User talk:Thomas Peardew

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

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Thomas Peardew, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! œ 08:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Zhua61: thanks for the welcome message: it got me moving sufficiently to put in a few lines onto the user page you helpfully created for me. I have been editing Wiki articles for a while now, so it must have been about time. Thanks for the guidance on Chinese pronunciation too. And can I just say that there's a spelling trap there: it's "pronounce" with an "o" between the "n" and the "u" but "pronunciation" without one (and they are pronounced differently, too).Thomas Peardew (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Chiang Kai-shek Pronouciation[edit]

In Modern Chinese pinyin, the 'ang' sound is pronounced similar to the 'ong' (as in 'tongs') sound in English. 'Jiong' is similar to how it is pronounced in Chinese. This goes for other characters too. Zhua61 21:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Colfe's School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page International Socialists (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) 09:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hugh Walpole[edit]

I have Walpole up for peer review, and if you have time and disposition to look in, I shall be in your debt. Quite understand if not, naturally. – Tim riley (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The Ambassadors (Holbein)[edit]

Bit of a dumb hypothesis then, as one can't see it from the left of the painting. Or is it suggesting that people walked up the stairs past the painting on their left and then glanced back over their left shoulder? Oh, and where's the source for that "hypothesis"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to have trodden on any toes there, but I recall seeing the picture many years ago and being told by a National Gallery pundit that it would have been hung above a staircase, one leading up into a large chamber: so as you come up the stairs with the picture on your left, the correct view of the skull would be the first thing you'd make out. It's worth pointing out that the anamorphic view works just as well when looking from the left and below the picture upwards (try it), as it does when looking from the right and above the picture downwards - and pictures are usually hung at a height rather than at the ground level you'd need to look down on the skull. I'll look for a proper source, but I don't feel very strongly either way. Thomas Peardew (talk) 08:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's a reference to viewing from below: http://lavieboheme2010.blogspot.fr/2010/11/hans-holbein-younger.html (although the author also mentions looking from the right). And here's another, more detailed: http://tomclarkblog.blogspot.fr/2010/11/mystery-of-anamorphic-skull-in.html. I think I'd be tempted to leave the word left stand, but also add the alternative. Thomas Peardew (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Dear Tom Pear-doo... Thanks for your reply. I have no particular axe to grind. I was only going along with the explanation given by Waldemar Januszczak on BBC's The Culture Show. And it wasn't easy for him - he had to resort to using his phone with his arm at full stretch! Yes, in that first source Annette Freeman says explicitly: "you can only see the skull in proper perspective if you look at it from the extreme right of the picture" and Tom Clarke says: "stationing oneself at an oblique angle in relation to the right side of the picture plane.." (although that second source is just a blogsite, so not suitable as a source). Of course, they have to all say this because it's hung at normal eye level in the National Gallery and it's not possible to approach it as if on a staircase. It's impractical (maybe impossible) to try and view it from low on the left. I agree there have to be two viewpoints from which to see the skull, but it's only facing the viewer when viewed from the right. If Holbein had intended the main effect to occur from below left, why did he not paint the skull facing that way? And yet guests would almost always see it for the first time if climbing, not descending, a staircase? It seems we don't even know who the painting was painted for, let alone where it was intended to be hung. It's all a bit of a mystery. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

When I look at the skull from the left of the picture, it is facing towards me. The back of the skull is to the right of the picture. And (although this is original research) I don't suppose many Tudor viewers of the picture were equipped with cell-phones.

Statements that are clearly wrong - such as that Annette Freeman quote - remind me of the saying about the thirteenth stroke of the clock. It casts doubt on the previous twelve. I appreciate that a whole raft of theories about lines on the picture require you to look along the skull from the right. But then aren't ley lines interesting too? Thomas Peardew (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll need to check that. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Thomas Peardew. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Thomas Peardew. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)