User talk:SiefkinDR

		The Original Barnstar
		For your 60+ edits to and large reworking of the article...Have a star. — Reatlas (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this- I really, really appreciate it!SiefkinDR (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Napoleon III may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |title= Portrait of Napoleon III}}</ref> The Walters Art Museum.]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is it irrelevant to write about different names for the same colour used in the English language?

If you think that the information is in the wrong place, please explain why and do not delete it, move it. I have reverted your edits. Arms Jones (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Napoleon III, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chalons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ik

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for extensive article work, specifically relating to history and colors. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

As suggested by User:Iselilja, I nominate SiefkinDR as Editor of the Week. A veteran editor who has contributed with a major re-write of the Napoleon III article and contributions to the articles about the major colors (as well as many minor colors). Block-free work primarily on content with interests that vary from fountains to gardens, from France to Russia. He has worked on many, many articles (listed on his user page) and has autopatroller and reviewer rights. Editor of the Week was created to recognize under-appreciated content contributors, and Editor SiefkinDR certainly meets that description.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

SiefkinDR

Napoleón III (not Editor SiefkinDR)

Editor of the Week for the week beginning February 9, 2014

Adds "color" to an amazing array of Wikipedia articles. A jaw-dropping 98% of his 18000 edits are to article space.

Recognized for

Article editing

Nomination page

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thanks, SiefkinDR, but simply enjoying a stroll thru Paris in your footsteps... with my pockets filled with accents & cédilles: an enjoyable pastime:)--Blue Indigo (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

\Crillon vs French Navy ==

Bonjour!

Thank you for pointing out to me my - you're so kind & diplomatic :) - *small* mistake and, by doing so, probably avoiding an incident diplomatique between the concierges of the Hôtel de Crillon and Hôtel de la Marine, and the CEO of the Bal des Débutantes. Mistake corrected. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris&diff=615670633&oldid=615595849

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you might be interested in expanding this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour SiefkinDR! Thanks for your thanks. --Blue Indigo (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last two paragraphs of Middle Ages & Renaissance section

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris#Middle_Ages_and_the_Renaissance

having to do with reign of Louis XIV, should we not add something to title of section as Louix XIV was not a Renaissance king, the last one being Henri IV.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing it. --Blue Indigo (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SiefkinDR. FYI: Here's how to format repeated citations in an article. Warm regards, M2545 (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could not resist... --Blue Indigo (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- M2545 (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you deleted fire and beauty as common associations with the color red due to not being in a specific survey. However, these are still very common associations (especially fire) as stated in the citations I provided. Therefore, I personally believe they are worthy of mention and should not be excluded from the article. One survey isn't enough to determine the common associations of the color. [[User:Andros 1337|<span style="font-family : ine of Paris: 15th thru 17th century ==

Dear Siefkin!

Considering its length, should not the 17th century have its own section, thus leaving 15th & 16th together?

Regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siefkin, please go to my talk page for comment on your msg.

OK for your plans on centuries

Regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Siefkin - As you must have noticed, I followed your steps in 17th century Paris & have not gone any further - not much time.

It is a good idea to have sections for the 17th century; however, by dividing it between Louis XIII & Louis XIV, you skipped Henri IV who "owns" it until the day of his assassination on 14 May 1610. Moreover, projects undertaken by the 8-year old king Louis XIII & his mother immediately after the death of Henri IV were Henri IV's projects being continued.

Keep up the good work!

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Blue Indigo, Thanks for your very helpful edits and ideas. I would like to include Henry IV in the 17th C. but also keep the centuries intact, rather than organizing by reign; let me think about that one.

One question about the age of Louis XIV when his father died; he was born on 5 September 1638 and his father died on 14 May 1643- doesn't that make him four years old rather than five years old when his father died?

Please keep up your good work!

SiefkinDR (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Siefkin,

Born on 5 September 1638, Louis le petit, futur Louis le Grand, would have been five years old on 5 September 1643...

which means that,on 14 May 1643, the day his father died (Le Roi est mort),

L. XIV, the new king (Vive le Roi) was 4 years, 8 months & 9 days,

which means that you are correct,

and second time that you catch me.

You're sharp!

Henri Quatre has one foot in the 16th century & the other in the 17th, and he has so much importance in French history: first Bourbon king, he had to fight for the throne, put an end to the French civil wars on religion, and he was a great urbanist who would have transformed Paris & done a lot for the rest of the country. In other words, he was a very modern man. I am sure you'll come up with the right answer.

As for L. XIII, born on 27 September 1601, he was going to be nine on his birthday following the assassination (14.May 1610) of his father,

at which time he was 8 years, 7 months & 17 days.

Correct?.

The reason I am bringing up L.XIII's age at death of his father is because he was still very young & works done in Paris at beginning of his reign, Place Royale, Île Saint-Louis, for instance, were simply the continuation (undertaken by his mother) of his father's wide urbanisation projects in the capital, not to mention the rest of France.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Noticing you are working on it, so will stay away... Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siefkin,

If you care to use it, here is a great miniature enluminée, by Jean Fouquet, of the burning at the stake of the Amauriciens:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaury_de_Chartres#mediaviewer/File:Supplice_des_Amauriciens.jpg.

It shows how close the event took place outside the wall of Paris, and that king Philippe II was in attendance (!)

Maybe this should be put on Timeline of Paris talkpage. Please do it if you think it proper.

Bonne journée! --Blue Indigo (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

=

disappeared. Here is a subject for you! Métiers that dated back to the Middle Ages & still existed not long ago. Glad you decided to turn your attention to so many Paris subjects.

Blue Indigo? Because I love that color. Will go to your article on blue & see what I can learn there.

Cordialement,--Blue Indigo (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

efkin: I am having a problem with this:

The tower of Jean sans-Peur was never meant to stand alone; it was attached to a larger building, the grand corps of the Hôtel de Bourgogne, and served as main stairway, as well as a secure residential building. 'In this it was similar to, though smaller than, another medieval tower of the period, the massive tower of the Chateau of Versailles.'

Having a hard time figuring out where the massive medieval tower is at Versailles. I believe you meant that of another château or fortress. The Louvre? Vincennes?

--Blue Indigo (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you're right of course. I meant to say Vincennes. Best regards. SiefkinDR (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Adolphe Thiers may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• He returned to the Interior Ministry in 1834-36, and minister of foreign affairs in 1836) but remained in office for four years, became president of the council and, in effect, Prime

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] 

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Adolphe Thiers may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• captured. On 26 May, the fighting was centered in Belleville and around the Place de la Trone (now [[Place de la Nation]]. That day the Commune ordered the execution of thirty -six policemen
• After the resolution passed, Thiers was congratulated by his longtime friend and ally, [[Jules Simon}: "Now you just have to name a successor." Thiers responded, "but there's no one!" Simon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adolphe Thiers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Place Vendome. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I on|action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+typo+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3ABracketBot%7CBracketBot%5D%5D}} edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ===Bonaparte returns to France (October 9, 1799===
• * October 23: The Russian Czar [[Paul I of Russia|Paul I}} orders the withdrawal of Russian troops from the war against the French.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Whiplash (decorative art), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Water lily (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Fine Arts
		Barnstar for your work on all things Art Nouveau. Bosqw (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Art Nouveau glass art, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pliny and Symbolism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SiefkinDR, I am Amandajm. I want to explain my recent deletion, and also my immediate intentions

I am an elderly female retired college lecturer etc. You might wonder whether gender is relevant in this context. Believe me, it is. I almost entirely ceased contributing because of the ongoing harrassment of females on Wikipedia. .Since late 2014, when I went on sabbatical, a much younger female became so incensed she took her complaints to the BBC! Anyway, this explains why I haven't been around and doing the regular maintenance that I used to do.

I was alerted to the fact that there was a problem with theintroduction to the article Gothic archtecture by the fact that a serious error was regularly appearing in the You Tube articles posted by architectural students. They kept listing the defining features of Gothic architecture as the flying buttress and the ribbed vault. So I looked, and discovered that the intro had been considerably changed and that the pointed arch had slipped down the paragraph so that it was mentiond as "also the pointed arch". No. Primarily the pointed arch.

Hence, yesterday, I was sufficiently cross to delete the paragraph. Your present rewrite is an improvement.

However, all the simple information has slipped right down to near the bottom, in place of a very detailed description of the development of Gothic architecture in France, and with all the illustrations being of French builings. The information that you have included is all good, but all very detailed and all very one sided. Moreove, all the same information is included in the article to which you have contributed on French Gothic. It isn't required in that ammount of detail, in two places. Moreover, while I haven't read the entire addition, your illlustrations (and I presume the content) ignores the developments taking place in England at Durham, Wells and other places.

I am saying this because I intend to reorganise the sections. moving some of the more basic conceptual stuff back up to the top, and including your architectural ivisions in a simpler, but more universal form, leaving a link to the article to French gothic, which is now something more the way it should be. It will take a while to do this. Pleas dont be offended. Simplicity is of the essence with these major, generic articles. I also have to say I have a terrible keyboard, and poor eyesight. Lots of typos.

Amandajm (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo! Thank you for your message. You have certainly been busy! I am glad to see that someone has been working so hard. on so many architecture articles.

Seeing the fire at Notre Dame must have been a very distressing experience, particularly as it took some time to ascertain that most of the vault had remained intact and protected the interior.

Amandajm (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Exposition Universelle (1889), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Garnier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Exposition Universelle (1889), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Charles Garnier and Dampierre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6snzF-i5Sw

Amandajm (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited English Gothic architecture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King Stephen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited English Gothic architecture, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Henry VII and Boss (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that I am working hard on that article.

When you decided to work on English Gothic, I made suggestions on the TALK PAGE.

Now in this particular instance, you went to a section where you saw that I had left material, and a note to myself to incorporate Sens Cathedral into the text. I will get around to it in good time.

Meanwhile, I am very happy to receive suggestions.

I will be straight with you:

If I had not observed that absolutely essential information had been removed by your efforts, then I would not be working on it now.

And I am going o say again that the reason I observed there was a problem was because students were getting there assignments wrong.

Now whether back in the 1100s, Sens predated St DEnis by a year or two, or it was the other way around, and this is a matter of speculation..... THIS might have references to support it, but it is 'not the singularly most important fact about Gothic architecture on the whole.

It is a less important fact than knowing that a pointed arch means a building is Gothic, not Romanesque.

And I am talking here to somebody who put a picture of the highly Decorated lady Chapel at Lichfield and the spire at Salisbury both into the Early English section.

I don't want to have to keep rubbing this in, but what I am going to tell you is read, and look, and read and look.

Because without the looking all you know is History. THat is simply not enough for an Architectural Historian.

You have an interesting fact about the comparative dates of two buildings.

I have a head-full of information and a dozen book-sources that I am trying to co-ordinate into an article that will serve hundreds of students, and people who want to understand the topic.

Amandajm (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of most visited art museums, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Portrait Gallery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gothic cathedrals and churches, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Saint Bernard, Tympanum and Braine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Charles Trueheart has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone told you that there does not need to be hyperlink every time the name of a Wikipedia article appears in Wikipedia text? There shouldn't be more than one link to the same article in any one page. 19:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC) Another point is that galleries work best if the images all either portrait of landscape. That way it's easier to increase the size where necessary, though in most cases they should be the default size so they can resize properly. There is a difference between and <gallery>; multiple images do not resize at all on different windows, whereas the actual gallery template can do so. GPinkerton (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite true that shouldn't be more than one link to the same article in any one page. In particular, in long articles, if a term is linked in the lead or near, and then has more detailed coverage way lower down, it best to repeat the link. Usually two are enough. Johnbod (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rayonnant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Decorated (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using {{redirect}} does not create a redirect. Instead use #REDIRECT [[<target page>]]. CrazyBoy826 20:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rayonnant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fleuron (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SiefkinDR. I can't help noticing your practice of leaving one or more spaces after the end of sentence before a reference. This is incorrect and very frustrating to correct, please be more careful. I'm not sure why you don't format citations properly; it's very easy to do and Wikipedia will do it automatically if you just supply an ISBN, URL, or DOI. When you cite web sources, you need to include the URL and format it correctly. The same goes for books. Another thing is that you appear to be adding the phrase "columns or pillars" repeatedly to the rib vault article, but you're confusing the term pillar (which means the same thing as a column) with a pier, which is different: please bear this in mind! GPinkerton (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flamboyant, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Toledo, Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabelline (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SiefkinDR, I've enjoyed collaborating on the article on Flamboyant this month. Although I'm an expert on the subject matter, I'm only a novice when it comes to Wikipedia editing. Do you know what more would need to be done to get it to "Good Article" status? Is it developed sufficiently to request peer review at this point? Cheers, 208.104.49.81 (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - I've removed your tag as premature. There are still lots of tags, unreferenced secions, & the references used are mostly not the best. Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Johnbod, Thank you for your constructive feedback. I only contributed to some sections of the article, but I could help improve others in collaboration with fellow editors. I typically cite only peer-reviewed scholarly journals or books published by university or academic presses that I acquired while earning my doctorate in this field. Is there any way for more experienced editors to leave a "to-do" list that might help this article approach "Good Article" status? Thank you, 208.104.49.81 (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions are very welcome, but much of the article still lacks the minimum of 1 ref per para. The tags (many of which seem rather silly to me - and requiring a link rather than anything else) represent a sort of to-do list. The refs used are a very mixed bunch frankily; the weaker onesa should be upgraded. Sort these issues out before PR - this often doesn't get much input & takes a while, so you don't want to waste your shot on the glaringly obvious. I expect a lot of it would be improved by a rewrite using your refs. Johnbod (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree very much with what Johnbod says here. At the same time, I also urge you to remember what the Wikipedia Manual of Style says. " Wikipedia is not a textbook...."Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible. Academic language in the text should be explained in lay terms." Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a separate Simple English Wikipedia, so it is also necessary not to over-do it. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK reads to me as though the terminology is appropriate where not used for didactic purposes: "Introductory language in the lead (and sometimes the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic."

PR can at least be a test bed for that - the reviewers are mostly unlikely to be specialists & will say if they find the terminology difficult or unclear. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any disagreement with Johnbod on that. You don't have to write in simple English, just clear English. Keep up your good work! Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gothic architecture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Purbeck (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to combine the sections "Towers and Spires", "Height" and "Vertical Emphasis" since they cover much of the same territory. Interior height can be dealt with in the section on elevations. Comments and suggestions of course welcome. Cordially,SiefkinDR (talk)

Hi Siefkin - please use the Template:Cite_book template when adding to the bibliography. It makes things much easier. If you use the visual editor you can generate them automatically using the html, the doi, or the ISBN. GPinkerton (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you- I didn't know about that. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gothic architecture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tympanum.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for identifying the source of the material in your edit.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding a link and the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.S Philbrick(Talk) 12:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take another look at your latest revert. The Republic of China (aka Taiwan) hasn't controlled Tianjin, the city on the Bohai Sea eighty miles away from Beijing, since 1949. Cobblet (talk) 08:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gothic architecture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry VI.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the article on Early Gothic architecture - it popped up on my notifications because a long time ago I created William the Englishman, due to working on Frieze of Parnassus, which Johnbod will remember. Carcharoth (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gothic architecture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Shute.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Italian Gothic architecture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrea Pisani.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello
You wrote this much of this article back in 2010, and the text is substantially the same now as it was then. It has been flagged as a copyright violation; can you address that? I’ve left a note on the talk page there if you wish to comment. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited French Gothic stained glass windows, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Agincourt.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the correct year of Brisac, Catherine Le Vitrail? Short footnotes have it as 1985, bibliography as 1994, and ISBN links to 2000 edition. Please clarify. Thanks, Renata (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Brousse 1985" in Sens Cathedral a typo and should be "Brousse 2015"? Or is another work missing from bibliography? Suggest installing a script (explained at Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors) to highlight such errors in the future. Thanks, Renata (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sens Cathedral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henri de Gondi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see MOS:DATERANGE and use an endash and do not abbreviate years in date ranges. GPinkerton (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amiens Cathedral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles VI.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This 2012 edit by you inserted a citation to a book about cannabis and women into the Orange (color) article. But there are no references to cannabis (nor to this citation) anywhere in the article (then or now). Was there a point to your citation, or should I delete it (and the similar insertion in the Yellow article)? PS: I did notice you removed "a very imaginative hoax. Nice try, guys." from Yellow on the preceding day; perhaps you inserted one of your own? I'm impressed that it survived the 8 years until now! Gnuish (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Art Deco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jean Gaudin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Reims Cathedral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clovis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why has the spelling of "facade" in this arcticle been changed from the common English spelling to the French spelling "façade"? According to Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary on-line, "facade" is the correct English spelling, though they both note the French variant. The Wikipedia article on "Facade" also uses the English spelling, while noting also the French variant. We don't use French terms or spelling for the other features of the cathedral, such as flying buttresses and rib vaults. I think we should stick with the common English spelling. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've written this on your own talkpage, so it's good I've seen this. I added the ç, because my (English language) spell-checker shows the c form as incorrect. The Oxford English Dictionary I'm looking at (2nd ed., online) lists the word as façade, n.: a. The face or front of a building towards a street or other open place, esp. the principal front. Also attributive or as adj., of an architectural design concerned with elegance, etc., in the façade of a building alone. It also lists façadism n. the practice or principle of designing a building with elegance only in the façade. It supplies a number of quotations indicating usage from 1656 onwards. Only the 17th-century instance is spelt without the cedilla. Feel free to change them back though. GPinkerton (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bourges Cathedral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Visitation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bordeaux Cathedral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oliphant.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I revised the first sentence giving the dates of the period to comply with the Wikipedia manual of style. Technical terms should not be used in the first sentence of the lead. The reader should not have to go to two links to understand the very first sentence of the article. Thanks for your understanding. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on the article talk page. Middle Ages is not a technical term. Thanks for your understanding. GPinkerton (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Magi (Jan Mostaert) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to say how much I enjoyed your many works on Gothic architecture and cathedrals. Best wishes for the years ahead. --LilHelpa (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Metz Cathedral, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Exodus and Horeb.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Tell me why the list of 77 items, and not, say, 100? And where did you find a source for this list, the link given in the list to The Art Newspaper magazine lists only the 10 most visited museums?

I'm interested because I want to translate the list into Russian, but the Russian Wikipedia is likely to remove it without a source. JukoFF (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fréjus Cathedral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint Margaret.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SiefkinDR. For all your edits on Strasbourg Cathedral, you seem to be over-relying on a single book. Its thesis that the north tower was finished in 1490 (and not in 1439) is not supported by the Cathedral Foundation: https://www.oeuvre-notre-dame.org/web/ond/cathedrale-de-strasbourg/histoire-cathedrale/grandes-etapes/1419-1439-achevement-fleche. You also do not take into account the chronology of architects that is already in the article, and well sourced at that. Please do not rely solely on that single author!--Edelseider (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to find a compromise here between your version and the previous version. Alain Villes is a serious author, but so is Roland Recht; and Recht is a major figure of Strasbourg academia, which Villes is not.--Edelseider (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I certainly would like to see different sources, and appreciate your ideas and input. My goal is to expand the article with more complete sections on the interior and exterior features. and galleries of images for each part, comparable to the other articles on major cathedrals. Please jump in and Let me know if I get something wrong. Cordially SiefkinDR (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I absolutely will! About the architects, it is better to keep their German names (Claus von Lohre instead of Claus de Lohre, for instance) because nobody spoke French in Strasbourg at that time. All the best, --Edelseider (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Basilica of Saint-Denis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Louis VI.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Rodez Cathedral you included material copied/translated from the French Wikipedia. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of most-visited art museums, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aukland.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Basilica of Saint-Denis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madeleine.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to compliment you on your work and the addition of images to Sainte-Chapelle. Beautiful work. - tucoxn\^talk 15:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Basilica of Saint-Denis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles V.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tours Cathedral, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bourdon and Angevin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Toulouse Cathedral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romanesque.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Angers Cathedral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Angevin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Angers Cathedral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ciborium.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Reims Cathedral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clovis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have again reduced the excessive picture sizes in Île Saint-Louis (and fixed some other mistakes). You chosen sizes were so big, that it took over the whole article, even on my desktop. In fact, those sizes would be unmanageable for people using smaller screens, like smartphones etc.. There is a reason for the standard thumb size. Everybody is still able to double click on those thumbs to see the full picture. The Banner talk 13:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you completely missed the point about the pictures sizes. So, I have to do it again. Have mercy with people with small screens. The Banner talk 12:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The images you've put in are much too small, and look terrible You can't see any detail without enlarging them. 200px is the standard size for images in architecture and Paris articles, and has been for years. Please look at Notre-Dame de Paris and Chartres Cathedral. And please don't change them![. I don't think architecture articles should are written for those who have the smallest possible screens. One size does not fit all. (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

So you plain do not care about people with smaller sized articles? Even when the excessive big pictures take over their full screen and a bit more? Very user friendly... The Banner talk 14:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I do, but what is "excessively big"? This size gallery is very commonly used, particularly for architecture articles. Why not compromise and accept the size used in the other cathedral articles, such as Notre-Dame de Paris and Chartres? And why not fit the shape of the box to the shape of the image as other articles do? Why put vertical and horizontal images in square boxes? It's a waste of space. There's room to compromise on this. Please make a suggestion. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever tried to look up an article on a normal phone? And the norm should be that everybody can read a Wikipedia article. Not a select group. The Banner talk 14:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I have not consulted Wikipedia on a telephone. I'm sure it works well for looking up facts, but for appreciating art or architecture I think you need a bigger screen. Reading an architecture article on a phone seems to me like watching "Raiders of the Lost Ark" on I-phone. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And because you never tried it, you decide to exclude everyone who uses a device with a small screen or poor eyesight. I think you are the one missing something. The Banner talk 15:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at packed galleries, those of Chartres Cathedral, on my wife's phone, which is not a fancy one, and I didn't have difficulty seeing the images. They didn't explode or look strange.

The main problems I have with your galleries is the size of the images; they are very hard to see; much smaller than in other articles on similar topics, and they have a lot of white space I think a major contributing factor is your placement of horizontal and vertical images into square boxes, which wastes a of space, and makes the images even smaller and harder to see. If you don't want to use packed galleries, it's very simple to put the vertical images into vertical boxes, and horizontal ones into horizontal boxes; it doesn't take up any additional space, and it looks much better.

I'm sure we can get this articles, and others, into a form the satisfies both of us. We were working on a common project, and we'll be doing this for a long time. THEre are a lot of articles to do. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Île Saint-Louis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Adam Czartoryski and Michelle Morgan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lutetia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rue Saint-Jacques.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lutetia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Clovis and Saint Martin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jardin des plantes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Perouse.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jardin des plantes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iris.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National Museum of Natural History, France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dolomite.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Conciergerie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gothic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have issues with your work, but despite that I really don't think there's a better person I could work with on the Palace of Versailles than you. So I want to propose a collaboration on Versailles all the way to FAC, which is my ambition. I lack, however, subject matter expertise, French fluency, and access to (printed) French-language sources. Based on my observation of your work for the last 2-3 years, I think you have all three of those in spades. What do you think? Let's work out a productive and efficient method for combining the fruit of both of our sandboxes. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Conciergerie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montagnard.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Château de Vincennes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry IV.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just finished reading Paris in the 18th Century: the work you've done there is amazing, down to explaining the context of city developments (something sorely lacking from most 'historical' publications on the subject).

The next time you're in the area, be sure to let me know. Again, bravo!

TP ✎ ✓ 18:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tuileries Palace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry IV.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tuil