User talk:Jordissim

Welcome to Wikipedia!

At this point I should drop in some sort of welcome template.... Never mind!

What I want to say is this: Re Leonardo da Vinci, I can safely say that it wasn't me that included that particular quote. In reading what you have written about the state of science in the 1400s, I am alerted to the problems. Yes, science went ahead in leaps and bounds, so that both Newton and Galileo were specialists by necessity.

I feel that the statement that implies that Leonardo used modern methods of scientific observation, and that Galileo and Newton did not, is completely erroneous. It is perfectly clear that both these scientists drew their conclusions from repeated experiment and observation.

It would be useful to have a good quotation about Leonardo's methods, and how they became standard practise, without any implication that these were not methods employed by other great scientists, such as Galileo and Newton.

Can you help out here? Every thing must be referenced. Amandajm (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the problem that you pointed out. It was really just a matter of removing the statement that he used "scientific method" from a position where it implied that Galileo and Newton did not. Once that bit was removed, the statement that he was different to those scientists because of his "holistic approach" follows through and it now reads much as you have suggested it should.

That sort of problem occurs when facts have been re-ordered by an editor who wants to simplify the language, without fully understanding the meaning of what they are editing. I habitually have to revert changes to very carefully constructed sentences that have precise meaning, that people have tried to "clean up" by simplification. Actually, that sort of "improvement" is one of the worst enemies of Wikipedia, because people who watch the page see that someone has come through, made twenty small changes in the interests of simplifying the expression, and leave it, under the mistaken impression that tighter language must always be an improvement.

Please check out what it says now. Amandajm (talk) 03:31, 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)

OK! I had another go at Leonardo. Left in the "Renaissance Man" because it justifies the difference, if one considers its primary meaning, i.e. the date at which he worked.

Guadi! Oh, don't talk to me about blinking blanking Gaudi! I tried to sort out the introduction of the article Sagrada Familia last year (or was it the year before?)

One continually comes up against the self-appointed Wikipedia gestapo who know nothing about the subject but believe that they know everything about the dreaded "Manual of Style" i.e. what is and what isn't permissible in terms of expression.

I found an excellent quote that expressed the unique nature of la Sagrada Familia. "Oh No! you cannot use that. who is this author? he is Non-notable and not worth quoting!" So they dragged out some negative quotation made by a popular author, 70 or 80 years ago, and put that in, imagining the opinion was more worthy because the name was better known (not an art historian).

It is definitely worth looking back over the ensuing argument on the talk page (it may be archived, but still accessible).

The problem is that words like "Famous" and "unique" are often used where not appropriate. So there is a semi-rule (an advisory) against using them, and if one does, then it gets deleted.

This means that people who are either ignorant of the facts, or not too bright, or pedantically rule-keeping, or just plain bullies, delete any use of such word and enforce the rule. They do not comprehend that Leonardo, the Mona Lisa, the Taj Mahal, the Parthenon, the Vitruvian Man and Marilyn Monroe are so famous that any article about these things must include a discussion of their Fame, as a topic in its own right. The Mona Lisa is not just a "famous picture"; it is "the most famous picture" and no discussion of it can leave that fact out.

Likewise the word "unique". I tried to explain to this bully that la Sagrada Familia is "unique" and therefore needs to have its unique elements described in appropriate terms. It isn't enough to say it has columns, towers, windows and a vault, or even that its forms draw on Gothic and Art Nouveau. It needs a quote that sums up the extraordinary nature of the building. But my referenced quote has been persistently deleted in favour of something much tamer.

I am prepared to go to war over it again, but only if I have some forceful backing.

What areas of architecture are you most interested in?

There is a nice little article called Architecture which I defend, in general, from students. They often hone in, and insert lengthy paragraphs on whatever aspect of 20th century environmentally sound practice they happen to be working on, and insert the name of their current favourite architect. The article immediately becomes bottom heavy as it only has the briefest summary of architectural practice in each era and no description of "Style" whatsoever. The problem with this article is that it was written (mostly) before I came along, and was mostly succinct and cohesive when I found it, but mostly unreferenced. The original writer has disappeared, and I have no way of referencing it at this point in time. I have just padded it out a bit, adding sections in the same manner, and battled to keep it from being torn to pieces by students who do not have "a holistic approach". Meanwhile, the article gets 2,000-3,500 hits a day, so it is important to maintain its quality.

• Glad you liked my Virgin of the Rocks thing! The National Gallery is strenuously ignoring it.

Amandajm (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do not apologise for your English! It is beautiful English! And what a wonderful way you have of expressing the deeper meanings.

I am primarily a teacher. I worked for a while teaching art and more recently spent twelve years in a museum where I wrote (and delivered) educational programs on every subject imaginable, from making bobbin lace to calculating the mechanical advantage of a steam engine. The history and aesthetics of architecture have been a passion which began the day more than sixty years ago that my father showed me the Anzac War Memorial on which he had acted as an assistant to the sculptor Rayner Hoff. When I was five, we moved to a village that had a church with a hammer-beam roof. You cannot imagine how exciting this was! The church itself was ancient, built in 1837. (Don't laugh! In Australia, this is the equivalent of Romanesque.)

Your excursions to la Sagrada Familia sound absolutely wonderful! It is such a privilege to get insights that are not generally available. We must try and do more work on the article, as you are in a position to trot out Spanish references. Unfortunately, coming from such an insular background, I only speak English and have a meagre understanding of French and Italian. I have the greatest admiration for anyone who can write in a fourth language! One of the things I love about Wikipedia is that one meets such interesting people.

Amandajm (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

La Sagrada Familia

Thanks for your message! That would be excellent! Amandajm (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The Faces Pain Scale

Hello Jordiddim. Next time you look at the Pain Scale page, could you please have a read of these sites listed below? Daiva Bieri invented the Faces of Pain Scale. She had a remarkable life.

Name - Daiva Kazimiera Labutytė - Bieri Born - Lithuania. Migrated to Australia as a Displaced Person after WW11 .

1/ http://www.sch.edu.au/departments/pain_research/ The Pain Research Unit "Introducing The Pain Research Unit-

The Faces Pain Scale was developed by Daiva Bieri from research involving several hundred children."

2/ http://www.slic.org.au/Community/People/Daiva.htm Daiva Kazimiera Labutytė - Bieri Labutytė is her sirname at birth. Bieri was her sirname after marriage. 8 August 1939 — 29 October 2008 Born in Lithuania and migrated to Australia as a Displaced Person after WW11 . " ...Daiva was diagnosed with a rare muscular disease known as Myasthenia Gravis ... Daiva returned to university as one of the first mature age students and despite a young family and her continuing disease, she graduated in Psychology from Macquarie University and focused on medical research in the areas of arthritis and rheumatology at the Universities of New South Wales, Sydney and Western Sydney. Later she went into the area of the psychological aspects of pain in children and co-authored the monumental study on The Faces Pain Scale of the self-assessment of the severity of pain experienced by children. Her Faces Pain Scale has now been accepted as the benchmark in the assessment of pain in children in 23 countries of the world. Her intelligence and common sense created an intuitive system by which children could identify their level of pain with the distress portrayed on cartoon faces." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irmgarde (talk • contribs) 11:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)