User:Aspro
|
I appreciate the words of encouragement! Highmileage 18:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
--
Thank you "aspro".
- Thank you for bringing my attention to the <ref> section - think that I have done this well enough as it appears in the Footnotes section. I used the <!-- and the --> in front of the <ref> that you put in and voila :-)
- I managed to get a link to appear in the author's name in the references section BUT there is a .| with his name which I can't get out without also messing with the name and the link and the [...] are around the name - appearing on their own. I expect that Wikipedia fixes these types of things automatically/mechanically.
- I left the references in the Links section that I placed last night as is?
- I also find the help sections confusing. It makes me erratic!
Anyways! This has been a day well-spent :-) I want to fix some more of this page, but will need to confer with an authority concerning substance first.
Once again! Thank You for your help as you came in there for me when the frustration was beginning to spill over!
Thank You Many thanks. I'm not an adept in the arcane mysteries of Wiki so thanks again for your help. 31.52.149.75 (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Wyrdlight
 | This user is owned by one or more cats. |
Feel free to remove if you object, or clean up, or do what you or your master decide. It's just pretty obvious who your master is :-) Eliyohub (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Dear Aspro [I have put this on my page and your page to make sure you see it.] Thank you for the helpful comments. I am sure you can understand my frustration when spelling corrections are deleted and bits of text removed so that what is left is a non-sequitor. Oh well, c'est la vie. Are you a Wikipedia employee? or just someone who has seen my cry for help? Renaissance Wax was invented by my first boss at the British Museum, so I will have a look. I also see there is an entry on Harold Plenderleith that could do with some improvements.Abila.pao (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I have made two or three factual corrections to Renaissance Wax and to the Conservation-Restoration entry. This is woefully short on references and tries to do the impossible of combining the conservation of fine art/applied art/archaeology and ethnography at the same time. Ideally the article needs splitting into four. (Then there is geology and zoology!!)Abila.pao (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Dear Aspro Just found several messages so thanks for your help. You mis-understood one thing I wrote. It is not the Renaissance Wax article that needs splitting but the Conservation-Restoration Article. There is, in fact, a whole book here which is why I think it needs splitting into (perhaps) four different articles - and into six if geology/mineralogy and zoology are seen as separate from stone conservation and ethnographic conservation. However, I don't have the time to do this. I will, however, try to add some relevant footnotes to expand the reading base for those who use the articles.Abila.pao (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)