User talk:Amandajm/Archives/2012/August

Articles for deletion/Bloke (word)
Because you made a nontrivial contribution to Bloke (word) (diff), you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Bloke (word). Cunard (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Some advice please
Amandajm, last December, we had a discussion over my contribution to the Saint Peters Basilica page. See your archive here. Through the exchange, I felt you are fair and has the well being of wikipedia in mind.

So I'd like to seek your advice on the events on the "Jing'an Temple" page. I feel that I am being fair and courteous with another user SudoGhost over the quality of the photos, and the other person is not reasonable. Can you take a look at the history and give me some guidance on whether I am in the wrong or what I should do.


 * The page started with 2 lower right-hand photos that I felt were not great.
 * I updated these photos with something better, so the page appeared like this.
 * User SudoGhost reverted my changes saying I didn't comment my changes enough (which is true)
 * I left a post on SudoGhost's talk page explaining the reasons and asked him to edit based on quality of the resulting page rather than comments.
 * SudoGhost deleted my post to his talk page and simply reverted the article again without addressing the quality of the photos.

So what is your advice on this? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctny (talk • contribs) 20:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

I grew up living 15min away from the Jing'an temple but left 27yrs ago. I went back and attended a family memorial in the temple last month, and the place certainly changed a lot. I don't know enough details about the place to improve the text of the wikipedia page, but I did take some photos to contribute what I can.

Thank you for taking a look at the interaction on that page. I really appreciate your help!

Ctny (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This was in line
First of I was not slack and please don't be so hostile and assume a little good faith. Second, the point of the this was in line with phrase was that it was in line with the government's claim of killing a large number of terrorists. 30 is a large number. And I was very specific about that, pointing to combatant casualties, and I never mentioned civilian ones. But if you insist, here originally bbc online source stating almost the same as me. I quote He says that activist and human rights groups have named a handful of civilians they say died in the bombardment of the village, but the few video postings they have produced, showing the bodies of young men, are consistent with the government line that many rebel fighters were killed. So it was not exclusivly my personal comment and if you want I will add this source as well? Anyways, keep up the good work. Cheers! :) EkoGraf (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Actually, now that I think about it, that same text was already in the BBC source that was put forth before but the source was updated and the wording change, so please don't jump the gun with the accusations of it being my personal comment in the future. Like I said, assume good faith. Bye bye! :) EkoGraf (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Bombing of Lübeck in World War II
Hello, I noticed that you've deleted the picture of the memorial of that event. I may help tp convince you that this picture is an important one for this event.

But first of all I would like to know whether we could continue this talk in german. Waiting for answer1970gemini 17:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That raises the level for me. I'll soon be back. But if I would convince you of the necessarity of the picture you'll expect from you to put it back and perhaps ad some information about it. 1970gemini 09:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

First I start a small step away. Let us take a look to the Ehrenfriedhof of Lübeck. There are three memorials (in german also called cenotaph). - 1st the one of the 162. regiment, the one from Lübeck in WWI - 2nd the dying warrior for the died ones in WWI from Lübeck

In WWII the yrad has be enhance by three fields. Each of them is a circle. One of them is for the victims of the Bombing of Lübeck in World War II. This one is named Victims of Palmarum 1942.

In the early 60s Joseph Krautwald was ordered to create a memorial for the victims by using local coquina which was named Die Mutter (the mother). A material wich has been often used in Lübeck.

It is a mother who tries to secure her two little children during the 1942 bombing of Lübeck. It is placed in the center of the circle only surrounded by the tombstones of those who died this night. Some of them are visible in the background.

I hope to brang a little light in the riddle of the neccessarity of the picture in this article. If there are more questions, don't hesitate to ask. 1970gemini 10:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. You can also take Broschüre der Hansestadt Lübeck, Fachbereich: Planen und Bauen, Heft 103, S. 36, Januar 2010 as reference.
 * By the way... I added here once upon also a picture of a memorial. On the page of the regiment under the Point Denkmale I added a longer description of its meaning. Do evaluate after you put the text in google-translation it may be worthy to know? If you think this way, it would be nice if you add it on the side. 1970gemini 12:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sistine restoration
Thanks very much for this page. I'm an italian student of history of art and with this I realized the damage on the poor Michelangelo's best work. I added 'Perdite di panneggio e ombreggiature' in the italian version of the page. In Italy was pubblished a book of Alessandro Conti "Michelangelo e la pittura a fresco", I suggeste you. Julius


 * Thank you, Julius!  Amandajm (talk) 04:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Lucan portrait of Leonardo
Thanks for letting me know, Amandajm. I just thought that since the artist of the engraving portrait is found, the previous information is no more useful. But yeah, you are right that I should have noted it in the edit summary/talk page. I returned back the previous citation now. @Strekoza2 (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No problemo! ;) @Strekoza2 (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Akita
Two articles were merged. The American Akita article was better developed at the time. I did not do the merger, but I can easily understand how this happened, and it was not "arrogant". Your changes are warranted, however. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 11:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the whole issue of whether there is one breed or two is highly controversial amongst Akita fanciers,as the article notes. These two lines of dogs are quite different, although they share a common root. Trying to sort through this is way beyond the jurisdiction of WikipedIa. We may report it, but can't change the outcome. And dog breed lovers are by their nature true believers.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You and I agree. Clearly, the root breed and the country of origin (where that is not in doubt) ought to have precedence. Besides, this is a world encyclopedia in the English language, and should not be proselytizing an American world view. IMHO. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

El Grande (tree)
Thanks for sharing your knowledge. Heart breaking as it is. We have fouled our own nest, and we do it world wide. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK error reports
Thanks for reporting your concerns about DYK articles on the Main Page. It appears your report for List of camoufleurs was not acted upon. I think this is in part because nobody was sure what it was that you wanted done. Might I suggest that next time you make such a report, you include how the blurb should be rewritten? This also would have helped with The Secret River (Rawlings book). Thanks. — howcheng  {chat} 08:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 02:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Architecture of Germany
Thanks for your welcome and the constructive criticism. I have answered to your remarks on my talk page. Levimanthys (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Salai
Hi! Just out of curiousity, do you know why this got over 100,000 hits on July 31st? Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)