Talk:Onfim

Lead image
There is a photographic reproduction of one of Onfim's drawings on Commons. When I added it to the lead and moved the current lead image (a sketch) into the gallery with the other sketches, I was reverted with the explanation: "sorry, but i see no reason for this unexplained change. i liked the earlier image". I didn't know it needed an explanation: a photo is preferable for showing readers what is being talked about. "I liked the earlier image" is also not an explanation. What is the reason for removing a photograph from the article in favour of all black-and-white line images? Srnec (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, nice and cooperative here, Srnec. You have been here long enough to know that edit summaries are encouraged, especially if you swoop down onto an article that you've done nothing else on. I'd like to see you cite policy for why a photograph is preferable over a beautiful, clear drawing that illustrates one of the main points made in the article. In the meantime, I'm going back to the image that I selected when I wrote the article, in the version that at least four other contributors have seen. I would like to point you to WP:BRD: your B, my R, followed by your R. D comes first, and you should convince me and any editors here. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I opened the discussion 15 hours before reverting you. You edited Wikipedia in the interim. In fact, you responded to a point I made on another talk page after I opened this thread.
 * That you selected an image when you wrote the article is irrelevant. You don't own it. Did those other contributors know that a photo existed on Commons?
 * My original edit had a summary. It said: "(image from commons (attributed to Onfim at Birch bark manuscript)".
 * How can I convince you when you won't discuss? Almost your entire response is a lecture directed at me. The drawing is beautiful and clear, but the photograph is a more exact representation. Should we prefer this image of Bill Clinton or the one we actually use? Since the article is about Onfim, any of his drawings will do. Srnec (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Saying there is a photograph is not an argument. That there is a photograph is not an argument. I disagree that the photograph is "more exact": the image contains more information, directly pertinent to the text. Bill Clinton is irrelevant here. You haven't discussed anything yet; all you said is "you don't own this" and "photos are better". Well, I disagree. Yes, I don't own this article, but neither do you, and the point of the D in BRD is that you discuss after you've been reverted--not that you in turn revert and then discuss. Also, I thought you had kindly reverted someone's change and I thanked you for it; I think I should take this back, and please remember to log in before editing. This is silly, and I am still waiting for you to present a real argument. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Bill Clinton is irrelevant, but my point about his article and his representation is not. I never said photos are better. I said they were "preferable for showing readers what is being talked about" and provided "a more exact representation". My argument has been clear, but you haven't responded to it. The black-and-white line drawing does not show the reader what a birch barck manuscript looks like. It shows them only what is on the bark. It contains less information, because it does not contain colour and reproduces only what is of interest to the one making it. It is a very nice image and very useful, but the average reader has no idea what a birch bark document is. The photo shows him. The line drawing does not: it shows him only what Onfim drew and wrote. Why place the reader one further remove from the artefact (and Onfim) than necessary? You removed the photo entirely from the article. I merely placed the line image in the gallery with the others. Srnec (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is about Onfim, not about documents--we have an article for birch documents, Birch bark manuscript, linked in the introduction and explained briefly in the "Background" section. What he wrote on (and what color that material was) is much less important than what he revealed in his writing: his background, his literacy, his education, even his psychology. His friends, his dreams, his nightmares. It's not about birch, it's about Onfim, the writer. But, as you can see, I've placed the drawing back in the article, and I'll let you win your dispute. I think it's silly that you swoop down here and read me the riot act, when as far as I can tell you and I are not looking at the same article, and I think it's a bit unbecoming of someone with so much expertise and experience on Wikipedia to break the BRD cycle and dismiss an argument as a lecture: I explained in my very first edit here why I think the image was better for the article. I think that if you wrote something from scratch and I came by and did the same thing you did (you might want to see how much time I invested in this, and in the beretsy article), you'd be a bit miffed as well. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The article was on the main page. If you don't want people "swooping down", don't nominate it for DYK. My interpretation of BRD is based on my expertise and experience. You reverted me, I opened a discussion. I got no response so I reverted again. That got a response. I responded and you did not respond. Feeling that perhaps you are slower to discuss, I gave it more than 24 hours the second time. Then I reverted again. That got a response. Since this is about winning to you, I'll let you win. Consider the page removed from my watchlist. Srnec (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

NFT
I think this article should be mentioned in Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Added. :D Double sharp (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Co-incidence? Onfim's "I am a wild beast" is like Brewer's Horn-book with 'St George and the dragon' on the reverse!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bb199.gif

"a picture of a beast with a long neck, pointy ears, and a curly tail. The beast either has an arrow with feathers in its mouth or is spewing fire; one of the accompanying texts (the one below the box) says "I am a wild beast""

In Tuer's 'History of the Horn-Book' https://archive.org/details/b29354195/page/n23/mode/2up

" In his  Dictionary of  Phrase  and  Fable,  Dr.  Brewer  describes  the  horn-book  as  an  alphabet book  or  board  of  oak  about  nine  inches  long  and  five  or  six  wide,  on which  was  printed  the  alphabet,  the  nine  digits,  and  sometimes  the  Lord’s Prayer.  “  It  had,”  says  the  doctor,  “  a  handle,  and  was  covered  in  front with  a  sheet  of  thin  horn  to  prevent  it  being  soiled,  and  the  back  board was  ornamented  with  a  rude  sketch  of  St.  George  and  the  Dragon.  The board  and  its  horn  cover  were  held  together  by  a  narrow  frame  or  border of  brass.”"

So Onfim draws a fire-breathing horse: The old English Horn-Book had a

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_George_and_the_Dragon

This seems to be a remarkable co-incidence. I am aware of some of the significance of St George in Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_St._George

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_George_and_the_Dragon#/media/File:S.George_(Novgorod,_mid._14_c,_GTG).jpg

Oh, perhaps ignore: I had confused with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%9E%D0%BD%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BC_(200).gif

2A00:23C8:660A:5A01:C57C:60A0:6646:2FDC (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)