Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:30, 8 November 2011

Old messages are at:

• User talk:Giano II/archive 1 (From Oct 2004)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 2 (From Jan 2005)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 3 (From July 2005)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 4 (From Jan 2006)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 5 (From July 2006)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 6 (From Jan 2007)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 7 (From July 2007)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 8 (From Jan 2008)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 9 (From July 2008)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 10 (From Jan 2009)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 11 (From July 2009)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 12 (From Jan 2010)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 13 (From July 2010)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 14 (From Jan 2011)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 15 (from July 2011)

Please leave new messages below

Save Mentmore

Hey G, in relation to File:SAVEMentmore.jpg so you have any information on when the photograph on the cover of this booklet may have been taken. If the photograph by itself is in the public domain, the entire image is in the public domain due to it being a reproduction. This would then make it a candidate for copying over to Commons, whilst keeping a local copy if you do desire. If you have any info on the actual photograph, drop me a line. Cheers, --Russavia 11:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• I would immagine that the picture is 'not in the public domain. It was taken expressly for the book cover and uploaded for use on relevant pages. Giacomo Returned 12:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, if you ever find any evidence that it is an older photo (it does kinda look like it), and could be in PD, let me know. Cheers, --Russavia 12:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• It's extremely unlikely that I will be doing any further research on Mentmore Towers. I own probably the largest library covering the house in Europe, so I know all that I need to know; Misplaced Pages is doomed to remain in ignorance on the subject which is a pity, but sadly what happens when sword wielding skeletons become involved. Giacomo Returned 13:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Giano, as you know I am under restrictions from interacting with ANY members of EEML, whilst only EEML members who were sanctioned are banned from interacting with me. I now have my own case of a battleground WP:RANDY - Talk:Aeroflot#Undue_and_POV.2FBLP_information_removed_from_the_article - do you have any advice on what the hell I am supposed to do here, because it is an article which I have recently begun to rewrite (read the first 3 sections) and which I am talking to Aeroflot PR about getting materials released under free licences for use on Wikimedia, and it an article which is in the area of my professional expertise. After having his edits rejected Randy has again pushed for the return of those edits, and is clearly using the interaction restriction on me as a battleground weapon in order to essentially lock me out of an article which I am involved in, and which they are not. To put it mildly, it is fucking pathetic. Advice appreciated, because I'll be damned if I am simply going to walk away and let these Randy's do this to productive editors. Russavia 06:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not equiped to advise on this. As you know, I regard the whole EEML saga as Misplaced Pages's most disgraceful epeisode. The resulting astonishing decisions and sanctions by the Arbcom sailed the project's entire credibility and integrity down the river and over the falls. It was a cop out by the Arbcom about which certain Arbs should still be anging their heads in shame. We will never know the full depths to which the deceit and subterfuge permuted through Misplaced Pages, and I have no doubt doubt we are still living with unknown and undiscovered results of that deceit today. I have no wish to become involved with that lying crew in any way. Giacomo Returned 08:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Going back to the photo, it looks like a between the wars Country Life one, but who knows. Even if the photo was PD, the graphic design of the cover, such as it is, would also be protected by copyright. CL photos come out of copyright 50 yrs after the magazine used them btw. Johnbod (talk) 11:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, it was taken in the early 1970s - expressly for the pamphlet. Normally the armchairs ("Venetian" throne chairs - probably intended for a Bishop or cardinal in a church rather than a king - I think they were in the Stowe sale of 1848) were grouped more sociably around the fireplace. A huge vernis Martin piano, a Neapolitan sedan chair an free standing quadruple faced Orrery clock all had to be moved from the centre of the room to enable the shot to be taken. The carpet was an Aubusson (I think) - it had a dodgy brown stain on it, which according to who was telling the story was either the blood of Marie Antoinette (unlikely) or the blood of the Emperor of Mexico (more likely, but still very unlikely). The tappestries "les Mois Lucas" were a complete set of 12 Gobelins and indicated the Zodian months. They were comissioned by Golbert circa 1683. The three lanterns (just vsible) were alledgedly from the Bucentaur - I think the to smaller may have been, but I strongly doubt the centre one was. The room was normally so cluttered once could barely move. Giacomo Returned 12:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Prior Park

Hi, I was wondering if I could pick your expert knowledge/brains? I've just put up an article on Prior Park and wondered if you had any sources which would help with the architecture section? We previously had an article on Prior Park Landscape Garden and one on Prior Park College but nothing specifically about the house. I've found a lot on the history but limited description of the architecture and wondered if you could help?— Rod 20:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I will check it out, I do have a Godson at school there and have heard an amazing story about the lead being stolen off the roof while no one noticed, which is not very encyclopedic or needed. I have just looked at my Pevsners; I have N Somerset, which does not have it - presumably it's in S Somerset. I'll have a look about tomorrow; I must have something on it somewhere. Giacomo Returned 21:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

<entire copyright paragraph snipped> – Fully described, insofar as anything in the early Pevsners can be called "fully described", in Nikolaus Pevsner, The Buildings of England: North Somerset and Bristol, (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1958). Ghughesarch (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Ghughesarch, but that violates many of our policies. The book is still in copyright, and since this is a user talk page one cannot even make the claim of fair use. I've left the reference. Risker (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, as Giacomo has the book, he can no doubt find it on a second look Ghughesarch (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it is - silly me was looking under "p" for Prior rather than "b" for Bath - there is quite a bit on pages 113-115. I'll add something tonight - unless soeone else would rather do it before then. Giacomo Returned 08:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for any help. It's just been pointed out to me, by another editor, that Pevsner's comments & some others are at this page.— Rod 16:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think your version is better than mine - so I've restored it. The ionic columns bit was from IoE whereas this more recent page says "unfluted Corinthian columns, returned double at ends" so I'd go with your Corinthian. The best photo of the columns I can find its this one but still not very clear.— Rod 20:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That's very flattering :-/ That picture does look like Corinthian; shame they don't cut the hedges a little more often. Just a matter of the porte cochere bit, which sounds to me like someone missing the point, unless there is a later porte cochere somewhere, but I would have thought the house was a little early for one of those, but it was mucked about with in the 19th cent - so who knows? Giacomo Returned 20:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Corinthian on the North (garden) front, Ionic (and attached) on the south (entrance) front, as shown here: http://www.tom-brown.com/articles/independent-schools-will-bounce-back-recession/ I agree about the porte cochere - I can't see how the north portico could ever have been one. Ghughesarch (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Well, that's not really a portico is it? Just emphasisis given to the central bays by Ionic colums - or is that called a portico in English? Giacomo Returned 21:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about the North (Corinthian, garden front) portico. The south front (Ionic) centrepiece could quite reasonably be called an attached portico, however (as opposed to a prostyle portico). They're both porticos as far as the list description is concerned, for example, with no prostyle or attached distinction. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, but I would not call it a portico, it's neither recessed or prostyle, just a pillared centrepiece - not even a shelter from the rain - no, I think portico is far too extravagant a term for what is just an architectural empahisis to break up a very monotonous facade. Giacomo Returned 22:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Or an "engaged" portico, if you prefer (as in the description here: http://www.countrylifeimages.co.uk/Image.aspx?id=c7997c55-fae5-4804-93c7-7be41a0dc484&rd=2%7CAylesbury%7C%7C1%7C20%7C7%7C150). It may not be what the Italians originally meant by the term, but portico, in English architectural terminology, generally means a temple-front, whether it's just stuck on, or sticking out. A recessed portico would be a portico in antis, which is yet another sub-type. Ghughesarch (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I still will not be calling that a portico, engaged or disengaged it is misleading. Giacomo Returned 22:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

well, you'll be in a minority among architectural historians, but if you can find a source, go ahead. (Actually, the lack of a pediment at Wootton makes that particular example borderline, in my view, but not in the view of Country Life). I don't see why it's "misleading" though. Ghughesarch (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

May I just say that, Jacobethan aside, I do enjoy this sort of civilised discussion far more than your characterisation of me as "Randy in Boise" might suggest. If I didn't know him better, I might think you were John Harris Ghughesarch (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for your contributions & the discussion (if a little out of my architectural league). I have added a short mention trying to explain Corinthian columns on the northern (garden) side - leaving the title "prostyle portico" - and adding the six ionic columns on the southern façade.— Rod 11:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at some other sources for Prior Park. this one has kindly been pointed out to me which specifically talks about a "former porte-cochere, part of Wood's original layout" in the east wing.— Rod 14:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that is quite possible, a porte cochere to a pavilion - as a secondary or family wing it would not have to followed the Palladian ideals quite so closely - even so, 1750 is a few years early for one, but the refs seem quite sure - I always think of them as neo-classical or 19th century features - but they are a logical thing, so thet probably existed for years before they became the Victorian/Jacobethan must have. Come to think of it, I think Holland built a huge porte cochere (now demolished) at Woburn Abbey, that must have been sometime around then - I must check the date out - It certainly had one, I wonder if it was original or stuck on later? As for you Mr Ghughesarch,a couple of pilasters cemented to a wall, with a gable above does not a portico make, otherwise every "mock Georgian" doorcase would be a portico. With your love of dodgy grandiose terms, you should become an real estate agent - every garage could become a "coach house", suitable for conversion to Dowager accomadation. Giacomo Returned 17:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Dowagers are not exactly an abundant commodity, so maybe a re-titling? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• Granny flat! Giacomo Returned 20:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

This discussion reminds me of a story by Stephen Leacock written in 1911. He was one of Groucho Marx's favorite authors. This excerpt is from "Gertrude the Governess"

Nosham Taws was a typical English home. The main part of the house was an Elizabethan structure of warm red brick, while the elder portion, of which the Earl was inordinately proud, still showed the outlines of a Norman Keep, to which had been added a Lancastrian Jail and a Plantagenet Orphan Assylum. From the house in all directions stretched magnificent woodland and park with oaks and elms of immemorial antiquity, while nearer the house stood raspberry bushes and geranium plants which had been set out by the Crusaders. Life at the Taws moved in the ordinary routine of a great English household. At 7 a gong sounded for rising, at 8 a horn blew for breakfast, at 8:30 a whistle sounded for prayers, at 1 a flag was run up at half-mast for lunch, at 4 a gun was fired for afternoon tea, at 9 a bell sounded for dressing, at 9:15 a second bell for going on dressing, while at 9:30 a rocket was sent up to indicate that dinner was ready. At midnight dinner was over, and at 1 a.m. the tolling of a bell summoned the domestics to evening prayers.

Uncle uncle uncle 21:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like the remararkably ordered life at one of England's other geat houses. Giacomo Returned 10:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the page - I did see the resemblance. The Leacock novel looks to have come into the public domain: . Frank Muir in "The Oxford Book of Humorous Prose" page 437 claims that the "Gertrude The Governess" story contains one of the two best-known lines in humorous prose.

The Catherine de Burgh User:Catherine de Burgh/Catherine Bonkbuster page reminded me of "Lady Addle Remembers" but when I reread my Lady Addle I saw that except for the theme, timeline, photos, and much else that the two women are quite different, although that is to be expected as "Lady Addle Remembers" is a work of fiction. You can see the difference in this paragraph from "Lady Addle Remembers" pages 10-12:

This delicate fastidiousness she inherited from my grandmother, the Duchess of Droitwich who always wore white kid gloves in the house because of a rooted aversion from touching anything that had been fingered by the servants. She only removed them when she wanted to touch her husband or children. One morning, however, she absent-mindedly walked into his dressing-room while he was getting up and found that he was being dressed by the butler, and thereafter she wore gloves even when alone with the Duke. My father was a bit of a martinet and insisted on our being educated. We had, besides our English governess, a French Mademoiselle for French, a German Fraulein for German, an Italian Signora for Italian, a Spanish Senorita for Spanish, and a Russian lady who took the dogs out.

Uncle uncle uncle 16:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I really think that my beloved cousin, Lady Addle, will be of little interest to Misplaced Pages's editors - not a crowd noted for their understanding of the finer points of life. When darling Blanche left us, panache left the world with her. As for you - one thing my dearest amd much belated mother always taught me was to beware of men wanting to be called "uncle"! Now, did you want something or are you here only to atract attention to yourself? The Countess of Scrotum (De facto) (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Richard D'Oyly Carte

As a sometime commentator on arts-related articles, I thought you might like to weigh in on the current discussion about infoboxes at this page. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Done and , but I should add, in case anyone accuses you of soliciting (probably not the right verb) if the principle content editors really want a box (God knows why they should), they should be allowed to have one. Giacomo Returned 18:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

They call it canvassing here, but any attempt by them to claim that would be baseless here since it was a completely neutral notification. That hasn't stopped some admins in the past from threatening me by accusing me of canvassing, though. Agent Vodello 18:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Some people here make all sorts of baselss accusations - be like me and rise above - onwards and upwards. Giacomo Returned 19:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The principal content editors are Ssilvers, Tim riley and Marc Shepherd (mostly retired), all of whom oppose the box. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. I strongly think the opinions of the principal content editors should always be given priority, without editors who have fixed the typos screaming WP-OWN and other such rubbish. That works both ways regarding info-boxes incidentaly. Giacomo Returned 21:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Re:Insult

Replied on my talk page. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace (Talk Page)

Thanks for your latest (6 November 2011) appreciated contribution to this Talk Page as cited, but I have to tell you that in my own opinion the matter is not really so straightforward as you seem to imply. As you know, not everyone reads Misplaced Pages or indeed the Internet. Further, I have myself made many statements (personally created but based on legally valid documentary evidence which is cited as such by myself and has never at any time been denied by anyone) on certain articles in Misplaced Pages and elsewhere on the Internet on the same subject matter as here dealt with (architecture and history, including the UK 'listed buildings' as well as other land and war memorials owned by local government, see for instance if you have time the rather longrunning West Hartlepool War Memorial) that relates directly to both local and national government at a European level and I have at the same time on relevant Talk Pages outlined in what I think are clear terms my own view that the publicly available information relating to architecture and history and in particular the First World War memorials, as it is generally available at the present time, is in point of fact contrary, within the UK, to various national and international legislative requirements, and all of this I have done over many years without any response whatsoever from the people directly involved (namely the fully informed local Councils, their officers, and the UK Administrative Court when it was informed upon litigation in person by myself). Thanks again my friend very much, you are one of only a couple of people who have responded at all, but I hope you will understand that I have to repeat that the future is uncertain as a result of what seems to be national politics evidently based on no fewer than two World Wars in the 20th Cent., and now I have to add, in response to what you say, that Misplaced Pages and the Internet, while much appreciated for their assistance, are apparently not likely finally to resolve these extremely complicated matters at a national and European level and also to repeat that I can unfortunately make no forecasts whatsoever (for I am in effect a person of no particular distinction, and I am and it seems will be rather alone). If you have any questions on this matter please let me know on this Talk Page. Regards and best wishes, Peter Judge 7 November 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.130.94 (talk) 11:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• My dear Mr Judge, once one starts having to deal with local authorities, the battle is lost I'm afraid - you wouldn't believe the problems I have had over my council tax – what does one get for one's money? One's bin emptied once a fortnight by a gum chewing neo-Marxist and a fused street light! It's not good enough - I have written to Boris Johnson so many time, does he act? No, he does not; just clutters the streets with American and Japanese tourists cycling everywhere – holding up my taxi. It's not good enough. I see you mention the war – don't talk about the war to me – I lived through it; the young of today don't know the meaning of hardship and suffering – I recall the blitz, huddled in an air raid shelter with only my dogs for comfort as the bombs rained down. How St Paul's Cathedral survived God alone knows, and what have we received for our suffering? More nasty little neo-Marxists cluttering up the pavement outside – doing what Hitler failed to do – closing the cathedral! What the late Queen Mother would say, I dread to think. Which brings me neatly to you problem with Buckingham Palace – have you notified Her Majesty? Take my advice and get her on board your crusade – she won't like her home being denigrated by local council employees failing in their duty; I expect half of them are off on paternity leave (they breed like rabbits) and the other half are idling away their time at some protest or strike meeting for the great unwashed or learning how to breast feed at the tax payers expense. Keep the flag flying, Mr Judge. Catherine Rollbacker de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Does this sweet music bring back tender memories, Head Buck Cat de Burgh?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The quote now provided by a person (I imagine a lady) Jeanne Bolyen apparently relates to (I quote) A recording of the Carter Gents air-raid sirens and all-clear that would have been a very familiar sound to all civilians in Britain from 1939 - 1945 along with bombing, destroyed cities and thousands killed each night under the heavy bombing raids by the Luftwaffe. I am not sure how this extremely disturbing reference is supposed to relate to what we are discussing other perhaps than by emphasizing the significance from the point of view of actions and memory of the 1939-45 war in relation to the 1914-18? The apparently unrecognized connection of the two wars in respect of the memorials of the first remains I think extremely significant in terms of memorials both east and west and so far as the actions of the Germans that are mentioned are concerned I am sorry but it seems to myself they were probably motivated by what must still have been their vivid recollection of the many thousands of civilians in their own country who died of starvation as a result of the naval blockade by ourselves as from 1914 (something which, so it seems, we who won that war never talk about ourselves?).

Now, to return, Catherine de Burgh, to your own remarks (to which this extraordinary reference does not seem in any way to relate or to reply but possibly I misunderstand it) I thank you indeed for your comments and for your suggestion concerning our wonderful Monarchy. Whether or not I would find it very easy to do what you obviously think I ought to do is certainly, as I do indeed have to admit, in accordance with the requirements of our constitution, given the failure by the elected government to resolve it. What makes me repeat again that I find it difficult is that Her Majesty The Queen may herself find it complicated. I am sure she would agree however that it is something that relates directly to herself and the UK Monarchy and Europe as a whole, together with the Empire and incidentally the Imperial (later Commonwealth) War Graves Commission, now and in the future.

What a problem for a person like myself, but the person who created and therefore to some extent manages this Talk Page (GiacomoReturned) has been helpful in relation to Buckingham Palace on that Talk Page and by his edit of the article. Au revoir, both of you, and we shall perhaps see how it goes, for I repeat once again that in my own opinion the directly relevant historical and architectural facts are for the time being at least undeniable even if never talked about and indeed by some actively suppressed (the architecture together with the documents, currently alas actively misrepresented and mutilated, may of course however eventually, however long it takes, in effect disappear altogether just as many of the Soviet memorials in eastern Europe in our New World have already been altogether destroyed). Now perhaps readers will realize what a sorry problem has confronted me, as a British citizen, for so many years! War is indeed in every respect a nightmare. Peter Judge, 7 November 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.169.200 (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with Peter Judge that war is a nightmare. Make Bombs, Not War is my personal motto.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and here's a bombe for you all to share. --RexxS (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oh Rex dear, what a sweet and thoughtful boy you are. However, Ms Boleyn, the war was no laughing matter and if you were as old as me, you would know that, having to flee to America to escape persecution was not amusing at all – I was marooned amongst savages. Now on a more topical note, am I the only person to have noticed all these very weird and extremely odd people at the top of the page before one logs in? Who are they? Women and a few men, all in need of a good hairdresser, colourist and stylist all claiming to be Wikipedians who have written millions of pages – Well I am sorry, I have never heard of any of them – a woman who writes about snails – riveting I am sure in some circles, and others writing about computers – I can't imagine they interest anyone at all. Of course, I should have been asked – I have devoted my entire life to charitable causes; I have great experience of fund-raising and charity balls, I am the obvious choice. To have my portrait at the top of Misplaced Pages would have encouraged a more select type of donor, one can only wonder at Mr Wales' lack of social awareness and PR skills - apparently he lives in London; he needs to get out more. Sincerely yours Catherine Rollbacker de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)