User talk:Wetman

Regarding your watch list on the subject of the supposed Triamantes,three-eyed ogres of Cretan modern folklore posited as a cognate in the main article for the Cyclops. You are not quite on firm ground. While not indexed in JStore it does appear in a scholarly footnote. Moreover, I recall the locus classics is the archaeologist and anthropologist Paul Faure's books on Cretan caves and the shepherd folklore connected with them. Sorry I can't give the precise citation but if you think it worthwhile I could research it. I am a recently retired Research Librarian and Archivist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Verrastro (talk • contribs) 20:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Epic Barnstar
		For tireless vandalism reverts and all-around improvements to classical-themed articles, I hereby award Wetman the epic barnstar Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your elegant editing of Swan House. Edwardx (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 100 DYK Medal for Wetman Thanks for your first hundred. Keep up the good work. With 50K plus edits then we need a few more for DYK, however we have over 100 articles so far. Thanks again Victuallers (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

CURRENT & NEW TALK

If you have time, you might take a look at the translations this user has been busy doing from German etc on a variety of subjects from classical and Early Medieval art & architecture, many more your area than mine - eg Campana reliefs & some Greek vases. There's a list on his user page. Few references, & all to works in the original languages. The categories are rarely complete, and linking is a tad erratic. Johnbod (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ouch. Furius (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No hurt was intended, I'm sure. Don't worry about links and other wikification, Furius: I think Campana reliefs are well served by your recent editing. My further edits are for concision, emphasis and improved clarity for the unprepared readership of Wikipedia. I hope they all make sense to you. A photo caption somehow got transposed: I corrected it from the image title.--Wetman (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't think you see it, which is no excuse of course. Campana reliefs was only a redirect to the section at Ancient Roman pottery before. Thanks both! Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Staple, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stapleton and Stapleford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intended.--Wetman (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wetman,

i'm sorry, but Novelas ejemplares is a set of novellas, not short stories.

Best regards,
--Hgfernan (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh quite right: "short story" has a specific. circumscribed meaning. "Short prose tales" might be better. --Wetman (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re your edit. I'm sorry, but I don't see the connection. I suspect that you're trying to infer the etymology of the term, but would you have any sources to support the assertion? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 05:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't "etymology" when the meaning in Italian is plain. I don't think any suggestion is being made that the English term derives from this, but Wetman can confirm. Johnbod (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the store is actually lit, then it is certainly not literally "dark". If "dark" is not not literal, then the expression is referring some other "dark" store. Does User:Ohconfucius have another analogy? Dark matter? Dark theatres? Botteghe Oscure are not as obscure as, perhaps, he imagines. Certainly the journalist who coined the term is unlikely to have been unfamiliar with the via delle Botteghe Oscure; but it would not improve Wikipedia to suppress the footnote.--Wetman (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, I shall retain your glowing compliment as a sticky at the head of this page forever. You even noticed two of my favorites, Jean-Pierre Latz and Humanist minuscule, of which my own father observed "It was too abstruse to retain my attention." sigh But isn't that Diana Villiers' blue diamond, that she was buried with?--Wetman (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a Yogo sapphire, see more on my talk, where I recently recieved another award to stay, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, sorry about that. (last revert) New it is going to happen. No, not me. Try to fing some nice ref on it, and it might work... Maybe can added as "of natural causes just before the ..break out. Personally, I like that part. Hafspajen (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 761st recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 761 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered that you created the damned good music, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...The Rossini mass! I'd forgotten that! Now unrecognzably imroved and expanded, thanks to you, Gerda.Wetman (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the analysis is by a user with all red links, user and talk. - I just welcomed them, a year later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three years now! Will sing the Rossini again soon! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Four years, and singing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the chamber version you are singing? I'd love to be hearing it!Wetman (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was the chamber version, in 2016 and again 2017, singing at the Berger Kirche (review linked, we three altos pictured behind the accordionist who replaced the harmonium, very expressively), St. Martin, Idstein and Herz Jesu Oberrad. Now we have other projects. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Five years precious! There's a peer review for Rossini (not by me as you can se at a glance), DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like the substitution of an accordion for the harmonium. I once encountered in a sylvan part of Central Park (my front yard) a man seated on a bench improvising on the bandoneon. His ground figures were so varied and fluid I was not completely surprised to find that his day job was as a jazz bassist. I could never leave New York to go and live in America...Wetman (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, - six years now, and new musical projects (at the bottom) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A touch from you is always welcome.

Wetman (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply] 

Added Category:Wikipedians who edit Wikipedia to your User Page, for your approval. A little humor! If you don't like, you can of course remove.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a nice tool I used to quickly improve the syntax of the ref at [1]: http://reftag.appspot.com/ You may find it useful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Piotrus. I'll bookmark that. --Wetman (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re [2], yes that's the one. Paul August ☎ 21:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking it.--Wetman (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your improvements to Grey triggerfish and other articles I have recently written, for which thank you. With regard to your edit summary about the nests of the triggerfish, I would also like to know the answer. The nests are mentioned in the sources but not what and how they are made, information I would have included in the article if I had known it. There's not much I can do about that! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the Florida Museum of Natural History site I see "...nests on the bottom substrate... a hollow nest scooped out of the sand." The article reads "The males prepare up to a dozen nests just above the seabed," which was hard to visualize.- Let me change it to follow FLMNH. -Wetman (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my use of "atopo" in the etymology of Atopodentatus was verifiably referenced. Your addition, no doubt more accurate, needs a reference too please. Request you to kindly oblige. :) AshLin (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English-Greek Dictionary: άτοπος Always glad to oblige, though dictionary words are not ordinarily referenced with a citation eh. If Atopo were indeed Latin, you'd be able to provide a dictionary citation too, if I were so insistent as to demand it. Which I am not, of course. --Wetman (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving the etymology & providing the ref. The info I had added was from the Sci-news.com source. As far as etymology goes, its all Greek & Latin to me. ;) Thanks once again. AshLin (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. Perhaps I can help with scientific name etymologies in future. Try me. --Wetman (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Draugr, recently moved to Draug, should be moved back. The discussion may be found at Talk:Draug#New requested move discussion: return article to Draugr. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, FYI the following message which is related to an edit that you made:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Cabot#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_5_March_2014

Regards, 86.161.61.32 (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to my edit; I merely improved the photo caption.--Wetman (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to this edit, in which you (reasonably) tried to fix the article flow, but actually you were "fixing" a paragraph that was earlier randomly copied and pasted from another part of the article, either in error or vandalism, and should just have ben deleted per my request on the talk page. 00:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.61.32 (talk)

I see, I see. I've deleted the garbled repeat.--Wetman (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks very much for doing that. 86.160.82.222 (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! What do you think of this one? It seems a mix of cabinet and cabinetmaking, which is not really, or only, the making of cabinets. "Cabinetry" sounds very odd to English ears - is it a common term in American? Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the sense of "an aspect of a kitchen's style is its cabinetry." Sounds a bit like "silversmithy", doesn't it? But "joinery" rolls off the tongue idiomatically enough, though I see it's been divided into practical and "historical". The American bias of Wikipedia seems less intrusive nowadays than it did a decade ago.

I looked at the edit history of Early Netherlandish painting, thinking to see your thumbprint, but did not. I saw a couple of the less-collegiate editors there though, and shied off.--Wetman (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did a bit, but let the sorely-missed User:Stomme take the lead back then. I kept meaning to join the push for FA, but didn't much in the end. Not sure what, if anything, to do about the cabinets. Johnbod (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both Cabinet-making and Cabinet making now redirect, so no child is left behind.--Wetman (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another query on American usage; is chicken really the name of a species? Johnbod (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...as in "there are more chickens in the world than any other species of bird"? Would you prefer "there are more chickens in the world than any wild species of bird"?--Wetman (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Does no one keep "hens"? Obviously that has "gender issues" (and species issues) & the language has never quite grappled with the matter successfully, but "hens" or "domestic fowl" is what I would expect to find as a chapter title in a British farming manual, at least until very recently, with chicken being immature birds or the meat. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Americans can't bring themselves to utter "cocks" and "asses", so we have "roosters" and "donkeys". An antique Southern story has a sheriff and deputies tracking an escapee (Black of course in the original) as far as a farmyard. The sheriff sends two men to search the barn, two to search the woodshed and two to search the henhouse, from which a voice says "Nobody in here but us chickens, Boss." --Wetman (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and sa Wikipedia search brings up "Ain't Nobody Here but Us Chickens"--Wetman (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"'Deed, sah, dey ain't nobody hyah 'ceptin' us chickens" in the earliest printed version, per there. It's a rather odd twist on the usual English meat/animal distinction, and can't be blamed on the Normans at least. We Brits have donkeys as well as asses; somehow I think of asses as leaner, meaner types, more mule-like. I'm not sure if this has any basis in anything. The earliest OED cite is a dictionary of 1785, where it was defined as a male ass only. It had evidently become the usual term by the time the OED reached D, perhaps for the same reasons as in America. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Brits slightly flatten the vowel in ass to distinguish it from arhotic *rse?--Wetman (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, so I don't think they are confusable in any dialect (rash claim). Even so, the thought may linger on.... Now most people who don't read the bible probably wouldn't understand ass, but as we mainly associate donkeys with pets and children's rides on the beach, I think most bible translations stick with ass there. Johnbod (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's Palm Sunday is "donkey" all the way, but why poke a hornet nest?--Wetman (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Your name came up on a Wikipediocracy thread about solid content writers who don't get the credit they deserve and I just wanted to drop by and do a little of that. Thanks for your work on behalf of The Project! Carrite (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But I do feel appreciated, almost to the point of undercutting the zen of Wikipedia, which is precisely that you don't get the credit you deserve, very much as happens in Real Life. I must say that I enjoy a barnstar, though one has so little opportunity nowadays of wearing them! Thank you. --Wetman (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charophyta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bryophyta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Myllokunmingia may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• or six [[gill]] pouches with [[hemibranch]]s. In the trunk there are 25 segments ([[myomere]]s]]) with rearward-facing chevrons. There is a [[notochord]], a [[pharynx]] and a [[digestive tract]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your subtle and wise edits to John Perring. I love reading the Gentleman's Magazine. Any help on my quest to start articles for all the 19-century Lord Mayors would be much appreciated. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 10:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, especially for "subtle". "Miss Perring" would signify the eldest, Elizabeth; the others would have been "Miss Jane Perring" and "Miss Laura Perring"... well, as you know from Pride and Prejudice. I've linked your man at the dab page John Perring. All the Lords Mayor are in DNB, for starting points. GoogleScholar brings up additional interesting stuff if you search each name. It's a worthwhile project: shouldn't take more than your every spare moment for the rest of the year eh... If you pass the articles by me, alerting me here at the TalkPage, I may be able to buff up some phrasing. Or avoid the memorable vision of the Lord Mayor, fully robed, taking the Spanish Ambassador gracefully by the hand and leading him to the dance floor.--Wetman (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. Please send us a message if you would like to claim your shirt. Thank you again for all you do! --JMatthews (WMF) (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be delighted to have a Wikipedia t-shirt.--Wetman (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wetman: It looks like this ("XXL").--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were telepathically reading my hesitation about a t-shirt! But that's quite a sensible one: I could wear it. Mine would be plain "L" however. How do I ask for it?--Wetman (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tell JMatthews as above. They have a variety of designs though, but most are relatively .... discreet. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! done! thank you both.--Wetman (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

time that I had an edit conflict in article creation ;) - Melchior Teschner, I also didn't like a red link in lead and infobox of his hymn, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I searched his name and saw he was already mentioned elsewhere in English Wikipedia, so I just translated the essentials from de:wiki.--Wetman (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your red link and thought that rather than changing it to ill ({{ill|de|name}}) I could create the article ;) - I linked a few times, and we have Teschner now--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ps: I just declined the offer of a t-shirt ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. We last contacted you on April 9, 2014. Please send me an email at jmatthews@wikimedia.org if you would like to claim your shirt. --JMatthews (WMF) (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responded, with thanks, from Skeptical Aquarist.--Wetman (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that you do not mean this http://www.truckertompodcast.com/?p=232, but there is probably more. I have fairly recently moved in with and am taking care of my 91 year old mother. Time as I used to know it has little meaning. My books, including my materials collected on the Madonna of the Trail are largely in boxes in the garage. Still, it's an article that needs something to happen. We'll see. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CorbusierVillaSavoye avant.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Ambassador,

I am seeking input on your experience as a mentor to new Wikipedians. This survey is designed to provide insight for the development of a new mentorship support tool on Wikipedia. If you have a moment, please take this survey, it should not take more than 10 minutes of your time to complete.

https://syracuseuniversity.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_4V2SSrhU2NFOVAV

Also, if you are able to, I would greatly appreciate it if you would send the following survey to the mentee you worked with:

https://syracuseuniversity.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_4V1quUdMZ1By3Ah

Thank you in advance for your participation, Gabriel Mugar 13:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I can live with the current version of the 1st paragraph of the history section. Just a few minor points: 1) Would you mind removing the citation needed tag from the lead? That same information is clearly stated (and cited) down in the history section, so does not need to be cited in the lead. 2) Would you be able to standardize the references you've added so that they're in line with the citation style used in the rest of the article. 3) Isn't there a better source than another Wikipedia article for ref 12? Thanks, --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 19:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Citation out, but how is Buffalo Mountain asserted to bd "named for Buffalo Creek" and not simply for 'buffalo' or the creek named for the conspicuous mountain? I added the IUCN List of Threatened Species for states where bison are 'regionally extinct'. However, I don't see how to fit the second-hand citation "Allen 1942, noted in Endangered Species Handbook: The Eastern Forests" into your favored formula and I failed to successfully include essential information about the Catesby plate and the publication (1875) of Allen and its republicationb (1877); perhaps the formula isn't flexible enough. This has taken the better part of an hour. --Wetman (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Altamura Man has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Only one source cited. Poor grammar throughout suggests a poor translation (although it can be fixed)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved the English; not a sound reason to delete the article rather than edit it. The given references are worth glancing at.--Wetman (talk)

Thanks for the early usage of the word "Buff", but is that referring to the color or the coat? Maybe the coat usage predates the color usage. If so, maybe that fact should be on the other article. Chrisrus (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems so unlikely that someone, even in the 17th century, might be convinced that it was the color of the coat that likened it to armor in protecting Sir Edmund Verney in battle, that I confess it hadn't actually crossed my mind.--Wetman (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as the article states, both the word for the color and the word for jacket came from the word for the leather, which came from the word for the animal. Chrisrus (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please restore the Buffalo Creek article to this revision? I don't see how the content you added is particularly relevant to the subject at hand. It's also synthesizing/original research (you're implying that the McCool ref is wrong when nothing specifically debunks it. Unreliable sources like Wikipedia articles and images without context are still being used. --Jakob (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The text that Jakob doesn't like:

The etymology of Buffalo Creek's name recalls the extinct subspecies of the [[American Bison]], ''Bison bison pennsylvanicus'' hunted to extinction by 1800.<ref>Compare [[List of mammals of West Virginia#Recent eradications and near-eradications]]; a comprehensive list of states whgere ''Bison bison'' is "regionally extinct is given in the [http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/2815/0 Red List of Threatened Species].</ref> The last herd of Eastern bison was slaughtered in Union County, Pennsylvania, in the winter of 1799-1800: the last individuals of this race were killed near Charleston, West Virginia in 1825.<ref>Allen 1942, noted in [http://www.endangeredspecieshandbook.org/dinos_eastern.php Endangered Species Handbook: The Eastern Forests].</ref> In the 1700s, it was one of eight streams named Buffalo Creek in Pennsylvania.<ref name = "hist"/> Though the Eastern Wood Buffalo was illustrated by [[Mark Catesby]] in the ''Appendix'' to his ''Natural History of Carolina, Florida and the Bahama Islands'' (1747), <ref>Catesby, "Buffalo with Bristly Locust Tree", ''Appendix'', pl 28; [http://people.virginia.edu/~mgf2j/bison.jpg ''illustration''] </ref> as early as 1875 Joseph Asaph Allen asserted in ''History of the American Bison (Bison americanus)'' "<ref>Allen, ''The American Bisons, Living and Extinct'', Ninth Annual Report of the U.S. geological Survey, 1875, reprinted as ''History of the American Bison (Bison americanus)''. Geological Survey, Washington 1877.</ref> that "buffalo" were never found east of the [[Allegheny Mountains]]. A more recent source asserts that except for legends, there is virtually no evidence that any buffalo ever lived in the Buffalo Creek area. However, some residents of the nearby village of [[Cowan, Pennsylvania|Cowan]] claim that depressions on the northern bank of Buffalo Creek are [[buffalo wallow]]s.<ref name= "hist">{{Citation|author = Charles McCool Snyder, John W. Downie, Lois Kalp|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=-yGYCsElEsMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=union+county,+pa|title = Union County, Pennsylvania: A Celebration of History|year= 2000}}</ref> --Wetman (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you find that the architect Henri Blondel was Charles Garnier's nephew ? You introduced this information in the article which is now The Westin Paris – Vendôme in October 2007, and it has now propagated into the French-speaking version of the article. But Blondel was older than Garnier, Blondel's mother was called Petitjean, whereas Garnier's wife was a Ms Bary. No obvious relationship. Other sources even tell that Henri Blondel was Garnier's son-in-law, which does not seem more realistic, since Garnier (officially ...) only has sons. Without a reference, I think we shall have to stamp the information as dubious, at least. Glidepil (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know now whether it was I who mistranslated gendre. Anyway, "Henri Blondel (1832-97), son-in-law of Charles Garnier" states Elaine Denby in Grand Hotels: Reality and Illusion (1998:85). I found this by googling Charles+Blondel Henri+Garnier. After double-checking, you might want to insert the reference into the article. -Wetman (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I've inserted the reference myself, correcting the text to suit it.--Wetman (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wetman, I hope you can help me with a question. Check this out--nothing but links to a PDF by Juan-Jose Marcos, whose expertise I can't verify though it seems he knows what he's talking about. They're added just as links, they aren't used to verify anything specific in those articles, as far as I could see. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In general, links to personally generated pdf documents are deprecated at Wikipedia, particularly when they are linked en masse from numerous related articles and inserted by anonymous editors. But the text does look legit to me. What does Johnbod think of this case?--Wetman (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)--Wetman (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--my feeling exactly, yes. Perhaps Leszek Jańczuk has an opinion as well. But I don't really want to go around deleting something that has some quality to it and would be acceptable as an external link and possibly a reference, despite the intentions of the (Spanish) IP. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a decent introduction to the subject to me, but I have no training. Doubtless COI, and the very end of the PDF does offer electronic fonts for sale (rather cheaply I think). Most of the articles have no other links, & I'm inclined to think this useful. The PDF (I think) is mentioned here. He's been very busy on this respectable site. I don't think Leszek Jańczuk tangles with Latin. I'd say leave 'em. Johnbod (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the leading editors at Legend in terms of edit count, you may want to comment at Talk:Legend (disambiguation)#Merger proposal.- TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for considering me. I support the merger too.--Wetman (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)-[reply]

• You noted on the Fossil Lake talk page that the ground sloth fossils found at the site were probably Paramylodon harlani. I found this source after I posted the article (see p. 12). It identifies all 23 mammal species found at Fossil Lake by their scientific names. The ground sloth is identified as "Mylodon near harlani Owen" which I think is Paramylodon as you say…or at least some closely related species/subspecies. The article says Cope originally identified the ground sloth as new species, Mylodon sodalist. However, Stock later showed it was actually Mylodon harlani. Subsequent study of the very limited specimens indicate that the Fossil Lake animals were larger than the Mylodon harlani specimens found at La Brea; and therefore, are considered "near harlani" until further specimen become available for study. Based on your comments I’ve changed link to Paramylodon. Good catch!--Orygun (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was intrigued to see ground sloth fossils so far north! Mylodon cf. harlani, signifying a species very comparable to M. harlani, would not be equivalent to the related genus Paramylodon, though that name does suggest "like Mylodon." --Wetman (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you improved this article – thanks. A trivial point: I don't think there is a need to replace – by &ndash; (see Wikipedia:How to make dashes). The browsers can handle both. I don't really care, but mention it because I had typed a page range as pp. 390-391 (incorrect) which got corrected to pp. 390&ndash;391, then changed to pp. 390–391, then changed back to pp. 390&ndash;391. The dashed article is turning into a battlefield. :–) Aymatth2 (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were two edit conflicts when I tried to post my changes, and I had to resolve them. I didn't actually mean to make any switch of dashes though. I'm glad my edits were an improvement on the whole, nevertheless.--Wetman (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to sound negative in any way—and really am fine with either style—but it was amusing that the scripts seemed to be engaged in an edit war over markup of a page range in a footnote of a very obscure article. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

=

Since you took the time to consider the issues at Talk:Legend (disambiguation)#Merger proposal, I am hoping you might help us consider a related issue at Talk:Legends (TV series)#Call for a vote on hatnote for this page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Albumares

added a link pointing to Accretion

Anfesta stankovskii

added a link pointing to Accretion

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added this note to the two respective Talkpages:

"...temporarily attached (but did not accrete)... " Since the distinction appears to be essential to the meaning, and the distinction is not helped by my link to accretion, perhaps an editor will gently expand this remark, for the modestly prepared layman reader.--Wetman (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Augustus Sabin Chase, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.heywoods.info/bios/AChase01.php.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The website in question merely reproduces text from Joseph Anderson, ed. The Town and City of Waterbury Connecticut : from the aboriginal period to the year eighteen hundred and ninety-five (New Haven: Price & Lee, 1896), which is credited in the Wikipedia article.--Wetman (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I undid your revision because that information is already included in the detail when you click on the image. It's confusing in the caption because too few know what it references. Just wanted to say thank you for your attention to detail, and hope you agree. Atsme☯^Consult 20:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A caption that doesn't tell viewers what they are actually seeing is never a good caption. Giving credit (Edward Phelps Allis might deserve a brief Wikipedia entry, no?) is always an improvement. In order to avoid further deletions of my edits I shall avoid the article Bowfin.--Wetman (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wetman - Improvements to the article are most welcome. I was just explaining that credit is already given to Allis on the bottom of the drawing itself: (After Allis 1897, slightly altered). Including it again in the caption is redundant. Atsme☯^Consult 22:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wetman,

I just discovered your article about my great grandfather, Augustus Sabin Chase (ASC). It is excellent.

I'm a dilettante who runs a Web site devoted to the descendants of ASC and last year contributed to his first Wikipedia article.

I too studied at Harvard, but mainly at Yale.

I'm intrigued by your choosing to write the ASC article. Are you or do you know a relative of his? You seem more intellectual than most family members I know, but then again I don't know that many.

Your reference to Louisville might indicate that you are of the Alice Martha Streeter branch of the family. Your profile resembles that of a quasi-cousin, the author Peter Haring Judd.

If you wish, I would be more than pleased to give you the access codes to the ASC site.

LisabyLisaby 05:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisaby (talk • contribs)

I apologise. It's one of the problems of my enthusiasm.Lisaby 03:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisaby (talk • contribs)

A minor one. Btw, you can sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).--Wetman (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Confidence, you've been listed as the exact kind of editor everyone wants as an administrator, and the fact that you're not as the problem with Requests for adminship. Figured I'd give you a courtesy notice that you've been mentioned. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and a robust and flattering reference it is. Wikipedia's http interface is so simple even I can manage it. My tech abilities are minimal, even allowing for my generation. Conflicts and abrasion are stressful to me: I generally back off. see for instance Talk:Ponte Vecchio#Disinfobox at Ponte Vecchio, and misinformation in general. Editors come to my Talkpage sometimes for suggestions about fact, tone, procedure, and I try to be useful in an ad hoc manner. --Wetman (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent edit to Philae_(spacecraft) revision 633724136 regarding its naming. You may also want to edit the related Rosetta_(spacecraft) since it has a similar misrepresentation of Philae's namesake. "The lander is named after the Nile island Philae, where an obelisk was discovered with Greek and Egyptian inscriptions" sudopeople 22:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I've followed your advice.----Wetman (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wetman, This is just a courtesy call to let you know in case you haven't noticed, that I have been working on the article you built: Wimbledon House (please see talk page re name change). I just wanted to say that I was thoroughly impressed with the accuracy of your contribution. I did an extensive research project on the manor house as part of my history exams when I was a kid (we could choose any subject in history and I chose this). I hope you like the changes. So thanks, I doubt I would have attempted it myself from scratch.Regards --Roganjosh3 (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid expansion.--Wetman (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Great job on 2014 Russian financial crisis. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wetman! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 13:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access the account " Wetman " at Commons.--Wetman (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. As this account had no visible edits I've usurped it. Hence, your global account is now completed. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm most grateful for that. Tech is my weak side. It's a sign of how user-friendly Wikipedia is, that I'm able to edit here at all!--Wetman (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wetman! I'm posting this here as you're the only person I've seen who wrote anything on the talk page for Bee Hive, Auburn. From looking at the USGS Geographic Naming Information System coordinates, the community lies outside of the city limits of Auburn, Alabama. I would like to move the article to the name Bee Hive, Alabama, so that it will be categorized as an unincorporated community. I'm not able to move it right now, as there is already a redirect page for Bee Hive, Alabama. It was already moved to Bee Hive, Auburn from Bee Hive, Alabama.Dofftoubab (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can one of the lurkers here, more competent than I, effect this?--Wetman (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Old redirect deleted, article moved. Should be in order. Risker (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Risker. Please keep lurking!--Wetman (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that John Dee had his own article. Thanks for pointing that out. Keep Cronica Walliae on your Watch list. Good to hear from you again, its been quit awhile. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has been! Didn't see that you were the editor at Cronica Walliae. Well done.--Wetman (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Pope Joan. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer) (Not watching)[reply]

Capitalizing common names of animals question - so you would capitalize Sierra Nevada Red Fox but not a bunch of foxes jumped the fence, right? Thanks for educating me.Schmiebel (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd follow the crowd, not to enforce my own "down style" but keep a particular article consistent. A "down style" means I'd not capitalize whenever given the chance: Sierra Nevada red fox. Wikipedia does Snow bunting and refers to snow buntings in the text. I'd cry "There's a robin in the yard" ...or I might say "Look! There's an American Robin in the yard." But the Wikipedia article is American robin.--Wetman (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wetman, it's been a while. Good afternoon and a belated Happy New Year. I am in the process of freshening up Palladian architecture which has become a little tired and gained quite a few dubious edits since I last took a great interest in it. One of the things, I've stumbled upon is this: "The Hammond-Harwood House was modeled after the Villa Pisani at Montagnana." Do you know if this is really correct, or am I alone in not being able to see this apparent modelling? The plans are completely different, Pisani was supposed to originally have had a curved arch in the centre of a blind colonnade, the American house house something very vaguely similar but beyond that, I just don't see it. Giano (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giano! Happy New Year! Why not simply attribute the attribution: "American writers on architecture are agreed that..." For me, it's just as much like Roger Morris's Marble Hill less that villa's high basement, and a dozen Thames Valley villas c. 1740-1780: Matthew Brettingham's Gunton Hall, etc etc. But the attribution is a treasured favorite among us. How about that doorway though? right out of a London builder's handbook: see "Palladio and architectural pattern books in colonial America". William Salmon's suggestively titled and often reprinted Palladio Londinensis. Wikipedia's article William Halfpenny only mentions his outré 'Chinese' and Gothick stuff. --Wetman (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended the bibliography of Ha'penny's design books, Giano.--Wetman (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coo! I had never even heard of him before; now that is embarrassing. You've taught me something - not for the first time. Giano (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time, can you look over my newly created article for copyediting. Thanks! --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doug you need to add the names of the signatories and the date to your introduction.--Wetman (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's much better. Could a remark and link be added concerning the immediate context, of dynastic/territorial frictions between Richard and Philip? That would tie that article more securely into the mainstream. Do references to Andelys/Andelis in other articles now link to the new article? The article Les Andelys for instance doesn't give much information.--Wetman (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Going to take a nap now. Will start to work on this after I get up. Thanks for ideas.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to guess, what type of material did they use in their mortar as it seems it lasted over 800 years. Another guess (if you care to), what type of raw material might the carters have carried to the castle? I assume they used beast of burden and the material came down the Seine. Mostly just curious, so any guesses are O.K. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they had any alternative to lime mortar, the secret of Roman cement having been lost, and the discovery of Portland cement lying far in the early-industrial future. Limestone was ubiquitous in northern France and silica sand, and the forests required to burn it to quicklime in lime kilns stood thick around. I don't understand your query about types of raw material the carters carried to the castle. The stone would have been local: no need to go as far as Caen stone for limestone. That's a spectacular photo, btw, excellent as an illustration too, --Wetman (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you got me thinking about the forests required to burn it to quicklime in lime kilns. Great thought and lead for additional research. BTW, I am getting the castle books you suggested from I.L.L. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you answered my question. It then sounds like the rock and stone would have been near to the castle itself. Perhaps on the roadside approaching the castle? I was curious about wood or whatever else they used in construction. The castle construction techniques are new to me and I just happened to have stumbled onto the Treaty of Louviers, more or less by accident.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not literally on the roadside, but quarried where the blocks could be hauled up to the building site in oxcarts (perhaps having been rafted a short distance down the Seine) and swung up to place with a wooden crane built on the spot. A book you'll enjoy is David Macaulay, Castle: the story of its construction (secondhand copies are very cheap at Amazon.com).--Wetman (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again - you always come up with the best answers and easiest to understand.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. One more question: You say, could be hauled up to the building site in oxcarts. Could it have been carts pulled by horses?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another question, if you care to answer: Since it appears that a new town of Petit Andelys (in picture) appeared at the same time as the castle, could the stone quarry have been near here? A guess is O.K.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the 12th century a horse was a luxury creature; the early Knights Templar weren't the only ones too poor to buy a horse for each knight. A famous roman courtois tells of three young knights too poor to have a horse for each; I remember a ms illumination showing all three on one nag: Les Frères Aymar or something. Heavy work was provided by oxen, like the ploughing in the early 15th century illumination (left). The castle was stone, but the new town was surely timber construction, except perhaps the church.--Wetman (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Again!! You have come up with the best answer. Now I get a good understanding of this. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am just going to throw this out: When building King Richard's Château Gaillard and the new town is there a possibility there was a combination of donkey drawn carts, horse drawn carts, and ox-drawn carts? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		Your answers are more valuable than you can imagine. Thanks again for them.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone here knows the answer to this it will be you: Is there an English word for the smaller (square cupola/viewing chamber/belverdere) type structure at the top of a tower, like the one here [3]? I'm sue there must be. Giano (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but saw your question by accident = don't mean to interfere, but Parapet comes to mind for me.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The parapet would be round the outside, though. Viewers on the outside might be described as on "the leads" if it were a flat leaded roof. The roofed chamber might be a belfry if there are bells in the tower. Otherwise, I've never come across a specific word better than your "viewing chamber", Giano. I've seen "belvedere" applied to a similar structure perched on a Victorian house, though more commonly it's free-standing. Can any lurkers help?--Wetman (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think in castles etc it was the Solar (room) - I'm not sure I like the description in our article. That would be a room on the roof or battlements specifically made for a good view, and somewhere to go for pudding or a drink etc. There used to be loads of these. Broughton Castle is one example, though latterly used for political conspiracy. At the top of a tower rooms tend to be called the "tower room". Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think they are right that this was originally the private quarters in earlier working castles - the lord's bedsit. But I think by the Renaissance it tended to be used for banqueting houses on the roof (that may be another useful term). Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought about banqueting house Longleat House has several, but as the particular tower that I have in mind is nothing but a poorly designed Victorian pretension and ostentation (in my personal opinion), that term seems only to serve as an ego booster to the tower. Does a cupola have to be cylindrical/hexagonal; and on top of a dome or pitched roof? Giano (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To judge from the photo (get some Virginia Creeper on those walls!) you could call it a "cupola room".--Wetman (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia creeper certainly hides some sins: I wonder why some idiot pulled it all off. Giano (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, when do we see an article on the hypothetical methane-based azotosome of Saturn's moon Titan, the most interesting new development in astrobiology in today's news?--Wetman (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created the following July and has developed into an interesting one.Wetman (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any suggestions for Wiki-Projects for this article I created today?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think in terms of the larger "portals" etc. Your new article doesn't mention the weakening of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation in down-welling 'columns' that's been observed over the last ten years.--Wetman (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...now I see that the phenomenon has its own article: Shutdown of thermohaline circulation.-Wetman (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wetman, Can you help find a way to help me save this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2015_April_4#File:Arms-wimbledon1.jpg. Thanks. Roganjosh3 (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

You seem to be interested in this topic. I want to discuss it with you.

Could you contact me on: http://buitengewoonmechelen.be/ contact

Thx, Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.82.199.158 (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't locate the link to you at the address you give. My Flemish is based on my German and is shaky.Wetman (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested by some comments on this article's Talk page. Jean Marcotte (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had more to offer on this interesting subject, but I can't even give an English adjective that signifies "bringing infamy upon". Any lurkers?-.Wetman (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you or a lurker explain what's going on here - the title is said to be il mondo nuovo? New oven/stove, model of new house, perspective box? Just added to Frankenthal Porcelain Factory. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that if you were to visit this museum, you'd find your answer. Quite why 'il mondo nuovo' should lead you to 'organo a rullo', I'm not sure. However, the man is definitely turning something and singing, and as children (clearly listening) are present we will assume it's not because he's drunk. Giano (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Good to see you around!) I did consider that, but on the super blown-up version it seems he is not turning a handle, but holding some kind of key that is not touching the big box thing. I agree he might be singing - I'm not so sure the others are listening. The female figure seems rather middle-aged to me - perhaps a servant of some sort, as her posture is not lady-like. There's a slightly different angle here. Was there an opera called 'il mondo nuovo' - surely yes. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you've got it! Look at the analagous image illustrating Peep show. The superstructure, a kind of lanterna giving indirect diffused light to the interior, makes it pretty clear, though the porcelain painter doesnt seem to have shown the peep holes through which the perspective[s] were viewed. Perhaps rather than singing, the itinerant shwman is hawking his raree show. The "new world" might refer to the fantastical image within the box. -Wetman (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK; you were right, I was wrong! I think of children being introduced to classical music and the arts, you and Wetman see servants being corrupted by porn. I shall now retreat with my head held high. Giano (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The connection between "peep show" and pornography is a post Worls War I mattrr, Giano!. This is a wholesome new world. -Wetman (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not entirely! Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the source 'flies as big as horses' seem to be the star attraction - I don't know how wholesome that is. The woman has her eye to the peephole I think, the man is calling for more punters, and the boy waiting his turn impatiently. One day Mondo nuovo (peepshow). Johnbod (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the Commons Magic lanterns cat, it looks to me as if the lantern on top ventilates the candles inside. Thanks both! Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

, i see she's not merely dashing round the corner but has her eye glued to the scena. Oh brave new world, that has such people in it! Are those three slots in the sde of the box, and is the entrepreneur inserting transparencies painted on glass slides. Now it's Venus! Oh now it's a young nun in the same situation!! O mondo nuovo! -Wetman (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind all of that rubbish above - it's probably German, and nothing good ever came out of that place. Now Mr Wetman can I entice you to expand a little my latest little offering to Wikipedia - preferably with a reliable reference - not that my own aren't perfectly adequate. It's intended to complement Giano's latest offering, which you also may care to expand. I do so admire you - there are so few of us truly educated editors here. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect American Cemetery and Memorial. Since you had some involvement with the American Cemetery and Memorial redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 20:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Karatepe-Arslantaş National Park. Since you had some involvement with the Karatepe-Arslantaş National Park redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ansh666 11:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Chocolate Jesus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm thinking of doing a bit of expanding on the above and see that you were the original author. Do you have a source for the patron being Lord Berwick, rather than Francis Walford. All the sources I have, Colvin, Pevsner/Newman, Mansbridge say it was for Walford. I appreciate one source can follow another but it would be good to have a definite source for Berwick. At the moment, it seems to say that it must have been Berwick as it couldn't be Walford and I'm not even sure the source given goes that far. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the two cited sources do you not like? If Colvin's date of ca 1802, is correct, based as it is, apparently, on identifying the design exhibited in 1802 of a house "near Shrewsbury" with Cronkhill, then Walford was not yet Lord Berwick's agent, according to the cited history of Shropshire. Do you have a reason to think Walford ever owned the site? Of course you are aware that Lord Berwick was Nash's patron at Attingham.Wetman (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Walford was Berwick's agent at the time of the commissioning of the house doesn't seem to me to be determinative of whether Walford was the patron. The sources that say he was the patron are Pevsner/Newman, Colvin and Mansbridge. Which sources say that the patron was Berwick? KJP1 (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I should have been a bit clearer as to the basis of my concern. My problem with the sources is that they don't, to me, say that the patron for the house was Lord Berwick. They appear to say that the date for the design of the house was 1802 and that Walford was appointed agent to Lord Berwick in 1804. To conclude from these points that Berwick was, in fact, the commissioner, seems to be original research. Every source I have, including the above and this [4] and this [5], says that Walford was the patron. I am simply asking for the source that says it was, in fact, Berwick. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies accepted. i see that you have now read the cited sources. Cronkhill, you understand, is an intrinsic part of the Attingham estate. You might want to find out when the acreage was originally added to the Berwick properties. The 8th Lord Berwick, who ceded Attingham to the Trust after WorldWar II, grew up at Cronkhill.Even after his uncle died and he succeeded to the estate, he did not move into Attingham, which had been let for years and then was a hospital during the Great War (while Berwick was stationed as a diplomat in Paris). He moved inafter the War. So your thought as I gather it, is that the house was designed for Walford ca 1802, before it was reccmmended to Lord Berwick that he take on Walford as an agent, and that Walford then bequeathed Cronkhill to Lord Berwick? Or that he sold it to Berwick? This certainly seems Original. The assertion of various third-hand sources should be added to the article. Wetman (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - that's all original research. The fact is that all the published, and accepted, sources say it was built for Walford. And that is how I shall amend the article. If you disagree, find a single source that says the patron was Berwick. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This [6] suggests a history not dissimilar to that you outline above. Did Berwick pay for it and Walford live in it? Then who commissioned it? KJP1 (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have raised the issue on the article's Talkpage and on the WikiProject Architecture Talkpage. Have also referenced Attingham Park. KJP1 (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help? There seems to be an ambiguity in "for" here. If the land was, and remained, part of the estate, it would seem odd for Walford to build on it.

Many thanks. I hadn't thought to look there and have now added a couple of references. But as to the main issue, I don't think it takes us further. It seems certain that the site was, and still is, part of the Attingham Estate. We know that, on Walford's abrupt departure, the Berwicks moved in and stayed for about 100 years. So it seems very likely that they did own the house, and leased or loaned it to Walford. But all that seems to be original research and all the published sources, including the National Trust, although it does contradict itself, say the same thing; "the house was built for Francis Walford, Lord Berwick's agent." KJP1 (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the ambiguity in "for" were to be retained in the Wikipedia article, readers would no longer be explicitly misled into thinking that the patron of Nash, paying the bills on this dwelling on the Berwick's estate at Attingham, where Nash was at work for Berwick, was Berwick's estate agent, Walford, an individual not otherwise known to be a patron of Nash. If I build a staff cottage on my place, which is "for" my staff, employing my usual architect, then, for you to assert that the patron is my groundskeeper is original indeed, though research is not part of the picture.-Wetman (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You continue under the misapprehension that I am stating the house was built for Walford. I am not. I am stating that all of the sources we have, with the exception of the National Trust website which is contradictory, state that the house was built for Walford. If you wish to revert to the earlier version that said the house was built for Berwick, you are, of course, entirely free to do so, subject only to the provision of suitable sources which support the claim. KJP1 (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We