User talk:PKM/6 Nov 2007 - 12 Jan 2008

Lucas Horenbout

I've expanded him today & put him up (as by both of us) for DYK, so perhaps you could cast an eye .... Thanks, Johnbod 20:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! - PKM 00:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On 10 November, 2007, a fact from the article Lucas Horenbout, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai 08:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artists of the Tudor Court

I don't think it's quite long enough yet (1500 chars I think) but no doubt sonn will be. I've cut, pasted & tidied a huge chunk from de Critz to Serjeant Painter btw. I only did Sittow 3 days ago - serendipitous! Johnbod 22:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff - time for bed for me, so all yours. Did you see the unbreeched boy at geerhearts? Johnbod 03:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my Waterhouse index misses them (under SP). Johnbod 03:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. I just gave 2 alt hooks, as it was too long - 200 chars visible, including spaces - they are rather strict, as I think you may remember from El Rancho thingy (Are you a Native Daughters of the Golden West by any chance - sounds fun!). Johnbod 20:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I see what you mean! Johnbod 20:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Artists of the Tudor court, was selected for DYK!

On November 16, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Artists of the Tudor court, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a brilliant article. I bow my shiny bald head down to you. SPECTRE is proud of you . keep up the great work!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 22:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Textile printing

I'v started cleaning up textile printing to bring it into this century, but there is lots to do. If you read this page, I need your help! - PKM (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Scrots?

Many thanks. I was going to ask you about that. I've removed the attribution from the Elizabeth I of England page.

Is there enough on William Scrots for an article on him, by the way? Gaunt has a page and a half, though it contains little that is factual. Gaunt ascribes that Edward VI to Scrots, and not the young Bess one; but looking at the two, I would tend to side with Hearn that they are by the same painter.

The portrait of Henry Howard is a significant painting, in my opinion, being one of the few Mannerist paintings done in England; I don't know how strong the attribution to Scrots is. A good visual hook for a DYK on Scrots might be this distorted-head portrait of Edward VI: [1] (the dimensions are probably too awkward, though).

I don't know much about the paintings of Elizabeth, but I hope to become informed about them over the next month or two as I try to improve the Elizabeth article. I need a better portrait for the infobox, because the Darnley portrait faces the wrong way. qp10qp (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've scrabbled together an article on William Scrots. Can't find any dates of birth and death, though I get the impression he came from Brussels. As always with these Tudor and Jacobean toshers, nothing is straightforward. The Howard painting may be a copy; the Edward VI may be by someone else, but a fair few sources, including the royal collection, attribute it to Scrots (and the collection attributes the Bess to Scrots). I've mentioned the Hearn view, but perhaps you could add a page number and put that book in the refs. Difficult to think of a DYK hook, but for me the most intriguing thing is that anamorphic picture. qp10qp (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, I didn't realise there was another one of Edward (I thought the one you linked me to was it, cut off at the legs). I'm confused now, though; does Hearn say that the young Elizabeth and the Edward in France are on the same wood? I had convinced myself that the the Elizabeth and the English Edward were by the same painter. So what is the critical status of the latter (Edward VI as Prince of Wales)? Is Hearn questioning this one but supporting the other? As yet, we haven't mentioned this one in the article, though the gallery unashamedly attributes it to Scrots (but my four history books don't; they don't discuss why, unfortunately, since they are just illustrating). Thanks for your great edits. qp10qp (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, cheers. What a relief, my eyes haven't let me down. This now makes sense: we don't picture either the young Liz or the featured Edward because of the doubts that they were by Scrots. So far (hoping to find out some more), I think this is appropriately cautious.

Yes, that one is very sharpened: I haven't seen that picture in any books yet, or I'd scan it in. I like the way you've lined it up with the distorted one, though. I hope to find an undistorted view of it: I think readers would find the comparison fun. qp10qp (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, yes, that's a corking hook! Oh, and congratulations on finding that picture. It's a lovely one, as well (apart from he's got different size shoes on). Kudos!! qp10qp (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tolkien Encyclopedia cover 2006.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tolkien Encyclopedia cover 2006.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 27 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Armada Portrait, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 15:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK (William Scrots)

On 29 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Scrots, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Spebi 08:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tilt

Excellent! I was hoping someone would. I don't know too much about them, but no doubt that won't stop me. I just have to get Louis XIV properly off to bed. Johnbod (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Kodak dress 1920s rene lelong.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Kodak dress 1920s rene lelong.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Amandalexx (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 4 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Accession Day tilt, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 13:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Textile Arts

Hi, the project seems to be pretty quiet these days. Are you and I the only active ones on it? Durova^Charge! 17:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Segar

Wow, well done! I remember thinking we needed an article on him.

Oh, and I've bagged me a second-hand copy of Hearn, having got the idea from all your refs to it. What a wonderful source it is! It made me think, not for the first time, that we should have an article on the Unknown Man in a Black Cap, by John Bettes (the elder). Unless my faculties deceive me, that is one of the greatest English court portraits of the sixteenth century. I'm also thinking about knocking up an article on Robert Peake: he tends to be thought of as mediocre, it seems, but for me his portraits of Princess Elizabeth are haunting. I'm not sure whether he is just a gauche painter, but somehow the gaucheness of Elizabeth and also of Prince Charles in the red portrait at Cambridge makes me empathise with them as vulnerable children ill-at-ease in their finery—not a feeling I ever get with the portraits of Edward VI by Scrots and co. A hard little guy was Edward, methinks. qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,well done! I'll see what I can add in a few days - at the moment I'm busy with Raphael, where the problem is too much information rather than too little. Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bah...who cares about portrait painters. All the good stuff has to do with heraldry. I've also added a request to the DYK page.--Eva ^bd 20:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image sizing

You might be interested in this discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Image_Sizing & this experiment Qp too. Johnbod (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir William Segar

On 11 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Segar, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Eva ^bd 14:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nativity

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meninas - yes I added it

History of clothing and textiles

Unfortunately I have very few references for the early stuff - I have been looking for them for the printing side side of things for some time. I think China & Egypt usually tend to hog the limelight at the expense of India. Cotton has good stuff but is unreferenced. To read history of silk you would hardly think the ancient indians made the stuff, which they certainly did. I will add bits on the medieval period later. Johnbod (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sent this out today to the people who had signed up for our project. We may get a fourth participant next week to collaborate toward a DYK on Biblical clothing laws. It should be exciting: he reads Hebrew and can do his own translations.

Word of mouth seems to be working better than DYK placement for drawing in new people. My hope is the newsletter will lure back a couple of the old members - when people see things are happening they tend to get more interested. Plenty of regular wikignome work needs doing. I'll also try to get Navajo rug up to GA and keep a steady trickle of DYKs - two or three newsletter-worthy things a month should be enough for that purpose. Thanks so much for sticking around: it's much easier to revive a project starting from two than going it alone. Happy new year, Durova^Charge! 01:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Michael Wright

Happy New Year! Did you see the new Wright article? Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Peake the Elder

I've finally put a Peake article up. I've indulged myself by sticking that glorious Elizabeth of Bohemia at the top, because I just love it (I want that dress for curtains); and I have to thank you for uploading it, or I'd probably never have met it! I've put some issues up on the talk page, which I wonder if you'd be kind enough to have a look at—particularly about that "unknown lady" you uploaded (I'm sure it's a Peake, but the date seems stylistically wrong to me). qp10qp (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Trousers_1937.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Trousers_1937.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]