User talk:Amandajm/Archives/2013/June

DYK for Ring of Silvianus
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Book names vs. legendarium
I don't understand. The One Ring features in more of Tolkien's work than just The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, and it's even linked directly to the article. Would substituting "mythology" for "legendarium" be less offensive to you? Also, since when do we "dumb down" content? IceKarma&#x0950; 01:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I apologize for my earlier tone. I have made a few more changes to the lede to simplify and push details into the section 'Association with Tolkien', which I also restructured and expanded slightly. I hope the changes meet with your approval. IceKarma&#x0950; 03:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

G'day
and congrats on the exhibition. I have no idea whether you have the right email. Really honestly so happy to hear abt this!

PiCo (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello
Hi, can help me to improve these items, thank you: Tríptico de Nava y Grimón, Museo Municipal de Bellas Artes de Santa Cruz de Tenerife.--81.34.255.96 (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Leonardo In Hungary
Hello Amandajm. I'm curious about the Hungary edit. This is the first I've heard of such a visit. Is there a translation for that source available anywhere? Have other sources corroborated it? Jodon |  Talk  22:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hope your exhibition went well. A question: are citations required in a sentence for which the main "claims" are referenced in other articles? The reason I ask is that User:Tpbradbury removed a sentence [| HERE], and I'm not sure that was necessary. Maybe you could look into that when you have a chance. I would rather get your opinion on it first before causing an edit war. Thanks. Jodon |  Talk  20:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What tpbradbury has done is find a reference for one of the two unreferenced statements, and delete the other unreferenced statement because no-one has looked for a reference in several years while the tag has been there.
 * If you like to find a reference for the deleted info, then it can go back. It's the way Wikipedia works. The editors (including me) have had plenty of notice to sort out the problem, but haven't. Amandajm (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I understand why Niccolò Machiavelli and Franchinus Gaffurius were removed, but the Isabella d'Este and Cesare Borgia articles both mention Leonardo as a friend. Should those mentions also be removed from those articles? What are the criteria for allowing interlinks to remain unsourced, or must they ALWAYS be sourced? I've seen plenty of articles to the contrary. I'm not sure if Wikipedia is clear on this.


 * Regarding the Hungary edit - I'm a little skeptical about a source that cannot be found with an English translation (this is after all an "English" Wikipedia). I have deleted material before that was sourced in another language, for example in the Adoration of the Magi article | HERE, that I discovered after it was translated, that it was making a claim that the source was not providing. Because it was a website I was able to copy and paste the text and translate it very easily. However, I may have to buy this Leonardo and Michelango book and get it translated, just to validate the mention of a trip to Hungary. By the way had you ever heard of such a trip before that edit? Jodon  |  Talk  16:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Re unsourced material, was happened was part of a process. The statement re those friendships was marked as unsourced information, and dated. The unsourced information was allowed to sit in the hopes that someone would find a source.  Nobody bothered to, so it was eventually deleted.
 * The same process doesn't apply to the other articles unless someone has challenged the information within that article. If the information has been marked as unreferenced, then the same process applies. It will eventually get deleted by someone who considers it their job to cruise around deleting material that has been challenged and remained unreferenced for a long time. The way to prevent the process is to find a reference and insert it. As soon as you find the reference, the info goes back. Amandajm (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that. This means every unreferenced edit has a lifespan, and its lifespan is based on whether it is challenged or not. It could last for years and years and not be challenged, or last for one microsecond if immediately challenged. It does seem somewhat pointless having interlinks at all if some editor doesn't bother to check the linked article and follow the same process in those articles. Seems very like very selective editing. Anyway, in the meantime I'll try to find references. I should have plenty, somewhere, might take me some time to dig up. Jodon |  Talk  17:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Found a source | here that can verify Leonardo's friendship with Borgia and Machiavelli. It uses | this book as a source. Presumably its reliable?


 * That's good. So you could go around the other articles and source them as well.
 * Yes, I'll have a look for sources for Franchinus Gaffurius and Isabella d'Este also. If I don't find them on the Internet I'm sure I have them in my own library. Jodon |  Talk  14:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The "microsecond" doesn't apply. The box is dated, and then is or isn't watched by the person who dated it. But it would be unusual for any non-contentious information to be deleted quickly.  If there is contentious information, then a box at the top of the page or at the top of the section states that the content may be unreliable or incorrect and has been challenged. There are people who use that box without actually making a challenge i.e. they don't leave a message on the talk page saying what they are challenging and giving a source to back the issue.
 * Amandajm (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've seen editors indiscriminately remove edits made in good faith, without even allowing or putting a . That's obviously not the case here, but there doesn't seem to be a general rule for this, as its often left to editors' discretion. Jodon |  Talk  14:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Woolwich attack‎
Please avoid edit summaries WITH CAPITAL LETTERS. This implies that other editors are wrong, and is against the spirit of consensus. It is also unrealistic to ask other editors not to edit a high traffic article, as in this edit.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused about the relationship of this statement (and Ohconfucius's previous version) with the Guardian report: "The assailants remained at the scene. The Metropolitan Police received a distress call at 14:20. Unarmed police arrived at 14.29, set up a cordon and remained behind it.[18] Armed police arrived at 14:34. The men charged at them, one brandishing a machete and the other a gun. The police fired eight shots, wounding both the men.[14][19] A gun, knives, and a machete were later seized at the scene. Rigby was later pronounced dead.[6]" I suggest a comma after "cordon" (you use the Oxford comma after "knives", I see—my own personal preference), and a semicolon after "it", to soften the effect of the succession of stubby sentences. Backref issue in "them"—does it refer to the armed or the unarmed police? If we don't know, it needs to be reworded. "Later" × 2 is unfortunate. You could remove "the" before "men.[14]" Tony   (talk)  12:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"It isn't profound but it IS the perspective of the attackers' country of origin." – it's not the lack of profundity that I object to. Note that the BBC said the Guardian had republished the UK Nigerian association's comment. If that's all the Guardian had to say, it's even more superficial than a "mee too", and certainly not worthy of repeating. I suspect the Guardian article didn't say much because the BBC article was quite precise mentioning other countries' journals' views. It would be interesting if you are able to find the article in question. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 13:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Please add to your comments about 2013 Woolwich attack to Talk:2013 Woolwich attack where the article's editors can see it, rather than on my talk page, which very few people will see. 92.40.51.168 (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Choudary
Hi, I did see the interview and you are right he did refused to condemn the attack - but it think it's fair to point out that he redirected his condemnation towards an external source - the military. I'm no Choudary apologist I think he's quite a dangerous element and promotes divisive ideologies in the UK but Including 'we're all shocked' gives the casual reader a greater understanding of his position. In effect he strives to stay as 'neutral' as he can be in his condemnation of attack and instead blames the military. Therefore I think it's pertinent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxr033 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

OC
Amanda, he's a very experienced editor, and in my view a fair and even-handed one. He's a little upset at some fracas going on at that same article. I hope you can try to understand each other. I'm away for 24 h. Tony   (talk)  15:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Here I am!
Hi nonna! How are you? Still trembling after our small Luciano Orquera missed a last minute kick at historical draw against your (declining?) wallabies during last November test matches? Joking... I'm here to disturb you after I recently made my deadly comeback in the wikiworld, with the following masterwork articles among the others: Palazzo degli Alberti, Triptych of Temptations of St. Anthony and The Hermit Saints. In particular the latter two, I'd ask you (as usual, if you have time and will) to give a check to my mediocre English. Ciao again and thanks in advance. --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)--&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thank for help... however, I didn't see what was my error. I just removed a poorly written initial blabbery which is later explained in the Description section. Ciao and thanks again!

(PS: of course all saints are Italian! Or, if they weren't, we stole their relics in the Middle Ages!! :D PPS: seriously, if you went to Naples, you'd see how much quasi-pagan adoration is given mainly to saints, starting from local St. Januarius, than even God, Jesus or Mary).

Hi there Amanda
Hi, my name is Andy, I hope you don't mind me posting this here. I've just been reading up on the articles about Leonardo Da Vinci, followed by the talk pages. I just want to tell you how much I appreciate your input, in this modern era where everyone has an agenda for everything (even Wiki moderators I've noticed) you are a true breath of pragmatic fresh air. You speak unbiased and give the facts straight. Thank you so much, and I hope more wiki editors take a page from your book. Andy124.171.227.33 (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi!
I'm sorry, but I dont't manage to understand if your message was somehow sarcastic or not. Do you consider that typology of edits useless? If yes, I will stop making them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markhole (talk • contribs) 16:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)