User talk:Qwirkle/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

May 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Roi-des-Belges. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Both you and Eddaido have been warring over this page for some time. Please do not edit the article any further without discussing at the talk page — HTGS (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

As a casual glance will show, HTGS (talk · contribs), I already have noted some of the problems with the article on the talk page… …unanswered, of course. Any equally casual glance at the article will show that the version I am reverting is… …well, if you think that belongs in mainspace, there is little point in continuing this conversation.

Be seeing you at ANI, by the look of it. Qwirkle (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand and I don't disagree. But you have to admit that your current approach is not working. There are ways to resolve this before ANI, and I strongly suspect you will come out looking lesser the fool with third party intervention, but simply continuing to edit war still makes you look like a fool. — HTGS (talk) 05:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree, but that’s what makes horse races. Qwirkle (talk) 05:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Qwirkle reported by User:HTGS (Result: ). Thank you. — HTGS (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

…which, as I’ve already mentioned, belongs rather at ANI. Qwirkle (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring at Roi-des-Belges

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Not the result I would have hoped for, obviously; I had thought the quality of those versions was so low that removing them was little different from removing conscious vandalism. Qwirkle (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Fixed your talk page archiving

Hi! I took the liberty of fixing the auto-archiving settings at the top of this page. I've also moved a lot of archived sections from /Archive 1 to /Archive 4, where they should've been. --rchard2scout (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks, Rchard2scout (talk · contribs). I was still playing around with it; is it my imagination, or do some of these things substitute for you, but others require you to do the substitution?

That was a bit of a liberty, though, don’t you think? Next time, it might be be better to ask the page owner first. Qwirkle (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Re: talk page archiving

Yes, I might've taken a bit too much liberty with your talk page. I had been dealing with many of them (most of which required simpler fixes, and many belonging to no longer active editors). I should've discussed in your case, and I apologize. I hope you're happy with the end result anyway. --rchard2scout (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, no harm, no foul. I have one foot out the door here, and I’ve been messing around with autoarchiving whatever comes in. Thanks for your help. Qwirkle (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Southgate–Lewis House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sheathing.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

- - - - -

Hello User:Qwirkle,

Are you there? Your user page states that you are no longer active on Wikipedia. Well . . . I certainly know this is not the case. I would like to thank you for the time and careful attention you have devoted to the Southgate-Lewis House entry. As I now state on my User:DGAAustin page: It is my sincere hope that, with the assistance of knowledgeable Wikipedia Editors, we can resolve the problems described in the “4 maintenance templates” so that this Wikipedia article will live up to the high standards of Wikipedia. It is my earnest hope that this entry concerning the Southgate-Lewis House will soon be excellent – a paragon of excellence.

Below I will post a copy of what now appears on my user page.

My best regards,

DGAAustin

DGAAustin (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

- - - - -

Hello,

I am DGAAustin.

I am Duane G. Albrecht and I live in Austin Texas.

I am a professor emeritus at The University of Texas at Austin.

I was born, raised, and educated in Berkeley, California. I spent my first 30 years in Berkeley and my next 40 years in Austin, Texas. My Ph.D. was obtained at The University of California at Berkeley.

I have contributed one and only one thing to Wikipedia: The Southgate-Lewis House entry.

I have tried to communicate all that I know about the Southgate-Lewis House – as accurately as possible. (I actually have a few more things to say.) I am the professor that found the condemned house that was scheduled for demolition, organized the historic preservation, lived there for some long time, and presented the Southgate-Lewis house (as a gift – free and clear) to the W.H. Passon Historical Society. All of these facts are well documented.

I read the Wikipedia entry for the Southgate-Lewis house in May. Given my age, I felt obligated to put on the record what I know about the Southgate-Lewis House. (The last few days have made me question the wisdom of this “feeling.”)

I hope that all interested parties will refer to the entry in May, prior to my contribution.

I have no financial ties with the house. I went to one or two W.H. Passon Historical Society meetings in the 1980s. I have not been to a single meeting since then. I certainly knew Ada Simond, when I was restoring the house and living in the house.

I presume it is perfectly clear that the house is no longer mine. Further there is absolutely no way the house could ever be mine again.

I am obviously not qualified to prepare a Wikipedia entry. The User:Qwirkle, who is apparently an expert Wikipedia Editor, (as well as an expert in the matters related to this topic) has removed about half of what I wrote. I trust that User:Qwirkle is confident that everything she or he has done has improved the quality and the accuracy of this entry for the Southgate-Lewis house. Posterity depends upon User:Qwirkle’s competence.

I am disturbed that User:Qwirkle has questioned the factual accuracy of what I think I know about The Southgate-Lewis House. User:Qwirkle may well be correct. I certainly do not feel competent enough within the framework of Wikipedia to engage in an academic discourse with a professional editor such as User:Qwirkle. If we could discuss the issues, I may well agree with User:Qwirkle. On the other hand, I might be able to convince User:Qwirkle that what I have described is factually accurate. For now I will simply defer to what I presume is a knowledgeable and competent Editor.

I presume it is obvious that I could present what I think would be a cogent argument for each of the topics that User:Qwirkle has deleted.

One of the banners at the top of the Southgate-Lewis House entry reads as follows:

“This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information.”

It is undoubtedly true that I am talking about “the subject in a subjective manner.” However, I earnestly felt as though I was imparting “real information.” I most definitely do not feel as though I am trying to “promote” something.

I suppose one could call me an “Historic Preservationist” and in that sense I most certainly do want to promote the “Preservation” of this City, State, and National historic landmark. I want to promote the Preservation of all such historic landmarks. It seemed to me that describing all that I knew about the Southgate-Lewis House would help preserve the Southgate-Lewis House.

And, of course, as one might well presume, I have a dear fondness for this particular historic house, given my history with the house – several decades ago (circa 1980). I truly hope the house will be preserved.

Once again: The house is no longer mine. Further there is absolutely no way the house could ever be mine again.

One of the other banners at the top of the Southgate-Lewis House entry reads as follows:

“This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia.”

I will simply accept this to be true. I ever so hope that someone can “fix” this problem. I doubt that I have the appropriate skills for this task.

One of the other banners at the top of the Southgate-Lewis House entry reads as follows:

“A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.”

I have declared my connection to the Southgate-Lewis House. Again, it is not my house and it will never be my house again. I have had no connection to the house for decades. I hope that it will be preserved for posterity.

The fourth banner at the top of the Southgate-Lewis entry reads as follows:

“This article's factual accuracy is disputed."

I truly believe that all I have said is factually accurate. I think we would simply have to discuss each item individually. I really do not know how to address this matter. Again: I truly believe that all I have said is factually accurate.

If a knowledgeable Editor would like to provide me with well informed advice on how to proceed, I would be a grateful recipient.

[ {Multiple issues}} with 4 maintenance template(s): Peacock, Accuracy, Tone, ]

It is my sincere hope that, with the assistance of knowledgeable Wikipedia Editors, we can resolve the problems described in the “4 maintenance templates” so that this Wikipedia article will live up to the high standards of Wikipedia. It is my earnest hope that this entry concerning the Southgate-Lewis House will soon be excellent – a paragon of excellence.

DGAAustin

DGAAustin (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

- - - - -

Hello Again User:Qwirkle,

Now I am worried I will never be able to locate this link again.

If you respond, how will I know ?

Where do I go to see if you have responded ?

DGAAustin

DGAAustin (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

- - - - -

Wikipedia is not for first publication or personal reminiscences.

@DGAAustin:, a few points.

Wikipedia is…or is supposed to be, this is sometimes more honored in the breach than practice… a trailing tertiary reference. It is supposed to be a compendium of information already covered elsewhere in good sources. Nothing in it should be new.

Next, Wikipedia frowns on personal involvement with subjects. The closer you are to a subject, the more you should consider letting somebody else add information on it.

Victorian eclectics contained bits and pieces of various styles. Just because a single element -like a single crossed dormer vergeboard- often found in some particular styles is present doesn't mean the building is of that style. The mishmash found in many buildings left them literally nondescript.

If you see rosette corner blocks on window and door trim, you can lay money the rest of the trim was machine-produced also. Fully housed stairs are another giveaway for this.

Interior sheathing was not all that uncommon in buildings where lumber was cheap in this era. Instead of plaster, muslin was laid and shrunk over the boards as a base for wallpaper, Bob Vila notwithstanding.

If you see any interesting figure in floor boards, they ain’t quartersawn. Quartersawn lumber has many virtues, but it is visually boring.

References should support the central contention. When you write that you entertained a Nobel Laureate at your home, the part that requires verification isn’t the fellow’s Nobel -a simple link to the persons name will do that- but the fact that you had them over. Adding cites that describe an architectural style do not prove that a particular building belongs to them.

That’s a small bit about what is…or, in some cases was…wrong with the article. Qwirkle (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Quarter sawn wood: Is it "visually boring" or is it the "pinnacle of beauty"? Consider Frank Lloyd Wright's home.

- - - - -

Hello User:Qwirkle,

Here I quote User:Qwirkle: "Quartersawn lumber . . . is visually boring."

In all my years, I have never (even once) heard another human being voice anything even remotely similar to this very unusual opinion.

Beauty certainly does rest in the eye of the beholder.

Here I provide a few quotes that were randomly collected from the World Wide Web – each from a different Web-Page Link.

(1) For those looking for flooring that is at the pinnacle of beauty and quality, search no further. Quarter sawn wood flooring can be the solution.

(2) Quarter sawn hardwoods are beautiful and distinctive.

(3) The flecks and rays that abound in quarter sawn oak wood are particularly prized and are essential features of mission style antique and period piece furniture.

(4) Dramatic flecking is also present . . .

(5) The resulting visual effect is called “ray fleck”, and it’s the secret behind the distinctive look of antique oak furniture.

(6) Quarter sawing reveals dramatic internal rays.

(7) One of the most sought after features of quarter sawn wood . . . is the flecks and the rays that appear . . . these flecks and rays can be quite dramatic and add a unique, striking quality to the wood.

- - - - -

Finally – in light of your comment about quarter sawn wood being "boring" – it is well worth considering how Frank Lloyd Wright felt about quarter sawn wood.

https://flwright.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Home-and-Studio-What%27s-Wright.pdf

Consider Frank Lloyd Wright's own home and studio.

His own "Oak Park Home" is filled with quarter sawn wood.

The front door: "Door is of quarter-sawn oak."

The Fireplace: "All original terra cotta tiles and quarter-sawn oak."

Furniture: "The table is quarter-sawn oak."

Wood: "Mostly original—quarter-sawn oak."

Closets: "made of quarter-sawn oak."

https://flwright.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Home-and-Studio-What%27s-Wright.pdf

DGAAustin

DGAAustin (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

- - - - -

All of which is focused on oak, and the ray pattern seen in it on quartersawn and some riftsawn lumber. This has nothing to do with longleaf pine , which has its own characteristics and properties. Qwirkle (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The simple general point is that quarter sawn reveals a pattern (a beautiful pattern) – whether the wood is oak or southern yellow pine. DGAAustin (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Bullshit. In wood with uniform growth rings, vertical grain lumber produces…stripes. That’s it. Lots of Dougie and longleaf looks like this. Wood that looks like this isn’t generally selected for looks. Qwirkle (talk)

But again: Beauty rests in the eye of the beholder.

Here one can see an example of Southern Yellow Pine quarter sawn to reveal the "vertical grain":

https://phillipsforestproducts.com/Species/quarter-sawn-pine

DGAAustin (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Gentle Reader, note the difference between the rather simple pattern seen on the page linked just above, extreme as it is for vertical grain, and the wood seen in the pictures this person himself has added to the article about his own effin’ house. Qwirkle (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

R.C. Lambie . . . "public buildings were, frankly, misproportioned."

- - - - -

Hello User:Qwirkle,

You have stated the following about Robert C. Lambie:

" some of his public buildings were, frankly, misproportioned. "

Could you please direct me to the buildings that you are referring to and the critiques of these buildings that conclude they are "misproportioned."

I am unaware of such critiques.

Gentle Reader, consider the Hays County Courthouse, which DGAAustin apparently illustrates aesthetic Areté. Go figure. Qwirkle (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I would be a very grateful recipient of these referrals.

When I look at Old Main, I see something that I consider to be very beautiful.

https://www.txstate.edu/about/history-traditions/old-main.html

Thank you.

DGAAustin

DGAAustin (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I”m gonna let this loquitate for its own damned ipsa. Qwirkle (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)