User talk:Yngvadottir

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Archive of my Did You Knows

The wise page

Luminais

this is Gallen-Kallela - but probably not these you are thinking of

Évariste Vital Luminais. Anything you care to add to your impressive list of "Articles I substantially expanded"? Hafspajen (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Aaah, the guy who did the flight from Ys. If I have time ... it looks good right now, just if you know his work, it is then apparent how much is missing. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Not the best article, but the French is good. I was thinking of maybe you can check theirs. Hafspajen (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes exactly. Once one looks at the French it becomes apparent that ours needs more. Do you think we should have a separate article on Les énervés de Jumièges, as they do? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

What I think that it is a creepy painting. I don't like mothers who abuse their child. Hafspajen (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Of course the story of Ys is creepy too - the king's daughter betraying the city and so on. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Some pictors - painters have a bit sick minds. And he is a little bit like that, I tried to select the best paintings making the gallery, that are HIS best - but I could have done a much-much creepier gallery too. This one for example, Egon Schiele - I really started to feel weird after working on this article. The guy is crazy - I realized that while poking around there. This guy, was on the contary, Tadao Ando, he made me feel serene, balaced and refereshed, calm and I felt like flying. Weird, no? It has to do with the inexplicable thing only an artwork can -tell - somehow. And in the begining I thought Tadao was a lot of boring cement, while Schiele. . . - I liked the colours and the lines. Hafspajen (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't collect Schieles. But some art is made for huge galleries, and other art for small galleries, and other art would work in residences of varying sizes. I would like one day to have a residence large enough for Tintorettos and Gallen-Kallelas. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is a refreshing feeling to have a lot of space like that... My dad had a big appartmant like that - old fashioned, with maids chamber, enormous kitchen and food- lucka -a small wooden cabinet inside of the apartment, built into the wall, would have doors on both sides- between the kitchen and the dining room, and all walls full of paintings - 7 meters high. But then there was always problems with the curtains ... OOPS - forgot to do something about Pekka Halonen. Hafspajen (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Good for your dad! The example you posted here is a bit too civilised for me:

• 
• 
• 

Those would overwhelm most living spaces. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

And for his next wife. Is this kind of The Forging of the Sampo you want on your wall? Hafspajen (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I do have a strong stomach. But I don't think I'd want The Raft of the Medusa in the dining room. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hm, no. Hafspajen (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• This
• 
  Hiroshige - Evening on the Sumida river
• 
• 
  Hiroshige : Le pont du tambour Meguro
• 
• 
  Hokusai — Sous la vague au large de Kanagawa (1830 ou 1831)
• 
• 
• 

would be my choice. Hafspajen (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Those would suit many living spaces :-) I don't believe I'd seen Night Rain before. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, it is NOT because I don't like any other artwork. But they are so final, mostly all of them... If you understand what I mean. These leave something for the fantasy - one can look at them all day long. Hafspajen (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Hafspajen: Have a look at Luminais now, I think I'm done. Sorry about shoving in Galish and Merovingian pictures like that, but the text discusses them. Similarly with the dome fresco. I didn't put in the other versions of the Sons of Clovis II - they have a full set in their article. And I left out the huge list of other paintings. I checked those references I was able to see. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 6 edits ago on July 16, 2014 - Are you going to hate me if I DYK ? Hafspajen (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think you'll find it has insufficient references. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Reliance Foundation may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• felicitates-62-SSC-HSC-toppers/articleshow/7044777.cms |agency=TNN |newspaper=The Times of India]] |date=4 December 2010}}</ref> It was founded in 2010 by [[Mukesh Ambani]], chairperson of Reliance

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Évariste Vital Luminais may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• hoped this would indeed be Luminais "last" Merovingian painting.<ref name=Race>Bonnie Effros, [url=http://www.academia.edu/1231102/_Artistic_Scholarly_and_Popular_Depictions_of_the_premiere_race_

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Johann Snell

Hi, can you add a bit from the Den Store source to this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

On my list :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Can you also proof Fyns Hoved from Danish wiki? Loads here too. Hope that's not too much to burden you with!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, but no promises of sufficient speed. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Dr. Blofeld: Snell's done. Found there were articles in 3 other languages, and the Danish one provided additional sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC) ... and I just looked at the German and it's humongous; they have an article on the monastic establishment in Rostock where he apprenticed, de:Michaeliskloster (Rostock), that looks worth an article here but is not for me. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC) ... and Fyns Hoved now done too, including adding material and refs from that source. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Very nice, thanks! Perhaps User:Aymatth2 could start the Rostock one. Odense Palace could use translation from Danish I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: The slot's done. I've linked to the article on the associated garden, which someone may want to do. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The palace looks great!! I'm sure @Rosiestep: would be delighted with the expansion!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your link to the da article; I've created King's Garden (Odense). --Rosiestep (talk) 04:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

And Michaeliskloster. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Could you please take a look at Elsa Collin and Brita von Horn. Would appreciate it!--BabbaQ (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Madly busy, but I got to Collin before work and on break, will similarly try to fit in von Horn. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC) - and I've now given von Horn a slightly lighter going over. I think more sources could be found on her, but I didn't look except for the Skagen house, unreferenced on sv. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you :) Please take a look at Alice Teodorescu and Fittja gård when you got time for it. Thanks!--BabbaQ (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If and when, I will :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Both now done - except the paragraph about the painting at Fittja gård. But bed now :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sister-wife of Njörðr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ullin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Anurag Singh

Yes, that was clearly me be a sloppy moron, so that's fine. WilyD 07:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

!

Template:Did you know nominations/Évariste Vital Luminais ... Hafspajen (talk) 11:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, thanks ... Yngvadottir (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh ... OK, what shall we do with the missing refs? Hafspajen (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

No idea, sorry. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so alof today. will you look after my edits if I try? Just keep check. Hafspajen (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Just please don't move an existing reference to a different place. If you can add references rather than moving them, then I will be able to check them. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

No, no - not moving anything. [1]

Good ref. Removing the text from here! Yngvadottir (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. I have to get dressed and walk dogs and boring things like that. I will work on the article some more later. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

What kind of dogs do you have? + ?Hafspajen (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Bryan's Dictionary of painters and engravers, Vol 3, 1904, p. 258 gives an exact date of death, 10 May 1896, if that helps. There is a very brief obituary in the London Standard, Saturday 16 May 1896 (only about 90 words), I don't think it really has anything you haven't already got but let me know if you'd like the info from it. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Phil you are a treasure. Hafspajen (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sagaciousphil: Many thanks. It is the biographical content that needs referencing, really. Tasks are piling up for me on and off-wiki today, but I will get to the article again when I can. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Oxford English

I have reverted your edit that changes to use -ize rather than -ise, because it has been discussed twice before and the consensus was to use British English. See Talk:University_of_Oxford/Archive_3#Oxford English and Talk:University_of_Oxford/Archive_2#Organization.2Forganisation. It also reverted your addition of "in order" which is just not needed. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I was unaware of that decision. The editor who had initially made the change has been carelessly running a script; this was the only one of his latest batch that I reverted, in view of the Oxfordness of Oxford spelling. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank You for agreeing to work with me

Hi,

Can I begin by thanking you for agreeing to work with me, I had grown frustrated with having my edits constantly reverted. Also, despite the fact that I have tried to implement the administrators wishes, I keep getting threatened with being blocked which is upsetting. Hopefully, I can work with you in order to make pertinent changes to the Wentbridge page.

To that end, could I please ask you, if it is not too much trouble, to judge the page dated 14:32 19 July 2014 on its own merits, as this was the last amendment that I made. Given that I am new to editing Wikipedia articles there will be changes that can be made to the benefit of the page, and hopefully we can discuss these and work together to implement any outstanding issues.

Thank you,

Scott

• This one, from 13:44? Looking. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC) ... Ah no, 14:32. ... Yngvadottir (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Siggasonswein: It does seem too long (or undue weight, as we term it), but you have indeed used secondary sources. Did you see that there are responses at Talk:Wentbridge, including a specific opinion on what can be usefully put back? Yngvadottir (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Next question - can you supply page numbers for the references to books? If so, I can see how to cut it down. Also, some are wondering why you haven't added anything about the Yorkshire Anglo-Saxon theory at Robin Hood? It would still need to be summarised briefly (one paragraph maximum; it might be better fitted in after existing coverage on one theory), and strict Conflict of interest policy would suggest proposing your addition at the article's talk page first, since there you would probably want to have a footnote to your own work. Have you considered what that addition should look like? Yngvadottir (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks,

I have seen the commentary on the Wentbridge talk page, but it is overwhelming, and I fear that I am on a time delay which doesn't help. Also, yes, I have all of the correct citation details as I have copy-pasted them from the original thesis. And yes, I had considered adding information to the Robin Hood page itself, as this is an obvious action, but until today the page was semi-protected and thus I was prohibited from accessing it.

In particular, I note that BB23 feels that the information relating to Robin Hood does not belong on the Wentbridge page. I must strongly contest this point. The original Robin Hood sources, which date from the fifteenth century in the form of medieval ballads, relate Robin Hood's activities to the Went Valley, and in particular to Wentbridge, and not to the county of Nottinghamshire. This is a point of interest which is accepted by all professional historians (see Sir J.C. Holt 'Robin Hood'). The Yorkshire / Nottinghamshire Robin Hood heritage issue is a highly controversial topic in northern England and therefore is often spoken of. In consequence, Wakefield City Council has itself placed a plaque on the bridge over the River Went in the heart of Wentbridge to commemorate this detail. Therefore, the Robin Hood information that I have posted is of the utmost importance to the Wentbridge page, for it is the one thing, above all others, that the locale is known for. I would suggest therefore that in the interests of local history, the content that I have included on Robin Hood is fitting.

Staszek Lem has pointed to repetitions and where these occur they can be edited.

The first paragraph on 'Geography and Topography' and the final paragraph appear to be popular. In particular, Staszek Lem has indicated that most of the additions to 'Geography and Topgraphy' relate to the locality, which is what I had believed. And, strictly speaking, the second to last paragraph, which is properly cited, is important because it explains the local history of the region, and how this led to the origin of the Robin Hood legend. It is indeed difficult to write four lines on the topic of Robin Hood and believe that I have kept this to a bare minimum.

Please advise,

Scott

Not four lines in my view, but much shorter than it was. (I was thinking especially of NeilN's comment at 00:25, but I see that conversation is continuing there; they're trying to help you out by assessing what should be put back.) I appreciate the time delay thing - in view of the time where I presume you are, I thought you had gone to bed. There's no big rush and although it's not late where I am, it's very hot and I'm making stupid mistakes. Otherwise I would have offered to edit the article myself to incorporate a brief summary. That offer stands, but after I've had some sleep would be a better idea :-) If you're amenable - and you should note that I will condense and cut a lot - then please look up the page numbers and add them afterwards? On the other hand it's possible someone else will do it for us - in that case, again, please add those page numbers.

You have been registered for long enough and made enough edits that your account should now be 'autoconfirmed', which makes it possible for you to edit semi-protected articles. However, since at Robin Hood you would most logically add a reference to your own work as well as the third-party references, I still recommend you propose that edit at Talk:Robin Hood first. (The conflict of interest policy, to which I referred above.) In terms of reorganising the article and adding references to others' work, you can do that per WP:BOLD, but if you get reverted, you should then discuss on the talk page rather than reinstating your edit(s). This is bold - revert - discuss, our recommended procedure.

A small point that someone else has made: we sign here on talk pages using the software, because it provides a link to the person's user and/or talk pages, which is convenient for the person responding, especially when the user name differs from the real name, as yours and mine do. This is done either by typing 4 tildes, ~~~~, or by clicking the symbol that should appear above the edit screen - either a scribble or a pencil, depending on the settings you have enabled.

I'll be up for a few more hours. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Poor Guillaume...

Guillaume Voiriot - looks like -nothing to me. Hafspajen (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Hafspajen: A little more there now, and some references, but not enough text for you to fit in more pics, I'm afraid. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

No, there are no pics on him, one can add yet, actually. Not much to show - anyway. Hafspajen (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks again for the help.

If I've understood both Neil's and Staszek Lem's advice correctly, they're suggesting that I can reinsert the sections pertaining to 'Geography and Topography' and also the final paragraph.

Scott

@Siggasonswein: I've done a little tiny bit of tidying up at Robin Hood: I fixed the oak picture so that it shows (you had one too few closing square brackets) and I removed "Sir" and "eminent" because both are contrary to our house style: no honorifics, avoid praise words as non-neutral. Keep it utterly dry. I note that the article already refers in several places to J. C. Holt's theory, so there is definitely further condensing and combining to be done. And a small typographical point: use straight inverted commas and apostrophes if you can, rather than the slanted ones.

You're now getting into working with the other editors quite well, so if you prefer, go ahead and put back that little bit of material at Wentbridge. Again, I would not personally make the new Robin Hood material there as short as four lines - maybe one or two brief paragraphs. And I hope you have those page numbers now :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, yeah, I had thought myself that the Robin Hood page needs some tidying up. I'm currently on sick-leave and so I think that tidying the page up turn into a bit of a pet project as I while away the hours. Thanks for the advice on Wentbridge, I will do as you suggest.

Scott

The Wentbridge page is still being condemned

Hi,

I have noticed that the Wentbridge page that I have edited is still being condemned. I have taken on board the recommended changes, and thereby reducing the amount of geographical and topographical information to stuff that only relates to Wentbridge. In addition, I have kept the Robin Hood stuff to a couple of paragraphs as you suggested. So can you please advise on where I have gone wrong.

Thanks,

Scott

I went back and noted that you'd been discussing and editing accordingly, all of which is good. I went in and condensed and copyedited a bit, and then left a note on the talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Fittja gård

added links pointing to Bypass and Garden city

Mia Lövheim

added a link pointing to Vårt Land

Njörun

added a link pointing to Volla

Odense Palace

added a link pointing to Dano-Swedish war

Pebble Hills University

added a link pointing to Open enrollment

Évariste Vital Luminais

added a link pointing to Third Republic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Évariste Vital Luminais

Hello! Your submission of Évariste Vital Luminais at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! CeeGee 10:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, the of Évariste Vital Luminais at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Because it was you wote up entirely that article, the issues about the Gauls are not something I can respond on... (Moved question to your page too) Hafspajen (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. If it had been me nominating it, I would have used Simone de Beauvoir's "calm horror" at The Sons of Clovis II. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you would have done that. Hafspajen (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

A favor

I'm contacting you because I see you edited the documentation for {{shy}} the other day. For almost a year I've been in a bizarre dispute with another editor who insists that shy only operates when the word in question is longer than the entire available line width i.e. the word is wider than the browser window (so to speak -- as in the wockawocka example) -- apparently his configuration is such that the more usual breaking of words for aesthetic reasons doesn't happen for him, so he insisted that it doesn't happen for anyone, and that I don't understand how shy works. This wouldn't matter except that he keeps accusing me of inserting shy in articles in order to erect a "markup minefield", "locking down" the articles so that others will be unable to edit them, I guess because the shy template is so fearsome. For a while it will seem he's found some other preoccupation, but then he pops up every once in a while to make this accusation again (along with many others -- he's really a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect).

As you've seen I've made some changes to the documentation to clear this up, but I fear that at some some random point in the future he'll accuse me of corrupting the documentation as part of my evil plan. (It's really been a rough ride with him these last few months.) So I was wondering if, to the extent you feel competent to do so, you might comment at Template talk:Shy (currently a redlink, BTW) confirming the changes I've made. I don't want to name this other editor or point you to our conversations, unless you really want that, because he'll accuse me of making a personal attack on him. EEng (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Quick reply, must get ready for work ... I don't really feel competent to do so, but I do feel your expansion of the explanation is helpful. Of course I went there to find out what it was :-) Since people now view the encyclopedia - and edit - on devices with a huge variety of window width, and some people haven't fully realized this, I believe that's part of the issue; part may also be the point in the documentation that browsers vary, some ignoring the markup entirely. I do notice two discussions at WT:MOS in mid-2013, both coming down on the side of minimizing use of the template, and a follow-up in December 2013 where someone was pointed to the resulting guidance on soft hyphens in the MOS. That suggests there are several editors with this concern, and I'm not sure why you didn't post there making the point about differing browsers. Will think further, sorry, out of time. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that's good enough. Thanks. EEng (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Évariste Vital Luminais

Scuse me but where was it? Can't find any signs of it that it appeared on the main page. Not in archive, for example. Hafspajen (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Second hook down in this update. The bot updated the page again 2 hours ago, according to the template display. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

But it should have waited 12 hours not 2 ... or? Hafspajen (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I mean it was indeed there when we got the notification templates, but by the time I replied here, it had been taken down. I suspect you missed it because they didn't use the picture. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hm, you ARE smart. Yes, got distracted by the canyon. Hafspajen (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Jeanne d'Aragon or Isabel de Requesens; Raphael or Giulio Romano?

In the Louvre

Here a last question: Why is this that there are so many different versions and colours on this picture. [2] and [3], [4] Surely some oxonian have seen this picture and knows how it looks like. Also some states that it is one person, and some -an other. Lower down on this site it [5] gives two names - that it is 2013 Jeanne d'Aragon - the other down the page if you click a lot on + button = Isabel de Requesens - but besides it is Jeanne d'Aragon, 2013 - now which is the correct one? And here an other Louvre site show something again completely different. And I have seen this picture in art books - rather looking like in my nomination. Jeanne d'Aragon by Raphael gets 491 000 google hits, while Isabel de Requesens Rafael gets 26 800 google hits. What's up? Hafspajen (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

They've changed the analysis of who it depicts; see your second link, which is the Lessing and Pomarède book: "Portrait of Dona Isabel de Requesens, Lady Viceroy of Naples, formerly known as Portrait of Jeanne d’Aragon". Also some experts plainly think it is by Giulio Romano with Raphael maybe having helped (your 4th link). The thing to do would be to look at the latest scholarly work on the painting and find out what the current state of thinking is - maybe there is disagreement, maybe scholarly consensus has changed. (Do we have an article on the painting in any Wikipedia, and does it summarise the situation?) As to the colours, I don't have the eyes to speak on that; sometimes the newer photographic technologies produce quite different colours, sometimes it's because the painting has been cleaned/restored. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

A portrait made by Giulio Romano - - look at the garment depicted - it is not folding - it is keeping the woman in a weird hug like an giant scary octopus versus the other painting

And look at this, the smile, the elegance of the garment - the velvet glittering - the hair, oh - this IS a masterwork - would't be surprized if it was a secret Leonardo - but whoever did it - anyway - it simply doesnt' even compare with Giulio's works - it is so much much better -

This is Giulio Romano's portrait of Jeanne that appears to have caused all the trouble. He clearly learnt from working with Raphael. One thing I note is the blander colour balance. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

We don't - just webbsites - (and Louvre is contradicting itself) - and this crazy nomination. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Portrait de Jeanne d'Aragon, by Raffaello Sanzio, from C2RMF retouched.jpg. Thanks for trying anyway. Take care and have fun. Hafspajen (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Hafspajen: At least 2 Wikipedia articles: it:Ritratto di Dona Isabel de Requesens ("by Raphael and assistants" (Giulio Romano named in infobox); demonstrated in 1997 to not be Jeanne d'Aragon, as formerly believed); fr:Portrait d'Isabelle de Requesens, vice-reine de Naples (Raphael (and Giulio Romano, in infobox) "originally confused with a painting of Jeanne d'Aragon because of a mistake by Pierre de Bourdeille, called Brantôme). I don't see any sources cited and am at work, but there's a start. There may even be other articles that use other images of the picture - I got to these by seeing what linked to the one you nominated, via Commons. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I presume you've seen the Commons category? Yngvadottir (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Just have 10 minutes, in a hurry - have noticed people leaving messages but won't be able to answer - Now, this image can make anyone crazy.

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10] [11] [12]

[13] [14][15]

this was quite recently added to the picture file - could be uncertain [16]

So many contradictory info! But just look at this painting above made by Giulio Romano, the octopus woman. It is just insane. It shows all signs of a not so good painter - eyes are different, garment like a armour - whoever came up with that idea - had a bad idea - and I don't know who - because can't find anything on it. Just stick to my orignal - per User:Amandajm's talk page. Thanks for trying to help. ^{Felt I need to discuss this with a calm and educated person - because those discussions on nom are - well...} Hafspajen (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'll have a look. When you get back ... See I have added a pic above. If I read up on this stuff and start an article on the painting here on en, will you help? By the way, just look at this violation of NPOV - screaming all-caps "NOT", lol. There's a reference there. :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Holy smoke. That is a real bad picture. He pinched or copied that one from his master - Raffy. ->Hafspajen (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It isn't creepy like the poor octopus woman tho. Meanwhile - the Commons page on the unretouched version of the image contains a spectacularly good, referenced article on the picture! (Saying the face and hands are Raphael but not the rest; I find that a bit dubious looking at the 3 images, but who am I to say. And I know Raphael worked with a whole atelier.) I cannot get access to Fritz's 1997 book that changed everything (apparently German and there is a French translation), but I can get the book edited by Brown that reports on it all. So ... I do not have an education in art history; I don't even have your eyesight. But if I start an article on this painting, will you help make it less stupid? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Now I am confused. Looking at that other Giulio Romano on Commons again, I see I misremembered and they say it is also Isabel - as Mona Lisa! And the gallery believes it to be a copy of the Raphael/Giulio Romano one. My head hurts. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you are not the only one. I don't know when I will be able - but answer - yes. This file is most File:Giulio Romano (school of Raphael) - Portrait of Doña Isabel de Requesens - Louvre 612 Joconde 000PE026978.jpg surely wrong - uploaded by my antagonist at my nomination wanting to trump over me. It is just not possible that Giulio suddenly turned into a genius and later went back into mediocrity. I would ask an art professor at your university who the heck ... changed the pictures original name and why. I won't be able to comment more from now on. Thanks for trying to sort out the mess. Hafspajen (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Oak

Hi, please take a look at Ekeby oak tree when you find the time... Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, those refs are not reliable. I am not sure actually, it could be the biggest in volume - but not the oldest, - Remember Rumskulla oak, 1000 years old? It is probably just because the Rumskulla oak is hollow - Hafspajen (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC) And anyway nobody say who conducted the res. Hafspajen (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I've done a little work on it; more needs to be done. I agree with Haf, not great sources there, but I identified the best one and retrieved another from an archive. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I know that is why I asked also for a second opinion. Thanks guys.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

If you wouldnt mind taking a look at Elsa Billgren and Valentin Wolfenstein as well. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

On my list. However, even after a week off work, it's a long list ... Yngvadottir (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)