Talk:George Albu

Untitled
Hi Phoe, please see Paul venter 22:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers and should have their title noted in the beginning of the article. The format is Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet. For the article title, this format should only be used when disambiguation is necessary; otherwise, the article should be located at John Smith. John Smith, 17th Baronet should never be used with the postfix and without the prefix. Paul venter 06:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that mean that this article should be at George Albu? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - but impossible to do for a humble editor without powers...........Paul venter 20:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

My edits
To attempt to settle this once and for all I will go through my edits that User:Paul venter has just reverted one by one. A picture of his wife is unnecessary. This is an article about George Albu and a photo of Lady Albu just isn't warranted. Secondly, photos should not be placed so they squeeze the text like that, and they don't need to be that large either. My edits to the opening line (ie places of birth/death) are backed up by Manual of Style (biographies). And the categories I added are also necessary. The "Article Under Construction" is not necessary, a template can be used if the article is under ACTIVE editing. --Berks105 18:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This matter has certainly not been settled. Your other edits can stand, but your removal of photos because you do not feel they are warranted or "squeeze" the text is entirely a matter of taste with no backing from any MoS guidelines. Of course, I may be wrong; if so please enlighten me. For the time being I am replacing the photos. Paul venter 17:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Image size
Kindly go to Nathan Altman, Mary Cassatt, Edgar Degas, Edouard Manet, Claude Monet, Berthe Morisot, Winston Churchill, Jan Smuts, Elizabeth I of England to see just a few articles that do not use thumbnail-size images. Please find someone else to bother.Paul venter 07:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that another article does not follow MoS is not in itself a reason to avoid MoS. I camee across an article last night where the thumb is far too small for a reason I have not yet understood. Please stop reverting MoS, read WP:OWN and WP:POINT and don't take this personally. You are a very good article creator. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 08:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * MoS guidelines, as I have said earlier, are not clearcut and are open to interpretation, besides which they are simply guidelines and not intended to be slavishly followed as if they were the Ten Commandments. So please stop harassing me. Paul venter 08:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please re-read policy on image sizes which was in your talk page until you blanked it. You will find it on my talk page. Blanking is considered vandalism. The image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width in order to enhance the readability and/or layout of an article. Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate are set down. Which applies here? I am not harassing you. I hear that you are feeling harassed. Kittybrewster   (talk) 10:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Blanking of one's own page certainly cannot be construed as vandalism. The article is eminently readable with larger images. You know that you are stalking and harassing me - I can only hope that you tire of your childish games and find something more constructive to do. Paul venter 10:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I know you feel that. It is probably because you have contributed to a number of articles which are embraced by . You are generally a great contributor with much to offer. "Eminently readable with larger images" is not sufficient cause to depart from MoS. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can understand your wish to conform with what you perceive as Wikipedia policy, but it flies in the face of what many other editors are doing. Paul venter 20:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should adhere to policy until consensus is to change it. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please remember WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * They are constantly in my mind......Paul venter 12:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I hope you don't mind if I pop in uninvited. Kittybrewster kindly asked for advice. You both have excellent points: we should follow policy and the manual of style in order to some consistency across Wikipedia, but at the same time we are advised that, if the rules prevent us from improving Wikipedia, we should ignore them. Some readers and editors like to set thumbnail sizes to a different size, but this option breaks when pixels are manually set (see Special:Preferences, tab titled "Files"). This is especially important for users with visual impairments and for users who simply want a larger picture or a smaller picture for whatever reason. Could we agree to redact the set pixel size, stick with thumb and let users decide what thumbnail size works best for them? --Iamunknown 21:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)