Jump to content

User talk:George Ponderevo/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

PONY!

Pony!
Congratulations! For helping with British Isles pony breed articles, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, cuddly, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw(talk) 01:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Your comments at the Qeshm FAC

George, I think we've addressed the last batch of suggestions. Just wanted to let you know. ceranthor 17:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I've struck my oppose now haven't I? Good luck with the rest of the review. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Brown

I think you may be interested to know that William Robinson Brown is officially up for FA. Just an FYI. Montanabw(talk) 00:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Let me me know if there's anything I can do to help. George Ponderevo (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Maybe just watchlist the review and if there is a need to explain why something needs to be done a certain way (to me or to a reviewer), point to some useful links. I have respect for your views on editing. Montanabw(talk) 21:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
As you may have seen, I've been bold and tweaked your inflation calculations. For one thing they were far too misleadingly "precise", and for another I'm pretty certain that CPI/RPI isn't appropriate in cases like this one. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem with bold, the point was the perception that Blunt was selling at fire sale prices, however we get there. Montanabw(talk) 23:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Crescent (John Coltrane album)

Hello George: I saw one of your edits go by on Recent changes and couldn't resist looking at it; I don't know this album but Amazon will soon remedy that. As you can see I also couldn't resist messing with it, and I did see that you use that referencing style I'm not familiar with. Now, I never know if that format calls for articles to be listed separately or not, so I left them with the regular templates in hopes of your not minding reworking if this isn't right. I found a few tidbits through ProQuest, nothing much exciting. Looking through the archives of Jazziz I saw that it's the fave album of a bunch of musicians, esp. guitar players (I saw Mike Stern and Andy Summers) but I don't know if that is worthwhile mentioning so I didn't. Unfortunately my databases do not index Down Beat, and that's a shame. Thank you, and my apologies if I indeed messed up your formatting, Drmies (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I came across the article just by clicking on the Random article button, and it seemed like one that could do with a bit of TLC. What is it about my referencing style you find opaque? On articles where I have a free choice I only actually use three templates: {{citation}}, {{sfnp}}, and {{r}}. This article's citation style was inconsistent, but I've updated it to conform to what seems to be your preferred style, using the {{cite}} templates, as you're more likely than me to continue working on the article. BTW, the |accessdate parameter is only used if you're providing a web address, irrelevant otherwise and thus ignored by the template. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, you clearly know much more than I ever will: I use the citation templates that I can pull down via some (Twinkle?) menu. I've seen articles with the sfn style that have a bibliography for books and a parenthetic reference pointing there, and "regular" footnotes with the entire reference in it for articles and websites. I thought maybe that's what you were going for but wasn't sure, hence my apology. (That accessdate field comes automotically; I'll make sure to leave it blank next time if there is no URL.) I just looked at the Template:R page and that goes right over my head. My curiosity was piqued but my involvement probably short-lived since I don't have a jazz library and, as I said, no access to the relevant publications. Please don't let anything conform to my "preference"--it's my preferred method only by default. Thanks for cleaning it up, Drmies (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I learned what little I know about citations by being picked up by the late Jack Merridew/Br'er Rabbit while I was trying to do a bit with The Coral Island for doing it "wrong". I took a bit of convincing, but I'm a convert now. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Uncle G has been trying to teach me things, apparently, but not with much success I'm afraid. It would be a blast if it turned out that G was Merridew. Anyway, the book template has this handy button: paste in the URL (or the ISBN) and it's filled in automatically--which is probably one reason I prefer this (semi-automated pull-down) method. I'm going to look at those pages you linked again. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Commentary on edits

Hello, my fellow George,

I noted your edits on Paul Strähle. I am not writing to complain. Instead, I thought I would point out a couple of details that may (or may not be) be peculiar to my self-chosen niche in WP. No complaints, here–just some tips.

  • I list both 10 and 13 digit ISBNs so that either number can be used to retrieve biblio info. I intend to do so until I have indisputable proof that the migration to 13 digits is complete. In this case, you may be a bit over-tidy.
    I think that's pointless, but it's your choice of course. Bumming around as I tend to do I not infrequently also see ISBNs give for both hardback and paperback versions, which I think is even more pointless. But as I say, it's your choice. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Osprey Publishing books are often credited to differing authors, depending on whether you refer to Amazon or to Google Advanced Book Search for biblio info. The two sites often disagree with one another when it comes to authorship of its World War I aviation books; the most common difference is crediting Harry Dempsey as an author instead of an illustrator.
    I simply went by what the front cover of the book says is the author. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • And I do note an error when the article says Strähle flew a plane bearing Rudolph Berthold's markings. Berthold and Strähle's planes shared common background markings, as was usual in German jastas. However, each pilot's plane additionally also had distinctive personal markings.
    The article could obviously do with quite a bit more work in several areas. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hope these tips seem helpful.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The citations are still a bit unsightly with their raw URLs; any objection to me trying to tidy them up a bit? George Ponderevo (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Little Moreton Hall

I'm impressed by the progress made with this article. I had not realised you were taking it to FA so quickly, and have rather taken my eye off the details. I do have some concerns, which I thought I would air here rather than at FLC. First, why are you using the 1971 version of "Pevsner" rather than the current (2011) version (Hartwell et al)? I should have thought that FLs would require the latest edition. I have copies of both, and would be happy to "update" any of the relevant citations to the latest version. Actually my "1971" version is the one published by Yale in 2003. I should have thought they would have been identical, but I have my doubts, especially on two of the Pevsner quotations. In the lead you quote "the most elaborate, fantastical and wholeheartedly vulgar display of black-and-white timbering that England has to offer" (and there is no page number in that reference). The 2003 version (p. 255) says it "is the most popular of all English black and white houses, yet as it comes into sight — happily reeling, disorderly, but no offence meant — it seems at least unbelievable, and then a huge joke. This is due to the S range, the gatehouse range, leaning forward in overhangs in all three outer directions"; and this is quoted verbatim in 2011. Then in the Upper Floor subsection you quote Pevsner as saying the plaster depictions are "poor". That is not in the 2003 version; in fact there is no comment on their quality. 2011 says "The figures are fair copies but the texts depart somewhat from the original. The colours were probably a great deal brighter than now.". So has there been some redaction between 1971 and 2003?

Other comments re Pevsner, giving ref. nos.:

  • 5. 2011 gives much more detail about tree-ring analysis (p. 433) stating that the Hall, screens passage, Parlour and Withdrawing Room were built c. 1504–08.
  • 9a. About the H-shaped plan: 2011 states "forming a standard H-shaped plan" (p. 433), and does not use the word "roughly".
  • 9b. OK (p. 435)
  • 22. OK (p, 433)
  • 25. I cannot find this in 2011, so perhaps the 1971 reference should stay.
  • 37. Ditto: but this section was written (certainly in 2003) by Alec Clifton-Taylor, rather than by Pevsner and Hubbard. Should his authorship be acknowledged?
  • 39. OK, but it notes that the east window is blocked; maybe it would bemore accurate to say this than to say there "was a corresponding window ...". (p. 434)

Re National Heritage list:

  • Why give so much prominence in the lead to the bridge? It is mentioned but once in the text of the description; and it does not form a separate building — the house and the bridge are part and parcels of the same listing. And it does not say it is in sandstone (that word does not appear in the description). In addition it has been pointed out to me in another context that it was not designated by English Heritage; it was listed in 1952, and EH was not formed until 1983. So perhaps that sentence should read (simply): "Little Moreton Hall is designated by English Heritage as a Grade I listed building".

Would you like to have a Further Reading section, starting with "de Figueiredo, Peter; Treuherz, Julian (1988). Cheshire Country Houses. Chichester: Phillimore. pp. 119–122. ISBN 0-85033-655-4."? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Peter. I'm actually using a 2001 reprint of Pevsner, because that's the only copy I could get from Manchester libraries. If it's significantly different from your 2011 version I'll be glad to accept your offer of help to update whatever's changed. The quote from the lead, "the most elaborate, fantastical and wholeheartedly vulgar display of black-and-white timbering that England has to offer" is actually from the front cover, and not repeated in the text. It's currently attributed to the frontispiece, but I'll change that. I should probably also change the Pevsner publication date to 2001 [1971].
In my copy, Pevsner (p. 257) says "The roof has two tiers of cusped, concave wind-braces and in the end tympana poor plaster decoration illustrating the Spear of Destiny whose rule is Knowledge and the Wheel of Fortune whose rule is Ignorance." But if "poor" doesn't appear in later editions then we could just drop it.
As for the bridge, I must have misread something, as I'd got the impression from somewhere that the house and the bridge were listed separately, but they do appear to be listed together, as you say. I'd like to keep mention of the bridge, as it's not really part of the house IMO; both the Ancient Monument listing[1] and Pastscape[2] say the bridge is made of sandstone, so maybe I should add one of those citations?
5. Do you think we need to give more detail about the tree-ring analysis? I think we already make it clear that the H-shaped northern half of the house was built in 1504–08 don't we?
  • 9a. Looking at the early floor plan it was clearly only roughly H-shaped, so I think "roughly" is OK?
  • 25. That a feature of Cheshire's half-timbered houses is jetties hidden behind coving could be attributed to any number of sources, so even if that's not included in your later edition I don't think that's a problem, we could source it elsewhere.
  • 37. OK, but we can be more precise than "Mow Cop" anyway. I've changed Mow Cop to "Tegg's Mill quarry near Macclesfield", but no doubt someone will ask how far away Macclesfield is, so I suppose I'd better check that and add it.
  • 39. I'm not sure, perhaps, as the window is still there behind the panelling. Fell free to change it as you see fit.
I've no objection to a further reading section; it's a while since I read de Figueiredo, but I don't recall that it adds anything significant? I might pop down to the library later and check.
I'd really like if possible to avoid having to cite multiple editions of Pevsner's Cheshire, which I'm sure we could do if your edition has the "vulgar" quotation on the inside front cover. But even if it doesn't, we could probably use the 2001 [1971] edition just to source that quotation, as I'd be very loathe to lose it. In short, I'll leave it to you to decide what might usefully be updated/amended based on your 2003/2011 edition, as I trust your judgement completely. Once again, thanks for your help. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I think when using Pevsner as a source, it's best to use editions published before his 1983 death. He was not politially correct (in the architectural sense) and in my experience, later editions have been rather sanitised (rather like Enid Blyton) and much of the charm has subsequently been lost. One thing is for certain, with such definite and unreferenced opinions, he would have been banned as a Wikipedia editor. Which is rather a pity - we always ban the best Giano (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
That's a good point. One example of that sanitisation I suppose is the expunging of "poor" when describing the tempera in the Long Gallery. The thing I really, really don't want to lose is that "vulgar" quotation. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I've found the "vulgar" quote, and I don't believe it is by Pevsner. It's on the dust cover, with no attribution. Was it written by the publisher? When you compare it with what he actually wrote (quoted above), it really doesn't fit. IMO the evidence is not sufficiently robust to attribute it to Pevsner, no matter what you wish to include, it's not sufficiently reliable.
Having said that, I agree that quotations by Pevsner himself should come from the volume(s) he actually wrote, but I do not see why we cannot use the up-to-date volume (as well) for the rest — what's the problem in that? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
It's on the dust cover of Pevsner's book, and I don't consider it at all likely that it was written by the publisher, Penguin Books. How is attributing it to the dust cover any different from attributing it to page N of the book itself? Would Pevsner not have objected to its inclusion if that were not indeed his opinion? George Ponderevo (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • As someone who has read Pevsner like others read Agatha Christie, I have no doubt at all that he used and wrote the word ‘vulgar’ – concerning Little Moreton, he may have meant in tongue-in-cheek, but he was a terrible old architectural snob who dislike ostentation and architectural overstatement. I just flicked through a couple of his 1960s volumes to try and find an example of him using ‘vulgar’, but as is always the way then one’s in a hurry, I couldn’t find one; however, in three minutes, I found that Hughenden Manor is ‘excruciating’ and Holy Trinity, Wolverton, is a “baffling’ early example of Norman revival architecture.” Reading through his volumes published over the years, it’s quite obvious that he mellowed with age or possibly was censored by his publishers. I know I have read of a house being described as ‘vile’which it probably is, but it's not today considered professional to say it. ‘Vulgar’ would not have been put on a fly-leaf if he didn’t say it. Giano (talk) 09:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I hate to disagree with experts, but on this occasion I must. The word "vulgar" does not appear on a flyleaf (according to Wiktionary that's a blank sheet within a book) but on the dust cover; ie it is not an integral part of the book. The dust cover, in addition to the paragraph containing the word "vulgar", also contains on the front flap a paragraph describing the series of books as "These distinguished books appear regularly in superbly illustrated new editions" (written by Pevsner?) followed by three quotes from critics (selected by Pevsner?). On the back flap are potted biographies of Pevsner himself and Hubbard, followed by details of the recently published volumes, and details of their financing (written also by Pevsner?). I know nothing about publishing, but I have read comments by authors who have been very upset by the contents of the dust covers provided by the publishers — so obviously they have not written or composed these themselves.

I agree with Giano that Pevsner used terms like "vulgar" (and worse) in his descriptions; but this is not in a description, and not even in the body of the text. What he says in the text (quoted above) does not IMO sit logically or reasonably with the dust cover. According to Pevsner's biographer Susie Harries, he compiled the Cheshire volume late in his career when he was in his late 60s, not the best of health, and getting rather fed-up with his project to complete all the counties, but determined to do so. So, yes he was rushed; so much so that he did not write all the text in these later volumes himself. He estimated himself that 20% of the Cheshire volume was written by Hubbard (his driver and collaborator) (Harries, p. 668). That is not directly the point; what is the point is that I am sure he did not have time to bother with dust covers (which are often disposed of anyway), and would leave that side of the production completely to the publishers — who would write a blurb to attract purchasers rather than to give reliable information. Shall we take this discussion to FLC? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I certainly can't deny the possibility that the text wasn't written by or even approved of by Pevsner, which seems to leave us with two possibilities:either we lose the quotation or we lose the attribution to Pevsner. Pevsner, if it really was he who wrote that quoted text, is by no means alone among architectural historians in considering certain aspects of Little Moreton Hall's architecture to be vulgar; the decorative studwork seems to come in for quite a bit of criticism for instance. What's important to me is that we get the balance right, and don't give the impression that Little Moreton Hall is universally admired by all architectural historians. For FA I don't think that simply attributing the quotation to an anonymous author writing for a dust cover would be acceptable, therefore what I'm going to do is to remove the quotation for now and work on something later this evening to replace it. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
PS. Peter, please go ahead and make whatever amendments you think are appropriate based on your later editions; now that the quotation is gone, and the description of the tempera in the Chapel as "poor", there will quite probably no longer be any need to use the 2001 edition as a source. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Just a quick response, as I have some "real" matters to deal with this evening. I have no problem with "vulgar", or anything like it, provided it is properly sourced. So if you find something reliable elsewhere, fine by me. I will try to make some amendments as you suggest tomorrow. Meanwhile, for your interest, Hartwell et al (the current "Pevsner") say "Cheshire is famous for its timber-framed houses, of which Little Moreton Hall and Bramall Hall rank with the finest examples in the country" (p. 23) and, under the section on Bramall Hall, it states it (Bramall) is "One of the four best timber-framed mansions of England. The others are Little Moreton Hall, Speke Hall in SW Lancashire, and Rufford Old Hall in N Lancashire" (p. 173). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
That's definitely worth adding. I'll stick it in now/imminently. While looking around for an alternative "vulgar" quotation I came across a few other little bits and pieces that might be worth adding as well. There used to be something in the article claiming that the timber frame wouldn't originally have been painted black, nor the infill white, and that that style of decoration we take for granted today is relatively recent, but the source didn't seem reliable and as I couldn't at the time find an alternative I removed it. But I think I've found one now. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that is correct, but I don't have a source. I've long understood from those who know better, that the Cheshire vernacular is actually brown and cream. There's a house in Frodsham that's been restored in this fashion, and it looks really good. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll see what I can add on that later, but black and white definitely doesn't seem to have been how the Tudors would have seen the house; from what I've found so far it might actually have been very colourful. I had a look at the other three houses you mentioned. Bramall Hall is an FA and looks pretty good, but Speke Hall and Rufford Old Hall could do with some work. Might be a worthwhile project to get both of those up to at least GA. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the refs, and hope all is well with those. The only "old" Pevsner link remaining is the one saying "the overhanging jetties are hidden by coving" (Ref 25), which I cannot find in the current volume. I think you said you have other sources for that; if you were to use one of these, the "old" Pevsner could be deleted completely (unless you are romantic about keeping it!). IRO Speke Hall and Rufford Old Hall, I completely agree — so much to do! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

That's great Peter, thanks very much. No. I've got no romantic attachment to the old Pevsner, so I'll try and dig out a new source for the coving. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
... actually I think we'll have to keep the old Pevsner & Hubbard anyway, as note b explicitly refers to it as one of the older sources that incorrectly attributes the earliest parts of the house to 1450. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you mind if I wade in and do some editing on this, with the sources I've wrestled out of the library? Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No, of course not. I just saw from reading through the FAC again that you'd managed to dig up some more material on the family. I've been wrestling with the SVG problem that forced me to upload the png floor plans you were complaining about the fuzziness of, and I have to admit that the svg versions I've just uploaded do look significantly crisper at thumbnail size. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll have a go! The stuff on the family is a bit impenetrable, but I'll see if I can make it make sense with the names you give. The new svgs are much less fuzzy -- thanks! Espresso Addict (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, added some stuff about family & land extent. Feel free (of course) to trim & reorder (it overlaps with the house construction, so William II gets introduced before he's defined). Angus-Butterworth also has a lot more on the family that might be marginally relevant, including when it acquired the lordship of the manor, and a marriage with the Brereton family (apparently there are Brereton arms in the house). Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I believe there are; can't immediately remember whether they're in one of the windows or one of the fireplaces. Thanks for your additions anyway. George Ponderevo (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deck the featured Hall, precious ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Gosh, that seemed like hard work, but you made it at last! Thanks from the Cheshire Wikiproject for all you have done to raise the status of this most important building. A nice Christmas gift. Best wishes and many. many thanks. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. At one point I thought it would go on forever. I'll have to take a look through the Cheshire articles and see if there's anything else I could maybe improve a little. I think it'll be a while before I tackle another house though. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

Did you know that I have a history of reverting infoboxes? I learned a bit, so did Tim riley ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no stomach for an infobox battle. But Giano didn't want one, and it was he who made it invisible. I still regard the article as his, so I'd rather it was gone than made visible again. There was almost nothing in it anyway. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't like infobox battles. Just yesterday one was reverted that I added to an article I created ;) discussion on Talk:Bach cantata. I have JSB and Wagner in sandboxes, not ready for battle. - So here we are, you and I respect the wish of another editor, in mutual respect ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
ps: you saw that one of our respected editors designed the user page for the other? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
It's not difficult to find articles visually destroyed by the use of infoboxes, with great slabs of stuff down the right-hand side of the screen displacing everything in their path and forcing text to be squeezed between images on the left and infobox on the right. The conflation of infoboxes and metadata is dishonesty pure and simple, and against the backdrop of the recent QRpedia scandal looks decidedly fishy. In this specific case the infobox contained so little information at the expense of greatly reducing the size of the lead image as to be bordering on vandalism IMO. I have never added an infobox nor have I ever removed one; I consider that to be a matter for the judgement of the article's authors, not some man on a mission. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I have added several, to all Bach cantatas since December for example, de/fr/it/nn all have them. - Space: they reduce white space next to the TOC. I have only few pics on the left. Example: BWV 76. - "The conflation of infoboxes and metadata is dishonesty pure and simple", sorry, that phrase is not simple enough for me. - You know that the pic size can be adjusted, right? - As to "invisible", I don't know whom to believe, very conflicting statements, and I don't have the time to find out myself ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
The image in an infobox can't be resized without also resizing the infobox, which simply makes a bad situation worse. And put simply there is absolutely no good reason to link the metadata and infobox issues except dishonesty leading to a potential commercial gain, as with the QRpedia scandal that Pigsonthewing was also involved in. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining, understood a bit more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
How do you like this one? I didn't add the box, but it's my pic ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that the infobox, as is often the case, takes up too much screen real estate and distorts the layout of the article. The more I think about it the more I think that all infoboxes should be hived off to some kind of Micropedia along with their associated leads, linked to the Wikipedia article uncluttered by any infoboxes. That could then serve as a useful summary and index of Wikipedia, and anyone who wants to see the summary infobox could click on a link to the Micropedia entry. Nice picture BTW. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
For some things, such as gems (e.g. Yogo sapphire) and people such as Presidents (Harry S. Truman) they make sense as a quick summary. That said, I also have seen infobox overkill in some geography articles, where there could be multiple infoboxes... Montanabw(talk) 16:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • There's nothing to understand here at all Ms Arednt - you may leave us. Now, dear Signor Pondervaro; am I right in thinking that you are one of the Palermo Pondevaros? If so, that makes you cousin to dearest Giacomo, and of course...a beloved nephew of mine. I do feel we may be very close - do call me aunt The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    I'm afraid not, I'm one of the Ponderevos of Wimblehurst. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    That snarky remark at Gerda, "Lady," was not very ladylike. It's George's talk page, he can decide who stays and who goes. Gerda is making a good faith inquiry and having a good faith discussion. You weren't cute or funny here, if that happened to be your intent. Montanabw(talk) 16:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I wonder why

I bother with this featured stuff. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

So do I Peter, so do I. ;-) After my own Little Moreton Hall marathon it may well be a while before I try again, doesn't seem worth the hassle really, for a few marginal improvements and an inordinate amount of nit-picking. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I suppose vanity may have something to do with it. Although in my naivety I suppose I think I am supporting the various Wikiprojects. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
All very worthy, but not so good for your blood pressure. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

To avoid further drama involving 3rr accusations, may be moving Little Moreton Hall to a personal sandbox and making edits there would be best? You can always restrict editing of it by making a suitable announcement on the talk page? (I know its not ideal, but it may help stop a band of editors who have seemingly emerged from nowhere changing back to Mabbett's infobox.)  DDStretch  (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than let Mabbett and his supporters win, and I suspect that Giano feels the same. If there's a rational argument in favour of visible infoboxes I've yet to see it. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
It was just a thought to allow the tweaks to be done without constantly having to deal with an apparent tag-team of editors who revert everything without any discussion.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I'll just have to take my chances with Mabbett and his tag team. Have you ever seen him answer a question? George Ponderevo (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Giano feels the same!  Giano  19:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Practice tip: May not work for everyone, but I've found that ever since I added that wkikstress thermometer to my talk page, it has had the paradoxical effect of keeping me a bit saner -- I up the stress level BEFORE I go totally nuts (though usually AFTER I've said somehthing bitey and snarky that will have people whining at me for the following week, so it's not perfect). Montanabw(talk) 00:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

SG for Little Moreton Hall

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Impressive stats already ;) - Would you please take a look at the infobox of Structure of Handel's Messiah? Complex music - like architecture - is beyond description and boxing, sure, but then we can't write about it at all, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

My editing days are over, sorry. Wikikpedia is for me just a repository until something better comes along, preferably not run by unsupervised and unaccountable children. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Look, I tell you as gently as I can that I only said: look, - "it's always good to learn something new". - I will miss that - and you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Look and listen to something new. - Readers liked LMH, even came over to English, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Narrow minded

Could you please admit that I did not call you narrow minded?[3] FunkMonk (talk) 08:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have an unusually single-tracked mind, even for a Wikipedian. George Ponderevo (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Lol. So did I call you narrow minded or not? Either you admit you're wrong, or you quit falsely accusing me. FunkMonk (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
So it wan't you who posted this? it seems some people are so emotionally attached to arbitrarily separated processes to be willing to compromise the Wikipedia project itself, and prevent mere discussion of integration, as can be seen in the below thread. Such zealousness and antagonism between mere assessment processes does not belong on Wikipedia, and should be flushed out on sight. George Ponderevo (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
That's irrelevant, it was after the below discussion was closed. I give up on you, but the history is there for all to see; prior to my comments, you threatened me with revenge edits, and falsely accused me of calling you narrow minded. But I see you're on a "break" now, so I won't bother you anymore, as long as you quit falsely accusing me. FunkMonk (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
It's only irrelevant in your silly and childish little world. And I seem to remember that the term "revenge edits" was yours, not mine. Didn't I ask you to explain your use of that term? Did you explain? George Ponderevo (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The threas wad closed before I got a chance to reply. And these comments speak for themselves, don't they?[4][5] FunkMonk (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
If the thread was closed then you ought not to be replying, but you did nevertheless, although not to my question. Speaks for itself doesn't it? But you could always explain here what you meant by "revenge edits". George Ponderevo (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I just did. But let's leave it at that, have a nice break... FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
You just explained what you meant by "revenge edits" where? I haven't seen it. George Ponderevo (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I repeat: [6][7] FunkMonk (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Your repetition explains nothing. What did you mean by "revenge edits"? Revenge for what? George Ponderevo (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Sheesh, I give up. I'll leave Wizardman's analysis here[8], and you can have a good day. If you want to ask me something further, go to my talk page. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps before you give up you might consider apologising for your accusation that I might make "revenge edits"? Or is that expecting too much of you? That Wizardman is a self-confessed moron is no concern of mine. George Ponderevo (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Maybe you don't know me .. but sometimes I really wonder about you. But hey .. you are one hell of a writer. — Ched :  ?  04:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

What is it that you wonder Ched? George Ponderevo (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
To be honest I hadn't really thought through a conversation here. I tend to read much more than I write, and I stumbled upon a few conversations that piqued my interest. Perhaps it's the "conspiracy theorist" in me, but I often wonder things like: "What's the plan for this direction"? "Where is this going"? "Was something said with forethought, and what's the intent"? I suspect that often when I'm looking for a tree in the forest, it's simply an innocuous "oops, I didn't mean to do that" moment, and my mind imagines what sorts of experiment or test is being presented.
A long-winded background to simply say that I suppose I wonder what it would be like to sit down in an informal setting; beer, tea, wine, coffee, ... whatever; and get to know the person behind a particular moniker. Complex people (such as Steve McQueen), are often interesting studies. And I just wonder what it would be like to know them in real life. Either way, congratulations on the new vehicle. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  00:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The new vehicle is far too complicated for me. It took me three days to work out how to switch off the reversing sonar, which until then had been constantly flashing on the dashboard – very distracting. And about half of the times I try to drive off I can't get the car out of Park until I undo and then redo my seat belt, or fiddle with the handbrake, or some other random and increasingly desperate manoeuvring. I like the rear-facing camera pictures that come up on the sat nav display when I'm reversing though, that's really cool. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I recall a family motorhome that had such a rear-facing camera, it always fascinated me. But alas, there seems to be so much new and improved technology these days (and I still question that "improved" = better). Mitsubishi is in my view one of the finest car makers in the world however, so I'm sure it will be well worth the learning curve. I'm sure if you took a list of questions back to the dealer they would be happy to help out; that is if you would rather not figure out these things on your own. Hope you enjoy all that comes with the new experience. — Ched :  ?  03:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Belated thanks

Hi George!

You and Pesky maintained my spirits and my affection for WP writers during a block last year. I regret having never properly thanked you for your copy editing of Tom Kahn. Thanks again for your many great contributions.

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Pingy ping ping

Added more stuff to Brown. Needs your eyeballs. Also changed some stuff (which might have been your edits) per requests by reviewer Wehwalt. Would appreciate you trotting over there to peek (if I may pun a bit). And speaking of trotting, there is a requested move discussion at Talk:Trot (horse gait) over whether WP:PRIMARY applies. Given your language interest, you may want to weigh in; I thought we had a WP:SNOW close on the way, but it now appears that a Korean form of music is challenging us. (And I didn't start this...) Montanabw(talk) 21:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me, some nice additions there. I made a few minor tweaks, but it was just fiddling around really. Looks like you might have enough supports now, so fingers crossed. George Ponderevo (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Who does the vote-checking and official promotion? Will it randomly happen by magic or do I have to ping someone? (wanting to lay fairly low...) Montanabw(talk) 20:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The FA delegates will get around to it in due course, you just need to be patient. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, by the way, while I wait, Wehwalt suggested this site at FAC for a historic dollars/pounds conversion. Think it will pass muster if I used the $4.70 rate, or is that too fuzzy? (Wehwalt wants a pounds to dollars conversion, which as a Yank myself, I'd like to pull off, but not at the cost of blowing FA) Montanabw(talk) 01:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you'd get away with that as a reliable source for FAC purposes. What is it Wehwalt's asking for? A contemporary £->$ conversion, a conversion adjusted for present-day value, or both? Whichever, why not use the exchange rate converter at Measuring Worth here? It shows that the value of £2727 in 1916 was $13,000 (which is a rate of $4.77 to the £, not too far from your suggested $4.70), the historic opportunity cost equivalent of which (the same measure we used for the sterling calculation) is $192,000 as of 2011. Job done? George Ponderevo (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that will work, though I think I need 1918! Let me tweak that note and see what you think (give me about 30 minutes from now to work on it) Feel free to tweak further if need be. And Thanks!
I'm sure you'll be able to use those conversion calculators just as easily as I could. Don't know where I got the idea from that we were talking about 1916 though, maybe I need new glasses. Or at least clean the ones I'm wearing now. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I think you've just confused the conversion issue. Would you like me to write something to clarify what's going on here? George Ponderevo (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
MOre than likely. Go peek at the edits I made to the note on conversion and see if I did it right, feel free to fix as needed! Montanabw(talk) 23:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Dana

Dana boomer has an article languishing in the GA queue. I know she's in the wikicup. Should be easy passes, I think: American Saddlebred/GA1 (I helped some, but she's leading the push). If you can't review, maybe ping a good reviewer for us? Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 20:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know any good GA reviewers other than Ealdgyth. or at least not any who are still active George Ponderevo (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
(watching) try Grapple X or Mkativerata, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

fyi... becareful in removing interwiki links. Not all of them are in Wikidata. You need to add them to Wikidata before removing all the interwiki links.

More importantly, Montanabw, Gerda Arendt, Ironholds and Kiefer all on your talk page. Man, you have some mighty fine friends in high places. I'm jealous. All I have is my puppy licking my face because she is hungry. Bgwhite (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll try and bear that in mind. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Edward Coke

Thanks for your comments here; I've now responded to them, if you want to take a second look :). Ironholds (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I will, but probably not until this evening. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Cool; thanks for your additional feedback (which I have now addressed, I think). Ironholds (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I think it's maybe still a bit dodgey prose-wise in a few places. Any objection to me trying to primp it up a bit instead of bothering you at the FAC again? George Ponderevo (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you ...

I am sorry the Coke FAC degenerated so badly; perhaps when it is returned it will be more worthy. Do you think you would have time to review the FAC for Flying Eagle cent, which is languishing rather? It goes without saying I would be happy to review one of your articles in due course.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry it did too, and I was particularly disappointed with the personal tone adopted by the nominator. But I made a deal with myself a short while ago that I would focus on those topics that interested me or caught my imagination in some way, and reviewing random articles isn't on my list of enjoyable things to spend time on I'm afraid. I'm sure you understand. As for my own contributions, I've tried FAC and I've got no plans to go back there in the foreseeable future. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah. Well, sorry to hear that. May I call on you when I have an article I think might interest you at the pre-FAC stage?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Of course. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Treats!

Treats!
As a previous recipient of the Pony Prize, here is some sugar for your pony, recognizing your invaluable assistance in bringing William Robinson Brown to featured article status. Ponies do not really need sugar because they are prone to be easy keepers, so this is a special treat, only given once! (Subsequent awards shall consist of carrots). Montanabw(talk) 22:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

To send a pony or a treat to other wonderful and responsible editors, click here.

Congratulations, you deserved it for all the work you put in. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Your help was immensely valuable and much appreciated! Montanabw(talk) 23:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

If you have the inclination

Hi George, I see you have been copyediting on a few pages on my watchlist. Your comments on Nitrogen narcosis encourage me to suggest Decompression (diving) as a possible target for your discerning eye. It needs an outsiders view and comments on its strengths and weaknesses. I am too involved to see the wood for the trees, and have no idea of how understandable it is to a layperson. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

My first impression is that at 128 kB of readable prose the article is way too big, probably by a factor of three or four. The guidelines at WP:Article Size suggest a maximum of 30 kB to 50 kB, and less for technical articles like this one, so I think there's a lot of summarising and farming out of material required to achieve a proper summary style. Only when that's done would it be worthwhile to spend time on copyediting IMO. George Ponderevo (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment, Would you post it on the article talk page? I am aware of the size problem, but don't really know how best to make the split. If you have an opinion on that, please also put your recommendation on the talk page. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to copy my comment over to the article talk page. I'll have a think about how I'd make the split and get back to you. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Done, Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes:

I've archived the debate [9]. Nothing more productive was going to come, and the majority approved the motion that info boxes are not always necessary. Seems a good compromise.  Giano  19:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure we haven't heard the end of this. I'm certain that articles on historic houses or works of art have particular issues with tiny images in infoboxes, but for run of the mill articles such as Pendine Museum of Speed I think the approach now adopted at Peter Planyavsky works pretty well. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Headings

Hi George, You took out a heading I added to the debate [10]. Was that an accident? Best. --Kleinzach 01:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Did I? Definitely wasn't intentional on my part, sorry. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I've fixed it now. --Kleinzach 03:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Queen Street Mill

Thanks for taking an interest in Queen Street Mill and doing such a fantastic clean up job. If you are ever short of ideas- just dive into my contributions list- I don't see my own mistakes.--ClemRutter (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I just stumbled across a copy of Williams & Farnie's Cotton Mills in Greater Manchester in the library recently, so I've been looking through it and seeing what we have here and what we don't. I was surprised to find that we didn't have an article on Old Mill for instance, it being Manchester's oldest surviving cotton mill. The articles on trades in the cotton mills, such as tackler, obviously need a lot of work as well. George Ponderevo (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Thats more or less where I started- but I inherited the rare book on the 53 mills of the Lancashire Cotton Corporation. After ruminating, and being reverted several times for lack of notability, I persisted and used pp.185-189 to build up the list articles List of mills in Manchester etc. The intention was/is to build up any information in the the list item- and when there is enough to write a separate article on each. I used a custom template for each mill- so the fields are in the correct order to build up the {{Infobox mill building}} with the minimum of cut and paste. On Citations you will find many of the main references I use- some are on line, but others are on paper.
I see you found Murrays' Mills.
It followed on naturally from Old Mill, of course. Decker Mill is also a Grade II* listed building, so that could do with an article as well I think. George Ponderevo (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
With Queen Street Mill, I started the article and I am so pleased that it has led to LCC working with wikipedia. Cotton mill is one of my articles and it really only addresses spinning. I have nearly completed Weavers' cottage and am looking to write one on Weaving sheds. W&F p76 gives some direction- give me a few days (to plan it though). Yes there is a lot to do.--ClemRutter (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Given the importance of the cotton trade to the region that seems like a worthwhile project you've undertaken, and I'll be only too happy to help where I can. George Ponderevo (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I've just done a tiny bit to clean up tackler, and I've ordered a book that I hope might help to flesh it out a little more. Moving on to scutcher, I found that we have an article on scutching, but it focuses pretty heavily on flax for some reason, so I'm going to have a go at expanding and generalising that with more emphasis on cotton. I suppose there must be an article somewhere that addresses the whole cotton processing cycle; is that what you intend cotton mill to be? George Ponderevo (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Thats quite a big question. When I started the article it was in sheer frustration that there was nothing on the cotton industry- and all the articles on cotton had handy tips for the hobbyist. Excellent stuff but nothing industrial processing. To explain the mill, one had to describe the process and the Cotton mill article had to do all that, as there was nothing you could link to. Add to that the dearth of recent material- Lancashire had tried to bury the remains-- it was like a shameful big family secret. So as I found out more and more, it went into that article. When I wrote my first copy of articles on individual mills they were deleted as not fulfilling Notability. That stage is over. We have recognition, and officially LCC has opened the doors. So where does that leave Cotton mill. To be honest I had no clear plan- where do you see it going?

So to put on my managers hat:

  • There is an article Cotton that none of us save Richerman has contributed. (4000+ edits from 2002)
  • Now we come to the level on the individual mills, the individual machines, the individual tasks, the individual manufacturers and the individual personalities. These are in some respects easiest but regard must be made to make them cross fibre.
  • Back to the mills Cotton mill is principally about spinning mills, I have weaving sheds in my sandbox, we have also got combined mills- and nothing has been done on finishing processes, or making up. All tasks to-do.
    • (I will post this now an place it on the GLAM/QSMM page: but my thoughts are not fixed- and the list is not definitive )
  • There's obviously a lot to do, and a lot of articles to be stitched together. With regard to cotton mill, what I'd be inclined to do would be to focus on the history, architecture and structure as it related to the various processes taking place, machinery installed and power source used, and deal with the end to end process in a spin-off article with only a summary style section in the mill article. But I haven't really thought about it any any great depth. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Crescent

George, I just got the CD in--it really is that good. Also, "labour" is British English spelling, and that's generally frowned upon here. I have proposed a respelling, "odios", with Noah Webster's associates. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

TY

Thanks for the "CLUE" George. Hopefully you can still find me if you ever want to "chew the fat" (Americanism?). Best to you and yours. — Ched :  ?  07:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Medieval

Please don't change the letter case in articles about English churches. Almost every ancient English church, and certainly the cathedrals (with only three exceptions) are more simply designated as Medieval architecture rather than Gothic or Romanesque. The term is used in the same manner as Renaissance, Jacobean, Georgian, Victorian and Baroque. Amandajm (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Please try and get it right Amandajm, just follow the link. Honestly! George Ponderevo (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll go with that, until there is an appropriate link. It could go to the article about English cathedral architecture.
Re the cathedral school. Simpler is not necessarily better. The two statements were written very precisely and for good reason. The establishment of a choir does not necessarily indicate the founding of a school. It is the school that chooses to date their foundation to that point. Note that I have written "point" because a specific date is not available. The matter of dating of the foundation of the Cathedral School, as against the Choir, is somewhat contentious.
Re: "At the lowest level of the facade is a plain base, contrasting with and stabilising the ornate arcades that rise above it."
Please leave this exactly as it is. While I realise that your edit is simpler, let me stress that the subject of the section is the "facade", not the "base".
Simpler is not necessarily better.
Amandajm (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • "At this time a choir of boys was established to sing the liturgy, which Wells Cathedral School considers to mark its foundation."
The precise meaning on this sentence is now that the Cathedral School considers that the the liturgy marks its foundation. Try again!
I very much doubt that no matter how hard I try I could ever be as trying as you. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Since when did you get to be my master and tell me what I can or can't do Amandajm? I suggest that you get off my case and find something useful to do elsewhere; I think you need to reconsider your whole approach here, which is frankly completely counterproductive and unlikely to achieve the outcome you're hoping for. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

George Ponderevo,

What on earth is the matter with you? Can't you be told anything?

You have been given reasons why these two changes are not appropriate. I have taken the trouble to write them on your page, rather than simply deleting what you have done. Why does that mean I'm "on your case"? What have you got to be so precious about?

  • I have accepted your change to "medieval", having given a reason why I would prefer it otherwise.
  • I don't see any value in changing "which" to "that" except that most Americans prefer it that way. It doesn't follow an English rule. But since many prefer it that way, it's better, not worse.
  • Thank you for the practical changes you have made to the formatting.
  • Pleased don't continue to make changes that affect the meaning.
  • Here is an example of a non-helpful edit: "The statues are of life size."
Your addition of the hyphen was fine. The removal of the "of" was not. It took the language from precise to journalistic.
An art/architecture writer can say either "The statues are of life-size" or The statues are life-sized", but not "The statues are life-size".

Amandajm (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "dean" is a proper noun in that context, either :P --RexxS (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
It isn't, but who dare argue with the mighty Amandajm. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I can be told many things, and I will consider each of them on their merits. But I cannot be bullied. I will, or I will not, continue to make edits to Wells Cathedral as I choose, not you. Amandajm. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
And as for the distinction between "which" and "that", I suggest you invest in a good English grammar book. You might learn something. God knows, you've got plenty of gaps to fill. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
And let's be quite brutally frank. You came here with a rant that was frankly a lie; the architecture of Wells Cathedral, as the lead says is Gothic, not "Medieval". George Ponderevo (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Response
OK. I'll explain:
The Early Medieval period of architecture covers a very wide variety of styles that were all essentially local and include Carolingian architecture, Saxon architecture, Merovingian architecture and Byzantine architecture.
The Late Medieval period of architecture includes two styles that were pan-European: Romanesque architecture (which is called Norman architecture in some regions including Great Britain), and Gothic architecture.
In Northern France, in Germany and in Italy there is usually a very clear division between the Romanesque buildings and the Gothic buildings e.g. Notre Dame de Paris, Cologne Cathedral and Florence Cathedral are all most definitely Gothic while Saint-Etienne, Caen, Pisa Cathedral and Worms Cathedral are without question Romanesque.
In England, this clear division does not exist.
In England, the majority of the ancient cathedrals span a time period of about 400 years, and include Norman (Romanesque) and Gothic architecture.
For example:
1. If someone talks about Peterborough Cathedral as one of the finest Norman buildings in England, then the statement is made with the understanding that it also has a unique and superbly magnificent Gothic facade, and a remarkable eastern end that was not added until 300 years after the facade, being very late Gothic. This means that any book about English Gothic architecture would include descriptions of Peterborough Cathedral, of which the greater part was designed in 1117 and is most definitely Norman.
2.The buildings dates of Canterbury Cathedral range from 1070 to 1505 (with its north tower not finished until the 19th century). The Choir of Canterbury and the Choir of Wells were under construction at exactly the same time. One could describe Canterbury as a "Gothic Cathedral" but where does that leave the Norman crypt, the Norman chapels and the two small Norman towers?
3. Another case is Winchester Cathedral. When you enter the building you see one of the finest Gothic naves in Europe. But here is the problem. It is incredibly long! This is entirely dependent on the fact that most of the stone at which one is looking was in fact put in place by Norman builders in about 1080. But 300 years later William Wynford remodelled the whole blinking thing by carving Gothic fluting into the old piers, and fitting Gothic arches into the Norman ones. The form of what he created was in part dictated by what was already there. The extreme length, for example, is typically Norman, not Gothic. The distance between the piers etc, was set in stone, so to speak.
The extended time-frame over which almost all the ancient cathedrals and many of the abbeys were built means that in making comparisons between English cathedrals, it is better to use the term "Medieval" than either "Gothic" or "Norman".
  • So when I indicate that the term Medieval architecture is preferable to Gothic architecture when summarising and comparing English cathedral, this is the reason.
  • I would like you to withdraw the statement that You came here with a rant that was frankly a lie; the architecture of Wells Cathedral, as the lead says is Gothic, not "Medieval"
  • I would also like you to withdraw this "But I cannot be bullied."
No-one has tried to bully you.
You have simply been requested not to make certain changes, to several aspects of the expression.
  • I am cutting and pasting this discussion to the talk page of the article. I am sorry that I didn't post it there in the first place!

Amandajm (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no need for you to explain, I know exactly where you're coming from, and it isn't a nice place unless you're a bully. So I suggest you leave me alone now, because I'm completely immune to bullies. George Ponderevo (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
So, George Ponderevo, having insulted me by name, in ten of your edit summaries to Wells Cathedral, and left the insult clearly visible in the history of that article, you accuse me of "bullying"?
You have quite a sense of humour! Amandajm (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
George did, but I don't. Now fuck off Amandajm, and take your poxy cathedral article with you. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey George Ponderevo; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully it will never be back up at all, but that's too much to hope for I guess. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Notification of motion

George, I sent an e-mail to you last night (around 00:20 this morning) as a courtesy notification of an internal motion that had been discussed and voted on by the Arbitration Committee following earlier correspondence. As stated in that e-mail, the motion has now been published at the committee's noticeboard, and is available here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look, although the concept of "internal motion" sounds a little weird. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Clearly any association with the odious Malleus Fatuorum is recipe for disaster, so I'm left with no option but to withdraw my labour from this site. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Good luck George. Everything you wanted to prove, you did. I'm proud of you. --RexxS (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Small world, Rex. ;) Later George. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
A song for you. -- Dianna (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Fallibility is human, but such stupidity requires a committee. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Nice choice of tune Diannaa :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Your 'connection' with Malleus

Providing no trouble is being caused and/or votes rigged, I don't care if you are or are not Malleus. It's none of my business. However, what is concerning me is that if the accounts are so similar and committing crime (I have seen no evidence of the latter), why did the Arbcom not wait for a conventional checkuser request. Malleus had enough enemies - if crimes were being committed, it wouldn't have taken long for someone to request a CU. Why did the Arbcom act on a secretive email? It's widely known that Malleus irritated the Arbcom. The only possible conclusion is that this secretive email came from within the Arbcom itself or was set-up by an Arb. If it was not from one of them, they would never have been so stupid as to act on it.  Giano  12:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You underestimate stupidity and the number of obsessives on this site.
The problem is that the administrators with sense tired of fighting against a broken-record campaign, after having defeated a series of even worse proposals.
Now we've lost another of the most helpful editors on WP, who has a history of avoiding politics and conflicts, because of a vindictive obsessive (or several). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the comments here [[11]. we need to know who emailed the Arbcom rather then file a checkuser request. Especially, as there was no reason to checkuser. Is the Arbcom now spying on all of us - are our homes, jobs and private lives safe from their snooping?  Giano  13:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
IMHO, this whole thing is bullshit. Let them edit. Good work is happening and that's all that should matter. Come back here, George. Edit away and let your friends explain to Arbcom what a bunch of vindictive and unnecessary nonsense this is. We're giving too many good editors the "death penalty" for simply trying to defend quality. I'm hoping that people will stick around and stick it out. Don't give up, George! Montanabw(talk) 18:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
IMHO the bullshit comes when people tolerate the bullshit and "just get on with it." That's how the "death penalty" comes to pass, you know. And it doesn't come from the "we," it comes directly from those who have OWN over policy and essays confused for policy. Sticking it out does no real good if nothing ever changes. But that's just one opinion from the puling masses (or a very small segment of those masses). Your mileage may vary. Intothatdarkness 19:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

In wikipedia-land, those who can, write and edit content; those who can't mostly begin a massive convoluted administrative system which takes on a life of its own and which appears to deal with content builders and editors as irritants or people to be persecuted, apparently as means of hiding their own inadequacies or adolescence. It's about time those who seem to revel in these political shennanigans, secret denouncements, and other trappings of a totalitarian and Stasi-like regime got back what they delight in doling out, though it would probably end up being a job similar in scale to that of cleaning the Augean Stables. DDStretch  (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Priyanka Chopra

Hello! Sir, we have addressed all your issues on the article. I think it has improved a lot since its nomination. I'm sure you would like the new version. Please, talkback on the flc page Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Priyanka Chopra/archive1. Thank You.Prashant talk 17:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that George has left the building Prashant, the real George I mean. Good luck with your FAC though. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back Malleus ...

I'm not commenting on the whole disgusting thing with ArbCom .... you'd think they'd have better things to do ... like support and fix problems for content editors - but I note that Cla's still blocked.

But enough about the political crap - I've started the background work to get Thomas Becket up to snuff. First step - lay the background for all the various biographers and stuff. Robert of Cricklade is the first fruit of those labours. (gods - you Brits have me spelling things wrong now!).

I found the papal election and choice of papal name to be quite ... interesting. Except for the John Paul's (which simply combined the two previous papal names for the first one) ... this is the first "new name" for a pope since Pope Lando in 914 - at least by my research. Should be interesting times - although the election wasn't nearly as interesting as some of the medieval ones! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

What I found interesting is that Francis is the first Jesuit pope. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I was a bit surprised by that. Of course, they were suppressed for some period of time that is way past my normal interests ... it's a toss up whether he took Francis from Francis of Assissi or from Francis Xavier ... time will tell. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
When they mentioned that on TV I was sure they got it wrong--the very first Jesuit pope? It's to Jesuits that we ("we") owe much of modern Catholicism anyway, or so I thought. Consensus is he got the name from Assissi, but his behavior in the 1970s makes it clear he wasn't a rebel. Greetings from your servant of the servants of God, Drmies (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I suppose it was a bit irreligious, but I wish I'd bet money that they'd pick a Pope from outside Europe. I told some people that it was my theory, dang, too bad I can't bet retroactively on a Papal election! And yeah, what did the Curia have against the Jesuits, anyway? Montanabw(talk) 21:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Not a lot, I think. An surge of nationalism in Western Europe and imperialism in the New World during the 18th century accounts for most of the evictions of Jesuits. --RexxS (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

A statement from the odious Malleus Fatuorum

I agreed to fall on my sword and abandon the Malleus Fatuorum account in a vain bid to protect George from any association with me. Clearly that didn't work, and now he's buggered off. So with his permission (just email him and ask if you don't believe me), now that I've lost access to my own account, I'm taking this one over, which is clearly what ArbCom thinks I'd already done anyway. I don't know and care even less what the expected protocols are for such a move, but you can be certain that any further posts from this account come from me, Malleus Fatuorum, and not from George. May God have mercy on your souls, because you can be as sure as eggs is eggs that I won't. BTW, for all you Wiki sleuths out there, Ponderevo isn't his real surname, but George is his real first name. And it was me who suggested the idea of looking for a username among the characters of H. G. Wells, as I'd done for the sake of a quiet life with the William Leadford account. But I've discovered that I'm unsuited to the quiet life, so let the games begin. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That's all very well, fine and dandy, but what has been exposed is that any one of us can checkusered without reason on the say so of an anonymous email to the Arbcom (or even without one). That is the law of the Gestapo. Once an rogue Arb knows your IP, he may well know your address and place of business. We need to know if there was even an email; if there wasn't then the Arbs have some even more seriour explaining to do - big time.  Giano  19:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
That's very true Giano, and completely contrary to any rule of justice. ArbCom claims there was an email, I was told that right at the start of the investigation, but despite asking repeatedly I was never shown the email, or even allowed to know who'd sent it. A strange kind of "evidence" when you're not allowed to examine it. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Be lucky this is a virtual world, in RL they would have waterboarded you.  Giano  19:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Welcome back, Malleus! :)
George, you were very helpful in boistering my spirits (along with Pesky) that there were good editors here amid the dung beetles vindictive obsessives choking on their own resentiment. I wish you well in your other accounts. If you edit in the future (in another account) and I am still editing, George, it would be nice to read your contributions. (21:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC))
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't have any other accounts, no matter what Demiurge1000 and his ArbCom stooges may think. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I added a clarification. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • On second thoughts I see from statements made by the beligerent ArbCom that my (Malleus's) use of this account will likely lead to it being blocked, so George will just to have retire after all. A shame really, because from what I've seen he was doing a pretty good job. I may see if there's any way I can regain access to the Malleus account, as sacrificing it in an effort to save George was clearly futile. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, Malleus/George

I'd never heard of George until the recent message on Malleus's talk page, but I see he's been a solid and constructive editor and am delighted that the late Malleus will be continuing the good work! Good luck. PamD 13:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The wikilawyers are already consulting their legal texts in an effort to find some pretext to have this account blocked, so I think it's going to have to be abandoned now, as an in memoriam to George. Even if it were true that Malleus and George were the same person I can't believe that many people would prefer to have Malleus than George, but if I can regain access to my account that's exactly what they'll have. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
How pathetic. Not especially surprising, but pathetic just the same. Intothatdarkness 15:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


You foxed me with the H.G.Wells references: but I am now more suspicious: the Jorge/George reference was a dead giveaway- but the potential forthcoming battles with the curia is too big a clue. Habemus papem.

-- Clem Rutter (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

And that would also be a great user name; or a name of a rock band... will miss George. Montanabw(talk) 18:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Atticus Finch

I watched To Kill A Mockingbird, with its "it's a sin to kill a mockingbird, since they do no harm but sing for us". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you catch the part where Atticus says to his daughter, "I don't care what excuses you give yourself. I don't want you to fight." ? ```Buster Seven Talk 19:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
You have inspired me; I am now going to re-read that book. A true classic. Go Phightins! 19:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about National Interest Picture Productions

Hello, George Ponderevo,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether National Interest Picture Productions should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Interest Picture Productions .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:George_Ponderevo/Archive_3&oldid=1140399020"