Talk:Annunciation (van Eyck, Washington)

message: I clearly see that this site is now used by some who self-qualified themselves as to have the power of the Last Judge on the texts and images that others have written.  I have nothing against adding to the article that someone has already composed, but DELETING things that MAY BE IMPORTANT to the one who WROTE IT ORIGINALLY and to those WHO COULD READ IT IN THE FUTURE is clearly unacceptable.  And after all, WHY DO YOU TEACH ME how to write an article, and what is write and wrong???  It is all subjective, and your advice is just as subjective as my writing.  Write your own stuff and express yourself in a way that you feel the best.   But if someone else wrote things that just doesn’t please you with its style or eloquence, well, LIVE AND LET LIVE!  Especially it was RUINOUS that two images that I TOOK PERSONALLY AT THE MUSEUM have disappeared after Attilias careful editing, ohh, he just threw away THE MOST PRECIOUS HIGH-RESOLUTION images where incomparable details could be seen, without having SLIGHTEST CLUE what he was doing!  
What a policy of barbarity and axing!  What a GREAT EXPERTISE in proliferating knowledge and creating collective intelligence – when a whole round table of knights in tiger’s skins are circling around, waiting for a new prey to come for their dinner.  Poor Virgin and Angel, aiiiiiiiii!!!  I am amazed this brought so many spectators; don’t you all have something better to do than dissecting someone’s article???  WRITE YOUR OWN INSTEAD!!!   
I see with sadness that Wiki is becoming a playground for ambitions of those who probably dreamed to serve in police force or in censorship office, maybe in Ministry of Truth, creating nothing themselves but censoring, destroying, mutilating and even usurping the work of the others.  
If you wan to follow your favorite standard, create your own page.  Why to destroy someone else's?    Because it's so easy, much easier than to create?  And all this ridiculous patronizing from people who do not make sufficient effort to study the subject, yet don’t miss a chance to preach and patronizing other authors so charmingly, pretending they are experts.  
It is NO DIFFERENT FROM BOOKS BURNING- if I disagree, I destroy.  
Well, I KNOW that it was not an original purpose of Wiki, and actually it is ironic that someone with nickname Attilios has started it - being from Rome, he knows well what Atilla has done.  Well, keep the tradition, warrior!  DESTROY THINGS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!  BRAVO!  I find all this offensive and quite fascistic at this point - where is your scholarly tolerance??? You behave like close-minded bigots.  How disappointing and laughable...   I can only recall of Galileo story, and Heine, and so many others, and the Holy Inquisition.  I guess lots of folks are waiting here to just flex their muscles and devour a new author.  Well, I will not give up easily!  And my advice to all of you:
CREATE YOUR OWN STUFF!!! 
I will read and give you suggestion, but I will NOT DELETE it, as I will RESPECT your effort! That is what is called academic civility. Wiki is not a religion yet - well...I hope!
Vergonia, singnores!
: As I mentioned in my last comment to you, this is not the point of the question, Gradiva. The fact is that the register you used in the article was not adequate for this neutral encyclopaedia. And the intervention of Attilios (who doesn't deserve your resentment and irate, unpleasant, words, rather you should read Wikipedia:No personal attacks) was not destroying, that was only formatting, as you inserted your contribution under a license that gives permission to modify. I hope that the discussion will return to considering the content, not the editors.--Grifomaniacs 10:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please attempt to be temperate, Gravida. When you say ‘it is ironic that someone with nickname Attilios has started it - being from Rome, he knows well what Atilla has done’, you are making a number of mistakes. Firstly, according to our article ‘Attila reached Constantinople and Rome but refrained from attacking either city’—it would be attractive if you were to treat user:Attilios with a similar respect. Secondly Attilios is not a nickname: Attilio is his real first name and has nothing to to with the Hun. —Ian Spackman 11:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update by Gradiva: 

message: I just saw what Attilios complained about:
""I think, every serious Wiki users can make his/her opinion by him/herself about phrases such as "The aim and joy of Wikipedia is to share knowledge and express it in a way the author of an article finds the most convincing."... I've repeatedly tried to invite user:Gradiva to read any of the pages specifying the editing policies here, but always in vain. --Attilios 11:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another update by Gradiva: 

message: Well, I must say that the article is greatly improved! Thank you, Johnbod.... I presume it was Johnbod, who elucidated the use of Romanesque architecture to indicate a Jewish setting. I see that this is now referenced. Wonderful! i didn't kknow that! 
Now that we've alll been shouted at, whatt next? 
--Amandajm 11:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur—Johnbod is doing an extraordinarily good job. It’s become a very interesting article. As to what next—I expect Violet Elizabeth Bott will turn up and provide some THOUGHTFUL CONTRIBUTIONS IN BOLD CAPS. She could enjoy herself here ;)—Ian Spackman 11:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oh Dear!

message: Why is the Article named Annunciation (van Eyck, Washington), wouldn't Annunciation (van Eyck) do (especially considering that the other pieces of the presumed triptych are lost and there's no need to differentiate)? 88.148.214.62 (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: As an anonymous user said over 10 years ago, shouldn't the name just be Annunciation (van Eyck)? There's no other version by van Eyck, so there's no reason for the Washington part of the title. Thermoxin (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Thermoxin, there is also Annunciation (van Eyck, Madrid), and similar on the Ghent Altarpiece. Ceoil (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I didn't know that version even existed. Thanks for the clarification. Thermoxin (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd Article Title