Satrughna02

Hello, Satrughna02, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Happy editing! Paxse (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Lost wax

Excellent find on the lost wax images! I can't believe those have been in Wikipedia Commons for so long without being in this article, it's a major improvement. -Verdatum (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Those images are originally from the Spanish wikipedia, so the credit really goes to professor José-Manuel Benito Álvarez. I stumbled upon them some time ago, looking for images for the Dutch Wikipedia. Since no-one caught the hint, I figured I might as well put them on the English site myself. Glad you approve!--Satrughna02 (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba

I did abandon the page, as I had lost any and all faith I had once held for the editors that, up until a rather large edit war, I thought were really making progress toward reaching an agreement on several key points on the page. However, after a short wikibreak to clear my head, I returned to the article, and hope that you will join in the discussions that will hopefully take place in the future. Best wishes, Onopearls ^(t/c) 17:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Lewis

Hi Satrughna, I contributed to the first three sentences of the Lewis (lifting appliance) article as it currently reads. I also did some work on categorising masonary tools.Gregorydavid (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll answer the original question on your own talk page--Satrughna (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Pointing machine

My fault, I was disambiguating links to [[model]] and assumed that since the second one ("scan a model and can produce it ... in any desired size") implied a scale model, the first ("accurately copy plaster, clay or wax sculpture models into wood or stone") would also - I didn't read the sentence "Enlarged or reduced scale sculptures are not possible via this method" under the heading "Use".

Thus, you've undone my first dab, with comment "A pointing machine is not used for scale models, only 1:1 copies are possible", which is fair enough; but that now links to a disambiguation page again, so it needs fixing again - if Scale model is not suitable, what would be best? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Redrose, that was exactly what I was running into, perhaps it would be best to rephrase it. I thought of: A pointing machine is a measuring tool used by sculptors to accurately copy plaster, clay or wax sculpture drafts into wood or stone. But that didn't work out either, neither did sketch and mockup, and to just leave it as sculpture seems irrational: why would anyone take the trouble to first make a sculpture and then copy it? The wording wouldn't explain the process of making a sculpture out of a malleable substance first, before copying it into a more durable material. So I still haven't figured it out, mostly because, as a non-native speaker, I'm probably not familiar enough with the appropriate terms. If you have a suggestion, please help me out in this. I didn't like to refer to a disambiguation page either! So I'm a little stuck here, hope you can remedy it... Anyway, the article needs revision by a native speaker as well. It being an obscure branch of sculpture nowadays, it doesn't attract much attention of other Wikipedians, apart from the occasional bot, so there haven't been any spelling and style edits yet. Greetings and thanks, --Satrughna (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, the articles Scale model and Model (physical) both imply a scale other than 1:1. In the metal foundry industry, the final casting (a positive) is made in a mould (a negative), which is usually made of sand. The sand mould is itself produced from a positive, which in a traditional (ie non CAD/CAM) foundry is called a pattern and is usually made of wood. This pattern is thus an exact representation of the finished article, at 1:1, but wood instead of iron.

If pattern and mockup are unsuitable, try prototype (see also Wiktionary:prototype "An original object or form which is a basis for other objects, forms, or for its models and generalizations"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redrose64 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that would be the best link. Thanks Redrose!--Satrughna (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have changed a couple

of captions of pictures that you had been editing. The fellow carving the angel capitol is likely a stone carver not a sculptor. The sculptor would have probably created a clay and then plaster angel (well, a plaster caster would have done that last part) which was then given to a carver who carved it. So I changed the word "sculptor" to carver" but have retained your link. I hope that this makes sense. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Einar, that'll be the language difference: in my native language (Dutch) both are called sculptor, albeit the creative one is just called sculptor and the other one the 'restoration sculptor' or 'construction sculptor', if translated literally. (we do both the design and the execution of it, by the way). I'm okay with that. I only object to both being called stonemasons, because that is something different altogether. But just executing such a work, even in commission, takes a very high degree of skill (and even creativity), so some stone carvers would have been perfectly capable of being good sculptors as well. It is a bit like the difference between the Italian 'artisani' versus the 'scultori', isn't it? I only just changed the name of the picture from stonemason into stone sculptor. I should have known this, then it could have been 'stonecarver at work.jpg' instead of the present title... Greetings, Satrughna (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, 'sculptor' refers to both stone carvers and clay modelers. When I studied sculpture at the Art Students League with Jose de Creeft in the 1960s, the designation "sculptor" was used for both. That is in the USA, and in England usage may be different.

Concerning pointing machines, frequently in the past a clay model was made by the artist (sculptor), either full size or less than full size, and the work was copied into stone, using pointing machines, by stone carvers. For instance, of all Rodin's sculpture in marble, perhaps only one small piece was carved by him. All the rest were copied by carvers in studios that specialized in such work from his clay originals. The return to carving by the artists themselves occurred in the early 20th century, perhaps starting with Eric Gill. 173.52.134.182 (talk) 11:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, enlargement and reduction can be done using a pointing machine. At a carving studio in Florence, I watched the carvers there doing that every day during the month or so I worked there (many years ago). 173.52.134.182 (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

These are all good insights and I agree with (I think) everything being said. Having said that, it is my belief that, at least in the USA and probably most of Western Europe the difference between carvers and sculptors gets erased only with the advent of direct carvers such as Gill and then later folks such as de Creeft. And speaking of de Creeft, I wish our anonymous poster were registered because I have a long term project going on that involves, among many other sculptors, de Creeft. I have a picture with 75 sculptors in it from 1949 (??) and am trying to identify them. gotta run. Carptrash (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Salve, Carptrash.

I have a user account, but can't actually use it because I have been banned from WP six ways from Sunday. None of the problems that got me sent into wiki-exile had anything to do with the arts, and I still try to fix up some articles on subjects that interest me. My Wikimedia Commons account is still working and, if you should be curious, you can find who I am by going to the Commons site, and checking the last edit to File:Atelier de sculpture-Cathédrale-Strasbourg.jpg. 173.52.134.182 (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What a pleasant surprise to find such a nice discussion over here. I would really like to know how to carve an enlarged copy with a pointing machine, and would also like that someone improved my article pointing machine. I'm not a native speaker and would rejoice in a thorough editing of it, as there have been none so far. Even better if the editor actually knows what he's talking about.

That article states just that: Sculptors would design the sculpture, in clay for instance, and craftsmen or assistants would carve the sculpture in stone. Until the upcoming of direct carving (this badly needs an article of its own, like here!). But my point was that, where you would call the assistant a stone carver, I would still have called him a (stone) sculptor (because that's how it's in Holland), out of sheer ignorance. But there is no discussion over method here, I agree fully on that part. Just look at the article mentioned above. Greetings, Satrughna (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried to upload a few pages from the book I mentioned (found on Google books) to Wikimedia Commons, but it did not work well. So I downloaded the book and printed out the pages dealing with stone carving and using the pointing machine. When I get some time I will scan the pages, and upload the scans. In the mean time, if you are still interested, you could try a google book search for The Technique of Sculpture, William Ordway Partridge. The pages involved are p.91-94. If that does not work for you, I will eventually have it on Commons.

(You could also try using Some PDF to Word Converter; that is perhaps easier than scanning, albeit not resulting in a facsimile...--Satrughna (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have put some information from another book (its shorter) on my Commons talk page. I will leave it there for a few days. If it is gone by the time you check, you can always find it in the page history. 173.52.134.182 (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!!!! Satrughna (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ihave already searched for the Partidge book before, but it's regrettably not availble in my area. If it would have been I'd already put it here, but for now I'll wait for you. Thanks, Satrughna (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, but I don't understand why you can not get it on Google Books where the entire book is available as a PDF file for a free download, or you can read it online. Try going here [1], and copy "The Technique of Sculpture, William Ordway Partridge" into the search bar at the top of the page. You will have the entire book, and its free. 173.52.134.182 (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course I have tried every possible method of searching or it, but it's just not available in its entirety in my area! Just the cover and that's it. Can't open the book, can't read it. Must be some sort of legal rights issue for Europe. Sorry.I did however find this, and that's the best I could find. Satrughna (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

And for anyone who hasn't the time or desire to look it up, it said:

In modern times the sculptor makes a clay model from which he makes a plaster cast. The im- portant projections and depressions are marked in this cast by metal pins, called points, and an ingenious device called the pointing machine makes it possible to mark the corre- sponding points in the block of marble. The marble is then cut away to all the points marked. The number of such points may be very great, in which case the statue is nearly finished when all the points are reached. In fact, many sculptors of modern times are merely modellers. They send their models to the stone-cutter, who, with the help of the pointing machine and other contrivances, makes an accurate copy. The more careful sculptors add the finishing touches themselves, but very few do any great amount of chiselling.

--Satrughna (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Iraivan Temple

Have you seen the Iraivan Temple article? It does not say much about the carvers, but they are traditional temple carvers (silpis) from India. Thought you might be interested. If I can find enough images that are free use, I might put together an image gallery on the silpis at Wikimedia Commons. This article [2] has a little information about the carvers interspersed between discussion of other stuff. 173.52.134.182 (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link M, it's very interesting indeed. I have been to Karnataka several times; when I am in Bangalore again I will certainly try to find the shilpi's (I already did so once, near the Royal Palace in Mysore, long ago). It's not likely though that I get to Hawaii in the near future, but I'd like to see it anyway. Never heard of Subramanya Swami, by the way. Greetings, Satrughna (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

V. Ganapati Sthapati, the architect for the project (he is also a sculptor), seems to be very well known in India, or at least in Tamil Nadu. He has written a number of books too. 173.52.134.182 (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this link M, this is really interesting stuff; I hope to meet him one day. Greetings, --Satrughna (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Category change in St. John's Cathedral, 's-Hertogenbosch

Several months ago, there was a series of CfD discussions about naming of religious building related categories. Several options like established, consecrated, architecture and probably a few others were discussed. This issue was made more complicated by the fact that some of these buildings are completed over centuries, destroyed and rebuilt and under go major changes. The consensus was to name the categories for the completed date since it you inspected the article contents and the way they were being categorized into the hopelessly vague architecture tree, that was the predominate characteristic that was being used to select a year category. The issue of multiple completion years was addressed by saying that it was better to include multiple completion categories if the building was completed in multiple years. The first category tree that started doing this was the one for bridges which was in place when the other others were created. While the change may not be perfect, it most cases, it is better the the other ambiguous option. One other point is that the completed in tree also rolls up into the civil engineering tree, something that is not really appropriate for the other categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hiya Vegas, I normally answer the question on the original talk page, so look to your own talk page for the answer. But just the same, I'll post it here as well. I understand that this is a discussion closed some time ago with general consensus, so I'll leave it at that. I just notice that Wikipedia is getting increasingly complicated, which perhaps is a bit disheartening to new contributors, or worse. I love the simplicity of Wikipedia's first years, because it was easier and more inviting to newcomers, but I understand it is better to be logical and specific. Thanks for your lengthy reply, all the best, --Satrughna (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Pointing machine

Hallo Satrughna, I had a look at the pointing machine article. I did a few minor tweaks and rearrangements but the quality of the English was very good to begin with. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. Brammers (talk/c) 13:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Brammers, I am very glad that you took the trouble to do so! Best wishes, Satrughna (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sai Baba of Shirdi birthdate

Hi, I've see that you are one of the contributors of the Sai Baba of Shirdi article. Recently there has been a spate of anonymous edits, which involved putting in a birth date and replacing 'unknown'. I checked the talk page and found no relevant discussion on this and in the history I saw your edit. I added a comment in the article to prevent further unsourced additions. My question is, was there any consensus prior to your edit about his birthdate? Thanks, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Ugog Nizdast. The main biography of Shirdi Sai Baba is very clear that no-one knew where he came from, or where he was born. Most biographers however, ASSUME a date of 1838. They are not definitve on that. Narasimha Swami ( a devotee after Sai Baba passed on, who collected dozens of stories from the devotees) mentions the date of 28 September, 1838 as having been mentioned by Sai Baba to Mahalsapati, but even he uses some indefinite language in describing this. Then there is Sathya Sai Baba, who mentioned a same date, but three years earlier, i.e. 28 September 1835. Then there is the birth place. Again, some mention was made about the village of Pathri, along the the river Godavari. Devotee Das Ganu went there, found some recollections about a local landlord and guru, and his disciple, and wrote a story about this (Sai Gurucharitra, chapter five). In all this, nothing is definitive, so in official documentation the birth date and place are shown as 'unknown'. The book of Rigopoulos has a good summary on this, I believe. There still is no consensus about this on Wikipedia, nor has there ever been, but I think you will find that most changes in birth data are done by anonymous editors or people with strong POV. Greetings!--Satrughna (talk) 08:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay so I've done the right thing by reverting those additions and putting the warning comments. I'll quote what you've said if these IPs question me. Thanks for your time and have a nice day! Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Satrughna02. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Satrughna02. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Satrughna02. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Sri Sai Gurucharitra for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sri Sai Gurucharitra is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Sai Gurucharitra until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

voorts (talk/contributions) 19:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)