User talk:Johnbod/24

Disambiguation link notification for October 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Purse cover from Sutton Hoo burial, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plaque (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Core Contest 2012

That was absolutely stellar work you did with the sculpture article for the Core Contest! Wikipedia's readers win again... Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Congrats...Modernist (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Part of the reason

why I removed this image

was that it was a brand new (2012) piece that was posted in wikipedia by the artist who made it. It seems to me that this is not a good habit for us to fall into. it was actually discussed (sort of) back in June when it was first removed. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Normally I would agree, but it is a very good photo of a piece by an apparently notable artist that shows a nice variety of techniques & works well at thumb size. It presumably has no copyright issues. Some of these things are not true of the replacement, which is why when they were both there before I cut the other one. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Charles Matthews/Drafting area/Union

With everything else, I'm trying to get on with the British Museum GLAM article I said I'd do. The easy thing to document, which is the trouble the union ran into in the English parliament, is not there yet: chapter and verse on that can be added when I have a moment. I'm trying to pull together the other aspects first (intriguingly the Scots had a look at the Catalans at the time, which is an ongoing story today really). Charles Matthews (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice. Of course you know James went around calling himself "King of Great Britain" for quite a while, despite Parliament's refusal. There was some nice book stuff on this I came across but I forget where. I now have JSTOR (via Oxford alumni) so let me know if there are articles you need - or do you have it? Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

No JSTOR yet. I'm actually not short of things to add from books, but they tend to be spread out in different places. Perhaps in a week's time I'll move the draft out. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I've added a free image of coins, because it's an interesting sidelight. I'm sure there might be better images. I'm not clear if History of the English penny (1603–1707) has the Latin right (tuetur?); in any case all needs looking into. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

We Can Do It! now FA

Thanks for your review of the "We Can Do It!" article. I appreciate it! Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

St. Gall

just in case you don't look back at DYK, regarding Sankt Gall:

agree, "St Gall" is the traditional English name of the Saint. I would understand "St. Gall" (short for Saint Gall), but not "Sankt Gall", mixed German ad English. Many abbeys are not named for a Saint, but for a place, for example Eibingen Abbey. So is this, at least in German, after St. Gallen. However, the Unesco said "Convent of St Gall". It would make sense to me to move the article to that name, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Convent" is only properly used for communities of nuns in English. UNESCO's English translations are very often bad, and are of no consequence whatsoever. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• If that is so - and it looks like it - why not Abbey of St. Gallen as the article name, to correspond to the original? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

?? That is mixing English and German just as much as "Sankt Gall"! The current name is correct, following WP:COMMONNAME. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

May I know who is using that name? - You are right, my suggestion was not good, the construction matching Eberbach Abbey - indeed mixing German and English, instead of Kloster Eberbach - would be St. Gallen Abbey. We can't help that the original name refers to a place not to the Saint, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

All these people [1] Johnbod (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Not those who live there, - but I accept that they don't count against a tradition of knowing it "better" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No, they just aren't speaking in properly translated English, Gerda. Yawns! Johnbod (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for the copyedit to Shoulder angel - it was even more of a mess before I tried to fix it! Bearian (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! - looking for a better picture now. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

David Roentgen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bureau

Rock-cut architecture (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kailash Temple

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Note on note

Re [2] - don't you want to move it to that editors talk page? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, done, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Dunhuang Project event

Hi John,

Just following up our conversation yesterday - was it Tuesday morning, or another day, you were expecting to be able to come into London for the event? Andrew Gray (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

GibraltarPediA Options followup

You participated earlier in Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options, in which a proposed moratorium on Gibraltar-related DYKs was rejected and a set of options was agreed. There is currently a suggestion from editors who did not participate in that discussion that a moratorium should be imposed, overturning the earlier agreement. If you have any views on this, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Time-sensitive DYK nomination. Prioryman (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

COI rewrite

I think we are starting to see eye-to-eye on the COI issues. Our current WP:COI guideline text is hopelessly muddled when it comes to separating the idea of a COI (which can be benign in some cases, and managed in others, as you pointed out) from the idea of problematic COI editing. It's very messy on top of that, with many redundant sections. I have started a draft rewrite and would appreciate your input and collaboration.

As an aside, my assumption that the primary goal of GLAM was to get people like curators and other GLAM employees editing directly on topics related to their employment is what lead to my MfD vote. If I knew then that it was primarily using them as a resource for normal editors, I probably would have not taken such an extreme position (though I remained concerned about the city projects which aren't technically GLAMs, as many others are). In any case, I think a clearer guideline that more clearly defines acceptable COI editing vs problematic COI editing would benefit GLAM in the future. Gigs (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, but it might be best not to have a WMUK trustee too much involved in a rewrite just now! Do you know Lori Lee? She or other GLAM stalwarts can give a good GLAM perspective. The whole policy is a very big issue though, & I won't have much time for a while. It won't be easy to get consensus for anything, as I expect you realize. Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

More MOU

I've mentioned our previous MOU discussions at Talk:Jimbo Wales#WMUK and Mounmouthshire County Council Memorandum of Understanding. You may wish to comment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

1550–1600 in fashion

I've cleaned up 1550–1600 in fashion - most of the unreliably-sourced material is gone, excepting the sections on make up and chopines - I am looking for good references to replace those (and I have asked my research mavens for a suggestions as well). If anything sourced on personal websites in good faith shows up again, I'd appreciate speedy undo's based on WP:RELIABLESOURCES. I hope I never have to do this again.

BTW, I have much new reference material with which to expand this and the previous period. Just not a lot of free time these days... And now I can go read Tarnya Cooper's Citizen Portrait with a clear conscience. - PKM (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll keep an eye out. Thought of you at the NPG a day or two ago, seeing this. Haven't seen it yet. Johnbod (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I need to get Strong's book on Prince Henry. So many books, such limited shelf space.... - PKM (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

A little help on Dahomey, if you get the time

I've been making improvements to the Kingdom of Dahomey page trying to improve the content a lot. I know my strengths and my weaknesses and a big weakness of mine is Art; editing about it, writing about it, thinking about it, etc. (I wish it weren't so, but it is). I'm writing to you because you've made edits on most of the art pages I've looked at. I know you are busy with probably a lot of other stuff, but if you get the chance to improve the art section on that page at any point in the future, it would be much appreciated. If not, that is cool too. But just figured I'd reach out and let you know about a space that could use your expertise. Thank you in advance. P.S. if there are other good editors you'd suggest, please let me know. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You are officially awesome. Thank you so much. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - all I could find for now. The trouble is some talk of Fon art & some of Dahomey & I'm not sure how much thwe can be taken as synonyms at this time... Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The greatest collection that ever was or will be

Please see WP:PEACOCK. Thanks. Rendinan (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

seen it thks. Bye Johnbod (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

k Rendinan (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, thanks for expanding and proofreading Robert Gill. I've replied your message on my talk page. Please feel free to nominate it (sorry, I'm a bit busy in real life and could not review a DYK in the process, that's why asking...) Shivashree (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• • A simple google search gave me a lot of links that might be useful; I have limited net access:

1. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02666030.2007.9628666
2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/artists/robert-gill
3. http://www.oldindianphotos.in/2010/09/interior-of-ajanta-cave-26-1865.html
4. http://www.europeana.eu/portal/record/92037/1CE64446B88EDE9F8FCC561F3BA99E74105CBACD.html
5. http://www.indiabooks.co.uk/Indiabooks.co.uk/TOPOGRAPHIC_PHOTOGRAPHY/Pages/Ajanta_%26_Ellora_-_Major_R._Gill.html

Hope you find them useful. Shivashree (talk) 04:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• • Nominated for DYK. Shivashree (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Robert Gill

Hello! Your submission of Robert Gill at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I've started a stub for St Luke's Church, Chelsea. I am sure someone in the UK can make it much better... - PKM (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Great - thanks. I used to live about 300 yards away. Dickens got married there, as well as Robert Gill, which I need a ref for. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ernst Kitzinger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Speculum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

OK?

More than OK --Dweller (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Relief gallery

Hello Johnbod. I saw you reverted my addition of Baal with Thunder from the gallery at the Relief article. While I do understand your concern about the gallery being too big already, I think images that correspond to stand-alone articles should at least be given priority in this case. These are articles that naturally won't be linked to from that many places, and I think it would more beneficial for the reader and the article than simply having a random collection of images. It's not a big deal, and I won't revert you, but how do you feel about replacing one of the images of the gallery with this one? Either way, have a good day! Yazan (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just been looking at the gallery, trying to remove one more to make a neat row. The gallery is carefully chosen to illustrate varieties of technique and a spread across cultures. There are far too many articles on individual reliefs for that to be a criterion. There must be more appropriate articles to add it too - we have little enough on Near Eastern art. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't disagree with that, I guess I was just a little too eager to promote my favorite god ;). Cheers! Yazan (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I see you've got it into 6 articles! Nice articles you do anyway. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) Yazan (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Diego de Guevara

That was a wonderful expansion of this article - I'm sure it's worth a DYK nomination. StAnselm (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I was very glad to see it, as I had the sources to hand. Do you want to do the nom? Or I can in a day or two. Johnbod (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll do the nom. I've been reading Hicks at the moment, which has been very enjoyable. She devotes a chapter to him, and reading it made we want to write an article. StAnselm (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, it's at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Diego_de_Guevara. StAnselm (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Gill

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Question

For the Crucifixion FAC [3] I'm assuming that you're fine with the points where you've said ok (two of them). Do the others still need work? I was busy during the week but have time now to address everything. I'm afraid this one's on me to finish (although I'm guilty of jumping the nomination). Btw - noticed the edit summary on Belles Heures! That page does need work. I bought a big book about it and it's somewhere (not too far down) on the to do list. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the good comments and the support. Nice to get this one done - finally. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for St Luke's Church, Chelsea

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

van Eynden family

Hello, Johnbod. I would like to ask your opinion about the article: Roeland van Eynden. Its creator lumped together the biographies of three related 18th/19th-century Dutch painters without giving the article an appropriate title. My first thought was to rename the article as "van Eynden family". That, however, would constitute borderline original research since the term "van Eynden family" does not appear in the relevant literature. So, now I am planning to split it. The only reservation I have is that each individual by himself might not merit independent notability. Your input will be welcome. —Omnipaedista (talk) 08:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I really can't get worked up about this either way. There seems to be another, even more obscure Jacobus I lurking somewhere. I wish people wouldn't start these crappy stubs using crap sources like Bryant. I'd be inclined to go the "family" route. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Featured Article nomination of Blockhaus d'Éperlecques

You kindly commented on my successful FAC nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/La Coupole/archive1 back in September. I've now nominated the second of the three articles in this series, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blockhaus d'Éperlecques/archive1. I'd be grateful for any comments you could provide in the review. Prioryman (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Death of the Virgin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Master of the Death of the Virgin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Lisbon Appt

Hi John, I remember you were interested in this last time it was at FAC. It just passed an A-class review at MilHist and is now back at FAC if you are interested in looking again. I hope you're well and having a good weekend. Cheers, —Cliftonian (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Celtic Christianity

I see you edited the template for this. Can you make sense of the new article Neo-Celtic Christianity? It seems to be saying that Neo-Celtic Christianity is another name for Celtic Christianity, and is thus using Koch as a source.[4]. The editor created several related articles. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Blimey, no, sorry. I think it just about adequately characterizes this as a revival, similar to modern druids. Probably harmless where it is, but linking to it to be watched. I presume the movement doesn't exactly thrive. Johnbod (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Gregorio Correr

Mine from yesterday. Would be interested in anything concrete on the way Correr's humanist interests fed into the iconography of the San Zeno Altarpiece (Mantegna) which he commissioned. There are hints about the predella panels in a number of references. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have much on Mantegna, but give me a few days. Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi Johnbod, a quick question: whilst working on Isabeau of Bavaria I came across this piece that I'd like to create a new article for. Do you happen to know what the restrictions are for uploading images of 3D art? And, also, because this is similar to the Holy Thorn Reliquary, can you watch over my shoulder as I muddle my way through? Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You can't get that to Commons, & I think a fair use claim might not survive. Nothing on Commons. I'd have done an article myself if we'd had a decent pic, and can supply some material. It's a fantastic piece. Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I looked on Commons, was ready to upload and remembered the 3D restriction. So we need to send someone to Altötting, secure permissions for photographs, and then we're good to go! I might contact the convent, or put something on Wikiproject Germany - I noticed the Altötting website has a pic of it, so the convent might not mind releasing one. I so rarely create new articles and am quite excited about this, planned to send it to DYK, but it's useless without an image. I'll see what I can come up with. Anyway, thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I bet they do well off the photo rights, don't allow photography (if its even on display), & won't release.... Nuns can be so ruthless, they really don't give a damn, having their minds on other things... We have loads of pics of the town & other sights - OTT Catholicism is clearly their big thing. It's really called the "Golden Pony" "Goldenes Rössl" if that wasn't clear from your source. There are articles in German [5], French & Italian, but no pics. Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The article from the Met says Golden Horse but I found other sources with the German name; I'll change it. I'll think about this. I did assume it's something you would have done if a pic were available. Oh well, such much for my idea of infiltrating DYK! (That's something of a joke btw ... ). Thanks anyway, off to bed. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let you know that for now I've added a description to the Isabeau article - it seems to work there and can be spun out at some later time. It's very much a shame we can't get a pic of it, but at least it's written about somewhere here. Feel free to tweak or add if you'd like. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A pedantic question

Hello Johnbod. Is it more appropriate to use "at" (rather than "of") when describing a specific structure of a city (e.g. Roman Theatre at Palmyra or, Roman Theatre of Palmyra). I've found sources using both, but I feel that the former might be more accurate and grammatically sound (then again, English is not my first language, and the nuance might lost on me). I'm asking because I've started several articles for Roman theatres in Syria (using "at"), but looking at other theatre articles, there doesn't seem to be a standard way of naming them. Many thanks! Yazan (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd use "at" myself - unless good English sources show a clear preference the other way. Neither could be said to be wrong, but I think "at" a bit more idiomatic. Others might feel the opposite. You could even do "Palmyra Roman Theatre", which is the best for castles, cathedrals, town halls & I suppose some other types of buildings. It's a confusing language! Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod. I'll stick with "at", then, for the sake of consistency (at least at WP:Syria). One (and only) upside of working in an abandoned wikiproject (apart from this article, ofcourse) is that you can actually standardise the articles to pedantic levels. Kind of like Soviet city planning ;). Thanks for the input! Yazan (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Era style

Just wanted to make sure you were keeping an eye on the era discussion. I began a proposal on combining Points 1 and 2 in an effort to respond to your comment about lack of clarity, so I'd really like to have your input. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Early Christian art and architecture, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Constantine and Fiery furnace (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Diego de Guevara

The DYK project (nominate) 00:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Diego de Guevara

I recognized with pleasure your sure touch at Diego de Guevara. Very nice, Johnbod. Thank you.--Wetman (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Kushan coinage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Pantheon and Mahasena

Bedford Hours (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dauphin

Maximianus of Ravenna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Meyer Shapiro

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Romanesque

Take another look. I've tried to use some of it. and inserted a statement or two that makes it clear that there really was a break.

Amandajm (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

OK! I've dumped the whole wad of it on my talk page. Howabout you find something to do with it?

Are you lot going to be at home over Christmas? We are coming over, and would love to catch up!

First time I will have had my sons together for Christmas for 16 years.

Amandajm (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ok. Yes, we'll be around. Email me with the dates - it would be great to see you. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Images

Let me know if there is anything here that you'd particularly like to see added to Commons. - PKM (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing that jumps off the page, thanks. Did you see Talk:History_of_fashion_design#Rename_to_History_of_Western_fashion_since_1900? Things seem a little quieter on fashion pages these days. I saw the NPG Henry, Prince of Wales exhibition btw - everything was there pretty much, execpt the Met version of the hunting portrait. Some of Jon Anderson's Burne-Jones tapestries are in the Tate Pre-Raphaelites exhibition too - that also has eeeverything you would expect. All the best, Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Madonna of the Rosary (Caravaggio) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Ragusa and Peter Martyr

Sarcophagus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lycian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

So Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Interesting. Couldn't one argue that providing comments about an article only indirectly affects it? Biosthmors (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You would not convince WMF of that - not one of their 120-odd employees has a job title with anything like "content" in it. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I guess I should ask their counsel if I want to know more. Do you think it might be a good thing if they changed their mind? What would you guess most Wikipedians here think about that? Biosthmors (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

To be blunt, Wikipedia is a liability nightmare, and the WMF is not going to do anything that puts their section 230 immunity in jeopardy. (So trying to convince them to change their minds a fool's errand.) The WMF supports the editors by providing the hardware and software infrastructure, and community outreach, academic resources, etc, but there's a bright line they won't cross into content. Raul654 (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Biosthmors (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree (I've met the WMF general counsel). The chapters can do a bit more, but personally I would love to see a completely different small charity dedicated to improving key content, first by assessing where the weak articles are, and telling the community. Then after a while, if they are still as bad, paying doctoral students etc to improve them. If I knew any web billionaires that's what I'd try to pursuade them to do. I spend much of my time now looking for weak highly-viewed articles, for the Core Contest and otherwise. Generally a wholesale rewrite meets no resistance from other editors, contrary to one myth about WP. Is some subject areas it would be different of course, but as FAC (mostly) shows, it's articles on very detailed topics that are usually improved all the way. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Identifying weak key content is an interest of mine too. Is there a page with statistics on this? I'd like DYK to clarify that partial blanking/rewrites of weak content are eligible. See my idea here. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You can get some way by using the lists of vital articles at Vital articles/Expanded though the article ratings are often old, & it takes ages to load. Personally I use the list of most-visited pages for my "home" project,Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Popular pages where the ratings (of course wildly inaccurate at times) are regularly updated. All wikiprojects can sign up to this highly useful monthly service. I usually go for "highly-viewed" articles regardless of their apparent "importance" - the listing will I expect show some very unexpected articles get huge views. Let me know if you get your DYK proposal going. Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I will let you know if/when I post about DYK. I wonder why someone from the WMF couldn't edit (and keep updated) this list of volunteers page: Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review/volunteers#Inactive_editors_should_just_be_removed. Might that work? Biosthmors (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

All that sort of thing is volunteer-run. Many would protest if the WMF did stick their oar in. There are a number of FAC/PR/GAC editors with violently anti-WMF views, including some rather strange conspiracy theories. Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Biosthmors (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Ghent

Heads up [6]. Never seen that page before. Plus more OR and the talk. Sigh. Ceoil (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Johnbod. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports.
Message added 21:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

No need to reply, but just so you know. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Review requested

Hi Johnbod,

I have been working hard on Entertainment and have now put it up for Peer Review at WP:Peer review/Entertainment/archive1. If you have time to take a look at the article and say how it should be improved, I would appreciate your opinion. If you think it's perfect, I'd like that too, but somehow I doubt that will be the case. :) Thanks, Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful review - lots to think about and work to do ... Whiteghost.ink (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok - happy to help with some of it, but I'll let you get on for now. Johnbod (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

School project

Hi, Johnbod. You had commented at AN/I regarding a recent school project, so I've stopped by to ask if you might check out User talk:Beliveau and offer your assistance. The instructor has posed a question which I am unable to answer. Any help you can offer would be appreciated. Regards Tiderolls 11:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Chapter house (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dominican

Trellis (architecture) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lattice

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for clarifying where The Cambrai Madonna is and the article on the German Wikipedia. I can't read German, but followed the link to The New York Times and then searched for the cathedral on the French Wikipedia. That's me told, then, for doing a hasty Google search and swallow what it churns out

Apologies for hiding your contribution. Best, --CocoLacoste talk 13:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem! Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

...I was just linking an email to the Wikipedia page on The Nativity Story and thought I would take a look at the talk page there and saw you had edited it. Hope all is going well for you and everyone on Wikipedia! God bless you. NancyHeise ^talk 04:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC) ....PS, the movie is excellent if you haven't seen it. I'm having a get together of some friends at my house to watch the movie this week, that's why I was linking it. The website listed on the cover of the movie doesn't work but the Wikipedia page does. What would we all do without Wikipedia? : ) NancyHeise ^talk 04:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:TFAR

Hello, if you get a chance, would you mind popping back to WP:Today's featured article/requests? There are now two suggested articles for 1st January and I'm inviting input as to which one people would prefer for the day itself and when the other one might be scheduled instead. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 09:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Art (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Moulding

Hubert van Eyck (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to James Snyder

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth I

Thanks for the heads up. About to get on a plane, will review when I can. - PKM (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

What's going on with User:Johnbod/Friends of organization?

Hey Johnbod! Just wondering what's going on with User:Johnbod/Friends of organization. There was initially a consensus to delete the mainspace article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends of organization. Afterwards, I believe it was userfied to your userspace as you had an intention to improve it based on the AfD concerns. Is that happening, or has this userspace draft crossed over into WP:FAKEARTICLE-territory? Singularity42 (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't done a thing with it & had forgotten all about it, that's what! Feel free to take it away & make something of it. I do think there's a decent article in there somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind I was one of the delete !votes (although I can hardly remember anymore). I stumbled across this while doing some much needed maintenance on my watchlist. Personally, I would rather leave it if there's a chance you or another editor plan to improve it in the next little while. I doubt I will be the one though: I've read through my original opinions at the AfD, and surprisingly, I still agree with myself :) If the draft is not likely to be improved in the next little while, I am inclined to take it to MFD... Singularity42 (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Adoration

Thank you for your adorable card! As if you made it especially for me, not only with music, but bagpipe, mentioned in my first DYK, see my user. My Christmas music (for all) is already there, decoration will follow in a week. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you look at ...

my comments at Wikipedia talk:GLAM/smarthistory? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Auricular style

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Renaissance humanism

Hey Johnbod! I gathered that you're the leading editor at the aforementioned page and wanted to bring to your notice a small issue. The first sentence of the article almost escapes me. It begins "Renaissance humanism encapsulates a broad range of initiated by...." It doesn't say a broad range of 'what'? Given your knowledge in Art, I'm sure you could make it so much better :) --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  06:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Lady Henry Somerset

Johnbod, can you please take a quick look at this, and if you think ALT2 works, add an approval tick? I don't feel I should be the one to approve my own ALT under the circumstances, no matter how similar it is to the previous ones. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Best wishes to all; my Christmas card is Adoration of the Shepherds (Domenichino). Johnbod (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas
	and Happy New Year! Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec12}} to your friends' talk pages.

Query...

Is this book any good? I'm not exactly the best with art historians... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't know it, but he was a serious figure [7]. First published 1969, & Italian author sometimes have a very high-flown style, but at that price should be worth having, especially as it has lots of piccies. Another dealer says (of the UK edn, but shld be same): 1969. Hardcover. 360 monochrome illustrations, 9 colour plates reproducing Romanesque and Gothic sculpture. ; A History of Western Sculpture; Vol. 2; B&W Illustrations; 8vo 8" - 9" tall; 368pp pages; Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

...

Colossians 1:15-16

Merry Christmas!.. Alas my last one...
History2007 (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Holiday cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt my talk page is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas
	May your Christmas sparkle with moments of love, laughter and goodwill, May the year ahead be full of contentment and joy, May the good times and treasures of the present become the golden memories of tomorrow, Merry Christmas To U & Ur Family. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Ho Ho Ho

The story of the 4th Wiseman

I do believe that this card explains
a lot of the hitherto misunderstood
and even ignored origins of a variety of Christmas stories.
I am considering writing an article about the theology involved
but am having a difficult time with sources.
Of well,
have a good one, it does appear
that we have made it through the worst of 2012,
which is a great start to 2013
Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Seasons greetings...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Adoration of the Shepherds (Domenichino)

Gatoclass 12:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

..

Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

< ...and a Happy Christmas, too, from Wetman (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC) , who needlessly checked to see whether the new Domenichino article was yours....

Categories

I note that you have added some non-existent categories to some pages, namely Category:Early Christianity and Category:Early Christian art. These categories don't appear to be suitable per WP:CAT. They are too subjective. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_14#Category:Ancient_Christianity. I'm afraid you don't know what you are talking about re Category:Early Christian art, an entirely standard period in art history. Johnbod (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I must have imagined the textbook I had titled Early Christian Art in college.... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The name of a textbook is not necessarily a good name for a category in WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It seem odd to pre-empt the outcome of a CfD especially since it is not a clearcut discussion either way. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

We need Category:Early Christian art either way. The other one can follow the result. Johnbod (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited King Edward's Chair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gild (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Museo de Prado

I noticed your bold removal with the edit summary: "(remove collections section entirely; all seems to be a straight lift from the museum website)" It wasn't entirely clear from that summary whether you thought that all the material might be copy-vio or not sufficiently paraphrased, or whether you thought it did not add any value (since the information can be found via the linked museum website), or possibly both. I think it might be worth raising on the Talk Page to clarify - if only to placate any miffed editors like me who have spent a while trying to tweak and copy-edit all of that stuff. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Done - I only compared a couple of sections, but these were 100% copied, & as the style is consistent I assume all are. The history section may need checking too. The older versions, pre the copyvio, could be used. Johnbod (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, all quite dishearteningly clear now. "Oh botheration" as Robertson Hare used to say on All Gas and Gaiters Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

And thanks for keeping me honest! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Really?

So in BE "is a painting of 1631" is the preferred phrasing over "is a 1631 painting"? To my American English ears, your preferred version sounds wordy and awkward. I'll also note that the category is 1631 paintings. LadyofShalott 04:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not just the preferred phrasing, but the only one. You will not find American academics in serious journals or books using "a 1631 painting" either. Editors knock such things out. Johnbod (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(So there's no doubt: I'm not arguing with you anymore, just discussing a linguistic phenomenon I now find curious.) That's very weird to me. Why is "of <year>" considered necessary? Is the same phrasing used when speaking of other things produced in a certain year: "Blah blah is a book of 2012"? As I said before, it seems wordy and awkward to me - "2012 book" is clear (to me) and more concise. I don't know that I've regularly encountered the "of year" phrasing either. LadyofShalott 05:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There are other ways of phrasing it (from, in etc) but in normal formal English you can't treat a year date as an adjective, other than cases like car models where it has become established. It's one of the most notable ticks of much WP writing, where it is certainly rife - the other is paintings being "housed" or "residing" in museums, which is pure journalese. Johnbod (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:VAMOS#Dates btw. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Aniconism in Judaism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Menorah

Jesus healing the bleeding woman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Adventus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

hyuk hyuk

Since you said you wouldn't watch the page: [8]. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

My edits

Please stop changing my edits with edit summaries that amount to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. I deferred to your objections which were valid and made a separate paragraph on the Three Marys Manuscript and you reverted with a objectionable edit summary. You also changed the English title to the French. This is English Wikipedia and that was inappropriate as well. You then followed my contribs to Jean de Venette and again made changes in a manner intended to be difficult to revert. That is vandalism. Next time I will report you. I am not a Newbie. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Report away! Obviously the correct French title of the poem should be given. Note that " Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." Johnbod (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(WP:TPS) I have left Mugginsx a warning about misusing rollback to revert good-faith edits and a suggestion that a re-read of WP:ROLLBACK and WP:VANDALISM would be in order. Bencherlite^Talk 10:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

FA Review of Jainism

Hello. Thanks for your review on Jainism. I have addressed most of the points you raised and would like your opinion on how the article could be further improved to gain your support for FA. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Message on article talk page

Hello, Johnbod. You have new messages at Talk:Jean de Venette.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I answered you question on the article talk page. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

The Three Marys (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Attributes and Lazarus

Laughing Cavalier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pourtalès

Portrait of a Lady known as Esmeralda Brandini (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pourtalès

Transfiguration (Raphael) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ascoli

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Christian church councils

Category:Christian church councils, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. JFHutson (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Adoration of the Magi

Hello, Johnbod. You have new messages at Fayenatic london's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Royal portraits

Hi, I started an article on the Portrait of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and Category:Portraits of the British Royal Family, realizing our coverage of Royal portraits is extremely poor. I was wondering if you could create a list of missing notable royal portraits. I'm keen to improve coverage in this area.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Wooo! No thanks, nor do I really approve of what is bound to be always be a drastically incomplete list. Categories are the way to go, & I have added some easy ones, but I'm sure there are plenty more. Then there are statues of course - tons of those. By the way WP:VAMOS deprecates "Portrait of .." titles. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I don't want a huge list. I just want say 5-10 very notable portraits you can think of with another sources to make them worth starting..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, George IV by Thomas Lawrence (several times), George III by Allan Ramsey and others, Richard II in Westminster Abbey, Mary I by Anthonis Mor - several versions. Really a "Portraiture of ..." article, like Elizabeth I's, is the best way to go from Henry VII to Victoria, especially as it allows for prints & coins, & later stamps, which are obviously the way most people experienced the royal portrait. Charles II, Henry VIII and Victoria would make especially good articles. Johnbod (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hokay, thanks.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added a few statues. Actually a big Portraiture of the English Royal Family & then a British one, might be a good way to get into this. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Notification

As you were one of a number of editors who participated in Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options last September, I thought I would notify you that I have suggested a change to the wording of the restrictions to clarify what is being restricted. Please see WT:DYK#Proposed minor wording change to Gibraltarpedia restrictions for the details. Prioryman (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Artist authors

Category:Artist authors, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Utrecht Psalter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catalan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Portrait of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

Thank you for reverting those edits, I was just questioning the same serious of edits. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I'd left a much shorter version last night, which is quite enough I think. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Madonna in the Church

Have a few bits and pieces to add to this, but will prob nom in a week or two. You added a lot of the content, I might list you as co-nom? Ceoil (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomed now. Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

EEng

EEng is "stalking" you and reverting your edits (see my last two edits: I reverted to your versions) as well as other highly active Wikipedia editors (including Lockley). Looking at the rude comments he leaves everywhere (refer to User talk:Lockley), I believe that he's some angry teen. Can something be done about him? 87.67.21.139 (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it stalking - those are AFAIK the only articles we've both edited, and I think he mostly wrote the Gage one. Johnbod (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing what's really going on, Johnbod. The IP is upset about [9] (the lobotomy article attracts a lot of angry people -- and see the bottomn of [10] to understand who's stalking whom). For the record, I came to Gutenberg Bible while working on Harry Elkins Widener, where it's mentioned. As to the "country counts", I was indeed a bit exasperated -- perhaps you see now that the counts are explicitly in the table, but as I said I leave the final decision as to whether to repeat them in the text to your judgment. EEng (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The user Arcillaroja

Dear Wikipedian,

I am Marina. I am writing to you in order to clarify my fears. One of the users have been reverting my edits on Western Europe, as well as other European-related issues. I noticed, that his or her page is full of talk page entries related just to that. Would you mind to stay in touch with me? I read about vandalism on Wikipedia and I fear this is one of these cases... I hope, of course that I am wrong but... the evidence seems to suggest otherwise. By evidence I mean Arcilla's talk page as well as entry, and the fact that rather than move a critical comment from user page to a talk page, it was simply reverted. --Martina Moreau (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Rollback

If you continue to misuse rollback, that right will be removed to prevent further abuse. If taking a moment to pay attention is too difficult for you, you do not need to be editing. If you continue to use rollback, I will manually revert the edits until you decide to edit properly; using tools correctly is not optional. Your aggressive accusations and lack of understanding are not helped by compounding them with abusing user rights given to you. - SudoGhost 16:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You really are a piece of work! I might add that going through the edits it was entirely clear to me that Knorp had given them adequate consideration, as he varied his edits in many cases, while you (as you have admitted) did not attempt to look at each article as you reverted, and even with your limited knowledge at the time a glance would have been enough to show that your reversion was incorrect. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, your issue was originally that I "did it too quickly", yet your edits show several edits per minute. However, I did not abuse user rights to edit Wikipedia, so your kettle has become a little more black. Yet I am "a piece of work", despite that? Your response does not inspire confidence, and until you edit properly I will be reverting any rollback abuse I see, and if you continue to abuse that rollback it will be taken to ANI and removed. This is just childish, and if you continue to mislabel edits as vandalism, you may be blocked to prevent further disruption. You shot yourself in the foot with that edit summary, by the way. Hope it was worth it. - SudoGhost 16:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Your persistence in making these edits, and failing to address the arguments several editors have made against them at User_talk:Fnorp#Concerning_your_edits does in my opinion constitute vandalism. It does not take a moment to see that in a modern article a list of European countries including Holland is wrong, and cannot be right, likewise talk of Holland in international sports. Take it to ANI by all means, and see what happens. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm Now you're just backing into a corner trying to throw anything and hope it sticks. You were already informed that I did indeed "address the arguments", on my talk page and others, so you're mistaken on that point, you must have forgotten that despite already discussing that very thing with you. To say that it constitutes vandalism is a critical misunderstanding of what vandalism is and is not. You cannot decide that if you do not like an edit that it is vandalism, and editors have been blocked for continuing to mislabel edits as vandalism. Vandalism has a more specific definition on Wikipedia than in common usage, and accusations of vandalism are taken quite seriously, since edits that are vandalism are treated much differently than other edits on Wikipedia. The fact that you did the very thing you were critical of me for aside, it is always disappointing to see an editor resort to abusing their user rights and disregarding Wikipedia policy at the first sign of any sort of disagreement. That alone speaks volumes more than anything else you'd have to say. - SudoGhost 16:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You clearly have not addressed the arguments and apparently still believe your edits were a positive contribution to the project. Iknow very well what vandalism is, thank you very much. What is " the very thing you were critical of me for" pray? Unlike you (and like Fnorp) I actually looked at the articles before editing. I explained I would be using rollback on your talk page, and you clearly saw that, as you removed it in your usual style. Your tone is really quite astonishing under the circumstances. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you know "very well what vandalism is" doesn't somehow make you look any better, in fact it speaks very poorly of you to know what vandalism is and is not, and to choose to disregard that at the first sign of any sort of disagreement. This edit summary doesn't fare much better, it seems you took my removal of your comment a bit personally and any comments about "my tone" do not impress, given the tone of your own edit summaries. "Given the circumstances" a content dispute is one thing, abusing user rights and knowingly mislabeling edits as vandalism is quite another and is unnecessarily disruptive. With that in mind, I'm not the least bit concerned about anything you'd say about my actions, as your own behavior has been much more disruptive than any content dispute.

The next time you find yourself in a position to jump in the middle of a discussion between other editors, it might help if you keep your ego out of it; don't take it as some kind of personal insult when someone removes a comment on their talk page per WP:MULTI, since you had already posted that same comment elsewhere and I had already responded to it. If this edit summary is your response to removing a comment in that manner then I really don't think you have the social skills necessary to engage in dispute resolution, because your actions were far more damaging than helpful. I have no doubt you meant well and were trying to help resolve an issue, but ignoring policy and abusing rollback doesn't help anyone, least of all yourself. This behavior of yours is extremely troubling, and saying "your tone is really quite astonishing under the circumstances" suggests that truly believe that you did nothing wrong, and if true, that is more troubling than anything. - SudoGhost 17:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Really, this is ridiculous. My edits improve the encyclopedia, your's dont, and you won't be told that, but insist on arguing the toss no matter how many editors tell you, and reverting to your version, while abusing those involved. Please go away. Expect to end up at ANI if this behaviour continues. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You can stop throwing mud and hoping something sticks, because in doing so you're only getting yourself dirty. Now you've lowered yourself to personal attacks, and I would ask you to please strike the comments you made above. I'll leave your talk page alone but please do not attack other editors in this manner, including disingenuous comments about "being abused"; asking you not to abuse rollback or mislabel edits as vandalism is not abuse. - SudoGhost 17:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Request

Hi. I'd like to ask you about a problem: It's about this pic: [11]. A befriended administrator of mine moved it to commons and since that change the pic seems to be broken. It doesn't appear anymore, neither in articles, nor in it's thumbnail section at Commons. Do you have any idea how to fix that? Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems ok, now, on Commons & in one :de article. Johnbod (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, now it works. Thx, though. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Bologna Institute Science Adademy

See Talk:Academy of Sciences of the Institute of Bologna. I don't know if I care. The current name does maybe sound better. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK Hercules Read

I reviewed your DYK nomination, and I passed it. I think you could even add a picture of the Fuller Brooch, however, and make it even better. Just a thought. Cdtew (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I was thinking of uploading one of the NPG photos of him, but failing that the brooch would be good. I see it's gone to a queue now, oh well. Johnbod (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Chaim Koppelman

Hi, thanks very much for your review. Another editor suggested an ALT hook after you gave the tick, and the page creator and I prefer the ALT. Would you mind looking at it again and giving it your approval? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Brescia Casket

Hello! Your submission of Brescia Casket at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Froggerlaura ^ribbit 03:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Just needs a QPQ.

Holland vs the Netherlands

I'd like to express my gratitude for your strong support two days ago and for restoring my edits, sometimes even improving them as in the case of Breslau. Please note that SuboGhost apparently has labelled at least one of your edits as vandalism. Fnorp (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I think they are pretty much all caught, no? Actually that edit is by someone else. I expect Sugo Ghost will want to give him one of his stern lectures. Johnbod (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You did an excellent job, not only reverting but also discussing with him on a level that I could not. Not only is my English not good enough, I don't know my way in the regulations and had to catch a train as well. I'm sorry you had to clean up the mess he made. I lost track of all the corrected pages, but will soon continue by inspecting the pages that link to Holland. This time I'll make sure I do give an edit summary any time, although that obviously is not good enough for our mutual friend. As for Breslau, I meant this edit. Fnorp (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Brescia Casket (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Judas, Susanna and Lazarus

Catalogue number (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Accession number and Catalogue

Celts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Galicia

Charles Hercules Read (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to National Portrait Gallery

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Hercules Read

KTC (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Minor technical help plus

I'm guessing that you'd know how to fix the border of a box that I'd like to continue using for Wikipedia:GLAM/smarthistory. The border is very wide on the left, and narrow on the right. See The_Allegory_of_Good_and_Bad_Government#Notes for one example.

If you have any advice on the the GLAM/Smarthistory project do please let me know. I seem to be the only person working on it. Probably the problem is that many people see this project as just adding external links to Smarthistory videos, which would be quite boring and very useless if the links were buried in the External links section. Do please look at the overall type of editing I've been doing on these articles, e.g. diff. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm the last person to ask, but I've fiddled at that example. I got the picture, but not the video box over. See my edits. I've seen many of your changes via my watchlist & I think you're doing great work. I & Whiteghost did some on the list, but we're both busy on other stuff for now. Too few editors! Johnbod (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Pictures from the Met

Did you see that the Met is deaccessioning a number of things (including a portrait attributed to Memling) via Sotheby's on 31 Jan? Someone got a batch of them into Commons before I did. - PKM (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Queen Anne

How very clever of you to think of that picture; I'd forgotten about that, complete with it's extended ivy on the wall drawn by me to hide all the horrible cars and people walking past. Have you seen it recently? Completely restored at vast expence and looking as good as the day iy was built - I must tty and get another picture somsetime. I don't agree with you over the horrible American house, which is Gothic, but I'm sure something better will turn up sooner of later. Going to be near Bedford Park today, that should dbeinteresting. Giano (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Good to hear from you - I didn't know the house or picture at all, but turned it up on Commons. Searching for "Queen Anne architecture" was of course no use at all, but I found it eventually. It's the smaller types of house Commons doesn't have many of - loads of vast mansions. When was it actually built - must look it up. Hope you're well. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Winslow Hall: can't remember when it was built - although I did write the page after I was given a load of old articles and papers on it from the 1900s and 1920s. Very interesting as its saod by some to be by Christopher Wren - and in my unbiased view it probably is by him, but no one will ever know for sure. The proportions are perfect, and only a master would have dared stick that great chimney stack on top and get away with it looking perfectly normal. I am well - back on form, one might almost say. Giano (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, added - now I do remember reading the article. My visual memory for architecture isn't what it should be. Good to hear you're back, it's been like the Western Front for content writers lately! Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Brescia Casket

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Renomination of Jainism

Hello, I am going to renominate the article on Jainism. Therefore, I would like to know whether the concerns that you raised in the previous nomination of this article have been addressed or not. Thanks. Rahul Jain (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The article has been copy-edited by a member from the Guild of Copy Editors. I do not think it needs more copy-editing. However, you might have your reasons. Cheers. Rahul Jain (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I hadn't seen those very recent edits, which are numerous. Let's see what others think. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Madonna

• (Discuss) – Madonna (art) → Madonna I am notifying you because you were involved in writing this article. Kauffner (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)