User talk:Johnbod

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Dirty angel from the Monumental Cemetery of Staglieno in Genoa, c.1910

Art patronage of George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham

I have just merged back the art patronage article to its original home, as discussed on the George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham talk page back in September. The trouble is, I don't know how to dispose of the art patronage article's title page. The best I could do was blank the article and put a redirect. Could you sort it out, if you have that expertise? Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I've asked. AA is the go-to guy on merges etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It's ok apparently. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Ottonian dynasty

saying its three kings infers that it only had three kings, saying three of its kings means they had more kings but only three were named Otto. That is not poor English it changes the meaning entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ODP123 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Core Contest

	Core Contest - Second Prize
	Congratulations to Johnbod for improving Sandro Botticelli for readers everywhere! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again for organizing this, Cas, & congratulations to the others! Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Only just noticed that this has won, as I suspected it might. Very much deserved. Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

PS: Can you email me so I can email back voucher (as it is an attachment) Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Boiled leather

On 12 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Boiled leather, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the German Army used pickelhaube helmets made of boiled leather (example pictured) until halfway through World War I? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boiled leather. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Boiled leather), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Monarchs

There were a number of monarchs who were not previously categorised under 'Kings of England' - e.g. Henry III of England, Edward I of England, Edward II of England, Edward IV of England - so I do not feel that there was previously a consistent policy/system that all monarchs should be so categorised. For that reason, I did not raise the issue on talk. If you wish to revert my edits (and make corresponding edits to the pages listed above, and any others which were not previously so categorised) I do not object.Alekksandr (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Salvator Mundi (Leonardo)

Hello Johnbod, could you keep an eye on this article Salvator Mundi (Leonardo), and it's Talk page. There seems to be much contentious editing going on, especially with regard to authenticity (See latest in Talk). Thanks. Coldcreation (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Cragside

Dear Johnbod, I hope you are well. I have a favour to ask. If you have time and inclination, your comments on Cragside would be very much appreciated at the peer review, here, Wikipedia:Peer review/Cragside/archive1. It's a fine example of Victorian domestic, with an equally fascinating owner. It occurs to me that you may also be able to assist with a question we have been unable to resolve regarding the price paid for Millais's Chill October. Details in the footnote and on the talkpage. If you've too much else on your plate, not a problem at all, but if it's of interest, we'd be most grateful. With best regards. KJP1 (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

RE: Your reversions of User:CEpley

Thanks for your message and thanks for checking my contributions. I'm new on enwiki and I can commit some mistakes. Recently my contribution on "Etruscan history" has been reverted. Since you didn't revert it, I ask you... It's a good edition, or that user is right?. Same to you. Tajotep (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I commented at [[1]] on problems with his edits, but on the whole I think they are better there than not there at all. I'm working through adjusting them somewhat, without having personal knowledge of all these works. that there too. Johnbod (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverting my edits

Hello! You seem to have made poor judgement in reverting my edits over at judenhut! Please discuss why you feel that my edits were in error! Thanks. 76.169.78.241 (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Your ludicrous attempts to remove all mention of the 4th Lateran Council, whose decrees are extremely well-known, will not succeed. You can read the full text here - Canons 67-70. You have raised the suitability of the template on the talk page - let's see how much support you get. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I am trying my very hardest to avoid making this an issue of race, but it certainly must be at this point. Jewish sources which explain the motives of non-Jewish-people are simply biased. The source provided is entirely bogus. 76.169.78.241 (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Your sources actually do not establish motive for wearing the hat. That has always been speculation, as there is no historic record to this motive. However, plenty Jewish sources have thrown more than a fair share of speculation into the wind. You cannot find a legitimate source which discusses motive for this hat. 76.169.78.241 (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and your links are only confirming what I already know. There was no specific prejudice against the Jews. It was customary for other, non-jews to wear identifying clothing also, without persecution. There is a difference between identification and discrimination. You do not understand the motives for this, nobody does. 76.169.78.241 (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

This is certainly not "antisemitism" both in literal sense and intended sense. 76.169.78.241 (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

My apologize, by "motives" I mean the specific intent of the King enforcing this law. Yes, some things are mentioned such as preventing sexual intercourse between different races, (more than just the jews), but we don't know if these were actually mallicious or perhaps they were normal to preserve a specific bloodline? Perhaps he has every right to do this? Who knows, you or I simply do not. This is certainly not antisemitic. The template is ridiculous and is absolutely biased. It belongs nowhere here. 76.169.78.241 (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• I do suppose we should reach some type of agreement. I personally believe the hat is stylish and fashionable, and would be considered elite fashion for the era. I believe this is almost certainly true. Yes, I supposed we do think it looks stupid now, but the design of the hat is actually high-fashion. Just because others, such as the Nazi's have practiced similar behavior, and may have also misconstrued history for their own purposes, does not mean we should label everything as antisemitic. And the term of "antisemitic" itself is actually ironic, in that its use is both ignorant and racist. Wouldn't you agree? 76.169.78.241 (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

No. Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Gavaksha

On 25 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gavaksha, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the gavaksha motif, common in Hindu temples, originated in replications of timber and thatch roofs? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gavaksha. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gavaksha), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

		The Hinduism Award
		I appreciated your workman-like product at Gavaksha. No criticism intended. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

None understood! Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Prep 4

Hi, your hook for the image slot seems a little unwieldy. I wonder if we can remove the first phrase and just write:

• ... that the royal emblem of the Hoysala Empire, a warrior stabbing a lion, is often sculpted on the roof of the projecting sukanasa of Hindu temples (example pictured)? Yoninah (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that unwieldy to me. This is bit shorter but with the essential links:

• ... that in Hoysala architecture, the emblem of the empire, a warrior stabbing a lion, is often sculpted on the roof of the projecting sukanasa of temples (example pictured)?

Or, even shorter:

• ... that in Hoysala architecture, the emblem of the empire, a warrior stabbing a lion, is often sculpted on the sukanasa of temples (example pictured)?

- though locating in India somehow might be best. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we should locate it in India. How about:

• ... that in Indian Hoysala architecture, the emblem of the empire, a warrior stabbing a lion, is often sculpted on the roof of the projecting sukanasa of Hindu temples (example pictured)? Yoninah (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Or:

• ... that in Hoysala architecture, the emblem of the empire, a warrior stabbing a lion, is often sculpted on the sukanasa of Hindu temples (example pictured)?

- the final link should be there, and "Hindu" is enough to locate, I think. Johnbod (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Gavaksha

You are right. I should have posted a notice under WP:CITEVAR. I apologize. See WP:Own. "Cite banditry" indeed. Apparently the interest of the readers is secondary. That being said, the article was better and more useful before your revert. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Sukanasa

On 1 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sukanasa, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in Hoysala architecture, the emblem of the empire – a warrior stabbing a lion – is often sculpted on the sukanasa of Hindu temples (example pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sukanasa. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sukanasa), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Johnbod. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Johnbod. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Image size change at Dome

Hi Johnbod, I responded to your comment on the Dome talk page. Thanks for noticing that.

I also wanted to mention that your photo-size change does not display as well on my screen as it does on yours. I am using a 1366 x 786 display and the larger image sizes in the "General types" section cause them to become dramatically misaligned with their respective text, with the lowest image now entirely in the "Early history and simple domes" section. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

There are so many screen sizes & setting now that nothing suits everyone - actually I have a default preference set at 400px, so they are probably even larger for me. There is never any excuse for fixing as low as 130px, quaranteeing hardly anyone will be able to see the pics. Staggering some to left and right may help, or using mini-galleries for some. Or the text, much of which seems rather suspect to me (see talk there) could be expanded. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I actually like the 130px sizes, but I also think your mini-galleries idea is a better solution. Thanks. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I always fix those at 200px, as at Pregnancy in art. Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I've moved the images to mini galleries with image sizes that average 200px wide. I hope to eventually find additional images so that each type will be represented. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Cragside

Dear Johnbod, the PR for the above is now closed and the FAC opened. If you have the time and inclination, your comments on the article would be greatly appreciated. Any and all thoughts would be most helpful, but any thoughts/suggestions/sources you may have on the likely prices Armstrong paid for Chill October and Jephthah's Daughter would be particularly valuable. As you'll see from the Footnotes, the sources don't agree. Thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Johnbod - much appreciate the input. Very helpful indeed. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hindu temple architecture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cog (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 18:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Cristmas everybody!!!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Ozzie10aaaa (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, 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/Dec17a}}~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

ϢereSpielChequers 20:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Wucai

Hi there, I can see you developed the article Doucai once. I have created the new articles wucai and kinrande, so please feel free to expand and add it to the DYK list if you wish. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm afraid I'm travelling & busy, so will be unlikely to be able to meet the deadline. Nice to see them anyway, Best for the holidays, Johnbod (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays...

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Nativity scenes attributed to Zanobi Strozzi is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm now super busy with the holidays and a bit of a crisis, so haven't posted this directly to as many people as I'd intended. Please take best wishes if I didn't get to you. Johnbod (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all!

	We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless!  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Breton 'maitres'

Good morning, this is just to draw your attention to this question on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Architecture#Breton_'maitres'. It's not urgent so enjoy your vacation first. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Johnbod!!


Hi Johnbod, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Season's greetings!
	I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2018 will be safe, successful and rewarding...Modernist (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC) (UTC)

DYK for Nativity scenes attributed to Zanobi Strozzi

On 25 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nativity scenes attributed to Zanobi Strozzi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that two Nativity scenes attributed to Zanobi Strozzi (example pictured) probably belong to an altarpiece now spread between five museums, with some parts missing? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nativity scenes attributed to Zanobi Strozzi. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Nativity scenes attributed to Zanobi Strozzi), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

To Johnbod, best wishes to you and yours for a joyful holiday season and for the year ahead. Ewulp (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and All That

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and best wishes in all things! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. John, hope you had a good season, and the travel wasn't too stressful; having admired you presence here for years, it was great to finally meet and chat. Ceoil (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Johnbod. AfC submissions Random submission ~8 weeks 1,831 pending submissions to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Art Gallery of Ontario

Hello Johnbod, you may be interested in this discussion about the gallery section of Art Gallery of Ontario. Coldcreation (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

memo to self - arty student project pages to check through

• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/California State University Sacramento/Art of the Ancient Mediterranean (Fall 2017)
• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Amherst College/Women and Art in Early Modern Europe (Spring 2017)
• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/College of DuPage/History of Art- Prehistory to 1300 (Fall 2017)
• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Duke University/Art in Renaissance Italy (Fall 2017)
• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Duke University/Art in Renaissance Italy (Spring 2017)

Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hours of Mary of Burgundy

Would you mind taking another peak. Update is I've taken it as far as I can, I think, without spending serious money on a near facsimile mrs Ceoil promises I can have *next Cristmas*. Hope all is well, and your sudden holiday break wants too stressful. Ceoil (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Celtic brooch Page Edits

Johnbod - I went back to take a look at the page again tonight. Looks like you created it. Great article imo. Problem is that last bit. I don't know why you reverted it. I'm the guy that sort of made a stink about it (the last bit) being a bunch of crap. If I'm wrong, I'd love to see some actual citations from TheLost Byte as I have been requesting he either supply or delete his part for about 15 days with no response except a revert and telling me to 'go use the sandbox' via some bot script.

Anyway. I went to the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team. I wasn't a dick...I didn't just go revert it and say anything shitty to anyone. After sometime of talking via email to Cordless Larry... this is the final response I got after about 7 emails explaining the situation. +++++++++ "Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team 4:41 PM (5 hours ago)

to me Dear Russ,

Since this was such an egregious case of original research, I have removed the material myself.

Yours sincerely, Lawrence Devereaux

-- Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/

+++++++++

Here is the link where I tried to explain to TheLost Byte after he sent a slightly snotty talk page to me or to recognize my IP or whatever....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:184.58.156.91

Do you actually disagree with what I was saying? There are ZERO citations to ANY type of evidence at all! I mean he didn't even bother trying to find a crap source; if one even exists. The only 2 links are to pictures...that's it. Now, I deleted the content the first time because of this and well...because it's a historically absurd idea that Vikings were touring around Africa looking for trade routes swappin' ideas on jewellery design. If I'm wrong..I'd love to see a credible source on the subject! lol.. Also, what DNA study?! Who the hell writes an article and can't cite a damn DNA study? Even with that...wouldn't that need to be MORE than just a DNA study?! It would need to actually need to have something to do with the say the imaginary trade route to Africa? lol c'mon man. Anyway, no citations, this would qualify as original research unless someone can come up with credible or verifiable sources...right? Now, from what I understand both of those make his section addition against Wikipedia policy, or am I wrong?

If I sound a little annoyed; I sort of am to be honest. I do love history. I do love metalwork and jewellry as an artist. I do get annoyed a bit with lazy people. Do you realize I've probably spent 500% more time trying to get that garbage removed just for the sake of truthful verifiable information people can actually trust.

So please remove the last section until 'TheLost byte' can come up with some verifiable citations and fix it so he isn't telling the reader what this and that "imply" just off the top of his head. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a place for opinion pieces from my understanding.

Anyway...been up for 24 hours...I'm gettin old.... hope it gets fixed. Thanks for at least reading my rant on the matter,

RT 184.58.156.91 (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC) (lol)

P.S. Sorry about my crap formatting I know nothing about your editor or formatting styles on Wikipedia. This and the response I wrote to TheLost byte are the only times I've ever used it. meh...I didn't proofread it either too tired. I'm sure you will get the jist of what I am trying to say though.

Not exactly. I have restored the referenced material that had been there since the early days of the article on modern Berber usage of penannular brooches, without all the crap about links with Scotland for this, which had been added since November. The baby had been thrown out with the bathwater. Johnbod (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I gotta admit that is MUCH better the way it is today. My main issue was the DNA, Scottish, Viking etc. crap. Now the picture that is there today also shows similarities without a doubt just from a visual standpoint. It would be nice though if there was some sort of actual research presented that showed any type of linkage between the cultures being that the actual title of the page is, "Celtic Brooch" and not "Penannular Brooches." Again, the only citations in that section are links to pictures with nothing that links the cultures. I have seen bits of info out there on how Vikings made it into Iran, Africa, Italy, etc. Some historical texts do mention contact with Berbers (sorry cannot recall the name of the text atm) but I just wish if people were going to edit or add sections they would do it with some type of justification that people can verify. Anyway... glad at least it got changed from complete gibberish to what it is now... better than no change. Thanks (Even in this link which is supplied http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O79372/penannular-brooch-unknown/ They talk about it being from Roman influence and no mention of Vikings, Scots,etc..)

RT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.156.91 (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Penannular brooch redirects there, and was in fact the article title for several years. The section implies no "Celtic" connection with Africa, but both areas were part of the Roman Empire, where the simple brooch form was common. In fact they have them in Tibet too, which I might add one day. Glad you approve the article as it is now. Johnbod (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Venetian helmet-crown

Good afternoon, Johnbod, I hope you are keeping well. I've taken to doing a bit of AfC reviewing and came across the above. Obviously under-sourced, but is it real? I sort of think it may have the makings of an article, but wondered if you had ever heard of it? I've also asked Ceoil. Any thoughts would be much appreciated. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It's certainly a real thing. I've read stuff on it, though I forget where - very likely Rogers J.M. and Ward R.M.; Süleyman the Magnificent, 1988, British Museum Publications ISBN 0714114405. Can't access my books at the moment, I'm afraid. The title is wrong really: Süleyman the Magnificent's Venetian Helmet perhaps? That gives you better hits like this from the Met, and this lot. It is famous from the print of course - the actual object seems to have long been recycled. Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed. All very helpful and gives the making of an acceptable draft, I think. All best wishes. KJP1 (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

thanks

I'm very sorry for writing very late. Thanks for you answer there Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2017_October_20#Commons_Category:Paintings_by_name--Pierpao (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The School of Athens -- second or third?

Hi John, I see by this edit, that you were the editor who added the citation "Jones and Penny, p. 74" to the statement that "The School of Athens, representing Philosophy, was probably the second painting to be finished there,", as well as adding that contradictory statement that Parnassus was painted before. Did you mean to change "second" to "third"? What exactly does Jones and Peny p. 74 say? Notice also that our Raphael Rooms says that the The School of Athens was painted second (no source being given). Paul August ☎ 17:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Aah! Sadly I can't access my books at the moment, so can't check. Logic would suggest 2nd was a mistake for 3rd, but I can't be sure. Sorry! But don't let's say "2nd" while listing 2 previous. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I see User:Omnipaedista has now added a quote from J&P, supporting 3rd, for which many thanks. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and has also changed Raphael Rooms. Paul August ☎ 13:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

But now note, the dates given for The School of Athens and The Parnassus, at Raphael Rooms (and elsewhere) seem inconsistent. Paul August ☎ 13:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a bit. I think all we actually know is that Raphael arrived in Rome in 1508, was rapidly commissioned, and was on to the next room by 1512. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Question about your "Effigy" article contribution

Dear Johnbod,

I was wondering what were your sources of knowledge for the "Grand Rababou" Effigy in Switzerland? Does it have Anti-Jewish origins? It seems similar to "scapegoating" from long before, but with a possibly racist twist. Thank you and hope you are well.

Sincerely,

Jeffgr9 (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Don't know anything about that. Seems possible. I wasn't aware I had edited that bit. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Titus Burckhardt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orientalist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent comment

Hi Johnbod. As part of my duties to maintain decorum on arbitration pages, I removed a couple sentences from a comment you posted (though I did try to retain the core meaning of your comment). The material accused another editor of habitually wikilawyering, engaging in "irritable discussion", and ignoring most consensus, but you did not present any evidence to that effect on the evidence page. You are welcome to restore the material if you add diffs on the evidence page and link to that evidence in your comment. Let me know if I can be of assistance. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

​Johnbod wasn't just making facts up, he was giving the results of previous arbcom findings ("POTW has had a long history of editing articles with the focus on adding or modifying infoboxes" and "Pigsonthewing's contributions to discussions about the inclusion of infoboxes are generally unhelpful and tend to inflame the situation. He also selectively chooses what discussions he considers consensus"). See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2—this has been going on a looong time (as in, over a decade), and it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the arbs are aware of their own rulings. ‑ Iridescent 21:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

To be fair to L235, I am not sure that everybody has Iridescent's eidetic memory/willigness to read up all past Arbcom cases and ANI threads. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not criticising (although if the action was at the direction of an arb, I am criticising, since if they accept an infoboxes case they have a duty of care to read the previous case even in the unlikely event they're not already wearily aware of it). I'm far more familiar with that particular case than usual, as the thread which ultimately led to it originated on my talkpage. (Even if the current case doesn't degenerate into the war of all against all I predicted—thus far most people other than the usual serial whiners seem to be studiously refusing to participate—I'll be willing to bet that this or something similar will be landing on Arbcom's lap in the next month at most, so you'll probably want to get the popcorn ready.) ‑ Iridescent 21:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Greatly appreciated, Iridescent. In the Committee's 2015 review, the Committee loosened restrictions on Pigsonthewing, noting that "While Pigsonthewing's conduct has improved since the 2013 case, some of this behavior is still present." In 2016, the Committee adopted a motion rescinding all relevant sanctions against Pigsonthewing. It's not my place to weigh the evidence, but I am required to ask for diffs when editors post "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" (NPA). Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, Iridescent. I have restored a depersonalized version of the point, which I hope is ok with everyone. Johnbod (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Suspect Wikimedia file

Hi, Johnbod, there's a Wikimedia file - File:Opened up a Pandora's box.jpg - that was the creation of an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet and probably should not be there. The suspect file claims to be an etching based on a work by the Victorian F. S. Church - File:Pandora FSChurch.jpg - which it plainly is not. There is no evidence in the Wikimedia summary that it is even in copyright. My guess is that it is a photoshop version of a derivative work and maybe should be removed. I thought it was policy, anyway, to remove images provided by suspect contributors. Since you know your way around WP much better than I, and have an art focus, could you please see that action is taken on that file? Thanks - Sweetpool50 (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Really a Commons question - better ask there. Try [[2]]. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done so. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Branchwork, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rothenburg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

RfA Nomination

Hello. I'm thinking about nominating you for an RfA. Would you be interested? I think you meet all the needed requirements and you would make a great admin. Thanks, L293D (✉) 15:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have been on "don't wannabe" list for years. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The Tempest

Hello. I propose the " File:6,99Mo-Giorgione 019.jpg " on the page " Commons:Valued image candidates ". This one is better than the one on the pages reviewed by Archaeodontosaurus who is the author of " File:Accademia - La tempesta - Giorgione.jpg ". Specially in English The Tempest (Giorgione) . I think as you that it has too much glare. The colors are wrong, especially the sky, vegetation, contrasts that are totally contrary to the style of Giorgione, ... So, if you are interested in the quality of the image of The Tempest on all the Wikipedia pages I invite you to come and vote, and do the people vote. (Excuse my French translated). Sincerely. (Ismoon (talk) 09:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC))