Talk archive: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 |
For fixing my edit to fingerprint. I don't normally make mistakes like that when cutting and pasting - the cursor was obviously a few characters farther to the right than I thought it was. It serves as a good reminder to use the show preview button, and at least make some cursory examination of the edit after I've done it! Graham/pianoman87 talk 11:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Solipsist. To answer your question on why I merged some of the pub game articles into the main pub game article: I was going through the various Beer related categories and articles and I came upon a series of very small articles on the theme of pub games. By themselves they were little more than dictionary entries, while the main pub games article was simply a series of links to these very small articles. As you may have noticed by now, it is not my intention to merge all pub game related articles into the pub game article, merely those which are quite minor. My intention is to create an encylopedia entry for Pub games which would involve doing a bit more than generating a list of links, it would involve making some comment on the various activities. Those comments are already on Wiki - I'm just collecting them together in what seems the most sensible place. Links are being provided for the activities which are large enough to generate their own entries. Clearly there will be some borderline cases for which entries are significant enough to deserve their own entries; but I see no problem with someone doing some research on Pitch penny which would involve something more than the current single sentence and then undoing my redirect. Certainly Bar billiards was one which I did consider might deserve its own entry, and might be a good example of the classic borderline. I suspect I have finished adding entries to the article - I am now considering how best to organise it. I currently have it split into two very awkward groups - Pushing Games and Other Games. This is clearly not very satisfactory. Any suggestions? SilkTork 13:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I hear what you are saying about some of the pub games having a life beyond the pub. And I would agree that Aunt Sally is an odd entry as a pub game - it always seemed to me more of a fairground game. But I took my cue from the comments in the article. I have deleted the redirect on the Aunt Sally article, though I have also kept the contents on the Pub Games article, which will be edited down in time. Clearly I should be doing more work out of the public eye, but this pub games article was not planned and it is simply growing spontaneously so all the stuff is going live as matters arise. My intention this morning was to do more work on the Scottish beer entry. But it looks as that won't be done now as I am running out of the time I had alloted for Wiki work today! SilkTork 13:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Self promotion?? What do you mean?? I'm not a member of the band Delirious, and I don't work for the cathedral! How was I promoting myself? Fine, take out the link to the CU (which I'm not a member of...) but why remove the entire paragraph? I find that rather rude, I spent time writing that, and for many here in Liverpool it's one of the major things we know the cathedral for! Paulfp 19:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I take your point about there being other concerts there, but I myself have less knowledge of these. I thought the whole point of Wikipedia is that people add information, and then others add even more to that, and that's how great articles are made? Perhaps a section about memorable events could be greated, including both the McCartney and the Delirious (plus others!) concerts. Seems like a good idea to me, and would make the article an even more interesting read. Please let me know how on earth you considered it Self-Promotion, as I honestly don't understand why you thought that.
I've at no point been intending to spam Wikipedia... thank you for point out if my actions were resembling that; it is never the intention. We learn as we go along, and I'm always learning, especially in the last few days.
I also take your point that maybe the CU site wasn't specifically relevant in the "Jesus" article, but take another look at what you wrote:
"Quite why you thought that Liverpool City Christian Union was relevant to the article on Jesus, beggars belief."
"beggars belief"?? C'mon, it's hard not to read that and chuckle. "Jesus" and "Christian" are completely unrelated now, are they?
Paulfp 19:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Solipsist. I was merely adding the merge notice based on old posts on Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. I figured, therefore, there was already a merge notice posted.... sorry, should have linked to it. Anyway, it may still be a good merge. Alba 12:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Wicked awesome. Thanks. youngamerican ( talk) 14:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Paulfp reinserted some text [1] into Liverpool Cathedral which is similar to what you removed. I still feel it's completely inappropriate for the article on the cathedral, particularly with wording such as "remembered as one of the Cathedral's finest days". Do you agree that it should be removed? chowells 19:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Solipsist!
It's been a while, but here's
another batch. Thanks! --
Fir0002 05:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder if you can help out. I have posted extra information on the Saatchi Gallery and it's been deleted 6 times by two new users whose only contributions have been on the gallery. They remove valid information about the history of the gallery, and seem to want to make it an announcement board for current gallery activities! Tyrenius 23:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
-- Lucinor 09:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow, thanks! This is completely unexpected. I'm leaning towards accepting, but I'll get back to you. I'll tell you my decision in the morning.
Thanks again. Raven4x4x 10:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Green Sea Turtle isn't mine! :-) PiccoloNamek 13:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey again! Thanks for letting me know. I mada a tiny change, lift --> transfer, just to reflect the fact they go down as well as up.
BTW it's about time I gave out my first barnstar...
Cheers
SeanMack 00:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi! I'm just writing to remind you that this is now a part of the main page, so it should not be included on the picture's page. Thanks! — David Levy 01:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I have decided to accept your nomination. I was going through the three questions at the bottom of an RFA, and I realised that I could put together reasonable answers for all of them, and that's when I decided to accept. Of course if it fails it won't be the end of the world, and I know I don't have any really unpleasant memories that could be dredged up. So I graciously accept your nomination, and I shall work on those questions right away. Raven4x4x 02:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to be back so soon after the last batch, but I'd appreciate your input in these photos. Thanks! -- Fir0002 www 23:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi.
Thanks for the message you sent me...I've only just found it!
Cheers Kris_sw 02:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear Solipsist,
The usage of the picture of the day has expanded. It is now being copied and reformatted for horizontal presentation on the Main Page's upcoming replacement, and copied and reformatted for columnar presentation on several Main Page alternates. We're not sure we did this in the most efficient way, but here's what we've wound up with:
The pages used for the horizontally formatted pic of the day (for the new Main Page):
The pages used for the vertically (columnar) formatted pic of the day:
One problem we've run into is that the underlying pic of the day is prepared only a day or two in advance, forcing us to check back often for the latest pic updates. On days we aren't available, the pic becomes in danger of being missed which would result in a red link on the page instead of the transcluded pic. There are two possible solutions for this that I can think of (and there may be more):
I'm contacting you to begin discussions concerning the transition that will likely take place from the Main Page to the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft (which sports the pic of the day daily rather than just on weekends) and for supporting the additional uses of the pic of the day (on the Main Page alternates).
The election for the new Main Page is scheduled to start March 1st, and will run for three weeks. If the election follows the outcome of the most recent poll, the draft is very likely to win by a landslide. So now it's time to figure out how the new Main Page will be supported in case it does win -- and even if it doesn't, for it will become a Main Page alternate if it doesn't win. Both the Main Page Draft and the Main Page alternates are fully operational and the support issues above apply to the present as well as to the upcoming transition.
If the Main Page is replaced, it will still need to be supported as a Main Page alternate "Classic" version.
What are your thoughts on these matters?
What do you suggest?
If you need any assistance at all in implementing a solution to our dilemma (such as stocking the Pic of the day up in advance, or any other solution) I would be glad to chip in, and I'm sure others from the Main Page redesign team would be glad to help too.
But for now, it should be enough to discuss possible plans of action. I've invited several (or will be doing so shortly) key members of the Main Page redesign team to join in on this discussion so nobody is taken by surprise. Scratch that, I've invited them all!
Sincerely,
-- Go for it! 06:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to have one version of the Pic of the day that all versions could be automatically derived from? Using variables and if/else condition checks, could various code (like the border, or either caption, etc.) be made active or inactive depending on the page it is being displayed on? So that the same code would have different effects on different pages, allowing us to use the same code everywhere? -- Go for it! 06:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
You really shouldn`t touch material that you don`t understand!!!!! It is absurd to assume that the existing articles are unbiased, and my information is biased. In fact, I am correcting existing errors and biases. I am linking to my website because the information exists NOWHERE ELSE. If it were published, I could cite it, but because I am on the cutting edge of certain areas of study, there is nothing to cite. Your assumption that published sources are superior to unpublished sources is itself an enormous bias. Please restore what you removed, and in the future, stick to editing material that you know something about I am really disappointed in the quality of Wikipedia, which has great potential! But it is dominated by people pushing their own agendas, while claiming to be unbiased. A good example is the mountain biking article, which is pure pro-mountain biking propaganda. Whenever I try to correct it, my edits are erased without any comment. Why is this BS allowed, but efforts to correct it are not? -- Mike Vandeman
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mjvande"
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:Monument Valley 2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~
|
Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 05:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I have set up {{ Template:Generate POTD R}} to help generate POTD in the format needed for the proposed main page redesign. I suppose this will eventually replace {{ Template:Generate POTD M}}. I notice you use number variables (e.g. {{{1}}}, {{{2}}}, ...) in the other templates. {{ Template:Generate POTD R}} could use numbers also, but right now I have named parameters there (e.g. {{{image}}}, {{{size}}}, ...).
I have also attempted to separate all the parameters into {{ User:Kmf164/POTD/February 22, 2006}} - using {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}} instead of specific dates, and combine that with {{ Template:Generate POTD R}} to dynamically create {{ User:Kmf164/POTD_row}}. But somehow, I can't get {{ User:Kmf164/POTD/April 30, 2024}} to properly transclude into {{ User:Kmf164/POTD_row}}. For now, cut and pasting the parameters and using {{ Template:Generate POTD R}} could work for generating POTD row.
Let me know if you want the named parameters to be numbers (we would need one optional paramater added for size), or if you think the other generate templates could use the named parameters? - Aude ( talk | contribs) 18:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The multiple subpage approach used by Commons works, but I am not sure I like it. I've got a test example with {{POTD_M|size=200px}}, which transcludes the pages {{ User:Solipsist/2006-02-22/Image}} along with /Mouseover /Credit /Description -- Solipsist 21:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
|image = Image:Zabriskie Point at sunrise in Death Valley NP.JPG |size = 200px |title = Zabriskie Point at sunrise in Death Valley |mouseover = Zabriskie Point at sunrise in Death Valley |credit = Photo credit: [[User:maveric149|Daniel Mayer]] |caption = '''[[Zabriskie Point]]''' is an area in [[Death Valley National Park]] noted for ...
{{Generate POTD R| {{User:Kmf164/POTD/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}} |}}
The reason it's not working has nothing to do with using {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}, but something else.
When I replace {{User:Kmf164/POTD/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}} with the exact text above, from User:Kmf164/POTD/February 22, 2006, then User:Kmf164/POTD row works just fine. Maybe some point, I'll figure out what's wrong. Though, the cut and paste approach is fine with me too. - Aude ( talk | contribs) 21:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Solipsist!
I'd appreciate your input
in these
Thanks! --
Fir0002
www 23:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Would you be so kind as to keep the Pic of the day queue stocked up a month in advance? I would greatly appreciate it. -- Go for it! 15:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I just found one line of instruction on selection order for new Featured Pics (in the order created), though I think we can be a little more flexible, since we can get them all caught up fairly soon (I'll know more once I've made a list of the ones I missed). However, I could find no documentation on the selection of re-used pics over not yet used FPs. A large number of POTDs have been being reused even though there were unused FPs, which seems to break the rule "use in the order created". Unused FPs go all the way back to November. I assume you have been referring to the archives at Wikipedia:Goings-on for a listing of Featured Pictures and their promotion dates? Please correct me if I'm mistaken on this, and provide me with the link to your source data. Thank you. -- Go for it! 07:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
As you stated, the new FPs are piling up, so they should probably be posted exclusively. Sorry I missed the instructions. I've compiled the following list, which would facilitate skipping the (new) pics already posted, if you were so inclined.
Raven posted the above to Goings-on, so they are probably accurate. It's a much longer back log than I would have guessed. If this volume continues, how will POTD catch up with the new FPs?
Using the above list, it should be an easy matter to create a schudule for moving the pics to the appropriate dates. Or if you decided to pick up in April where I left off, using the above list, you'd know which pics to skip.
Also, take a look at pic posted for April 1st. That pic seems to fit that date particularly well. -- Go for it! 09:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
For keeping track of them so we can find them later, I've added the dates to which the pics are misposted, to the list above. -- Go for it! 10:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
And concerning April 1st. Can we leave that pic there? It fits the day's theme better than any other FP I could find. -- Go for it! 10:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
It appears "flaming cocktails" was passed-over by POTD. Can you confirm this? -- Go for it! 10:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
My RFA has been successful! Thanks again for nominating me. I'll try to put the admin tools to good and responsable use. If I do anything wrong you know where to find me. Raven4x4x 07:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if you could help out. I moved Meditative art to Monochrome Painting, as this is what it is about and people will understand that term. I've changed the redirects. However, I realise now it should be Monochrome painting with a lower case "p". I tried to do that move, but Monochrome painting exists as a redirect (to Meditative art, now changed by me to Monochrome Painting), so the system won't let me do the move. I can't just paste the Monochrome Painting text to Monochrome painting, as I will lose the history. If Monochrome painting was deleted, then the move could be done. I don't know of any other solution. Sorry to trouble you....
Tyrenius 18:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Solipsist,
My name is Fernanda Viégas and I have been studying Wikipedia for a while now (you can see a paper I published on the subject here). I would like to ask you a few questions about your activities as a Wikipedia "photographer" and "illustrator." I am fascinated by the pictorial side of Wikipedia and it would be great to hear about this community from one of its members. Would you be available for an informal interview? Thanks, Fernanda.
Hi Solipsist!
I was wondering if you could look through
these. Thanks! --
Fir0002
www 08:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone keeps changing the pic of the day for March 3 to Loch Lomond (though he hasn't touched the 3 POTD versions for the same day - Lewis & Clark map). Just making sure you are aware of this so that the various POTDs remain in sync. -- Go for it! 04:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I just discovered why he's so adamant: he's the one who got the picture promoted. -- Go for it! 04:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Even though you opposed, just wanted to say thanks for your comments here]. :) -- Rebroad 22:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I really liked your fish and chips photograph -- very dramatic. So I decided to look you up. Very nice job all around! Sincerely Nathan Beach 20:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I note you reverted my deletion of Newton as an alchemist from the intro. I have responded to this with some comments in the discussion page (under Alchemist).-- Jack Upland 00:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I was seeking some info about a copyright problem and was directed here by User:Fir0002 in the thought you might have some information you could share with me about this. The problem is here: [ [2]] I'm not sure if there is anything I can do. Do you have any ideas? Any information about this would be very much appreciated. Thanks. SkeenaR 05:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your response. Much appreciated. SkeenaR 04:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Solipsist, for your message. I appreciate what you are saying and I have deleted the external links in question. Best wishes, Andrew User: Andrew Lambert 0502, 17 March, 2006
I've posted about 3 weeks of pics in advance. There are six empty days mixed in, and if those were filled, it would make a whole month. They're on the old schedule, so switching to the new schedule (i.e., posting exclusively from thumbs 05) can most easily be started as of April 19th. Please go back to your routine of posting a pic (or so) a day. The purpose of the buffer is to provide a warning mechanism so that the picture on the Main Page never goes redlink (i.e., blank). If the buffer drops below 20 days, for instance, that's a sign that something may be wrong, and will alert me to jump in and help. The buffer also provides some flexibility (like the ability to take a week off from time to time). I hope you like the adjustment to the system. -- Go for it! 10:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone has proposed an April Fool's version of the Main Page for that date. Since this involves the picture of the day, I think your feedback and participation may be required. Perhaps you should take a look at the proposal and the mock-up, to give them a guiding hand: Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page. -- Go for it! 11:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
For oh so long now, I've noticed you actively running around categorising art related articles, fixing them up, adding pictures where possible, removing them when they are inappropriate or copyvios, and generally improving Wikipedia's coverage of the arts. That seems worth a Tireless Contributor Barnstar to me. Thanks for all your efforts. -- Solipsist 00:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey there. Remember in October 2004, when you uploaded that image of the newly-hatched baby tortoise?
I just had to take issue with the way you worded the caption.
Describing a tortoise as "free of his shell" can have some horribly unpleasant implications, you see. I know you meant his eggshell, but it took a moment to work that out. I've rewritten it. DS 18:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone has protected all the POTD row pics way in advance, and there are some corrections to be made, but I no longer have access. Please unprotect them, and please have a word with whomever protected them. I'd appreciate it. Thank you. -- Go for it! 01:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Solipsist, first I would like to say thanks very much for your kind comments and observations on my modern art contributions, and the gift of the wonderful revolving barnstar. It was quite unexpected and made my evening.
I've noticed your continual contributions too—as have others too, judging from your barnstars—and was already wondering whether I could leave one for you, when one appeared for me! This is my first time for awarding a barnstar, and I hope it is acceptable!
The Working Man's Barnstar | ||
For continual work on all those essential but unglamorous jobs that smarten up the whole ship Tyrenius 03:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC) |
I would be grateful, when you have the time, if you could cast your eye over the Damien Hirst article, as I would like to bring this up to featured article level. I haven't got enough experience to know what might need to be done, and how far short it would be at the moment. Any pointers would be welcome. I think it has the potential to make a very notable featured article. There is already some very interesting material in there that I had never come across before I started researching for it—and I thought I was fairly conversant with the subject.
Tyrenius 03:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Re. Damien Hirst, I wanted to see if there was anything glaring that needed to be attended to. I wouldn't want to put it forward for a featured article yet, as there is still some material that needs to be included, for example more about his use of pharmaceutical imagery, as well as a colour supplement article on him that I need to dig out from my files. I haven't got time right now though for that.
Tyrenius 16:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Solipsist – I somehow missed seeing this before – the tree is a Common Lime (a hybrid, Tilia × europaea; Tilia platyphyllos × Tilia cordata). This sort of twigginess is a normal character of some clones of this hybrid; it is vegetatively reproduced (propagated by cuttings, not seeds), and there appears to be a relationship between production of this twiggyness and ease of rooting cuttings. In other words, the ones that are dreadful for suckering are also cheap to propagate, and is thus a product of human selection. The two parent species rarely show this character, but it does occur occasionally. Although it does look very like a witches' broom, it isn't actually one in this case. - MPF 22:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I provided the pic of the day with a one-month buffer. Consider it a gift. Though I've noticed that you've been letting the buffer slip away. Whether or not that buffer is maintained is up to you. I've gone back to my other projects. Good luck. -- Go for it! 23:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
That's a really nice picture. Did you take it yourself? If so, do you have any more? The one on Arsenal F.C. is a bit out of date and not very nice, and I've been meaning to head out and take some myself; that roof shot might be good for replacing it, but I'd prefer a more general landscape shot as it'd be a better comparison alongside the one of Highbury. Qwghlm 11:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Solipsist!
I would like to have a lend on you artistic senses. Could you please have a look at and leave comments on
this page? The matter is of some urgency as I have to email my entry by tommorrow night. Thanks! --
Fir0002
www 11:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
You have contributed to the Rosalind Franklin article. It has recently had a rewrite and been had a request for peer review. Your comments would be appreciated. Alun 17:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Solipsist!
I've got a quite a
large batch to choose from this time... --
Fir0002
www 11:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Solipsist, I've just done a rather "catty" edit summary on your winglet pic changes. If I had realised the changes were made by a very respected member of our community I would have looked harder for your reasons for change so aplogies for the Summary. I believe the Privatair winglet pic to be worth preserving in the article so, to make it available to WP readers, I've started a gallery with it. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 18:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Solipsist, nice having met you in St. Yves. I like your nickname and can't imagine you'r an atheist. You might have meant agnostic, haven't you? Foreigner 07:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Solipsist!
Sorry to bother you again with this licensing stuff, but I recently posted a
question on the GFDL talk page, and the answer was somewhat distrubing. Is there some kind of license or restriction to the GFDL I could make to disallow commercial use without permission of the photographer? Thanks, --
Fir0002 00:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah I see. There's not much you can do about other people using your photos for commercial gain. That's part of the deal with GFDL and cc-by-sa and is an ingrained part of Wikipedia. And yes, I think your assessment of the case of someone printing a book is probably correct. They would also need to credit you for the photo. Much the same would apply under GFDL.
On trying to get people to contact you first, that's a little tricky. I also think that holding copyright under a pseudonym is a little dubious; hence I use my real name. But if you don't want to show your real name here, that gets difficult. You could put a line on the image description page asking people to contact you first, although it wouldn't be legally bindng. Another option might be to use the {{
CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} tag and then include a requirement that you be contacted first (see for example
Image:V20001.jpg) - the down side there is that that tag doesn't really involve a license of any sort and so may not be as legally binding. It might not be what you want to achieve, but if Flagstaffotos is company (and so a legal entity) then I would expect that you could assign the copyright of your photos to the company and then license the images here under GFDL or cc-by-sa as being from, and so requiring credit to, flagstaffotos.com. Of course that only works if you wholely own the company and always expect to. It probably also has other legal implications, so I had better add; IANL and recommend that you consult a solicitor/lawyer... --
Solipsist 06:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Solipsist!
I was wondering if you could leave your comments on
this page? Thanks! --
Fir0002 04:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
09:05am, 4 Dec 2006 (PST) Hello, I am a researcher at UC Berkeley very much hoping to ask you about an image from the "Eye of Providence" page that you apparently uploaded on 22-Aug-2004, "QuoModoDeum.gif" (see links below.) My query is not about copyright or anything like that, rather at this moment tracing the geneology of emblems and pictographs like the Eye, from the 1500s, which is when this image most likely comes from. My question is: Do you know the source of the image? It is nebulously listed as from an unnamed "alchemical" text. Probably this illustrated emblem was reproduced in several places (originally I believe it is from Paris 1542.)
Regardless of where this specific version of the image was copied from, I believe I have isolated one source for this image, but the epigram/typeset on the bottom appears slightly differently in the edition I have located - "Quomodo Deum", instead of "Quo Modo Deum", which leads me to believe it is another edition. This seems like a small difference...but really it is a clue in a larger problem which is really quite mysterious! (I can get into that later.) In any case, as soon as I get this all straight (in a few days hopefully) I will correct the appropriate text on wikipedia.
Is there any way you can respond or email me? Thanks SO much! cheers!
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_providence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:QuoModoDeum.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload_log_archive/August_2004_(2)
15:21, 22 Aug 2004 Solipsist uploaded "QuoModoDeum.gif" (Quo Modo Deum - alchemical woodcut)
--quomodo 09:05am, 4 Dec 2006 (PST)