User talk:SiefkinDR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

September 2013[edit]

Your work on Pink[edit]

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

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

Greetings and... reply[edit]

Greetings SiefkinDR. Thanks for your note. Sorry if the comment above seems a bit terse – I was on automatic pilot and just clicked the standard Twinkle template. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |title= Portrait of Napoleon III}}</ref> The Walters Art Museum.]]

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

Names for colours[edit]

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for January 10[edit]

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

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



ik

February 2014[edit]

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

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Editor of the Week[edit]

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

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

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

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

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}
Project editor retention.svg
Editor of the week.svg
Napoleón III, 1865.jpg
SiefkinDR
Napoleón III (not Editor SiefkinDR)
 
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning February 9, 2014
Adds "color" to an amazing array of Wikipedia articles. A jaw-dropping 98% of his 18000 edits are to article space.
Recognized for
Article editing
Nomination page


Thanks again for your efforts! Go Phightins! 13:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Congratulations! Well deserved for your fine work at Wikipedia. Best regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all you do. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Paris[edit]

Hello SiefkinDR:

I just left a comment at Paris talk page with a msg addressed to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paris#Size_of_the_history_section

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

Reference Errors on 20 May[edit]

Paris[edit]

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


Timeline of Paris[edit]

Dear SiefkinDR,
Many thanks for your excellent adds to the Timeline of Paris. I wonder if you would consider changing the section headings from interpretive phrases (e.g., "Renaissance," "Restoration" etc.) to more neutral language (e.g. "19th century" etc.). Timelines can be useful in surfacing lesser-known aspects of city history, especially those that do not fit into prevailing narrative frames. Your thoughts? M2545 (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I agree overlong sections should have sub-headings; see for example Timeline of Boston, divided by decade. The Paris timeline might be divided by century and decade (e.g. "1800s-1850s" etc.) with "see also" links to narrative articles about the larger sweep of French history (e.g. French Second Empire). Also FYI the French-language Chronologie de l'histoire de Paris headings consist mostly of neutral point of view language. Again, thanks for your great work on Paris history (and fountains and gardens!) M2545 (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Economic history of Paris[edit]

In the Timeline of Paris please do not delete items of significance to economic and cultural history. Perfumers and mirror-makers are quite notable in city's history, especially according to scholars such as Joan DeJean, as cited. Readers would be grateful if you would restore the items recently deleted. Thanks. M2545 (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Standards for inclusion of items in Timeline of Paris[edit]

Hmm. [1]: Interpretation of "important events" is open for debate, I think. In my opinion city history should include significant events in business, high culture, spectacle, architecture, pop culture, politics, media, city-state relations, etc. [2]: Length of timeline is also open for debate. Some readers prefer inclusive timelines (see Baltimore or Brooklyn) whilst others prefer brevity and concision. Since the Wikipedia platform affords both long and short articles, why not start by creating a long version? Pre-Wikipedia published timelines were physically constrained by limitations of paper and print, but not anymore. Another option might be found in the Atlanta Timeline sidebar, which includes a link to a longer, extended version. [3]: It is possible also to design the timeline so that major events (e.g. storming of Bastille) are indicated by color or some other formal device. M2545 (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


"in business" versus "opens"[edit]

Hello SiefkinDR. Thank you again for your wonderful contributions to the Timeline of Paris. Would you please provide an explanation for (repeatedly) rephrasing "in business" to "opens"? I am confused. M2545 (talk) 08:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I changed "in business" to "opens" in several cases because "in business" is indefinite; many of these stores and restaurants are still in business today; the articles to which these dates linked give this date as the date they opened, which is think is the more correct term on a timeline. In a few cases cases I corrected the date or the name of the given restaurant or store, according to the information in the link given.SiefkinDR (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It's a good a idea. Could we also signal the commercial nature of the business entity that's opened? Words like "restaurant", "brasserie", "cafe", "hotel", "shop" imply commercial enterprise, but in cases of ambiguity, maybe include nuanced language like "X begins business" or "X opens for business". I think it is helpful to readers to distinguish between charitable and profit-seeking ventures, public and private efforts, etc. M2545 (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I see your concerns. I'll do that on future entries. SiefkinDR (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Crillon vs French Navy[edit]

Bonjour!

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for July 29[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Department of Egyptian Antiquities of the Louvre[edit]

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

August 2014[edit]

Paris[edit]

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

The last two paragraphs of Middle Ages & Renaissance section
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris#Middle_Ages_and_the_Renaissance
having to do with reign of Louis XIV, should we not add something to title of section as Louix XIV was not a Renaissance king, the last one being Henri IV.
Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for doing it. --Blue Indigo (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI: formatting repeated citations[edit]

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

Paris Timeline[edit]

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

cupcakes 4 u[edit]

Cheshire cupcakes.jpg - M2545 (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Red[edit]

I see that you deleted fire and beauty as common associations with the color red due to not being in a specific survey. However, these are still very common associations (especially fire) as stated in the citations I provided. Therefore, I personally believe they are worthy of mention and should not be excluded from the article. One survey isn't enough to determine the common associations of the color. ANDROS1337TALK 01:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Andros,

Thanks for your constructive comments. There's a history to the list of associations in the major color articles. A few years ago, people were adding any associations they wanted to the color articles, and there was a list of several dozen associations for red, some of which were logical, some rather far-fetched, most quite personal and subjective. At that point I and other editors standardized the format for color articles, with a short list of the strongest associations of each color, according to the surveys published by Eva Heller. More detail follows in the article. Also, we chose only those associations which the surveys published by Eva Heller showed were the strongest. For example, "heat" is also associated by many people with yellow and orange, but red is the strongest, with 47 percent. If we put every association of a color into the lead, it would be much too long and would probably be of little value.

You proposed adding "fire" and "beauty". I think fire falls under "heat", so I think it is covered in the lead, but we could say "heat and fire" as one item. If you have some specific examples of red being associated with fire, you should put them into the body of the article. "Beauty" is more difficult, because by definition it's entirely subjective. It's not mentioned at all in the survey, because everyone has a different idea of what beauty is, and I don't think there's any agreement that red is the most beautiful color. Do you have some data that shows that red is considered by the public more beautiful than any other color? If not, I don't think it would belong in the lead. If you have some examples of red associated with beauty, they can go into the body of the article.

I welcome your further thoughts and ideas on how to improve the article.

SiefkinDR (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

= September 2014[edit]

My talk page[edit]

For answer to your comment, please go to my talk page. Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of Paris[edit]

RE: Photo-club de Paris, please go to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Timeline_of_Paris#Photo-club_de_Paris

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for adding Daguerre's early photograph. Founding of the Photo-club de Paris in 1888 should also be there, as you had it previously: it's your baby... à vous l'honneur de l'y remettre! I have not been able to find the exact date (day/month) in 1888, but we can add it when we get it.
Best, --Blue Indigo (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of Paris, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kossuth, Palais des Congrès and Étoile. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of Paris: 15th thru 17th century[edit]

Dear Siefkin!

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

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

Siefkin, please go to my talk page for comment on your msg.
OK for your plans on centuries
Regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of Paris: 17th century[edit]

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

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

Keep up the good work!

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

Age of Louis XIV[edit]

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

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

Please keep up your good work!

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

Dear Siefkin,
Born on 5 September 1638, Louis le petit, futur Louis le Grand, would have been five years old on 5 September 1643...
which means that,on 14 May 1643, the day his father died (Le Roi est mort),
L. XIV, the new king (Vive le Roi) was 4 years, 8 months & 9 days,
which means that you are correct,
and second time that you catch me.
You're sharp!
Henri Quatre has one foot in the 16th century & the other in the 17th, and he has so much importance in French history: first Bourbon king, he had to fight for the throne, put an end to the French civil wars on religion, and he was a great urbanist who would have transformed Paris & done a lot for the rest of the country. In other words, he was a very modern man. I am sure you'll come up with the right answer.
As for L. XIII, born on 27 September 1601, he was going to be nine on his birthday following the assassination (14.May 1610) of his father,
at which time he was 8 years, 7 months & 17 days.
Correct?.
The reason I am bringing up L.XIII's age at death of his father is because he was still very young & works done in Paris at beginning of his reign, Place Royale, Île Saint-Louis, for instance, were simply the continuation (undertaken by his mother) of his father's wide urbanisation projects in the capital, not to mention the rest of France.
Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Timeline of Paris... suite...[edit]

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

Siefkin,
If you care to use it, here is a great miniature enluminée, by Jean Fouquet, of the burning at the stake of the Amauriciens:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaury_de_Chartres#mediaviewer/File:Supplice_des_Amauriciens.jpg.
It shows how close the event took place outside the wall of Paris, and that king Philippe II was in attendance (!)
Maybe this should be put on Timeline of Paris talkpage. Please do it if you think it proper.
Bonne journée! --Blue Indigo (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Siefkin,

Meridian Room (or Cassini Room) at the Paris Observatory, 61 avenue de l'Observatoire (14th arrondissement). The Paris meridian is traced on the floor.

Thanks for your thanks: it's a pleasure.

In case you would like to use another picture on article, there is the not much used "Paris meridian" at the Observatory of Paris in 14th arrondissement.

Also, next time I edit article, RE "the King, Queen Mother and Mazarin" fleeing Paris in 1648 & 1649, I plan on changing it to "royal family" and Mazarin, because there was also Louis XIV's younger brother, the duc d'Orléans - in fact, even the court.

Just want to check with you beforehand.

Cordialement, --Blue Indigo (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of Paris, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Louis VII, Marais and Henry IV. 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) 12:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


I wanted to let you know[edit]

that we (Boring History Guy and I) are wanting to change the name if an article you created from History of fountains in the United States to Fountains in the United States because it seems to have morphed into more than a history. You might want to cheek out the amazing chart that BHG has done there, if you have a moment. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

== Thank you for asking, and yes, I would support that. I like the chart. Thanks for your good work! SiefkinDR (talk) 06:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


GAR[edit]

Paris, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Tim riley talk 14:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Paris at Promenader[edit]

Cher Monsieur,

Vous êtes invité à vous rendre chez le Promenader.

Cordialement, --Blue Indigo (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Siefkin,
Ai mis une petite note après votre commentaire chez le Promenader
Bonne nuit! :--Blue Indigo (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Siefkin,
Left a note at the Promenader answering your question on being in Paris.
Will not have time for maybe a couple of days to check Timeline. As you may have noticed, I am working on it century by century, and never got past the 19th, I believe. The reason it seems to be slow going is that everytime you add stuff (!), I check the whole century again: I don't want to overlook details. I am sure you have figured it out. Sorry about the bridges! It finally hit me!
Cordialement, --Blue Indigo (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


Paris[edit]

Extremely busy but will try to keep up with you thru Paris as much as I can & as quickly as possible. That's all for today! Cordialement, --Blue Indigo (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

SDR, Noticed on your last edit that you brought some accents aigus with you!
In case of need, here are a few cédilles etc: ççççç, ààààà, ââââ, êêêêê, ëëëëë, îîîîî.
Got more in reserve.
Free field: am over for the day. --Blue Indigo (talk) 08:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Paris[edit]

Can you try at least to learn to format your sources in the sfn style which is used and stop adding unsourced paragraphs. What you wrote on hotels at least was half decent but it was largely unsourced which isn't good enough. The article really needs to be as concise as possible, but I'm afraid that in your quest for making it as comprehensive as possible it affects the overall quality and concision. I don't think any article really needs to be pushing 200kb.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you hold off on working on the article for the moment and consider Wikipedia talk:Paris/Sandbox. I'm trying to rid of the technical problems and restore it but I also want to incorporate your additions provided they're well sourced and decent. If you could try to highlight what you want added by section I think soon enough we can come up with a version we're all relatively happy with.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. What I suggested was working on one section at a time and slowly and carefully to ensure that no errors with sourcing creep in. Unless you can all do that then it's pointless trying to work on something together to ensure that everything is done smoothly. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you have the page numbers for ref 16 and 17?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you fill out refs 125-7 and 183-193 with cite web templates? Just copy an existing one. Also some of the sources need page numbers I've added 2 ? in page number I think. If you can get into habit of following the existing sourcing system with sfn for books {Sfn|author surname|year|page number} and placing it in the bibliography it will save me an awful amount of time with formatting and allow me to concentrate on the prose instead. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Can you also add the page numbers for ref 29 and Jarrassé in the Parks section, cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we can get somewhere if there is mutual respect and understanding here and we try to take it a stage or two at a time. If you can try to follow the referencing formatting exactly as I've done I'll try to retain as much of the content you add and work it in. I think in some places like Admin and Restaurants though we'd be better off having sub articles and keeping things as concise as possible. It's finding a balance between comprehension and concision I think, while keeping it as technically as sound as possible.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The architecture section needs a lot of work. I think it needs complete rewrite and to cover more of the different architectural styles, and strong sourcing (of course ;-) ) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC) It would be great to have detailed history articles by period of Paris!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

That's fine I think given the importance of the period to French history. The problematic references are citations 120-122, 124, 178-185. Can you replace the [ ] title with proper Template:Cite web templates. Basically copy the following whenever filling out a web source.<ref>{{cite web|url=|title=|publisher=|accessdate=24 November 2014|language=French}}</ref> The title of the article needs to be given and the publisher etc. If it's not in French just remove the parameter. Any web source you use in French though you must state language=French so readers know whether to verify it or not.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

If English BTW you can just remove the language parameter entirely, it's only for sources in anything other than English. The first stage for this article I think is to make as comprehensive as we can (reasonably!!) get it but balanced (i.e not just a huge history section!) I believe Promenader has written some more material but I only want new material to added on condition that the sourcing is sound first or at least sorted out swiftly afterwards. I want to completely avoid adding unsourced material and poorly formatted sources as it will add to the work load later. Once we have a really comprehensive article we can work on condensing and working on the prose. So feel free to add what you really want provided it is sound with sources and you avoid very short sub sections. Where possible try to use quality book sources and be precise on page numbers when sourcing a given fact. It might get up to a bigger size again afterwards but I think it's important first to ensure it's comprehensive and then it can be chopped down, perhaps creating sub articles like Restaurants in Paris etc. Obviously nothing too bloated though, but you know the city far better than I do. Work on the prose and condensing is best done after the bulk of the writing is done. Once we do get to that stage we might need some discussion on what to file down during that process to avoid conflicts but we'll try to retain as much material as possible and won't be making drastic revisions. Hopefully then we can replace the existing version with as little conflict as possible and try to stop it degrading in the long term. We'll likely need to create sub articles like Restaurants in Paris as I say and try to whittle down to the nitty gritty in the main article but without it affecting quality of course. But in my experience the best articles have been those which have been made very comprehensive first and then condensed down with lots of sub articles from each section.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a tweak here a title parameter is needed and it needs publisher= rather than name- to avoid a ref error sign. Also no gap between access and date. Should be OK if you follw that!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Just when you were beginning to impress me with your consideration towards sourcing you go and source the lead (which according to MOS doesn't need sourcing) and introduce a lot of wrongly formatted sources again. You'd introduced lots in your recent edits. Please fix them asap into sfn and cite web. I've reverted the lede for now until it can be trimmed a bit without sourcing. But there's sourcing problems now in history and some of the others which should be fixed. Please get into the habit of making sure the sourcing is sound before you add the content.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you address the tone of lead, read WP:Peacock, you introduced words like "iconic", "famous", "masterpieces " which affect neutrality. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you find the page numbers for refs 26 and 40? Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paris in the Middle Ages, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hôtel Dieu and Saint Landry. 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) 10:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Au secours![edit]

Dear Siefkin, as I tried to save what I had done at Paris in the Middle Ages, I bumped into an edit conflict with you! If I save my stuff, I will destroy yours... and I don't want to destroy mine, so what do I do??? Am leaving computer on as is & will return later when more time to see how I can save my stuff without getting into a war with you! Best regards!

--Blue Indigo (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Try saving what you wrote into a Word or Pages or whatever your text editor is, and then add it to the article later; or just save it, I wasn't making any major edits to the article today, and it doesn't matter if I lose something. I'm glad to have your sharp eye and good historical sense involved! SiefkinDR (talk) 14
55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
We bumped into each other again! I had just left a note saying that I had got back to the page & was hoping with no damage to your work. By the way, I had saved changes in computer, so did not have to do it all over again. I verified as best as I could & think it is ok; however, if you could take a few minutes to verify, it would be better. Stopped at Church & Clergy. Do not know when able to get back to it, but will, a couple of sections at a time.
Cordialement, --Blue Indigo (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paris in the 18th century, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Directorate and Marat (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) 08:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Palace of Fontainebleau: doe of the buildings[edit]

Hello SiefkinDR, At 09:48, 23 October 2014, you made an edit to the article on the Palace of Fontainebleau including the words "Following the war, doe of the buildings became the home of the advanced school of artillery and engineering of the French Army...". Can you add your source and correct "doe"?

Cheers --Frans Fowler (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)