Hello, Agric, 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 messages on
talk pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome! And nice work on the van Eyck.
Ceoil (
talk)
23:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Agric! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Hi Agric. In this edit, with the summary: "Correction of misreading of image - deletion of one sentence, because there was no "inquisition" in the days of Bosch", you deleted the text:
"Art historian Rosemarie Schuder, however, suggests that the obvious sensuality of the panel may have been intended as a jab against the Inquisition's hostility towards physicality.<ref name="Gibson25"/>"
What makes you think that Schuder was mistaken? or, even if she was, that her analysis should not be reported? Thanks. p.s. am not sure why Rosemarie Schuder wasn't linked there. Martinevans123 ( talk) 19:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Butting in here: 1., this discussion should be taking place on the article talk page, and 2., all we care about is verifiability per WP:V. We can't second guess the sources, we follow the sources. As such, I'm concerned at the edits I've seen to the article. Furthermore, this is following a pattern very similar to that at the Ghent Altarpiece, fwiw. Agric, it's important that these changes be made by consensus. Do you have access to the sources? If you don't then perhaps leave a note on the talkpages of the primary contributors - who almost certainly will have access to the sources. Those editors can be identified by clicking "contributors" on the article history page. Thanks. Truthkeeper ( talk) 19:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Agric, 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 messages on
talk pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome! And nice work on the van Eyck.
Ceoil (
talk)
23:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Agric! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Hi Agric. In this edit, with the summary: "Correction of misreading of image - deletion of one sentence, because there was no "inquisition" in the days of Bosch", you deleted the text:
"Art historian Rosemarie Schuder, however, suggests that the obvious sensuality of the panel may have been intended as a jab against the Inquisition's hostility towards physicality.<ref name="Gibson25"/>"
What makes you think that Schuder was mistaken? or, even if she was, that her analysis should not be reported? Thanks. p.s. am not sure why Rosemarie Schuder wasn't linked there. Martinevans123 ( talk) 19:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Butting in here: 1., this discussion should be taking place on the article talk page, and 2., all we care about is verifiability per WP:V. We can't second guess the sources, we follow the sources. As such, I'm concerned at the edits I've seen to the article. Furthermore, this is following a pattern very similar to that at the Ghent Altarpiece, fwiw. Agric, it's important that these changes be made by consensus. Do you have access to the sources? If you don't then perhaps leave a note on the talkpages of the primary contributors - who almost certainly will have access to the sources. Those editors can be identified by clicking "contributors" on the article history page. Thanks. Truthkeeper ( talk) 19:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)