User talk:Amandajm/Archives/2012/February

Christopher Whall
Thanks for your helpful comments. I shall bear them in mind.

Seeing the original "stub" article I am anxious to expand it to do justice to Whall and will be building it up over the coming weeks/months.

Hence when I started the list "Others" I knew that I would be adding many works to that list.

Again thanks for your comments/help. Weglinde (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Christopher Whall revisited
Oh dear what a grumpy tone! I have read what you said and will take it all on board in due course I am 71 years of age and was last "talked down to" when I was at school.

Weglinde (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Romanesque architecture
I wish you had politely and patiently edited my edits instead of reverting the whole thing. You could improve the Romanesque architecture article, which you seem to have proprietary feelings for, by making sentences more concise. For example, why say "give light to" instead of simply "light," or "were also to become" instead of "became." Changing your English spelling was inadvertent—I incorrectly thought it was a misspelling. I did go back and (mostly) just make 'which' in a restrictive clause into 'that.' As you likely know, that makes no difference in your country, but in the U.S., 'that' in a restrictive phrase is customary, if not a rule.75.2.135.41 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC).


 * I left you a full explanation at User talk:75.2.135.41.
 * I got frustrated with trying to sort out all the places where the meaning had been lost, in the simplification.
 * It is far easier to go through an article changing "which" to "that" than it is to meticulously rephrase twenty edits that no longer mean what they were intended to mean.
 * I have no problem with the changes to "that". And I do understand the problem of editting with an unfamiliar system of spelling. NOTE: "editting".
 * I make numerous typos, particularly the simple ones like "and" for "an" and often get "there" and "their" wrong, not through not knowing but simply because thinking and typing doesn't come naturally to me.
 * As for being polite and patient: I deal with a dozen or so vandalistic or erroneous edits every day.  When I find that a major article that gets up to a thousand hits a day has had the sense transformed in about a dozen places, then it needs fixing, in a hurry. 1500 people viewed that article yesterday.
 * Amandajm (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Whall Images
Followed your suggestion regarding gallery format and delighted with results. Super advice!

I would like to now create space between "Images" and "See also" and would very much like to receive your advice as to how this is done.

Have cut and pasted the Ashbourne Church text but am now a little concerned that there are two wiki articles on that church. Perhaps I misunderstood your advice?

Weglinde (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Paris S Denis Fleur de Lys window 1986 crypt 1353 a a.JPG listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Paris S Denis Fleur de Lys window 1986 crypt 1353 a a.JPG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to Stanford's WikiProject!
ralphamale (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Jaazaniah
The whole point of semicolons is to separate independent clauses that are related in subject; it is grammatical to join them that way or to separate them into separate sentences. Nyttend (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite wrong — every single example you give is grammatical. There is no upper limit to the length (or number) of independent clauses that may be joined by semicolons, just as there is no upper limit to the number or length of statements that may be joined with ", and".  Do not confuse clumsiness with incorrect grammar.  Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Leonardo
I don't add the information because when I have in similar situations, I find it increasing common that people revert these changes for specious reasons. I don't have the time to deal with situations like these any more. And there might be a good reason ships aren't included; I don't know what it might be, but I'm not motivated enough concerning Wikipedia any more to find out. -- llywrch (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)