdrw00:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for George Cheetham Churchill and the book title. His name didn't sound right, but I couldn't trace it. I've updated the Italian Wikipedia article, where I found him. Xn4 (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Cheetham" was a hunch. Googling netted the title. Fixing the Italian wikipedia reference was an ewxcellent step. --Wetman (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears as though you responded here with a tad bit more ferociousness than would have perhaps been necessary to simply answer the person's question. If this is not the case, then please excuse my comments, but if it is, perhaps realizing that not everyone fully understands Wikipedia policy as well as you and I do would be in order. :) DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)22:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that you are right: but, to the query "why is the article Balaam not under bil'am? that is the spelling in hebrew" one perfectly natural answer is "Then that's where you'll find it in the Hebrew Wikipedia. In English, the educated reader looking for this material will search 'Balaam'". I should have used the euphemism "the prepared reader", as marginally educated people are often quite furious at the muted implication that not everyone is "educated". It was not my intention to introduce the misapprehension that "that is the spelling in hebrew" for of course it is not, nor the concept of transliteration, because I figured— but was too tactful to say— that the subject would be over the inquirer's head. A disgracefully conducted insistence that Mecca be moved to Makkah some time back is archived somewhere at Talk:Mecca. The insistence on "correct" titles rather than ones the reader will look for, is the sure mark of a little, insecure pretension— I say this just to you, not to our— hopefully— naive inquirer— that we shouldn't permit ourselves be bullied over.--Wetman (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could read posts like yours all day. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-07-14 18:39Z
Thank you, Brian: I aspire to be ferox nec atrox in going straight for the sub-text, and to be more restrained than I may appear. Your tweak to the jumble at top is in a lost cause: I live in hope of receiving an award that exactly fits that awkward space. Some Wikipedian has a [hide] feature for archives: I wish I'd stolen it when I saw it... --Wetman (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heavens open. Shaft of light. Choral harmony. Angelic aid.
Image source problem with Image:AfricaRipa1603.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:AfricaRipa1603.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK13:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a reproduction of a woodcut of 1603 from Cesare Ripa's Iconologia. How could there be a problem with copyright? I have given up trying to add images of two-dimensionmal works of art to Wikipedia because I don't understand the difficulties of the process. Is there anyone lurking at this page who might be able to clue me in?--Wetman (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added "source presumably [3] identical pic, down to the dirt" & removed the tag. They now seem to be insisting on the web-source or "own scan" from a named book. I don't know where these dictats emanate from; as you say they can have little relevance to copyright. I find commons easier myself. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Have you read anything about bad trust of Wikipedia? Me and you don't citing sources, for that reason, our work become lacking, and unusable for academics. Please check WP:CITE#IMAGE. Thanks for understanding. By the way, you're talk page has bit ugly view :)--OsamaK17:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've stopped adding images of American sculpture because a humdred or two have fallen to various copyright wielder's axes. Few of them, however, dated back to the Seventeenth Century. Oh yes, an I, for one, feel very comfortable on your Discussion Page, and while not finding it overly attractive, find it to be, . .... well inviting and free from constraint. eeeek aka Carptrash (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WikiPurgatory. Your own photos need to be boldly labelled "all my own work", like Bert the sidewalk chalk artist in Mary Poppins.--Wetman (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem. However the Harvard Law Student in question launched into his/her spiel on "derivative work." etc and said that my snapping the picture was not good enough. Either for him or for wikipedia. Unless your comment was for someone else, in which case, Never mind. Carptrash (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Please could you add whatever you can to the architecture section, as this seems to be your expertise [from a former encounter]. I used ellipsoidal (now wikilinked) because that is another term for egg-shaped (elliptic is 2-D and ellipsoidal 3-D). Thanks for putting in a more exact reference for the Couronne stone. I was quite pleased that you found the article - in fact I was sort of expecting it. :) Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 08:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right about 'ellipsoidal'— semi-ellipsoidal of course, actually— rather than 'elliptical'. I hope you'll forgive me my custom of inserting commented-out queries where other editors will find them and decide what to do, if anything; the Wikipedia reader isn't discommoded by it, and the article isn't defaced, as it is by those banners and demands for citations, etc.--Wetman (talk) 08:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very useful in this. I don't know anything about possible continuity of Roman brick-making in Anglo-Saxon England until it was superceded by Flemish brick under the Normans, nor of the revival, though there is Roman brick in Richardsonian Renaissance buildings, and I'd place the revival in the 1880s rather than 1890s. But it's all odds-and-ends of remembering: I've never read anything directly about the history of Roman bricks. --Wetman (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, brickmaking disappeared in England with the Romans and reappeared via imported brick from the Low Countries around the turn of the 14th century (Quiney, The Traditional Buildings of England, T&H 1990). James Chambers, The English House (Norton, 1985) cites Little Wenham Hall c. 1270 as the earliest surviving medieval brickwork in England "so rare that the bricks may well have been imported from Flanders" (p. 22), but this doesn't tell us why Flemish bricks were a different form factor (I assume they were?), which I think we'd need to know to say anything intelligent (unless we talk about the English - and later American - tradition in brickmaking). - PKM (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know (and that's all it is - I don't know of any specific references), Henry Hobson Richardson was the first prominent architect to use long, flat bricks in this style - whether it was a conscious attempt to emulate roman bricks or just a style, I don't know. Of course, from Richardson came Louis Sullivan, and from Sullivan came Wright, so there are links there. Acroterion(talk)19:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I wish you'd work that into the article. A.D. MacWhirr, ed. Roman Brick and Tile: studies in manufacture, distribution and use in the Western Empire (Oxford) 1979, and, more localised in Roman Britain, G. Brodribb, Roman Brick 1987 look like standard treatments. --Wetman (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something called, rightly or wrongly, Roman brick was widely used in the Renaissance and Baroque I think - but again I don't know much about it. Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in the article about the stamping of original roman bricks with the maker's name - I've read numerous archaeologists writing about datings based on such marks, but I'm alas not sufficiently historian to contribute meaningfully. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just wrote this article and found several instances where others have said this is the first usage in print of the word "millionaire" in 1843. Another editor just found in an online subscription serive where apparently it says it was already used in 1826. Do you subscribe to this online service of Oxford English Dictionary Online? I found so many references that many others including Philip Hone that said this is the first instance of the word in print in 1843. I have included several references for the 1843 date as a reply at DYK, so only if you happen to find additional on this - thanks! --Dougtalk11:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The print OED has from Vivian Grey by Disraeli:"Were I the son of a Millionaire or a noble, I might have all" from 1826, with from 1830: "...what the French call a Millionaire" from a General P Thompson. Since the OED M volume is exactly a century old, it shows how unreliable many sources are, or perhaps they just meant first American use. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems incontrovertible, really: it changes our picture of C13 Italian bronze-casting as much as it adjusts our picture of Etruscan art. That Phaistos disk has always looked to me too much like an expensive French tea-biscuit, frankly. But from my first view of her in the 1960s I doubted the Lady of Elche as an anomaly: now she has quite reputable company. So, all our pictures of Antiquity should remain in flux. --Wetman (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the disk also has company: what to make of the Arkalochori Axe? Luigi Pernier may have been a forger, but Marinatos's reputation is solid. The redating of the she-wolf bronze highlights the uncertainty of attributions for which no stylistic analogies exist. I bet such things as the Nebra sky disk will come under increasing scrutiny. --Ghirla-трёп-19:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not reasoning, that's precedent. A Roman Catholic education does not help one distinguish, I have observed. The historian notes that during the Schism there were a series of Avignon popes. --Wetman (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 29 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article London (1738 poem), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Would you like to make any tweaks, expansion or improvements on an article I just expanded?[5] You did such a superb job on the General Motors Building that I thought you might like to work on another Manhattan architecture page.
Thank you Wetman. The article is much improved now. I need to get a copy of the AIA Guide you cited. I'm only in New York for a short while every couple years but it sounds like an interesting read, and will help inform my trips there. Glad you started Beaux Arts Ball, I look forward to seeing how you write that article. dvdrw03:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just had to fix that pesky redlink. I'm hoping others will run with that ball, you might say... Kahn's Municipal Asphalt Plant I've known for fifty years: it was pointed out to me as my first introduction to "form follows function".--Wetman (talk) 05:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Wetman, for your edits, and suggested wording; my early drafts are often filled with infelicities and can use another pair of eyes! There is much yet to be written about the "academies" of Padua and other Italian cities in the late 16th century, which were particularly important in music history. I need to go there and visit some libraries! Best regards, Antandrus (talk)20:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness! I might've known! It's always more tempting to comb out a well-written article on an interesting subject that try to overhaul a poor one. I hadn't noted that it was to you my commented-out suggestions were directed! Perhaps you'd insert a brief paragraph "Academies of the Renaissance" at Academy. It truly needs it. If you did, I'd alert Johnbod, and perhaps Geogre, and within a month or so it wouldn't be such a glaring lacuna. --Wetman (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted the reference yourself, which was to the engraving of 1697, which should be kept closely associated with the text. Information directly derived from reading a map, or from reading a topographical view, is simply a matter of literacy, not of "original" research, a thought that perhaps motivates your suggestion. All the information about the garden in the article is drawn directly from the illustrated engraving. I am copying this to Talk:Huis ter Nieuwburg for general consumption. --Wetman (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blatchly, John; Northeast, Peter. Decoding flint flushwork on Suffolk and Norfolk churches : a survey of more than 90 churches in the two counties where devices and descriptions challenge interpretation. Ipswich: Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and History, 2005. ISBN0952139049Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd enough for any of us. Does one have to grow up with knapped flint to "get" it? It seems to me the most singularly charmless building material, like certain over-fired slightly glassy Victorian brick— to set the teeth on edge. But that's certainly a handsome late church at Long Melford: there's so much that one hasn't seen. My own recent decoding was of a topographical 1697 engraving of Huis ter Nieuwburg. Someone working on the article thought that visual literacy, in "reading" the engraving, was "original research"— and wanted a "source"! See my illustrative comparative images at Talk:Huis ter Nieuwburg: worth 2000 words. --Wetman (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe - I like the jumbly rubble walls, which most of them are, and the carefully crafted extravaganzas of flushwork, which no doubt made visiting Florentine wool buyers of 1500 snigger behind their hands. The Hart Flint Architecture book has dozens and dozens of lovely close-up photos by the author of small sections of wall & has opened my eyes considerably - very persuasive! Victorian versions can certainly pall. The Suffolk churches website is also very good; almost as good as, and sometimes better than, being there. I saw the Nieuwburg controversy & of course agree, though one has to be a little wary of the "artists impression". Henry 8's vanished showpiece Nonsuch Palace is recorded in a handful of drawings & prints which have been broadly confirmed by recent archaeology, but whose contradictions still leave scholars scratching their heads. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seventeenth-century garden engravings are definitely idealised, untidinesses eliminated, slightly wonky angles squared, "planned" features shown as executed. Most of the same problems exist for houses, where scholars discuss whether this or that feature ever actually existed. At ter Nieuwburg I was arrested especially by the brick partitions and courtyard openings that seem specific arrangements for the rival gangs of aristocrats in 1697.--Wetman (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As one who did grow up with knapped flint, I'm very fond of it, though I know it looks odd (as well as rubbly) to those who didn't. It's really a very English building material - Hobbity, you could almost say... part of what Marianne Suhr helpfully calls the "wibbly-wobbliness" of old buildings. Of course, especially in Norfolk & Suffolk, it's still used for new buildings and helps to give them continuity and context. Xn4 (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind dealing with this [6] - I seem to be rather short tempered at the moment. I have reverted him in the mainspace article, perhaps you could explain to him in the nice kindly fashion, which seems to escape me. Thanks. Giano (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My God, Giano, you must be having a very bad day to come to me for diplomacy. I am largely reduced to working in reverse, starting with the book (currently Robin Lane Fox on Alexander the Great, and adding brief bits directly from the source, or as quotes, if accurate and succinct enough. Precisely to avoid these confident townies who don't like this or that. I'll step in gingerly, though I fear to tread...--Wetman (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beautiful picture, I am very interested because I own an identical print dated 1st September 1853 by George Baxter, a very notable London oil printer of the mid 19th century. I have my copy off the wall and on the desk in front of me. If you look at the sandwich-board man, he is actually advertising Baxter's pictures (little gems) of the exhibition. This print is listed in Baxter's catalogue as CL 189. The uploaded version has been cleverly cropped (at the dust and pavement on the extreme right) to exclude the Baxter stamp and attribution. Of course, it matters not a jot as all the copyright is long gone and dead but it's interesting though isn't it. I have been meaning for years to do a page on George Baxter, fascinating man, invented decent printing, went bankrupt, and is now very collectable. Giano (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a curious coincidence, Giano, or perhaps not... Actually, I cropped this myself from this image, which you'll see combines the frontispiece and title page of the architects' book on the building. The title page refers to "...an oil-color exterior view, and six large plates containing plans, elevations, sections, and details". The 'oil-colour' is presumably the frontispiece, and could it be that it is also your Baxter print? (If so, the Beinecke Library has blundered in attributing it to 'Gildemeister, Karl, 1820-1869', but I've noticed before that the writer of their web pages isn't so sharp on prints and drawings as Yale would wish.) Xn4 (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Baxter's sramp With a great amount if difficulty I have managed to get my picture (or at least a corner of it) into the scanner. I am sure Beinecke have blundered. (A) because this print has a Baxter catalogue number (CL189) and secondly because it is inconceivable that one commercial artist and printer would advertise the wares of another (rival) in his own painting (see the bill board man, in the centre of the picture); these were produced to affordable souvenirs) Perhaps we've uncovered a little 19th century skullduggery? This is very interesting now, because it is the painting in the book that has been cropped to loose the Baxter attribution, wow we are in the realms of criminal activity now. Giano (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the nineteenth century the United States offered no copyright protection and was the scene of large-scale literary piracy, "a nation of outlaws". Charles Dickens was outraged when he arrived in 1842, to find pirated copies of his works on sale everywhere. The career of Charles Sealsfield is explored in Nanette M Ashby, Charles Sealsfield: The greatest American author : a study of literary piracy and promotion in the 19th century 1980. On the Internet, Philip V. Allingham sketches the situation in "Nineteenth-Century British and American Copyright Law" --Wetman (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ever since I discovered some details about Alva Vanderbilt's art collection I have suspected Americam museums and arts are not all they are cracked up to be. Apparently if Alva wanted something and the European aristo who owned it, wouldn't sell it, she had it copied and passed it off as the real thing, and none of the neighbours knew any better. The internet would have been her undoing. When I was researching Olga Rudge, I decided I did not care for the Beinecke Library! So if Wikipedia had half a public relations department it would be singing loudly how "unreliable" Wikipedia exposes Beinecke mistakes. Of course it won't, which is why the Beinecke is "given" amazing archives (no questions asked) and Wikipedia is derided. Giano (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I was sporting my first mustache, all the glamorous fakes of French C18 furniture, by firms like A. Beurdeley and F. Linke, had gravitated to Buenos Aires; or so one heard. Poor Alva was not the faker, Giano, but the deceived: one of Lord Duveen's cardinal rules was "Never buy a great undiscovered painting of which a notorious copy resides in a famous European museum". Like duckweed blown into one corner of a pond, the combination of funds and appetite untrammeled by professional caution tend to draw together works of art that will not withstand public sunshine: I should wonder today about French Impressionists in Japan and Watteaus in Singapore...--Wetman (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right, but had Alva not tried to buy my ancestral crib, and then had it copied I could be a little more forgiving. Giano (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That frontispiece (the Crystal Palace image I uploaded) clearly has been cropped, taking out Baxter's imprint, and it looks as if the colours in it are quite different from those in the fragment of your genuine Baxter print. So it seems they aren't one and the same, after all. But as Baxter's name is still on the bill-board, perhaps he did come to terms with someone to let them use his work?
Worrying isn't it. Regarding the Baxter, I too noticed the colours, I looks to me as though it is just a matter of the natural fading that one would expect on a print after 150 years, allthough what is odd is that mine (hanging on a wall) seems to have better colours than the one shut in a book - perhaps the book has been on display, while mine is behind (whatever the English is for) glass that protects from sunlight) who knows. The Beidecke one's cropping in order to keep the palace central has lost a lot of detail both ends, including surrounding buildings. I wish I could get mine into a scanner, but it is too big. Giano (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wetman, I have an idea your French may be better than mine. Would you mind taking a look at Talk:Jean-Baptiste Belley, where there's a question about a difficult title, « Le Bout d’oreille des colons ou le système de l’Hôtel Massiac mis à jour par Gouly »? Thanks, Xn4 (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked it in French Idioms and came up with "cloven hoof". In a modern context you'd say "Freudian slip". I added a footnote.--Wetman (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do your sources happen to say what happened to the building? The one quote in the article says it was the site of the Empire State Building. It was definitely at 34th and 5th, but I'm not sure it was the southwest corner. --JayHenry (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first Waldorf-Astoria, designed by Henry J. Hardenbergh, was on the Fifth Avenue site of the Empire State Building, which replaced it. It had been built on the site of the Mrs. Astor's house, southwest corner of Fifth and 34th Street. The Fifth Avenue and 34th Street Columbia-Knickerbocker Trust building was on the northwest corner. I thought that the McKim, Mead, and White bank building for Knickerbocker stood next to their skyscraper that replaced the Exchange. I was wrong.
A.T. Stewart's marble mansion on the northwest corner of Fifth Avenue and 34th Street was demolished in 1903 to make way for the Knickerbocker Trust Company. Ron Chernow, The House of Morgan, described the site as Knickerbocker's "new main office" at the time of the 1907 panic, which he says was sparked by the Knickerbocker failure, 21 October 1907. The Knickerbocker's role in the Panic of 1907 is also discussed on-line by CNN here. The New York Times archived article describes removing the great columns in 1920 and adding ten storeys to the McKim, Mead, and White four-storey structure illustrated in the article.--Wetman (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... and like most street corners in New York it is now a Duane Reade. I wonder what to do with the quote in the article that incorrectly places it at the site of the Empire State Building. --JayHenry (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good job on this! Sometimes it can be lonely writing about the 12th century so its good to know someone else is interested... Savidan02:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was just coming back to the counts of Marsi now, to see whether I couln't improve that start. I follow along lamely after you, looking for a missed link and such. The 12th century is so much more positive than the 10th. Or the 14th...-Wetman (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've encapsulated him in identical footnotes at Thomas Lee (1794—1834) and the painter son. Isn't this the best way to deal with less-than-notable figures? I left my two cents' worth at the Afd talk and moved the article to this better style, used in dictionaries and encyclopedias, which I hope to foster in new articles: what do you think of the formula NN (dates)?--Wetman (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think its an excellent development, thanks Wetman. My enquiry was really to see if you might have heard of Snr; I certainly hadn't, but I know you are surrounded by the finest architectural library outside of the 'design resource' box room they have at Liverpool Uni arch. dept. :-) Colvin triumphs again.--Joopercoopers (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I hadn't ever heard anything. Googlebooks gives me an illicit peek into many things not on my shelves. But Colvin always saves the day. --Wetman (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Photographs would help give some general guidance, though one can't base much in the way of date and quality judgments from a photo. Could you upload clear photos at Flickr or some other site, and give people a link to view them? What is the medium? Are these oil paintings on canvas, for example? Watercolor on paper? Tempera on board? What kind of inscriptions, etc are on the backs? It's best to reply at the Reference Desk, where many eyes will see and offer suggestions.--Wetman (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have introduced a less-aggressive infobox at Cellini Salt Cellar. Check it out! I expect all of you lurkers here to whoop with joy! (Townies will doubtless remain resentfully silent.)
So, remove any image within the infobox if you wish, and display it as usual. A mouseclick on the discreet strip displays the Disinfobox, in all its Disinformative glory. No need to reason endlessly with the unspeakably rude Box People ever again.
The html is simply
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="padding-left:20px;"
|-
! class="plainlinksneverexpand" | '''Infobox'''
|-
|
[unchanged infobox html]
|-
|}
The above hasn't registered correctly: see how it works at Cellini Salt Cellar. Brilliantly simple. Even I was able to do it! --Wetman (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An infobox with incorrect information needs to be corrected, not erased, not hidden. Don't start again, please. If you don't have the correct information, you can't claim the information presented is wrong, so don't even go there. Or fix it and have done. - Denimadept (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above editor has made his tactics clear at Talk:Ponte Vecchio, where he has made correcting "his" disinfobox impossible. Needless to say, the disinformation is not "erased" as Denimadept asserts— doubtless a momentary lapse— it is all there at a mouseclick. Only the aggressive display is made more modest. The disinformation is not the issue, as any editor will immediately see.--Wetman (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But now, with this simple and elegant solution, even the sub-literate can have their disinfoboxes, rather than all that text.--Wetman (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, then we're at odds. I prefer an easy way to distill the essence of things, which is what an infobox is for. If he's going to persist, which wouldn't surprise me since he's quite persistant, I'll take it to mediation. Infoboxes are pretty prevalent on Wikipedia, so if he has a problem with them as a group, he needs to address it properly rather than just unilaterally minimizing them. But I'll wait for him to reply. - Denimadept (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself on middle ground. on many subjects they add to the article, imo. on many they are clutter, imo. The one's about works of art generally, I find that they don't add to the reading experience. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point, from my POV, is that I don't always want to search the article for the key information I want. That information is often in an infobox. I don't claim that there can be no nasty infoboxes, but that the ones I'm familiar with tend to be helpful to me. I and others have discussed some of this with Wetman before, and I thought he'd layed off, but from a quick scan here, it looks like he has moved on to find a more modest solution. That's good. I just don't think he's found it yet. Until he does, he should really keep it to a sandbox rather than in a fairly high profile bridge article like Ponte Vecchio. - Denimadept (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed so! Can you come up with the html for that? I'd follow your lead. Meanwhile, we have our first troublemaker, User:Denimadept, who immediately reverted this elegant solution at Ponte Vecchio. I've reverted him and warned him at his talkpage. Perhaps it's time to report this behavior. --Wetman (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have noticed by now that someone else has reverted your reversion. I've pointed him at both this discussion an at the dispute resolution link below. Perhaps there's another editor who can figure out how to resolve this so that we're all happy. - Denimadept (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's an excellent solution. The usefulnesss of infoboxes varies drastically between subjects - some of the scientific, sports and film ones contain many pieces of uncontroversial and relevant information. In other areas they just repeat the first two sentences of the article and greatly reduce the picture size. Other ones introduce mistakes or over-simplifications & should be removed. Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you realize that the disparaging term does not endear you to people who like infoboxes. It rather biases us against you. I suggest you work on that. - Denimadept (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even worse. It seems to have been picked up by others. It is indeed a term of disparagement. More to the point, tweaks to the solution of the Disinfobox issue pressed by advocates for the text-challenged have been refined to the current version at Cellini Salt Cellar and Ponte Vecchio, presented as examples. --Wetman (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The statement about bad manners at WP:EAR#Infobox_display_dispute begs the question: what are "Wikipedia standards" to you but your own? You've been implored to change venues. Get it up on the WP:Village Pump and we'll go from there. I feel there is a solution available, and will try to add my help where needed. I really didn't see pwning from anyone. Sswonk (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but you're disparaging and dismissive of what others prefer in preference to your own self even when others explain their position to you. You haven't, until lately, explained much of your position, apparently expecting others to understand implicitly where you were coming from. This does not, as I've said before, tend to attract those people to your position. - Denimadept (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion about a less aggressive display of disinfoboxes, offered on an individual, article-by-article basis, is well founded on logical principles, the first of which is that this encyclopedia, though not on paper, is based on text, with all its nuances. What competes with text— with which one would include informative charts, maps and illustrations of points in the text— competes with the encyclopedia. I do not intend to foist my perception on the unwilling by insisting on a single show/hide display of disinfoboxes forced in the name of uniformity upon every article, in spite of objections from editors who have in fact supplied those articles' text. After all, not all editors have been indoctrinated to believe that uniformity is a desirable characteristic in itself.
I simply hope that some gracious leeway, article-by-article, can be granted by a handful of listmakers who present what are no more than glorified lists, generally excerpted from text, set within prominently-placed outlines: a disinfobox is nothing more than this. Moreover, I also am convinced that the prominent display of an accurate infobox is perfectly appropriate in many articles, for example in the fields of chemistry and astronomy. On each of these points and in each of these aspects, in my approach and I certainly hope in my collegiality, I differ with Denimadept, whose manner I object to, finding myself unwilling to be brow-beaten and bullied. Nevertheless, I find that editors with the worst manners are the very ones who flaunt WP:CIVILITY and congratulate Denimadept on his forbearance in that cheapening gesture. An encyclopedia that anyone may edit, by its very nature is a constant compromise with other points-of-view, even with mediocrities: I have edited since September 2003 and am under no illusions.--Wetman (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given your long term of effort on this project, I don't understand how you can be as dismissive of others as you have been. I would have expected you to have learned patience. Instead, you may have become more snide and disparaging. It's sad. - Denimadept (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, everyone has been civil, and the closest anyone comes to incivility is you and your cadre. You appear to seek to announce to the world "Wetman was here, saw the disinfobox and slew it mightily on an article-by-article basis." Here is what the encyclopedia is: the main namespace. Again you are using your opinion to argue for actions in contradiction of official policy, and my saying that is not this: "incivility, as defined on Wikipedia, consists of personally-targeted, belligerent behavior and persistent rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress." I am simply giving you the facts. I want you to understand I don't mean to be rude or belligerent. We have all heard about what you want to do with infoboxes, and you have heard the response. Happy editing. Sswonk (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any reader of my post above will doubtless agree that a more thoughtful and less personally-targeted assessment on the part of Sswonk might have been "Wetman asked for application of the disinfobox on an article-by-article basis." Perhaps this discussion needs a "Facts-at-a-Glance" infobox, for those who prefer to skip the text. Does Sswonk think he could avoid mischaracterizing my request"? it might be read as a vehicle for grandstanding attitude by a correspondent less tolerant than I; certainly it moves nothing forward and is distinctly ungracious. My "opinion" is not the issue; I am fully aware of Wikipedia:Main namespace, to which Sswonk draws my attention; it is worth looking at, as it fully supports my characterization of the encyclopedia as text. There are no "actions in contradiction of official policy" in this matter: such a disingenuous and perfectly extraneous gesture of application to a supposed authority is not to Sswonk's general credit. --Wetman (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wetman, I need some help here. Can you point out where Wikipedia:Main namespace supports your characterization of the encyclopedia as text? It's great to discuss this. But it really is about your preference or opinion: what about the terms disinfobox and Box People is not snide? I'd use a bigger word from my extensive vocabulary, but that one seems to fit. Thanks, Denimadept. So, Wetman, it's alright if you don't like infoboxes created by Box People with less extensive vocabularies who don't like to struggle with a lot of text. I have nothing personal against you. But the fact is that you and others, including Disinfoboxman(talk·contribs·count) (a true genius, an artist, see his user page - very funny) are on a mission to get rid of something that is defended by many, many other editors. See the discussion over at the assistance request where Quiddity pointed that out to you. You win that point, it isn't official policy - but the consensus does appear to be against the disinfoboxers (?). If the people over at the Bridges Project want infoboxes in all the articles, you and the cadre should join the project and discuss it there, rather than doing your page-by-page campaign against infoboxes. That is what I hope you get out of my comments, please don't take offense. Again, happy editing. Sswonk (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Denimadept, personal remarks don't help your case. Wetman writes frankly and disparages faults he sees in articles, but he doesn't focus on people's characters in the way you do. If you could stand back a bit, you might be able to see that. Xn4 (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This effort didn't start this week, Xn4. There's some history. Anyway, I was just giving him credit, so don't take that as some kind of insult. - Denimadept (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Simple as I am, I didn't spot that "you have become more snide and disparaging" was intended as a compliment and shouldn't be taken as an insult. Xn4 (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snide. "Snide" is a localism meaning "slyly disparaging." It is a word I would always discommend, if asked, as it has become a cultural marker. Too often it has been employed by those of less extensive vocabulary, with the result that it has an inescapably resentful sound: it lends an undesirable air of mediocrity, for its intended target is wit is it not? I see no reason why I may not laugh just a little at Denimadept and the Box People, since I have to put up with all this. No laughing at Wikipedia seems to be quite a general rule at a certain level. I think we may ignore it, under the principle Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. --Wetman (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct! an accurate use of snub, which does not mean "ignore". To address the subtext, Denimadept's veiled threat suggests that he is about to marshal all the people I've ever laughed at (you know who you are!), in a reprise of the last episode of Seinfeld ...or not: perhaps instead we may return to some considered discourse on the encyclopedia subject, which is the use/abuse of infoboxes and the possibility of permitting some flexible, reasonable, case-by-case alternatives in the matter, not addressing infobox content, nor forbidding their availability to the reader, merely of display. The rest is a tale full of sound and fury. --Wetman (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I can't. Simplicity is required at Simple English Wikipedia. Clarity and accuracy are what is required at English wikipedia. I avoid the self-appointed "jury" parading at the run-up to Featured Article status, a status that I don't care about, so this might not be the best moment for me to edit. I'd have nothing to contribute to the facts of course. But you must know that already. Let me come back to it after the dust has settled. --Wetman (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to Bridgewater House, Runcorn. I have made some more amendments. The date of building is uncertain, so I have changed it back to "early 1760s" with a detailed footnote explaining why. The date you gave for the start of operations is misleading in this context because things happened much later at the Runcorn end; I hope my amendments reasonably reflect this. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent an e-mail to the Manchester Ship Canal to ask if they have anything in their archives which will give us a reliable date (with reference). My expectations of a response are low; it is now owned by the Peel Group whose interest in anything not commercial is nil. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well not really. Citizendium have taken a different tack relating to the way their articles are organised. Essentially the article proper is conceived as a sun around which supplemental satellites revolve. By way of example, I've had a go here. I'm personally of the opinion that there's a great deal of 'extra value' (horrible phrase) we could give to readers with such an approach and the interminable arguments, jockeying for position in article space might subside. Any thoughts? --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems brilliantly simple and transparent, Joopercoopers. I like it so much better than my own suggestion about infoboxes that I think I'll forbear introducing mine. I have no idea how you'd present it to the cits, though, or how they'd "like" it.
The lack of participation in this discussion by no means impugns the integrity of the advocates of disinfoboxism. But, what is "eventually that rat's" above so much to mean? Delete this if you want, just ckn in Sswonk (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like JC's idea too (nice page, JC) I would support that too, but it looks very complicated to set up, also won't some irritatant insist they are all in "category Taj" too? Giano (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doug, here's a thing I think you should keep in mind when writing about Greek mythology. Stick close to the sources and don't let interpretive psychologising about motivations, or dramatised details obscure the central mythemes, which should stand out: in Iole's case, competition for the royal daughter, the broken promise (or the trick, as in Pelops' chariot race or the Atalanta race), justification for revenge, the jealousy of women, the madness of Heracles. A good source for classical excerpts is www.theoi.com. I'd be glad to look over Caroline Reboux, since you don't object to my tweaks.---Wetman (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great advice on the mytheme and sticking close to the ancient sources. I have been working on Iole lately with your excellent advice in mind. I believe I have it pretty close to the general ideas of most of the ancient sources now. That site you gave me is indeed an excellent source. Thanks again. --Doug Coldwelltalk14:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the great advice and help. Very nice edits and improvements to Caroline Reboux. I take it as an honor to have someone of your caliber to look over my articles and give advice. Appreciate it much! Kept that URL on my desktop for the future.--Doug Coldwelltalk23:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article was nominated for GA. There was a review and I have done several improvements to the article based on the suggestions. Perhaps you have some additional ideas. --Doug Coldwelltalk20:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Iole has been renominated for GA by User:Deucalionite, the original nominator, and we are hoping for the best. I did several edits based on the suggestions of the first review. Hoping for the best since I would like to see her selected. Deucalionite feels it has a good chance now. The web site you furnished was invaluable. By the way, much better hook for Henry Clay Fry. I also have a submission for August 30 for Keedoozle under the first fully-automated grocery store concept. Is that alright to word it this way? --Doug Coldwelltalk19:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Iole is up for a second review as a GA. It is currently on hold for 7 days for the issues mentioned. I have tried to address the issues and copyedited accordingly. If you have time, could you look it over to see if you can make additional improvements. Thanks. --Doug Coldwelltalk18:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After someone decided to start a village pump thread without me, I've closed it to regroup and get a fully formed proposal together. Before I go back to village pump, I'd like to get the majority of the answers to any questions sorted out - would you be interested in participating? I've started setting out some of my thinking here. If you get a chance, your thoughts or questions would be gratefully received. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I had to remove the tag since I haven't helped at all with Copper Inuit and can't take credit. But it's certainly nice to have my other work at DYK noticed! Thank you!.--Wetman (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. You left lots of DYK messages on my talk page before I became an admin. About this one: you were listed as a co-nom, so I assumed it was right. Oh well! Royalbroil12:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Citations as required have been provided for all the aspects of Fortuna. The tags have been removed. It is time that the article is graded.You could kindly wikify the references. I tried but failed to do it properly. Thanks--Nvvchar (talk) 05:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to Tatton Hall. The only problem is that the article now disappears partway through the Ground Floor. I guess there is a minor glitch in the edit symbols you have used, but don't know how to fix them myself. Can you have a go please. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trying approve this for DYK, note 1 doesn't quite say where the hook fact comes from. Is it the Handy Book? If that's clarified it will meet Homeland Security standards. Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's in that page of William Shepard Walsh, A Handy Book of Curious Information, 1913. I was able to google it. I've added a second reference from American Heritage Magazine, with some on-line text, easier to come at.--Wetman (talk) 02:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wetman, what you said is correct but this is true for every word. That is, every term is a modification of more ancient ones. By the way. e is NOT an elision of æ, but a change based on pronunciation (æ was in fact pronunced e like in bed). Gea is used in several middle age documents, whereas Gæa was Latin one. Gea is still used in modern languages as Italian, by the way. I hope this helps.--Dejudicibus (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is no more of a "change" than Caesar to Cesar— which is also incorrect in English— or encyclopaedia to encyclopedia. And equally useless to the Wikipedia reader, who may be led to think it is actually an alternative spelling, as it is in fact presented by you as an alternative spelling— rather as if "middle age" were an adjectival equivalent of "medieval". This is copied to Talk:Gaia (mythology), where it belongs. --Wetman (talk) 10:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for adding those references. The ones I used were a little... random I must say. Hopefully it is more suitable to go on the front page now. (It'll be my first, hopefully). how do you turn this on21:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've had an introduction to Wikipedia editorial style in seeing your article peppered with citation tags: so rude. Don't let it irritate you! Many DYK returns!--Wetman (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite shocking, really. In fact, about 15% are just cleaning up after vandals and creating redirects so Wikipedia readers can find things. I gave up counting my edits when I detected that some editors save their edits after every sentence or so, and I thought I didn't want to cultivate a competitive spirit under the circumstances. Quality is everything. What I write is mostly pretty superficial. --Wetman (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm flattered by your confidence, Black Tusk. I posted the diff showing what I've done at Talk:Silverthrone Caldera; would you look my edits over? I didn't mean to change facts, except in one instance. My commented-out queries are really addressed to you; I hope you'll delete them after you've dealt with the issues I raised, if you agree they need addressing.--Wetman (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wetman, I've been expanding Cottage garden, and noticed that you earlier added an excellent analysis of origins from Cultivating Myths: Fiction, Fact and Fashion in Garden History. Do you perchance have page numbers so I can reference it? Also, I added a paragraph on the influence of the Arts and Crafts Movement, at the end of Cottage_garden#Evolution. I don't know that world (A&C) very well, so I don't know if I got it right. If you have time, I would appreciate your opinion. Thanks, First Light (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I simply gave the gist of the relevant chapter in Helen Leach's book; I'll add some juicy quotes and page references for you, the next time I stay in the house where I read it: I don't imagine you could find it. Alice M. Coats, Flowers and Their Histories has some notes on the provenance of individual "cottage garden" flowers: the early C19 origins of pansies, hollyhocks and delphiniums, all sentimentally considered "old" cottage favorites, should be noted in the article. I gave away my copy in a little packet of my "best" garden books, a decade ago. The connection with Arts and Crafts is in their joint search for simplicity and their common interest in vernacular style. I'ld be glad to have a look again at Cottage garden. --Wetman (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warwick_Castle&diff=237538675&oldid=237538411 this edit to the Warwick Castle article. Could you provide more sources? Although you've provided Colvin and others, some material such as the Walpole letter, the quote from it the statement "Whether Gray intended Argyle Buildings in London, or those in Bath, the connotation was of inappropriate spic-and-span modish new Georgian urban developments" require sources. Thanks for your input in the article. Nev1 (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've made a more accurate reference, sourced, to the "Argyle buildings" mentioned by Gray, whose significance in this instance is as a member of Walpole's circle. The Walpole letter was quoted in one of the article's sources: I've made the connection more obvious. --Wetman (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In an article that reached "Featured" status with the assertion "Fulke Greville is said to haunt the Watergate Tower," offered without a reference, footnotes 38-40 seem quite sufficiently sourced: I have added yet another "(Jacques 2001)"— reiterated at every mention of Walpole's 1751 letter now, lest some fool miss the connection. I have added a link to the footnote "Sash windows had replaced casements in the seventeenth century; they were not considered appropriate for "Gothick" building." Since the inappropriateness of sash windows in a gothic structure is precisely the burden of the quoted passage being explicated in the footnote, it need not be doubted by any reader, I think.--Wetman (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Antandrus recommended I contact you on this issue. Do you know the identities of these 2 scuptures: [8] and [9] ? The flickr owner licenses all his images freely so they could be placed on Commons like this: Image:"L'amour à la folie" by Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux.jpg...if I could only figure what what was their name and which artist made them. I am not an art expert sadly. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK. I checked the museum's web site and the flickr images of other people from the museum but there was no image taken of these 2 sculptures. But thanks anyway. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I appreciate that information Johnbod. Antandrus did mention that many third parties often look through your web pages and could answer my question. Its a pity no one knows anything about the second but as the French say...such is life! --Leoboudv (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you recent comments on my DYK nominations! Just one question, in my DYK nomination: "...that at the time of construction, the pool, 'Tank', at the Sunnyside Bathing Pavilion, was considered the largest outdoor swimming pool in the world?"
One always wants to know "considered by whom"? The insertion "is considered by" never makes a wrong statement right: always attribute the statement if there is any doubt, but don't add "is considered by" if the statement is not doubted. And, if one says "outdoor swimming pool", one is implying, by restricting the category, that one doesn't include indoor swimming pools, one of which— unlikely as it seems to me— was larger. --Wetman (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What happened during your edit? The infomation existed but it didn't show up on the page. Anyway I reverted your edit because of that so you would have you restart your clarifying. Black Tusk (talk) 05:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oop! My error, in not closing my commented-out query to you. The result was that none of the following text was displayed. I've fixed my gremlin and incorporated your subsequent edits. Do any of my edits seem arbitrary? They should all make the text more transparent, but none of them should change any of your factual information. --Wetman (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks quite reader-friendly to me now. I made a few more tweaks, mostly to make statements more obvious. What if you made footnotes defining some terms like "peralkaline", "sodic"? The short paragraph beginning "Collaborators at the University of British Columbia have started work on samples collected from deposits of Sheep Track Pumice" might go better under the heading Geologic studies slightly further down. The thing is, it is a good article; I know it's a good article; you know it's a good article. It effectively conveys all the essential information to the Wikipedia reader, and cites sources. Jumping through hoops set up by self-appointed jurors is not my idea of spending genuinely productive time at Wikipedia, so I never follow the process. --Wetman (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Rich in various sodium salts" wouldn't you say? "Sodic" has an old-fashioned ring— but what would I know? I think you should specifically describe the particular shape of subglacial mounds: not just the usual cone, I gather. More like a three-dimensional bell curve? --Wetman (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If magma has sodium salts then I guess that could be used. The only sentence with "sodic" is: "Volcanic eruptions accompanying these collapses produced trachyte and a white, sodic rhyolite called comendite." What do you mean describe the particular shape of subglacial mounds? What article? Black Tusk (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I inserted "rounded conical" into the phrase "forming mounds". Does that fully describe their "unique shape as a result of their confinement within glacial ice"? If they are similar to cinder cones, is the "rounded" sufficient to distinguish subglacial mounds?--Wetman (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know too much about subglacial mounds and I only added "rounded" because the subglacial mound in the photo is rounded. However, there appears to be a subglacial mound with a more pointed summit called Caribou Tuyahere so it very well be misleading. Something describing they can be any shape would probably be better. Black Tusk (talk) 03:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...that almost everything we know about Charlemagne's personality is derived from the vita written by his scholarly minister, Einhard, Vita Karoli Magni, "the Life of Charlemagne"?
The readability quotient of this very talkpage is 61.3, intelligible to a 13 to 15 year old they say, but not to the average American adult. Is a "best" score a low score? Royal entry hits a 31.0. Syllable-counting seems a crude approach: it assesses prolix and hoick as more "readable" than Presbyterian. I remember reading once that US presidential campaigns are conducted on a fifth-grade level: I did not doubt it. --Wetman (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well that depends on your intentions, but I was being flippant: according to Flesch-Kincaid Readability Test (the score one):" Reader's Digest magazine has a readability index of about 65, Time magazine scores about 52, and the Harvard Law Review has a general readability score in the low 30s." They also count sentence length, which makes more sense. Presumably proper names cannot be distinguished, so articles on Polish, chemical or Australian aboriginal topics are doomed before they start. I see my user page gets 67.4, with the red dot nearly in the centre of the rectangle. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what great improvements you made to the article! Thanks. In the research for the article I came across several instances where they refer to Bellifortis as being some of the first representations of military rocketry - fascinating. I liked how you made MEUFATON small - looks good. I see you had done some extensive research to find the information for these improvements. Again, you did outstanding editing. --Doug Coldwelltalk23:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Cibus Hilleli, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
I need papers from various scholarly databases. So I was thinking of mailing you my requests and you could mail the papers back to me. Hope you dont mind. Sarvagnya20:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. was that a responsible move, I wonder, one that improves the encyclopedia? Whether or not, I'm sure there will be plenty of people working it out, and I needn't look in. --Wetman (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have time could you look over this article. This will positively be my last article before I go on my camping trip. I will be gone until after November 1st. I am using a picture apparently you originally uploaded on the Library Company of Philadelphia - it fit right in with the history of Timothee being America's first librarian. --Doug Coldwelltalk22:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did some simplifying, but there's no report of Timothee moving to Chaleston, South Carolina. Did he die there? Or was that in Philadelphia? Whitmarsh died in Charleston SC in 1733. --Wetman (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder that the correct markup for the DEFAULTSORT magic word uses a colon, not a pipe; for instance: {{DEFAULTSORT:Este, Luigi d'}}, not {{DEFAULTSORT|Este, Luigi d'}}. —Paul A (talk) 05:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 26 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Modello, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for the tweaks. In my rush to expand the Egyptian Geological Museum article I probably needed to give it a more thorough rereading and left out a sentence about its new location. Thanks for reviewing and making the corrections. Alansohn (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
