User:M0llusk/Old messages
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
H E L L O -- T H E R E
You have reached: M0llusk/Old messages
This talk page is left long so references are not lost between occasional sessions. Please feel free to add more to the end.
Here are some misc links kept incase they are helpful:
The five pillars of Wikipedia -- How to edit a page -- Help pages -- Tutorial -- How to write a great article -- Manual of Style -- Sign your name! -- Whenst goest thou, questions? --
B E G I N -- C O M M E N T S
Contents |
[edit] Transforming a Rape Culture
Hey. Just so you know, that book's been a reference in the rape culture article ever since the article was created.
Oh, and, welcome to Wikipedia! The Literate Engineer 02:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Deconstructivism
Hey there - I've added a bit to the discussion on deconstructivism and agree it's under-represented perhaps we can collaborate --Mcginnly 14:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I've responded to your paragraph on Deconstructivism criticism perhaps we could have a debate?
[edit] Criticism
I'd like a bit of a debate about the second paragraph of Criticism because whilst it makes some interesting points I think it could do with a bit more rigour.
- Deconstructivist designs may involve complexity that can increase the costs of design, materials, and final on site assembly. Roccoco, Baroque, classical, gothic, neo-xyz, expressionism etc.etc.etc all involved complexity that increased the costs of design from just the functional box. But that might have been the point, perhaps we are showing our affluence and technical prowess in such constructions. Perhaps one of architectures goals is to reflect the societies which make it. Some of the best modernism wasn't exactly cheap. Is the chapel at Ronchamp the optimum solution for the minimum budget, or the optimum solution for the expression of form in light and so the contemplation of god?
- Increasing costs for primarily aesthetic reasons may be impractical in some cases depending on development goals. not sure I understand. Isn't this an argument better framed as architecture vs. construction/engineering? and so not as relevant to deconstructivsm alone. Also Libeskind managed to construct the imperial war museum north even when his budget was slashed in half by using different materials. His strength of concept however was strong enough to sustain the concept, just constructed out of different materials.
- In contrast, low costs for design, materials, and assembly have increased the popularity of Modernism. I don't think it's just low cost that has increased the popularity of modernism, it took a very long time to catch on and overcome a lot of conservatism and societies have changed and in any event I reject the idea that modernism is just about low cost design, low cost materials and low cost assembly. See Hong Kong and Shanghai bank, Scottish Parliament, etc.etc. Really concerned that this is starting to sound like it doesn't have a neutral point of view but is just advocating rationalism over art.--Mcginnly 19:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Peer Review
Hi there again, please accept my apologies for deleting your criticisms paragraph the other night. I've made some alterations and re-instated some of it, perhaps you might be able to have a read and let me know what you think. There's an explanation of what I've done and why on the talk page. Some citations would be great too, to back up your arguments.
One of the other contributors has suggested we send the article for Peer Review I thought I would ask how you would feel about that as I'm not sure you are so happy with the way the article has panned out? Regards --Mcginnly 16:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks and help
Thanks for the kudos re deconstructivism. We still need a citation from you thought to back up your claims regarding costings etc. could you let me know a source we can cite to back this claim up? Many thanks --Mcginnly 13:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Added notes regarding this to user page and hope for more progress soon -- M0llusk 15:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ok thanks for that - I'll move the criticisms into comment brackets for now - so that we can easily restore them once a citation has been found.--Mcginnly 16:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikiproject:Architecture
Hello again, I was wondering if you'd like to join the Architecture Wikiproject. You can sign up Here. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Joined, might be interesting 17:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikiproject:Architecure Peer Review proposal
I'm trying to build a consensus for a Wikiproject Peer review process. I've opened a discussion page here. Would you like to comment? Would you be prepared to take part in the peer review process? Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] IG Farben Building FAC
Also, I posted the IG Farben Building on the FAC on the 17th July. It currently has a support consensus, but only from 4 people. I'd be more comfortable with a stronger consensus and was wondering if you might be prepared to comment on the article? Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting article. I voted for it, I think. Wish I had more time for this kind of thing. Best of luck with that. --M0llusk 18:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Erection index
I reviewed the deleted article once more using its google cache and searched google and my opinion stands. I have to admit that the observation is witty, but unfortunately shallow. It is good as a journalist witticism, but to make it into wikipedia it must fit at least one of:
- academic notability
- public notability
Google search does not confirm either (only 330 unique google hits, 80% of them from pornographic wordfarms, the rest not much better). If you can find books, it will be solid. Mukadderat 06:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is notable that you used intentional mispelling here. This pretty much gives away your real agenda. I will accept this challenge and attempt to bury this prudish ignorance in book references and quotes from academia lest Wikipidia be ruined by ignorant deletions. -- M0llusk 00:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- This misspelling does not gives google hits at all, so please don't jump to conclusions. Burying ignorance in book references in that all wikipedia is about. Mukadderat 02:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Google hits mean nothing. Wikipedia is a corpse. Have fun with your quest for the lowest common denomenator of knowledge. -- M0llusk 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- This misspelling does not gives google hits at all, so please don't jump to conclusions. Burying ignorance in book references in that all wikipedia is about. Mukadderat 02:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to concur with Mukadderat here. Noted on my talk page the message from you. If you think it should be restored, might I suggest you hie thyself off to Wikipedia:Deletion review, rather than simply recreate the article elsewhere? The latter action, unless you can really reword it and justify it, will get it set up for speedy deletion. --Dennis The TIger 04:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not really unless it is essentially a recreation of the old article. Rewrites -- in this case a rewrite that actually establishes common usage, either as an academic term or a journalistic term -- are expressly encouraged. The comment above about "intentional misspelling" and "real agenda" is quite a bit outside of WP:AGF though. ~ trialsanderrors 17:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
