User talk:Amandajm/Archives/2014/January

Thank you and happy new year to you as well!

Thank you for your kind message and the beautiful window :) Have a great 2014, and thank you for your extraordinary work here on Wikipedia! You are a great source of inspiration and I am very impressed by what you've done. Best, Yakikaki (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

happy new year

Thanks, nice image, happy new year to you too! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy new year to you too

Thank you for your message and for all your hard work. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Ice dam

Hi. There is a discussion to split the article Ice dam in a manner you have reverted. Please join the discussion if you wish. Jim Derby (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year

I am grateful for your new year message; however I am not sure whether it continues "Wikistress" or is another topic. It was certainly a pleasant surprise.==Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

West front of the Cathedral of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Truro

Don't worry, I know all about the "clanking of the port at 1.35 am! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too!

Thomas Cole - The Architect's Dream

Happy New Year, Amandajm, and thanks for the greetings! Good to hear from you.

Why this painting? I guess it's always been a favorite since I first saw the original at an impressionable age. Also, it seems fitting, given the work you do here.

Let's continue to dream on in fruitful Wiki-collaboration.

Regards, Alan W (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy 2014 to you too

I wish you and your family all the best for 2014! --Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy Xmas /New Year & Wells Cathedral

Happy Xmas/New Year. I've just been sorting some minor "Cite uses deprecated parameters" issues on Wells Cathedral and was reflecting on how far it has come in the last year (mostly due to your efforts). Do you think we should go for FAC - I have some extra time over the next 10 days or so to help respond to any issues, if you think now would be a good time?— Rod ^talk 09:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Tis done - lets see what they come up with at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wells Cathedral/archive1.— Rod ^talk 12:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

There are a few outstanding queries from Jim, on which I'd be really grateful for your comments:

• Many of the left-aligned images force headings into the text, very unappealing appearance.
• Please remove forced image sizes since they override user preferences, a particular problem on tablets etc.
• sculptured figures—"sculpted".
• four chief clergy, quattuor personae—why the Latin here, and nowhere else in the article? It only means "four people".
• If there is no link for strainer arch, add a parenthetised explanation
• Sheela na gigs—I assume you have capitalised "Sheela" as a proper noun. Convince me that it is a name
• any medieval graffiti?

Any advice appreciated.— Rod ^talk 09:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year - any thoughts on the new challenges re fixed sizing & left alignment?— Rod ^talk 11:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sheela, normally Sheila, is a *very* common first name. Ceoil (talk) 13:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

A Sheila, in Australia, is any sexy or attractive woman. The term is not as common as it used to be. But I was once referred by a drunken Irishman lying in a church porch in London as a "You-beaut Aussie Sheila". I am not sure how he picked me, since I wasn't blonde, suntanned and clutching a koala.Amandajm (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

(TPS) These Irish folk are very perceptive aren't they? But I do hope it was an artistic church. Blwyddyn Newydd Dda to you too "Amanda". Best wishes for 2014. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I was going to ask you if you fancied a new year challenge on Bath Abbey or Glastonbury Abbey (but not much architecture left on the second one).— Rod ^talk 09:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless you want to leave churches & go for some of Bath's Georgian architecture eg The Circus, Royal Crescent or similar?— Rod ^talk 09:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

OK Bath Abbey it is, I tend to stick to Somerset (with some diversions into Bristol (eg Buildings and architecture of Bristol) but I don't just write about architecture, I do some archaeology, geology, geography & various places of interest (have just nominated Bath Assembly Rooms at GAN). User:Vox Humana 8' has most edits currently on Bath Abbey ( with Malleous/Eric second) but I've done a fair amount of work on it up to GA & have various source + can visit fairly easily when needed.— Rod ^talk 10:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Amanda and Rod and all the best for the Wells Cathedral FA!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pic etc. I'm going to go back to the reflecting pool on a sunnier day as it didn't get promoted at featured pics. If you want a real, challenge for the year you could always try to get a Wikipedia:Good topics out of:

But I'm not offering to help with all of those.— Rod ^talk 10:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I did have a silly thought... the other abbey in Somerset is Downside Abbey but thats probably not old enough for you?— Rod ^talk 11:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Iconography etc You have been busy while I've been at work. I think it is good & has made me look at them again. I would suggest merging the first two (very short) paragraphs. I was surprised by the sentence "All are naked, but some are defined by crowns as royalty and by mitres as bishops" as I initially thought this related to all of the statues (most of which are clothed) but reread it to identify it is the row near the top. Do we have any alternative viewpoints of what they represent otherwise this is very reliant on the view of Cockerell - he may be respected in the field but it is still a lot just to base on one persons view 150 years ago. Have you seen the "Grudgingly oppose" on the FAC page re image sizing and allingment?— Rod ^talk 19:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed both the parag. format and possible misconception.

I agree over the heavy reliance on a single source. However, I suspect Cockerell's is the definitive study. His numbering of the zones is effective, his statement about the south side being reserved for the sacred and the north for the secular seems to be accepted, for example tombs of bishops are more likely to be located to the south and knights to the north of the chancel, (though this isn't always carried through by any means, see the Black Prince at Canterbury for example.) His identification of most of the series e.g. half-length angels, Old Testament stories, New Testament stories, the Resurrection of the dead, the angels, and the row of twelve apostles is without question.

The only possible queries relate to the broad statement as to what the "big picture" represents, to his theory that the lowest south range had prophets and patriarchs, and the lowest north had missionaries; and to his identification of certain individuals.

To take the latter first, I have only quoted his identification of particular saints where that identification is made with a degree of certainty based on the attribute of the saint, e.g. St Andrew carries his distinctive cross, St Bartholomew carries his flayed skin. In the lowest range, on the back of the northwest tower, he identifies Augustine and others. I have only included the three where the attributes make their identity certain. That the three identified persona were all among the earliest missionaries to Britain is beyond question. Cockerell has extrapolated from this to suggest that all the missing figures on the north of the west front fit this pattern.

I haven't repeated his interesting statement that in levels four and five, all the Saxon royalty are on the west front, with the Norman dynasty on the north and eastern sides of the tower. He identifies an number of the kings such as Edward the Confessor, William the Conqueror etc.

Moreover, in looking at the Commons photos of the statues, I looked at the details of the architectural decoration (as against the grand scheme of buttresses, walls and openings). What I found was extraordinary. When John Harvey describes it as "the supreme triumph of the combined plastic arts in England", he really isn't exaggerating. There is a degree of stylistic innovation which I suspect is without precedent and includes forms that one would not expect for another hundred years. The formal rigidity of the architectural units have indeed become "plastic" and merge into organic forms that are not contained by the boundaries defined by capitals and bosses. Discovering these details (which I simply hadn't noticed) gave me the same sort of shock that I had when encountering the pulpit of St Stephen's Cathedral, Vienna which dates from the 1460s.

I'll drop this on the article talk page, if you don't mind. Amandajm (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Rod, with regards to Hchc2009's "grudgingly oppose", I have previously answered every objection, and downsized all the paired images. He is still on about the fact that a few (in fact only one) non-detailed images don't comply. I have just answered, in detail, again and reduced the single non-compliant image.

The other images all comply with the MOS requirements for upsizing because they contain details that are relevant to the article.

Amandajm (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Help

Are you available to help me expand my article before I move it to main space? I've got a complete mindblock on what I should be writing on the article, and I'm just going to go nowhere otherwise. I fully understand if you're too busy to help. Deferential redbrick (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem! I've only just regained access to the Internet myself. Deferential redbrick (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Australian blue cattle dog 01.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) 12:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Imagery

Very nice job with the images. I hope it works at FAC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Where?

You said, where present, the etymology goes first in the main. Can't find anything on this in the manual of style. Were is this rule, can you point it out? Hafspajen (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, probably there is no such rule. Hafspajen (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your advice on the William Joy article. I have fixed most of the issues, I just need to put in more information on his work at Wells. Kissmaiden (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"This is not nice"

As apt an edit summary that was for describing the content of your edit, please avoid personally attacking other editors. It would be far more productive to avoid personalizing such conversations and to make arguments based on policies and reliable sources appropriate to the topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, If you are referring to the continual frustration and blocking of a well-intentioned editor and the prejudiced attitude directed towards that person because of his racial background, then realise this, if expressions of national prejudice continue in relation to that article, I have no choice but to lodge a formal complaint.

Understand that when he complained that it was about prejudice, I attempted, twice, to explain that it was probably not. However, the evidence is now very much to the contrary.

My edit summary was mild compared with what that potentially useful editor has received, instead of the usual welcome. Amandajm (talk) 06:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I would advise you that such a formal complaint is quite likely to result in a boomerang. Nikkimaria (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I could handle that, Nikkimaria. It wasn't my contribution that was referred to as "nationalistic crap" . If I chose to complain about the treatment of another, comparatively new, editor, and cop some flack myself in the meantime, then it is to be expected.

Tell me, which is the ruder, in your opinion: "This is not nice" or "nationalistic crap"?

Or are you offended by me telling the editor who referred to another person's edit in that manner, that they had some growing up to do?

Let us fight prejudice and discrimination where it exists, and do our best to keep it right off the pages of Wikipedia.

Amandajm (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought I was clear above, but: I was referring to the content of your edit, which was nicely described by the phrase "this is not nice". There is a very big difference between someone saying that a particular addition is of poor quality because of its nationalistic viewpoint, and someone displaying "prejudice and discrimination" based on an editor's racial background; unless you have much stronger evidence of the latter than you've presented thus far, that is a very serious personal attack and you risk being blocked if it is not withdrawn. Nikkimaria (talk) 07:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, You are justifying calling someone's edit "nationalistic crap"?

Nikkimaria, understand this: this is a person's national history that is being referred to as "crap". "Crap" is excrement. I tell you in case you use the word with such frequency as slang that you have forgotten its meaning.

Think!

Would someone's presentation of the history of the settlement and dispossession of the indigenous people of North America be "nationalistic crap"?

Would someone's presentation of the history of the Gettysburg Address be "nationalistic crap"?

Referring to a person's presentation of their county's history, particularly when a period of achievement is concerned, as "nationalistic crap" is indefensible. Why are you defending it?

Put it in perspective! Amandajm (talk) 08:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Editor's Barnstar
		A big thank you for your insightful editing of the article La Parisienne (Renoir painting), I just wish I had come to you before the DYK nomination. Hats off! FruitMonkey (talk) 10:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Middle Ages

Hi. I wanted to ask you about this edit. Do you think it advances the debate to focus on particular editors by name, and to repost something that was posted to user talk? I do not; I would recommend you to take personal matters like this to user talk or other appropriate venues, and keep article talk for general discussion of improvements to the article. I fear that edits like the one I highlighted could have the effect of raising temperatures and actually deter the sort of calm discussion we need to solve editorial disputes. Thanks for any thought you can give to doing this differently in future. --John (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand that you feel that it is unpleasant to mention another editor by name and repeat their unpleasant comments. But i fell that it is entirely necessary that other contributors realise that the editor of the Bulgarian matters did, in fact, make an appropriate approach (after having at first been led by Wikipedia's structure to believe that he could simply make changes). The response that he got informed him that the history of his country over the 500 year period was worthless, except for a couple of mentions of the country's name, in relation to the Byzantine Empire. He was told that the article gave this empire precisely as much value as it was worth. This is a humiliating and insulting manner in which to treat an editor.

Your message is the second one that I have received telling me that my manner towards the apparent controller of content in the article has been unpleasant.

• What message has been left on the page of Sumatro apologising for telling him that the Bulgarian Empire was not worth mentioning at all?
• What message has been left on the page of Sumatro in apology for referring to his contributions as "nationalistic crap"?

What I perceive is an overwhelming imbalance. It is an imbalance both in the text of the article and in the attitudes of those who are maintaining it. When the problems of extraordinary insularity have been righted, and the humiliation of Sumatro appropriately dealt with, then you won't have any further problem with me on this issue.

Can I suggest that instead of fussing about my style and manner towards a person who really has ben very insulting towards a would-be contributor, you concern yourself with the evidence posed by the two maps and the one-liner about the duration and extent of the First Bulgarian Empire?

As I have warned before, ignoring and side stepping this type of evidence when it is brought up on the talk page makes the credibility of Wikipedia and its editors look like a joke. Something very similar happened over that 20th-century reproduction helmet. It is almost beyond my comprehension that, when the issue was first raised, (many months before it came to my attention) the editors did not immediately recognise the problem and act upon the alert. It took thousands of words and the consensus of six named and another six unnamed editors to get the change. Note that the 20th-century helmet is still in place as the icon for the Category:Middle Ages, even though it has been removed from the article itself, indicating that although the controllers gave way, a little, they have failed to comprehend the message: "A 20th-century reproduction object cannot represent the Middle Ages".

IMO, Sumatro's initial appeal to Wikipedia should have been sufficient to alert the regular editors to the fact that there was a whole 'empire lasting several hundred years that had largely slipped the attentions of Western European historians, and had entirely bypassed the writers of the article. His appeal should have prompted interest, excitement even. It certainly should have prompted action. Instead, he received a verbal slap in the face, here paraphrased as "Your country's history of conquest, empire and culture is worth two nebulous mentions in passing and nothing more. Nothing further needs to be said. The word "empire" does not need to be even hinted at".

Can't you do something about this, other than complaining that you don't like my manner? Taking into account the Reproduction Helmet debacle, tell me, will you, what sort of manner will get action on that page? Asking politely and reasonably has been tried by Sumatro. Putting forward as much evidence as he has, has been tried by Sumatro. Adding a few lines summarising the history of the First Bulgarian Empire has been tried, by me. (NOTE: about three lines. 3 lines, not 33 or 103 lines) This has been reduced to less than half and doesn't mention the word "Empire".

Asking nicely, demanding, pleading, giving supporting evidence, complaining, accusing people of prejudice, hosing down such accusations, presenting the evidence of a negative and inappropriate treatment of a contributor, presenting thousands of words in support of the additional content, summarising the thousands of words, presenting the irrefutable evidence of the two maps and the one-liner and indicating, once again, that the editor who politely proposed an addition to the article, was, in fact, very badly treated........

These things have all been tried, and all that happens is that the person seeking to alert Wikipedia editors that their article is one-sided cops abuse, and the person who defends him is informed that their actions in doing so are unproductive.

Go back and look at the two maps and the one-liner. Together, they tell you that the history of the Bulgarian Empire in the Middle Ages needs more coverage. This is the whole point of this tedious stupid argument. It is something about which there should never have been any argument whatsoever. Sumatro's initial message (like the initial message about the 20th-century reproduction helmet) sounded an alert to which every editor of the page should have paid attention. The histories of the two Bulgarian Empires don't require a long section, but do require at least two precisely-written statements that name the most powerful rulers under which these two empires and a widespread culture existed. Their relationship with the Byzantines is significant and should be mentioned, but in the context of Bulgaria, not exclusively in the context of the Byzantines. Altogether, 6-8 (widescreen) lines divided into two statements in different sections could probably summarise it adequately. My cut-down addition of one and a bit lines does not.

Until this happens, do you really expect me to become increasingly courteous, or increasingly frustrated and angry?

Let me say again :When the problems brought on by insularity have been dealt with, and the humiliation of Sumatro has been righted, then you won't have any further problem with me on this issue.

Amandajm (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The content issue has been addressed in article talk. The subject has been given the emphasis it deserves. Maps are not the best evidence, sources are. If you're finding editing in this area is making you frustrated and angry, it's maybe time to walk away. --John (talk) 06:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

St. Michael's Catholic Church (Cedar Hill, Tennessee)

Regarding your comments about this article's title, I just wanted to note: this is normal for US churches needing disambiguation. Unlike UK churches, American churches are generally disambiguated as CHURCHNAME (TOWNNAME, STATENAME); this is standard per the WP:NRHP naming conventions, and the same method of disambiguation is normally done for non-listed churches. It's not just churches — just almost all buildings are disambiguated this way, regardless of what type they are. Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

What website did you check? The official National Register database gives the property name simply as "St. Michael's Catholic Church", and you will get the same result by going to their search page and entering this name. I can't find any websites that contain the phrase "St Michael's Catholic Church, Cedar Hill, Tennessee" except for Archiplanet, which is a mirror and nowhere near official. This is the way that American buildings are routinely disambiguated, and nobody uses the style of which you speak — I can't remember ever seeing this kind of thing in print in the USA. Please read WP:ENGVAR. Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Having recently created the article St. Michael's Catholic Church (Cedar Hill, Tennessee), I am bewildered by the comments on Nyttend's talk page that suggest there is some problem with the article title. The title follows Wikipedia naming conventions. If you search Wikipedia on strings such as "St. Michael's Catholic Church Tennessee", the article comes up at or near the top of the search results. Punctuation differences don't adversely affect search results. What's the problem? --Orlady (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what website you're checking. No official NPS website will do what you're talking about, and the official NR name for this place is purely "St. Michael's Catholic Church". Parenthetical disambiguation is the standard for all US building articles; this is not a failure to comply with any kind of external naming convention. Rather, as I told you before, this is a WP:ENGVAR issue, and urging us to use your convention is no more reasonable than us urging you to use our naming convention by getting St Michael's Church, Pennington moved to St. Michael's Episcopal Church (Pennington, Cumbria). Also, Orlady, this all grows out of Amandajm's comments here, which may be accurate in a UK context, but which are completely off-base in a US context. Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you failed to observe that the actual title of the building is "Texas State Capitol", and the actual title of this church is "St. Michael's Church" or "St. Michael's Catholic Church". In this country, we don't think of places this way. "Steubenville Cathedral" and "Columbus Cathedral" will be generally meaningless to people, even though Holy Name Cathedral and St. Joseph Cathedral are the only cathedrals in their cities. We are following common sense and common usage: the problem is that you're completely failing to grasp the concept that Americans don't talk this way. The only other thing I have to say to you is WP:STICK. Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Amandajm, this edit makes clear that your problem with this title reflects a fundamental disagreement you have with the way that Wikipedia policy calls for disambiguation to be handled in the titles of Wikipedia articles. Please see Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) to refresh your memory on the relevant policy. If, after re-reading the policy and reviewing the history of the discussions that went into crafting it (the contents of Category:Wikipedia naming conventions proposals are also informative), you wish to propose changes, please do so at the appropriate talk page. Talk pages for individual articles about obscure topics are not an appropriate venue for policy discussions, and personal attacks (as in that aforementioned edit of yours) are never the right way to interact with other users, much less to seek a change in Wikipedia policy. --Orlady (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Response:

The above comment and inappropriate edit summary was made to my questioning the motifs of a different editor. Amandajm (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have been over the naming conventions in detail. I cannot find any convention for the naming of buildings. However, the convention that applies to places, both generally and specifically in almost every country, including the US, is as follows

• If a place is populated, i.e. it has an address, then the geographic disambiguation follows a comma. e.g. Paris, Maine
• If the place or geographic feature is not populated i.e it does not have an address, and a disambiguation is needed, then the disambiguation is in parenthesis e.g. Red River (Victoria).

It follows that a church, which always has an address, is almost always closely linked to it geographic location i.e. its parish or diocese and is always in an area of some population (unless it is an archaeological ruin) should use the "comma placename" convention as disambiguation rather than the "parenthesis placename" disambiguation which only applies to geographic features.

Thank you for directing me to the relevant pages.

I have not been personally rude or insulting to anyone. I have merely questioned a person's motives after my contributions were referred to as "trolling" and after being told to "stick it". J

Amandajm (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Amamdajm, you are correct that there is no special guideline for titles for articles about buildings. There is also no special guideline for articles about churches. This means that the general rules at WP:Article titles apply. These include the rules for disambiguation in article titles, in this section. Those general rules include "Parenthetical disambiguation: If natural disambiguation is not possible, add a disambiguating term in parentheses, after the ambiguous name." Parenthetical disambiguation is what was done for the title of St. Michael's Catholic Church (Cedar Hill, Tennessee). You are correct in observing that when names of populated places are disambiguated, the geographic disambiguation follows a comma. This is a special exception to the general rule. It does not apply to churches -- churches are not populated places.

And I stand by my assertion that your comments directed at User:Nyttend constituted a personal attack. As for his actions, I believe he correctly labeled your behavior as "trolling", but he did not tell you to "stick it". When he said "The only other thing I have to say to you is WP:STICK," he was advising you to "quit beating a dead horse" by using a shortcut to point you to the essay "Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass". In the future, you may be able to avoid some aggravation if you follow the links that you are referred to, rather than getting needlessly angry and lashing out at someone who was giving you good advice. --Orlady (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)