Jump to content

User talk:Johnbod

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 170.85.7.113 (talk) at 19:27, 11 December 2024 (→Reverting a change made twice by two different users: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

IF YOU MENTION AN ARTICLE HERE - PLEASE LINK IT!!!

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

memo to self - arty student project pages to check through

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

Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Beatus of Liébana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Apostle James.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrogio Lorenzett

Thanks. But there does seem to be uncertainty as to his dates. But I see you removed that. Doug Weller talk 18:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I stated what we know precisely, without relying on 19th-century sources. Johnbod (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sounds reasonable. Doug Weller talk 08:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yorur edit summary

YOu wrote edit summary: " (and I can revert)" Yes you can. I assume you are going to add references, right? If you think you have no obligation, please read WP:BURDEN. --Altenmann >talk 16:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a reference there, which you just deleted. This seems all too typical of your editing. I don't think you understood my es, btw. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my edit summary I wrote "dubious source" - it is not really a ref: mosaic gallery on a website of unknown authority. --Altenmann >talk 16:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also wrote: " rvt - tag 'em if you must " - the whole article has been tagged for a year. I dont think I have to tag every suspicious nontrivial statement in it. --Altenmann >talk 16:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings @Johnbod

Hi, I am User:Bookku, On Wikipedia I engage in, finding information and knowledge gap areas in Wikipedia and promoting expansion of related drafts and articles. Came across your membership of WP:WikiProject Religion/Interfaith work group#Members.

Requesting your visit to Tashabbuh (still a draft in my userspace) and help expand the topic areas if you find topic interesting. Wish you very happy Wikipedia editing.

Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - not one for me, best, Johnbod (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Article on Goya's Caprichos

Please do not make your edits until I am done translating THE SPANISH ARTICLE ON GOYA'S CAPRICHOS--as requested by the notice on the too brief English article.

You may not care who some of the referenced experts in the Spanish article may be, but they are cited in the more definitive Spanish article. You can add your 2 cents worth once the entire Spanish article has been translated, but in the meantime, PLEASE STAY OUT OF THE ARTICLE WHILE I AM COPYING OVER THE TRANSLATED ARTICLE, ITS REFERENCES, AND ITS GRAPHICS.

I have lost work because a few overeager English language editors have prematurely done edits before I had a chance to enter the complete translation. Ariadne000 (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ariadne000: If you do not want anyone else editing an article you are creating, then place it as a sub-page under your user page. Anything in main space is fair game. Donald Albury 23:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ariadne000: Actually, a common approach would be to place template {{inuse}} on the page, but not for very long time. Even if one translates the page in their userspace, it will till take time to merge the translation into aticle, and again, edit conflicts are possible. --Altenmann >talk 23:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not had this problem before. I took several days to translate the long article on Caridad Mercader and no one interfered. Donald Albury, what is the purpose of "fair game" when editing something that is about 1/20th complete? All one is doing is causing complications. My edits on the Revision History page are full of warnings that uploading of translated text is in progress. I don't understand why another editor won't respect that and wait until the process is done to do a "final" edit. My aim is to capture the rich material on the Spanish article for the benefit of those interested in the Caprichos who don't speak Spanish. If someone wants to smooth the translation later, that will be fine with me as long as it is done RESPECTFULLY.
I agree with Altenmann that the subpage is not practical since it would require quite a bit of merging.
Patience, please. Ariadne000 (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, calm down! Among the many many things you don't know about correct editing on English Wikipedia is the "in use" template, which I have now added. Please remove it when you have finished. Your edit notices did not actually say not to edit. My edits have been reverted, but will have to be redone when you have finished. People may be interested that the "referenced expert in the Spanish article" whose opinion I removed was Ewan McColl (yes Dirty Old Town); that his opinion was even given casts doubt on the quality of the Spanish article, which is certainly longer, but perhaps not very "definitive". Johnbod (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Spanish article, it is pretty clear that Dugald Sutherland MacColl - a proper art historian, but born 1859 - was meant. Introducing the Communist folk singer Ewan McColl was an error by the quick-tempered translator. Whether DS MacColl is a suitable ref today, let alone the best, is another question. Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:God in art has been nominated for discussion

Category:God in art has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cup with cover, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David and Bathsheba.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our Hungarian Friend

Thanks for the supportive interjection @Johnbod! Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Klemperer

Barbirolli: Have you seen Otto Klemperer? I did because I wrote the article of his wife ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Adoration of the Magi in the Snow

Hello! Your submission of Adoration of the Magi in the Snow 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! RoySmith (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snow in art

Just to make sure that you get the credit on your talk page for thinking of the idea for Category:Snow in art, and then for largely populating it with dozens of links! As always, nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Up to 76 now; Russian art was productive, which I suppose is to be expected. Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Do Japanese woodblock prints by the likes of Hokusai and Hiroshige count? I haven't checked to see if there are articles dedicated to individual prints. Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! There will be some included in print series with articles, I'm sure. Hokusai's painting Tiger in the Snow is in already, plus a Jap screen, I think. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Coconut cup

On 10 December 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Coconut cup, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that coconut cups were believed to have medical benefits? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Coconut cup. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Coconut cup), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hook update
Your hook reached 14,706 views (612.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of December 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting a change made twice by two different users

Hey @Johnbod, I wondered how fast you (or someone else) would be to revert a change I made this morning to this article: Breeching (boys).

When I viewed the edit history, I see another user had the same issue as I did with the wording just recently. Does it not come off as gatekeeping/condescension to say laypeople may not tell apart depictions of boy vs. girls prior to boys being breeched?

First, it doesn't take complicated terminology or a deep understanding of complex processes to figure out. It's not rocket science or bioengineering. Second, it is a subjective clause that is not informative about breeching.

Third, you could put this on so many other Wiki pages, if we're going to be "diligent" about snobbery. Here's a great example from my personal/professional history:

Laypeople, and sometimes even college students studying operant conditioning, cannot understand the difference between Negative reinforcement and Punishment (psychology) (either positive or negative). I'm a PhD in I/O psychology, and a common mistake is people thinking "negative" means "bad," when in this context it means "absence of something." Do we really need to point out something like "plain folk just wouldn't understand" on a single article, if we're not doing it for all topics tied to a higher degree discipline?

Based on your Wiki profile, I might venture an assumption (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you are not an art historian, yet you contributed 275k+ edits to Wikipedia -- so you clearly have a deep interest in many topics in which you are not certified or hold a PhD. So why fight to keep a subjective, gatekeeping, and uninformative clause about laypeople, when more than one person has objected to it in the past 6 months (and maybe others previously, I didn't look that far)?

Thanks,

Kat (I might finally create a username sometime this month so we can continue this. It'll probably be Muffinigans.) 170.85.7.113 (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnbod&oldid=1262501488"