User talk:Neoclassicism Enthusiast

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Bust (sculpture) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alexander II

History of art (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Calyx

Perfume (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Etruscan

Vase (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Calyx

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Door (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mascaron

History of art (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Greek key

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Cropping

You MUST crop many pictures of museum objects before using them - this is very easy to do with the Commons crop tool. Johnbod (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Door (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nancy

History of architecture (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ostia

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Please read and RESPECT WP:ERA

and don't mix styles. Also please don't spell out "circa" in captions - use "c.". Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

History of art (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Columbus, Farmington, Williamstown, Huston and Realism

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Little help please?

Hey, thanks for your edit on the Eyes of Sibiu article.

Seeing as you are an enthusiast of Neoclassicism, I wanted to ask if you could please help me with identifying the architectural style of this building that I've used on the same article. Is it Neoclassicism or Renaissance? It is hard for me to distinguish between these two styles, since they share a lot of common features, like pediments, quoins, rounded arches, columns (like doric ones), etc. How does one distinguish between them? Lupishor (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Photo that shows how decorated Roman architecture can be

Well, It’s Neoclassical. Renaissance architecture was created based on Roman, and Roman architecture tended to be much more decorated than Greek. Neoclassical buildings and artworks tend to be more Greek inspired. The use of the Doric order and the low level of ornamentation are specific to Neoclassicism. It may even be Greek Revival (an architectural movement of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, which revives Ancient Greek architecture)

Comparison between that building and Greek Revival buildings

• File:SibiuEyesAndDoricColumns.png
• 
• 

I the type of window of that building is called eyebrow window.

See also these 2 pages on which I have massive contributions: History of architecture and History of art. I also live in Bucharest and talk Romanian. If it’s easier for you, we can talk in Romanian. See also my posts on Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Neoclassicism_Enthusiast&ilshowall=1 . I hope I’ve helped you :-) --Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Neoclassicism Enthusiast: Thanks for your explanation. We can use Romanian if you'd like, but English works just as good for me. :)

So, from what I understand, Renaissance architecture is much more decorated than Neoclassical one, right? I am still kinda confused. This house, as well as this one, are also described as (at least partially) Renaissance. But they are not that heavily decorated.

Also, what about this palace? Is it Renaissance or Neoclassical? I guessed Renaissance, because it has a dome, first of all, which according to Wikipedia is one of the key features of Renaissance. It also has rounded pediments and arches, which are also typical to Renaissance.

I'm currently improving the Sibiu article and I'm planning to add an "Architecture" section, but as you can see, I'm not an expert. Thanks for your help and I hope I am not disturbing you. :) Lupishor (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

You are not disturbing me. This house, as well as this one, are also described as Renaissance most probably because they ere built in the Renaissance period (circa 15th-16th centuries). I’m not shore, but they may be in the German Renaissance style. Neoclassical buildings and objects like furniture, metalworks, ... tend to be more geometrical, like ancient Greek stuff. A style similar with Renaissance Revival is Neo-Baroquem and this palace is Neo-Baroque. You can look at some pictures on the page about Baroque Revival architecture and see some characteristics that make you recognise this style. Also, Baroque Revival architecture has (probably always) mansard roofs.--Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for your explanations.

Do you happen to know if there is any kind of forum where architectural styles of buildings can be discussed/identified? I've looked it up, but found nothing. I really want to improve the Sibiu article, but I don't want to spread misinformation by messing up architectural styles. There are many buildings I want to add, but their architectural styles are confusing me.

Thanks for your help! :) Lupishor (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know any forums about architectural. The main ways I’ve learned how to recognise styles are by reading about styles and looking at pictures with buildings in certain styles. You can also ask me if you aren’t shore about in what style a certain building is. Also, if you want to make a small gallery, I recommend you use this template:

File:, and at the and

. It makes the reader see much more details and make the page look more beautiful. Just look at History of art or this one, and see how it looks.--Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for offering your help. I will ask you then, if I need something again. Should I ask you here or is there another place where you'd like to talk?

Also, thanks for the gallery hint, I am planning to add some galleries to the Sibiu article, I will see what template works better. Regarding your methods of distinguishing architectural styles, I've also looked at pictures, but I often get confused by styles that share common features, like with Neoclassicism, Renaissance, Greek Revival, maybe even Baroque sometimes. I've also read about styles, but I feel like they aren't documented very well on the internet when it comes to their specific features, or at least not when it comes to distinguishing architectural styles from one-another. Lupishor (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

You can write here if you need help.--Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi again. About that palace: Are you sure it's Neo-Baroque? I've googled Neo-Baroque architecture and it seems different to me; never seen such a dome on Baroque/Neo-Baroque buildings. My other guess was Renaissance Revival, but doesn't really look like it either. Its Wikimedia page says it is Eclectic including Neoclassicism; I do see some Neoclassical elements, like pediments and pilasters, but from what I've found on the internet, Neoclassical architecture doesn't use domes. Lupishor (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m not very very shore. It may be EclecticNeoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, Neo! I think you were right about that palace; it is Neo-Baroque.

I wanted to ask if you could please help me identify if the following buildings from Sibiu are Renaissance or not. I've once asked you above whether the Haller House is Renaissance. You said you're not sure, but isn't its entrance, at least, Renaissance? I've seen multiple websites stating the house is built in the Renaissance style.

I've also seen this building (Pharmacy Museum) being called Renaissance, because of its arcades. If it is, indeed, Renaissance, does this also apply to these two buildings to its left? What about these two on its right? That whole part of Sibiu – called the Lesser Square/Piata Mica – has got similar looking arcades.

I have also found some buildings outside of Piata Mica that seem to have Renaissance Revival arcades/arches to me. There is this museum, this hospital and this Orthodox church. Their arches seem similar to some of the buildings shown on the Renaissance Revival architecture article. Could they be Renaissance Revival?

That's it. Was quite a lot of buildings this time. I really hope I'm not disturbing you. :) Lupishor (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Haller House’s entrance looks extremely Renaissance. The other houses are categorised as being Renaissance because they were built during the Renaissance (circa 15-16th centuries). This museum and this hospital are Neoclassical. You can find out in what style a building is by the period/year it was built. The ones with Greco-Roman elemnts, from the end of the 18th century and early to middle 19th century are Neoclassical.Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Are you sure the other houses I've shown you (the ones in Piata Mica) are not Renaissance except for the period they were built? I've seen their architecture (their arcades) being described as Renaissance on a site, but also as Gothic. Also, thanks for the tip with the period/year of construction, but I was already aware of that, that's why I thought that the hospital and the museum might be Renaissance Revival; because that style was also active in the 19th century, like Neoclassicism. The Ortodox church is from the 2000s, but I thought its arcades could be an element of Ren. Revival architecture. There is also a building I forgot to ask about: this one. Is it Neoclassical or Ren. Revival? Its pediments and pilasters indicate that it's probably Neoclassical, but it also uses a kind of dome, if you can call it so. Some of its features seem Ren. Revival to me though, namely the quoins and the balcony, at least when comparing it to this building from the Ren. Revival Wikipedia article. You can also see it here; it was built in 1879, which is also the period of the Ren. Revival style. Lupishor (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

This one may be Neoclassical. It is very similar with Creditul Rural from downtown Bucharest, built in the late 19th century: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Creditul_Rural.jpg . About the houses in Piata Mica, I’m not shore.Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Illustrations at Hathor

Hello. I raised a question about image choices at Talk:Hathor#Images in iconography section, and I just wanted to make sure you saw it. A. Parrot (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I’ve seen it.Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Faience

I've reverted your multiple image here. It exemplifies all your worst faults as an editor, so I'm going to take the trouble to explain my thinking in some detail. As usual, the images are all good ones, as images, but:

1) Most need a crop - this is easy to do on Commons with crop tool

2) It is a multiple image, which should be avoided without a special reason, if only because

3) there are no captions, which should never happen.

4) your lack of knowledge of subject is, as very often, shown by your choices; they are a terrible representation of "faience".

5) the first two images are not faience at all, but the totally different ancient Egyptian faience (which you'd know if you bothered to read the article)

6) 5/6 images are of figures, which have always been a very minor part of faience production compared to tableware & decorative vessels, though obviously you find it more interesting.

7) In particular the two Dutch photos, apart from being too similar, are untypical

8) You have 2 Egyptian (not even relevant here), 2 Dutch (almost identical in date) and 2 French pics - nothing from other countries

9) In all, it is a selection of images you happen to like, without any thought given to how well the represent the subject

You may well find other changes by you being reverted without much explanation. Rest assured there will be reasons, and they may well be similar to those above. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Changes to Maya Art illustrations

Hi. You made changes of two sorts to the figures accompanying the Maya art article: removing existing ones and adding new ones. In neither case did you provide any explanation as to why.The existing illustrations had been carefully chosen and an overload of illustrations carefully avoided. So please explain your moves!Retal (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I’ve chosen them in order to make the reader better understand the Mayan style, and to make the page look like a book. Most Wikipedia pages tend to have too little images.Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear Enthusiast, your answer does not explain why you removed certain illustrations, nor why an electronic encyclopedia page should look like a book (or should one say, picture book). You removed the picture of a stela, perhaps the most important and characteristic of all Maya art genres. You replaced the picture of a folding book by the picture of a page from a folding book, so that the notion of "folding book" is no longer explained by the picture. The added pictures give the impression of having been picked at random, without any consideration. For example, the genre of the stucco portrait is now illustrated by four pictures, whereas one picture can do the work. Moreover, if someone wishes to get a better understanding of Maya art styles, there are plenty of possibilities, both within and outside Wikipedia; whereas too many pictures in an article make it harder to get a quick overview of the text. Unless you come up with some very good reasons for the changes, I intend to reverse them.Retal (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I obviously come up with some very good reasons for the changes, otherwise why would I do it? Just readd the former pictures together with the ones which are now and that it.--Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Neoclassicism Enthusiast flits from article to article, very boldly adding images that are always high quality technically & visually attractive (though often insufficiently cropped), but chosen purely on that basis, and rarely very representative (see previous section). Do as you will with them, he will have gone off somewhere else. But in this case I don't agree there are too many images in total - for a visual subject there were too few before. There is still no lead image, nor anything for the section below. The article looks neglected frankly - the lead is far too short, and the title seems wrong (is there any modern Maya art?). The old captions weren't that informative. I wouldn't fully reverse them, but restore images that have been removed & keep most of his additions. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a helpful comment. I will expand the lead (you mean introduction to the article, I assume). There is no lead image since it would conflict with the "Maya Civilization" column to the right. I added an image for the Maya art history section. As to the article's title, there is bound to be modern Maya art, however defined, and however incipient, and just as "the Maya" can be ancient as well as contemporary, so it is with their art. Sorry to be so insistent. By the way, I will further explain my doings on the Talk page of the article.Retal (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Baroque. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Mița the Cyclist House moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Mița the Cyclist House, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 20:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I saw. Yesterday evening I was very tired and I’ve written that article before going to bed, and I wanted to add more information and references in the morning, so please reupolad it and I’ll add more information and sources.--Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 10:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Persian art into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 21:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Neoclassicism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chimera and Antiquity.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Neoclassicism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chimera and Scarab.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 03:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Mița the Cyclist House

Hello, Neoclassicism Enthusiast. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Mița the Cyclist House".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Art Nouveau in Transylvania

Hey, Neoclassicism Enthusiast.

As you may or may not have seen on the Art Nouveau article, I want to add a short reference to Transylvanian Art Nouveau, which KIENGIR is preventing me from doing, using some reasons that make no sense. He literally accuses me of "conflating the present and past, which may lead to confusion", which he claims in "unprofessional". This would obviously not lead to any confusion, since I clearly mentioned that Transylvania was part of Austria-Hungary back then. Additionally, Finland and Riga also have their own sub-sections despite having been part of Russia. Could you please express yourself on this matter? I am convinced there's nothing wrong with the edit I want to make; maybe if you explain it to him, he will finally understand. Lupishor (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

His argument is that at that point, Transylvania was part of Austro-Hungaria, and the Transylvanian Art Nouveau is exactly like the one from Hungary, and the section about Romanian Art Nouveau refers only to the one from the Old Kingdom (Moldova + Walachia). I also don’t understand why you try so much to make this edit. If I were you, I wouldn’t care that much if someone would delete something that I’ve written. Sometimes I may make a constructive and good edit, and someone would delete it, and I wouldn’t care that much. My advice is just to pass over this and do something else. This is what I do when I am in your situation.--Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, but I don't understand how you can agree with someone removing constructive edits that you make. As long as they're good (they improve the article's quality) and correspond with Wikipedia's norms, I wouldn't simply "not care" about them being removed. Lupishor (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 13

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of architecture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Klein.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Louvre

@Neoclassicism Enthusiast: You are making an absolute killing on the Louvre article, good job! If you are planning to bring it to FA, then I would be more than happy to help you do so. Wretchskull (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I’m not really planning that. I’ve added galleries to the sections about the departments because the general gallery section that was there before my edits was too small and too focused on paintings ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Louvre&oldid=1010897132 ). One of the reasons why I’ve added them is because maybe somebody wants to visit the Louvre, and they want to see some representative artworks and see what too look for, or maybe wants to make some kind of a virtual tour. Most of my edits consist of adding better pictures or small galleries to pages. Sometimes, I also add sections or information, usually on pages about art or Bucharest (the city here I live), an example being the section about Romania on the page about Art Nouveau. Similar with the galleries on the Louvre page, I’ve added a gallery on the page about the Cantacuzino Palace on Calea Victoriei (Bucharest, Romania). However, this doesn’t that mean that besides pictures I wouldn’t add information. So, if I would know how, I would bring the Louvre page to FA, and you can help me if you want. (I hope this reply wasn’t too long)--Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Neoclassicism Enthusiast: Sorry for the late response. I would be more than happy to help you get it to FA. I need to point out that there are too many images for Louvre to be a FA. Only the best/most significant and important images should be shown; preferably only one row of images instead of multiple in each gallery, as I see that quite a lot. The next step would be cleaning up per MOS guidelines, grammar check, and so on. My biggest concern, however, is that many sections seem uncompleted and could be expanded, not to mention some of the references used in the article seem somewhat unreliable or that better ones definitely exist. I assume you may have access to better references with books, JSTOR, or on Google Scholar. Regardless, if you managed to finish all of this, you can put it through peer review before FAC. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok. The page History of art was about 2 months ago in a similar situation (too many pictures), and I’ve reduced their number, in the idea that if somebody is really interested into finding out more about a certain style/movement, they can access the page about that style. So, I will clean the galleries of Louvre page.Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• You've made some very odd choices of what to keep now! Wretchskull, let's be honest, Neoclassicism Enthusiast is a picture guy, not a text guy. An FA on this would get a lot of scrutiny, & there is a way to go yet. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Lahovari House moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Lahovari House, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Changes made to History of Architecture

I recently stumbled upon all of your contributions on the History of Architecture page. Brilliant stuff. Absolutely appreciate it. Also noticed that you recently moved a few post Renaissance styles to 'Worldwide'. I think that's a great idea. I was wondering if we could add more global examples (especially North American since they have a lot) to replace a few existing ones. Please let me know your thoughts on that. Oh and I had added "early modern" section to Indian as well. I wonder if those should be moved to worldwide (especially considering the European influence). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunullas (talk • contribs) 11:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I’ve seen your edits on the Indian architecture section, and they surprised me. I new that there are multiple types of Indian buildings, mostly because of differences in religion, but I didn’t knew that there are that many types. I appreciate how you try to promote the heritage of the Indian Subcontinent. I try to do the exact same thing with Romanian stuff. That’s why I’ve added the section about Brâncovenesc architecture (basically medieval Romanian architecture), and various Romanian examples in the galleries of the sections. Usually art and architecture books, when talking about medieval stuff, tend to be focused just on Romanesque, Gothic and a bit on Byzantine, neglecting Eastern Europe. Another thing that I appreciate is that, just like in the rest of the page, you’ve added small galleries to each sections, and not just text.

The only problem, is that, just like at the History of art page, the sections of the one on architecture are based on styles and periods, not on geographical regions. That’s why there are separate sections for Pre-classical (Minoan & Mycenaean), and Classical & Hellenistic, and they are not just combined together into a section dedicated just to Greece. Yesterday evening, while I was looking at your edits, I was thinking of moving Harappan, Hindu, Buddhist, and Rock-cut style, to the big section for ancient architecture, and the same for medieval Indian stuff to the section for medieval styles. I would also move Indo-Islamic to Islamic architecture, since is just the Indian type, and the text of Indo-Saracenic to Revivalism and Orientalism (I say the text, because each picture of the gallery illustrates a certain Revivalist style).

I decided to create the big section for worldwide styles, because since the Baroque, all the styles that will appear in Europe will be global ones, and not reserved just to the Western world. The examples in the galleries of these sections were chosen based on how illustrative they are for the style, and how beautiful they are, so the reader will be able to recognise and understand easy and fast the styles. But, the text and the gallery of a section must to be short and easy to understand, because this page is about the history of architecture, and not a distinctive style or region. I find some sections of the Indian part a bit too detailed and focused on geography and not on styles. --Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I like your idea of just sticking to timelines. However, we would really need to think about how we move the rest of it. As you can observe, I've arranged Indian into various time periods, so they'll be easy to move. But I'm not sure how we could adjust the East Asian and African styles. For the Americas, I think it's best to leave them as is, because their timeline doesn't fit into our "Old World" Afro-Eurasian timeline. I checked out the History of Art page. Even that one is split between time and geography which isn't uniform. As for architecture, yes, let's move Harappan, Hindu, Buddhist, and Rock-cut style to ancient. But if we create a medieval section, Indian, European, and other styles will create a massive amount of subsections. Do let me know how I can help! :)

I still tend to think that the Indian sections should be moved. The cases of East Asian, American (Pre-Columbian), African and Oceanic sections is different, because these styles didn’t really change until European colonialism. Similar with Europe, the Near East, the Middle East and India had different types of architecture based on period. For example, in Mesopotamia (the region), you have Mesopotamian, Roman and other Ancient styles, and later, in the Middle Ages, you have Islamic architecture.

• 
  (Mesopotamian & Ancient) Reconstruction of the Ishtar Gate (circa 575 BC) in the Pergamon Museum
• 
  (Roman & Ancient) The Roman Theatre of Palmyra (Syria), 2nd century AD
• 
  (Islamic & Medieval) The Great Mosque of Damascus (Syria)

Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair point. So shall we do it like this:

2 Antiquity 2.1 Mesopotamia 2.2 Harappan 2.3 Ancient Egyptian 2.4 Ancient Buddhist 2.5 Ancient Hindu 2.6 Rock-cut style (for this, there are several global examples) 2.7 Greek 2.7.1 Pre-classical 2.7.2 Classical and Hellenistic 2.8 Etruscan 2.9 Achaemenid 2.10 Roman

3 Medieval 3.1 Byzantine 3.2 Romanesque 3.3 Gothic 3.4 Russian 3.5 Brâncovenesc 3.6 Dravidian 3.7 Kalinga 3.8 Maru Gurjara 3.9 Deccan 3.10 Bengali 3.11 Nilacha 3.12 Himalayan 3.13 Meitei 3.14 South-East Asian 3.15 Chinese 3.16 Korean 3.17 Japanese

4 Islamic 4.1 West Asian and North African 4.2 Indo-Islamic 4.3 Other (to showcase other parts of the world like Sahelian and Sino-Islamic)

5 Renaissance

As for moving Indo-Saracenic to the other section, I agree. As for the Sikh bit, it's a mix of Islamic and Maru-Gurjara styles. And especially in its latter stages, had European influence as well. I reckon this can be moved too.

Yeah, that’s a good order.--Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that you've removed a lot of the sections. For instance Dravidian is missing while Kalinga exists. This would be like removing Gothic but keeping Russian styles. Could you kindly let me know what thee plan is?

Disambiguation link notification for July 11

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the History of Architecture

I noticed a lot of changes made to the History of Architecture page.

I reckon this is due to the need of reducing the size of the article, but it makes it overly Eurocentric.

Proposed changes: - Shift a bit of European architectural style information to their main articles (for instance shifting heavy details of Greek and Russian styles to their main articles if they're unique to the page) - Make very concise sub headings like Dravidian (which absolutely needs to exist), Himalayan, etc. but keeping just a few sentences - Splitting info on Sub-Saharan Africa into Sahelian, Ethiopian, etc. without actually removing or adding content - Korean was removed, but this is important. Perhaps Chinese can be changed to Sinosphere and add a few lines about Korean (Korean had huge influences from China) - Take Khmer away from East Asia and make a South-East Asian section for it (Meitei and Burmese styles can have one sub-heading since those styles are derived from one)

If the idea is to keep it below 160kb, it can still be doable. Please advise.

The main reason why I made my last edits is that the page was already considerably too long, just as how Johnbod said. I reduced many sections, not based on the region, like for example the Ancient Greek section, that has less text and less pictures, stripped to essentials. The same applies to the section for Ancient Egyptian, and any other section of the page (except the ones for modern styles, that I haven’t reedited yet). The length of a section is highly based on how influent a style was on the world, how well known it is, and how much it is presented in books on architecture history.

I am a Wikipedia editor for about 4 years, and over time I started to have higher standards for what I write and publish. I have many books in my bedroom on topics like architecture, art, history etc, and I almost always use them to know what to write, what to delete or keep, the style of writing etc. As you can see, all the sections of the page edited by me have references, that specify where I took the information from. I have used them in my last edits, also to know what section to keep, what to delete, and what to shorten, using mostly The Short Story of Architecture, by Susie Hodge, ISBN 978-1-7862-7370-3 ( https://www.amazon.com/Short-Story-Architecture-Buildings-Materials/dp/1786273705 ), which is just like how the page should be, a short story of architecture.

I don’t have any bias for Western styles, and the book talks about Western, Asian, and Worldwide styles. The sections that I kept are mostly the ones that are also in most architecture books which have a global view (not focused just on styles that appeared in the West). Just as you can see, the sections for Buddhist, Hindu and Kalinga architecture are on the page, and I have also added pictures and information. Each picture on this page (besides designs and the one with the painting from the lead section) must have the name of the building, the location, the years when it was built, and the architect (if known). The length of the sections must be based on how long other sections for styles with similar relevance are, like for example:

• 
  The Great Stupa of Sanchi *The Name* (Madhya Pradesh, India) *The Location*, 3rd century-circa 100 BC *When it was built*, *The architect (that was’t added here because it’s unknown)*

Each section should have 4, 8 or 12 pictures, based on how influential they are on future styles, and if the pictures used are illustrative for the style. The sections kept are for the styles that are distinctive, and that can be spotted easy. This is why for example there is the Khmer section, and isn’t a different one for South-East Asia. If someone is interested in regional styles, they can read the pages dedicated to architecture of a certain region. There are also these two templated for this:

So, in conclusion, if you want to add sections, do it for styles that are distinctive and that can be spotted easily. Korean architecture isn’t quite a distinctive style, being pretty similar with Chinese and Japanese (more with Chinese). If the sections for Dravidian, Tibetan etc, are stripped to essentials, with reference, with 4 or 8 pictures (that have the name, the location, when it was built, and the architect if it’s known), then add them. I think the splitting of the Africa into the Sahelian and Ethiopian is a good idea, since Africa is a big continent, populated by groups of people with distinctive cultures. The problem with Meitei, Burmese and other styles like them is that they are pretty niche, and the page History of architecture must be about influential, well-known, distinctive and important styles. Again, I don’t have a bias for styles that appeared in the West. If you have problems with how to write, how long a section should be etc, just look at other reedited sections of the page, or ask me.--Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for the detailed response. I understand the points you've made and the need to move against regional styles and include the more influential styles. I'll take those into consideration while creating a more focused writing. In the next few days, I'll send you a plan of what I can help with. Dravidian for instance, is an absolute must, as this style has influenced architectural styles of Southern India as well as South East Asia. Himalayan too is unique and influential. For everything else that's not entirely distinct in that sense, I think they can be added as links for regional forms within a section perhaps. I'll make subgroups within Africa as discussed. What are your thoughts on the Sinosphere (instead of Chinese) idea and having a link for Korean there?

I think that the Sinosphere idea is good, because, besides Korean architecture that is pretty similar with Chinese, there are buildings in Vietnam that look Really Chinese, like the Temple of Literature in Hanoi, or the Imperial City of Huế. I don’t really know, but Mongolian architecture may also be very close with Chinese. So yeah, I think it’s a good idea.Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes. I live in Vietnam. Hanoi architecture (and northern in general) is quite Chinese. I've been to the central portion where Cham architecture takes a surprisingly Dravidian form (Shiva worshippers etc) and in Hue where it resembles structures with Khmer as well as Chinese influences. Hoi An on the other hand has a tonne of Chinese and Japanese style buildings and structures. Further south, it's very much Khmer-like. This is cause Vietnam's geography is rather weird. Mongolian from what I've understood, can really vary with Tibetan style forts and many other buildings have influences from China on the other hand.

Hi, just a belated note: in the future, could you keep this kind of discussion about article content to the talk page of the article (Talk:History of architecture)? Not reproaching this, just noting that article talk pages are meant for precisely this kind of stuff. Having it here is not ideal and makes it harder for editors to find. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Culture of Greece

added a link pointing to Aqueduct

History of architecture

added a link pointing to Aqueduct

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Akkad.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Córdoba.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Constructivism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Lahovari House

Hello, Neoclassicism Enthusiast. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lahovari House, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

Hello, I'm GenoV84. I noticed that you recently removed content from History of art without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. GenoV84 (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I removed it because there were too many pictures and I wanted to put 2 images for each period, this way the viewer understanding why Ancient Greek art is split into Geometric, Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic.--Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I suggest you to move those pictures in another section of the article (or more sections, if necessary) without deleting content. Since unexplained massive edits are very frequent, they could be interpreted by other users as disruptive rather than in good faith; please provide edit summaries for your edits. GenoV84 (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Lahovari House

Hello, Neoclassicism Enthusiast. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Lahovari House".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Romney.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lahovari House has been accepted

Lahovari House, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

To many images

Articles with many images will time out on mobile versions of Wikipedia. Ideally, a page should have no more than 100 images (regardless of how small) MOS:ACCIM.--Moxy- 13:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Turret (architecture), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Châtelet.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Gothic Revival architecture

Hi, the page is primarily about architecture, not the decorative arts. And we trying for an encyclopaedia, not a picture book. You can, of course, start a page on Gothic Revival decorative arts, which would have much more scope for your images. KJP1 (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

If you’d engage and discuss, we could likely work something out. But you don’t. KJP1 (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I will start the Gothic Revival decorative arts page. Initially I added it to the Gothic Revival architecture page because it wasn’t enough for a page dedicated only to decorative arts, but now it is. Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Weeb on Japonisme

I saw 'weeb' linked on the further reading for Japonisme and laughed myself into hiccups. Thought it was funny enough to dig through the edit logs to see who did it so I could come pay respect. Liastnir (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanx! ^_^ Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

CS1 error on Polychrome

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Polychrome, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Polychrome

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Polychrome, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL" error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Romanian architecture into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Nobody (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Polychrome

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Polychrome, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Medallion (architecture)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Medallion (architecture), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mascaron (architecture), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Keystone.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Acroterion, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nike and Aura.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Acroterion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Silen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Interlace (art), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matthias I.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)