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.)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | 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 |
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)[reply]
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and don't mix styles. Also please don't spell out "circa" in captions - use "c.". Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
. It makes the reader see much more details and make the page look more beautiful. Just look at History of artorthis one, and see how it looks.--Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 20:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[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 |
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 edit the submission 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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?
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)[reply]
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.
| |
---|---|
| |
BCE |
|
1st millennium |
|
1000–1500 |
|
1500–1750 |
|
1750–1900 |
|
1900–1950 |
|
1950–2000 |
|
2000–present |
|
Regional |
|
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)[reply]
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
![]() | 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 |
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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 leaving us some feedback.
Thanks again, and happy editing!
DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Buna ziua. Apreciez foarte mult si in mod sincer imaginile de arhitectura din Bucuresti pe care le puneti la dispozitie. Ati pus insa pe Commons si o imagine a lui Christopher Pillitz (v. aici), cu atribuirea decupata din imagine. Pillitz traieste din drepturile lui de autor, nu este corect sa-l pagubim, mai ales ca diversi editori preiau imaginile de pe Wikipedia si le publica in produsele lor print sau online, fiind considerate "copyright-free". Daca mai stiti de alte asemenea imagini, ar fi tare bine daca le-ati sterge neintirziat.
Va multumesc pentru intelegere. Toate cele bune, Arminden (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Margent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Francis I.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]