User talk:Amandajm/Archives/2011/March

Lucan leonardo
That page should just be proposed for deletion... it's just ridiculous. Of course all the talkabout is done by the owner/local museum/local tourist promotion office, so I don't think there is any relevant source of info stating that that horrible peinting is leonardo's. If they really found a picture by leonardo all the media had talked about it... they wrote on the newpapers here when the found the bella Principessa and Carlo pedretti, tha maximum living expert of Leonardo, wrote an article about it. The Lucan portrait is outstandingly a false, you don't need to be an art critic to see it. It's ridiculous to talk about the composition with or without the hands, of the cut of the figure, etc., while the quality overall is so poor that it could "hardly" be considered a portrait by Cristofano dell'Altissimo, a minor personality in 16th century florentine painting. Unfortunately I'm not so familiar with the English translation of art terms so it's a little hard for me to write in discussion all I could say obout it. but if you propose it for deletion I will definitely try to explain my position. --Sailko (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not very into policies of en.wiki, but in it.wiki it would be very, very probably deleted... a matter should be "encyclopedical", we do not consider wikipedia as a collection of "any" information. Anybody could claim: "the painting in my sitting room is Van Gogh's!"... maybe he could have some friends with blog and website who post articles about that.. maybe a local journalist will make an article of that, just to help local tourism, you never know.. then I take some good pictures and make an article on wikipedia: since that anybody reading about Van Gogh will see the painting in my sitting room. This doesn't mean that it is a relevant information about Van Gogh's works of art, it's just stupid "noise", a selfish claim. And wikipedia shouldn't accept any information, because it's too famous and too popular here.. Now averybody can go into the pages of the Works of Leonardo and see that horrible painting listed.. it's just ridiculous, if I weren't a Wikipedia contributor I would just definitely make laugh at how silly wikipedia accepts information. --Sailko (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And by the way, I read some books about falses in Art, so one of the easiest and more frequent way of making a false old master painting is taking an old piece of furniture, get the wood and paint it, so the fact that the wood dates back to 16th century means really nothing about how old the "painting" might be. There might be only one option that could save the "Lucan Leonardo": it was completely repainted to restore again it some centuries ago: so before presenting the painting to the international community it must be restored to see what's behid (just a radiography could be enough to search it". But the "Lucan Leonardo" has probably nothing under.. it's just a low quality portrait of Leonardo, maybe 19-20th century. probably 19th: when the Uffizi portrait was considered original and it used to be very popular. --Sailko (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Archbishop Loane.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Archbishop Loane.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I found a public domain photo of him. Not great quality, but acceptable in thumbnail and will serve as an adequate replacement. 99of9 (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC) [[Image:MarcusLoane.png|thumb|upright=0.5|right|Canon Loane in 1953]]

Orphaned non-free image File:Archbishop Loane.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Archbishop Loane.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ben Roberts-Smith
Hello! Your submission of Ben Roberts-Smith at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! PM800 (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors
I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ben Roberts-Smith
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)