User talk:Mcginnly/12 Janaury 2007 - 19 May 2007

flypast

Dear McGinnly, We have corresponded before. I am the creator of the article, flypast. you'll remember me as the creator of this. RJASE1 has nominated it as a Good Article and put it up for peer review. He also placed it on the Military History Project in Start Class (on their assessment scale) and then raised it to Class B.

That's all well and good. However Looper 5920 has reversed the second move and attacked what he perceives as a UK bias in the article. I worry that the article will lose its character and original focus. I am particularly upset because it had an ENTIRE section on internationality and I did struggle to incorporate everything I could find.

Would you please support the article as a Good Article candidate and join the discussion at talk:flypast and lend whatever support and muscle you can.

Thanks. -- FClef (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Fill 'er up

New rotation of picture per {{CURRENTMINUTE}} in the introduction of Portal:Architecture

• Portal:Architecture/images
• Needs additional image in slots 10-38

Islamic art and architecture article - FYI —Dogears 19:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Woof woof! (looks good - I've added a few - do they all have to be portrait?) --Mcginnly | Natter 02:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject planning

Hi, thanks for the welcome. Er... forgetfulness - thought I'd joined but then realised I hadn't. :) DWaterson 22:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The Nobel prize?

Well I have responded to your suggestion, we'll see what happens now.Giano 08:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"Blessed are the cheesemakers (I think he's refering to all manufacturers of diary products)" --Mcginnly | Natter 11:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well we have seen what pappens - we have Ideogram! Giano 12:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

He's difficult to ignore - but it's worth the effort. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Development control

No problem at all, as I said, I enjoyed working on it.Itsmejudith 12:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

To do

Thanks for the welcome. Are there any articles that need to be created as far as styles go? Anything else?A mcmurray 13:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Spire

Hi there. Overall i think your review was excellent. Regarding the structural issues i think you are also on target. i would definitely like to see some info in the article on total flex of the building in a 60 mph wind for example. the author may want to consult sources such as Why Buildings Stand Up: Strength of Architecture from the Pyramids to the Skyscraper by Salvadori, Mario, Mario George Salvadori, Christopher Ragus, Saralinda Hooker - 2002

I really agree strongly with the need to have some site history. any toxic liability ? there must have been a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment done. It should be summarised and referenced. best regards. Anlace 15:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Anlace, I'll cross post this to the review. regards. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied

Left my response on that page. Both you and Geogre have responded specifically in regards to IRC — I want to be clear I agree with the specific actions Uninvited proposed to clean up IRC, and as an extension of that, I feel that if the Freenode IRC contact becomes responsible to the community, the community should have some direct or indirect power to impose a civility policy there, which it needs. That said, I think generalities like "wherever Wikipedians gather", which includes a great many more fora, are probably an over-extension of what ArbCom can and should be doing to curb conflict, and may well provoke it to some extent as ArbCom wrestles with the question of who wrote and did what off-wiki. Choess 16:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of architectural styles

Hello, Mcginnly, thank you for your note. I didn´t know that timetable. I will introduce some styles, although I haven´t edited a table like this before, and I don´t know the conventions. The grey bars are for all styles? When I have done the changes I will call you to check the result. Cheers!--Garcilaso 09:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

IRC Page

Sorry for being confusing, see this for what I hope should work for everyone. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 03:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of architectural styles

After putting together the following timelines, I like your idea about the modern timelines being split up into 50 year intervals, and the international style timelines. The timeline grids in that reference/ external link are really nice too - plotting significant buildings within each style. Do you like putting time on the vertical axis like they have? Please cut paste create these as you see fit, (article ain't my property, etc.) —Dogears (talk • contribs) 15:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• 6000BC—1000AD, 1000AD—1750, 1750—1900, 1900—Present

A proposal

Since you commented on the AN thread, would you like an early look at my draft proposal? User:Durova/Community enforced mediation Durova^Charge! 23:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Arichitecture Project

• Oh it was done because that FAC was already expired. --Parker007 02:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I should have edited the within template instead, sorry I missed that. --Parker007 02:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay fixed it. i.e. putting back the original template. (the image template is still not up to date) --Parker007 02:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Just done it :-) --Mcginnly | Natter 02:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Architecture also deals with Structural Engineering, and many structural engineering articles are in the scope of architecture (normally), and because there is no sepreate project for structural engineering, thus the rename. --Parker007 02:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• We have more than 2000 articles not assessed. Isn't that bad?

Architecture articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	7	22	58	80			167
FL		11	20	63			94
A			1				1
GA	8	52	218	854		28	1,160
B	119	230	588	1,414		931	3,282
C	133	437	1,423	6,942		3,242	12,177
Start	84	782	3,390	24,964		8,983	38,203
Stub		71	864	17,878		6,174	24,987
List	8	48	193	5,151		362	5,762
Category					49,025		49,025
Disambig					157		157
File					1,597		1,597
Portal					8		8
Project					127		127
Template					1,901		1,901
NA				25	1,741		1,766
Other					232		232
Assessed	359	1,653	6,755	57,371	54,788	19,720	140,646
Unassessed				1		63	64
Total	359	1,653	6,755	57,372	54,788	19,783	140,710
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 401,814			Ω = 5.02

--Parker007 02:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• This is in comparision to:

MCB articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	9	4	3	5			21
FL		1					1
GA	16	16	16	13			61
B	53	208	271	303		2	837
C	66	253	597	1,142		51	2,109
Start	20	293	906	5,714		65	6,998
Stub		4	243	17,907		33	18,187
List	4	7	33	54	240	20	358
Category					897		897
Disambig				1	40		41
File					22		22
Project		1			7		8
Redirect	2	19	81	974	895		1,971
Template					307		307
NA				5	23		28
Draft					2		2
Assessed	170	806	2,150	26,118	2,433	171	31,848
Unassessed			7	22	3	195	227
Total	170	806	2,157	26,140	2,436	366	32,075
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 155,187			Ω = 5.50

from: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology --Parker007 03:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My contributions

I have contributed to this project by: Sill_Plate, Platform_framing and many more edits in other articles. --Parker007 02:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for assessing the articles. :) --Parker007 02:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

More wikiprojects

If we make more and more wikiprojects it will end up here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Inactive_WikiProjects

But I am very interested in creating a wikiProject that deals with creating articles regarding the companies that supply construction products & materials. However creating an assesment box like the one above is very hard.

For example the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Urban_studies_and_planning doesnt have an assesment box.

I recently was involved in creating the wikiproject Dentistry Assesment box see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dozenist#Bot_to_update_articles.3F

--Parker007 02:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore the bigger and more organized the project is, it can bring so many articles to FA status, and lots of main page attention; Have you noticed recently that in every few days there is an article on the main page which is related to India? Wikipedia:WikiProject_India. (Plus in their project they have admin participants). --Parker007 03:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Run for Adminship

On becoming an admin McGinnly found one of the disadvantages of joining #wiki-admins was the initiation Sicilian haircut - he began to suspect that Giano was not really their Grand Wizard

Especially when McGinnly noticed the chic high fashion Toupees sported by the other residents

The comb over was patented by mcginnly in 1977 (This is called the "bar-code" haircut in Japan)

Why don't you run for adminship? You have a total edit count of: 13,620, per http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Mcginnly&site=en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. (okay this is probably the last edit on your talk page sorry for adding so many "talks") --Parker007 03:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a very good idea! Giano 12:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a terrible idea. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with - Chores! I didn't register an account to do chores I have quite enough of those in real life - besides, WP:ARCHA is quite enough of a chore as it is. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Chores moi? I have never had the slightest inclination to pick up a mop and bucket, I've always beleived the Good Lord made some people to fly with the eagles on high intelectual planes and others to......er...well...do things with mops and buckets - think of the power though - think of the glory...I could suggets people for you to ban and useful things like that, I've made a short (well quite long) list actually, if you can't beat 'em join 'em. Seriously though (there are those who will think I was serious) why not, you can only ne an improvement on some of them - go for it - would you like me to be your campaign manager? Giano 17:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought the accepted right of passage was to ban you. I've been thinking about asking that at RFA - Under what circumstances would you consider banning Giano - that should sort the IRC fairy chaff from the grain :-) Mcginnly | Natter 17:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Under what circumstances you wheel-war with Bishzilla? That sort Flash Gordon from weenie little users! Roooaaaaaarrrrrrrr! [/me goes off to nominate McGinnly from top of Reichstag.] Bishzilla | grrrr! 18:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Just give studiedly bland answers. At least one chore-shy person who's much lazier than you has become an administrator. -- Hoary 15:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparantly, 20% of the admins do 80% of the work. It might even be worse than that. And you never know, you might find the chores quite relaxing. Like washing dishes or something. Carcharoth 15:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words everyone, but I don't have any intentions to become an admin in the near future. cheers --Mcginnly | Natter 17:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent decision. Other admins are just trying to get you to share their misery. We've already lost a few good ones to the rank of admin… or was it something I said? You do have a level head, a good trait for any occasion (re: Portal: Architecture and structural engineering). Do you think we can turn that eagerness into a Portal:Architecture task force? - if I haven't put User:Parker007 off. I just thought it was rather rude to rename the project without concern for the other 45 members of the Project. --Dogears 19:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Excellent decision. But if you ever did change your mind, one nugget of advice I'd give is to say at the very start that although you'll try to respond to direct questions you won't respond to anything else (try not to add "however stupid"). I've seen too many people rushing around "correcting misperceptions" of themselves (etc.): it must be a huge waste of their time, taken as a whole it all looks pretty desperate, and if any sliver remains unanswered it looks as if the candidate admits he's guilty as insinuated. -- Hoary 11:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:ARCHPR

Sure, there's a couple of possibilities.

1. User:Martinp23 runs a bot which automatically transcludes peer reviews from different WikiProjects onto WP:PR. See the thread here for instructions. From there, I can run the script and post the output to the automated PR subpage.
2. Since the PR script isn't a bot (it could, I suppose, fall under WP:SBOTS), anyone can easily install it and run it. It is javascript, so the method of installing is similar to other scripts in your monobook.js (just in case, instructions can be found here).

Thanks, APR _t 20:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Template

Thank you for the welcome template; I never knew this one actually existed it consists of every information regarding wikipedia i.e. resolving disputes, Policies and guidelines. I apologize for causing the move of the wikiproject from Wikiproject Architecture to Wikiproject Architecture and Structural Engineering. Peace. --Parker007 15:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Help?

Hi, I was wondering if you could help me in my detailing assignments; I would be very grateful if you would be able to that; because its very confusing where to exactly section the assignment, and because the instructor doesn't bother to explain how to do it. Also its in 2D if you know what I mean. I am having a really hard time. This course is part-time, i.e. in the evenings, and it goes very fast; It started on Jan 9, 2007 to Feb 15, 2007, Tuesday, Thursday 6:30 PM to 9:30 PM.

Apparantly now I have just 1 week to do tons of assignments which I cannot understand; and I don't have any friends to ask for help.

And now I also need to prepare for the final exams which is divided in 2 parts one on tuesday and the other part on thursday. If you are willing to give it a shot I can scan the assignment which is to be done free hand, I will understand if you do not have the time, or are unwilling to help for personal reasons. --Parker007 18:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

http://parker0007.googlepages.com/Assignment8.pdf --Parker007 19:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

http://parker0007.googlepages.com/Assignment5.pdf --Parker007 19:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much friend. Instead of helping me at wikipedia, could you just send an email? --Parker007 19:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool, seems straightforward bar some atlantic translation (eg. sidewalk/pavement what's an OC wall is that some kind of timber frame?) which you'll have to help me with - I'm happy to answer any questions you have on these assignments - the work you'll have to do yourself of course. I suggest you email me a list of questions to my wikiemail address - see on the left, it says "E-mail this user" hit that and send me the list. --Mcginnly | Natter 19:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

O.C. stands for On center in Alberta, Canada. Looking forward to your help. :) . --Parker007 19:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sistine Chapel ceiling

Hi Mcginnly! I've got to ask why you have rated this article as a B?

• The article isn't actually about architecture. It's about painting. The architecture just happens to provide the surface..... but on the other hand, I have talked about the architecture as it impacts on the painting.
• Having reread the criteria for a B article, I don't think it is a B. It covers the topic including history, architecture, technique, theology, subject matter, style, and influence on other painters. Every identifiable frame on the ceiling is mentioned and the majority of them are discussed or used as an example to illustrate the above. Everything is referenced.
• What do you think needs to improve it?
• I know that there is a request for all the triangular segments to be illustrated. I have added more but I think its probably an overkill to illustrate the lot within the article. They should all be shown together on wikicommons with the appropropriate direction in the article that wiki commons has relevant material.

--Amandajm 14:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Auto Wiki Browser (AWB) Assessment?

Hi, I was looking at the contributions of you alternate account, Antischmitz, and I see a lot of edit summaries that say, "assessed per WP:ARCHA using AWB". I am somewhat confused how you can get a piece of software to make qualitative judgements, and the edits appear too close together for you to have spent much time approving them. Could you explain how it is possible to do this? Thanks! — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 17:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I understand now. Cheers, Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 19:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sistine Chapel ceiling

Thanks for your explanation. re measurements- I'll make them specific and quote the source. There is another article on the Sistine Chapel which ought to deal with its architecture more fully than this one.

I would welcome any other comments you'd like to make.

This article already existed. But the ceiling had been described by people who had no background knowledge of the period with which to understand things like the ignudi and so on.

I have a bit of a problem with inline referencing everything. It's often overkill and really not an effective way of writing an enclyclopedia. Also, its simply not the way I operate, because what I'm writing is generally a summary. Generally the people who demand it are the ones who know only a little about a subject, or are not used to the particular discipline. A statement like "Pisa Cathedral is in the Romanesque style" is a very straightforward statement to an architectural historian, particularly when accompanied by a photo. One ought not have to inline reference every basic act, but only those that my be questioned.

Unfortunately, I suppose like other editors who are knowledgleable about their subjects, I have a bit of a problem with some of the people who try to "improve" articles. I've just reverted the wellmeaning "improvements" to the history part of ths article which, in trying to take verbal shortcuts entirely changed the meaning and gave a different emphasis. I have had exactly the same problem with Leonardo da Vinci.

Talking of Leonardo, here should be some writing done soon on Leonardo as an architect. I think there might be eough for a whole separate article. Most of his paintings have ther own aticles, so it might be the way to go. Apparently Brosi is working on it.

On my agenda are the Australian architects, Edmund Blacket, James Barnet and John Horbury Hunt. I haven't checked them out recently,bt last tme I loked at Blacket, he needed my attention.

--Amandajm 11:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Inline-citations are a perennial bloody problem - it isn't policy that any article should have them - just 'where necessary'. Unfortunately, the defacto policy at FAC, FAR and FARC seems to be articles must have them. There's been some almighty bruhahas recently regarding this - see Palladian architecture FAR and Restoration literature (which is still open if you'd like to comment) and associated conversations on User talk:geogre's talk page. They're both excellent articles - truly representing the best of wikipedia - but were descended upon by people who new absolutely nothing about the subjects, pointificating about how the article needs to conform to this months particular standard of referencing. (I regret that I got really quite annoyed with the guy on the Palladian FAR who could barely speak english chiming in and ended up adding a few citations to the article. The problem has gone away for now on that one after much argy-bargy).

I'm pretty sure that the authors of these articles have pretty much sworn off submitting their work for FAC these days because of this problem and it's a real shame. We might be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but we're clearly having problems with the idea that anyone can judge the relative quality of work.

For my part, when I arrived the in-line citation 'standard' was already pretty much in force, so I've just had to go along with it - I think my writing suffers, certainly I find holding a thought in my head, whilst flicking through texts to find page numbers is really difficult. As a process, I've taken to writing up articles from single sources, adding a reference per paragraph and then balancing the article with other sources and inserting sentences here and there. It's extremely tedious but my view is it's the path of least resistance. It also serves to defend articles against "the wellmeaning 'improvements'" - it's much easier and less contentious to revert edits if you can say, "ok, provide a source for what you're adding" - usually they won't bother and it takes the personalities out of it - you're not saying "I'm right and you're wrong" you're saying "source X says this if you'd like to include what source Y says then great, otherwise I'm reverting". DVD and I have successfully defended Deconstructivism (modern architecture 'nonsense' - see the talk page) from degradation in this way.

What's really need though is policy review to prevent the knee jerk reactions that prevent the best of wikipedia getting and holding FA status. The 'where necessary' needs either defining or the whole in-line thing needs spelling out. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response

I've read through what you put on my page. Some of it is defintely applicable. Some of it, I don't entirely agree with. I think that there is a place for galleries in certain types of article, where the gallery is a tool to convey a very large amount of information specifically so that it can be compared, see Cathedral architecture of Western Europe, Stained glass etc. In both of these cases the area covered is vast. But in general, galleries interupt the flow of the article.

Part of the probem in this is that I like getting my teeth into a major project. I get involved with very long articles of high importance and they turn out with my stamp on them. I'm, first and foremost, a teacher, so, for me, if it desn't convey the info clearly, it isn't working. I can't stand articles that have a leading sentence so cumbersome in its definition that your average 12 year old cannot interpret it. Knowing, for example, that a person's name is derived from a particular source is less significant than knowing that the person is famous in a particular field.

At the present minute there are a number of editors who spend time simply defending my major articles and continually reverting vandalism and undoing commercial links to the stained glass page and that sort of thing. Most of the articles that I have written are very stable except for vandalism.

Anyway, I'm on holiday! I'm about to go and cuddle my new Granddaughter some more. I haven't got time to do anything except some maintenance! --Amandajm 08:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Architecture stub sorting

OK, I will not replace architecture-stub. Burschik 11:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Heading Change

You should be aware of this edit I recently made, as it may effect your polling response. I made the edit in response to concerns on the talk page about the neutrality of the question. Cheers! Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Importance

Certainly, helping someone with their impotence is a saint worthy act. I'll nominate you for WikiSainthood. So glad you are tackling the lead paragraph on architecture and architect. The greek translation belongs on the architect page "chief builder" rather than the architecture page. I'll look at some of the introductions in the big architecture books I have, to augment your edits. P.S. What do you think about a Wikipedia:WikiProject Buildings and structures for all those gerenral articles about building types (barn, outhouse, hospital, office tower, etc. etc? (as per discussion}? —Dogears (talk • contribs) 00:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the wikiproject idea is a great one if we can get some folks to sign up - WP:ARCHA's been enough of a slog, the prospect of tagging all Cat:buildings and structures article with architecture tags fills me with dread, not least because it seems we've waded through plenty of articles already that are patently not architecture. Getting the division right might be tricky though - I have an idea of what is and what isn't architecture, but it's by no means universal, the corb quote about art entering in is my usual yardstick, but by its nature its very subjective. The Eiffel tower is clearly architecture, but is alabama cell phone mast IV? maybe, depends? etc. etc. I've not actually started anything on the architect or architecture pages yet - that's the next project, I'm out east on the Taj Mahal at the moment - see here - proof reading, comments, copyedit, spelling v. welcome. cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, being the one to make the distinction, the decision of what does not constitute architecture is an awesome task, though I'm sure that most of the hotels on the Las Vegas Strip are not it. A separate Category/Project/Portal to shunt buildings into would be nice, but work on another Portal is, of course, out of the question. Dogears 04:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Come on - it's bad, but it's architecture!

I'm not sure I can agree with you on the Vegas strip - Robert Venturi probably wouldn't either. The problem is, there's good architecture and bad architecture - bad architecture is still architecture - its the margin between that and plain 'ole construction where the distinction becomes fuzzy. I think we should debate this to inform the eventual content of Architecture. I'll start by defining construction as something built to serve a function and purpose. Whereas architecture takes construction and imbues it with something else (implicitly lifting it from something prosaic). What it is imbued with might be either an emotive response, an idea, proportion, scale, a reflection of social values, the artistic whim of the architect - this will be a very long list. The problem here, is that its possible to take some construction and imbue it in analysis with some of the something else (ie. the eye of the beholder.) --Joopercoopers 10:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

On this basis statements in the article like "Planned architecture often manipulates space, volume, texture, light, shadow, or abstract elements in order to achieve pleasing aesthetics. This distinguishes it from applied science or engineering, which usually concentrate more on the functional and feasibility aspects of the design of constructions or structures." (ie. architects make things pretty) will have to become more nuanced. --Joopercoopers 11:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah

Every single one of those buildings, as with every contributing property in any historic district has their own unique tale to tell and history surrounding it. The Sycamore Historic District article would be ridiculously long if they were included in it, anyway its all covered by NRHP Project task force as well as WikiProject Illinois. Tell me your not delete happy. I'll remove the architecture tags, don't worry about it. I mean there are articles on here for single seasons in college sports teams. I don't see the harm in these articles existing, besides I worked pretty hard on them. To me that has always been the great thing about Wikipedia, it can cover niches that no paper encyclopedia would ever be able to cover. Before those articles were created Google wouldn't turn up anything beyond the usual suspects for Sycamore Historic District. The district was recognized for a real reason. The federal government has deeemed it and its buildings (which are the district) worthy of preservation. Are they not worthy of Wikipedia entries?A mcmurray 09:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Dumbo

Oh noes! Edit conflict at the royal palace, after I put full stops after all the notes and everything. :-( Grrrrr, did Dumbo ask you to copyedit as well?? I'll leave you to it. Meanwhile, I pasted in my version of the lead, you didn't seem to have done anything much to it, at least. (Spaces..? Well, anyway.) Bishonen | talk 00:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Sugar. Sorry! --Mcginnly | Natter 01:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Good heavens, you call Giano "Sugar"? I had no idea... (gulp) .. but this is great news, congratulations to you both! Well, I still call him Dumbo, for my part. Bishonen | talk 01:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes, well after Giano's evocative description of his cousin it-like hair [1] I was powerless to resist. Sugar! (on the off-chance you didn't know) is a very mild, just-so-slightly risque way of saying shit in polite company. Usually accompanied with lots of shhhhhhhhhs to start with - eg. shhhhhhhhhhh(Oh my, I think the young man will soon be offering profanities)-u-g-a-r(phew the balance of polite society has been maintained ho ho ho). Next up......Benny Hill - you're welcome. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no he hadn't contacted me - I thought he'd declared open season [2]. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't fuck with me or my cousin's hair Mister! Please both of you copyedit - one at a time, I am very grateful to you both - I have just put the inuse sign on so Bishonen can have a go - then I'm going to add a whole section on Princess Grace, America's own people's princess, and her "classy pink" colouring scheme. I suggest anyone who wants a go (my special friends only) put the inuse sign up first. We need a section though on the royal children's pokemon collection Giano 12:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the inuse, I don't have time now anyway. I may get some proofreading in later. Bishonen | talk 12:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Cheers Bishers! for the zocky thingamy that'll save copypasting to notepad all the time. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mcginnly. Searchbox hasn't been tested with IE7, but I think it's quite likely that it won't work. Unfortunately, the best I can do is suggest using FireFox :\ Zocky | picture popups 17:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hoysala architecture

Thanks for the barn star.Dineshkannambadi 00:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Justo Gallego Martínez

Mr. mesherschmidt, Dieses ist unverschämt, fantastisch, sonderbar! This reminds me of the Broken Angel House, Watts Towers, and scaled up to Sagrada Família. You've got wikiProjects on this side, more Projects over here, and some over there in a corner waiting for someone to pick up and dust off (Historic Preservation? maybe). Things are really hopping around here! And I see DVD back and making contributions - missed seeing him around the Project that he revived, long ago. —Dogears 00:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ping

You have mail —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.133.159 (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

News Around the Architecture Project

Hi Mcginnly, I have lately been away from the WikProject Architecture and Wikipedia in general because of recent revision for my tests in May and I was wondering what has been going on the project?. I have seen that you are not active these days because of all this mail and messages, if you having problems I do apologise for bothering you.

Concerning the the Architecture Project, I have seen that there has been a plethora of partcipants whom I assume that a substancial of them don't even contribute that much. This month's colbartion is not having the same impact that it had for the Bauhaus and Islamic architecture so it is quite disappointing. My other criticism is that the older members of the Project have been less active including you and I, therefore there are less older participants who are lecturing the new members on the project. Before the recent wave of people, the Collaboration of the Month is not having the high effect of editing then when I was around. I have seen new projects being born from the Architecture Project and I have also observed that spirit and teamwork is having any effect.

Moving on, the Islamic architecture article has been edited and changed dramatically since I last reveiwed and edited it. I wanted it to be nominated for the Featured article status. Furthermore I was wondering to start an architectural page on Somali architecture however I have little knowledge over the subject but I do know that it incorporates African, Arab and Islamic architectural elements. I hope you give me a feedback on the issue.

I actually like the new historical archecture template very much, it looks much better than the former version. This new version incorporates modern elements and serenity in colours. However, my only criticism is that there is no image, but that is just me being fussy!!

VERY EXCELLENT PIECE OF WIKIPEDIAN EDITING

Thanks McGinnly..................I hope you answer back

P.S I HAVE LEFT A SURPRISE ON YOUR USERPAGE....I HOPE YOU LIKE IT.

Abdullah Geelah 16:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Your thingammy

Oooh ooh ooh does this mean I can be in your gang too? I've got a catapult and everything Piepacker 18:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Expressionist architecture/Structure redesign sandbox

Hi. I found the page Expressionist architecture/Structure redesign sandbox, which you created a while back, in the backlog of uncategorized articles. It should probably have not been created in mainspace so ould you move it to your userspace? Or if the page is no longer used, could you request its speedy deletion using {{db-author}}? Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 15:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder - I've moved it now. regards --Mcginnly | Natter 15:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot approval request

Hi Mcginnly, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Antischmitzbot remains open. I'm not sure from your last comment if you still want approval or if you want to withdraw the application and ask another bot op to do it for you. Please post your intent there. Cheers. --kingboyk 00:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved for trial. Please see the request page for details. --kingboyk 00:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I responded. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to add your bot to the AWB list, but have done now. --kingboyk 01:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. When the bot flag is set it will show up in this log. --kingboyk 13:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sistine Chapel ceiling

Hi McGinnly! With regards this particular page as an architecture article, it does mention the architecture, but only in so much as to describe the size and form of the ceiling, to indicate the surface that Michelangelo was painting on. It also describes the painted architectural forms that were introduced as a formal structure for the design.

But I don't think it ought to be listed as an Architectural article. There is another article called Sistine Chapel which ought to describe the architecture of the building. Any chance of you removing the banner and just leaving the ceiling to the painters? I don't want to encourage well-minded people to try and make the page more architectural. --Amandajm 02:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

FLW

Awesome. And most excellent to see cross project collaboration, perhaps my nifty little template could be adjusted ever so slightly? IvoShandor 10:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Appian Publications & Recordings

I'm mystified. Your bot added a box about WikiProject Urban studies and planning onto the Appian Publications & Recordings talk page. You may like to have a word in its ear...

Cheers - Hebrides 15:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's because the publishing company is listed in Category:Historic preservation - which is predominantly about the historic preservation of buildings - perhaps there should be a new category for something like Category:Recorded music preservation? I can only apologise and remove the tag. kind regards--Mcginnly | Natter 15:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah! That makes sense. No problem. I guess it's true that buildings tend to get "historically preserved" more than other artifacts. Maybe Category:Historic preservation should have subcategories for buildings, recordings, documents, religious relics, extinct languages, etc? Hebrides 15:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

mmm maybe. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot tags on Oregon articles

Hi, your project looks interesting. It appears your bot is tagging articles in the intentional and utopian communities categories. I'm just checking in because Aurora, Oregon, and Breitenbush Hot Springs and Rajneeshpuram aren't particularly urban (and Aurora was founded as a utopian community but is now just an ordinary small city), not sure if Ghost town fits either, but I could see how it might be part of the "cautionary tale" area of study. Portland, Oregon is a fine urban place to study, of course, and it seems like Dignity Village would be covered by your project because I would imagine that urban planning addresses the issue of homelessness. I removed the project tag from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ghost towns (since it's a project page and not an article), but I wanted to check in with you and see if you indeed felt the tag was appropriate on the other articles. Could you take a look and tell me what you think? I've got every community in Oregon on my watchlist, so I wanted to see what else is going to get tagged with your project. I notice that bots sometimes tag things and then no human from the project ever comes around to work on the article. I guess there's no harm in the tag being there, but I'm kind of a stickler for accuracy. (That's the polite way to put it ;) ) Thanks! Katr67 16:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I need to work through the tags the bot added tonight - I'll get back to you tomorrow if I may. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for being a responsible bot owner. Katr67 16:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that - something cropped up last night. I've reviewed the bot edits and they look ok. A few points to note - the project is "urban studies and planning" - planning includes all land use planning and so also includes rural areas. The purpose of the assessment is to congregate articles in related categories so that members of the wikiproject can add some of their expertise and input. Naturally, for those articles on the fringes of the subject, the input may be small - but it's still potentially useful for instance to add a quick paragraph on a ghost town about, perhaps a particular policy contributed to its demise. When we get round to the assessment, in addition to the assessment its quite normal to sometimes remove tags if they are completely inappropriate - see above publishing firm (although mis-categorised I think) - Hope this clears things up a bit. Kind regards --Mcginnly | Natter 18:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Since you plan to use the assessment procedure, I'll trust someone will review the tags eventually. Thanks for checking. P.S. Be sure to check out Oregon Ballot Measure 37 (2004) for one of the biggest/most controversial land-use planning issues in our state. Katr67 18:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OO thanks - we'd have missed that! --Mcginnly | Natter 18:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Also see Tom McCall, a moderate republican Oregon governor who implemented a lot of changes in the urban planning sphere in the '60s and '70s. He made some statements that got mutated into the oft-heard and only semi-joking refrain "Thank you for visting Oregon. Now leave." Oregon is just an all-around a fertile ground (pun unintended) for urban planning issues. See also: The Oregon Experiment, Californication. Katr67 17:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

New architecture article bot

…and who would want to miss interesting words like Californication and Masshole!?

The bot presents many opportunities. I think the transclusion should appear at the bottom because:

• Wiki editors want to see their article at the top of the list when they post a completed article
• The list was transcluded after a <noinclude> so the large bot file will not be double transcluded into (the background) of your newsletter, for example, or anywhere else it appears.
• Bot will generate thousands? of items in a month, with only about 50-85% sucess rate
  • The bot fills the page from the top, so the previous results below can be syphoned-off occasionally, and added to the top of the "published" new article page.
  • Prune off the redlinks and inapplicable articles from the original bot output page and start an archive page for the rapidly expanding list.

This is naturally, mearly a suggestion and welcome your comments. Hope everythings going quite well. I look forward to your visit to the States sometime, always welcome. —Dogears (talk • contribs) 05:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oh well, fuggetaboutit. On reconsideration, the system seems to work well enough, with perhaps some refinement of the "rules" to get better results Dogears 01:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of historic buildings and architects of the United Kingdom

An editor has nominated List of historic buildings and architects of the United Kingdom, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of historic buildings and architects of the United Kingdom and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 18:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Findhorn & Urban studies portal

Your bot (User:Antischmitzbot) put the {planning} portal tag on the Findhorn Foundation page. I believe it is more applicable to the Findhorn Ecovillage article. 80.176.97.225 11:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)