| Revision as of 01:13, 27 October 2008 editWetman (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers92,066 editsm typo← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:27, 27 October 2008 edit undoJosette (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers3,665 edits →Antique furntureNext edit → | ||
| Line 139: | Line 139: | ||
| I suppose you could not be tempted to put pen to paper (no pun intended) with ]? ] (]) 22:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | I suppose you could not be tempted to put pen to paper (no pun intended) with ]? ] (]) 22:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :At Misplaced Pages ]— the better term— was redirecting to ], which is another euphemism, but is better used in the French sense of a chest of drawers often with cupboard doors. So, there's ] for your ''convenience''. --] (]) 01:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC) | :At Misplaced Pages ]— the better term— was redirecting to ], which is another euphemism, but is better used in the French sense of a chest of drawers often with cupboard doors. So, there's ] for your ''convenience''. --] (]) 01:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :: - ] (]) 03:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:27, 27 October 2008
Please click here to leave me a new message.
|
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) |
|
|
User talk:Wetman/archive3Mar2004
- User talk:Wetman/archive16Jun2004
- User talk:Wetman/archive12Aug2004
- User talk:Wetman/archive16Oct2004
- User talk:Wetman/archive15Jan2005
- User talk:Wetman/archive22Mar2005
- User talk:Wetman/archive23Jun2005
- User talk:Wetman/archive3Sep2005
- User talk:Wetman/archive1Dec2005
- User talk:Wetman/archive28Mar2006
- User talk:Wetman/archive3July2006
- User talk:Wetman/archive15Oct2006
- User talk:Wetman/archive7Feb2007
- User talk:Wetman/archive25Jun2007
- User talk:Wetman/archive10Aug2007
- User talk:Wetman/archive28Dec2007
- User talk:Wetman/archive16April2008
- User talk:Wetman/archive4July2008
- User talk:Wetman/archive7Oct2008
request for comment
Hi Wetman, in 2005 (sic!) you left a comment on List of rulers of Bavaria's talk page. Now -- after 3 years (!) -- I'm trying to change it. May I ask you to have a look, and comment -- how you like the first part, or if you've got some hints, how to improve this list. I would like to change the complete list into this wikitable style. Thank you very much. (Please answer here. I watch you now ,-) Greetings and happy editing. Sebastian scha. (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Splendid! I responded at Talk:List of rulers of Bavaria, but all I might be able to do to help is tweak your English, once you've completed this stage of your excellent transformation. The brief commentary formatted into the tables really helps readers retain their bearings, by adding some context. --Wetman (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Take a look at the list, please. I'm done with the wikitable, if you find some errs in the text or better structure, please fix it. Thank you. Sebastian scha. (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Perrault
Hello,
it seems that you have something to do with the importation of this image. Do you happen to know who was the painter? Herve1729 (talk) 11:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a detail from the three-quarters length portrait by Philippe Lallemant, 1672. It was Lallement's morceau de reception at the Académie royale. Guess it's time to re-use it in a stub on Lallemant, eh. --Wetman (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oop. Philippe Lallemand is the man.--Wetman (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Great, thanks. Herve1729 (talk) 07:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Your thoughts?
Hi Wetman, I don't know how much expertise you have on the subject, but I'd be interested in any contribution you might be able to make to the discussion here and following. Thanks, Paul August ☎ 21:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The Shepherd of Hermas
Hello, Wetman - Thank you for your work on The Shepherd of Hermas. Your opinion is appreciated here. At the beginning of the Hermas article, it states that the story is a "Christian" one. I have read "Hermas" and the story never uses the word "Jesus," "Christ," nor "Christian." Unfortunately I don't read Greek, so my conclusion is based on English translations. The term "Son of God" is used a few times, as was typical of some early 2nd C. Christians who also had not heard of Jesus Christ, but who also believed (and wrote that) he was never on Earth in human form (e.g. Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Tatian, and Marcus Minucius Felix in "Octavius"). So, my question to you is, should "Shepherd of Hermas" really be considered a "Christian" story, given that the terms Christ, Jesus, and Christians are never used therein? Perhaps it should be termed a "religious" story. (Is there a term for a believer in a "Son of God" who is not Christian?) Looking forward to your reply. -- Geĸrίtz (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- See Muratorian fragment for an early example of what was being considered canonical in the third century. It's a bit late in the day for Wikipedians to decide that the Shepherd of Hermas, apparently written by the brother of Pius, bishop of Rome, is "not Christian". Apparently you think it's not up to your standard for orthodoxy, but Misplaced Pages isn't a good outlet for personal essays. Just keep in mind, Misplaced Pages's just a readers' guide, and you won't stray far from mainstream. --Wetman (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, very well said. I'll check out the Muratorian fragment. Geĸrίtz (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Napoleon Diamond Necklace
Thanks for the comments on the talk page of the article. I've done my best to address them. I still find it odd that the curator of the Smithsonian's National Gem and Mineral Collection would make an error as blatant as that Catherine the Great one. I suspect he meant Catherine Pavlovna of Russia, but I can't find any other sources to confirm, so I've left it out for now. Let me know if you spot anything else! :) GeeJo ⁄(c) • 18:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- I do think you've got it! A reference like "Catherine of Russia" must have misled the curator. She married Wilhelm, King of Württemberg, in 1816 in Saint Petersburg. --Wetman (talk)
Thank you
May I please thank you for helping me with editing of Tide pool?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- You bet! it's an interesting subject. Weren't some of the rugged inhabitants of tide pools the first marine organisms to be kept successfuly in aquaria? That's a point that might be made in the article, underscoring their accomodations to stress.--Wetman (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe I've never read about this.Yes, these animals got lots of stress all right, and only part of the stress comes from the sun, currents and the waves. We, humans bring even bigger stress to them, when we're walking over them, removing them from the pools to place in aquarium and so on. I, for example, read that workers from Monetary Bay Aquarium pick up tide pools animals to feed their sea otters.I often see that people dig for clams for their food and destroying everything on their way. What is surprising that in some places in California it is permitted to remove animals from tide pools for food.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Interior design!
Interior design is not my stongest point, in fact at home I'm allowed no input! So what is this the site says its repro Baroque. I would have thought it was rococco meeting Louis XVIII with a hangover. - Any ideas of how it should be described. Giano (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Combining delicate rococo-revival with sculptural neo-baroque elements". Mother called this taste "Louie Ritz".--Wetman (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Is that the same as "belle epoque"? Giano (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ah it would appear not, allthough I am confused as to why the late, and I'm sure much lamented, Queen Mary is epitomising Belle Epoque with her portrait. If it means what the article says it means - charming as I'm sure she was, QM was not known as a mover and shaker. Giano (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Santa Maria sopra Minerva
I did not understand your intention. Do you want me to or are you mad at me? I live in Rome, and though I have not visited it, I have passed many times a church dedicated to the souls of purgatory, that is gothic in its external structure as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight746 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The other gothic church of Rome
http://www.romasegreta.it/prati/sacrocuoredelsuffragio.htm
Here is a site on the church with a picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight746 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent. Thank you. I'll fix the text and add the footnote about this obscure Gothic Revival church, (built 1890-1917) in a footnote myself, then.--Wetman (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)!
Division of Altenburg
Thanks for your help on the Division of Altenburg article. If you know of any more sources or anything else we can add to the article, that would help a lot. I just found it one day and did some quick research to expand it from the stub that it was but I'm interested in it now. Also if you know any German sources I'm here in Germany for the time being and can try to look them up here. Thanks --Banime (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- My two little explanatory footnotes pretty much exhausted my usefulness, I'm afraid.--Wetman (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks anyway, it helped me at least! --Banime (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hotel Del Coronado
- Wetman... Thank you for your recent edits on the Hotel del Coronado page. Your input and revisions are greatly appreciated. Could you please take an overview look at the article and offer any suggestions for other improvements. I'm somewhat new at this, and am eager to see this article improved. Again, thanks. Regards --- Ljmajer (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't edit the last paragraphs, about the renewed Coronado of today, because they sounded too much like a brochure rather than an encyclopedia article. So I concentrated on the history parts. Perhaps you could tone down the "infomercial" material towards the end. IOtherwise, it's an interesting article about an interesting place.--Wetman (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- That's the exact parts I didn't touch yet either. Most of my work, the past two days has been on the historical aspect, and a brief rewording of the intro paragraph. I was hesitant to rework the last section, because it starts to delve into minutia about future plans and restaurants that may go under next week. If you were to provide an assessment on everything but the "Hotel Today" section (history, footnotes, photos, infobox...), would it still be assessed as a start... C... or what. Thanks again. It's always nice to have a second set of eyes. -- Ljmajer (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh I don't know how anything might be assessed, by the kind of person drawn to that role. Someone might assess its value or importance one way or the other. The question is, will it do as it stands, or does it need to be better? You are the only judge that you should be listening to...--Wetman (talk) 05:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. Thanks again for your help. -- Ljmajer (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
You might enjoy this
as much as I did. Bülach fibula - I hope it's not a hoax. Johnbod (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ach, runes! Rune my day! Scarcely one thing that can be said about 'em that isn't contended from some quarter, but "you, my lover, embrace me, leek! leek!" is quite an eccentric inscription indeed. You know about the soft-core erotic image under Queen Balthild's seal ring: not the kind of thing she expected to turn up publicly over a millennium later, I don't suppose... --Wetman (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, I didn't - thanks for that. Just as well it didn't turn up before the canonization came through perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Antique furnture
I suppose you could not be tempted to put pen to paper (no pun intended) with Easing stool? Giano (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- At Misplaced Pages Close stool— the better term— was redirecting to commode, which is another euphemism, but is better used in the French sense of a chest of drawers often with cupboard doors. So, there's close stool for your convenience. --Wetman (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
