User talk:voidxor

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

I saw your recent edit[edit]

at Liberty Memorial, and it happened just when I was struggling with an issue about the article, so thought I'd toss it out to you. The museum building is described as being "Egyptian revival" here, and in other places, but I disagree. Have an opinion? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually helping out with a Wikipedia meetup at the National World War I Museum right now, and I helped one of the museum curators by splitting off the section about the museum from the larger Liberty Memorial article. She is looking to expand upon the information about the museum and I'm helping her and others to learn to edit Wikipedia. Since I'm attending as a Wikipedia expert, I'm not really an expert on the museum and don't know of the Egyptian Revival. Sorry, but I have no opinion to offer. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 18:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Einar aka Carptrash. So glad other people struggle with these questions too. The buildings come about in the heady 20s when Egyptian revival & orientalism are being transmitted through the lens of art deco/art nouveau - and it is worthy debate as to terminology and primary emphasis. As you allude, it isn't simply one thing. As for elements of Egyptian Revival in the architecture: sphinxes (though winged-Assyrian) with headcloths, the halls (which take an art deco twist on temple structure), four large cinerary urns, the cavetto cornices above the "columns", central tower as a play on the obelisk and - interestingly - if you draw imaginary lines from the corners of the halls to the top of the tower, you've got a "pyramid". Something not lost on the designers. Some prefer the term "Neo-egyptian". That could be clarified but more commentary on the other elements is much needed. Really appreciate this is a topic you are working on! Lora.WWIMuseum (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Good luck[edit]

Trying to get attention to the unreferenced content at "species" article. It looks like this has been going on forever, with a couple editors insisting that the way it is, is the way it is. It will take a commitment of several editors to make anything happen there, I think. 50.141.76.6 (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll watch the article and insist that the situation you speak of doesn't get worse. Unfortunately, some editors love their soapbox so much that they will fight to the death to defend it. For the rest of us, we can't verify the facts as given—or even that they weren't plagiarized! – voidxor (talk | contrib) 06:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Just wanted to drop a quick line to say thanks for your guidance as I learn in the shallow end of the wiki-waters! Much appreciate your time as we improvement the content on WWI and the Museum. Very best!Lora.WWIMuseum (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Lora, I'm excited to see how quickly you've taken to editing! You were right; a separate museum article was much needed. As such, your contributions are greatly appreciated. Now that you know the basics of editing, I would encourage you to contribute to any subject that you see lacking—not necessarily limiting yourself to history or museums. I got my start editing by fixing grammatical and spelling errors that I'd notice while reading, but that was nine years ago...
If you ever need any assistance or guidance in the future, this talk page is a great way to get a hold of me. I'd be glad to help as time allows. Best wishes! – voidxor (talk | contrib) 06:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

A discussion on the Linux distribution talk page[edit]

Hello! There's a somewhat lengthy content-related discussion in Talk:Linux distribution § Information on GNU/Linux that would really need input from more editors. It's about an ongoing disagreement on how should a Linux distribution be described, required level of coverage by references, and partially about the way article's lead section should reflect the article content. If you could provide any input there, I'd really appreciate it! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me. I have added my two cents on that talk page. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 07:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I've just described what else is disputed over there, and it would be great if you could, by chance, invest just a little more time to have a look into that. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I think I'm burned out on this one, sorry. Free Software Foundation fan boys wear me thin, and the editors that responded after me pretty well hit the nail on the head. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 22:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
No worries, normality in the article is already restored. :) Thank you once again! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)