User talk:Amandajm/Archives/2012/May

Ichthys

Actually, this is exactly what has been done. It was I who added the tags over a year ago, and no-one has added citations. Moreover, it is a big claim to make, and so needs a good reference to remain, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. StAnselm (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Darling Point

No, I can't scan the old shots on again, because they are old slides and I no longer have a scanner that can scan slides. I thought the new shots were better than the old, and I still do. This is always the case; the original slides are okay in themselves, but they lose quality when I scan them on.

Sardaka (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Jacopo Saltarelli

the quoted author had "probably overlooked" the fact hat although "the "profession of model" didn't exist ... that there were artists' models, professional or not. It can be reasonably presumed that when Saltarelli is described in literature as a "model", the sort referred to is an artists model, not a photographic or catwalk model.

If Saltarelli is described in the literature as a "model", why do we need to clarify in the encyclopedia what kind of model? In my opinion, speculating about what the references overlooked or "probably meant" should be done outside the encyclopedia. Perhaps there is another outside reference that provides clarification on this point?

Crasshopper (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandal

Hi, do you know how to block IP addresses, e.g. of that editor that vandalized your page - cos they vandalized mine also. I reported it to a noticeboard; do you think i should just wait?Eugene-elgato (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem, Material Scientist has blocked them. Amandajm (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - it's quite sad some people actually make the effort to even vandalize in the first place ! Eugene-elgato (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Darling Pt

The article isn't about the architecture, it's about Darling Pt, so perhaps the architectural details aren't as important as they might be if the article were about architecture. Anyway, it's up to you.

Sardaka (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about the Darling Pt article. It might be different with the Blacket article. Feel free to do whatever you like.

Sardaka (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

'Now' vs 'is'

Hello Amandajm, please don't keep removing the 'now' from the cathedral articles. I went to a lot of trouble inserting it as 'is' does not give the full story. Not all English speakers know the historu of the English church, 'now' adds value. Cobulator (talk) 06:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

An edit that is entirely out of context, and constitutes pushing an unnecessary point tht is dealt with more appropriately in the text is going to get deleted. It will take me as much trouble to delete as it took you to shove the inappropriate edit in. Amandajm (talk) 06:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Amandajm – I imagine you've seen it already, but thought it worth drawing your attention to the "debate" that was had over this topic originally at the Lincoln Cathedral talk page. See here and here for details. Arthur Holland (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Preston Passion

Many thanks for the welcome and swift improvements! Martinevans123 (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sydney meetup

Hello, you expressed interest in future meetups, a meetup will be held on Saturday May 5th at the Alexandria Hotel, further information can be found on the meetup page. We look forward to seeing you there!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of M.O.X (talk) at 08:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC).

Leonardo Da Vinci #Science

Thanks for fixing the paragraph, it's much better now. I still think the text implies something that is doubtful, namely that Leonardo anticipated modern methods by more than half a millenia - Leonardo's motives to his approach have nothing to do with those of modern science, and therefore I feel the comparison is out of place. But since the author of the book used as a source has obviously devoted much more time and effort than me in the subject, and my field of expertise is physics, not history of science, I'm not entitled to state he is wrong. I admit that I'm usually skeptical about conclusions based on correlations and pattern recognition, which makes me biased... and therefore a poor judge. So I trust your opinion, and thanks again! Jordissim (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"Thanks for your prompt response. I appreciate what you are saying: there is the implication of some direct link, which does not, in fact, exist. However, it is not too serious a problem. Cn the expression be tweaked to improve it? You might be interested in this: Leonardo and the Virgin of the Rocks. It turns on end a theory that the National Gallery London, and the Louvre (among others) hold sacred.

Amandajm (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)"

Hmmm, difficult to fix: is it worth trying? My suggestion would be to completely eliminate the last sentence, since I feel that it's better to maybe leave a true piece of information behind than to possibly mislead people by including a false one. The reason why I believe the phrase is incorrect: I don't think any modern scientist/mathematician would say that his/her methods are based on Leonardo's, even though similarities do indeed exist. Yet every single astronomer will give credit to Galileo as the father of the discipline (along with Copernicus), and every physicist will do the same with Newton. Convergence without causality is the problem here, yet the idea of a direct (but quite possibly non-existing) influence seems so attractive that one would be inclined to infer it, no matter how accurately the sentence is phrased.

Since I know you know A LOT about architecture, and I have a passion for it (and am currently studying it), I think a good example of an incorrect yet seemingly accurate proposition which laymen would accept could be the suggestion that Gaudí, another sharer of an holistic approach to his discipline, set the roots for the current orthodoxy of rejecting simplicity in favour of complexity. Gaudí was a black swan (Leonardo too, though not as much), and his ideas died with him - in fact, they were completely ignored by the Modern Movement. A superficial ressemblance is definitely to be found between La Sagrada Familia in Barcelona or the non-executed Hotel Attraction in New York and Foster's 30 St Mary Axe in London and Nouvel's Agbar Tower in Barcelona, but it remains purely coincidental. However, do engineer an argument based on a bunch of real but inconsequential facts and rest assured that many people will buy it; yet try to explain how Gehry's work is more linked to Le Corbusier than to the Art Nouveau, and you'll have a hard time...

And BTW, thanks a lot for the link on The Virgin(s) of the Rocks, it is really interesting! :)

Jordissim (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"Renaissance Man" is a must, I agree. I would leave it as it is now. Thanks for your patience! I don't feel entitled to edit any entries myself, precisely because I know I would be overreaching - and therefore making a mess out of the worst combination of defects possible: ignorance of one's own ignorance.

Regarding which areas of architecture I'm more interested in: mostly urban planning and project design. I'm fascinated by the symbiotic loop between architecture and society - the way culture creates the individuals who mold architecture, and architecture is an extrincable factor in molding the culture which creates the individuals. The discipline is as rich as the human mind. It can achieve the level of artistic value as a Shakespeare sonnet or a Beethoven quartet, the virtuosism of a Rembrandt portrait or a Listz sonatta, the rigour of an Euler proof or a Bach fugue, the complexity of a Capablanca game or a Kubrick film, the impact of an Escher drawing or a Goya painting. Yet it can be so futile and trivializing that, to me, architecture embeds all that is human, good or bad, and in a much more subtle way than anything else. (I know, don't tell me: cheesy!).

I fully understand your exasperation at what's happening in Wikipedia, and specially at what's being done in the La Sagrada Família page. My experience tells me that when a content discussion degrades into an argument on semantics, nothing good ever comes out of it, either because most people who started the argument to begin with usually have no grasp on nuances, nor on communication skills, nor possess the know-how to understand the fact that context matters. But mostly, because they know they are right. The terms themselves are being put under scrutiny by the very ones who don't get that encyclopaedia equals meta-linguistics. All complex systems run on the very edge of collapse, and any growing information network is in a state of uneven balance that must be stabilised by constantly matching concision, objectivity (when possible), extension and precision; and therefore needs a very gentle, educated hand to keep it running smoothly. Yet some people (always the same people) just don't get it, and one feels like packing one's bags and going home. I've got extensive professional experience on that matter, trust me.

Regarding the page per se, I'm no expert at all, but I may be able to contribute to some extent (albeit in a minor way). My only qualifications: I am currently studying architecture in ETSAB-UPC (phase two, I had to quit ages ago after three terms because I had to prioritize my professional life over a degree I was getting just for the fun of it); I was born and currently live in Barcelona; I know something about complex geometry and system transformations because maths is a must in Physics; my apartment is at walking distance to the site; I've got about two dozen books on Barcelona's architecture, and at least four on Gaudí; I studied Composition eons ago under Ignasi de Solà-Morales (who was one of the most recognised authorities on Gaudí); and twice in my life I've had the chance to visit the construction under guidance by Bonet. And I always keep notes on everything. But, again, I'm not even close to being an expert, not more than any average architecture student on his fifth year - and probably less than most. But if I can help at least by adding some relevant bibliography, and using the common sense that I may have to keep at bay some of the most formidable stupidities people try to enter, I will. I have a personal request from a perfectionist to another, though: don't let the screaming minority foolishness get to you, Amandajm - you're doing a fantastic job, and one that needs to be done. I just wish I could be of more help...

And by the way, forgive my poor English level. It's my fourth language, and not one of my strengths...

Jordissim (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

IP edits

Thanks for diligently and accurately pointing out what i should be doing as an IP editor. however, my real issue is that i too often edit before logging in. its a stupid habit, and theres no reason for it, but i just sometimes forget. also, i will go to the assessment chart, and click on a category (say, stub class with no importance parameter), and it takes me from the "secure" https to http, thus im no longer logged in. You are also correct about my edit summaries. I really need to provide them for all but the most minor edits.User:Mercurywoodrose not logged in.75.61.131.36 (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Getting a bit frustrated as well...

Hi again, Amandajm!
Bit by bit I understand why you get frustrated with Wikipedia. I still haven't edited a single line (except for undoing a couple of obvious vandalic acts), preferring the Talk pages, yet people who know nothing about me nor my experience on a subject take personally even the slightest suggestion to the point of actually doubting my expertise based on tiny details that have nothing to do with content. Any piece of advice? Best regards!
Jordissim (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)