User talk:Jurajlip
Jurajlip, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]
|
Hi Jurajlip! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! I JethroBT (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC) |
Speedy deletion nomination of User:Jurajlip[edit]
A tag has been placed on User:Jurajlip requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Wgolf (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Contested deletion[edit]
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Jurajlip 17:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)I am very new to Wikipedia and did not realize the breach of the regulations. My reason for including the resume was that the other users and reviewers should see the qualifications of an author. I have now consulted the guidelines and would like to delete the inappropriate material if that is still posiible. Otherwise I agree with the deletion in the hope that I would be able to write a new user page. --Jurajlip 17:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I have already deleted the resume-like material--Jurajlip 17:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- This seemed a silly deletion notice to me, frankly, and you now have plenty of edits so could put them back, imo. See User:Duncan.Hull for another way to get this info on the page. Its great to have a specialist on board! I hope you will look at some more general articles, on pigments etc, where I expect there is much to be done. You don't seem to have had the general welcome template, so I will add it here. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Jurajlip, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 29[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lead-tin-yellow, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Milkmaid and Feast of The Gods. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for pointing these mistakes out to me. I have corrected them both and will be more careful in the future.
Your nice edits at Heironymus Bosch[edit]
Recently, I took a look at the sibling page for Bosch on his paintings and a separate gallery for his drawings. The current articles containing the galleries of Bosch paintings appear to be missing all of the dates for the various painting at List of paintings by Hieronymus Bosch and I was wondering if you might possibly be able to date any of them as a start to organizing things. Is this something which might be possible for you when time allows? Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words and for pointing the lack of this data to me. I can incorporate the results of the most recent investigation of all paintings by Bosch regarding the dating of the artworks by the Bosch Research and Conservation Project. I can do that in the coming weeks.--Jurajlip 07:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I have filled in almost all the dates for the paintings with few exceptions and added the relevant references. --Jurajlip 20:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- That looks very good for the paintings and a useful improvement. For some reason the drawing of Bosch were all collected by someone else into a different file and I'm not sure the easiest way to find the dates for the drawings, possibly you have an idea for this: Hieronymus Bosch drawings. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. To my knowledge there are no dates for the drawings as dating of paper is much more difficult than dating of wood which can be done by dendrochronology. In the book describing the most recent research there are no dates given for drawings. I will let you know if I find any information on this. Best. --Jurajlip 07:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- That is very promising for the drawings. I noticed that there are still some of the paintings which have not been dated, and perhaps they can be filled in with the dates from the Stephan Fischer book on Bosch from Taschen. The same dates, I am assuming can then be brought into the main article for Hieronymous Bosch in order to take care of the missing dates in the main article for many of the paintings being displayed there. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with your suggestions. I have put dates on all paintings included in the books I own. For the remaining paintings I have no dates and I do not own the book by Fischer. Do you have it? Could you get the dates from the book by Fischer and fill them in? I have put the dates for all paintings on the main page for Hieronymus Bosch with proper references.
- Your idea is a very good one and I'll try to get the Fischer dates in sometime during the summer. I have started to organize the lists of the Paintings into chronological historical order, though I noticed that the article was originally introducing thematic keys instead which is far less useful. It would be more useful to have them in three Bosch historical periods (1) before 1500, (2) Middle Period, and (3) late Period after 1530. It would then be possible for me to consider the re-write of the main article for Bosch in order for it to correspond more closely to Bosch's three major periods. Separately, and only if its interesting, I notice your chemistry background and have seen that Fischer dates some Bosch differently than The Metropolitan Museum in New York which owns one work by Bosch. Do you have an opinion about the early dating by the Museum from their website here [1]. Fischer attributes it as very late and only attributable to the school of Bosch. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I agree. The most recent dendrochronological dating (2016) for this painting is 1470-80 which agrees with the Metropolitan Museum. best regards--Jurajlip 13:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC )
- Those were a useful set of edits you made on Bosch during June. Though what of your edit here [2], and the claim in the link I provided above about a dating before 1485, which the current article on Wikipedia denies about Bosch. Should it be updated? Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I think this should be updated as there are works by Bosch dated from 1470 onward in the most recent book by the Bosch Conservation and Research Project, which I consider the most reliable authority. I would suggest that you do the correction as the author.
- Your last edits in July make it look like its a Wikibreak for you. If you return soon possibly you might be able to look at Hieronymus Bosch drawings which does not have the benefit of the dating of drawings as you were able to usefully do for his paintings. It is the five hundred year commemoration for Bosch now and perhaps you could add the dates at some time in the future as you did for the paintings. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, it is not a wikibreak I just finished the edit on Bosch and have to look for a new project on Wiki edits. As far as I know there are no dates for the drawings because they are done on paper and there is no possibility of dendrochronological dating. The paintings are done on wood panels so they can be dated by the tree rings found on the wood. In any case if I find anything new on Bosch or his drawings I will add it to the pages on Wiki.
- Thanks for the note. There are a number of the drawings that are attributed as preliminary drawings to the oil masterpieces, and they can be effectively noted as coming before the date associated with the oil version masterpiece. Can you think about adding the dates for the drawings known to be preliminary studies for the dated oil paintings that came after them? Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- I will look into this possibility. But without any other scientific data you could only write that the drawing must have been done before or around the time of the painting.
- Thanks for the note. There are a number of the drawings that are attributed as preliminary drawings to the oil masterpieces, and they can be effectively noted as coming before the date associated with the oil version masterpiece. Can you think about adding the dates for the drawings known to be preliminary studies for the dated oil paintings that came after them? Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, it is not a wikibreak I just finished the edit on Bosch and have to look for a new project on Wiki edits. As far as I know there are no dates for the drawings because they are done on paper and there is no possibility of dendrochronological dating. The paintings are done on wood panels so they can be dated by the tree rings found on the wood. In any case if I find anything new on Bosch or his drawings I will add it to the pages on Wiki.
- Your last edits in July make it look like its a Wikibreak for you. If you return soon possibly you might be able to look at Hieronymus Bosch drawings which does not have the benefit of the dating of drawings as you were able to usefully do for his paintings. It is the five hundred year commemoration for Bosch now and perhaps you could add the dates at some time in the future as you did for the paintings. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I think this should be updated as there are works by Bosch dated from 1470 onward in the most recent book by the Bosch Conservation and Research Project, which I consider the most reliable authority. I would suggest that you do the correction as the author.
- Those were a useful set of edits you made on Bosch during June. Though what of your edit here [2], and the claim in the link I provided above about a dating before 1485, which the current article on Wikipedia denies about Bosch. Should it be updated? Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I agree. The most recent dendrochronological dating (2016) for this painting is 1470-80 which agrees with the Metropolitan Museum. best regards--Jurajlip 13:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC )
- Your idea is a very good one and I'll try to get the Fischer dates in sometime during the summer. I have started to organize the lists of the Paintings into chronological historical order, though I noticed that the article was originally introducing thematic keys instead which is far less useful. It would be more useful to have them in three Bosch historical periods (1) before 1500, (2) Middle Period, and (3) late Period after 1530. It would then be possible for me to consider the re-write of the main article for Bosch in order for it to correspond more closely to Bosch's three major periods. Separately, and only if its interesting, I notice your chemistry background and have seen that Fischer dates some Bosch differently than The Metropolitan Museum in New York which owns one work by Bosch. Do you have an opinion about the early dating by the Museum from their website here [1]. Fischer attributes it as very late and only attributable to the school of Bosch. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]
Hello, Jurajlip. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Jurajlip. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)