Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:44, 8 January 2008

Undeleted and unprotected

Per your request I have unprotected your talk page. Phil Sandifer undeleted the history a few days ago to use as evidence. If there were any edits that should have remained deleted (harassment and such) please let me or any other admin know. Welcome back. Thatcher 20:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but no, this page for some odd reasom is never vandalised or me harassed - they would have to be very brave to attempt such a thing. Giano (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

How kind and clever of Phil, I had no idea he was an admin. Would you mind doing the user page too. Thanks. Giano (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, since Thatcher may not be watching this page. NoSeptember 20:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I don't like a red signature makes one look like a bolshevik. Giano (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have thought of that. Thatcher 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

hell, Hoover & McCarthy are rolling in their graves - who knew Bolsheviks were so lacking in subtlety? Anyway, I just fell off the welcome wagon for a quick tipple & toast- to interesting times! sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 21:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an image of an Ushanka for your talk page? Lawrence Cohen 21:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

How I wish the color red once again popularly signified Bolshevism. Welcome back Giano. Amerique 21:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Without prejudice to our doubtless differing views on the issues surrounding the arbitration, it is good to know you are still with us. Happy New Year.--Doc 20:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and you were correct about the addiction.--Doc 21:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh God, are we on different sides? What a pity we all can't realise we are on the same side. Never mind, I have found a pill for the addiction. Giano (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Differing views, need not equate to differing "sides". Anyway, I'm staying out of it.--Doc 21:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Very wise, so am I. I'm continually amazed at what some on Misplaced Pages are prepared to argue over. I have never once passed a comment at #admins and in spite of this I am a well rounded educated perfectly ordinary human being. How can this be, how have I managed to survive so long? Giano (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, Giano. Nice to see you back. --Tex 21:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (oh, yeah. and what is wrong with a red signature???) --Tex 21:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Just want to say it's nice to see you on here. We've been on opposite sides and same sides so many times I've lost count. Just wanted to say ... I'm glad to see you here - Alison 21:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

me too Aatomic1 (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sir Claude and me too! -- Hoary (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't any of you have anything more productive to do than post here? Giano (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Heck with that, I did my heavy lifting this morning with a bit of help from NoSeptember above. Blue is a much better colour on you, Giano. Risker (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Does that also mean no more pink bathrobes? Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Don't any of you have anything more productive to do than post here?" ... er, no! Why do you ask? :) Welcome back Giano. Queluz is looking awesome. ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Queluz National Palace is not only looking awesome, it will be on the Main Page in less than 24 hours. Amazing work - Giano leading a team of 29 editors - the perfect example of collaborative editing. Risker (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to see the red Giano II link blueified again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Giano, though we have not been much in contact, I have always admired, and continue to admire, your tireless and brilliant writing, and your integrity and fearlessness when it comes to defending the spirit of this place against those who undermine it in the name of its preservation. I'll stick a star on your user page if you permit. If only others could be convinced to come back as well. Would that every editor could be given a warm welcome (-back) in the firm knowledge that the excesses of self-righteousness among some overly visible Wikipedians will never again be tolerated. Kosebamse (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Cla68 (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, Giano. Thank you for conceding Misplaced Pages the benefit of your always outstanding collaboration, despite some grudges that may be troubling you. Best regards, Húsönd 00:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Husond (and others above) - yes we all have our crosses to bear! In the meantime I see someone overnight has added the word "simpler" is that a word, my limted English tells me it should ne "more simple" but I'm not sure anyone know the answer? Giano (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That was me. To me, simpler sounds slightly better than more simple. (Well, obviously: otherwise I wouldn't have changed it.) I'm puzzled by the love of WP writers for such constructions as more well known, when to me better known is far less awkward. Also, since English has such a puny amount of inflectional morphology, I feel a certain duty to give it some exercise before it dies off completely. -- Hoary (talk) 08:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Simpler sounds fine to me, Giano, and "more simply" ("Expressed more simply.") but you'll recall my error on condottiere eh...--Wetman (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Robert Lawson

I figured you would get what I meant. Risker (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Giano. Good to see you back! I've added some more comments at Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Robert Lawson (architect)‎ and (of course!) I've reversed your revert on Lawson. The explanation is at the Review - and it centres on the sources - my source trumps yours ;-)! I haven't been through the whole article - and I only picked on that section because the peacock claim of "The building has long been regarded as one of the finest pieces of architecture in Dunedin" did stand out somewhat. Regarded by whom and when? The source as now found reveals that the school themselves are making that claim. But this doesn't stand up against a Professor Emeritus, of the University of Auckland writing in the national Encyclopedia of New Zealand. I don't have the time or knowledge to go through the whole article, but if that section is typical, the rest of the article might benefit from checking for reliable sources; and, as you worked on it and know the sources, you are probably one of the best placed to do that work. Keep well. 00:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Bugger - forgot to sign properly SilkTork * 00:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Giano (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry

I'm happy to have contributed to the success of its appearance on the main page today Victuallers (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Congregazione dei Virtuosi al Pantheon

Ever heard of it? It came up in my bio of John Michael Wright, and I'm intrigued as to what it is. It appears as an important item on the resume of just about every great Catholic artist of the period, yet finding information is impossible. All I got was in Danish, of all things.--Doc 12:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think: It was an organization set up to promote literature and the arts originally called the "Congregation of St. Joseph of the Holy Land". It received Papal recogintion in the mid 16th century.. The Organization is still going strong but known from 19th century as "The Papal Academy of Fine Arts and Literature of the Pantheon" Its aims to promote the study, operation and improvement of Literature and Fine Arts, with particularly in regard to sacred art and images connected with the Christian faith - more so the Catholic interpretation of it. It is all very tied up with the Vaticano Council for Culture. I'm not sure they exhibited in the Pantheon in Rome though - I always assumed they were the greatest artists of their generation so therefore enshrined in some idiomatic Pantheon. I have a book somewhere, the question is where? I'll get back to you. Giano (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it ought to be here Roman Academies, if there is only enough available for a stub. Ought to be enough for a FA though. Giano (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The DNB has "On 10 February of the same year Wright was also elected a member of the Congregazione dei Virtuosi, having been proposed by a Pietro Ferreri. This was a charitable organization concerned with promoting religion by means of the arts. It also organized an annual exhibition in the Pantheon, where Wright must have measured himself against the best painters working in the city." - that's where Iget the Pantheon thing. But this could be erroneous.--Doc 13:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The Pantheon theory was my assumption so could well be wrong, it just seems an odd cold curved and open place to exhibit art - even today it is far from ideal. There is a better translation than mine here although no information. Giano (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Giano. I see that you authored a FA on Belton House and decided to ask you for a favour. I recently put an article that I wrote , Western Chalukya architecture into FAC, but it was not promoted. The reasons mostly had to do with grammar, prose etc. However, I felt that if someone like you could read my article, you may have some ideas that I could incorporate into the present article and improve its presentation, format as well. Hope you have the time. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What I nice scholarly page. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I am very surprised it failed, especially after all the hard work you did to try to address all the comments If you truly want it pass then remove a lot of the valuable information and make it shorter and more concise. Were I you, I would be very proud of having written it and leave it exactly where and how it is at the moment. My sole knowledge of Western Chalukya architecture comes from reading your page and I feel I am now very educated on the subject.

However, if I were going to renominate it myself I may have made the page longer by adding a final section detailing how the architecture is appraised today - a sort of summing up and continuation of the final paragraphs of the lead. Perhaps I would also have make the final long table into a separate page/list. You might just like to consider those two points. However, well done for writing it. If Raul is reading this then I ask him to respectfully to take a second look at the page and its FAC. Let me know how you get on. Giano (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Giano, I was actually thinking about asking you to take a look at it before I failed the nom, but I decided against it. I don't think size is a problem with that article. I am concerned about issues of organization and possibly factual correctness that were raised during the nomination. Dinesh - I'll tell you what. If you feel ready, why don't you renominate it now? Raul654 (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That was fast! I can't vouch for the factual correctness, but would certainly support it assuming any contraversial facts are cited. If it is was renominated - I would like to see that table elsewhere (not lost just with its own page referred to in the article) but that is not a reason to oppose and I wouldn't. Giano (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Before anyone decides to renominate this article in a hurry, let me point out that the article has major outstanding problems of cohesion and coherence, and by that I don't mean organization of sections. I mean problems of flow of prose and more importantly flow of information in prose. If you give me ten minutes, I'll pick out two paragraphs in the article and annotate them on the talk page of the article. I'm sure, once I point out the problems, user:Dineshkannambadi will try to fix them as best as he can, but I guarantee you that I will then find two more paragraphs and do the same, and two more ... Coherence (which includes logic, time order in paragraphs, etc.) takes time. Give me ten minutes, and I'll post something on the Talk:Western Chalukya architecture. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please see Talk:Western_Chalukya_architecture#Clarity.2C_Cohesion_and_Coherence. Sorry, it took 20. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC) update. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Since a crowd seems to have gathered here, I'll drop off my note here. Giano, I hope you dont mind. Thanks.

My 2 cents - I was away on a break the last month or so and I returned to see that the article had not been promoted. I must say that I am very surprised that it hasnt been promoted. The article surely needs some ironing for better prose. But beyond that I do not see any problems with the article that it should fail a FAC nom. Nor are the problems with the prose so great that it should fail the nom solely on those grounds. The article is probably the most scholarly piece you'll find about the subject anywhere on the internet.

imo, most of the 'concerns' expressed on the FAC was simply unabashed trolling and nitpicking than anything genuine. its a pity that dinesh failed to spot the trolling and continued to respond in all earnestness to some of the 'concerns' there. Sarvagnya 17:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)