User talk:Amandajm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

--'''Attilios''' (talk) 09:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Hello, Amandajm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

This editor is a Senior Editor III and is entitled to display this Rhodium Editor Star.

Not that it matters, but...[edit]

...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)

Lesser Cartographies User:Mary IV's page would seem to indicate that this person has had previous incarnations as User:Mary, User:Mary II and User:Mary III. Amandajm (talk) 05:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Gerard David[edit]

The Rest on The Flight into Egypt, c. 1510, National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C.
Tell me

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)

Hafspajen, the colour reproduction is beautiful. However, as usual, I am seeing it a little dull, and need to turn my monitor up to full brightness to register the colours accurately. I wonder if this is in fact a problem with the settings of my monitor, as I would expect it to be correct at a middle setting.
One of the good indications that the colours are accurate is that there is a very clear definition between the two blue pigments. Ultramarine has been used for the robes and sky, while the landscape uses a much greener blue, probably azurite. I think all the colours are excellent. It is an exquisite painting. It would be nice to see it featured. Amandajm (talk) 06:18, 8 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)

You are a great asset. Hafspajen (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I am worried about the Rembrand article. We just fight over it but it does not keep up to Wikipedia standards. It would need someone who could edit it from the outside - uninvolved. It is a shame to have such a weird way of illustrating it - in my oppinion - still no good. To many forces, to many oppinions - and it is not going anywhere. We say: Rembrandt's greatest creative triumphs are exemplified especially in his portraits of his contemporaries, self-portraits and illustrations of scenes from the Bible. Well, selfportraits we have to many of in the gallery - really, but we removed a lot of portraits lately. We should have more portraits, more organized after the themes and not after the timeline, and more of the great works he had. Hafspajen (talk) 04:42, 17 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)

Hafspajen, No. 3 has the best colours. The red is properly crimson. The sleeves are white. The flesh is pink and white and the sky is blue. The other two have a yellow cast. It would be easy to correct, but I think that they are too large to load onto my browser. Amandajm (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Really?? That was a BIG surprise. I had a load of comments on the nomination about ALT being the correct version, coming from the museum site. It would be an idea to upload the Joconde version. Hafspajen (talk) 11:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. I just went to the museum's page and looked at it in detail. None of the impasto whites are white; they are all yellowish. By contrast, the little spots of light reflecting of the surface of the paint are sharp white. So the yellowish hue is definitely part of the picture, as it now exists. Maybe varnish, or smoke stain. (It's what happens to pictures that are in a room with an open fire, or candles.) If it was in the National Gallery, London, they would clean it ... very thoroughly, and ..... well, let's not go there.....
Basically, the Louvre version seems very accurate. I retract my suggestion Amandajm (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, now - which one is fit - for a Featured picture? I knew that the original painting - the one painted for 500 years ago was like the one you posted. But for a Featured picture what would be the criteria?
As far as I read it it goes like this: For historic images, acceptable manipulations might include digitally fixing rips, removal of stains, cleanup of dirt, and, for mass-produced artworks such as engravings, removal of flaws inherent to the particular reproduction, such as over-inking. Careful colour adjustments may be used to bring out the original work from the signs of ageing, though care should be taken to restore a natural appearance. The original artistic intent should be considered when deciding whether it is appropriate to make a change.
So, which one is the one that is the right kind of picture then? Hafspajen (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
By the way, Crisco said something clever, namely: museums a lot of times they deliberately scan at a lower exposure to reduce glare from the cracks and flakes. Hafspajen (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you were right, from the beggining. Or there are two pictures, see here: Hafspajen (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

And an other[edit]

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)

August 2014[edit]

Information icon 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)

Leonardo da Vinci Self Portrait[edit]


I would like to know why you have changed the article to a supposed 'stable' state.

You have removed sources and actually provided incorrect links. The citation you provided on this "It is generally thought that if the drawing represents Leonardo, then this is the only formal self-portrait executed by him." is not in that book.

There was a discussion in the talk page about this.

You are vandalizing!

Walnut77 (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that making statements such as this:

"The portrait of a man in red chalk (circa 1510) in the Biblioteca Reale, Turin is widely, though not universally, accepted as a self portrait of Leonardo da Vinci"

is YOUR opinion. I am starting to think you are the same user as all the previous ones.

Walnut77 (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course I could be wrong. If you have citations please provide them. OTHERWISE DO NOT REMOVE PERFECTLY GOOD CITATIONS.


Walnut77 (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Walnut77, firstly, I am not the same person. I have been absent from Wiki for some months, moving house. If you check my credentials, I am the major author of Leonardo da Vinci, Science and inventions of Leonardo da Vinci and other Leonardo articles as well as other major art and architecture article such as Italian Renaissance painting. Two of the sources that you have given are newspaper articles. They state that the portrait is "universally acknowledged" as Leonardo. You know for a fact that this is not true. If it 'was' true, then no one would be arguing about it. In fact, the drawing is widely disputed by reputable art historians, including Martin Kemp as not representing Leonardo. The uncertainty about the subject needs to be stated. The identification as Leonardo is19th century and based on the image in the School of Athens. However, even the tradition that Plato represents Leonardo has come under challenge.

Amandajm (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The uncertainty of the subject IS stated, there is an entire section on it! The newspaper article comes from a very reputable newspaper (AND NOWHERE IN THE ARTICLE IS IT STATED THAT IT IS CERTAIN IT IS HIM) It states it is considered to be him, something that IS TRUE and is in the sources! I DO NOT KNOW THIS FOR A FACT AND NEITHER DO YOU.

Besides, in your edits none of the sources mentioned had anything similar to what was claimed (This is why I edited this article because it was filled with opinion and inaccurate sources), so it is very strange to me you call it a "stable" version.

And how are these credentials? Another wikipedia page IS NOT a source!

A source is a published book, a published news article, a study by a reputable university etc. This is what should be used for this page if you really are worried about accurate information.

If the person is disputed so much then please add citations to the Controversy section ACTUAL citations.

Walnut77 (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw you changed the article again.

There is not just one reference that is incorrect. Every reference provided in the controversy below the first paragraph is not accurate. The introduction contains misleading words AND YOU ERASED AN ACCURATE SOURCE. Read what you are putting in the introduction and give me a reference to your claim that it is not universally accepted.

You should be ashamed of acting like this with so many years in wikipedia and seeing HOW MUCH EMPHASIS YOU HAVE PLACED ON SOURCES in other edits of yours.

Walnut77 (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It is also funny that the Italian version of the article says this:

"Il disegno del celebre autoritratto, l'unico sicuro dell'artista, viene in genere datato ai suoi ultimi anni di vita, quando viveva in Francia al servizio di Francesco I"

The design of the celebrated self-potrait, the only certain of the artist, is dated to the last years of his life, when he was living in France at the service of Francesco I'

go figure...

Walnut77 (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


Yes, of course the Italian site says that it is genuine.
Firstly, the introductory paragraph of an article needs to broadly cover the facts in an accurate way. The fact is that the identity is widely but not universally accepted.
the details of how and when it first came to be accepted, I.e. 19th century, and who precisely accepts or doesn't accept it, are the stuff that go in the body of the article. No references are needed at all, in the introduction, because it is a generall summary.
The introduction was accurate, until you fiddled with it.
I haven't checked the reference that you gave in the intro of the article, only the two news articles. The two news articles do not carry any academic weight at all.
What the articles lacks, but you have not been smart enough to identify, is a list of those reputable art historians who believe that it represents Leonardo, and those who do not. The reason why this is missing is that the article was never completed. that is why it also had a prominent sign saying that more citation was needed. I don't know who added that. I quite often add 'citation needed' tags to articles that I am working on, to prompt myself, so it might even have been me.
Using ONE author to support your case that the work is generally regarded as Leonardo is simply not adequate, if used only to support one side of the case. If, on the other hand, you find an author who writes a list of those who support, and those who disagree, then they can be cited. You can't present one side of a controversy as the facts.
If the body of the article states that the identification is a matter of controversy, then that is the fact that should be clearly stated in the introduction.
This is not so important if there is only one challenge to an identification. But in this case the questioning of the identification is about as widespread as the acceptance. the more reputable the writer, the more they are likely to approach the subject with hesitance and say either that it is unknown or questionable.
The fact that you are quoting the newspapers on the identity indicates that you don't really know a great deal about art history, but you are buying into this because, like many others, you are fascinated by Leonardo, and would like to believe that this really is an image of the man himself. Unfortunately, the experts are out on this one, and we cannot be certain. That is what the intro of the article must reflect.
I also need to tell you that a great number of identifications and attributions made in the 19th century, before the advantages that we have from good photography, have since been discounted. Claiming a 19th century attribution is almost meaningless nowadays, unless late 20th and 21st century scholarship supports it.
Amandajm (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No the italian site says it is HIS ONLY CERTAIN self-potrait. (This is why I use capitals).

In italian, the drawing is also called "Self-Portrait" = Autoritratto

I am not asking you to tell me these things, I am asking you to put citations: Who are the 20th and 21st century scholars who do not support it? Where does it say it is not UNIVERSALLY accepted? where did you come up with this word?

And again, the article Does not say it is him, it says it was identified as him and has been regarded as him. There is a section on the controversy as well. But do not add controversies that do not exist in literature! If they do then by all means put them and cite them.

Walnut77 (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You were very quick to use the citations that you have not checked. At least the news articles do say what is stated and besides, they were just put there as a counter argument to what was being said before that it was not universally accepted.

I decided not to use that word at all because it is very misleading Either way!

Walnut77 (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I am too busy to continue with this silliness just now. Why don't you do something to make the lede reflect the facts? Amandajm (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

what is lede?

Walnut77 (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The introduction. The easiest way to fix it is to revert it. Also return the citation needed banner to the top of the next section, to alert me to add more.citations. Amandajm (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Walnut77, it has just come to my attention that you left an edit summary stating "person continues to vandalise" in reference to my edit, presuming me to be someone with whom you had a previous talk page dispute. When someone with a different name suddenly appearance and makes an edit that you dislike, don't be so hasty to assume it is a sock puppet.
An edit of the type that I made is not "vandalism" in any sense. Your edit failed to create an introduction that reflected the article, and it introduced a one sided view,a one sided reference to a controversial subject, and two spurious references that have relevance to the fact that the image is deteriorated and under conservation (that is news and therefore a news citation is in order) but have no relevance to the fact that art historians do not agree.
I would like a apology for your inappropriate accusation of vandalism. The inappropriate edits are those than continue to attempt to disguise the fact that the identity of the sitter has been questioned for many years.
As I have told you, I do not have access to my library. I will find the citations, whenI do. Meanwhile, as you are probably younger and more mobile than I am, why don't you get yourself to your local library, find up-to-date books and journals and do some solid work on it?
Amandajm (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Art Editathon[edit]

Hi Amandajm, Sorry about the late notice, but it has been the same for all of us ... if you can, you might like to come along to an editathon about women and art at the MCA tomorrow. Experienced editors are needed. Meetup: Art+Feminism at MCA (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Sydney University women[edit]

Hi Amanda. Another editathon that I think you will be interested in this Friday: Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/University of Sydney Wikibomb. All the best! --99of9 (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Thank you, Amanda, for quality contributions to articles such as Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes, for sharing your interest in churches including their art and arcitecture, for teaching even in edit summaries and giving concise advice to new editors, for good arguments and a richly illustrated inspiring user page, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (11 August 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 646th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you! Scrooges third visitor-John Leech,1843.jpg

May 2015 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals!

All the best

Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited St Paul's Cathedral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great Fire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Leo the Late[edit]

Something at the Leo talk page regarding his tardiness. I wuz pinged. Amazing. How's the Pudding Isle?PiCo (talk) 10:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

And this:

Bristol Cathedral[edit]

Hi, How are you? Long time since we worked together on Wells Cathedral. I was wondering if you fancied a collaboration on either Bristol Cathedral or St Mary Redcliffe, both of which really should get to GA standard at some point.— Rod talk 18:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back to the UK. Both the articles mentioned are currently at GA nomination, but, as ever, could always be improved.— Rod talk 12:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)