User talk:Amandajm/Archives/2011/June

Primary sources tag

I didn't put that in the article; Ancient Apparition did, here. The editing program I'm using just corrected the name of the template. You need to talk to him.—Chowbok ☠ 11:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Need Your Help

Amandajm-- I am planning to write some pages about living American architects and see from your Contributions and User Page that you have considerable experience in Architecture. Can you tell me, based on WP preference for using Prose in pages, are pages about Architects to be written entirely in prose, or, is it accepted that they can be part prose and part bulleted building lists (i.e., lists of major buildings designed by the architect with city, country, year completed). If there is a particular WP rule that applies to using lists for Architects, I would appreciate knowing about it, because I want to be sure that I am doing this correctly. To my thinking, since Architects are unlike many business professionals and involved with and known for multiple buildings during their careers, a list of works makes sense for part of their pages. Thank you for your assistance.DavidSycamore (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

How to call it?

Ciao! I would like to translate the Italian article about this outstanding Durer's masterpiece... [1]. How to name it correctly? Hugs and good work --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

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

St Ursula's

Does this 'problem' begin at a certain date? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: The Magpie

Thanks for your constructive criticism on the talk page. I've briefly responded, but I plan on updating the article to meet your concerns. Additional comments are most welcome. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Nike

What edit are you referring to? :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 06:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Isherwood 01.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Isherwood 01.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Isherwood 02.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Isherwood 02.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Isherwood 03.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Isherwood 03.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Isherwood 04.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Isherwood 04.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Isherwood 06.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Isherwood 06.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Lucan leonardo

As I already told you, the painting is a copy of the Florence so-called self-portrait, which I personally saw at the Vasari Corridor, and it is widely knonw it's a 19th century false, the guide of the museum explicit said that. Read here, for instance, last line: "l'Autoritratto di Leonardo, dichiaratamente falso, derivato dal disegno della Biblioteca Reale di Torino.": The self-portrait of Leonardo da Vinci, widely know as a fake, comes from the drawing of the Royal Library in Torino. Anybody can see the "Lucan Leonardo" is a less-quality copy of that. We don't have an entry about the Florence fake portrait, why we should have an entry for a copy of that? because the owner of that crap is familiar with wikipedia???

Keeping that painting in the list of Leonardo's work is a real shame, and the most sad thing is that other wikipedias copy from en.wiki, and started listing it with the other works... this is vary sad because it is a spread of "unknowledge". There was no conference at all, because it's so obviuos that that painting is a fake. nobody talks about that! I read the newpaper everyday and I read about the "portrai of a Lady" recently discovered, they talked about it! as well as I read about the Rochester Pietà by Michelangelo and so on... But they never talked about a "Lucan Leonardo"... The only people who talked about that painting are the owner, the local tourist office, the writer of the entry in en.wiki and you. Is this "intense research"?? The rest of the world will no ever consider that a Leonardo's because it's just a ridiculous false painting. It's not even antique, it doesn't even has the it:sfumato as the Giampietrino's Naked woman (in the list)... the lighting is so poor, there is no life in the eyes, the quality is such low! It is not even by Cristofano dell'Altissimo, because that painter worked in the 16th century and the "Lucan Leonardo" is a copy of a 19th century fake. The signature of the painting is the "fakest" thing I ever saw: Leonardo never signed any painting, why he should sign this crappy?? If the really discovered a signature by Leonardo any media would have talked about. Moreover, the signature is not just the indication of who is painted on, because nobody had ever wrote that backwards.. it's just fake, fake, fake! Can we remove it now? Thanks. I would really appreciate if we also start a cancellation procedure for the article. This is an obvious case of SPAM... --Sailko (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You know what the problem is? discussions taken places in the 2000s can be easily found on internet, the discussion about the Uffizi portrait (not the Alitissimo's one, I mean the fake I linked to you) took place maybe in the 50's, so now nobody has time to go to a library to search for old books... so it looks like that painting doesn't even exist, even if it was studied much more than the "Lucan portrait".. and it's so difficult to prove for me now it is a fake just because the discussion is over and it was all offline. I definitely don't think it is a painting by Altissimo.. the colours in the 16th century were much deeper, look here. This looks like it's blurred: it's because the fakers used to put a layer of creamy paint to make it look older... I read some books about this argument, even if i am not a specialist. Also the craquelure is not convincent... And by the way, you say that if a painting was ever disputed, then it has to stay in that section. But Wikipedia is not an an indiscriminate collection of information, so I think we should select at least what has a little chance to be something and what has not. I think the "Lucan Leonardo" is definitely and obviously NOT Leonardo's, so it should not stay in that page at all... It can stay in Altissimo's list of work maybe... but not there! Too famous painter to stay there --Sailko (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow! I need my dictionary to give you a complete reply. In the meantime I worked for you... :) I went to a special exhibition about Cristofano dell'Altissimo and took several pictures of his portrait of Leonardo at the Uffizi Gallery.. you can find them here. I especially wanted to show you how a real antique craquelure looks like: it changes texture depending which colour is on... The Lucan leonardo has a very generic craquelure on the cheek, which is obtained by chimical process and is completely ignoring the color changes.. think about it! --Sailko (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Metric units

Ciao Amandina! how are you? Still missing sleep? ;) Just a request to your excellent list of Greek Temples. Can you please put metric units FIRST (they are even totally missing now!). All articles which does not refer to US or UK stuff, should use metric units by default (and, in my opinion, avoid at all those pre-Industrial Revolution ones...). Ciao add good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Mhmhm... I am seriously doubtful. Beware that for him it'd be a big deal to have a "Leonardo" in his otherwise unknown museum. Frankly, the crappish quality of the painting alone should immediately warn anybody it that is NOT by Leonardo! He could paint so bad a 4 years or so, in my opinion. A few days ago there was an article on newspaper by an alleged art historian who has declared that she has found a new Caravaggio... just by document researches. But the painting itself? A total crust... Clearly by some nullity. So this matter of attributions has always a lot of obscure manouvers behind, often just to make a name of the art historian attributing it, whatever the painting is. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry... I got confused with the meaning of "ruled out". I didn't study phrasal verbs at High Schools because the English professor preferred to teach us computer. Nice excuse, eh? ;) Anyway, it's nice to notice that people can still see the obvious. Hugs from Attilio. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 07:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh eh eh... --'''Attilios''' (talk) 09:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

re: your message

Hi Amanda, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)