User talk:M.chohan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello M.chohan! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Wikisigbutton.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Sabeen557 00:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Contents

[edit] Hey

Sorry it took so long for me to reply. Just slipped my mind and all. And of course, I'm always up for making a new friend on Wikipedia :) ^demon[omg plz] 07:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The BM

Hi Muj – apologies for fiddling with the page without discussing what I was doing. The deletion of the images was an experiment with aesthetics and formatting– the cluster of images at the top, I felt, had to go, though the solution you came to (which kept the head of Amenhotep III) is probably better than my more drastic one. The Persepolis artefact, however, was out of place in a section on Egypt and the Sudan – perhaps a place will be found for it in the Near East section?

I would still quite like to have the Rosetta Stone illustated on the page, considering its immense popularity; most visitors to the page would, I imagine, expect it to be there. Is the view of the Egyptian sculpture gallery one of the "hugely important" ones of which you spoke? The article already has some very evocative pictures of the interior (the one of the Assyrian wall reliefs I like particularly – how were you able to find the galleries so empty?) and it would be good to match image with content by having the Museum's most famous Egyptian piece illustrate the list of highlights.

Thanks for cheering me on with the National Gallery page as well! There's still more I want to do with that article, though that's on the back burner for the time being. My ultimate aim is still for it to be promoted to FA, and I would think the BM's page will soon be eligible for Peer Review if work continues to the high standards (and dedication) you've shown so far.

Cheers again,

Wham! Bam! Thank you, Ham 22:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Barnstar of High Culture
I award you a barnstar for all your great work on the British Museum article. LordHarris 15:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University College London

I noticed you recently placed a reference request on the UCL article. However with the exception of the one citation requested inline tag I am unable to see where else references are needed. Could you please therefore go through the article and add individual fact tags to those pieces of information or claims which you feel require a reference. This will better facilitate myself and other users in providing them.

[citation needed]

Thanks. LordHarris 20:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation Tags

Hi, firstly for the British Museum I have added the inline citation tags on those claims, pieces of information etc that I think need a reference to attribute them. For details of the policies please see WP:REF and Wikipedia:Attribution as to why I placed them there - there are only a few remaining now.

Secondly, I wish to ask you to do the same to University College London. Although it may just be a coincidence the reference tagging of this article seems like a personal rebuttal for my referencing of your main work on wikipedia, I wish to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. So if your desire is to get more references for the article than thats great, but unfortunately I do need you to identify where they are needed. So as I have done to the British Museum article, could you please do to the UCL article. The following is a useful guide to where citations should be needed. They are generally not required for historical facts e.g. dates but for assertions or claims about something that is likely to be disputed e.g. this university has a famous library, hence the citation.

Why sources should be cited

  • To improve the overall credibility and authoritative character of Wikipedia.
  • To credit a source for providing useful information and to avoid claims of plagiarism.
  • To show that your edit is not [[[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]].
  • To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor.
  • To help users find additional reliable information on the topic.
  • To reduce the likelihood of editorial disputes, or to resolve any that arise.
  • To ensure that material about living persons is reliably sourced and complies with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

Thirdly I hope you do understand that my original placing of the tag for the British Museum was to help you and other editors realise the need for placing references, whilst adding text to the article, not to be done a long time after etc. I think the article is great, the images and the text fit perfectly. I also think its almost at Wikipedia:Good articles status. If you add those references I have asked for, I think it would pass GA. Then perhaps you could consider nominating for FA status. I hope that we can work together on improving the British Museum article and wonder if you would care to contribute on a template to link all the relevant British museum associated articles together. I have already mentioned this on Talk:British Museum and would be quite happy to make a go of it and see what you think?

Thanks. LordHarris 11:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peacocking

Hello.

First, I'd like to thank you for your contributions. However, I would ask you to read Wikipedia's style guidelines about peacock terms. It is much better to let the facts speak for themselves regarding the quality of the institutions you write about, rather than breathless prose. --Eyrian 19:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Wallace Collection Inventory

Template:Wallace Collection Inventory has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Eyrian 19:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Museum - Middle East Department

That is the name of the curatorial department now (see here and here). The name of the department, and the information on the Asia Dept as it stood was downright innaccurate. To rename them and re-sort the Islamic material into Dept of Middle East does not show "something against Islam", nor is it "Utter Rubbish", but is merely a statement of fact. This movement of the Islamic world from "Asia" to the "Middle East" may be something you disagree with, but that is how the Museum sorts it now, and the page should reflect that. Nothing was removed, it was merely pulled into the department to which it is now relevant (And please do not accuse me of a lack of knowledge of the collection - I work at the BM!) Neddyseagoon - talk 16:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BM still in operation?

Just to ask, are you still interested in improving the BM article, as your last entry on the talk page is dated as August, and no substantial changes seem to have occurred. It seems a shame to leave it hanging when so much hard work has already been done, cheers --Williams119 (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Its me again, sorry it took me so long, been snowed under at work, if you contact me on the BM talk page we can start from there Williams119 (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

If you are writing an article on this subject, and are including your own writing (as your last edit summary stated), then this constitutes original research and is a clear violation of one of Wikipedia's core policies. You must cite references. Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)