User talk:Amandajm/Archives/2012/June

Jacopo Saltarelli

I find this all a bit annoying. Saltarelli has virtually no entity except as someone who may or may not have solicited Leonardo, and a number of other people, for sex. That is all we know. He is entirely non-notable! The matter of whether he was or wasn't a professional model really isn't very important.

I agree. Perhaps, move to delete by the notability criterion?

an editor has put into the article a statement that a particular author says that the "profession didn't exist". The statement has a reference. Other books call him a "model".

Yes, I think the difficulty is in explaining that in the article in a less awkward way. Maybe we could say "Saltarelli was apparently a professional artist's model[1,2,3] (although some sources [4] dispute that claim)."

Crasshopper (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Steve Dodd

Hi - can you explain why you changed the photo alt text to put Steve Dodd's name in and take out the description. My understanding is that the point of alt text is to provide useful description for the vision impaired. I thought words describing his age and ethnicity would do that in a way the name does not. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ghirla

Ciao Amanda! How are you? I was a bit away from here since I was redoing some 7,000 book covers of an Italian science fiction series. Your addition is nice, though one Afernand changed it immediately in a way I didn't like, so I reverted to your version. If you're not frozen, also, would you like to give a check to my new Santa Fina Chapel? Grazie e a presto!! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The Ghirla thing is fine! It doesn't have to be my way. It's quite tidy.

I will check out your Santa Fina article...... here is a link to mine: Santa Fina and the Violets

and the other blog that relates to this has all my Italian poems including the Santa Fina poem at Santa Fina

What a coincidence! I read the Santa Fina poem yesterday.

Enjoy!

Amandajm (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Very nice poems!! Hugs from Attila... --'''Attilios''' (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Am I vandal?

It looked much better in my browser. Before, the "Attribution status" column was a thin strip with two or three words per line, with most cells many times the height of the other cells in the same row. That column gets whatever width remains after the other columns have been allotted their own fixed widths, whether they need it or not. Apparently, different browsers and/or settings give different visual results.  --Lambiam 23:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

For me, corresponding columns in different tables showed as having the same widths. I don't think I will try again anytime soon, since I can't rely on what looks good on my screen.  --Lambiam 00:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Margaret Diesendorf

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of my Jubilee Pageant update

Please could you explain why you undid my update to the jubilee pageant page - an update which included sources (which you removed) in relation to the number of spectators. If you feel these sources (from CNN and the LA times) are somehow invalid, please discuss it with me on the talk page, otherwise, please don't remove unilaterally. Many thanks. --Richardeast (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Thanks!

No worries, I hoped you wouldn't mind. Graham87 01:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ratings

I don't actually take this whole process very seriously, but just grudgingly make a contribution to it.--Grahame (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I looked at Architecture and Cathedral. As you know they are remarkably unreferenced for such important articles, although they are doubtless good summaries of their subjects. They would be hard to rate above C on WP rules (although Cathedral is currently B). The simple answer is that if you tried to nominated them for GA in the current form they would fail. Mind you I think that if you tried to nominate any article of general interest you would have Buckleys chance of getting them up, especially if they have hostile constituencies, such as anything to do with the church. I remember a tremendous atempt to get Catholic Church up to FA, which failed many times and I note it is now rated C. My solution is to concentrate on things that nobody cares about like German railway stations and lines and to never bother nominating anything for GA. But I appreciate anybody who does nominate articles, because they improve their quality. Almost all Australian articles that get promoted nowdays are about military biographies, plants or sports people, where there are many on-line sources and few people violently oppose.--Grahame (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I think you right, nobody tries to fix the important articles because it is so hopeless trying to make changes stick, or they need to look through anything that might be regarded as a text book to improve them, so they do something else. I don't think there is any solution to this. People who put hard work into generalist subjects always leave the project.--Grahame (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have had some success in having your edits stick. I have been to a fair proportion of the places in the photos in the romanesque articles over the years. I don't claim to read German. I use Google translate then I work on translating the translation (leaving out parts I cant make sense of especially if they aren't important). Sometimes my station articles cause me to struggle over architectural details, especially about Rundbogenstil details (eg Bad Hersfeld station). The Germans seem to use the word axes to describe the number of doors or windows (as architectural features) along the side of a rectangular building. Is this the expression that would be used in English?--Grahame (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Heppenheim (Bergstr) station is a better example, where the use of the term "Achsen" (plural of "axis" or "axle") comes from the heritage listing (as do most of these architectural descriptions).--Grahame (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

WWII

Wow--good catch! I saw that photo a dozen times and didn't notice the weird caption. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 14:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

At the time that those Russian photos were uploaded to Commons, I went through them all and fixed a lot very poor English captions and got a number of the file names changed. But I 'm not quite sure how to change filenames, so I was reliant on other people to fix problems like that one.

Amandajm (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Dates

You need to check out WP:MOSDATE. "2nd June" is not a proper date format on Wikipedia; the proper usage for dmy articles is "2 June". -Rrius (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Santa Fina Chapel

Hello! Your submission of Santa Fina Chapel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LauraHale (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

re Block request

I have left a response on the page with regards to the reversals by DrKeirnan. I can assure you it hasn't "simmered down". I have simply been waiting for a response, before continuing to edit. There is no point in reporting something and then continuing an edit war while waiting. I have tried negotiation with these people, repeatedly to no effect. Would you sort the matter out please? Unless it is sorted, I cannot continue. Please get back to the page and read the details. Amandajm (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've responded on WP:AN3. -- tariqabjotu 03:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attack by 92.29.56.93. Thank you. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 19:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Santa Fina Chapel

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sistine Chapel Edits

Thanks so much for that clarification -- feel free to change the edits in any way you see fit.

--JSquish (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)