"

 Talk:Ramon Berenguer III, Count of Barcelona 

Talk:Ramon Berenguer III, Count of Barcelona might interest you.  

 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, 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.  

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?   

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?  
Both of those are improvements over the 17th-century image, but not over the coin. At least one other editor agrees with me.   
Sorry I'm not agree with your second comment, but I hope we have made ​​a step in the right direction. This discussion is already too long. Both images are the best ones that meet your rigid standard of closeness to the character's life. Either both seem right.  

 Imposing your personal preference is not how it occurs on Wikipedia 

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 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.