User talk:Amandajm

Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia

Hi Amandajm, welcome to Simple English Wikipedia! Thank you for your changes. If you need help, check out the Help section of Wikipedia, or leave a message on my talk page. Whenever leaving messages on talk pages, please remember to sign your name by typing four 'tildes' (like this: ~~~~); doing this makes your name and the date show up. Also, it helps if you write something in the box that says 'edit summary' whenever you change an article. Below are some useful links to make your time here simpler. Happy editing! -- Creol(talk) 04:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
How to: edit a page • write Simple English articles
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Administrators • Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Verifiability Citing sources • What Wikipedia is not Copyrights • Image use policy Spam • Vandalism • Deletion policy

The Community
Assume good faith • Be kind Community Portal • Simple talk • TASERING Announcements • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Peer review • Cleanup
Other
Useful templates • Stubs

Your messages on the Jesus talk page

Anonymous IP messages on a talk page probably don't deserve the amount of information you are providing to counter, especially when the message was left 5 months ago. Also, images on talk pages are not common and unneeded as no registered, regular user has challenged your edits. I think it would be a good idea to remove the images from the Jesus talk page. - BrownE34 talk contribs 16:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply

I really don't know what you are talking about when yousay I took comments related to Harry's character. On Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, I copied the entire plot summary from en wiki, but since it was so long and used complex language, I hid the complex parts because I didn't have to chance to simplify them. --Isis §^(talk) 12:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh, that. I felt as if those comments weren't neutral.

On Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, I was just going to breifly summarize the book. I am also planning to add other sections, but put the plot first. --Isis §^(talk) 14:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your message on my talk page

Please don't put long messages on my talk page. I'm not interested in reading your ideas about religion or about Dan Brown on my talk page. If you have arguments about what the articles should say, please use the article talk pages (not my talk page) and try to keep your messages short. If you have reliable sources that support the idea that something was a hoax, put the sources as references in the article or talk about them on the article talk page.

I commented at Talk:Jesus about your reverts. Please revert back to my version or change the article in some other way, because now it is breaking the rule Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --Coppertwig 19:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

Okay, thanks. I think though that Jesus in Christianity might be more fitting, because Christianity is the only one of the three to consider him God. What do you think? -Ionius Mundus 04:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see how you did it. That works fine then. -Ionius Mundus 04:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

Hey there: Welcome back! Razor fla me 03:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the discussion on VGA criteria to Simple talk

Hello, I have moved the discussion on VGA criteria to Simple talk (here) just wanted to let you know; we might get more attention there too.--Eptalon (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making bigger changes

Hello Amandajm. If you make bigger changes to an article, consider using the {{inuse}} template, to flag it. This will avoid edit clashes. Thank you. --Eptalon (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only saw your first two changes; all I wanted to tell you was that it is good to use the template if you do make edits, one after another. This oftenm prevents edit conflict --Eptalon (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

Congratulations: You have been given a Barnstar!

For all the hard work you've done here.-- Lights talk 13:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timpani

I've replied on my talk page to your question. · Ty grrr... 14:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That painter

I have copied the article from EnWP; I went through and simplified about half of it, as I don't have more time at the moment. I might have a closer look tonight though. --Eptalon (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course welcome to make the article better; I am not that much into art, all i can do is copy articles across, and make the sentences simpler; I have no first-hand experience on it. --Eptalon (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		You are herby awarded this barnstar for fixing up the mistake I made, your postitve contributions to this Wikipedia (and your humorous take on things :) ) -- Da Punk '95 (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waterhouse

Hello there, just wanted to let you know I started an article on the painter Waterhouse. Some of his works, the one with Diogenes and his barrel are really well-known. --Eptalon (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi Amandajm. I wanted to talk to you about something that has concerned me for a while. I feel that your edit summaries come across sometimes as angry, rude, and/or shouting. I can give you specific examples if you aren't sure what I'm referring to. I would like for you to be mindful that you come across this way sometimes and I'd also like to remind you to remain civil and assume good faith in all aspects of interacting with other users (including edit summaries). Thank you. · Ty grrr... 15:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thank you for taking my reminder with such good grace. :-) Secondly, I fully understand and share your frustration at GAs and VGAs that aren't worthy of those titles. I would encourage you to be active in voting in the promotions of GAs and VGAs to help ensure quality. I know that it can be time-consuming to critically read the proposed articles, but it is the best way I know to express your dissatisfaction with the contents of the articles. You also might want to consider proposing articles for demotion. I'm not sure if you were around for the re-vamping of the criteria (I'm guessing not if you're unhappy about them), but it is my hope that having new proposals go through a more rigorous process will help the issue of quality. It is early yet, so we are still working out some of the kinks and are still discovering articles that retain a higher title but are perhaps not worthy of it. I think you could be quite helpful in this process and hope you'll consider participating.

As to how to be more polite in edit summaries, I would suggest simply stating the changes you have made, rather than pointing out an error that someone made. We all make mistakes; whenever I find myself frustrated at fixing others' mistakes, I try to remind myself that we're all volunteers here and that we all share the goal of improving an encyclopedia and sharing knowledge. I hope you find my insights to be helpful and thank you for reading my lengthy reply. Happy (continued) editing! :-) · Ty grrr... 22:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about communication

Amanda, I have more questions for you. First about how to communicate. I wrote a reply to you on the owls page but then I wondered if I could be sure you would go back to that, so I copied the message below. Can you tell me how communciation among editors works? (or tell me where it is already written).

I want to add something to the part someone else put in about owls in cultures. I live in Indonesia where owls are 'ghost birds.' Do I have to document the addition? It is common knowledge here, but I don't know a source I can cite.

Repeat from owl page: Thanks for your helpful comments and edits. It is very satisfying to have my work improved. I felt violated by the first edit. Your comments in both places are helpful and sensible, but I have questions about the placement of pictures. When I put that gallery of 4 owls after the first paragraph, I thought I was illustrating that there are many different kinds of owls in the world. It seems like appropriate introductory material. I even thought of expanding the gallery to 8 in order to illustrate that owls come from all over the world. The owl pellet pictures were in direct response to an English learner here who didn't understand the writing alone. In such cases, why not put the picture next to the information?Jimroberts (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

Congratulations: You have been given a Copyeditor's Barnstar!

For your hard work improving articles. Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 06:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I use different things to check articles, like Microsoft Word, and it said those things. I had learned the different things color vs. colour and such, but didn't get some of what you said. Thanks for the alert and I'll do better next time. God Bless! AmericanEagle 16:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asperger Syndrome gallery

Hi Amandajm, you seem to know a considerable amount about the relevance of the gallery "of interesting things" in the AS article. I was wondering, could you add some relevant text to the article which would help the rest of us understand the context of the images? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic Architecture

Just wanted to let you know, this article is currently a candidate to become a Good Article - It porbably has the potential for a very good one, but let's go one step at a time. --Eptalon (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If voting stays as it is, this article can be promoted to good status tomorrow. (with a 1/5 oppose). --Eptalon (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once you fell you are done, go have a look on the Proposed Good Articles page, and perhaps cast a vote. Thanks. --Eptalon (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caravaggio

Not sure if you are interested, but I have added a stub for Caravaggio (The painter from the Baroque era). I of course do not know how notable he is ocmpared to others of his time. The paintings he did look nice. --Eptalon (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Bird

Come on. I spent probably an hour on that. But I guess I was trying to go too fast and ruined some of them, so you weren't wrong. Anyway, good job on Billy Graham (I've noticed how things can get lost in translation), and Charles Spurgeon (I had just added that section and it wasn't very good). God bless you Amanda -- America ^†alk 05:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

Congratulations: You have been given a Barnstar!

For all the hard work you've done, I award you this Barnstar! -- America ^†alk 18:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome ;) -- America ^†alk 03:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery

I still fail to see why the gallery is relevant to 99.9% of the reading population. If you could explain why each picture would be of particular interest then I can see the encyclopaedic value, otherwise it's really not relevant to the reading public I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read what I wrote above - if an explanation of why each image has any relevance to the article can be provided then there'd be no problem. And as for "Wikimedia Commons exists to provide such images as learning tools." - true enough, but only if the images are used constructively and in an explanatory fashion, not a nebulous "some people may find these interesting!". And being an admin has nothing to do with my edit. This is a wiki, anyone can edit it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Testicle

Thanks for your recent edits to testicle! I've yet to go over them and other related edits, but they look of high quality. --Gwib^-(talk)- 23:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merged and redirected the clitoral hood with clitoris. Why not join my Wikiproject? You'll have plenty more "untouchables" to play around with, and you can be as harsh as you want with the edit summaries :). --Gwib^-(talk)- 09:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the project! --Gwib^-(talk)- 09:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An award for touching the "untouchables"!

Congratulations: You have been given a Barnstar!

Haha, Amanda. A round of applause for touching the "untouchables"! You've done a great, sexy job with them, haha. Cheers!-- Tdxi ang 07:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human

Please don't make major edits to proposed good or very good articles without first discussing it on the talk page. Not that your edits are bad, just when an article is being voted on major changes must be discussed first. Cheers. F S M 12:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Amandajm. You have new messages at The Flying Spaghetti Monster's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Florence Cathedral

My apologies, I'll be more careful. --Gwib^-(talk)- 10:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

I have replied on my talk page. --Eptalon (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pornography

Hi, At the top of the article it says "Pornography is created to make people sexually excited" and if you go to Erotic it says "In other words, if something is sexually exciting, then it is said to be erotic", so, pornography is erotic. It is a very thin line of opinion where you could say "If you feel erotic, you are not pornography but you could be". What I deleted said "think this" (ie persuasion), listing " 1, 2 ...is not pornography" (but all possible pornography). It was a sort of debate. I hope not to offend you as I respect your intentions and will not edit war with you. If I could remove the name "football" from "american" I would, not because I hate American Football, but because it is not foot (or even ball), and I like its original name Gridiron Ball. ~ R.T.G 13:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's all fornication. The boys never liked erotica and the girls never liked pornography. Fornication has only one sentence. When you have a see saw mebbe it should all go in the middle. ~ R.T.G 14:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goya

Hello, I have started to change an article on an "unknown" painter called Goya. Just wondered if you wanted to have a look, if you have the time? --Eptalon (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jesus

Just to clarify, on Talk:Jesus, by dark/brown-skinned, I don't mean negroid. --Gwib^-(talk)- 15:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my talk page. --Gwib^-(talk)- 06:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primitivism

First of all, thanks for your great work! I was wondering if you could create Primitivism when the you get a chance (no great rush, of course). I could take a stab at it myself but I thought you may want to do it. Your expertise seems to be in that area, and I know little about the topic. :) If not, no worries; thanks again for your contributions! Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PVGA

Great work on the articles you've brought there! I'm going through and leaving some comments on both now. Giggy (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Orange

Hi. I'm sorry, if it wasn't meant that way, but I found your message quite rude and offensive. I have to disagree it's not like such and such is more deadly than another (if it's deadly, it kills you anyway, no need to be more or less deadly). It is a very common belief that oranges are the highest source of vitamin C. It could have been another fruit in the intro, and it was just to make clear the belief was wrong. Anyway, I don't intend to revert you edits to it but would like to see more respect (again, if you didn't mean any offense please don't take notice, but in my terms it was offensive) but I know some people are naturally like that. Yotcmdr^{✼ Merry Christmas ! ✼} 16:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Instead of simply deleting an intrusive and distracting edit to the second sentence of an article, I wrote this editor an explanation for the deletion. It was neither rude nor offensive. My reply to the above is in his/her archive. Amandajm (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you again

Hiya Amandajm! It's nice to see you on Simple English Wikipedia again! Often we (the so-called regular community) forget that there are many long-time editors such as you still plugging away to make this a great project. Thanks for all your efforts over the years! fr33k man 09:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Since you've become active again, and since we didn't have rollback before and you are a trusted user here, would you like to have rollback added to your account? :) fr33k man 06:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done you now have rollback here. It is a bit different than other sites so please read WP:ROLLBACK before you use it. Cheerio! fr33k man 15:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Great work on helping me with lots of comments on The Brothers Karamazov, Amandajm! I reviewed them on the talk page, just in case you didn't see. Thanks for all your help! Classical Esther 02:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Done Reviewed your very helpful comments on talk page... Classical Esther 09:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

		The Changer's Barnstar
		For your wonderful edits on Chess. I'm trying to get it to GA so your edits are most appreciated! Thanks much! Happy editing, I-on\|^{I-Гalk \|I-PrФjecГ} 13:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asperger's

Thank you for checking that article and removing the dubious claims. Need more editors like yourself :) Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Changer's Barnstar
		Thank you very much for helping me with the Monarch (butterfly) article. Your changes made the article look so much nicer and helped promote it to GA status. Megan\|^talk_changes 21:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Monarch

I'm sorry for the late response. My internet has been acting up (again).

You and Esther were the only users that helped me with editing the Monarch article. Every little bit helps and I wanted to thank you with that barnstar. :)

I have never heard of such a strange behavior with your Monarchs. I have reared hundreds of butterflies from eggs (including Monarchs) and kept them as pets, but they had never shown any interest in me. I'm sorry I can't answer your question, but I'll look through my books and do a little research for you. I'll let you know if I find anything. Cheers, Megan|^talk_changes 02:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Jesus

Thank you so much for pointing that out to me. :) I've replied on my talk and fixed the article a bit along the lines you have mentioned. Please keep up the excellent work! Sincerely, —Classical Esther 02:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A book

Here is your own Wikipedia Book, the Pocket Edition. Also congratulations on having over 85% of your edits in the article space. Peterdownunder (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is a **Yeoman Editor** and has the right to show this **Wikipedia Pocket Edition**.

Arts-related articles?

Hello Amandajm,

as you porbably know this wikipedia is a bit "lacking" in arts-related (as in: artists, composers, painters,..) content. Since you have contributed (if not written) a great number of these articles, I turn to you. If my memory serves me, we currently have 87 "better quality" (GA/VGA) articles. About 50 of these are GA. I was thinking about proposing articles such as Gustave Courbet for GA. I do howeber lack an overview, so I do not know ehat we ideally should be looking for. I started a few articles on impressionist painters, but impressionism was quite recently ago (1870-1900)? - In short do oyu have ideas or propositions as to the topic? --Eptalon (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

Hi. I am running for admin and would like your vote. Thanks so much in advance because I know that no matter if you choose to oppose or support, that you are doing it for the good of the wiki Toboar (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patroller right added

Hello Amandajm, I trust you as an editor; for this reason, I have given you the "patroller" right. This means that all pages you create anew will be automatically patrolled. They wlil not show up in the log of unpatrolled pages. Patrolling of new pages has recently been introduced to SimpleWP. Thanks for your editing here. --Eptalon (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic architecture (2023)

Hi, I know you haven't been active here recently, but you wrote most of the Gothic cathedrals page, so I wanted to ask you a few questions.

The page did almost entirely focus on churches (mainly cathedrals), so what do you think of the move from Gothic architecture to Gothic cathedrals? Do you think the cathedrals can be seen as a subtopic of Gothic architecture?
What do you think about the existence of the new page Gothic buildings?
Somebody added a "more citations needed" tag to Gothic cathedrals, but I see that there is at least one reference in every section. Can everything be verified by the refs provided? If so, I can remove the tag.

Thanks! Lights and freedom (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page, both here and on the main page on Wikipedia should be called Gothic architecture.

Carving off a section and calling it Gothic cathedrals was a stupid, ignorant idea by a couple of individuals who caused me to abandon the Wikipedia page altogether.

These two also had a try at rewriting the page on English Gothic, and, I soon discovered, could not illustrate it, because they could not identify the styles they were writing about.

Th reason that the page contains cathedrals (and large Abbey and Pilgrimage) churches more than any other type of building is that is was only in these larg stuctures that pointed arches, ribbed vaults, flying buttresses, and traceried windows were required, or could be afforded. .

Smaller churches adopted the pointed arch for openings, but it was for stykitic rather than structural reasons.

Likewise, Gothic windows and doors became a fashion in town dwellings, in both France and Italy (but rarely in England).

And grand houses and palaces, as wll as town Halls took on the style and sometimes had ribbed vaulted great Halls. (In England they went for timber roofs)

Gothic also extended to castles.

But as a full-fledged architectural stle, Gothic was durstly an most completely expressed by the towering cathedrals thay were the guiding beacons of the Mediaeval landscape.

( apologies for my typos) Amandajm (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page should be renamed Gothic architecture.

It is absolutely clear that it was written by someone with expertise in the subject.

The page '''states clearly''' shat the Gothic style was '''primarily''' one of great churches and cathedrals, and that is exactly what is meant.

Wikipedia has a page that deals specifically with Romanesque '''non''' ecclesiastic architecture- houses, monastic buildings, town halls, warehouses, castles and the like.

It is a ground-breaking article, the first that I know of that ever looked broadly at domestic Romanesque. It's drawn from a very wide number of sources, and I hoped, when I wrote it, that it would inspire some student to do a thesis... or some such.

A similar article could be written both here and on the main Wikipedia page, sealing with non-ecclesiarical Gothic.

Thee area is very much wider- and could be divided into a number of pages- palaces, houses, monasteries, town halls etc. Amandajm (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]