User talk:Joopercoopers/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Huh?

Mine was the last comment on Peter Damien's talk page before he pulled out his own plug. Do you think it was something I said? --nemonoman (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Beats me - I'm pretty hacked off with Peter about this. The idea had some legs - not as the radical agro group I think Peter alluded to, but as place for editors to gather and compare notes and think about or advocate improvements. Twitchy people didn't like the idea so it was plagued by an MfD an appeal to Arbcom and then an RfC - unfortunately they only saw Peter's radical proclamations, rather than the moderates calling for something quite benign, so he did nothing to help there - but I'm mostly hacked off about him marching a bunch of good editors onto the playing field, only to storm off with the ball in a huff. He's a good editor, but that's no way to behave. Was it something you said? erm no, fairly sure about that. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I think most of us were put in an awkward position - given Peter's apparently underlying agenda; which in retrospect seems to have been some sort of payback. I just wanted to have a forum in which to consult with and work through problems in league with others in varying fields of expertise. Although I'm a little relieved that he split. Peter's comments about admins was totally out of line...Modernist (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
No it was the comments at the RfC that did it. I really could not believe what was going on. I badly misjudged the mood of Wikipedia, where there clearly is no possibility of change. I deeply apologise. I am doing my best to give this up for good. It is entirely futile. Sorry to have dragged you all through this. Peter Damian (talk) 13:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Accepted. It would have been a courtesy to have explained that on your talk before blanking all the pages, but ok. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we want change?

I've started a ball rolling here User:Giano/The future all comments welcome - whatever their view! Giano (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Antiziganism

The issue you raised at Roma (Romani subgroup) has been extensively covered at the above article. If you would like to contribute, please do. However, Yahoo newsgroups might not be the most authoritative of references. Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Joop. Love the new 'upholstery job' on Beeblebrox's chart.;-) RashersTierney (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Saw it on your page - a nice addition to the decor I think. Any idea what happened to Mae West's Lips?--Joopercoopers (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, you've lost me. You mean the actual Girona sofa? RashersTierney (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
No - this was a glorious picture of my furnishings until some those brigand stole it this evening. I've alerted the authorities and the best they can do is tell me they'll look out for suspicious wikipedians with lip shaped swag bags. It's all very distressing......--Joopercoopers (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Aha - clues Msr Poirot. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Sincere condolences! Real bummer when the repo man calls. RashersTierney (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Jean-Philippe Illanes

Thanks for your message. The article Jean-Philippe Illanes was pretty much written like a blurb you would find on an art gallery's web page. There wasn't actually anything there that claimed notability, so I felt that it was eligible for speedy deletion. In my opinion the current deleted version is not salvageable, but I'm willing to restore it to the user's subpage if requested. ... discospinster talk 18:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Joopercoopers. You have new messages at John Vandenberg's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

John Vandenberg (chat) 14:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: RfC

Thanks to the pointer to this page. I obviously had lost track of where this conversation had gone. -- llywrch (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Joops, is this ok? Tony (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI test discussion system

Thought you might be interested in this, you mentioned in the past how you feel about the inadequate talk page system: http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/07/improving-wikimedias-discussion-system/. Sswonk (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Jesus College, Oxford

Fantastic, thanks for offering! I've put in a request for a plan here with some links; let me know if you need more. Ideally, it'd mark the streets, chapel, hall, lodgings, fellows' library, fellows' garden and the Old Members' Building, since these are mentioned in the text. Best wishes, BencherliteTalk 12:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This image isn't of great quality but has a scale at the top. I have a hard copy that I can scan and let you have on Monday if a better version would help. BencherliteTalk 14:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CiterSquad

Up an running :) Jeepday (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

ACPD pages created

I've created two initial pages for the ACPD:

Please add them to your watchlist, stop by, and so forth. The latter page has a couple of logistical issues that we should discuss sooner rather than later, so I'd appreciate if you could find some time to comment on them.

Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If the ArbCom continues to support this council now that it's going, we can get to work without worrying about the bickering going on about it's existence. Cla68 (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

ACPD

I was responding to the person above me, who did not sign their post. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Query

Do you care to explain how a common civility warning is baiting? Is asking someone to treat other people with respect some form of provocation in your mind? It is the careless tossing around of the term "baiting" that makes it sound so hollow when somebody is actually doing it. Chillum 23:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Has it ever worked? Have you ever given a civility warning to an established editor and they've responded "Gee, yeah, now you come to mention it I'm being a complete arse, thank you for pointing that out"? No, it's a prelude to your liberal use of the block button for something entirely undefined, I just wish you'd drop the pretence. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It has worked two ways. One ways is that the person stops being uncivil, yes warnings do work sometimes. The other way is the person gets blocked. Both ways prevent Wikipedians from being subjected to abusive behavior, I prefer the first but either will do in the end. Chillum 05:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, with the rider, Chillum, that there's the obvious potential for blocking to bounce back at the people we're trying to protect, because it can enrage, cause resentment, especially in an experienced editor. May I suggest that while we need civility warnings, admins have the potential to protect us far more effectively by trying to engage with the root of the problem at the same time? I know it's not always possible, but don't you think it's worth encouraging? BTW, your heading here might have been just a little softer? Tony (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Dom't forget - editors here are supposed to have some useful level of intelligence (at least enough to bw able to pull themselves up when someone else says that you're misbehaving. Funny how many people cam't pick that up--212.74.26.3 (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up for my socks.

Hi Joopercoopers, thanks, I missed that. I must be tired or perhaps a bit drunk, Gentlemen was my first sock accusation by the now one month banned User talk:Rebroad . I personally think there are so many sock farms here that we will never need to wash our socks again. I have at times when faced with a probable sock attack, have thought to myself.. I should get a sock farm and a couple of meat mates as admins and one as a crat, this is actually one of the things that I want to talk through here, users need only one account, all users in any position here need to declare and to be checked. Thanks. I like your introduction tonight and declare to you that I am Off2riorob...that is more than enough as you will know if you check my contributions..as it is I am occasionally kept awake by my involvment here. Best regards to you. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC))

The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks - but you're welcome, well met. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The gentleman has quite clearly had, or still has another account, but he seems friendly enough to me? Not like a crazy nut sock. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC))

re: From Joopercoopers

Hi Roger, now you're in the chair, can I remind you of this regarding setting an agenda. Can we still expect a coherent list? Cheers --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That rather depends on how everything plays out :)  Roger Davies talk 06:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Noticeboard

I apparently did not autowatch the talk page for changes after my posting. I just saw the maelstrom of the past month.

I saw you posted on the talk page -- Have you looked in on the actual Noticeboard? The vocal editors there seem to me to be very lacking in insight or clear logic. They appear to Utter Judgments first, and on demand will followup with reasons, often hokey and completely cooked up. You don't need to forum shop if you don't get the answer you like on that noticeboard: Just push back and the opinion will be reversed. Push back again if you don't like the reversal. If these are the watchdogs, god help us. They are petty bureaucrats only: actula intelligence about RS appears to reside only in the individual committed editors who bird-dog certain Big Topic articles. Unfortunately there SHOULD be an intelligent area for RS guidelines and specific opinions. As more and more reliable research becomes self-published and sometimes online only, it will become harder to distinguish what's reliable. What's required is some bright-eyed leadership.

But you seem to have noticed that. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I hadn't got that far and probably don't have the expertise to comment unless they ask about architecture. How disappointing. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC

I have closed the RfC you co-proposed. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Role_of_Jimmy_Wales_in_the_English_Wikipedia#Notes and the subsequent section. I am sorry to say that I did not find consensus for the proposals. Please review my closure and let me know if you think I have made any errors, either in interpretation or administration. --Dweller (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)#Dispute over single articles having multiple infoboxes - VOTE!!!

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)#Dispute over single articles having multiple infoboxes - VOTE!!!. Thank you. Sswonk (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

By all means, delete this thread if not concerned, just an FYI. Sswonk (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - July 2009 Issue

Summary: This month, we bring exciting news about our Wikimedia Foundation Grant, as well as news on our chapter Initiatives (get involved!) and our opt-out of Phorm. We also talk about Business Cards, a recent interview of our Secretary for use in university courses and Wikimania 2013 - which seems a long way off! We also include our regular features of chapter activities from around the globe, press coverage, and meetups!

In this month's newsletter:

  1. Wikimedia Foundation Grant
  2. Chapter Initiatives
  3. Phorm
  4. Business Cards
  5. Wikimania 2013
  6. Wikipedia in universities
  7. Other Chapters' Activities
  8. Press Coverage
  9. Meet-ups

Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Your user page

I'm checking out the members of this new/proposed advisory committee (whatever it's called) to try to ascertain its makeup, and I came across your user page. Phenomenal photography. You have a great eye. If you're not a professional photog, you certainly should be. deeceevoice (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you like them, it's just a hobby. More here if you are inclined. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Furniture

Yeah, I mean "shelve". I'm pretty sure "table" works too, though :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Help

{{adminhelp}} Would someone be a love and move File:Jesus-Model.jpg to something like File:Jesus College, Oxford - plan? Thanks --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Image moving is currently disabled - the easiest way to move a file is to download it, and re-upload it under the new name. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 17:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Really? What an unholy pain in the ........ Ok. Will you delete that one then? Thanks--Joopercoopers (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 Doing...  Chzz  ►  17:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thx --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Heh; I actually uploaded it as [[]], but then noticed you had re-uploaded it as well :-)
No problem;
 Done
If you need anything else, please eave a message on my own talk pageOR talk to us live, with this or this.
Best wishes,  Chzz  ►  17:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I've deleted the tagged images. Nev1 (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thx all. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The Seven Lamps of Architecture

{{adminhelp}} Seems this article The Seven Lamps of Architecture was previously deleted - would someone restore it to my userspace, so I can have a look at it? I can't find the AfD either - perhaps you could restore the talk page somewhere too, so I can resolve whatever the problems were. Cheers. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The article consisted of 11 meaningless consonants so a fresh start might be more appropriate. It was CSD hence the lack of an AFD. Hope that helps. ϢereSpielChequers 14:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep, thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I asked another person to check (at the same time) - and they assured me that there is nothing worth restoring. Sorry couldn't help more. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  14:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Jooperscoopers: You asked for my thoughts on this. Personally, I think the "seven lamps" is a little esoteric as a framework for a Wikipedia article on architecture. I don't think anyone has ever really improved on Sir Henry Wotton's 1624 paraphrase of Vitruvius: firmness, commodity, and delight. Everything I can think of appropriate to a Wikipedia article would fit in that framework quite well. Newell Post (talk) 03:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Jesus College map

Wow, looks great! Thanks for all your hard work. (Sorry not to reply earlier - had a few days off). Can I now be really, really fussy?!

  • The top left corner of the college ought to stretch to Cornmarket – see page 2 on this map
  • There shouldn't be a patch of green above the words "Market Street" (last time I was there, it was concreted over and used for rubbish bins from the kitchen - it might have been a garden years ago, but not now!)
  • Just to the side of that, the gap in the wall adjoining Market Street ought to be filled
  • Could you mark the back entrance from Ship Street, which I think would be the bulge to the left of letter C?
  • Could you label the stretch of building immediately above letter A as the Principal's lodgings?
  • Could you perhaps move letter G slightly to the left, perhaps under the nearest tree?
  • Could you label the building to the left of the Habbukak Room as the Old Members' Buildings?
  • Could you also label the Fellows' Garden (say between the 2nd and 3rd of the four vertical trees on the left-hand side) and the Fellows' Library (bottom left corner, west side, of 2nd quad)?

You'll have to teach me how to do this because my plan is to write a few more similar articles and you won't want me bugging you all the time for maps. What software do you use?

Many thanks once again, BencherliteTalk 14:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course you can - give me 24hrs..... --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
That is a great plan. Giano (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks G. Fancy casting your eyes over The Seven Lamps of Architecture? I'm nearly out of sources.--Joopercoopers (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Seven Lamps of Architecture

Updated DYK query On July 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Seven Lamps of Architecture, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The American church

Sorry, but I can't do curves [[1]. Giano (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What's pushing your buttons??

Just saw your revised user page. Need a stress pill?? Que pasa, brother?? --Nemonoman (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh just another appalling WP day. [2] [3]. Headline "Good editor, philospher and gentleman, hauled over coals for minor infractions, pecked apart by wikipolitical venom from years back". Not pretty. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting

I rewrote my statement for better civility. Could you re-read it and sign if you like the new one? I IAR'ed your vote since I rewrote and didn't want to make a mess with strike throughs. Sorry for any inconvenience. Jehochman Talk 12:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No probs. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Portrait

Hey Joopercoopers, what do you think about this...[4]? DVD 19:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - August 2009 Issue

Summary: Our Initiatives are starting to be developed - please get involved! In this newsletter, we also announce the results and prizes for Wikipedia Loves Art, and we bring you the latest on our Charity status application, in addition to our regular features on Other Chapters' Activities, recent Press Coverage and recent and upcoming Meet-ups.

In this month's newsletter:

  1. Initiatives
  2. Wikipedia Loves Art prizes
  3. Charity status update
  4. Other Chapters' Activities
  5. Press Coverage
  6. Meet-ups

Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Bauhaus

Hi Jooperscoopers, Perhaps you can resolve this: An editor included this line about Hannes Meyer back in 2007. It looks bogus, any opinion as to whether it should remain or be deleted from the article would be helpful...Meyer was also compromised by a sexual scandal involving one of his students, and Gropius fired him in 1930. An IP has claimed that the edit has no merit...Modernist (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I have some clarification here now [5] if you can add something please do. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:The Seven Lamps of Architecture.jpg)

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Seven Lamps of Architecture.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 05:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No problems here - I've requested a speedy delete - we found better images. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ponte Vecchio

Please see Talk:Ponte_Vecchio#Undoing_the_compromise? ... it has been suggested that the article be returned to a more standard format, as it has been a year since the compromise. Your participation may be helpful. ++Lar: t/c 12:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

A question

Hi Joopercoopers, thanks for the encouraging words the other day. I have a question, and was wondering if you knew the answer. I'm not sure the best way to write about English currency in the 30s, how do I write 14,832 pounds 80 pence in the most succinct way? 14,832 pounds 80 pence, £14,832.80d, £14,832 and 80d or £14,832.80 or some other variant? It's for this article I'm working on[6]. Many thanks, DVD 23:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

PS. omg I just noticed that your last message to me [7] was at 00:09 9/9/09!!! DVD 07:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

RfA

Feel free to decline. AgentB1 (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's very sweet of you, but no thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - September 2009 Issue

Summary: This month, our Initiatives Director explains our Initiatives, we update you on our Membership (including some new benefits for members!), keep you informed on our Charity Status application, and update you with our regular sections regarding Other Chapters' Activities, Press Coverage, and UK Meet-ups!

In this month's newsletter:

  1. Initiatives
  2. Membership
  3. Charity status update
  4. Other Chapters' Activities
  5. Press Coverage
  6. Meet-ups

Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I think that I misremembered and thought that Malleus did not sign up on the arbcom page after he offered to be a mentor, and I was wrong there as he had. But even though I thought that he had not signed up, I put him on the mentor/adviser list anyway, to satisfy SandyGeorgia. I had a falling out with Malleus way before that occurred though, when he made me disclose during my RFC the one and only email I sent to him, expressing my personal feeling of hurt at the time. I never understood why he did that. I disclosed the email at the RFC, but from then on I could never trust him. I agreed to his being a mentor/adviser, but to be honest, I was relieved when he requested to be removed as I lack a feeling of trust toward him, and the obscene and aggressive language on his talk page, as well as the joke blocks by admins and such, it was a relief not to have to watchlist his page. He was not a good model for me, as he could get away with language and and phrasing that I could not. He and I are just not a good fit. I prefer not to have anything to do with him. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 14:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a sincere and honest account. Well done. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, where in WP:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3 is the disclosure - I can't find it. --Joopercoopers (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I think this is what you were looking for. [8] Fainites barleyscribs 14:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
You actually sent me two emails Mattisse. There was another one in May, after you promised that you would never email me again. Can you see a pattern developing? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Super-extraneous side note

Hi Joopercoopers, I was just reading up on Lima syndrome (guess where I saw that mentioned :) and while it seems such a syndrome does exist, it's nature appears to have been materially misstated in the article version you linked. Perhaps you could lend your editorial acumen to the issue at Talk:Stockholm_syndrome#Lima_syndrome? I think maybe you're more of an architecture editor, but it did happen in a building after all, so you may be able to help. ;)

Oh, and if I have to pick a level from the pyramid above, I suppose we're at the stage where I call you an "asshat"? :) Franamax (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

haha - there's egg on my face for using wikipedia for research. I was originally going to write 'some kind of reverse stockholm syndrome', so I went to the article just to check I wasn't alluding by false memory to some kind of predilection for keeping Abba poo in a bottle, and to my surprise found a syndrome tailor made to my purposes and much more snappy. Daaa. (asshat's one of the more polite ones, thanks.) --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Email

- Ottava Rima (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to me, there's nothing there......--Joopercoopers (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Motion to reopen ArbCom case "Mattisse"

ArbCom courtesy notice: You have received this notice because you particpated in some way on the Mattisse case or the associated clarification discussion.

A motion has recently been proposed to reopen the ArbCom case concerning Mattisse. ArbCom is inviting editor comment on this proposed motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Groan! --Joopercoopers (talk) 05:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


Mattisse

Hi Joopercoopers. I am concerned that Mattisse has caused you frustration. I have looked at the articles you mention, however I am not quite clear what it is that she has done that has frustrated you. I would like to discuss this matter in order to ensure that you and Mattisse can edit without conflict. If you could indicate to me what it is you feel Mattisse has done wrong, so I can ensure that Mattisse does not do it again. SilkTork *YES! 11:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to discuss this matter, please get in touch with me on my talkpage. I am not watching your talkpage. Regards SilkTork *YES! 20:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Faking Rlevse's signature on a page that Rlevse never edited

What have you been thinking when you did this? This is a blatant violation of WP:TALKNO: Do not impersonate other editors. Please correct it immediately. Hans Adler 18:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Try looking before leaping. It was a quote from the diff at the beginning. He didn't fake anything. You are going around accusing quite a few people of major violations. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Good grief! I'm struck by how the social subtleties of my primary school were actually more complex than this place. Hans, do get a sense of 1. humour 2. perspective 3. common. 4. satire --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Do I really have to spell out the problem?
  • You moved Rlevse's comment from one context into another. The current context is one where lots of people left humorous comments and signed them themselves. The page has been set up by Giano for harmless fun that reduces tension, not for making things even worse. Rlevse's comment simply doesn't belong there.
  • You left Rlevse's signature intact. Nothing on that page suggests that Rlevse didn't post there himself. If he had done that, it would demonstrate a severe lack of humour and a remarkable willingness to exacerbate the conflict.
  • Rlevse very likely does not know about the page, or at least doesn't watch it, since he never posted there. He is unlikely to find out on his own.
  • To find out who left the totally inappropriate message one would have to look at the history. You made this post, but you didn't leave your signature, and you didn't even leave a correct timestamp. There is only Rlevse's signature and Rlevse's original timestamp.
  • I fail to see how character assassination and fostering discord can be justified with humour, common sense or satire. This was a practical joke, and in this form completely unacceptable on Wikipedia. If you don't fix the problem I will escalate it to ANI. Hans Adler 09:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Joop, you should revert yourself there. I can't even envision the humour or tension-relief you're trying to get at, for one thing. And you seem to be doing impersonation, regardless of your inclusion of a link. Please reconsider. Franamax (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I shall be doing nothing to appease such po-faced pomposity. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
We are on ANI now. [9] Hans Adler 14:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Hans Adler 14:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • FYI, {{quotedfrom}} would have been useful, e.g. {{quotedfrom||Rlevse|11:05, 18 December 2009|332472943}} → "— Preceding text originally posted here by Rlevse (talk⋅contribs) 11:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)" instead of copying the signature. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Important notice about VOTE 3 in the CDA poll

You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.

It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).

As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!

Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Hi Joopercoopers,

you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?
As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).
Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?
Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.
Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

  • Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".
  • In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).
  • Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Jesus College, Oxford - plan.jpg

I was impressed with your work at File:Jesus College, Oxford - plan.jpg, and I was wondering if you would be interested in creating another map. I have made a request at Commons Map Lab. Thanks!--GrapedApe (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Admin Help

would some kind soul please check the contents of this link to see if it's the 1902 EB image as as this - looks to me like it was deleted because it wasn't properly attributed?

  • From the file description it probably was (it lists all the points of interest, A-Z/1-10) but there aren't any deleted revisions of the image itself (at least none that I can find). Mackensen (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Chester

With regards to the bishop's throne in Chester Cathedral, is "cathedra" the term that is used locally? "Bishop's throne" is more usual in Anglican cathedrals. I think that it ought to read "Bishop's throne (or cathedra)" rather than the other way round. Is "Cathedra" preferred at Chester? Amandajm (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Nother little problem at Chester.
Under the plan of the cathedral, the upper two names refuse to move to the left. I've tried several things and can't fix them. Do you know how to format this?
Amandajm (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
No 1. West door and No 11. North aisle.
The original plan was drawn and labelled by another contributor. It was numbered and labelled in what must have seemed like a "logical manner" with number 1 at the top left following along left to right, progressing downwards until it reached the garden at the bottom right. There is actually a system for numbering church plans, and, naturally enough, the cathedral is numbered and listed before the other associated buildings and ruins. So I renumbered the plan and inserted the re-ordered information, leaving the template structured exactly as it was. That little problem of two of the labels moving to the centre, rather than to the west was inheritted from the original. I can't see why it is happening. Amandajm (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The numbers are in the right place, but the actual text that says "west door" and "north aisle" sits in the centre, instead of near the number. Amandajm (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

citation headache

Joops, I found "Starkey" works too, the first I tried as it happened. But you're right, the others don't seem to. I think it doesn't work when you insert text such as =p142 after "ref name" and before the double curly brackets. Tony (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

PS Beautiful photographs in that article. Tony (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
<blushes> - why thank you - actually heading back there soon to improve on them. Thanks Tony - I'll and see if p=142 has any effect.--Joopercoopers (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, they're your pics? Blush away. Tony (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Chester Cathedral

  1. You have fixed the problem.
  2. Re the Monks Parlour- is that the building between the skype and refectory? I think it shoud follow sequentially. This would mean rearranging five numbers. However, the cloister is currently numbered as a building. It is also an open space. So if we number the Monks Parlour as 16, the Cloister garth as 20, and the Memorial garden as 21, it means only changing two numbers instead of five.
  3. Are you gunna do it? Amandajm (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Excellent! Under those circumstances, you can slip in a number for the south aisle, and the Chapel, and demolished chapel at the end of it.
Work from West to the East, the centre to the sides. Normally you would then go North side, South side, Cloister, Chapter house (or Chapter House, Cloister) depending on which was closest to the main structure. At Wells for example, the Chapter house connects directly to the cathedral and is on the opposite side to the cloister! (very odd!)
However in this instance, the South transept is considerably more significant than the north, and the Cloister and Chapter house are located to the North rather than the more usual South.
So, Start with the west door, then west towers (and court)
then nave, crossing (maybe), chancel, chapel
South porch, south aisle, south transept, south chapels,
North aisle, north transept, north chapel,
Then sequentially the north side exit and features, as you would progress.
The any other buildings, spaces, gardens.
Amandajm (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Triangle

Dear Joopers, I have just read the content of your triangle, and your request. Unfortunately, my late paternal ancestor suffered from Tourette Syndrome of the most verbal and vehement kind. In consequence of which, by the age of four, I had acquired a vocabulary that would make your hair curl. Do you want me to add another layer to the bottom of the triangle, or what? Amandajm (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes please - I was thinking of adding one above called "withering opprobrium" --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Citations

Hi, I know what you're doing wrong, but it's hard to explain. Do you mind if I fix a few of them for you. Also, have a look at the bibliography in Ernest Hemingway that is set up for Harvnb's to see (I think) the parameter you're missing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes please! --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've got all of them working except Pevsner and Hubbard. For some reason that template won't work with a long string. Would it be okay to only use Pevsner? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Done. But, you can only use Pevsner inline and then click to the full citation. Although I like it, it's a very picky template. Let me know if you have questions.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
You are my wikihero! Actually I was just reading the cite template - I think the correct form is {{Harvnb|Smith|Jones|2007| p=25}} --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, give that a try. I often have sources with multiple authors, or multiple books by the same author, and haven't yet figured out a way around the template. I'll watch the page and see how it goes. All the others are fine. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yay - had to tweak the ref= code to PevsnerHubbard2003 and it all came to life - many, many thanks for saving my sanity! --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. I've been through the same thing and know how it feels. Good to know you found how to add multiple names - I'll use that in the future. You might want to post to AN/I that the problem has been fixed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Done that - I told them to make you an admin to avoid showing them up! --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Yikes! Happy to help. Nice article, btw. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article John Vanbrugh has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Chester again

Hi! That image is interesting. It's very detailed and very battered. It has obviously been attached. Perhaps taken from another location, or made to replace a damaged one. It isn't 13th century, like the stalls. It's early 15th. I like it, but if you would rather have the Elephant and Castle, which is also very interesting, and warrants an explanation, then change them over, and mention the "Infanta of Castile" in the caption. Or has doubt been thrown on that story.... one never knows. You may know the story of how Leonardo died in the arms of the French King. Well, that was "disproved" because an edict was issued in the Kings name, four day's ride away. Now that seems to have been discounted as well, because the King didn't actually issue it, and could have been at Clos Luce all the time!Amandajm (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting! The whole upper part of that bench end dates from Henry V- Henry VI, judging by the costume. The poppy head is somewhat different in form to the others.
Well, the misericords might be where it's at, but this is pretty special as well! I wonder if the Tree of Jesse guy, Malcolmlow, has this one on his website? Johnbod has also worked on that article and would be interested in this. Amandajm (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
How stupid I am! Those stalls are not late 13th century! They are late 14th century. So if there was a gap between the carving of the stalls and the carving of that benchend, it wasn't such a big gap. The worked could well have dragged over several decades. I'll take another look at the tracery and so on. Amandajm (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Pevsner's rightly effusive about the stalls....."One of the finest sets in the country. In the county only Nantwich can compare, in the rest of the North of England only Manchester. The Manchester stalls are C16, both Chester and Nantwich are late C14. The type, however, is the same, with high spikly closely set canopies with crocketed arches and spirelets. The stalls themselves have powerfully carved ends with poppyheads, some original, some Victorian [so beware!]. Among the former the Dean's and Vice-Dean's stalls are noteworthy. The Dean's stall shows the TRee of Jesse, as does an end on the N side as well. The carvings on the arm rests are worth inspecting too, but the greatest glut is the Misericords. Here only a few can be singled out. From the Dean's stall S and then E:Coronation of the Virgin, Sir Gawain and the portcullis falling on the horse [wasn't Gawain something to do with a court at the Wirral????] a monster killing a knight; unicorn; Virgin and Knight; wrestlers; a man leding a Lion; sow and litter; virgin and child; quarelling couple; reynard the fox; samson and the lion; From the Vice Deans stall first N and then E Pelican; Knight on horseback; angles with the instruments of passion; life of st. werburgh; woman beating her husband; fox shamming dead; the ascent of alexander; angel with harp; tristam and iseult; tiger hunt; stag hunt; This selection does not mean that other miserichords are not aesthetically just as or even more rewarding, e.g. the two herons on the n side. [and this is Pevsner's idea of a 'few']" --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Lovely! Well, I had a look at the article, to see if I had stupidly put the wrong date in, but I hadn't!
Then I looked at the lady chapel at Ely and all the nodding ogees which also appear at Chester. Then I googled the stalls at Peterborough and came across a blog which has four of my Peterborough photos from W.Commons on it. That's what happens when you put photos on Commons. Someone liked them! Amandajm (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Are you living in Chester? It would be interesting to go and look. Jesse is generally depicted as asleep. And the text mentions the "rod" of Jesse". I must say goodnight as it is 2.30 am in the Land of Oz and I am beginning to slide off my chair. Amandajm (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Question for you

Take a look here Keystone (architecture) in the second image (the vaulting one) is that not called a "bosse" in English, not a keystone?  Giacomo  22:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. I'd generally use keystone for arches and bosses for vaults, but technically, there's an argument that the boss is only the 'bit that hangs down' or raises from the surface. The centre of shields have bosses too for similar reasons - so you could argue that the bit doing the structural work is actually a 'key stone' even in a vault. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Commons

I am surprised no-one has told you before: images licenced under the GFDL or compatible should be uploaded to the Commons so all wikis can share them. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Chester

I have moved Images of Chester Cathedral to User:Joopercoopers/Chester. But in any case, the proper place for images galleries is the Commons - go and create Commons:Chester Cathedral. Even on the Commons it is not usual to put large images in articles - you do not know the reader's screen size. Stick to thumbs: the reader can always click on a thumb if they like the image. Here are my images of Chester Cathedral. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: "change the links later": once you have completed the work, it takes only a couple of minutes to copy the text to an external editor and use find&replace. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The great advantage of creating the article on the Commons is that you will not need to seek consensus. Go ahead and do it - you will probably find that no-one will meddle even if you use big images! Have you looked at the image "notes" facility as used in commons:File:Fylde Memorial Arboretum 298.jpg for example. (For some reason this does not seem to be available on Wikipedia images.) This has the advantage that the co-ords get scaled to match the user-selected image size. Also the notes are far more flexible than a link as provided by an imagemap - you could provide a choice of thumbnails and links.

If you insist on using imagemap, might it be better to link to each image directly?

"Might ask you though, to fix the links". If it really is too difficult for you, yes of course I will. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Admin Help

How do I get a list of deleted pages in my userspace? I want to restore a few things. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

For kick off I'd like the following undeleted:
Restored those three. If you want a list of the rest, first apologise for the edit summary here. In future, just blank unwanted user pages - why bother to delete? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I apologise unreservedly for my overly forthright edit summary of several years ago. Thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Apol. accepted. List has been e-mailed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

More undels

Done. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Joopercoopers. You have new messages at Warrior4321's talk page.
Message added 13:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Speedy deletion of Images of Chester Cathedral

A tag has been placed on Images of Chester Cathedral, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

O'Connor

There were a couple of O'Connors. A. O'Connor who did a big window in St. Mary's Aylesbury, and Michael O'Connor. I don't see why Pevsner would attribute this window to either of them! Actually, Pesvner wasn't crash hot at attributing stained glass.

Could you get me a couple of details so that I can look at the style of painting? I have a hunch. Also, it doesn't look quite as early as 1850s. If it's a memorial window, it may not have been installed until years after the death commemorated, at a time when restoration was being done, or some such. It looks about 1865-70 to me. Amandajm (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Editted pics

I select on the exact bits of the pic and edit bit by bit, cropping around the lighter bits. I use the Microsoft "Picture It" hue and saturation tool, not the Brightness and Contrast tool. The hue and saturation option has a tool for lightening and darkening colours. It works extremely well for stained glass because it doesn't affect areas that are truly black and lightens the colours in a very even way.

Photographing stained glass tends to either bleach out the light areas, so that faces become featureless, or else, if you succeed in getting the faces right, darken the colours that have a high mineral content (or lots of overpainting) until they are almost black. But provided the camarea has registered some colour, you can restore some more of it.

As for uploading over your pics... No I wont! I have this ongoing thing with editors on Commons who run an automatic digital adjustment on pictures (Like Vincent's Starry Night and then put up a high resolution version of the automatically adjusted pic as a "Featured Picture" when in fact the colours are so far from the original that Vincent would probably ..... well, you wouldn't know, would you?) So, if they want to adjust things, I encourage them to load all the adjustments under a separate name.

When it comes to stained glass, it is very hard to get at a "true colour" because it is so dependent upon the light, the clouds, the trees outside the window, the halo effect given off, particularly by blues etc. Your eye sees much more than the camera can capture. If the lighting outside is very bright and you are losing the faces, turn the flash on. Amandajm (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Joopers, I gotta ask this.... Is that your own couch at the top of the page and your own well-upholstered female. The couch looks very inviting. I suppose the female does as well, actually, depending. Amandajm (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joopercoopers/Archive_4&oldid=1143096159"