User talk:MenkinAlRire

Welcome!

Hello, MenkinAlRire, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vyacheslav Ganelin[edit]

Thanks for tidying up the list of recordings, MenkinAlRire. Thanks also for your improvements of other jazz related articles. Welcome to Wikipedia, and keep up the good work :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Herbie Hancock discography[edit]

Hi Menkin. In the HH discography you created the "Guest" voice. Here you posted some releases previously situated in "Sideman". Can you tell me why? I knew that an artist for to be a "guest" must be credited as "featuring" on the main title. SJ (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a research on Google, i find that sideman and guest are the same thing. For this reason i reverted your edits. Read these links

http://musicians.about.com/b/2011/10/11/guest-appearances-and-you.htm (here you can read also the sideman rules)

http://ultimatemusicianpackage.com/exploring-music-contracts/

SJ (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Simone. Here we are at wikipedia, not at lawschool. the links talk about contracts. guest appearences are usually only for one track, as a sideman you are part of a band of another musician. that is a huge difference. - and please, don't add every record you see, where hancock is mentioned. he has nothing to do with those compilations. a discography is meant to be one of original albums (and some more like 'as sideman', maybe boxes with 'complete recordings', ORIGINAL soundtracks ...) over 70 compilation... it's just pointless, it's just the further exploitation of existing material without editorial justification (like 'complete recordings' or 'never before released' material) - Think about it. MenkinAlRire 01:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Two suggestions[edit]

From this talk-page entry of yours (click on the link to see), I have two suggestions for you:

One is, when you do a talk-page entry, use four tildes ("~~~~") at the end to create a dated "signature" for yourself.
Second (this you may not wish) if you click on your "red name" on the EoGuy talk page for instance and thence create a user page of whatever detail, you'll convert to a "blue name" (which I personally prefer over the red).

Not volunteering for any proofreading but will keep an eye out of course. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand the "CHECKED" reply to the dab link notifications on this page, but see that at least one (KWheeler) signifies "Corrected". Again, signing with four tildes would help, too. All best. Swliv (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm Ramaksoud2000. I noticed that you recently removed some content from David McMurray without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 20:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, MenkinAlRire. You have new messages at Ramaksoud2000's talk page.
Message added 01:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You edit to Ella Fitzgerald Sings the Cole Porter Songbook[edit]

Hey, thanks for your edit! I read the description and thought I would clean the personnel list up a bit, but before I did I wanted to ask; you did adapt those track notes from the CD release of the album, right? I just wanted to make sure before I did anything since now the article also needs the CD track listing noted. Thank you! --LurganShmith (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi, please give me some more time, that was supposed to be the next step. I wanted to copy my rearrangement of Ella and Duke at the Cote D'Azur. I combined the lp and cd issues, since they are identical (despite the bonus tracks). it doesn't need so much space, and the numeration of the cd is simpler, without anyone getting confused looking for the lp (I hope.) - I have to admit, this time I couldn't really read the cover, I don't own it, but ususually discogs eg. provide jpgs, that are readable. In this case I trust discogs (while hearing the album), despite it's reputation as user content based website, therefore unreliable. (That's why all review refs are solely from allmusic, mostly scott yanow. wiki is getting to be a simple copy of allmusic. it is not really smart and reliable either, beside the reviews; but the release dates... and listing alphabetically the marimba player after the make up for the cover photograph, that's... it's been copied into wiki like that — oh, at the bottom of Ella and Duke at the Cote D'Azur there is exactly what I just described - I didn't came so far down after reworking the 9cd edition...

'while hearing the album', I just heard, that the details discogs provides on the personell can't be accurate. i'll see, maybe it's my fault... — thanks for your attention. MenkinAlRire 21:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday I simple forgot to close the window, so I had to rewrite my changes again. It's allright with the data from discogs. I just won't name it as ref, because of the police (they are heavely armed nowadays.) - MenkinAlRire 19:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I just went ahead and fixed what needed to be fixed. I had been meaning to do it for half a year, but I got busy. Your recent edits reminded me of what was needed. -- For the record, what I did to the personnel list isn't entirely proper, but neither of our edits have been; I just did what I felt looked the least crowded and put names first (which is proper). With occasional exceptions, you usually don't list which track each member of an orchestra or band played during... but I did my best to figure out a way of noting it that didn't make my eyes cross trying to read. (joke)

Also, I poked my nose around the other article you linked me to and made a few minor edits, but you should really conciser adding a release history chart (like the one I added to Ella' Sings' Cole') to that other article to clear up all the catalog information you have in the track list sections. Also, the track list format that's used in Ella Fitzgerald Sings the Cole Porter Songbook is acceptable for use because there is very little information in the track list. Ella and Duke at the Cote D'Azur has a lot of information crammed into it; it would befit greatly from adapting it into this format:

12" Long Play

Side A / Side One
No.	Title	Writer(s)	Length
1.	"Example"	John Doe John Doe	2:54
2.	"Example"	John Doe	2:46
3.	"Example"	John Doe John Doe	2:58
4.	"Example"	John Doe John Doe	3:26
5.	"Example"	John Doe John Doe	2:48
6.	"Example"	John Doe	2:26
Total length:			32:02

Side B / Side Two
No.	Title	Writer(s)	Length
1.	"Example"	John Doe John Doe	2:54
2.	"Example"	John Doe	2:46
3.	"Example"	John Doe John Doe	2:58
4.	"Example"	John Doe John Doe	3:26
5.	"Example"	John Doe John Doe	2:48
6.	"Example"	John Doe	2:26
Total length:			32:02

1991 CD reissue / CD (1991)

Disc One
No.	Title	Writer(s)	Length
1.	"Example"	John Doe John Doe	2:54
2.	"Example"	John Doe	2:46
3.	"Example"	John Doe John Doe	2:58
4.	"Example"	John Doe John Doe	3:26
5.	"Example"	John Doe John Doe	2:48
6.	"Example"	John Doe	2:26
7.	"Example"	John Doe John Doe	2:34
8.	"Example"	John Doe	3:34
9.	"Example"	John Doe John Doe	2:58
10.	"Example"	John Doe	2:50
11.	"Example"	John Doe John Doe	3:03
12.	"Example"	John Doe	3:04
Total length:			72:02

Disc Two
No.	Title	Writer(s)	Length
1.	"Example"	John Doe John Doe	2:54
2.	"Example"	John Doe	2:46
3.	"Example"	John Doe John Doe	2:58
4.	"Example"	John Doe John Doe	3:26
5.	"Example"	John Doe John Doe	2:48
6.	"Example"	John Doe	2:26
7.	"Example"	John Doe John Doe	2:34
8.	"Example"	John Doe	3:34
9.	"Example"	John Doe John Doe	2:58
10.	"Example"	John Doe	2:50
11.	"Example"	John Doe John Doe	3:03
12.	"Example"	John Doe	3:04
Total length:			72:02

Oh! -- and before I forget, you mentioned avoiding discogs citations? It is true that discogs should only be cited when Allmusic isn't an option, but when it is the only option you'll be fine using it as long as you only cite and use the pictures of original labels and liner notes that discogs has posted. The information that they list very often has errors, but the picture don't lie. I've gone as far as citing online auctions that post pictures of album labels and covers. It's all as good as citing original liner notes... which is what is... really.

But - anyway - yeah - I'm by no means trying to tell you what to do - or what not - just sharing tips I've learned in case you didn't know... I hope it helps!--LurganShmith (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard what I said about discogs -- I'm extremely dyslexic and big bodies of text scare me. I have to skim a few times to understand what they're saying... and I misinterpreted what you wrote; sorry about that.--LurganShmith (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Williams (jazz singer)[edit]

A page you previously contributed to, Joe Williams (jazz singer), had many prior revisions deleted due to copyright issues. For details please see Talk:Joe Williams (jazz singer). Your prior version may be temporarily restored upon request if you need it for reference to re-incorporate constructive edits that do not make use of the copyright infringing material. Please feel free to leave me a talk message if you need this done. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 22:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Logical quotation[edit]

Hello, thanks for your edits to Harold Arlen. However, Wikipedia uses logical quotation (in which punctuation is generally placed outside quotation marks). I've modified your edits accordingly. Graham87 06:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page nominated for deletion[edit]

Would you take a look at the Natalie Sandtorv page and give an opinion?

John Scofield discography[edit]

You need to add whether the Date column is Date Released or Date Recorded. Thanks.
Vmavanti (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Taylor[edit]

I'm a little puzzled about how you think the John Taylor discography looks better than before. I remember in the 1990s, when the internet became popular, many people wanted to learn graphic design, how to present information, and how to write web pages. There were principles that were followed. One didn't simply guess or "wing it". The word "infodump" was used often as a criticism. I don't hear that word anymore. Too bad.
Vmavanti (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vmavanti, yesterdays are always better even if it was 14/18. I did not say that it "looks better than before" (nothingness is the ultimate). I tried do be "comprehensive", there had no ideal design in mind, at least not an aesthetical, as imho wiki is not an elaborated magazine. My motive was a searchable discography, and with the late John Taylor there is no more, so comprehensiveness could be goal. I usually don't like it either, when the info gets too much; I added all the musicians only because someone before me already started this way. As wiki entries for the albums are very limited, so it is kind of an condensed all-in-one substitute. Every other alternative to get this information at once is tricky and time-consuming (I did it after all).

Your critic is no critic. If you think, the disco has bad style, sorry, but your polemic is bad style. You just dump your 14/18-I-was-there, it was better=I am better on me, without to mention anything concrete you are actually puzzled about, any constructive suggestion, how you would have done it and share your wisdom. So your words are not meant for me, they just serve yourself. I did my best and invested some hours. Maybe I got taken away with it, maybe it is cool to have a not so beautiful but comprehensive and searchable John Taylor discography. So thank you for nothing.

But anyway, if you like to tell me, what is puzzling you exactly and what could improve the appearance of the disco, you are welcome. MenkinAlRire 20:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Vmavanti, yesterdays are always better even if it was 14/18" I have no idea what this sentence means.
Vmavanti (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 15[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Not Too Late (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bass (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 22[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pick Me Up Off the Floor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nate Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 25[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maria João, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NDR.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license[edit]

Unspecified source/license for File:Lizz Wright - Freedom & Surrender (Concord.2015).jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Lizz Wright - Freedom & Surrender (Concord.2015).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 22:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:Lizz Wright - Fellowship (Verve.2010).jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Lizz Wright - Fellowship (Verve.2010).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 22:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Hart[edit]

You might want to click on my name and read that page before working on any more jazz articles. Thanks.
Vmavanti (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donatello[edit]

Just fyi, I have taken this on for Wikipedia:The Core Contest, so will be rewriting it, probably completely, over the next couple of months, so any changes made now are probably not going to be in the eventual version, Best Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was going to do this, too, but not for some trophy. So I let you do your thing, since someone has to do it. At the moment I am working on the Dontello-lemma on the German wiki in my sandbox. We may correspond further about our handlings of the topic and could help us out as needed. I just migrated his catalogue to his own lemma, integrating all the small work.

I will also add many of my own photographs that I am uploading from time to time.

So glad to hear from you, MenkinAlRire 17:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nuking[edit]

i hope you realised that my "a bit of an over-reaction" was a tongue-in-cheek remark, not intended to be taken seriously. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JMF I wasn't a 100% sure, but I certainly hoped so.) - Are you further engaged in the article? Please, feel free to comment on the thread by Johnbod and myself. I only get to read sporadically a paragraph or two, and there is so much to say. MenkinAlRire 17:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just an interested bystander, I'm afraid. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Gisèle Freund[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Gisèle Freund, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 14[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Verena of Zurzach, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Provost and Hermitage.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 21[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gisèle Freund, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Frankfurt.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings[edit]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Nativity scene on the Pulpit in the Pisa Baptistery by Nicola Pisano is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adam and Eve (Dürer)[edit]

Hi. Just to say I'm impressed with the extensive work you are doing here, and really enjoyed reading through the Adam and Eve page, but do think you should reach out for feedback/learnings. If I was you I'd push Adam and Eve for either GA or PR; the advice you'd hopefully get will help and guidance you for future articles...you obviously have a lot of knowledge. I would be willing to guide Adam and Eve through a GA review for instance; although its cool to interact with people with common interests, there might still be a lot of work to be done. Best and talk later. Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ps in terms of using existing articles as a guide, would focus on the approach used for Melencolia I. Ceoil (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil. Hi, thank you. I wanted to come back to A+E to get the painting its own lemma. But I got entangled with Christ among the Doctors (Dürer), where I just finished work, so you can have a look at this.

That the articles have an odd structure is because they had it in the first place. I initially correct or add something small and then get incrementally more involved. There is no plan, the existing structure isn't (much) altered, and e. g. instead of an Iconography paragraph I helped myself with the fuzzy "Imagery" (already existing in A+E), because the arguments in part go all over the place.

That is probably your critique. Since it is an wiki article and not an essay, I do understand, and I know how an article could/should look like. When I try real overhauls and start from scratch, I usually abandone it halfway through. Writing is hard for me and is just driven by temporary exitement to rather better an existing text (factually) than to work out a grand scheme that will not be finished.

Feedback and collaboration are nice, but I haven't had the best experiences with it. I am at odds with the techniqualities and it is always difficult to get a satisfying answer (while the help pages are a horrifying jungle). Hence, I usually stay with the established style in an article.

I don't know what GA or PR means, so let's start from there. MenkinAlRire 12:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil. Thanks for the edits on the page, much of it applied to the already existing text (and I only worked the part on the engraving). Although some cuts concern essential meaning that is now lost. :::E.g. you may draw a nude after a model on paper or a statue or just imagine it; or you have a live model before you as Dürer did. This was something new, "maybe the first in Northern art". Then you cut the following sentence completely, which refered to the significant difference between her and the Eve in the engraving. Besides, it was absolutely exceptional for her to be looked at naked and with such scutiny (it was not meant to be anecdotal or affirmative kitsch; the model's shyness is obvious in her pose, gesture and facial expression). Refs would be appropriate here, I admit. (Since then I also made another edit there without noticing yours.) Barbari was "initially" in Nuremberg to serve Maximilian should indicate, that he didn't stay long in town (and later had other patrons).

Then you cut "constructing them with ruler and compass". Maybe it is not the finest style, but again, it is of utmost importance. This is the practical expression of the idea of body proportions. I doubt if "measuring ... models" and "theories of proportion" alone indicate this (for everyone).

The links to the lists of Dürer's engravings and paintings are useful, one might not be aware of them. Since they are listed chronologically, they can help to get a broader sense of the works described here in relation to his œuvre.

"Copies in collections" and "survived today" should indicate, that the paragraph is not about the printing history, but of the still existing prints.

I also struggled very much with the images, and checked on the app, tablet and smartphone, and the page on the website, both tablet and PC with fixed page width. The images should be as near as possible to the relating text (particularly in the app) without lurching down too much on the (narrowed) website. I don't know on what device you work, but probably not on the website, since you cut the orientation (left) of some images (while "upright" does not make much sense to me); any improvement here would surprise me. (- This is what I meant with "not the best experiences", gaslighting here, and edits that could have been communicated.) MenkinAlRire 13:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, didn't mean to cut so much; it seemed like I was removing older stuff that was unclear or misinterpreted the sources. No problem with being reverted, and will go back over the edits in coming days. Re images, will do a comparison between the two versions, but again am not married to my changes...as you say above, the edits were really trying to fix the stuff that was there before you started on the page. Sorry and peace! Ceoil (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ps, obviously image placement is a subjective matter of preference; my main intention was to get both the drawing and painting into the lead, and to boost the size of the images within the galleries, which were tiny and surrounded by white space on my screen (desktop/ipad and phone but using the old legacy "vector" skin. Whats worked for me before is that editors share screenshots of what they can see on different devices. Best. Ceoil (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont really care about left/right aligned, long as they are of a size that the relevant detail is discernible.

Lastly re structure....I'm inclining towards your view; it might be worth boldly doing a series of cut and past "test edits", saving and then reverting, as a means for establishing what you think its best for these works. As the page has now gone far beyond how you found it, I think you are the best person to judge and decide. As said before, am impressed by your work so far. Ceoil (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil. The idea to eventually share screenshots is a good one. How and where? I find it really hard to decide each time, particularly with the app and its restricted functions. But this is where I expect most readers to come from. Don't get me wrong, I think stylistically you did a lot of good. I wasn't sure about the older text, and English is not my mothertongue, so I am equally uncertain about my own stuff, where the English wording of often also foreign scholars come in as well as German semantics. Some cuts you did felt immidiately right to me, too. The structure of my sentences tend to be too convoluted, at least for Wiki, and for the English language as well. I am working on it. But I don't want to loose significant details.

I did some edits today and yesterday, added a source for the earliest female nude. I'll have a look at the images again. I am thinking about adding an image of his earliest drawing of Adam and Eve (in Paris), because of the equality between the two, their shared responsibility for the Fall. They are turned to each other, both holding an apple. At the moment, I think about the final engraving as 'Dürer's fall', giving Eve the whole responsibility. - But the article is already burdened with so much (illuminating) images. If need be I probably would remove Barbari's couple; there is nothing I can find on the picture so far. But the pose is so strikingly similar to Eve's, especially the left hand, that I couldn't resist to use the (not well known?) picture here. MenkinAlRire 23:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, look forward. Here is what I mean re size within galleries, and how you can use this talk to other editors if you have similar issues. I hope you realise my main motive here is that you continue to edit....have been active since 2004 and you are only the fourth or fifth editor with actual knowledge to meaningfully contribute to coverage of his works. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil Ah, sure, just as usual; but it's unusual for me to see on a talk page. - As I said, the page might be overcrowded with images already (Not for me personally -there can't be enough to get the whole picture- but in the eyes of other editors #workload^%). This was my motivation to keep them in rather tight galleries (in one row on the website), and I tend to click on pictures anyway, then you can slide through them. But you are right, you should see enough of detail in the thumbs without having to use the viewer.

Nice to think of me as knowledgeable, but in fact, I have enless time on my hands, because I am on sick leave for about a year. I have some of the books and I have unlimited access to jstor through the wikilibrary. And I bought a tablet, it's more flexible than a PC. All I need for research.

% You might want to appease with my 'fear' to overcrowd things, would be appreciated,-) I had the same problem on Albrecht Dürer, but since most of the imgs are in the galleries at the bottom, I thought it's ok. The representative selection of an œuvre might be at least a nicer way or even more accessible than (in most cases) a very long list, which is best suited, if all works are linked. But with long lists I always tend to create a sortable table, despite on the app the sort function is not working yet (see Donatello (catalogue of works), where I eventually have to come back to).

(On the German de:Albrecht Dürer it actually works fine without galleries. I didn't alter much there.) MenkinAlRire 11:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]