User talk:Mharrsch

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Blue Tie 01:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

=
=============

I am a new editor and I was unaware of the policy about linking to external .com references and have removed them. However, I think the image of this figure provides a lifelike reference to the subject at this particular age and I obtained proper permission to use the picture and add it to Wikimedia Commons under the CC attribution sharealike license. Mr. Stuart is the artist and should be at least acknowledged in the same way as a portrait painter. Mr. d'Aprix is the photographer and must be referenced under the terms of the CC attribution license.

Pictures
"Mr. Stuart is the artist and should be at least acknowledged in the same way as a portrait painter." - Not so. The pictures in historical articles are meant to be predominantly either contemporary lifelike images of the person, or (if no such image can be found) later realistic attempts to depict what they looked like; with a few images to depict cultural representations of what the figures looked like (e.g. the movie scene of Catherine, the Victorian pseudo-historical opinion). There is no need to include a picture of a figurine, which gives no additional benefit to the article, being neither life-like contemporary, nor a cultural interpretation. There is certainly no need to include a vanity link to the artist's work, none of which is widely circulated, and thus can hardly stand as a cultural representation or commonly used image. Michael Sanders 23:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but wikipedia is not a showroom. You are welcome to take this issue up, but I really don't see what benefit modern dolls based on contemporary paintings, and which have no claim to be representative of popular culture, can give to any article on the person. Michael Sanders 14:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion. I don't think that these photographs of figurines are notable enough for inclusion on articles that already have a more direct representation of these people. Additionally, it seems somewhat spammy. Please reply here on your talk page rather than on mine&mdash;otherwise the conversation will become very hard to follow. Grouse 15:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to offer your opinion.

Third opinion. The works of art might be reasonable for inclusion if the following held true:

1. The process by which they were developed was somehow validated by objective third parties as a good scientific process for determining appearances. (It looks like it might be, but it is unclear that it is).

2. The pictures were of better quality and the art did not look "doll-like".

3. The insertion of the pictures did not seem to be more of an advertisement rather than informative

4. Any copyright holders were not unhappy with the inclusion.

--Blue Tie 01:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to offer your opinion. I would not know how to validate the research process involved in the production of these figures other than to compare them to contemporary portraits. As for point 2, I honestly feel they provide a more realistic depiction of the person than some contemporary stylized portraits, but it is difficult to resolve differences in opinion of artistic value. Addressing point 3, in the latest edit I included information about the portrait historical view - the year and age of the subject depicted. This is consistent with captions included with contemporary images. Point 4: As indicated in my opening statement on this talk page, I obtained the images for inclusion in Wikicommons under the unrestricted attribution, share-alike license with the photographer's approval.

I'm sorry you do not concur with my appreciation of the historical detail that is reflected by these figures and the value I feel they bring to related Wikipedia articles. However, my time is valuable, to me at least, and I see no purpose in continuing to spend it fruitlessly.


 * Well, on point 2, the pictures are not very good. They have compression artifacts and low resolution.  There is something about them that just looks "wrong" and of lower quality than the other works.
 * On point 1, I can appreciate the artist's efforts. The work does look like it took quite a bit of research.  However, what are the artist's credentials for developing these historical figures? Does the artist have a forensics background and did he use actual skulls?  If not, how is his "interpretation" of the art that exists objectively better than the "interpretation" I can apply to one or more of the original pieces of art that I could view?  And even artists who do have such credentials may not develop pieces that are as good as a painting.  For example, I have seen the Maddam Tissaud version of John Kennedy as well as a portrait of him.  The portrait, from life, just captures him better. As an example of some figures that do not work look here and  here.  Notice how wonderfully done this figure of Hugh Grant is, but then look closer and realize that he rarely smiles like that and when he does, it looks different.  But I still might not object if tbe pictures were of better quality (larger, higher resolution versions available) and if the art did not look "doll-like" - that is realistic details, skin tones, hair and coloring. I think part of the problem there is that the figures are less than life-size.  That makes the details less realistic.

--Blue Tie 16:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

PediaPress renderer for Wikipedia Books
I thought you might be interested in this. Basically, this would give you access to the PediaPress renderer used to print books and should allow you to review book as they would be printed (minus covers). If you find errors and problems, please report them at Help:Books/Feedback.

You either received this message because
 * You edited several books
 * You are part of WikiProject Wikipedia-Books. (If you aren't, please free free to join in. We'll take any help we can.)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Headbomb (talk) at 16:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC).

image on the 5th Special Forces article
M, Hope you got permission to use a painting from the museum. The museum is not a "government" owned entity, and therefore the art work is not necessarily free to copy. They often hold copyrights, or the artist does. I had to show Wikimedia proof from the director of the National Infantry Museum that I had permission to post an image from the "old" museum on a piece. Meyerj (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in fact the museum provided the images. Artwork produced by soldiers participating in the Vietnam Combat Art Program are legally public domain images because they were created by soldiers on active duty under orders to produce art as their main responsibility thereby making them works produced by the U.S. Army. James Pollock, one of the artists participating in the program and knowledgeable about their public domain status obtained the images from the museum curator during the preparation of the main Wikipedia page about the program. Pollock asked me to assist him as he was unfamiliar with wiki syntax and I have been a Wikipedia editor since 2004. Mharrsch (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Some time back I combined a scanned copy of an article from an Army publication and combined it with the banner from the cover of the publication and said it was produced by the Army and free to post and Wikimedia removed it. The photo I used from the museum stands with Wikimedia's blessing. Meyerj (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Even though I prepared an entire page about the Vietnam Combat Artists Program that clearly explains how the soldiers were selected for the program and ordered to produce art, I was almost immediately challenged by another Wikipedia editor for categorizing the art from the program as public domain even though it clearly matched the definition in addition to the fact that the Army's official Center for Military History provided the images. I'm hoping that many editors will take to heart the latest goals statement from Wikipedia to be more collaborative with other editors and welcoming to new editors and stop removing other editors work without discussing issues surrounding it. I know I get really frustrated when someone reverts a page, removing my edits, when I know I have researched the information carefully and/or added an image that is directly related and with proper rights. No one likes to waste their time. Mharrsch (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Your submission at Articles for creation: Virgilio Mattoni (July 27)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Virgilio Mattoni and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Virgilio Mattoni, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Virgilio_Mattoni Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AngusWOOF&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Virgilio_Mattoni reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 01:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Virgilio Mattoni has been accepted
 Virgilio Mattoni, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Worldbruce (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Virgilio_Mattoni help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Glossary of ancient Roman culture
Hi I’m just reviewing this article and I’m a bit puzzled by it. I thought it was going to be a glossary of Latin terms like Glossary of ancient Roman religion but then I saw it included things like barrel vault which isn’t Latin or uniquely Roman, and Chamfer. Can I suggest that you try and define the scope of the list more clearly? You may want to move it to draft for a time while you work on it. Thanks. Mccapra (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

This glossary is a compiled list of terms I encountered while translating the academic text "Hauser in Pompeji: Casa del Principe di Napoli" by Professor Volker Michael Strocka. It includes terms like barrel vault because these terms are used to describe the architectural structures encountered by archaeologists excavating Roman sites. Many of these terms are also included in glossaries used in other academic texts about Roman culture and Roman archaeology. I hope to finish the page in the next couple of days so I don't think moving it to drafts is needed even though I have over 150 terms to add. I've also been editing linked pages to add appropriately labeled graphics and in some cases I have had to create entirely new pages to use for illustration (like Nebris (mythology)) so it has taken me a little longer to complete it than I anticipated. I also plan to add more terms as time permits from other academic texts on Roman culture but wanted to get the "core" from my translation input first. I have clarified the description to define the glossary as terms used by academics studying Roman history and archaeologists excavating Roman sites. I hope this is what you had in mind. Mharrsch (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Hercules and Achelous?
Who says that the new image at Hercules is Hercules and Achelous? I think we need a source for that caption. Paul August &#9742; 18:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Paul, I have added the sculptor's name and date of production to the image. The sculpture was part of a touring exhibit, Gods and Heroes: Masterpieces from the École des Beaux-Arts, Paris. The image used was photographed by the Spanish Wikimedia Commons contributor at The Louvre. There are other images of the sculpture taken at various museums including the Portland Art Museum in 2015 with the full title and attribution. Other images of it appear on the Wikipedia page for its French sculptor François Joseph Bosio. Mharrsch (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Great thanks. But I still think we should cite a source which says these figures are Hercules and Achelous. I found this: I'm assuming this is an official Louvre site, which is probably good enough. I'll add it. Paul August &#9742; 15:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure! Thanks, Paul! Mharrsch (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Archaeological Museum of Nafplion, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Andromeda, Pausanias and Midea.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC) Links corrected! Mharrsch (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited House of Loreius Tiburtinus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Atrium and Biga.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Anthony-Maria Browne, 2nd Viscount Montagu
Hi there! How did you determine which brother is Anthony Maria Browne (here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony-Maria_Browne%2C_2nd_Viscount_Montagu&diff=1024954213&oldid=1024196489&diffmode=source)?



I found this website: https://www.bridgemanimages.com/en/oliver/the-browne-brothers-1598-gouache-w-c-on-vellum/gouache-and-watercolour-on-vellum-on-card/asset/1008 with "Description L to R: John Browne, Anthony Maria Browne (1573/4-1629), William Browne; grandsons of Anthony Browne, 1st Viscount Montague who was implicated in the Ridolfi Plot in 1571."

And here: https://collections.burghley.co.uk/collection/the-three-brothers-browne-by-isaac-oliver-signed-with-monogram-inscribed-and-dated-1598/ “The Three Brothers Browne” representing Anthony Maria, later 2nd Viscount Montague (1574-1629), flanked by his younger brothers John and William, shown standing full length with interlocking arms, wearing black doublets, breeches, hose and hats, white lace collars, gold chains and belts, an unidentified gentleman, wearing a striped grey and white costume and lace ruff, carrying his hat in his right hand, entering into the grey painted panelled chamber to sinister." 91.54.3.217 (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I'm afraid I simply don't remember anymore. I must have obtained the image from an online source providing the caption. Mharrsch (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)