Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:43, 28 January 2014

Archives

March 2013 – December 2013

Talk:Ramon Berenguer III, Count of Barcelona

Talk:Ramon Berenguer III, Count of Barcelona might interest you.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Peter III of Aragon

What is your rationale for preferring the late portrait of Peter over a contemporary coin? Your edits are predominantly changes to lead images, yet you almost never leave an edit summary explaining them. You also reverted my change without even knowing what "contemporary" means or whether a certain image was contemporary with the subject or not. The reasons to prefer the coin are:

• it is a contemporary artefact, giving information about Peter's reign (w/ a caption) and about how he was seen by his subjects in his lifetime
• the coin does not mislead readers about the times of Peter III, as the portrait might
• the silver coin on a white background is more striking than the somewhat garish portrait in low-resolution JPG format
• it is far more likely that the limited detail of the coin is accurate (clean shaven and long-haired) than the greater detail of the imaginary portrait
• the later portrait is one of a series of nearly indistinguishable royal portraits from two centuries later, it gives us no information about Peter or his reign, its sole purpose was decorative
• what makes the coin an image of Peter is that that is when it was struck and what for, but what makes the later portrait an image of Peter is that somebody labelled it that way—they could just as easily have labelled an image of any other Aragonese king

In your last edit summary, you ask "if I have to choose between two unreal representations, I prefer the portrait", but nobody is asking you to choose or what you prefer. Srnec (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Srnec, the problem is that we have different criteria.

You think the images should provide information about the lives of the persons and be of the age in which these people lived. I think the only thing to do is to give a visual representation of the person, the article is to the information.

I think that a portrait (even if wasn't painted during the live of the person) is most valid that a little image carved in a coin. The two representations have the same chance of not being 100% accurate, but at least one illustrates better than the other.

If not exist any portrait of this person, then I accept a coin's image or a poor drawing. But the present picture accomplish the role and I think that it must be more time.--EeuHP (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I already argued why the coin is a better illustration and you've just asserted the contrary. Do you have an argument? Why are your criteria better than mine? Srnec (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Really? When I rebutted all your arguments in your talk page, I stated my reasons. But I do not want another long discussion with you. I offer consensus. Would you take a picture of the first part of the thirteenth century?--EeuHP (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Imposing your personal preference is not how it occurs on Misplaced Pages

I noticed in the message above that this is not the first time that you try to impose pictures on articles regardless of what others think. You are not allowed to impose your will. Both Pedro I of Brazil and Pedro II of Brazil are Featured Articles. They were reviewed by several editors. Stop with your edit warring. --Lecen (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Lecen is aware of the three-revert rule. Are you? You've reverted four times on both Pedro I and Pedro II in the last 24 hours. You should undo your last revert and seek dispute resolution, such as discussion on the talk page or a request for comment. DrKiernan (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I can arrive to consensus. But the posture of Lecen is very dogmatic.

• Pedro I of Brazil. I have only slightly increased the size of the image and change the phrase by other more accurate. ¿Result? War.

• Pedro II of Brazil. I put a featured and most valued image that is better than the actual, but he said war.

How can we begin to reach consensus? Let's talk about it. --EeuHP (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Peter III of Aragon. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Lecen (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If I make a change, I'm guilty for wanting to change. If he makes a change, I'm guilty for wanting to keep the previous version. Amazing.--EeuHP (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)