PLEASE ADD ANY COMMENTS AT THE END OF THIS PAGE.
Archives
2011 - 2012 - 2013 - 2014 - 2015 - 2016 - 2017 - 2018 - 2019 - 2020 - 2021 -
TALK AFTER ANY EXISTING TALK
25 July 2021 |
Possible assignment for you.
How about expanding the "Cultural references" for gorilla using this book? LittleJerry (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Give it a go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Queen Anne Revival architecture
A couple of weeks ago you created the dab page Queen Anne Revival architecture along with your work on British Queen Anne Revival architecture. This created around 100 links to the dab page. I am trying to sort these out based on whether the building/architect is UK or US/Canada/Australia etc but could you take a look and check I have not linked to the wrong one.— Rod talk 15:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK, it's worth it as the old links only had the option of linking to a multi-topic page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've done most of the links on this list but there are some left & a few odities I wasn't sure what to do with:
- Queen Anne Revival redirect
- Category:Queen Anne Revival architecture in the United Kingdom
- Index of architecture articles
- Category:Queen Anne architecture
Help appreciated.— Rod talk 15:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Done a bit of dabbing and labelling. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi User:Rodw and Chiswick Chap. I revisited Rodw's disambiguations to find all U.S. places and use links to Queen Anne architecture in the United States article instead. This was for 20 or 30 articles or so, presumably getting rid of about 30 or so links from U.S. places to the term "Queen Anne Revival". Please see Talk:New World Queen Anne Revival architecture. For the U.S. there are _many_ thousands of articles in, all or most of which link to "Queen Anne architecture in the United States". I did not create that article, but someone did in general agreement with you that what is termed "Queen Anne" in the U.S. is not really old Queen Anne but rather is a revival. I am not sure, but I suspect the usage in the U.S. of "Queen Anne" rather than "Queen Anne Revival" is valid and preferable, even though one might make the argument they "should" all be called Queen Anne Revival (but they are not called that, and you can't fight general usage...). I would be happy to participate in some central discussion if there is to be a proposal to change all the U.S. usages, but please for now let's leave all the U.S. ones linking to the "in the United States" article, okay? Thank you to both of you for your good work. --Doncram (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, in the US it's not a "revival" of anything, anywhere, but originally a marketing term for an eclectic new style. I've commented at the other pages. I suppose Rod overlooked the US page, hence all the wrong links. It would be much better to discuss all this before! Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi User:Rodw and Chiswick Chap. I revisited Rodw's disambiguations to find all U.S. places and use links to Queen Anne architecture in the United States article instead. This was for 20 or 30 articles or so, presumably getting rid of about 30 or so links from U.S. places to the term "Queen Anne Revival". Please see Talk:New World Queen Anne Revival architecture. For the U.S. there are _many_ thousands of articles in, all or most of which link to "Queen Anne architecture in the United States". I did not create that article, but someone did in general agreement with you that what is termed "Queen Anne" in the U.S. is not really old Queen Anne but rather is a revival. I am not sure, but I suspect the usage in the U.S. of "Queen Anne" rather than "Queen Anne Revival" is valid and preferable, even though one might make the argument they "should" all be called Queen Anne Revival (but they are not called that, and you can't fight general usage...). I would be happy to participate in some central discussion if there is to be a proposal to change all the U.S. usages, but please for now let's leave all the U.S. ones linking to the "in the United States" article, okay? Thank you to both of you for your good work. --Doncram (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
My Edits in Hamid Naderi Yeganeh
Dear Chiswick Chap, today I was exploring some math art pages and I found you. Congratulations for your impressive contributions. I am a new user in Wikipedia and the main reason I wanted to edit Wikipedia was to add a few useful sections to Hamid Naderi Yeganeh. It is about a few years that I've learned about Hamid Naderi Yeganeh's art and I became extremely interested in his work. After I created my account, I added a few sections to Hamid Naderi Yeganeh. After a few minutes I received a message saying that my edit was possibly vandalism. I got surprised since my edit was very useful and valuable and was from authentic references. I tried to add the sections for the second time more cautiously. My edits was reverted again and this time I became accused of using multiple accounts. I don't know why I became accused of having multiple accounts but I guess that's because I imitated the edits of other editors in Hamid Naderi Yeganeh. Since I'm new to Wikipedia I needed to learn a few things from previous editors. Now I became so disappointed since believe me my edits were very useful and valid but they became reverted without a logical reason. I'm sure they undid my edits without scientifically reviewing it. I'm sending you this message because I would like to ask you to take a look at my edits: (this revision is the most perfect version: 1040033504). I vehemently believe that they are valuable and they can give the readers vital information about Naderi Yeganeh's art. They undid my edits twice without reviewing them. I think that's unfair because it took me a few hours to make those edits and I tried my best to do them accurately. I eagerly look forward to hearing your opinion about my edits. Math CRXVC (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sorry you had a rough start. Editors are constantly looking out for vandalism and they can get it wrong, especially with new accounts where they have no history to help them. You certainly can edit the article; I'd advise you to start small with little fixes that nobody would object to, and small additions, very carefully cited to the best sources, so you are as safe as possible. Restoring deleted materials is a bold move; probably best to discuss that first on the article's talk page, as it looks argumentative. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Your GAN, Ljuva karneval!
Hi, Chiswick Chap. Recently I've begun reviewing GAN in the literature section, so as to reduce the backlog there. I skipped this article because its sources are in Swedish, which I don't speak. So I want to ask you if you'd be okay with me reviewing it (possibly using google translate or asking for you to translate sections when/if needed) or if you'd rather I skip it so someone else with knowledge of the language might review it at a later point in time. Thanks, Isabelle 🔔 16:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- Isabelle Belato, I'd be delighted if you did it. Of course I'll lend a hand with anything in Swedish. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)