User talk:Paul Barlow: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by 165.24.252.180 - "→Yo!: new section" |
Martinevans123 (talk | contribs) still not entirely clear? |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
Yo! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/165.24.252.180|165.24.252.180]] ([[User talk:165.24.252.180|talk]]) 21:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Yo! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/165.24.252.180|165.24.252.180]] ([[User talk:165.24.252.180|talk]]) 21:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
==[[Margaret Wilson (Scottish martyr)]]== |
|||
Yes Paul, with that Tate ref, that sounds convincing. But two conundrums: in the "The Martyr of The Solway" the body of the figure (even in the x-ray (see [http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/online/exhibitions/faith/martyrofsolway.asp])) is turned towards the left, as is the face. Furthermore, the Tate article now cited [http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?cgroupid=999999961&workid=9508&tabview=text&texttype=10] talks of "Recent x-ray photographs of the picture..." but which picture? Surely not of The Knight Errant, the original figure from which had been cut out and added to the Martyr of The Solway? Surely Millais must have reworked The Knight from scratch after the offending figure had been salvaged? Not sure also why The Martyr x-ray appears to show no marks of "sewing on... " [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 00:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 00:16, 17 December 2008
.svg){kind=small}
|
This user is a 'Bretagnophile'. |
User talk:Paul Barlow Archive1
user talk:Paul Barlow Archive 2
user talk:Paul Barlow Archive 3
user talk:Paul Barlow Archive 4
Suffrage
Thanks. Go to bed when you are knackered is 'a good idea'. Fix complex vandalism when you are knackered is 'a bad idea'. Thanks again. Autodidactyl (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Yo!
Yo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.24.252.180 (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes Paul, with that Tate ref, that sounds convincing. But two conundrums: in the "The Martyr of The Solway" the body of the figure (even in the x-ray (see [1])) is turned towards the left, as is the face. Furthermore, the Tate article now cited [2] talks of "Recent x-ray photographs of the picture..." but which picture? Surely not of The Knight Errant, the original figure from which had been cut out and added to the Martyr of The Solway? Surely Millais must have reworked The Knight from scratch after the offending figure had been salvaged? Not sure also why The Martyr x-ray appears to show no marks of "sewing on... " Martinevans123 (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)