User talk:Amandajm/Archives/2011/May

DYK for Salaì

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Caption at Julius Caesar

I agree wholeheartedly with your edit summary, and have been meaning to rewrite that caption after researching the context of the painting. I would disagree, however, that the painting should be deleted. The classical tradition is one of the most important reasons that the study of antiquity remains vital and not merely an antiquarian interest. WP often doesn't do a good job in explaining the tradition, but your solution is what I find best: explain what the image is, and don't treat it as if it were a transparent, journalistic representation. (Then again, ancient art contemporary with the subject matter wasn't journalistic either.) Thanks for the fix. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancy in "Sadako Sasaki"

I had noticed that there are discrepancy between JA wiki and EN wiki of Sadako Sasaki's page. As you had already mentioned about questionable description of "Chickenpox". I had added a new discussion in Sadako's page. Sorry I did not read through discussion, so posted new one. I should follow your thread. Anyway, I could not find the original source of "chickepox". I found that user edited from Lumps to Chickenpox did not leave any citation. So I think it is better to undo that change. As you can see I am not a good writer, I appreciate if you can update the page. For detail please see the discussion page of SADAKO. --Masaqui (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Len and stuff

I pity any foolish mortal who tangles with Mandy on Lenny. Bear in mind, tho, that Wikipedia is the Peoples Voice - if a small majority say the sun is fueled by massive bushfires, then so does Wikipedia. Where is it you're having this problem? PiCo (talk) 05:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Here:

[1]

There is a deletion archive I suppose. Amandajm (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There is some discussion...Well, me blowing my stack after the deletion actually, on this page [2] Amandajm (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So the thing is, there used to be an article (by you) called Leonardo da Vinci, investigation, attribution and speculation, and it got AfD-ed, and you now have it on a special page? The appeal is to a rather narrow audience. I think you'd be better off improving the articles on Len's individual paintings and drawings - I assume there are articles on them. Also an article on Len's notebooks would be a good idea - maybe it already exists too, but if you want to serve time on Wiki it would a worthwhile place to do it. PiCo (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

PiCo, where have you been lately? Look at the history of Lucan portrait of Leonardo da Vinci. And I'm currently having an email interaction with someone else who wants their theories that the portrait of a musician is actually Christopher Columbus taken seriously. He's been very cross with me! Amandajm (talk) 07:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Looked at the Lucan and edited it. Tell the gentleman his ideas are very interesting and he should really write an article for the Burlington. Tell him it should not be less than 10 thousand words. PiCo (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

He credits me with having spurred him on to find the "face" hidden in the beard which "proves" that it is Leonardo, because of the "sfumato" with which the face is achieved. (this all irregardless of the fact that there is no sfumato in the real face.) When I told him it was like seeing the face of Jesus in a Communion wafer or a piece of burnt toast, he missed the point, and refers to the image in tyhe beard as "an image which is not the face of Jesus"! I'm rejigged Romanesuqe architecture to get some non ecclesiastical stuff into it. Amandajm (talk) 08:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Seriously sister, drop this guy - we use the word "insane" rather loosely, but from what you tell me, this one might be. PiCo (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Lucan

Manda, you and Modernist really should clean that article up. Get some decent sources, not press reports, and make the prose presentable. That Wiki article is getting all over the Internet, you know. PiCo (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Cemetery Info box

I note you too have had some concerns about the info box. It seems to require an arcane art to modify. Boneyard90 and myself are unable to alter it ourselves but have tried to get some modifications made to it; see: here. User:Thumperward was working on this but it seems to have gone quiet - perhaps you could add your views there and help us get to the right solution? Thanks, Ephebi (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

St. Pete's

Perhaps I should have been more careful in my wording. The concern was non-WP:TOPIC. Yes, in the bio of the pope, all that stuff would, or might have, been interesting (or germane, anyway). But the topic is a building. Therefore, side material about a person is wonderful "journalism," and would make it into the Sunday Times, but not germane to an encyclopedia article on a building. Unlike the Times (or whatever), we have to stick to the topic.

Therefore, we aren't really concerned about the pope's ego or emotional state, or his bad press in the 21st century, we are simply concerned that someone made the decision to replace rather than repair. His reasons are not important since they duplicate nearly every other repair/replace decision since the beginning of time. I'm sure ego played some part. But the older building was 1000 years old and not necessarily constructed for the ages. I agree that a journalism class would argue to "play up" the pope-aspect as human interest.

This has already been argued out, but to justify: it takes less maintenance to maintain articles when their topic is confined to the subject. If we have scattered remarks about the pope in 2 or more articles, we have to maintain them each when some new twist is discovered. Best to maintain those in one place, the bio. But the policy isn't my decision, it was Wikipedia editors. I have come to agree with it though. It makes things much simpler. Sorry I explained it so badly before. Student7 (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the information is "human interest." Maybe even for an architectural journal. Just not in Wikipedia. WP:TOPIC. We are not trying to "attract" readers. Just trying to inform them.

And keep info about the pope confined to one article, as much as possible, for easy maintenance. I don't write bios. Mostly confine myself to place articles. They are easier. No messy subjective analyses. And they seldom mention people at all, much less their "motivation" for doing something. This distracts from the physical architecture, which you profess to be interested in. After going on about Michelangelo, Bernini, and Pope Julius, there wouldn't be any room for a description of the result! Anyway, I don't own the policy. It just is. Student7 (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Help needed

Ciao Nonna! How are you? As usual, I'm here harassing you seeking for help at clopyedit my attempt at Bufalini Chapel. Hope you've time to check it... Ciao and good work from --'''Attilios''' (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC) PS: by the way, if you ask for my friendship (Attilio Stefano Funel) at facebook, you could see photos of the new, funny babyball we've at home since 19 March, little Stefanino ;)

It happened in my rush return to active Wikipedianism I stumbled in the Sistine Chapel stuff... I noticed some small errors here and there in the article Sistine Chapel ceiling which should be absent in a true good article: use of terms such as "Curiously", or sentences such as "as one would expect" are WP:POV. I tried to remove some, but I doubt there are others yet. Also image placement was a bit ugly visually (for example I don't agree with the use of upright, which makes images of smaller size than standard thumb...), and there was missing disambiguation of Ghirlandaio (of course it was Domenico). In the mother Sistine Chapel, I noticed that, incredibly, the other frescoes than those by Michelangelo were absent at all, apart one by Perugino which also had POV in the beginning. I'm spending the time that baby Stefanino leaves me to adding separate articles (for now, I've added Delivery of the Keys (Perugino), and Botticelli's The Punishment of the Rebels and Trial of Moses (Botticelli). They are celebrated masterworks, that I wonder why they've been so overlooked... When you've time, can you give a check? Ciao and good work!! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Amanda! First complimentones for your new grandson! How many so far? Don't exceed, you'll get addicted to grandchildren. Tell me his name. As for Stefanino, when he was born he looked a little adorable spider; now he's very full and funny, he smiles so much and has stopped crying all the time (fortunately!). So now my task is to make him interested in geography, history and art like his father, and not in Playstation. Let's see who'll won. I'm going on with adding articles about the Sistine frescoes. You can see them in the list in the dedicated chapter there (those not redlinked). I'm robbing time at work for them since there ain't much to do. Prey for my boss not discover how I'm spending my time here. Ciao and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Amanda! I suspected YOU was the author of that article!! :D I think I should know your style now... I was also having doubts about the Zaccaria part; I think it's OK to specify what you meant there as you wrote me in my talk page. As for galleries, why to fill articles here, with semi-invisible images, often uncaptioned, often not so related with the argument, when a simple link to the Commonscat would be such an easy solution? Anyway no problem if you wanna reinstate it. As for POV/Weasel terms (splendid, magnificent, ...) or booklike jargon ("we can see that", "as one can imagine",... ) I confess I'm rather strict against it, but I always try to remove just it without deleting the original meaning. A suggestion: when you add your so long and interesting article, ask me freely to add links to single paintings, as it seems (at least for Italian artists) I'm nearly the only one adding them here. Sob! Have fun and good night by --'''Attilios''' (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ciao! Very interesting what you told about blind people... As you can see, I didn't touch the alt text (I seem so, at least). Let me know. If you think two or three images are important, add them in the normal way, not as a gallery. As for the grandson's name, I've the following suggestions:

• Attilio Stefano
• Stefano Leopoldo
• Federico Hohenstaufen
• Sigismondo Pandolfo
• Domenico Ghirlandaio

And, please, don't have him grow then n-th Australian union rugby too-strong-player-for-Italy... I'm still hoping to see our national team beat you before I die. Hugs from Attila! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You haven't mention any typical Aussie names! What wrong with Wayne, Shane, Bruce and Bradley?

The baby's sister wants George, his brother wants Arthur, his father wants Albert, his mother wants Constantine and his grandma wants Francis. He has to be registered tomorrow!

Your recent deletions: You have missed the point! The two theological matters are separated, because they are almost always presented separately, That is why it is written like that. The two subheadings need to go back, exactly as they are. The main heading probably needs to just say "Revelations" (plural, because they are two quite separate revelations). This is possibly the most important part of the article because it is the key to understanding what these artworks are about. Anyone without a churched background finds Christian art very hard to understand, and this is the clue.

I have had two very interesting experiences at St Peter's. The first time I was there, I was approached on the steps by a Japanese couple who had overheard me talking to a 13 yr old boy, who had very poor sight, and in consequence, I was being very descriptive. This woman said "You are a teacher? Yes? Please explain this Christian Symbolism!"

So I walked around on my very first visit, feeling quite overwhelmed on one hand, but having questions fired at me by this brilliant woman who was a university lecturer and wanted to know every slight nuance about every single thing. Just explaining the font, which is a reused sarcophagus, took 15 minutes, and that is near the door. By the time we got around to the Pieta, I was exhausted.

The second time I was there, I was accosted by a Russian man who said "My son tells me there is a God! How do I come to an understanding of this? " So all the way around St Peter's he challenged me on two level, firstly to prove to him that God existed and secondly with questions about technical matters such as the lamination of marble etc etc. He really pushed my brain to the limits!

The last time I was there, I had a nine-year-old in tow, and he was delighted and fascinated by everything, but in a less challenging way, because he already knew the Biblical stories, and also about the building itself.

I am going to make myself some coffee. I am addicted! Amandajm (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ahahaha! You funnied me with those "Aussie" names... Ok, choose as you want but remember to turn him into a surfer or a swimmer, please. Don't forget I am also definitely for All Blacks! They look nicer boys than Aussies: see Dan Carter! Joking... As for my experiences in St. Peter, of course I was there a little more times than you, but, honestly, the only very happy time it was with my longtime girlfriend... We weren't together since a long time, and I remember it was the first time, while she was in the toilet, I could sneak her identity card photo. She was very ashamed of herself, despite being very nice. I was soooooo young... just 20. What memories! I stayed with her 9 years, and she broke out of no true reason! Oh, but I'm boring you... Have fun and don't drink too much coffee. I was also getting addicted since here at office we've it for free, and it's the only excuse to get rid of this job endless boredom. Now I've bought some tea and I prepare it with the microwave we also have in the office. My wife is addicted to hierba mate, an Argentine herb that (never understood why, since they import it from South America) is very popular also on Syrian coast. Nice day and have wikifun!! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

St Andrew's Cathedral in Sydney

In the wikipedia article on this cathedral you made a change to the text back in July 2006 or at least that appears to be the case if i read the "history" correctly. As part of that change you stated that the John Loughborough Pearson designed reredos wasw carved by "Earp". I guess that would be Thomas Earp.

I am currently researching the works of Nathaniel Hitch with a view to writing a wikipedia article. Hitch was frequently used as a mason/carver by Pearson.

Most lists of Nathaniel Hitch's works include the reredos in Sydney and I would be most grateful if you would check your sources and see where you read that it was Earp who carved the Sydney reredos.

Soon I am spending some time at the Henry Moore Institute Archive in Leeds, going through Hitch's papers and this may throw some light on this.

I look forward to reading your comments.Weglinde (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Anglican topics navboxes

Hi Amanda, what exactly did you have in mind for the navboxes on the Anglican Communion in Australia? I was thinking one for Dioceses and Cathedral Churches, or would a unified navbox (the dioceses and their respective cathedral church or church in parentheses) be better? Obviously, there'd be different grouping (each state with its own group). Thoughts? —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 6:51pm • 08:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I've started a template, pretty bloody annoying to start too, I might add. {{Anglican church in Australia}} Thoughts? I'll add churches and cathedrals now, but that's the basic outline atm. Regards, —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:35pm • 11:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Grrr!!

I give you a list of pearls from 1911 Britannica and other (unfortunately, I am afraid, newer) Anglophones sources which I recently stumbled in:

• suggesting the construction of a triumphal arch for Charles V's arrival in Rome in 1536 (it was just a redecoration of Porta San Sebastiano)
• "Loretto" instead of Loreto
• Trevisio instead of Treviso
• Bernardino de' Rossi instead of Bernardo de' Rossi
• Antonio da San Gallo
• Church of San Maria del Popolo (Italian is not Spanish) --'''Attilios''' (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Nau I fainalli anderstud uai I cannot understend at oll Australians uen dei spik!! Joking... (PS: new mastepiece: Saint Francisco instead of San Francesco, just corrected at Niccolò di Pietro Gerini - it seems in England there's some geographical confusion between Italy and Spain)!! A hug from your boring Attila. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

St. Peter's - weird

What I mean is that, to me, it seems as if Nicholas V was not succeeded by Pope Callixtus III, but by Julius II. Now I know that in a way Julius is a successor, but isn't that more than obvious when one simply looks at the dates? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I think I have fixed it now. Amandajm (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Julius II is boring. Go for Julius III. PiCo (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)