User talk:Amandajm/Archives/2011/August

Cologne Cathedral

The reference section at List of largest church buildings in the world is a mess. I have to check each source 1 by 1 to see if there is any credibility in any of them. Die Welt is a very credible source. Even ask WikiProject Germany if you are not convinced of it. And for the record, it states that it is the 3rd largest; not the largest. Kingjeff (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

re my remark

I wasn't saying you weren't polite. I was upbraiding User:Kingjeff for his impolite edit summary. Herostratus (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well! Sounds like quite a project. Great work, and I appreciate you undertaking this exacting task. Herostratus (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion about DYK

You are very welcome to propose your idea about how DYK hooks should be worded at WT:DYK so that people who approve DYK articles and hooks can consider making hooks follow it. Very few non-admins read W:Main_Page:Errors, because non-admins can't change things once they get to the Main Page anyway. Also, suggestions about individual hooks are welcome during the approval process, which goes on at T:TDYK. (Hope I have all those abbreviations right!) Sharktopus ^talk 12:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

External Links

Dear Amandajm, what´s the problem with the link? Thank you for explaining. Greetings Wikinger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinger314 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. But it is absurd to suggest an advertising-background. Have you ever seen an advertisement for consulting in a historical journal? At least it would be the most inefficient advertising one can think of :-) The real reason is that the company has bought the rights for the detailed pictures from the content owner (a french book publisher). They are allowed to show the pictures on their site but not to post them elsewhere. This is a usual content-contract. It is not possible to post them directly on wikipedia although the pictures would be highly valuable to the readers. Aren´t external links the way to solve this dilemma? --Wikinger314 (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Butting in (Amandajam writes soundly and has interesting correspondence, so people drop by from time to time), let us take this example http://www.hpic.net/gallery/kepler_mysterium.jpg. If that were a genuinely high resolution image it would be worth uploading to commons, where under US interpretation of copyright law, it would be treated as public domain, and included (or not) in related wikipedia articles. In other words anyone from the U.S. (and probably, in practice, anyone from anywhere) can just follow that link and upload it without fear of legal repercussions. However, as far as I can see, it’s not at all a hi-res image of the original: it’s just a scan of a modern printed version: you can easily see the dot screen. (Or am I mistaken?) So probably not worth uploading (or am I mistaken?)—and certainly not worth linking to along with the adspam ;). Ian Spackman (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It is easy to see that most of the pictures are unique to the internet. But I understand. By the way: Do you know "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" by Stevenson? Interesting stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinger314 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Addition: I talked briefly to a lawyer. Your legal remarks are not correct either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinger314 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ian's Spackman's comment about the quality of the images is correct. They are taken from printed matter and all the little dots show.

Compare it with this high resolution image that was posted on Wikimedia Commons by the photographer, Luc Viatour. [1] (Click image to enlarge to full size) This is not to say that Wiki Commons' images are all of high standard. They are not.

But these are not high res images of drawings. They are high res images of reproductions of drawings. When looked at in detail, they become fuzzy, not clearer. which counters the whole point of having them in high res.

Would you please sign your name to your posts? You can do it easily by finding the little squiggle on you keyboard ( ~ ) and typing it four times. Amandajm (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Brabantine Gothic

Hello, Amandajm. You have new messages at Talk:Gothic architecture.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

​▲ SomeHuman 2011-07-20 07:17 (UTC)

Hello, Amandajm. You have new messages at SomeHuman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Take your time, my ordering my thoughts ended up lengthier than the article, to which I did not add, as yet.
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-07-22 10:14 (UTC)

Athena statue

Hello, I noticed you have an interest in the image of the statue of Athena used in Athens. However, I find the current image unsuitable for a number of reasons. First, it is not ancient at all, but rather an entirely modern work, dating to the 19th century. It is also a little too baroque for my taste, and taken from a weird angle. As an alternative, would you consider this image [2]? It is a replica of the original Athena Parthenos made by Phidias himself and located inside the Parthenon. Best, Athenean (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Wells with spires cutnpaste.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wells with spires cutnpaste.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your edit

Regarding this edit [3], you may want to have a good read of the definition of the word [4]. Feature is only mildly related to films and is used to indicate a prominent aspect of something, as these photos were featured on a phone card in a prominent manner.--Crossmr (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Lenny

Despite everything? Was I gratuitously offensive again? Still, it's good to know that some things are still free. Love and kisses PiCo (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)