![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
...I suspect Mary IV is DeFacto. He was socking again recently, and the Mary IV account was created just a few hours after I made my first edit to the Rodgers article. If he continues to be disruptive I'm happy to handle the SPI paperwork, but it's generally best to ignore him. ( EEng, you might want to know about this as well.) Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 06:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Amandajm, I can't answer all those questions they ask me about a picture. Don't ask you to take parts or vote, but what is wrong with this print? Here. Can you tell me if I am wrong? I think that is a print one sees quite often in books about this topic. Hafspajen ( talk) 19:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Amandajm, I wonder what do you think about the colors in the reproduction of this picture? Don't wan't a new controversy if nominatig it. Hafspajen ( talk) 19:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, then I will - as soon as the week had passed - I added that like three days ago to the article, or something like this. We are a little shy on religious paintings - as well as - nudes - the naked looks like it is an issue, wich is weird when there are so many wonderful paintings depicting them in the art history. Try to change it... Hafspajen ( talk) 14:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that Rembrand article would need your hand, to be entirely up to its supposed quality. Hafspajen ( talk) 10:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Is this editing such a problem that it should make it impossible to consider it as FP - the edited one? ? Hafspajen ( talk) 17:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you were right, from the beggining. Or there are two pictures, see here:
http://www.louvre.fr/en/mediaimages/giulio-romano-peut-etre-avec-l-intervention-de-raphael-portrait-de-dona-isabel-de-reques.
Hafspajen (
talk) 13:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Titian - now I say that those few pictures that are in the article - are not exactly giving a full impression of this great artist, they are dark, not that great and he has so much more to offer. Tried to add some - but there is a problem - wich ones should be there. I put a selection unsorted works on the talk page of the article, but one should try to find out some clever way of presenting them. Hafspajen ( talk) 03:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
These for example. Hafspajen ( talk) 03:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a
Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in
Leonardo da Vinci, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Specifically, you changed "one of the most famous paintings..." to "THE most famous painting...", the latter of which is considered use of
peacock terms.
DaL33T (
talk) 01:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
...I suspect Mary IV is DeFacto. He was socking again recently, and the Mary IV account was created just a few hours after I made my first edit to the Rodgers article. If he continues to be disruptive I'm happy to handle the SPI paperwork, but it's generally best to ignore him. ( EEng, you might want to know about this as well.) Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 06:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Amandajm, I can't answer all those questions they ask me about a picture. Don't ask you to take parts or vote, but what is wrong with this print? Here. Can you tell me if I am wrong? I think that is a print one sees quite often in books about this topic. Hafspajen ( talk) 19:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Amandajm, I wonder what do you think about the colors in the reproduction of this picture? Don't wan't a new controversy if nominatig it. Hafspajen ( talk) 19:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, then I will - as soon as the week had passed - I added that like three days ago to the article, or something like this. We are a little shy on religious paintings - as well as - nudes - the naked looks like it is an issue, wich is weird when there are so many wonderful paintings depicting them in the art history. Try to change it... Hafspajen ( talk) 14:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that Rembrand article would need your hand, to be entirely up to its supposed quality. Hafspajen ( talk) 10:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Is this editing such a problem that it should make it impossible to consider it as FP - the edited one? ? Hafspajen ( talk) 17:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you were right, from the beggining. Or there are two pictures, see here:
http://www.louvre.fr/en/mediaimages/giulio-romano-peut-etre-avec-l-intervention-de-raphael-portrait-de-dona-isabel-de-reques.
Hafspajen (
talk) 13:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Titian - now I say that those few pictures that are in the article - are not exactly giving a full impression of this great artist, they are dark, not that great and he has so much more to offer. Tried to add some - but there is a problem - wich ones should be there. I put a selection unsorted works on the talk page of the article, but one should try to find out some clever way of presenting them. Hafspajen ( talk) 03:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
These for example. Hafspajen ( talk) 03:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a
Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in
Leonardo da Vinci, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Specifically, you changed "one of the most famous paintings..." to "THE most famous painting...", the latter of which is considered use of
peacock terms.
DaL33T (
talk) 01:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)