| Revision as of 23:59, 25 January 2007 editMcginnly (talk | contribs)Rollbackers14,989 editsm →Thanks: link← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:59, 26 June 2023 edit undoFastily (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled100,543 edits cleaned up bot spamTag: Replaced | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | #REDIRECT ] | ||
| Old messages are at | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| '''Please note I have a new email address, so can only be contacted through wiki-email at the moment!''' | |||
| <br style="clear:both" /> | |||
| ] | |||
| I'm away for a while, my bird needs a name, please leave suggestions below. ] 21:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Glad to see the birdy back. I suggest naming it Aloysius. ] 22:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Julius Seizure. —] (]) 22:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I think ] would be a good name. | |||
| *Either that or ]. | |||
| *Finally, may I recommend Flip the Bird. ] 22:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Eunice. For no particular reason. <!-- unless it's the veiled pun on, ''you nice''...-->] 23:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I suggest "Hum". ] ] 23:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *A ferocious watch-bird to keep mischief-makers and evil-doers out. I assumed he was called '''Spike'''. ] 23:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *''/me lumbers past, stops in surprise, makes some unsuccessful grabs for the colibri. Moves on, tickled.'' Flutterzilla! Grrrr! ] ] | ] 02:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC). | |||
| *]? --] 08:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I love that name, I was rather thinking along the lines of "Woody" after woody-woodpecker, but these ideas are great, I shall keep thinking! ] 21:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Colourful Italian bird? - ] of course. --] | ] 09:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] - ]</small> (]) 20:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Input required== | |||
| Hi Giano, I've replied to your comment on my talk page. ] ] 20:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Actual encyclopedia-building question == | |||
| Hey there. I came to you before on my last attempt, I'm trying to head off a collision course for my second one - who do you normally get to copyedit your articles before you send them off to FAC? I've had some excellent help from ] and ], but I'm wondering if you have certain old standbys that may pitch in. Or, conversely, whether you're simply ''that good''. Let me know when you have a shot, certainly no rush. --] <small>]</small> 19:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am deeply hurt that you think I may need a copy editor - what makes you have these very upsetting (to me) thoughts. I'll have you know I attended <small>for a short time</small> one of America's finest universities, I am still spoken of there in hushed tones, even they cannot beleive I chose them as my alma mater. ] 19:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Your comments at ] == | |||
| Make you sound like a big, spoiled baby. Just so you know. You might change your tone a bit if you want people to cooperate with you. --] 22:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Few have co-operated with me so far, and I've not too bad, so if now the truth is out - if many are now feeling very naive and stupid - then that is their problem. I am hugely supportive and thankful of the band (they know who they are) who have been wiser than the herd. Thanks for dropping by. ] 22:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, I think your tone is why. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar, as Grandmother Burch used to say. --] 22:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for the advice but I seem to have caught a whole hornet's nest so far, so I'll stick to my own methods. I had a granny too - she was a Borgia. ] 22:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Please == | |||
| Please, can you stop responding to comments that you feel are provoking you? Tony's comments were completely uncalled for, but so are your responses. I hope you'll agree with me that absolutely nothing productive is coming out of the incivility and hostility going back and forth between you and other editors, so I am firmly asking you to just stop it and go back to doing great work in the encyclopedia. The mudfight in ] is becoming disruptive. I am leaving Tony a message with the same request. Thank you. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 22:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Blame the arbcom! Not me, they have ignored and hoped all this would wash under the carpet ] 22:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Cowman, yet again you try to reduce it to civility. Giano, myself and Tony, from what i can tell, are '''least''' concerned about incivility. Manners are nice and dandy but not the major crux here. The true concern Giano and I have is the block orchestration. See ] where I outlined it. --] 22:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::By all means come to the bottom of the block orchestration, I support you in filing the arbcom case to come to the root of the matter as the block orchestration is indeed a major issue, but comments off to the side that have no purpose other than insulting your opposition are disruptive, such as "''Go tell it to IRC Tony, you have more credence there.''" and "''Why don't you go and do something useful for once like write a page. We've all heard quite enough from you to last a lifetime.''" are incivil and only serve to escalate matters - as Irpen is creating an arbcom case, it would be more productive to instead focus on the issues there, yes? <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 22:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::compared to what is said on IRC - the above is nothing. So please go and advise else where. ] 22:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::oh and PS statements and words are '''un'''civil, '''un'''civil words lead to '''in'''civility. OK ] 22:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh, thanks, I always mix up such prefixes :D(is that even the right word? I'll just go ahead and tell people my German is better than my English..). But yes, what has been said in the past in IRC was indeed harmful and awful, I've heard it myself. Things have certainly improved given the new recent changes and such talk is strictly prohibited now, though. Nonetheless, such awful incivility (I hope I used that correctly :/) from others does not make it right to be uncivil in return. Being the better man and not stooping down to their level is the key to such situations. I only say this from a perspective of trying to calm things down so people can focus on the real issues without such drama. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 22:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::*While I agree with most of what you say it is a sad fact of life that a certain class of person only understands their own language therefore to attempt communication in a more educated form would be futile, and indeed be rather patronising to them ] 23:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, the medium of the internet does generally lead people's words to be poorly represented and often misinterpreted. My mother's tongue would be Spanish, however, despite the fact that I was never taught it thoroughly enough to have mastered it, so that likely hindered my English-learning -- anyway, thanks for listening! :) <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 23:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Hi Giano! == | |||
| Thanks for your comments on the Michelangelo page abbout the need to source and cite info. The sex business drags on endlessly.... it seems as if the major focus of both the Michelangelo and Leonardo pages is the issue of sexual proclivities. | |||
| My response to the Leonardo problem has been to create a separate article, jjust to clean up the main page. Yeah, people are always being accused of having hidden agendas. I have to confess that my hidden agenda was simply to make the Leonardo article more kiddie friendly. On one hand, I am not so delicate about unseemly bodily functions as ''some we could mention'' but on the other hand, the article was totally lopsided. | |||
| Tell me, is Margrave an alter ego of Lady Catherine, or what? I kkeep getting this horribly horrible feeling that the person might actually be for real! But he/she has just slammed into me for my "penal colony" association, and makes some sort of presumption about my breeding and background ... so it makes me wonder... Perhaps this is someone I knew once who has come back to haunt me.... it hardly bears considering... | |||
| Have you looked at the article on ] lately? Someone called Brosi has bought into it, to great effect. I think it's looking good but I'm still considering whether to chop it up and make a main article out of the Italian section. Will you let me know what you think. | |||
| --] 09:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry I am not Margrave (or Brosi), so you are barking up the wrong bush. I'm not hugely interested in Leonardo - I don't remember ever having edited the page. However, I don't think it needs to be "kiddy friendly" as in my experience "kiddies" generally like the rude bits best, so it might encourage them to read. In a biography there is no harm mentioning sexuality, so long as what is written is relevant, not gratuitous and above all true. If a fact is not generally accepted, well known, or contraversial then it should have an inline cite, which enables the reader to explore further and then form his own opinion. This is one of the occasions when I think inline cites are a good idea. | |||
| :Finally, no Renaissance architecture should not be chopped up, the Renaissance was not exclusive to Italy, and one complete page fully covering a subject is better than several, it also puts say the English Renaissance into context with the Italian, or that of the Low Countries if it is in the same article. Thus it is clearer and easier to understand. I'm not only against "kiddy friendly" but also pandering to the intellect of those with low concentration spans. ] 09:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, FWIW, ideally ] would contain an overview of the whole topic, and, following ], if one part of an article became overwhelming, then it should be moved to a daughter article, and the daughter article should then be referred to and summarised back in the parent article. This approach has the benefit that the daughter article can be referred to elsewhere (for example, ] or ] could be referred to in ] and ]). -- ] ] 11:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Thank you ALoan, I'm sure Amanda will bear that in mind. However, in a complicated subject like Renaissance architecture where one has to constantly refer to architectural motifs and developments in terms not usually in the vocabluary of the the layman, it is easier to have everything together, so it is readily understood, and evolution of features from one country to another can easily be seen. ] 11:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thanks== | |||
| ] | |||
| Nice to be out, gruel is so unpleasant. --] | ] 13:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :And more thanks (you're a model wikipedian today!) for your intervention at WP:ANI - DG's made a full apology so I'm happy to leave it there. --] | ] 16:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Gosh! I think I'll go out and but a lottery ticket. ] 16:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm off to buy a bottle of ] - being this understanding has really taken it out of me :-) --] | ] 16:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Ah! you'll need to speak to the girlfriend about that one - she mixes the drinks in our house - (Free pouring cocktail bartender in previous existence). ]s are the current flavour of the month, but sometimes you can't beat a G&T.--] | ] 23:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:59, 26 June 2023
Redirect to: