User talk:Mcginnly/Archive2 060625-060731

Help me

Is there any way I can view wikimarkup whilst I'm offline? Because I have a dial-up connection it would be really great, and I'd have less multiple edits fixing issues etc., if I had some local software on my pc to which I could pass some wikimarkup and see how it would display. Is there anything available?--Mcginnly 13:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can download MediaWiki from http://www.mediawiki.org/ and set it up on your own machine; you won't be able to see all the templates and other resources, but it will show you a rough estimate. Otherwise, I can't think of a way to do that. Cheers, Tangotango 13:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work

On the re-catagorisation of T&CP Law to T&CP in the UK, which i think was your work? Bjrobinson 20:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planning stub

Good work. --Singkong2005 ^(t - c - WPID) 11:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Town and country planning in the United Kingdom

Hi. I thought I would let you know that Cydebot is reversing your change of category names based on the move discussion you started at CfD. To avoid this problem you may wish to create a new category called Category:Town and country planning law in the United Kingdom and allow the old category to be deleted once the move is complete. Alternatively, you will need to contact the bot's owner and ask them to change its settings. Road Wizard 17:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IG Farben building

Good job on the translation so far; I picked up with the paragraph that you referred to on the article's talk page. It looks like sections "The Building" and "Myths" are yet to be started; I will also go over the existing text a few more times to flush out any additional errors that I come across and to improve style and readability. See talk page for more info. (Patrick 17:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Mcginnly, I've removed your reference to the "The Pharma-Cartel Is Jeopardizing Your Health!" from this article because that source is also pushing an agenda that is irrelevant to architecture of that building. It fails the Wikipedia:Reliable sources test in my opinion and should not be used. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  13:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

Hi, Thank you for inviting me to the architecture proyect, i am sure i can do some little changes that must be very helpfull, thanks an other time, and good bye sir--Mexicansky 20:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planning portal

Just thought I'd point out that there's nothing to stop us starting a draft portal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planning/Portal:Planning (or, say, User:Mcginnly/Portal:Planning) and seeking input from other editors. Cheers --Singkong2005 ^(t - c - WPID) 06:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos on Deconstructivism

Just noticed Deconstructivism got on the main page. It raised some editor eyebrows, but also generated positive feedback and spread the word. The page is very much better now than when I first saw it, and a lot of that is your work. Congrats and cheers! -- M0llusk 22:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Architecture Portal

Various portals do it slightly differently, but the basic model to follow is the one used for {{POTD}} (the "Image credit" or "Photo credit" line). Kirill Lokshin 14:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expressionist architecture

I am thinking of sending expressionist architecture to peer review this weekend. It might be a good point to some outside opinions. What do you think? DVD+ R/W 21:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture query

Would this be considered deconstructivism? It is the main building of Yeshivat Har Etzion, a yeshiva in Israel. --DLand^TALK 14:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your translation-work

Hi Mcginnly,

by accident I discovered, that you have translated three articles I wrote/started to rewrite for the German Wikipedia: Hans Scharoun, Der Ring and Arbeitsrat für Kunst. Thank you for doing this. Just to keep you informed: on the articles on Hans Scharoun and on Arbeitsrat für Kunst I wanted to go on with the work but couldn’t find the time and/or was a little bit annoyed by what is going on in the Wikipedia-community. Whenever (I hope soon, but I would like to read a little bit before doing so) I will do some additional work, I would like to inform you — if you don’t mind.

Peter 217.233.152.147 01:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image size in Modern Buildings infobox

Hi Mcginnly, I'm using your infobox in Baden-Powell House, but the image comes out so tiny. Is there something that can be done about that? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• This is indeed already much better. Perhaps I'm asking too much, but would there be a method where you can make it a 'fit to the width of the table'? If not, then this is fine, thanks. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

re: translation of Haus des Rundfunks

My pleasure mate. Exo314 16:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Urban Studies and Planning

I noticed that you desired to create a portal, and that you may have believed that you were required to go through an approval process in order to be allowed to create it. Just to let you know, there is no required preapproval process for portals. They are just like articles, in that anyone can create them at any time. The Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals page was posing as (or at least was being mistaken as) policy even though it was not. That page has been nominated for deletion, and the deletion discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals. If your guess is that there will be sufficient readers who will find your portal useful, then you should feel free to create it. --Transhumanist

IG Farben Building FAC

Thanks for the note: I have a very busy afternoon, but will look at it again tonight. Sandy 19:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, looks much better now. With all the references for each date before, it just seemed like the "/31" was out of context. Good job with the whole article, and good luck, Newnam^(talk) 22:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm wiped out today, and will have another look tomorrow. But that problem with the dates is killing the lead. It's just not a good way to start an article. Can you find a way to just eliminate the whole date thing from the lead, and mention the conflicting dates somewhere else in your text? It's too small of an issue to be mucking up your lead like that, and the detail need not be mentioned in the lead. Sandy 22:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the quote, I'm not sure what to advise you. I've had similar problems with translating from Spanish, and editors always end up arguing over the translation. It may not be worth it: I guess it depends on whether it would be a straightforward or a controversial translation? Sandy 22:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For example:

The IG Farben Building or the Poelzig Building was designed in the 1920s by the architect Hans Poelzig as the corporate headquarters of the IG Farben conglomerate in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. It is also variously known as the Poelzig Ensemble or Poelzig Complex, and previously as the IG Farben Complex, and the General Creighton W. Abrams Building.

And then deal with the dates and the successful architectural competition somewhere later in the text. Would that work? Or, if you have a date it was designed, a date it won the competition, or some other date, you could work that in, but avoid the confusion about the construction dates. Sandy 22:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's good news! I'm in the middle of another project, and I'll get to it later today, Sandy 23:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying to get past the lead which is now MUCH better, but ...

It is also variously known as the Poelzig Ensemble or Poelzig Complex, and previously as the IG Farben Complex, and the General Creighton W. Abrams Building.

Variously is redundant. Have you had a chance to look at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a and User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas? Sandy 00:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you might want to fix this:

An underground tunnel connects the building with Frankfurt's main station. This source[1] states that only the main building and the casino are linked.

You shouldn't word it around "This source". I can't be sure what the paragraph is saying. Is it saying:

An underground tunnel connects the building with Frankfurt's main station, and the main building and the casino are linked.

Sandy 00:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome: it's been a pleasure! Sandy 15:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you'll see, I've gone through the article making a lot of very minor changes. While doing this, I noticed a fair amount of repetition that I was too lazy/sleepy to fix. I suggest that you do what very few editors ever seem to want to do: print out the article on actual paper, and go through it with a red pen. (There's something mind-numbing about staring at a computer screen, and the screen tends to limit you to a very short chunk of text.) -- Hoary 15:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to see the article reached FA status. The approval process seems to go quite fast. Next time I'll put my vote up there quicker! —User-multi error: "dogears" is not a valid project or language code (help). 00:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for the link to the Manual of Style varieties of English explanation. Also Looks like FAC is coming along good now too. Keep up the good work, Newnam^(talk) 21:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planning Stub

My activity hasn't been quite a high as i would but im still trying to do the odd bit and bob... I have treid to find a more relevant picture for the planning and urab studies stub you created. User:Bjrobinson/sandbox Is this any good?

On another note, what do you think we need to do the [Urban Planning] to egt it to featured?

FAC & Peer review

Unfortunately, I cannot help you with IG Farben Building nomination because I am fairly unfamiliar with the subject. I will probably not be good on reviewing articles other wrote, I prefer much more writting my own articles (which usualy need a reviewing of someone else)... though I am a bit lazy right now and not in the mood for writting, but I hope this will pass me soon. Anyway, thx for asking. --Hierophant 17:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The full weight of the law

Isn't it complicated, so much more simple at the Old Bailey but do be careful [1] or you will end up with a life-long bann too! :-)Giano | talk 23:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I guess I wasn't clear. Only the members of the arbcom actually vote on the proposed decision page. The rest of us just shout from the sidelines -- either the workshop page or the proposed decision talk page. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please don't worry about it. Nothing to apologize for. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]