User talk:Brosi

Welcome!

Hello, Brosi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! DVD+ R/W 01:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art Psychology

Hi, I just want to let you know that I've posted a comment/question re the term "Art Psychology" on the Talk:Psychology page. It occurs to me that you may not have put that Psychology article on your watchlist (seeing as you hadn't responded to the other editor's suggestion re merging the section). In any event, I will be looking for your reply to my question. Regards, Cgingold 12:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! In your reply on the Talk:Psychology page you asked about changing the name of the Art psychology page that you recently created to "Psychology of art". As a matter of fact, there is a whole page that explains exactly how to go about doing that: Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page. I've never renamed a page myself, but it looks pretty straightforward -- good luck with it. Cgingold 11:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

have a look at this....

hey Brosi, User:DVD R W/亀甲墓 it isn't rock-cut, or is it? haven't understood how they make them yet, as I've been taking it slowly, but will soon. regards, 01:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Brosi, you've got me into this rock cut stuff. Do you consider Bandelier National Monument, or a kiva to be rock cut? Also take a look at the Toraja tombs especially [1]. Sorry that I said I would translate that one article but haven't gotten around to it yet. DVD+ R/W 14:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology of art and Trauma and the Arts

These two entries which only you have worked on read like essays and seem to be comprised of original research, which is not allowed. While I could maybe see Trauma and the arts survive under a name like Trauma in art (in which it would present specific examples and trends explicitly stated from sources) the Psychology of Art article seems to be entirely made up of original research. Original research on Wikipedia includes writing essays to reach new conclusions not originally supported in the references presented. --Wafulz 19:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology of art

I didn't observe that there were any new conclusions whatsoever in this article. It reads like a definition and a history, and cites its sources, as it should. However, it did read like an essay. It doesn't annymoore. I've fixed that! Please take a look, add dates to the first psychologist that you have referred to, because it locates the subject timewise. You also need to cite his major written work. The books that I have dropped into the Bibliogaphy all requiere ISBNs

all the best! --Amandajm 11:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rock cut architecture

Thanks for improving this article. --Nemonoman 15:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Brosi, I have posted some comments to the talk page of Rock cut architecture about some issues that need to be addressed. Thanks. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance architecture

two things:-

When making a change, the term "minor" isn't applied to changes to wording. Changes in the History of an article that are marked m are things of no substantial importance eg. spelling, typos, a to an, putting in a space where one is missing, etc. If you add a sentence or change a sentence, it isn't a minor change.
Can you please check after you've made a change to a sentence to make sure that you haven't left half a sentence hanging in mid air, which is what happened with your last change.
Your addition to the historiography was pertinent. Your change to the other sentence was an improvement.
Your removal of every date and ISBN, if it was you who did it, and not someone else at your computer, was highly inappropriate.
HTF am I supposed to get the dates back and the ISBNs bback, without also reverting your contributions? I'spose I can do a copy and paste, but I'm really rather annoyed.

--Amandajm 08:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brosi!

What about the number? Are you saying that you didn't remove every single date and every single ISBN number from that article? I'll have to check it out more thoroughly and see if I can see when it was done. --Amandajm 13:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural history

Brosi, would you mind taking a look at the discussion page of that article? I've suggested that the present page should be divided into two, one dealing with the subject of Architectural History (two caps.) and the other dealing with History of Architecture which currently redirects to Architectural history. There are seperate pages for Art History and History of Art.

--Amandajm 08:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art/Architectural History

The Art History page has changed a fair bit in the few weeks or so. It has been carefully rewritten to emphasise the study of Art as History ie. The use of artworks as historical documents. I don't know how ggeneral or widesppread it is to deal with "Art History" in this manner.

In the case of Architectural History, yes, I think what I had in mind was what one would call a History of Architectural History:- looking at the written records of architecture, the appreciation or contemppt of difference writers of different periods towards various architectural styles. It would make an interesting article.

A writer's description of a building ccan affect your view of it forever. Pevsner describes the subtlties of the little domed church of St Stephen, Walbrook, built by Christopher Wren. Although it is a small space with a large dome, it is not a centrally planned building. Its spaces are divided into a nave, aisles, transept and chancel, intersected by the dome in a way which is incredibly clever. Recently, the interior furnishings were rearranged in such a way that it is now "Church in the round" and it works very effectively. But Wren's subtle composition has been destroyed in the new arrangement. Pity! However, if I hhad never read Pevsner I probably wouldn't miss it!. --Amandajm 10:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. — Nearly Headless Nick 03:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]