Misplaced Pages

User talk:GiacomoReturned

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ka of Catherine de Burgh (talk | contribs) at 21:47, 26 October 2011 (→Prior Park: rrrrevolting little man). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:47, 26 October 2011 by Ka of Catherine de Burgh (talk | contribs) (→Prior Park: rrrrevolting little man)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Old messages are at:



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)

  • 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)
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)
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)
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)