User talk:Wetman/archive3Sep2005

"Honest, I was just thinking, Armida, if those columns were a freight train, we'd be dead about now."

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

A useful directory to sources of public domain images is Wikipedia:Public domain image resources

"Legend states..." The West Dakota Prize

(The West Dakota Prize is awarded about bi-annually "for successfully employing the expression 'legend states' in a complete sentence". The award is automatic. Not everyone is amused.)

Re: Caernarfon castle: "A legend states that his son, later Edward II of England was born here in 1284, but there is no contemporary evidence." I don't see anyting wrong with this sentence. If there is a genuine legend that appears in multiple sources, you have the right to report it as such, as long as you explain what we know about its veracity. This is true for the same reasons we write about the Simpsons. They are elements of culture.Superm401 00:25, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

The tacit subtext of the West Dakota Prize is that "legends" have tacit subtexts. What then would be the implication, if the heir of the conqueror of Wales was said to be born at Caernarfon? That Wales was his birthright in some sense, not merely the bloodied land conquered ruthlessly by his father Edward I of England. The West Dakota Prize is automatically awarded, but the phrase "legend states" is itself a warning flag, as this example vividly demonstrates. --Wetman 20:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NEW TALK:

Elvis is back

Hi Wetman. I thought you might find this interesting. Of late I've been trying to add some stuff to Ancient history. I kept getting the response "no new research". I seem to get that a lot. Where are your references? What are your sources? It wasn't "new research". (As usual though, it was something that was there, rarely do I come up with something new, but nobody seemed much aware of it, or even cared. They weren't THAT CURIOUS!) Then I checked the Wikipedia policy and it said something like "no new research that is new to the reader". (Remember the two faces of Jesus and one of them held a wand?) I have a suspicion that's why ancient libraries, books etc. were torched. I don't think religions had much to do with these mobs. Seems like (I am really out of my field here) Socrates and Aesop both got murdered for just the same. Nothing new. Stick with the old. Don't rock the book. Even today a new idea is the most dangerous thing in the world. Present them on Wikipedia and the mobs will burn this library to the ground. I don't think religious, political, scientific ideas have much to do with it. It is comfort. Curiosity that challenges the view of others makes them uncomfortable. It has nothing to do with knowledge. As my nun friend warned me, "Sometimes you must sacrifice your curiousity fo the sake of others". I think I should say good bye to Wikipedia. I've got a couple sets of OUTDATED Encyclopedias at home. People have no desire to find new parts to a puzzle. It is already completed.

The Christains NEVER converted the Pagans. The Pagans converted the Christians. Take a look at religious art: stained windows, statues, paintings of biblical scenes; then there is church music, festivals, bizarres, pageants, parades, universities etc. The Pagans absorbed and shaped Christianity into the old ways. Kazuba30 jun 05

Question

I am terribly sorry to damage your beautiful talk page, but, regarding the following extremely insulting diff [1], I wonder if something could be done about User:Slike2 ? ~~~~ 29 June 2005 23:37 (UTC)

Ah! That is part of why the Wetman is not an administrator... --Wetman 1 July 2005 09:20 (UTC)

Council of Jerusalem/King Izates

Have you been following the lengthy discussion on this topic? From what I can tell it is either original research or an extreme minority opinion. It's been over a week now, and our IP editor has still failed to produce a credible source making this link. I've removed the section, and would appreciate your comments on the Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 30 June 2005 15:03 (UTC)

I have seen and avoided following it. Why not in the "History" subsection at Circumcision? Robert Eisenman draws much more interesting conclusions about the so-called Council of Jerusalem. This isn't the moment to add them in, however. --Wetman 1 July 2005 09:20 (UTC)

Viennese Cafe

Good point. Do you think cafe or café should be used in the new title?

Image:WansteadHouse1771.jpg

Image deletion warning

The image Image:WansteadHouse1771.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

Craigy File:Uk flag large.png (talk) July 1, 2005 16:53 (UTC)

New York City illustrations

I'm not entirely sure what you were trying to say in your message. When there are mutiple pictures in an article section, it usually helps to have them at a uniform size. The article contains pictures of many different sizes, but they look differently depending on various factors such as screen size & resoultion, as well as the browser settings of the viewer. I certainly have nothing against using both left and right aligned pics within a section, but in "History" they have tended to be just right aligned due to the prescence of the large info box above and to the right of the section. --Jleon 5 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)

Why would uniform size "help"? Is this a feature of handsomely-presented illustrated books? It's worth considering why it is not: it might help sometimes, where the feature of interest within the illustration, its point, is the same size. In other cases, varying picture size helps suggest scale. Or it suggests to the eye that details are what are being offered as illustrative examples. Or at a smaller size, that it is the general forms that count. A balance between consistency, which orients the viewer by fulfilling expectations, and variety, which keeps the viewer fresh, is simply more desirable than the consistency that Thoreau despised. I'm in complete agreement as to finding ways to eliminate glaring white space in layouts, but a block of four photos of identical size, presented as a pane of postage stamps—well, just look. --Wetman 5 July 2005 18:29 (UTC)

Of course there are instances when different sized pics look better within a given section, but the whole reason for that structure in "History" is because there was a long standing sequence of pictures until someone replaced the steel worker pic with one of central park. The orginal purpose of this was to have pictures of New York in the 19th, 20th, & 21st centuries aligned evenly for the viewer's easy comparison. The picture of the WTC was added later due to its historical significance. I think the recent action over the central park pic was ill conceived and I would personally like to revert it. --Jleon 5 July 2005 18:50 (UTC)

You may not realize the image is already at History of New York City (1898-1945) and has been uploaded again and used elsewhere. The idea of comparing city views is excellent:make the point in the captions. The Central Park picture with its caption makes a small historical point of a comparable "then-and-now" nature. Revert it if you find it not to your taste. I did some formatting because the page as it stood, with a strip of images down one edge— well it never ocurred to me that someone wanted it to look like that. --Wetman 5 July 2005 19:44 (UTC)

The Venetian

What does The Court of Honor at the World Columbian Exposition, Chicago, 1893 have to do with the hotel/casino in Vegas? Seems like a misplaced see also. Vegaswikian 7 July 2005 00:22 (UTC)

Cleaned-up and idealized European-influenced structures that embody cultural icons ranged round a pedestrian mall centered on an artificial lake plied by gondolas at a resort that combines entertainment with a high-minded atmosphere... what is the thing that seems misplaced to you? --Wetman 9 July 2005 16:28 (UTC)

verses

Hiya,

you recently abstained at a vote for deletion against Matthew 2:16

however, a proposal by User:Uncle G covers a much larger group of verses.

would you be prepared to make a vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, which covers the full list of verses in Uncle G's suggestion?

retronym

Why did you link "surface street" to retronym in the Wilshire Boulevard article? Yes, the phrase "surface street" is a retronym, but that linkage certainly doesn't fit the Principle of least astonishment, because most Wikipedia users would expect the link to go to something on roads or streets. BlankVerse ∅ 07:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness. Forbid the connection then, with the Wikipedia reader's best interests firmly in mind. But don't inform me of your decision, whatever it may be. --Wetman 08:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for fixing my muckup

Thanks for fixing the problem I had with my Pauline Hopkins entry muckup. I shall be more careful in the future with that sort of nightmare. --David Hoag 02:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through New Pages, where there are few of sufficient value to inspire one to work on them. Thanks for the note! --Wetman 03:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

could use some help

Please check out the Talmidaism page which Jayjg has marked for deletion. It seems that Jayjg has been blocked in his efforts to merge this page with the Nazarene page, and now he is trying to accomplish as an administrator what he could not do as an editor. Please help prevent a hi tech lynching. Thanks. --Ovadyah 14:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Authentic Matthew

From my recollection, you added a merge tag to the above article.

You may therefore have something to say at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer ~~~~ 21:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TOCright proposal

Hello. Since you were part of the discussion of the Template:TOCright template once it was moved from VfD to the MoS, you might be interested in the draft proposal currently posted there. We appreciate any comments and suggestions you may have. -- Titoxd 23:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Berries and Berryessas

I removed the merge tag you placed on Berryessa, San Jose, California because Lake Berryessa is a completely different location from Berryessa in San Jose. They are located in noncontiguous counties, Santa Clara and Napa counties, respectively. — J3ff 02:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My error. A not unnatural one. That would surely make good material to flesh out the very slender articles. A word on who the eponymous Berryessa was would not be amiss: so that we may stop wondering whether he was the Berry, and whether it was his lady in fact who was the Berryessa... --Wetman 02:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are a sockpuppet

Of me.

According to User:Mikefar who has been spamming people's talk pages. I suspect User:Mikefar to be a sockpuppet of User:Melissadolbeer - see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer for evidence of similar and identical behaviour and edits. ~~~~ 19:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help would be appreciated

Hi Wetman, I invite you to copyedit my latest articles on Niasvizh Castle, Decani, Soltaniyeh, Söyembikä Tower, Aleksey Shchusev, &c. Thanks. --Ghirlandajo 00:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

Melissadolbeer has opened a request for arbitration against you (at WP:RFAR). ~~~~ 09:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have stated that you do not know why you are involved.

The reason is simply that you added a merge tag to Authentic Matthew. I subsequently merged it. Melissadolbeer therefore has been spamming user's talk pages (under the sockpuppet User:Mikefar) claiming you are my sockpuppet or vice-versa. Similar accustions have been made by her/him against pretty much everyone who voted delete at the articles VFD.

It also seems like this happened the previous time someone (an IP address) attempted to merge the article, the talk page spamming sockpuppet at that time was User:Angel77. ~~~~ 22:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Population transfer

I realised that you were the one having added the Armenian deportation. The definition of the word presented there is not really accurate. Your edits idea was clarified with this statment: "Though the statement is self-explanatory, it should be noted that even the origin of the Turkish euphemism tehcir is Arabic, not Turkish." But since this statment had a POV tone, the deletion, I believe, changed the purpouses of the rest(of the section regarding the Armenian deportation) being posted there in the first place. Fadix 16:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sokratikoi logoi

Thought you might be interested --Jpbrenna 20:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was. Socratic dialogue is the familiar English phrase readers will tend to enter in search for this. --Wetman 22:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Auxentius

Dear Wetman, I have seen the revert and rerevert on the John 17:3 bit - involving you and 63.201. On July 18 63... included "The Father is the only true god [John 17:3]" at the end of the first paragraph of the origin section. I removed the bible citation, since this verse only provides the wording "only true god", but nothing in relation to the Arian dispute. I also inluded the disclaimer: the Father was seen. Now, since this has gone back and forth between you, I'm asking whether this sentence has anything to do with Axentius' letter, whether Axentius actualled used "John 17:3 as proof text of that belief" and whether it should be included in this paragraph or not (, as the paragraph starts with reference to the letter). Str1977 15:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the question was simply whether John 17:3 was quoted in the letter of Auxentius. I have added a link to the text of the letter. "The father was seen" is not a disclaimer; it appeared to contine paraphrasing Auxentius. No harm done. --Wetman 18:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tudor style

Could you just cast your eye over this which I have just quickly re-written, its my interpretation but is it POV? I am just begining to wonder if we do have a different interpretations on our differint sides of the Atlantic, also do you think perhaps the page should be moved to Neotudor No! that sounds like some form of parasite - Neo-Tudor - don't like that much either, interested, as always, in your views Giano | talk 08:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We always called it "Stockbroker Tudor", which would never pass our Wikipedia critics, so I can't help with the "PoV" part. But I think a mention of Jacobethan, Merry England, and jettied half-timbering (all suitable for your Watchlist) built right into the text would be better. Some interior details: "Tudoresque" lent itself to the new "open plan" floorplans, with "living halls" with the stairs running up one sidewall, and "inglenooks" incorporated into overscale fireplaces. Casement windows. Clustered chimneys. Upper storey overhangs. stress the overlap with the Queen Anne style. Just some thoughts. --Wetman 08:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll expand tonight if no angry editor has not reverted in the meantime (there seem to be quite a few who have inputed and taken away) I could not live in a house with an "inglenook" even writing the word makes me cringe Giano | talk 09:07, 20

July 2005 (UTC)

That's my lot on the subject, I'm actually quite confused - why was it called Queen Anne? - and why did anyone ever start that page in the first place, beginning to wish I had minded my own business. Thank God we don't do Tudorbethan or Tudor style where I come from. Giano | talk 22:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks excellent, Giano! I'd inserted a note at Queen Anne style ("In the late 1850s, the name "Queen Anne" was in the air, ever since William Makepeace Thackeray's novel, The History of Henry Esmond, Esq., A Colonel in the Service of Her Majesty Queen Anne had appeared (1852).") Maybe it should be extended more emphatically. The phrase "Queen Anne" was a buzz-phrase through the 1880s: everything was "Queen Anne"— even the newly-collectible early Georgian chairs that are still collected as "Queen Anne" today. "Free English Renaissance" was a broad contemporary style designation (emphasis on "free" needless to say) that covered all of these Merrie England tastes... --Wetman 22:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

dog (term)

The article titled "dog" is about an animal. If there's an obscure rock band called "Dog", one may put a cross-reference at the top saying something like this:

For the rock band, see Dog (band).

But it does not make sense to make "dog" into a disambiguation page, moving the article about the animal to dog (term). The animal is the main meaning, and the band uses that name ONLY because there's that main meaning. Besides, dog (term) would be a really stupid name for an article about the animal.

That's why I think it's a bad idea for you to change links back to anathema (term). I'm going to add anathema (term) to "votes for deletion". Michael Hardy 02:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looked like a good idea to link anathema. I see now that Anathema contains all the text at Anathema (term). It certainly is always preferable for a reader to land directly at the main meaning. I'll vote delete too. --Wetman 05:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

?

Something for you to ponder - What is the difference between Tudorbethan and Tudor style, I'd forgotten I had contributed to Tudorbethan. Could Tudorbethan be said to only incorporate the more romantic elements of Tudor architecture? - but then really so does Tudor style. My own view is one of the pages should be deleted and both incorporated with a redirect from one to the other. I realy don't know. Confused of Palermo

I'm all for merging everything into big articles with plenty of subsections headed Main article at... Merging is harder than chopping, though. "Tudor style" is misleading to the unwary: could it actually be the style of the Tudors? they wonder. I like the vivid macédoine of Tudorbethan myself. Could the material at "Tudor Style" be inserted as a subsection without much re-editing? But what of Jacobethan? The one style is really a vernacular-inspired reflection of the high-style other: "quaint" was the word of the day, akin to the 1680s "curious", that these structures were all meant to satisfy. Though Harlaxton is too grand—and too symmetrical— to be quaint. The escapist motivations are similar. Should concise paragraphs encapsulating each of these be at Merry England? --Wetman 07:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The bible

Firstly let me say that I am sorry that I feel I need to bother you yet again.

Secondly, I wish to let you know that a recent VFD that you took part in has closed. The result was that 32 people voted to keep all individual bible verses as seperate articles, and 34 voted that they shouldn't (2 abstensions, and 3 votes for both). This is considered by standard policy not to be a consensus decision (although the closing admin stated that it was a consensus to keep them).

Thirdly, the subject has now been put to a survey, so that it may remain open until there is a clear consensus for what appears to be a difficult issue to resolve. You may wish to take part in this survey, and record a similar vote to the one you made at the VFD there. The survey is available at Wikipedia:Bible verses.

~~~~ 18:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Wetman

Did you just add the picture of the Shaw Memorial? If so [and even if not] it is backwards. this would suggest that Shaw led his troops in retreat - and that was not the case. Carptrash 20:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. No, it was already at Wikipedia. How could an image be reversed in this day-and-age? --Wetman 20:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Flower Avengers

July 7th you created a VFD page for Crystal Flower Avengers but it doesn't seem to have had the {{VFD}} template added to the article and does not seem to have been listed on the WP:VFD page. I finished up the nomination and fixed the formatting of the page (you need to use the {{subst:vfd2.... template or it will look really strange, I know from experience). RJFJR 21:30, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Franks

Hi Wetman

I just reverted your changes to Franks because I thought you weren't being serious. It then occurred to me that you might really think that it needs to link to Anne Frank's family and hot dogs. If so, I apologise. However, I can't see that they're really likely to come up.Palmiro 21:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Gentle Reader: When a reader enters Franks, is it genuinely a service to reach a "disambiguation" at all? Or is some furtive agenda at work instead? If a disambiguation of "Franks" is authentically required, then, is a disambiguation that is incomplete actually useful? The actual agenda of User:Palmiro's remaking of Franks as a "disambiguation", then, is revealed by User:Palmiro's reversion: it is simply to remind readers that among the lowest class of street-Arabs, Europeans are still called "Franks". User:Palmiro reveals this purpose by reverting any additional meaninings of "Franks" &mdash as I thought he might, to tell the truth.)

Talk:Tudor style

Care to express an oppinion here? It's quite a while since I attended a white wedding. Giano | talk 22:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harder to make a notable gaffe in Tudor style. But there's a thatched cottage in Belair, California with a pair of palms flanking the well-cemented crazy-paving walk, and when you look close, the "thatch" is bundled blond plastic spaghetti wire. But I digress, fortunately. --Wetman 12:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So has your family owned this country estate for long? Giano | talk 21:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS We need a photo, you take it, I'll write it up!

Wikipedia:Bible verses

I added another section for "verse-by-verse Biblical analysis should be transwikied to a WikiBible instead of left on Wikipedia with the possible exception of "notable" verses" as something that could take votes *in addition* to votes for other section, so if you support that idea go check it out. Thanks! — Phil Welch 22:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SimonP (the creator of the 100 or so gospel verse articles) has tried to claim that the votes for the "only notable verses" section would include most of the 30,000 verses of the bible because he sees them as notable. To avoid such a POV twisting of the votes, I have added a new section - [2] - for voting on whether the number of notable verses is more like 30,000, or more like 30. Would you care to vote there as well? ~~~~ 00:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All so tiresome. The motivations for extracting single verses from Scripture have an abysmal track record. "The Devil quotes Scripture to his own ends," they say. So does Jerome. --Wetman 12:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Varro

Hi Wetman. In the article Parchment you added in April, that "According to the Roman historian Varro, Pliny records, it was invented about the beginning of the 2nd century BC, in Pergamon". Would you please say which Varro, and which Pliny (I'm assuming the more famous ones) you mean? I've come across this edit because I'm trying to clean up after an editor (in September) moved the "Varro" article to Marcus Terentius Varro, and made "Varro" a disambig page, without fixing any of the links. So now there are 50 or so links to "Varro", most presumably wanting Marcus Terentius, now linking to a disambig page instead. And it often isn't easy to tell for sure from context which Varro is meant. But I'm willing to assume that, where it is not obvious from context that some other varro is meant, and if the date of the addition is prior to the date of the page move, that "Varro" should link to Marcus Terentius. I'm also wondering if it would be good to move "Varro" to "Varro (disambiguation)" and redirect "Varro" to "Marcus Terentius Varro". Do you have any thoughts on this? Paul August ☎ 18:34, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'll go and puzzle out what it should be: I was re-editing somebody else's material there, I think. But in general, where there's Famous X and Not-Famous X, an italicised mention of Not-Famous X at the head of the Famous X article (and vice versa) seems best to me. For an egregious example of the wrong way (with a somewhat tasteless personal agenda to boot), see Franks. --19:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Leningrad Codex

Do you have a source for saying that this was written in Cairo? RachelBrown 21:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the colophon. --Wetman 12:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Porgy and Bess FAC

I noticed that you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera. It'd be great if you could give your two cents at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Porgy and Bess; this is the first opera up for FA status, and we'd like to start setting a standard to strive for with other articles. Thanks much. --Baron Larf 22:04, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I gave it a number for tweaks to refine the rhythm and emphasis, and mention blackface in the Al Jolson connection. But it's way out of my league in the facts. The condensed scene-by-scene is outstanding. But so is the production history. It's bound to make a fine featured article. --Wetman 12:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. Would it be too much to ask for you to mention your opinion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Porgy and Bess? :^D Thanks much. --Baron Larf 13:42, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Give me a note

Have no fear there is not about to be a series entitled "hum that tune" Bishonen asked to me to fill in a few redlinks on a major page she is writing, until last night I knew virtually nothing of Albion and Albanius. Its all just little snippets gained from the internet and my one old book on the subject, the French bit came from a webisite obviously wrong. If you know anything, anything at all, I'm sure Bishonen will be thrilled. I also did Rutland House, and The Siege of Rhodes yesterday using the same limited resources so if you know anything...Regards Giano | talk 11:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha! see you've already spotted them - well done! Giano | talk 12:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't put my hands on my copy of McCollum's The Restoration Stage. It's in a box somewhere just now. Hah! Here it is, and it contains Dryden's Preface to Albion and Albanius (abridgment) --Wetman 12:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fun People

I'm just looking at this article and wondering how you concluded it was a self-insertion. I see nothing to indicate such. I spent some time Googling and visited their website, and I'd say they meet the first three WP:MUSIC criteria for inclusion. Denni ☯ 03:33, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

No hard, that is specific information, no hit albums with titles, nonentities, minimal text featuring a link to a website, and finally the edit history shows this insertion and another inserting Fun People in an alphabetical listing, and nothing else ever. Isn't that how anyone would conclude it was a vanity insertion? What other critera are there? --Wetman 03:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of Basse-Normandie

Hi, Tying History of Basse-Normandie to other historical links was useful but it's orphaned généralité. Dlyons493 12:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The history before 1956 is part of the history of Normandy, which needs your attention, by the way. In a larger view, that means a part of the History of France. On a local plane that means the histories of the three départements, Calvados (with a historical unity), Manche (without a historical unity, just an administrastion of post-Revolutionary France) and Orne, or of individual cities, towns and seigneuries. Before 1956, there's no such configuration to have a history. Why not set your attention on Normandy and make the subsection "History" so rich and full that eventually it needs to be separated as History of Normandy? That would fill a need and not simply duplicate existing effort. --Wetman 20:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fairies all arownd us!

I actually did a google search to check you had not made that up! (51,0000 entries suggest you "may" have not - but I'm not convinced) When I'm back in London on Monday I'll see what Mr Pevsner has to say on the subject. Giano | talk 17:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A "TOCright" agenda

Please stop unilaterally adding this template to articles where it is not remotely needed. I have responded to your claims that it improves the layout, please stop ignoring it. The majority of the Wikipedia community expressed their concern that TOCright and TOCleft should only be used in extreme circumstances and none of the articles you are adding it to fit the bill. User:Steinsky 21:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other readers will doubtless agree that, in general, formatting is greatly improved by using the template "TOCleft" to "wrap" the text around the table of contents box and eliminate those ugly gaping holes of blank space that disfigure many Wikipedia entries. "TOCleft" is preferable, unless there are reasons for setting it at the right: see Gallaecia. Setting it at the very top corner is not particularly attractive I'd say.

This particular editor has been going about making a mess of carefully formatted articles to satisfy some obscure personal agenda: instead of simply replacing the "TOC right" template that makes him foam at the mouth with a "TOCleft" template, or—scarcely to be hoped— adjusting the format to improveit, he vandalizes the careful new formatting (even—just twice—my own). I have had to go through every one of these abused formats and restore visual coherence. I am never cowed by abuse from a bully with a formulaic agenda, but I have had to turn down Administratorship twice precisely to avoid contact with this sort of individual. The usage "unilaterally" at this cultural level means "using your intelligence and educated eye to produce a result differing from mine." Unspeakable, eh. --Wetman 22:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to respond to the fact that your edits go against the guidelines for use of these templates? Unless you do they will be reverted again. You can misrepresent the situation and spread rhetoric about my "agenda" and "vandalism", but that will not change the fact that your edits go against the guidelines, and the fact that when this was pointed out to you, you first ignored it, and then were dishonest about it, will not look good. If you fail to acknowledge that the guidelines (and several other users) disagree with your use of TOCright I will take this to the next level of dispute resolution. Joe D (t) 22:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barony of Dirleton

Dear Wetman: Thanks alot for the edit, I appreciated I'm trying to learn my way around it I need to do the same for the Barony of Fulwood too.

So pleasant to hear a friendly word (see above). When I'm going through New Pages at a rapid clip, sometimes I make errors, raisingf howls of injured fury. BtW, You can automatically sign and date your posts in Talk pages with four tildes. Welcome to Wikipedia! --Wetman 05:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tudorbethan

Please take a look and see what you think. I would be grateful if you would edit and change what you think needs changing. I'm not very good at merging. Nice to see your still being contraversial! Regards Giano | talk 13:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have plumped the cushions, and lo! see how I "wrapped" the table of contents, employing a Template "TOCleft" (within double brackets, as you'll see from the html). No need to struggle now with illustrations to fill those awkward white spaces opposite the contents box! This has caused the very clamor you noted— a clash with one of those over-directive types who seem to have majored—recently—in self-esteem. Went about unformatting wrapped tables of contents, with pert remarks. Then he did it to Central Park: that strained my tolerance, you may imagine. But cooler heads than mine have prevailed. (BtW, you've been in my mind these last ten days.) --Wetman 21:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very clever indeed, but I've just aded anothe image here [3] so I think you need to go and mash some more. Thanks for the thoughts, I've taken to walking quite a bit, wish I could say I felt better for it! Giano | talk 21:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irredentism

I've made some revisions to my edits. I'm not going to make any further edits to that page or revert again. If you are going to revert, I would appreciate it if you reverted only the portions you dispute and kept what seem to me completely uncontroversial corrections of wiki markup. — Mateo SA | talk 03:02, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

That was lazy of me. I just couldn't do the triage. --Wetman 03:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Red or blue blood?

Please can you check out the reference to aristocratic here Torlonia, I though Americans were not allowed to be "aristocratic" by some ammendmaent or law, (even poor dear Consuelo Marlborough was proud of her egalitarianism) which is why equally poor dear Ronald Reagan (even with his final boots reversed)and Bob Hope etc did not use their British knighthoods. Giano | talk 19:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the sister of Hon Pamela Digby (Lord D's sister), who successively married Winston Churchill's son, Leland Hayward, and Averell Harriman (railroads), and was the only woman to have slept with both p. Aly Khan and b. Elie de Rothschild (not on the same night let me add), was Hon Sheila Digby, who married Charles Arthur Moore, the brother of Mary Moore. But I changed the text to "rich and stylish American blueblood"—breezy enough to pass? --Wetman 20:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But would she have been acceptable at Palazzo Gangi - the acid test for the like of me? Giano | talk 21:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The ballroom in Il Gattopardo? The Moores were a bit "sporty" for Sicilian princes. Her enormous brother had a "manor house" on a big chunk of property in Greenwich Connecticut, with famous stables and a trout pond, and used to give annual Scottish games because his mother was a Camnpbell (!). He was still an undergraduate at Yale when he was buying horses in Aleppo in 1906, about the time she wed ppe Torlonia.

I was about to turn off for the night, and flicked the "diff" to read your response and in the small print, and without my glasses I thought you had written "his mother was a cannibal" which could have been a page in itself, Ah well, we know the aristocracy across the pond is different, but that would have been something! Good night Giano | talk 23:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dropped special characters

Thanks for the hint - for some reason, jEdit, which I use with the WP plug-in, decided today that it didn't like special characters any more. I noticed a bit later, and I think I have corrected everything, but that is indeed annoying. I'll check for that in the next time, to be sure. -- AlexR 15:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I simply didn't want to revert a second edit of yours, having done the one. --Wetman 20:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]