User talk:Paul Hermans

Hello,

• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the

snoyes 19:42, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You can rename that article yourself quite easily... Copy the contents from

But you must not rename a page with a cut and past edit. I have fixed the cut and past move of

Philip Baird Shearer 18:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Have you ever been to the southern hemisphere, click here to reply.AstroBoy 01:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Deadline for entries is December 15th[reply]

Thanks for message, and pictures. I'll be waiting so for a nl tag at the end of the page. Though I see you are Belgian...big differnce, I lived in Holland and visited for Belgium for long enough to understand that. Nice galleries in Holland, but...without wanting to spark an internation incident.... Ceoil (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of reasons why my picture has more quality than the previous one (taken in bright sunshine but without any black whatsoever). It has to do with the quality of the lens and the camera, the amount of pixels, contrast, sharpness and the improvements while processing the picture in Adobe Photoshop CS5. I hope you are somebody who can be persuaded by arguments. If I can't convince you, check with somebody who knows about photography. No hard feelings though... :-)

Whereas in principal I can always be persuaded by arguments, when considering images my concern is always the appearance of the image, not the means by which it was produced, and although it is true that my monitor is currently not reproducing colours faithfully (leaving my judgement of images a little weakened), I still feel that your pic is too dark. Furthermore I prefer the composition of the pre-existing image - in your pic the houses are more distant and in my view the wall on the right is too dominant. However in a "one versus one" situation such as this, it is probably advisable to canvass a bit of extra opinion, so I shall seek that from some of the other WikiProject Dorset members. Thankyou for your politeness. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a picture taken without sunshine is always darker... It represents the amount of light present at the time the picture was taken. For me, the abbey wall is an important part of Gold Hill, but this is only my opinion... :-)

Thundercloud (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I have to agree with PCW here. You are right, Thundercloud, the Abbey wall is important, but this is difficult to convey in one image. But, in my lowly instamatic opinion, that second image is "well mingin" (technical term) - do you have one that could replace that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(After edit conflict) I also agree that the wall is an important component of Gold Hill, but the effect on the composition in Thundercloud's pic is to draw the eye to a point at the foot of the wall's buttresses (where the lines of the street and the wall converge), whereas in the pic in the sunshine the eye is drawn to the line of houses. Also the pic in the sunshine more closely resembles the classic image of Gold Hill, and therefore is in my view also preferable on that account. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too familiar with Gold Hill myself, so I can't comment on which photo has a better composition. I will say, however, that I think the brighter photo looks better in the page than the darker photo. It's a lot easier to pick out features within the brighter photo. That being said, I think the darker photo is generally superior at full resolution. Could it perhaps be lightened to look better in the thumbnail? Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I prefer the top image. It is, to me, more pleasing visually but perhaps more importantly, it is instantly recognisable as Gold Hill whereas the lower image is not. The less seen view from the bottom is an interesting one however and I don't see why an article on Gold Hill can't have both. Two images of Gold Hill in an article about Shaftesbury however is too much.--Ykraps (talk) 08:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ykraps, thanks for your input, however the 2 images being discussed are not currently both displayed on the page (ie it is not a choice between the top and bottom images, but rather between the 2 different versions of the top image, one of which is currently displayed, but the other is the image as uploaded by

User:Thundercloud, which is viewable only in a previous saved version of the page). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

My mistake! I've got to go to work now but will take a look when I get back.--Ykraps (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My aim is to reflect reality and the weather conditions at the given time. I try to discuss the "quality" of the picture (less sunshine=less brightness) and a picture with much more resolution always includes more detail.

Thundercloud (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I like Thundercloud's image too but not as much, sorry Thundercloud. One reason for using images is to convey additional information (and there is more information in Thundercloud's photograph) but another reason is to attract people to the article and a 'prettier' picture will do that more successfully. I agree with Martinevans123, we could do with a better view from the bottom if you have one.--Ykraps (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS I understand how disappointing it is to have one of your photos replaced as it happened to me, for reasons I still can't fathom today.

I think the brighter image is the better option for the lead thumbnailed image. I find the wall intrudes a bit too much into Thundercloud's image and is a little bit distracting. There's a collection of images on the commons so I've created a category (which includes Thundercloud's image) and added the link to the article.

No, I don't regret the replacement of my picture - I've stated my case :-) and as long as there is exchanges of opinions and reasoning, I don't see why my view should overrule everybody's else's. Sorry for my poor English...

Thundercloud (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

uw Engels is better dan mijn Nederlands--Ykraps (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for everyone's contributions on this. If no-one objects, I'll copy this discussion over to the talk pages of the relevant articles, so it's easily visible to future contributors. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:Coldstream guards hougoumont.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

A tag has been placed on Wikiproject/Erfgoed/Vlaanderen/Guido Gezellearchief/Vrouwen van papier/2024-03-08, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See
  section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify
  their content.
• It is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. (See
  section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify
  their content.

@CycloneYoris I was participating in this session, writing articles together with those on the picture. Text Will soon follow. Paul Hermans (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]