| Revision as of 22:53, 22 December 2006 editGiano II (talk | contribs)22,233 edits →the dreaded infoboxes: any more of your IRC plotting to "kill me" and I'll blow the lid off all your silly little games← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:54, 22 December 2006 edit undoChairboy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,155 edits BlockedNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| ==Architecture notability== | ==Architecture notability== | ||
| To counter spurious time consuming AfD's, I've had a stab at a draft policy for architectural notability ]. I've attempted to restrict the scope of the proposal to actual 'works of architecture', architects, building technology and legal aspects of the profession. Buildings and structures notability enmasse should probably be a separate enterprise, or at least a later one. I need to give some thought to ''threshold notability'' and have shied away from minor works by major architects, because buildings are not like music or literature, they cannot generally be ignored by the public and play some kind of role in most built environments, so I argue the impact is beyond just they're effectiveness or otherwise as a work of art. Comments (by anyone) gladly received. Cheers --] | ] 21:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC) | To counter spurious time consuming AfD's, I've had a stab at a draft policy for architectural notability ]. I've attempted to restrict the scope of the proposal to actual 'works of architecture', architects, building technology and legal aspects of the profession. Buildings and structures notability enmasse should probably be a separate enterprise, or at least a later one. I need to give some thought to ''threshold notability'' and have shied away from minor works by major architects, because buildings are not like music or literature, they cannot generally be ignored by the public and play some kind of role in most built environments, so I argue the impact is beyond just they're effectiveness or otherwise as a work of art. Comments (by anyone) gladly received. Cheers --] | ] 21:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == WP:NPA == | |||
| Your language in is unacceptable and violates the ] policy. If you have a disagreement with an editor, be ] and discuss it with them calmly. If you don't, you may be blocked without further warning. Remember, we're all volunteers here. - ]</small> (]) 21:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Your message and the edit summary for when you reverted my civility request makes it clear that you're operating under a different set of objectives than I. I'm applying a 48 hour block, please reconsider the nature of your contributions. Like I said above, we're volunteers here, and there's no basis for the type of aggressive, disruptive behavior you're exhibiting, much less the personal attacks. - ]</small> (]) 22:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == the dreaded infoboxes == | == the dreaded infoboxes == | ||
Revision as of 22:54, 22 December 2006
Old messages are at
- User talk:Giano archive 1(2004)
- User talk:Giano archive 2 (2005)
- User talk:Giano archive 3 (2005)
- User talk:Giano archive 4 (2006)
- User talk:Giano archive 5 (2006)
Please leave new messages at the foot of the page
Architecture notability
To counter spurious time consuming AfD's, I've had a stab at a draft policy for architectural notability here. I've attempted to restrict the scope of the proposal to actual 'works of architecture', architects, building technology and legal aspects of the profession. Buildings and structures notability enmasse should probably be a separate enterprise, or at least a later one. I need to give some thought to threshold notability and have shied away from minor works by major architects, because buildings are not like music or literature, they cannot generally be ignored by the public and play some kind of role in most built environments, so I argue the impact is beyond just they're effectiveness or otherwise as a work of art. Comments (by anyone) gladly received. Cheers --Mcginnly | Natter 21:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPA
Your language in this edit is unacceptable and violates the no personal attacks policy. If you have a disagreement with an editor, be civil and discuss it with them calmly. If you don't, you may be blocked without further warning. Remember, we're all volunteers here. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Your message here and the edit summary for when you reverted my civility request makes it clear that you're operating under a different set of objectives than I. I'm applying a 48 hour block, please reconsider the nature of your contributions. Like I said above, we're volunteers here, and there's no basis for the type of aggressive, disruptive behavior you're exhibiting, much less the personal attacks. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
the dreaded infoboxes
Disruption
Giano, I am 57 and this is just obnoxious. Your persistent incivility has passed the point of being disruptive. Please stop now. Tom Harrison 22:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)