User talk:Tlumaczek

Romanesque architecture
I have just rewritten that article. Entirely.

What I am doing now is carefully selecting those pictures that are best going to illustrate the text that I have written.

The gallery has far too many pictures in it. They are only there temporarily as a source for me use in creating the article. I appear to be (currently) the only editor who has a wide knowledge of medieval and renaissance art and has some time to spend creating quality articles out of air.

Yes, it has taken me many hours to look through the thousands of photos available on wikipedia. currently I am searching for exactly the right manuscript illumination to illustrate the point that I have made. I need to find a better "font" and one or two other things.

it would be very helpful if you would considerably expand the page on Polish architecture, or write a new page on Cathedral architecture of Eastern Europe to match the one called Cathedral architecture of Western Europe.

If all you are doing is dropping your favourite pix into the page that I have spent a week writing, then, I wish you wouldn't.

--Amandajm 12:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Romanesque
Let's have her finish and then debate later. I think her work is usually well-documented and in-depth (a characteristic that "generic" articles here often lack). Also notice that the definition of "Romanesque" is rather wide... for example, Pisa Cathedral is Romanesque or Gothic, Byzantine, proto-Renaissance or whatever? Which pics in particular are not-Romanesque according to you? Let me know and good work. --Attilios 15:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Romanesque architecture
Just a few things:-
 * You have commented a couple of times that Points of View are not being respected. If you are going to edit wikipedia, then you need to realise from the start that Points of View are irrelevant, and in fact, not permitted. The only points of view that I can put into the article are the ones that I quote from books. When I quote a POV, I back it up with a reference. That's the way it is done.


 * Secondly, I don't rewrite major articles in order to offend people. I only rewrite articles that are seriously lacking in information. This article had a few paragraphs drawn from the article on Spanish architecture. I incorporated some and deleted everything that simply repeated what was elswhere. In the case of Poland, I used all the relevant material and then copied information and references into the article on the architecture of Poland, because the subject wasn't covered very well. That is the way I function.


 * Thirdly, there are a number of pictures that have been put into the Gallery that are not romanesque. I have put them there because they are relevant. For example, Laon Cathedral is not Romanesque. But I may use it to make a point about the continuation of some Romanesque features into the Gothic period.


 * Fourthly, a very large percentage of Romanesque buildings have been substantially altered. Many buildings have retained their Romanesque arcade, but have received new vaults in the Gothic period. One of the most magnificent Romanesque towers in England is surmounted by a spire of entirely Gothic design. Some of the windows in the same building have also been replaced and if you could see the interior, you would see one of the most splendid English vaults resting on the Romanesque walls. This probably happened in England more than anywhere else. As for Pisa Cathedral, it has some wonderful Gothic embellishments. But externally, the Cathedral itself is consistently Romanesque. This article is still a work in progress. I will write comments under the pictures so that they tie up with the text.


 * The last thing that I want to say is, if an article is not very good, then an editor comes along and puts a message on it saying that it needs the attention of someone with expertise. When someone who has expertise is working on a page, what other editors usually do is go to the discussion page and leave a message their, such as "Why have you got a picture of Peterborough Cathedral, I don't think it's Romanesque." Then someone who knows is likely to answer you. If you've got a point of view, then the discussion page is a good place to put it. Every article has one.

--Amandajm 16:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Point of view
I think, as long as one provide new and in-depth views of any article, that's welcome. I've present the objection of one arrogant Britannica clerk who said that here we have more about Star Trek or similar shit than about art stuff (and he was true, sadly). So I think Amanda's article is welcome. I think, the process now must be to remove or change, or integrate, everything is clearly POV... say, if she's written (I'm inventing): "The pointed arch was the most common feature", you can add to the phrase: "although in Poland and other eastern regions etc." or "... the most common feature, especially in Western Europe". And so on. And you can (or must) demolish at all what's clearly wrong or POV. I think, if one makes such a work, (s)he can'd avoid to express a personal point of view, or at least what is his/her knowledge (which can be of course limited in scope, or even biased, or whatever). Let me know and good work. --Attilios 16:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Romanesque architecture
You seem to have a problem understanding (or remembering) what you read and then hassling me, because you haven't got it quite right. Read Speyer Cathedral again. It is regarded as one of Germany's finest Romanesque buildings and is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Yes, it suffered damage, yes, it was restored and yes, it has had two facades. One of them was Baroque. The present one is 19th century Romanesque Revival, based loosely on the west-work of Lorsch Abbey and others.

If you read what I have written, carefully, and take it in, you will find that the diversity of all the different places and styles are mentioned. The article also mentions that some buildings have non-Romanesque features in otherwise Romanesque buildings, the pointed arches of Autun being an example. As for whether a particular building should or shouldn't be called Romanesque, I have to ask you- Does Wawel cathedral stop being Romanesque just because its interior was redecorated and it aquired some later domes? The answer is obvious. It remains of great importance as an example of Romanesque architecture.

I also want to say that you have no idea whatsoever about how much of the information and ideas of other contributors was retained in my rewrite. I am not in the habit of trying to offend other wikipedia editors. I work in close cooperation with a number of other people, Attilios being one of them. Whatismore, I am in the habit of helping editors who are new. However, I find your attitude presumptuous and insulting.

It is presumptuous because you presume that I, as an experienced editor, don't know how to go about improving a poor article, and you presume that I am offending other people in doing it. Your attitude is insulting because you are looking at a well-referenced, well-constructed and well-written article ( yes, yes, I know you can find typos ) and you treat the writer of it as if I am too ignorant to have done any research. Please go and find yourself something useful to do. --Amandajm 17:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Rzut opatow.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Rzut opatow.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 18:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Plan of building
If you can fix this, so that it doesn't get deleted, then could you also provide information about the building, on the same site as the plan. As it is, it's of no use.

--Amandajm 05:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Rebuilding
Tlumaczek, you have a sign-in name. Why do you keep changing computers and making changes to documents that I am working on, as if you were an anonymous user, without signing on? If you are trying to make yoursellf look like several different people, then that is not acceptable wikipedia conduct.

When you make a change or addition. There is a box in which you should summmarise what you changed. Be aware that the signs of vandalism are a) no identification. b)no edit summary.

Major issue-

Please learn the difference between "restoration" and "rebuilding". You have twice stated that a building was "rebuilt" in the 1800s. This is wrong. The buildings were restored. In some cases the restoration was too-much eg. at the Cathedral of Bamberg all the colour was stripped from the old statues because the restorers did not understand that they had always been painted. But Bamberg Cathedral was not rebuilt and Speyer Cathedral was not rebuilt, except for it's facade.

So do not put this false information into articles. At Bamberg you are talking about a building which was complete by 1340, then had some changes to the decoration which were later remove in the 1820s. The stonework was repaired in the 1820s.

Secondly- What I am writing about those buildings is not a detailed historical description. It is a comparison on a feature. Do you understand this? There is no room on that page to describe King Ludwig''s restoration. It is just about the general exterior appearance.

You seem to have a plan to make every building look worthless, except the those that are in Poland. As an architectural historian, I love all these buildings, and I am not making a competition. Please stop wasting my time.

Here is a word "Restoration". Please add it to your English vocabulary and use it in the right way.

"rebuilding" - that is what they did to the Dresden Frauenkirche. --Amandajm 06:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Stare miasto stargard.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Stare miasto stargard.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jusjih 16:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Stargard wnetrze.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Stargard wnetrze.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jusjih 16:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Tum archikolegiata 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Tum archikolegiata 1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jusjih 17:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Wawel_castle.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Wawel_castle.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jusjih 02:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Katedra_plock.JPG
Thank you for uploading Image:Katedra_plock.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jusjih 02:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Podkowinski_sklad.JPG
Thank you for uploading Image:Podkowinski_sklad.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jusjih 02:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Szarza w wawozie Somosierra.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Szarza w wawozie Somosierra.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Rotunda sw. Feliksa.JPG missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Rotunda sw. Feliksa.JPG

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 00:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Kolegiata kruszwica.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kolegiata kruszwica.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Opactwo wachock.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Opactwo wachock.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Malujowice.jpg


The file File:Malujowice.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)