User talk:79.145.148.64

March 2022

Hello, I'm Pavlov2. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Acerrimo moerore—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Pavlov2 (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Munificentissimus Deus. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Pavlov2 (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

March 30

I never said for you to stop editing and I’m fine you keeping all the edits you’ve made. You’re making it seem like I’m angry with you I’m not I just wish you would compromise. But I don’t want to argue with you let’s just agree to disagree. And don’t stop editing Wikipedia by you going back and forth with me shows you care and are passionate about history and Wikipedia which is something we have in common. Orson12345 (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working now. When I finish I'll see it. 79.145.148.64 (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand it. Of course it is evident that we let’s just disagree sometimes, and I treat to compromise, always before revert or discuss in something, I treat to understand the other's point of view and arguments, because if I didn't do, I never wouldn't have done reversions and opened discussions with an objective view as I have been trying to do until today since I began to edit here. I also don't want to argue with you, because I consider that in general you have done also good contributions importing better images with better quality to articles, only there was some dissapointig between us, particularly with some of them because appear to be not so close temporary to depicted people. And don't worry, I didn't going to leave the project as I said yesterday, I was a little stupid saying that because I was worried for argueing with you, because I don't like give the appeareance that I don't understand the others or that I throw out a window their contributions.

Honestly, since you restored for the first time the anonymous portrait, I tried to find more precise data from a reliable source until yesterday evening, but at that moment, I didn't found any yet and, for being neutral, I thought that it would be better to revert to the latest stable version and open a community discussion in the talk page and, while it is in process, to search again for references to the anonymous portrait for give it some more objective arguments for keep it, and also some historical information, but it's possibly I'm at time for that yet.

I'm very sorry if I annoyed you with my comments or I have offend you in anytime, and I hope that we could collaborate together in the future like if nothing of this have happened. I hope you can also accept my sincerely apologies 79.145.148.64 (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my part as well. I hope we can work together in the future as If this situation never occurred. Have a nice day! Orson12345 (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pius II

Hello, Hope you’re doing good. I was just curious about your resent change to Pius II infobox. If the previous image was posthumous and the image you put was posthumous then why change it? If you have two posthumous portraits of him then the best image of the two should be in the infobox. Orson12345 (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I added it because it was created between 1472 and 1476, that is, around eight or 12 years after the death of Pius II. Therefore, the description is more precise since it is more likely that Berruguete and van Gent could have known several collaborators of the late Pope, and have made the portrait based on the descriptions given to them about the Pontiff. I hope I was able to clarify it for you, if you need anything, please let me know 79.145.148.64 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of subjects from early 15th century or before, the temporal certainty give us a more precission of the real aspect which the depicted person would have got. This justification is because at that time, life expectancy was lower than it was, for example, in the eighteenth century (comparing with Benedict XIII's era), and so more less than current times, so it's probably that for 1502-1507 (Pinturicchio's fresco), most of Pius II' collaborators have been deceased, so the probability that the historical precission is less. Also, Pinturicchio's fresco is also in the article, but I think that Berruguete and van Gent's version would be also a great main image unless it is changed with the full version (which, in my opinion, it's seen worse than the detail-version) 79.145.148.64 (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you’re reasoning, thanks for explaining. Have a good day! Orson12345 (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.