User talk:81.40.135.122

December 2021
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Pope Alexander III, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Serols (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello
Are you a sock puppet for the last few months there’s multiple accounts making a lot of changes to the popes pages and there all doing the same edits and when you look at the contributions they only edit popes so I’m started to suspend there used by the same person. Orson12345 (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Orson12345, no, I'm not socking. Yes, I'm contributing in the pages of the popes since August but, as with the IP's directions success, my Wifi IP had been changing whith the pass of the time.

My contributions are in good faith and please, restore the portraits of Alexander VI, Marcellus II and Clement VIII, there are of the time of those Popes and also two of them by known authors. --81.40.135.122 (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I understand the Portrait you put in Clement XI has a known location and artist but what matters the most is that the best possible image is being used for the info box. The image itself is more important than having a location and artist. But it seems you seem to think the opposite that having a known artist and location is more important than having the best image in the info box. And I know you put the better image in the article but since that image is much better it should be in the info box. Orson12345 (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

And this is also about the other popes you edit yes some of them you did put better quality images in the info box so for those thank you, but there’s some that you replace better images with worse lesser quality images just because they have a known artist and location. Orson12345 (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Because the artist give us a more precise date and certainty with the subject's time. This information can be important like the quality of the image.

81.40.135.122 (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

This file has good photographic quality, also with known location and author. For that, I've put it as the main image. The unknown author's painting was added to the gallery. (Also, please compare the quality and resolution of both paintings before revert again my changes if you prefer to do. The quality of Jan van Helmont's portrait is bigger, and also the photographic quality than the unknown artist image.)81.40.135.122 (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

When I say lesser quality I mean that it looks worse in the info box. It’s quite obvious that the original image looks much better than the one you put. And yes having a year and known artist is important the image itself it much more important. Orson12345 (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

But this file has got also good quality, which can also allow it as a main image. If the problem is the dark tone, I think that with a little edition we can solve this problem. Also, yes, I'm not saying the quality is not important. The quality is important too but, if the portrait with "the best quality" results be posthumous and made a lot of time after his death, there won't be so historically certain that the others. For that, I'd put Helmot's portrait because it's certain to Clement XI's time and, for not to forget the previous one, I'd relocated it in the gallery as like this one, which I'm apologize for put it as main because I didn't saw the less quality than the others.--81.40.135.122 (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I edited it a bit, what do you think? Orson12345 (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

So good! Thanks for it!--81.40.135.122 (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I really like this portrait you put in the article it would look nice in the info box. Orson12345 (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Me too also, but I think that, for Wikipedia and for the neutrality, the better distribution is the current with your modification of Van Helmont's portrait, which has got a more precise temporal ubication.--81.40.135.122 (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)