User talk:Cwtyler

Since you are a new editor, I'm dropping you a note to explain the reversion of your edits. Some of the articles on Wikipedia are what one would call "generic articles. ie they take a vast subject and attempt to contain and explain it within the compass of a single small article. Italian Renaissance painting is one of those vast subjects. I wrote it, and I had to be very selective with the information provided and the works illustrated. Because the article could not be too long, I added an extension which talks more about themes, style etc, and is linked to the parent article, along with all the separate articles on particular individuals.

It often happens that people come along with an artist or a subject that is of particular interest and they perceive that it has not been fully covered in the parent article. The fact is there is simply no room for four mentions of

in that article, not unless his work can be perceived as having the impact of Giotto, Massaccio, Piero della Francesca and Leonardo. They are mentioned as the definitive artists of their age, the creators of the movement in which lesser artists like Masolino were lifted up and carried along. There are twenty or more artists that could be named in the intro, and again in the sentence that talks about the "serendipidous presence" of truly great artists in the city of Florence during that period. Masolino gets coverage in the article at the point at which the Brancacci Chapel is discussed. His name is linked there to his biography. Other artists who are named within the two articles but not used in the intro or the list of "the greatest" are Domenico and Davide Ghirlandaio, the Pollaiuoli, Filippo and Filippino Lippi, Perugino, Boltraffio, del Castagno etc etc.

When you are editting, you need to look at the article as a whole. It isn't a matter of putting in every single piece of data, but choosing how relevant the data is to the overall topic, where is the best place for the data within the article and how best to express the info so that it fits.

I'll give you an example. There is an article called Cathedral. That article attempts to sum up what a cathedral is, how cathedrals developed historically, how they function and who the personel who run them are, what generally happens there and how they fit into society. That is an awful lot of info. There is simply no room to discuss the architecture of cathedrals in detail, even though this interests a lot of people. Why isn't it done? Because a cathedral can be as big and grand as St Paul's, London, or as tiny as the Pro Cathedral of St Michael's, Wollongong which seats 150 people at a very tight squeeze. They are equally relevant to the topic of "cathedral". The pictures have been chosen to illustrate function and diversity, not grandeur.

However, every person on this planet has a favourite cathedral and every one of them (it seems) wants to cram a photo of it into that one little article, or criticise the fact that there are pictures of buildings which are not architecturally great or which illustrate something that doesn't happen at their cathedral. The pictures of people's favourites were swamping the article, and in the end, they were all deleted, except a few.

I don't want to discourage you from editting, quite the reverse. I am writing this to give you some guidelines about good editting.

There is a small rule to remember which often takes in new editors. American articles, and many general articles are in American English. British, Commonwealth and many European articles are in British English. Don't go changing them either way, unless you have noticed a discrepancy eg if an English editor writing about Andy Warhol uses "colour" rather than "color", this should be corrected in line with the rest of the article. Some generic articles state on the talk page that they are in British/US English and ought not be changed. Usually it is quite straight forward what spelling convention should be used.

Happy editting!

Hi. When you recently edited Solar flare, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plasma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extended commentary on my small edit. The disregard of Masolino and the elevation of his pupil, Masaccio (sic) to fame and glory is the greatest miscarriage of art historical justice in the history of the Renaissance, IMHO. His general reputation has never caught up with the fact of the reattribution of many of Masaccio's works to Masolino. At the time of writing by Vasari, all of the Brancacci Chapel was attributed to Masaccio, but it is now clear that at least half of the works, including the most perspectival and the most humanistic, are clearly understood to have been by Masolino. Moreover, he was much in demand for decorating halls with panels of Uomini Famosi, as many as 330 historical figures of men and women (now lost) that set the tone for the entire humanistic revival as early as 1440, nearly a hundred years before Michelangelo assayed the Sistine Chapel.. These achievements are far greater than Masaccio's feeble output or those of any of the other artists you name. I will continue to try to find ways to bring this tragedy to the attention of the wider community.

---

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia from

! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, here are a few relevant things:

• Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
• You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding
  reliable sources. Sourcing anatomy articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book
  to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
• We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article.
  be bold
  !
• We write for a general audience. Every reader should be able to understand anatomical articles, so when possible please write in a simple form—most readers do not understand anatomical jargon. See
  this essay
  for more details.

Feel free to contact us on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages! --

]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

]

Émilie du Châtelet paragraph

Dear Editor Cwtyler, your edit on Émilie du Châtelet seems basically good to me, but it has a load of technical faults that I think it up to you to remedy. I am telling you this here instead of putting some kind of tag on the paragraph and instead of just deleting it. In case they are not obvious to you, here are one or two of them: no citations, when they are definitely needed; faulty mathematical mark-up. I trust you will shortly do the things needed to remedy the faults.Chjoaygame (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

]

Your submission at

Ivan Vukadinov

(January 15)

Hello! Cwtyler, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Eddie891 (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

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 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 NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply ]