User talk:Loggie

Hello! In general, if you leave me a note here I'll respond here, so as to keep the discussion all in one place. Leave a new message.

Minor?
Could you let me know (here, my IP changes all the time so don't write on my talk :) ) why you marked your revert to raining animals article as minor. I can just about understand why someone might think it was unsourced (although it's actually from the pre-existing source), but I can't agree at all with marking the revert of an obviously good faith edit as minor. 92.3.128.120 (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So, I marked the edit as minor because I was reverting the page, and my general habit is to mark reverts as minor. I reverted it for several reasons:
 * as written it claims the e-mail is fictional, which makes little sense
 * none of the other improbable etymologies list where they came from, and I don't think that knowing this etymology gained fame (not originated-we don't know if it originated in that e-mail or not) through e-mail is notable.
 * The statement that "Cats and dogs do not actually get into thatch." bugs me. Sure, they may have not burrowed into the thatch-that doesn't mean they couldn't, just that they didn't have the incentive to do so. Also the tense is inconsistent, and there is no transition. Perhaps "However, cats and dogs wouldn't crawl into the thatch." This still leaves us with the fact that this is the only etymology that the article attempts to disprove, however.
 * So my thought process was more-this doesn't fit, revert (and mark as minor while reverting). Loggie (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree it was badly written, tbh I'm not so good at the encyclopedic writing, so I just tend to bung the facts in and let other people straighten it out, basically it bugged me seeing wiki giving that crap as a possible origin when even the source wiki's using says it's a load of crap...think it was important (well, in as far as that not very important article can be important) to get across that that explanation is something that some people think/claim, but definitely isn't true. Anyways, I can see why you were reverting, but IIRC that's still a hell of a long way from how the minor tag's meant to be used WP:minor


 * I've changed my edit a little, but not so much for a few reasons....I think fictional is a fair word to describe it...mebe could go into more detail with something like 'an email containing a list of mostly fabricated facts and misconceptions' but I reckon fictional is more consice....I never actually said dogs couldn't get into thatch...just that they don't. I have no idea about grammar for the most part, but can't see what you mean about tense...it's a separate sentence and I think to say that they did not instead of do not would imply that nowadays they do (still some thatches over here, people seem to like 'em). As for disproving...it does say they're improbable, and it does say the kata doksa one isn't likely. Anyways, like I say, I'm poor at grammar and phrasing so feel free to chop and change it however ya like, and thanks for the reply :) 92.3.128.120 (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Haha, also hippos is brilliant btw :) 92.3.128.120 (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Cotton Mills
I just stopped by to say hello. In your blitz yesterday you tagged three of the articles that I have been working on for membership of Textile Arts. It is just nice that someone is taking an interest. I have been putting a bit of time into Industrial Textile articles- you know the stuff being bold and hoping a real expert would come along and fine tune my prose- and waited -and waited---. Well it is pretty lonely out there.

There is a limit to what I can do as: You will see from 'my contributions' the sort of articles I have been editing- yesterday I was building up List of mills in Rochdale with the aim of doing articles on the more important ones. There are 220 mills in Rochdale alone. Very few have been done eg North Mill, Belper, Houldsworth Mill, Reddish and they are little better than stubs.
 * My experience is limited to Europe
 * My writing style suffers from several major flaws, probably related to overexposure to Nederlands and German.
 * A memory span shorter than a gnat

If you feel you would like to be a 'critical friend' with the emphasis on the critical- your input would be most welcome.--ClemRutter (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would be more than happy to proof-read stuff, however my area of expertise is really in making the stuff by hand-I basically wrote Textile manufacturing by pre-industrial methods from my own experiences, which is part of why there are no references. I really like how you split those articles, by the way-it was too long and awkward to have them in the same spot. So yeah-happy to proof read, but my knowledge of the machinated processes is limited. Loggie (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am considering the comments- but I have been a bit busy this weekend. Spinning off a section and leaving a precise is the way I usually work. There are some constraints- it may be necessary to merge in an existing legacy article- and this needs sensitivity as this may be an essential extension to some other mature articles. Spinning off, may require the cotton text to be expanded to embrace worsted and silk-- and others that I haven't yet discovered so at the moment I am a little cautious. Speak soon. --ClemRutter (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Poncho Article
Thanks for catching my mistake. I could have sworn that I got rid of the vandalism in my edit. Empty Feeling (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

On Coffelt
115 pieces in his last show at 10 to 18 hours each  Give me a break  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.15.5 (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Undo of Underlayment page.....
Loggie,

My name is Scott and i am new to the Wikipedia experience. I had written an article regarding Underlayment tyhat i thought was important but it looks like you undid it. I was simply curious if i did something wrong as originally Underlay was a page already in there but the Underlayment I think is a more current tern for the same.

In any case, I was wondering what I did wrong to invoke and undo from another contributor.

Regards,

Scott


 * In general having the exact same text in two places isn't ideal, so when there are two terms for the same thing it is best to have only one article, and generally (as best as I can tell) the better written/longer/more contributors/ etc. article is the one kept, and information from the other merged in. Since both article had the same info (well, underlay had less after I'd gone through and edited it and wikified it) and underlay had been around longer and is the one other articles link to, I changed underlayment back to the redirect. So we could move all of if from underlay to underlayment, however since it is the same thing, there should be only one article. Also, before moving the article we would need to let other people have input and see if they think it should be moved. Loggie (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Underlayment
Loggie,

Thanks for the explanation on the undo of the article. I understand your motivations for having done so. I still see the need for the addition of plywood (since it is not specificly addressed in Underlay) as well as some warnings. There are many products that are used as underlayment that are not a good idea to use. Also there is a need for common installation techniques, but perhaps this is a poor forum for it.

Should I look to draft the article seperately and then share it or what do you suggest?

Thanks

Scott Watson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowatson (talk • contribs) 16:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't the right forum for warnings about what products to use or not use-it tells you what the object is, and what it is used for, but doesn't tell you what is a good brand or not. It also isn't a how-to on how to install things, so directions on how to install the stuff shouldn't be here. You might want to take a look at WP:NOTHOWTO. Adding a section about plywood to Underlay though would be just fine, as I see it-go right ahead. Loggie (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No problems- will introduce text referrences
re grosgrain: no problems, "brusque" commens, truly better described as concise :), perfectly taken aboard- I've a thick skin and probably thicker skull. I will find text resources (some accessible as free ebooks) to substantiate my comments- I did originally have them- but accidentally stupidly closed "Notepad" in windows- losing them. Your constructive criticism most appreciated. Bye for now.Starstylers (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Moire
Glad you like the hook, and you're welcome. - PKM (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

PS - I think watered silk should be merged into moire (fabric). Would you agree? - PKM (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the merge. You want to do it or should I? Also, I have a question for people in general at Template talk:Weaving-someone recently added gabardine to the list of weaves-is that correct? Loggie (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can do the merge but not until tomorrow; if you want to do it sooner please go ahead.
 * Your three articles are in the DYK queue for tonight, all three bolded, with my hook - teamwork!
 * Back tomorrow... - PKM (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Grosgrain

 * DYK group 22, the all-Loggie issue, has been added to the Textile arts portal. Thanks so much for your contributions! - PKM (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge completed
I have merged watered silk into Moire (fabric). - PKM (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes
Thank you.  T i a m u t talk 14:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And thank you for the etymology section and references. Loggie (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'd like to do more, but I've got a lot on my plate right now. Hopefully, I'll get back to it in the near future.  T i a m u t talk 14:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

McDonald's Cycle Center FAC
Some time ago, you helped copyedit several of the articles at WP:CHIFTD. Now two of them have become WP:FAs and McDonald's Cycle Center is a current WP:FAC. You may have an interest in commenting at Featured article candidates/McDonald's Cycle Center/archive1‎. You are also welcome to revisit the article for another copyedit since it has been revamped significantly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, we would like to renominate Crown Fountain at FAC and would welcome another copyedit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Gore vs. godet
Well, if a three-dimensional shape is made entirely out of joined together two-dimensional sections, then those sections are called gores. If a cut is made in a piece of clothing, and then an extra section of cloth is inserted into the cut, then that section is called a godet. Hope this explanation helps!  Sophus Bie  (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * According to godet (sewing) though, a godet is "an extra piece of fabric in the shape of a circular sector which is set into a garment, usually a dress or skirt. The addition of a godet causes the article of clothing in question to flare, thus adding width and volume. Adding a godet to a piece of clothing also gives the wearer a wider range of motion." Gores can be used in exactly the same manner, no? Stick a few gores into the skirt and it too will flare. The OED's definition of gore is: "Any wedge-shaped or triangular piece of cloth forming part of a garment and serving to produce the difference in width required at different points, esp. used to narrow a skirt at the waist" On godets, the OED says: "A triangular piece of stuff inserted in a dress, glove, etc." I'm having trouble finding books that mention both gores and godets, and do so in terms that seem different to me.


 * As best as I can tell, from what I'm reading, a godet is generally a section of a circle and has a bigger difference in width-makes things flare more-than a gore does, and a gore doesn't have to actually come to a point whereas a godet does. Gores are also most common in skirts, whereas godets are used not only in skirts but also elsewhere? I can't find anywhere else that talks about a difference between inserting the triangular piece of cloth into a cut in the garment, as opposed to a seam, though I have seen that technique mentioned with the term godet. That doesn't prove though that something inserted couldn't be called a gore. Is any of this consistent with your knowledge? Thanks, Loggie (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tried to illustrate the difference between the two:




 * So, with a skirt, for example, if you subtract the gores, then you have no garment left. However, if you took out the godets in a skirt, you could sew up the cut(s) and still have a fully functionally garment left, it would merely be less full. Gores are the components of construction of an object, while godets are added, for fullness, ease, or style.    Sophus Bie  (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. Do you think you can find sources for that and add it to both gore (segment) and godet (sewing)? I haven't had much success in finding sources that mention both of them, let alone anything that actually talks about how they differ. Thanks, Loggie (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, one of the dead-tree format sources that I added to the godet article speaks about both at some point, if I remember correctly. Also, a quick look at my copy of the Oxford English dictionary gave each a distinct definition.   Sophus Bie  (talk) 09:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * After checking, I've found that my online source covers both topics as well, so I'm adding it as a ref for gore_(segment).


 * However, having taken a long look at the gore_(segment) article, I have to say that it really needs some rewriting, as it really isn't very clear on the concept of a gore at all. The way it's written, I doubt a casual reader would realize that the term even applied to clothing.


 * I'm going to put this on my list of things to do, but I doubt that I'll get a chance to do it soon, due to summer semester finals rearing their ugly head.    Sophus Bie  (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Scutching


The article Scutching has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Per WP:DICDEF. If other sources can be added to show true notability, then please do so and remove this template.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Chzz  ►  13:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Contra corners-4.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Permission to use an image
Hi Loggie

I am self publishing a textile text book and would like to use your image of a heddle which you uploaded to Wikipedia. as much as the licence implies use of the image my publisher is requesting that I have written permission from the owner to use it. here is the link to the image

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heddle#/media/File:Heddle2.JPG

If this is ok with you to use the image please let me know. many thanks Bev Ashford — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.129.160 (talk) 09:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, you have my permission. Good luck! Loggie (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)