User talk:Joopercoopers/Archive 3

Hi Joopers. I got pulled back into editing briefly out of affection for Meher Baba, whose article was being 'helped' by some new editors. Eventually the trail led here. I said some kind words about you here. You were a great editor. I've somehow found myself tracking the Giano story, and it just seems like intelligence has gone to hell around here...maybe because WE LEFT????? --Nemonoman (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time wasting[edit]

You are wasting your time, it is about to have a prune of a monumental nature, at least half is going! Giano (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question of propriety[edit]

Why did you revert giano's comment on his own userpage? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

accidentally hit the wrong button - reverted myself immediately with apologies. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that now...oops....;) --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He likes to live dangerously, in the fast lane!!! GGGGrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Giano (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some people refer to your excellent contributions Giano, but really your talent is really nailing those idioms with superb examples. Take above where you've demonstrated the "pot calling the kettle black" to a tee. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wot? Giano (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's you who lives dangerously around here, I'm positively cuddly. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you are not a finely honed and toned gladiator? Giano (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I think my gladius wielding days may have passed - have you considered the Samurai art of flower arranging? --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No! and they look very uncomfortable. Giano (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] yeeeeuuuuuuk vomit! Giano (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hope you don't mean 'polytechnic' - vomit indeed good sir.--Joopercoopers (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wot like Hallam (2Ds and a swimming badge)? No, certeinly not. Well you have made some very nice edits there, but I'm glad you felt the need to explain "hydroponicum." Giano (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that was Ms Jasper, who seems delightful btw, but has a worrying morbid fascination with Japanese POW camps - she's appealing for witnesses - you're of that age, perhaps you might be able to assist? --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken JC, as a very small child, I do rmember being allowed to watch Tenko, however as I spoke no English at the time, it all rather passed over my head. How is the war wound by the way? Giano (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Healing nicely thank you, nothing important - just a bump to the head.--Joopercoopers (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail! Jasper33 (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: IRC[edit]

For the time being, I'm going to wait for the RFC to conclude. Regardless of how we proceed after that, I see little benefit in jumping the gun at this stage. Kirill ^(prof) 12:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping the gun? I hardly call wating the last two years - jumping the gun. Giano (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was referring more to my own participation in the matter than to the possibility of discussion as a whole. I'm not sure whether the RFC would be the best place to discuss this—the broader IRC matter is essentially a policy formation debate, and the RFC/U structure isn't necessarily set up to handle that well—but if you'd like to do it there, that's up to you. Personally, I'd start up a separate centralized discussion to develop a comprehensive, community-imposed IRC usage/structure/etc. policy rather than limiting this to a question of what the Committee, specifically, should do about IRC. Kirill ^(prof) 12:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbcom agreed here that IRC#admins was a source of conflict [2] and they agreed to address the issue here [3] - I believe that is your sig, Kirill, there too? In short the Arbcom has renegaded on it's own decisions, it has done nothing to address the issue, yet wants me to abide by its findings. Tough luck Kirill, that is not the way the world works. To cover its own failings the Arbcom now seeks to penalise me, and drag me into every possible case in an attempt to shut me up for pointing it's shortcoming out - extraordinary behaviour, I wonder why that is? Giano (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BP[edit]

Hi.. I have BP on my watchlist, so I will see any time a comment is made on the talk page. Ta. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 22:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

erm...thanks! :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside the Infobox[edit]

I know you are asking Wetman for his opinion on his talk, but allow me to exclaim "Outstanding!" with regard to your test page. It is elegant, functional and satisfies the concerns of both sides of the infobox real estate argument. Really a masterful solution, if you could apply that format to the Ponte Vecchio page as another test I beleive its adoption would be moved forward. Sswonk (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You have taken the "infobox" to a whole new level. - Epousesquecido (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, that's a worry! :-). --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How will you let people know when/where you've posted your proposal? - Denimadept (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the general reader, I'll just post it on VP - for you, I'll buzz ya. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tabbed articles[edit]

Hi Jooperscoopers - I just stumbled across the test page and wanted to say "great idea!" I spend virtually all my wiki time at WikiProject Aircraft and can tell you that this approach has enormous value and utility for that project.

Because of its radically new approach, I have no doubt that it will run into enormous resistance when it's put forward. When you're ready to take the proposal further, please get in touch, and I'll happily weigh in with specifics of how it would help WP:AIR (as an example) and will be happy to do up an example article or two based on the specific version that you're putting forward at the time.

Please continue down this path! Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left some introductory remarks; do you mind if I solicit comment from other WP:AIR contributors? --Rlandmann (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point of view[edit]

I find it interesting how you put your argument. I can't, and don't really, claim that an id number is key to such articles. I suppose such information is included for the reasons you state: it's easy, it's do-able, so they included it. For a bridge, what would you suggest? How would you change the {{infobox bridge}} to make it useful for engineering instances such as Golden Gate Bridge and those which have more to them such as Rialto Bridge? What would you remove and add?

Personally, looking at the template, I'd probably remove the Maintained By, and the ID number. Add for PV? Hm. The problem is that this is limited to fairly short data. The number of individual buildings on top is probably not of interest. Maybe add entries from something like {{Infobox shopping mall}} with Floor Area, and maybe websites relevant to the shops in some form. Also, perhaps an entry which links to parts in the article of special historical events. If we changed the infobox, we could then use the results on the other three bridges which would make use of the new entries from the mall template, and on all bridge articles for historical events. - Denimadept (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest not including information in such prominent positions at all solely because its simply, easy and do-able - that doesn't improve the encyclopedia. My current proposition is to include a statistical subpage if required, that either would, or would not, be duplicated as an infobox on the main article as required - but I'm still working out the details. The entire Golden Gate Bridge box misses the central point of the bridge from an encylopedic point of view - that it was once a true engineering marvel is now less important than its status as an iconic landmark of the city - quite how you'd shoe-horn that into an infobox category is really your problem. On a bad-taste but jocular note, how about "Number of Suicides in 2007" for the infobox? In short, I don't think tweaking the fields is really the solution - you'd end up with a field for each bridge, so you might as well have a well written lead. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the point from my point of view. The fact that the GGB is a symbol of San Francisco might be mentioned in the GGB article, but it belongs in the SF article. It has little to do with the bridge and lots to do with the city. You can draw the obvious parallel. - Denimadept (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its a shame you struggle with a wider view of things Denim, life's richer for the interconnectedness of things.......I'd like to see you try to remove the 'mention' in the article if that's your contention - the two clearly have a symbiotic relationship. Is the Eiffel Tower just a radio tower? Or an expression of French nationhood, confidence, engineering prowess and penis envy? (maybe not the last one, but you never know). Not to mention a tourist attraction, a light show a meeting place, a landmark, a scene for love in spring, a symbol for all things French. Things usually operate on a lot of different levels than just the prosaic, when you start to include the cultural, artist and historic viewpoints - sometimes these a paramount to the structures, sometimes the engineering is more important. Out of interest - how do you view the Millau Viaduct? Breathtaking isn't it? --Joopercoopers (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your last point first, neat! Never heard of it before. The refs I've got tend toward older construction, but I haven't read them cover to cover yet. One is a reprint of a 1929 book, the other dates from 2003. Looks like the Millau Viaduct is out of range. :-D

I'm an amateur photographer. I appreciate the softer side too, but I see bridges as mainly a civil engineering product. Everything else comes after that, as a bridge fan.

Now then, regarding the Ponte Vecchio, these two books dedicate space to it, for certain. The newer book gives it a large picture and a paragraph. Kinda disappointing. In part: "Built in 1345 by Taddeo Gaddi, it was the only bridge over the Arno in Florence which was spared when the German army retreated in 1944. The Ponte Vecchio is one of the few remaining examples of the medieval practice of erecting buildings on the bridge deck. The bridge's shops were initially occupied by various tradesmen, but since 1593 by gold- and silversmiths." (Cortright, Robert S. Bridging the World. Wilsonville, Oregon: Bridge Ink. pp. p.43. ISBN 0-9641963-3-6. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |origmonth=, |accessmonth=, |origdate=, |coauthors=, |month=, |chapterurl=, and |accessyear= (help))

The older book (Whitney, Charles S. (2003) [1929]. Bridges of the World: Their Design and Construction. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc. pp. pp.107, 163. ISBN 0-486-42995-4. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |origmonth=, |accessmonth=, |origdate=, |coauthors=, |month=, |chapterurl=, and |accessyear= (help)) contains not much either. It has a B&W image on the same page, by the way, as a pre-war (by necessity) picture of Ponte Coperto which is a similar construction (less most of the buildings), plus minimal text. I find that I'm not especially satisfied by either book's coverage of this bridge! :-(

While the structures mentioned are important as you say, to some degree that's just because they've been there for quite a while. The original feedback about the Eiffel Tower, before construction I believe, was very biased toward the negative. Ditto the The Crystal Palace. Note that the latter is no more, in part because of that original input. The Eiffel Tower was lucky in that it had and has other uses than as a transmission tower. According to the article on the Ponte Vecchio, it had its detractors as well, at least before it was actually built. Having been there for some time, an object gets rather set in people's minds. They defend it, they rely on it to be there, even if they originally thought it hideous. Note the destruction in Britain a few days ago of a pair of cooling towers from the 1940s took the company involved over a decade to complete apparently because the locals wanted to save them.

But this structure is rather different. Maybe I'd understand better if I were to visit the area, but that's not likely any time soon. At this point, my basic method of operation is to find something interesting in a book (or my ASCE calendar), check out its Wikipedia article, creating it if need be (Alcántara Bridge, Meiko Nishi Ohashi roadway bridges, others), and adding to any existing article if possible. This month's bridge on my calendar was already more than sufficiently covered, so I left it alone (Millennium Bridge (London)), but generally I find I can add to something at least once a month. I didn't, and still don't really, see the Ponte Vecchio bridge as any different in that regard. They haven't even bothered to give it a name, according to everything I've seen; it just has a description, and not a unique one at that. I'll grant you that's not too telling in this case. - Denimadept (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So from your own research you've determined:-

The Ponte Vecchio is one of the few remaining examples of the medieval practice of erecting buildings on bridges. So it has a value in that it can still be studied whereas the others can not.
Structures might become more important as they age - I disagree that is because they get 'set in people's mind', for one thing they become rare - you know the Indian Jones line about the watch "a ten dollar worthless piece of Junk, bury it in the sand for a thousand years and its priceless".
You confuse popularity with importance. The Crystal Palace might have been too revolutionary for its own time, but went on to influence generations of architects and engineers - if you see a lot of glass buildings in cities these days, that's in part because of the Crystal palace, the fact it had mixed receptions is irrelevant (and a good argument why the presumption should be to conserve certain types of 'unpopular architecture' - Brutalism is having a very hard time at the moment, but in 100 years who knows what the view of it may be?)

And yet you still don't see the Ponte Vecchio as any different to the Meiko Nishi Ohashi roadway bridges and believe that the most important thing about it is its span and width (which are rather unremarkable to me, in comparison). Well I can't really help you then, you must suffer alone. For what its worth I suggest someone gets hold of the 1980s Banister Fletcher Comparative Method (now listed in the references) and looks up the entry - my copy, although with a lovely Art Deco gold leaf cover, was published in the 20s and doesn't refer to it - the revised and updated version has both pictures and text. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually quite fond of Brutalism. I graduated from University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, you see. But that's besides the point.

Certainly the two bridges are different! The Ponte Vecchio is much nicer looking, whereas the MNO bridges are rather utilitarian and industrial looking with their kind of "A" frame towers and repetitive shapes. The funny thing, from my point of view, is that your previous reference to Millau Viaduct is to an article which seems to be entirely about the physical structure. It's neat and all, but it hasn't yet had time to develop the kind of veneer the Ponte Vecchio has. Maybe that's your point. Why is it, though, that you apparently refuse to accept that at its root the Ponte Vecchio is a bridge, with certain specs? Yes, it's not extremely large, so what? Size isn't everything. It's not using the latest tech either, and its WiFi range is likely non-existant. It's still a cool structure, and the basic specs are of interest. So is everything beyond the basics. Does that mean the basic specs are irrelevant??

BTW, I wouldn't have referred to The Crystal Palace if I weren't aware of what it was. Very significant structure, with humble roots, in a rather literal sense, considering what its inspiration was. - Denimadept (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evil question[edit]

What do you think of {{Geobox Bridge}} as used at Fair Oaks Bridge? - Denimadept (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: bad form[edit]

Jooper, I already struck part of it a couple of days ago and no one objected. How does one go about making a working draft? It is within the guidelines of WP:TALK at any rate. Really, isn't it simpler to strike an "oppose" with "support" or some other thing and explain the change? A quick reply would be appreciated because the reintroduction method seems to me to be similar to a filibuster. Sswonk (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it now? Sswonk (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

much better - please proceed. (although v. bored of talk page discussions - I may need to take a mainspace sabatical pretty soon - in fact i'm off to the Lakes for a few days so please don't slash the seats while I'm gone. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have archived the discussion at MoS. The experiment at Ponte Vecchio will continue and no further discussion about a blanket statement against hiding infoboxes appears necessary. The discourse bore fruit in that major concerns about functionality and innovation were aired and a cooperative atmosphere prevailed. Sswonk (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Em dashes (Deconstructivism): HTML entity vs. Unicode[edit]

Given that the Insert console below the edit box inserts the em dash (and the en dash, degree symbol, etc.) as the Unicode character (see the slightly out-of-date Help:Special characters#Editing), and that the officially sanctioned (through its inclusion in Special:Preferences) wikEd, I don't think it's a problem (either way). --zenohockey (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taj Mahal[edit]

Hi, are you aware you've put the subpages in mainspace rather than your userspace? Somno (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - yes. I'm hoping to move the userspace page to mainspace once I've got some more of the details thrashed out - so its more convenient for the mainspace subpages to already be in the right place (but they're kind of hidden from the general reader). regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, just making sure you knew. :) Somno (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sort of on this topic -- answering on my talk --nemonoman (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/petitions/Giano[edit]

I'm concerned about this petition's presence in the Requests for Arbitration space—one which is generally reserved for "official" Committee pages. I suspect the petition will eventually be moved elsewhere, and so, with a view to going with the least upset possible, I'd like your permission to move it to a page in your userspace (or, at your request, to another specified location).

Thoughts on moving the petition? Anthøny ✉ 15:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The clerks have agreed that placing this petition in a subpage of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration is misleading and confusing because it gives the impression that it has been sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee, or that it is part of the operation of the Committee, neither of which is accurate. I would suggest that a formal Request for Comments is probably the best format for what you are trying to achieve.

In the meantime, I am moving the subpage to User:Joopercoopers/Giano; where it can stay until you decide how to best proceed. — Coren ^(talk) 14:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion mostly took place on the clerks' mailing list; if you want, I can post a short summary of the discussion somewhere around the clerk's notice board and give you a diff to that, but I'm not entirely certain I see the point. — Coren ^(talk) 21:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There it is. I'm still not sure I understand your point about transparency given that I had notified you here and that is just as much on the record, but I could think of no reason to not make that link for you. — Coren ^(talk) 12:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal subpages[edit]

As subpages are not allowed in the main space, I have moved the following articles into your user space for you to work on:

Sorry for any inconvenience. ... discospinster _talk 20:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Taj Mahal[edit]

No, I have no intention of changing the code on your page. If you wish, I can delete the pages as they were originally tagged for speedy. ... discospinster _talk 16:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gallery subpage was deleted (not by me). I will recover it and add it with the rest under your user name. ... discospinster _talk 19:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El Lissitzky FAR and article[edit]

Hey Joopercoopers good to see you at the Lissitzky FAR and article. Expect some ref adding from me this weekend, if it isn't all done by then already. Yours truly, dvdrw 00:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tabbed pages redux[edit]

I just spotted this question: WP:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Making_navboxes_and_.22see_also.22_sections_more_visible and would like to start a discussion about the issues involved, including a reference to our sometimes heated debate over Ponte Vecchio. How far have you gotten with what I saw as an elegant and obvious potential solution, that is the concept of tabbed articles? I ask because these discussions continue to simmer to a varying degree in VP and MOS contexts, and I think the tabbed article concept, requiring a project-wide sea change in thinking and page layout, offers a viable future solution. I see that Lar still uses a tabbed user page, and that it would make a lot of sense to use a similar structure to satisfy the concerns of many editors. Here's to a workable solution, in which the article contains all text, images and essential charts and figures, with nav and infobox sections on separate tabs, also an option for image gallery and even category tree tabs. What do you think, and how have you been by the way? Sswonk (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same as Mcginnly?[edit]

Are you the same person as User:Mcginnly? Just curious. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it say so on mcginnly's page? --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - it used to - i've restored it now. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good. This kind of thing is a bit sensitive recently :-) --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So would you mind telling me where you found out and why you asked - the account hasn't been used in ages - are you responding to my criticisms on Giano's page with some kind of muscle rippling insinuation? --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't mean to attack you. Because of your reply to me on Giano's page I checked your contributions list and found this edit: [4], and couldn't find an explanation. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See block log. My universal login is tied to mcginnly, so if I login in de.wp and come back here, I'm logged out as JC and in as mcginnly. Rather annoying that - I'd like a universal login with JC as my main account here and mcginly elsewhere. But there's no requirement to declare in any event - I'm not running for Arbcom! --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CDF[edit]

Thanks for the comments and note; I've left a responce on the FAC page. Feel free to join in on the discussions on the talk, the wider the base of openion the better. Ceoil (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano[edit]

Fred, I appreciate saying on Giano's page the block will be reviewed is necessary to prevent any old tom dick or harry reblocking him - but are you sure you're the right man for the job given your two histories. This doesn't look like an impartial action. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to a proposal I made to ban Giano for incivility as a remedy in an arbitration case a couple of years ago we had no conflict. I did not even know who he was. Fred Talk 22:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely - for several years, there has been bad blood between you - and presumably you know who he is now - its stretching credulity a little to think you're impartial here. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was impartial when I began considering the matter. Obviously, I have drawn certain conclusions in the meantime, but I will be making a decision based on his edits. Fred Talk 22:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Gurukul[edit]

Thanks for the input. I dunno if it will end up being a WikiProject, or just a set of essays in my user space. I put a few words on that issue on its Talk page. Thanks again! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 22:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MfD[edit]

I was out for the night but it doesn't put egg on my face at all to try and get rid of something I personally considered excessively nasty, regardless of the outcome that came about. Would you stand by if you felt the same? Sticky Parkin 22:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cruel[edit]

Very cruel JC [5] :-) Giano (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! the irony..... Joopercoopers (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One's almost tempted to support him and Forrester to avoid the excrutiating embaressment of having to watch, no wonder the rest of them blanched when I suggested they all put themselves up for election. I'm sorry poor old Hochman is not doing better, as he is one of the few with the brains and courage to give some definnitive leadership. The fact that Durova has commented as she did ought to make at least 200 vote for him, but there you are you can take a horse to the water etc. Giano (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic[edit]

Thanks JC for your support re Gothic and Gothic Revival. So far you are the only one to have made any comment. I am of a mind to create English Gothic architecture as a sub-cat of Gothic architecture. This should solve the "problem" - no big deal I agree. Do you have any objection? I have just noticed your new list of Gothic Revival architects - I shall add some more.

Incidentally I seem to remember that months ago you offered to take photographs (excellent as ever I presume) of churches etc in Cheshire, and I made no response (shame on me). I have managed to add images to most of the churches in North Cheshire but there are quite a few in South Cheshire I have not reached (and winter would be a good time for taking them - no leaves). And then there are a number of Grade I listed buildings (not churches) in the county without images....., see Grade I listed buildings in Cheshire.

Please reply here; I am watching. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English Gothic Architecture as a subcat of Gothic architecture sounds sensible to me - probably with English Gothic Revival architecture as a subcat of Gothic Revival architecture. No problem with the photographs - I'll just work through the blanks in the list unless you have any pressing ones you'd like. regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I think I'll do that when I get time - unless there's opposition from the Project. User:Trident13 has already created the subcat of Gothic Revival architecture in England so I think we can leave that as it is. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Made the time; dunnit. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Gothic[edit]

Hi Joopercoopers, sorry for my slow response. Victorian Gothic is of course a Gothic Revival, and might be merged. I saw it as distinct in that like most cycles of architectural revival, particularly after it has past, we notice at least as much about the period of the revival as the original style it attempts to revive. It is a long and broad subject, including delicate examples and large ponderous piles of buildings too. Another sub-category would be Carpenter Gothic a domestic style popular in the mid-19th century in North America. The term "Victorian" is of course loaded too, in that it is Anglocentric and similar buildings were being built across Europe, Africa, and North and South America. But the term does seem to be widely used to describe 19th century Gothic Revivals even here in the U.S. It's a hard one to get a handle on, a church I attend, built in 1871-75, is described as Venetian Gothic, exhibit's Ruskinian ideas, has English Clayton and Bell stained glass based on 15th century English stained glass, but the polychrome stencils look like something Pugin would have done. A part of me thinks that if you consolidate that, should we also consolidate Carpenter Gothic or other related revivals? CApitol3 (talk)

Hmm..? What's with the blanking, Joops? Sorry about my edit of Giano's page, I bet I just ec'd you. :-( I'll leave you in possession now. You might care to let me know when you're done. Bishonen | talk 20:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Polite[edit]

Man, you're one polite Englishman, how can you stand it? See how an offensive Swede puts it? Not that I expect either your version or mine to help any... Bishonen | talk 11:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

It's a cross I have to bear :-) Of course, polite dissent is far easier to ignore unfortunately. What grinds my gears is Giano's hauled over the coals for his 'incivility' because it supposedly doesn't make a good environment for editors, but Arbcom, first let FT2 rant ad-infinitum at the RFAR, before mercifully asking him to stop - but still enabling the delaying tactic, then pull the Giano-drama rabbit out of the hat for further delays and proving beyond doubt that content contribution is valued as an activity that should be wiped off the soles of our shoes around here. I'm so f*in angry about it I don't know how to express that forcefully without going entirely 'postal'. So I'll sit and stir my tea with menace. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And just as an addendum; if we don't get the relationship between administration and authors sorted, how the hell is this going to work? Can you see our 16 yr old admins, popping up on Inflammatory markers and experimental studies in occupational and environmental diseases and insisting every sentence has an in-line citation, must conform to NUMMOS, NIMBOS, and whatever is the policy de jour, have the 'chemstry n stuff' infobox and then threaten more academics with blocks and bans when they complain that hippies are adding unsourced materials about the effects of crystals? Far from ideal aren't we? --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banqueting Hall[edit]

Fixed. - Mark 13:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE[edit]

I'm a little prickly, but I'm not all that worked up about it - and I've been complaining loudly at the committee to get a move on too. I just took issue with the part saying the clerks coming along in our "own sweet time," but its not a big deal. Sorry if I unhappy with you - I wasn't. --Tznkai (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks[edit]

It wasn't the neatest of endings but I am going to call and end. Many thanks to you and others for the kind and patient help you have shown. At some point, back to the Dark Ages, but a rest for now, I think. Thanks again. Peter Damian (talk) 08:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome Peter. All the best. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Please stop doing that - it's not helping."`[edit]

Ditto, right back at you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.8.210 (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays[edit]

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; our paths have often crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which ones were which!

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - December 2008 Issue[edit]

Summary: You can now join Wiki UK Ltd, which hopes to become the official UK chapter of Wikimedia in January. The organisation is planning its first Annual General Meeting, where members can vote on who is on the board, and put forward and vote on resolutions. The organisation is already supporting activities such as a bid to hold Wikimania 2010 in Oxford and the exciting Wikipedia Loves Art project at the Victoria and Albert Museum. We also bring you news of the the recent Wikimeet in London.

In this month's newsletter:

Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Newsletter delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and the happiest of New Years to you, Sig. Joopercoopers.Wetman (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year[edit]

WikiProject Cheshire newsletter[edit]

Delivered on 19 January 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Questionnaire[edit]

In an effort to assess the progress of Wikiproject Cheshire, it has been decided to send a questionnaire to members. To answer, please copy this questionnaire and paste your answers on the answer page. While participation is, of course, not compulsory, thoughtful answers will help the project to develop and improve. Thank you.

1. The project is always looking for new members, so we want to find out which ways of attracting and approaching potential members work best. Do you remember how and why you joined?

Answer:

2. How would you describe your involvement in the project? What activities do you undertake and how often do you edit Cheshire-related article?

Answer:

3. Do you feel like you receive adequate support/contact from project members?

Answer:

4. The project talk page is intended to be the hub of the project, where members discuss articles and help each other improving them. Until very recently it has been almost inactive, but do you check the project talk page?

Answer:

4a. If the talk page was more active, would you get involved in discussions there?

Answer:

5. When viewing Cheshire-related articles, are there any issues that have stood out as needing attention or frustrated you? (Traditional counties POV, poor coverage about a particular subject, vandalism going unnoticed etc)

Answer:

6. Maintaining the Cheshire portal is one of the Cheshire WikiProject's main aims, providing a display of the best and most up to date articles that are part of the project. There is currently a drive to promote it to featured status, but input from a wide range of members is needed. Do you have the portal on your watchlist?

Answer:

7. Would you be interesting in subscribing to a newsletter covering North West England, with details of work done by WikiProjects representing Cheshire, Greater Manchester, and Merseyside?

Answer:

8. Finally, are there any improvements or initiatives you'd like to see WP:CHES undertake, or general comments you'd like to make?

Answer:

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - January 2009 Issue[edit]

Summary: We lead with the exciting news that we are now recognised as Wikimedia UK by the Wikimedia Foundation. This means that we can shortly open a bank account and approve membership applications. Planning is also underway for a new website and for the upcoming Annual General Meeting. Meanwhile, we continue to support Wikipedia Loves Art, which will launch on 1st February and the bid to hold Wikimania 2010 in Oxford, and bring news of recent and upcoming meet-ups.

In this month's newsletter:

Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - February 2009 Issue[edit]

Summary: The chapter is now up and running, and we have now opened our bank account. We have a new website, and are putting plans in place for the first Annual General Meeting. Meanwhile, February has seen the successful Wikipedia Loves Art at the Victoria and Albert Museum, bidding to host Wikimania 2010 has opened, and the Government's Intellectual Property consultation has closed. We also bring the regular news of meet-ups, and a new feature highlighting press coverage of Wikimedia in the UK.

In this month's newsletter:

Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - March 2009 Issue[edit]

Summary: With everything in place for the chapter, other than charity status, we have organised the first Annual General Meeting - your chance to influence the chapter's future and stand for the board. The bid to hold Wikimania 2010 in Oxford is coming on nicely. We also bring you the usual details of meet-ups and news coverage, and details of how to propose a project, and possibly get funding.

In this month's newsletter:

Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Newsletter delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - April 2009 Issue[edit]

Summary: Wikimedia UK has held it's first AGM! The AGM included numerous speakers talking about a wide range of topics, ranging from collaboration with the BBC to reaching out around the world with Wikipedia on a DVD! A number of official actions were also taken - including the passing of six Resolutions, the election of the new seven-person Board, and the first new Board meeting! Also this month, an overview of the Chapters meeting in Berlin, of which two of our number were present, and details of the upcoming meetups this month!

In this month's newsletter:

Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skenmy (talk • contribs) 19:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - May 2009 Issue[edit]

Summary: Whilst our application to HMRC has not yet been successful, we're after your views on the proposed New Chapters' Agreement, your suggestions for a Wikimedia UK conference next year and your ideas for initiatives to start! We also bring you updates on Wikipedia Loves Art, Other Chapters' Activities, Meet-ups and Press coverage.

In this month's newsletter:

Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:P75-wikipedia.jpg[edit]

File:P75-wikipedia.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:P75-wikipedia.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:P75-wikipedia.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association[edit]

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CDF and the sublime[edit]

Hi Joopercoopers. I remember you asking about the 'sublime' with respect to Caspar David Friedrich, here. I came across an interesting passage that has helped me understand my own attraction to his art. Since this passage is the closest connection between the sublime & Friedrich that I've come across (though I don't claim to be well read on the subjects), I thought I would pass it on. The source is [6]:

In the work of Caspar David Friedrich we repeatedly encounter a ﬁgure seen from behind—the Rückenﬁgur, engaged in contemplation of a view. This is the simplest of devices for representing aesthetic experience in the new, Kantian sense, centred quite literally on the observing subject. In Wanderer above the Sea of Fog, the Rückenﬁgur’s head is at the horizontal centre of the canvas, and his waist exactly bisects its vertical dimension. Moreover, the view is balanced with uncanny symmetry around the ﬁgure. Indeed, the space is not measurable in the ordinary terms of post-Renaissance perspective, but only in relation to the ﬁgure itself. The rising fog makes unfathomable the spaces between the foreground crag, the rocks in the middleground, and the distant peaks. When we make out the trees on the rock to the right of the ﬁgure’s elbow they seem unexpectedly tiny; then the distant peaks seem to spring away to a vast distance. As we scan the picture our efforts to comprehend the scale relationships are constantly tested or deﬁed. Although this is not a particularly large picture, it gives a strong sense of the kind of aesthetic experience Kant called sublime, in which we strain to perceive something limitless or inﬁnite. We are thwarted in the attempt to realize this perception fully, both by the magnitude of the view and by the scudding patches of fog, yet this failure to comprehend produces a feeling of awe or wonder that is the counterpart, in the experience of the sublime, to the free play of mind in response to the beautiful. It is not, then, the landscape itself, but rather the viewer’s aesthetic experience, that can be called sublime in the Kantian sense.

... Unlike more traditional representations of landscape, this painting does not pretend to present us with a natural scene as it exists in its own right, but makes us conscious instead that we are seeing a human perception of nature. Friedrich has, then, found a way to present a scene that corresponds to the Kantian aesthetic experience. Moreover, the painting is not merely an anecdotal representation of a ﬁgure engaged in the experience of the sublime, it also provides us viewers with an aesthetic experience analogous to that of the Rückenﬁgur herself.
This is not to claim that Friedrich had the speciﬁc intention of demonstrating Kantian aesthetic philosophy. Had this been his aim, it would threaten the aesthetic credentials of the painting, which would then be tantamount to a logical treatise in visual form; it would be directed towards a speciﬁc end, that of demonstrating the Kantian theory of the sublime. This points to a serious difﬁculty that occurs when Kant moves from his theory of aesthetic experience, in the early sections of the Critique of Judgement, to a discussion of artmaking. While we can easily imagine that Friedrich may not have intended the painting to be a visual treatise on aesthetics, it is scarcely conceivable that he made it without any intentions at all....

Regards, Outriggr (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joopercoopers[edit]

Ah! I see. Thanks for notifying me about that. I suppose I should take away the "self-nom" thing attached to the beginning of my message.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have an interesting user page. I like it! (Take a look at mine if you have the chance). I noticed on your user page that you intend on copyediting Architecture of the Song Dynasty. Cool! I wrote that article. Well, about 90% of it. Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Established Editors[edit]

Discussion of objectives here. Peter Damian (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]