User talk:Johnbod/10 from April 08

This statement asserts what is verified by sources - that the Kiranti culture is older than the Vedic civilization. It asserts that the Mundhum includes all such ancient Kiranti customs, but is not necessarily its source. Does it address your concern? Vishnava (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the change. For the sake of record, I request you to please state on that page that you are now OK with both the nominations? Vishnava (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This change for the Mundhum page itself. Vishnava (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me - I do realize the need to keep things accurate and sober. Vishnava (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Giulia de' Medici, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--Cirt (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Not my nom, I just commented. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I was going by the next update credits. Cirt (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to know if those in

There was a Princess d'Arenberg in 1912, on an elephant, in New York. Life in 2008 seems relatively disappointing.

-- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

With respect, Secisek (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you weren't right in your reverts. Just try not to bite the newcomers. Point him to the style guides if you have not already done so. -- Secisek (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sent him a welcome and did a little work on the stub, too. -- Secisek (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ec? Sorry, this abbrv. eludes me. Extra Credit, perhaps? -- Secisek (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, all yours. I didn't get that you were on it. did you want a (s)ec and not an ec? -- Secisek (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OH! edit conflict. Forgive me, again, have him. -- Secisek (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say this is worth an article (or subsection of the school article)? (There is an article on

Thanks, Johnbod, for your good wishes. Actually, contributing on Wikipedia has helped me to prepare for the column, which will be a short monthly feature composed of pleasant musings on specific artworks. I hope it is not too much to aspire to be something of a cross between [5] and [6], notwithstanding the disturbing visual connotations of such a melding. JNW (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must apologize because I moved a text which you worked on today, which I was not aware of.The new title

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just so you know my heckle was meant as a witticism, nothing more... ++Lar: t/c 22:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Talk:Jehovah you wrote

"Malcolm's points seem reasonable to me - the separate existence of this article is surely only justifiable if it is indeed the/a Christian view or history of of an originally Jewish topic, where the other article represents the Jewish tradition/topic. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)"

Now in my opinion Malcolm's points are not reasonable at all. Moreover, he has succeeded so far in creating a big mess, making Jehovah much worse. His mistake, and apparently also yours, is thinking that Jehovah is an originally Jewish topic. But it is not. You mention "the other article". I do not know which one you had in mind, but there is also Yahweh. Also that is not a Jewish topic. I am not aware of any specifically Jewish articles on a similar topic - some time ago I recreated Tetragrammaton but at the moment that mostly points to other places. Since this is a religious topic, and people have strong feelings about the proper name of their deity, be it "God" or "Allah" or "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "YHWH", all of these articles must exist. Many people would react very strongly if God was made a redirect to Allah. For others these two words are synonymous. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other article was of course Yahweh; I'm sorry if this was not clear. Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping Bathers will be the next collobaration, and have been talking to Amanda about Mona Lisa. Any interest? Ceoil (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Suzanne, and the general feeling is that all that fringe stuff has to go. Its a major painting, and to echo Modernist, it may not be a favourite, but it should be a focus. I'm kind of obsessed with Seurat at the moment; but maybe its outside your range of interest. If so do you want to suggest another work for work; I kind of feel we are on a roll, and working with this group is very satisfying and I'd like it to continue. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to cut down? I hear you brother. The Virgin never really grabbed me, but as a half way, I really, really, really, like the Annunciation. Now there is a painting I would happily spend weeks tinkering with its page. And it has a great back story. Ceoil (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As we are all reading Goya books at the moment, maybe Saturn Devouring His Son? Ceoil (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to down the edit summaries there, john. Ceoil (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking the article is fine now, and once Noetica finishes her ce, we can all go home. [The above comment was meant in humour bty]. Ceoil (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teed off with the conversation at M0S. Is it just me, or is the French thing a red herring? The same two styles occur in English, which is what we are writing, and each is acceptable. The problem I find is that one has to contradict certain article titles in order to achieve consistency in one article. I don't think Wikipedia should attempt a house style, mind. That thread misses an opportunity to discuss the issue properly. Sigh. qp10qp (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		What can I say! Once again, it was a real pleasure to work with you. Ceoil (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)|}[reply] I can't read your last comment Johnbod. Either you are really dry (a good thing), or you are really sarcastic (a bad thing); dunno, I cant tell. Ceoil (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expanding the article. Feel free to do what you want with it (DYK, etc.). I'm just glad that there's some info there that would be helpful to people. --Stomme (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod - I request that you examine this article, which I've just created. There is a possibility that I've created this article on a topic that's not compliant with the

Thanks for your attention to this article. It is always interesting to see how others perceive things, and I think your opinion on this is a good one. Erechtheus (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto - thank you for your help. I'll put in some more work on the article, which I do hope to nominate for DYK if/once it is ready. Vishnava (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod - following up on our prior discussion, I felt growing unease because I couldn't find any other source or background info as you had suggested. I felt the need to put the article up for wider community review through an AfD, primarily because I couldn't find any other source than the BBC report and a Gulf Times article, both of which do not give any information on why this particular conference should be taken seriously, or who its participants are. Please have a look and give your opinion, and thanks for your help on this issue, Vishnava (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting in Tucky

for the Third of May 1808, reaching FA and it's still April.....Modernist (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Johnbod, for adding the Third of May to 'Today's featured article requests'. Cheers, JNW (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a tip, this could be a really beautful article, if you ever have time. Ceoil (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich is going slow, to be perfectly honest. I only have two books, and both are very dry. Haven't found an angle yet. The flowers page I think is great, but I haven't been able to track down any sources. Ceoil (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conjecture and speculation, mostly thanks to ips. Ceoil (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unregistered users. Like this happy fellow. Ceoil (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Grub is such a great word. How is cutting down going by the way. I've tried a few times, even had my user page deleted. Here I am still. Ceoil (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't watched TV in about 11 months. Maybe thats a good thing, maybe not, dunno, but its a significant fact about the way I spend my time. Ceoil (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the hopeless overabundance of images in Self-portrait and the absolutely mininal commently on this image within the article how do you justify the claim that "Its inclusion in the article(s) adds significantly to the article(s)"?Geni 00:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I hadn't seen it. I'm rather glad this person is on the other side. --Kleinzach (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was rather surprised by your strong reaction here, and am not understanding exactly what your concern was.[7] Could you please explain? Thanks, Elonka 06:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked quite closely at both the before and after versions, but at least on my browser and screen resolution, I am seeing no difference. So could you please explain? I will freely admit that I am not an image expert, so if there is some subtlety that I am missing, I would very much like to improve my knowledge. Thanks, Elonka 07:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference on my screen is about half a foot of white space in the before version. Ceoil (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, which browser and screen resolution are you using? I will try to duplicate. --Elonka 07:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IE, and 1152 res. Displaced text is a vey common prob on wiki, and a very annoying one too! Ceoil (talk) 08:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Explorer - don't know my screen res I'm afraid. I see this very commonly, when the picture is at the start of a section. If it was just below the template itself it would have been ok. Johnbod (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see it now, it does indeed cause problems with IE. Whereas both versions display identically in Firefox. Fascinating. Okay, that's good to know.  :) However, just as a bit of constructive advice, a better edit summary would have been "moving image so it doesn't cause problems with IE", rather than a masked vulgarity rant at other editors.  :)

Sorry if I'm seeming a bit over-protective, but I've been working really hard to address a series of civility and edit-warring issues with a variety of editors (see

WP:CIVIL, and making a controversial edit without adequately explaining it on the talkpage.  ;) However, you're not on the editing restrictions that they are! So anyway, wanted to let you know. I really need all experienced editors in that topic area, such as yourself, to set excellent examples, which will help socialize some of the more disruptive editors that I'm dealing with. Thanks, --Elonka 08:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Obviously I had no idea it might be ok on some browsers! Johnbod (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether you did or didn't, an edit summary of "does no one look when they add these f###ing templates?" is uncivil. Could you please just acknowledge that? An apology or, "Good point, I'll keep that in mind," would be all that's needed. --Elonka 08:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness! do editors with Admin status just block other editors they are engaged in struggles with, if those editors make uncivil edit summaries? --Wetman (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be the coming thing - see also this rumpus. Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to Wetman) I have no idea if you are referring to other struggles, but in this particular case I'm enforcing

Civility is a policy which applies to all of us, including him. His edit summary was the kind of thing that raises tensions on an article, when what we're trying to do is lower tensions, and let everyone get back to harmonious editing. --Elonka 04:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Oops. Sorry. Won't happen again. --Wetman (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So restrictions are blanket; we don't -shouldn't- take into account context, intention, edit history or reputation? We just spray sanctions automatically, as a matter of convenience; having left behind a talk warning that took at least ten minutes to write? It all seems very unjudged. If you are going to act in such a reflexive manner, then maybe we need more bots. I thought it obvious from the first that the only intention was aesthetic. Ceoil (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit wasn't the problem, the edit summary was. It's a violation of

WP:CIVIL, by any standard, reputation or no. --Elonka 01:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

It was to an ip, it was harmless, and it was one edit. The reason was explained. End of story. This is a long thread on an established editors talk. It seems you want him to apologise to you. You are the one providing back story, justifying, and revisiting. Ceoil (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your edit summary: Harassment is also a policy. (sorry Johnbod!) Ceoil (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen the latest posts here & elsewhere on all this. Not sure who I'm supposed to apologise to. On checking, the problem was in fact not caused by the template-inserter (some time last year), but a later rearranger (this January). I suggest we all drop this, but thanks for the support. Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you did a good job of turning my little stub-of-necessity into a real article. Who would have known that it would lead to aviation disasters? The DYK is all your work. --Stomme (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you support my recent edit if you want mention of the religious context; working together is good. :)

Thank you, Johnbod, for all of your contributions to The 3rd, which were instrumental in getting the piece to FA status. If it reaches the main page next weekend, I would like all the contributing editors to meet in a pub to celebrate. Barring that, since I gather that some live in Ireland, some in Australia, some in England, and some in the U.S., a virtual toast will be in order. Cheers, JNW (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you start a new line if you have any further comments; this is getting difficult to read. Savidan 22:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in about your FAC comments. Take as much time as you need to for the Hundred Years War thing; could you update me on how the article stands other than that though? Thanks. Savidan 22:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I look forward to some more comments. Thanks for all you've done for the article so far. Savidan 16:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. Some were not from my bits, & some hard to reference, though obvious to my mind - eg the first. How does one reference clothes not generally being considered as art? This is why I never do GA noms. I'll see what I can do, but it may well not be all. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can Google Scholar or Google Books any cites. :-)

Ling.Nut (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I've killed several tags; there are only 3 left. I think you may have a hard time finding a cite for "tombs are humanity's oldest known archaeological constructions."

Ling.Nut (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

dnw (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being in the Australian printmakers cat he should not be in the main one as well. Johnbod (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.

That discussion must produce a conclusion.

We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).

Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.

Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this message conforms to

Hi, I feel that Funerary Art meets the GA standards. Thank you for working with me and congratulations. Lazulilasher (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod,

I can't find much. There are many many snippets, spread across many sources, about the Akan funerary art. I am sure a paragraph about this can be written. I left a nice paragraph about rock art in the article's talk page. I can't find much else, sorry....

I actually like the

Ling.Nut (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you from Horologium

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed unanimously with the support of 100 editors. Your kindness is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Wizardman, Black Falcon and jc37 for nominating me. — Horologium

Re: polyglot

Thanks for your response! I thought I was going senile there for a bit, hehe :) TerraFrost (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, I've begun work on The Garden of Earthly Delights‎ but am a bit stuck. While I can expand the existing sections, I haven't yet found an angel to develope the article further. I have two dedicated books, but both are descriptive and rather circular. Any ideas? Ceoil (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I appreciate that you are cutting down and good luck with that. I don't wish to drag you in for that reason. And Bosch is not to everybody's taste. So grand, I'll search the literature, which surprisingly for such a rich painting, is rather dry. Ceoil (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just did a search of wiki but added UK and I got this. Looks like the company is no longer. --CubBC (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced it to a temporary block. You're right, his/her computer may have been used by someone else. Thanks for your feedback! Royalbroil 14:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't currently have the source in question -- this is exactly why I need input on my changes. I was trying to eliminate the passive voice here; is there any way we can do this? Kafka Liz (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When in doubt, blame the Belgians. Would "Art historians speculate that..." be too weasle-ish? Kafka Liz (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nice fix :) Kafka Liz (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was hanging fire on writing a piece on the "history of the history" of the battle but it seems that the reviewers, of which you are one, have dropped any attempt at dialogue.

Surely you cannot be surprised that the people who have put a great deal of effort into writing on a subject, and I think that the page on Waterloo is probably the finest treatment for its length anywhere, show decided opinions about relevance/non relevance issues.

I merely note that the Battle of Albuera, which I have also contributed to, is of FA status and appears to have relatively little "flummery" added to its narrative.

Urselius (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a published author in the Napoleonic military history field, I consider my opinion as being at least as valid as that of the reviewers. I do understand what is being asked for as an addition to the Waterloo article, I just have a rather different appreciation of its usefulness and relevance to an article on the battle itself.

You added a link to the Uxbridge's leg page, I added some more facts to that page. I know a great deal about the life and times of Henry Paget (nee Bayly) I just didn't think that mention of his leg was an indispensible adjunct, though it was, no doubt, painful to Uxbridge and a personal tragedy to him, to the record of a battle that sealed the fate of empires and cost many thousands of lives.

Its all a judgement issue, no one viewpoint, including my own, is unassailably correct.

Urselius (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So you are saying it is a matter of opinion whether it should have been added to "See also"? Johnbod (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Urselius (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most editors reviewing for FA would I'm fairly sure say that any article with such a closely-related subject should be included there, if it is not mentioned in the text. I think you need to be more aware of wider WP editing style. Johnbod (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would hardly have expected that the noble soon-to-be marquess's limb would merit its own page. Uxbridge's name within the Waterloo article links to the biographical page for the person; biographies of limbs are unusual and the interested would doubtless have found the leg page via the biography page. Urselius (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really how WP works. I'm not saying you should have been aware of the article (though obviously others were), but once found, it clearly should have a link; that is encyclopedic style. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that the well-known incident of his leg loss and one-liner with Wellington is not mentioned in the main text. Ty 06:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the text of the article you wrote, entitled "Prince of the Blood"? I complimented your effort on this on the talk page of

Re: "and also probably too US-centric here", I would very much like to see a discussion on what BrEng says. What's your feeling about how well the Guardian link at the bottom of WP:MOS or New Hart's Rules do a good job of representing consensus among, well, any group? British Wikipedians seem to me to rely on a wide variety of sources, and this makes me wonder if determining consensus among, say, journalists on issues of British usage or Commonwealth usage is harder than it is in the US or North America. - Dan

Sorry, where is the quote from? There are fewer and shorter British guides (many would feel the whole idea is somehow un-British). The Guardian is very short, even in book form, and the online versionb doesn't mention "British Isles" I notice (probably because it didn't think it was an issue) and does not follow best modern practice on "Breughel". Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry,

talk)(mistakes) 19:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Lowercasing "british isles and ireland", I'm still getting 53K. But that's still a level of Google hits that doesn't necessarily mean anything. - Dan

talk)(mistakes) 02:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. Your kind words about my content contributions are very much appreciated. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't studied it enough to pronounce one way or the other, so abstain on this. Ty 06:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to cast your vote?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find it now. Link please! Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work on

Sorry if I caused any offence - I just happened to wander into this area of WP out of a new interest on the general theme, thought I'd identfied some issues regarding verifiability and acted accordingly; I must have been wrong. I would have thought the in-line citation principle applied to any WP article, particularly those dealing with historical subjects. It certainly does in the Military History projects that I have some connections with; I've never had any problems tagging as appropriate there and never had any comments about the tag itself, which of course is not my invention and is the agreed/approved means of flagging-up citation issues, 1911 EB or not. I guess I'll just wander out of this area again and stick to what I think I know. Scoop100 (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, thanks for putting me straight - I'm out of here now. Scoop100 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that you and I placed DYKs on the

...for finding the perfect link at The Garden of Earthly Delights. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This got me thinking: is there such a page -- apart from Arma Christi, that is? Any interest in working on one? Kafka Liz (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are various articles in Category:Artistic portrayals of Jesus and Category:Christian iconography, but the "main" one Depiction of Jesus in art is not much good. I will get round to a pair to Life of the Virgin one day, on medieval and later cycles, which would cover most of the main narrative iconography. A huuuge subject obviously - at the moment I do little articles or sections in feast day etc articles, like Trinity. Or perhaps one should hjust start with the scaffolding & links now - I'm very busy at the moment & trying to cut down here, so won't do much. But have a go. Iconography of Christ perhaps? Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it'd be a crazy huge project, even if it were just a sort of scaffold like the

Saint symbology page. I'd like to give it a shot, at least at some point -- I've got a lot on my plate at the moment. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, I found this picture of the Aberlemno Pictish stone and wondered if it should be included in the insular art section as it looks particularly impressive, although its covered in Pictish carvings. Does it qualify as a good example?

Celtic Harper (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers your probably right about that I'll move it to PS and the battle it comemorates. RegardsCeltic Harper (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great article. - PKM (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - but see the history - great 2-line stub from me, the rest added by return of post by User:Wetman! Johnbod (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heavens, how did I miss that?! - PKM (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Master of Anthony of Burgundy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

I just searched wikipedia for "Tomb of Philippe Pot" and the only reference I could find was on Funerary Art (it's the lead photo...and now also in the Sculpture section of the Louvre), which I totally forgot I did the GA Review. Funny how that happens...good to work with you, again. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That should have been Funerary art....Lazulilasher (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Came home from a rotten day at work to see a very nice message indicating that one of my poor, misshapen babies has grown quite lovely under your nurturing care. Many, many thanks.

Might you have any interest in helping me whip those things from New Grove into better shape?

Also, if there are any anonymous artists I missed in creating the category, I'd appreciate any help in tracking them down; I'm a bit at sea in the Renaissance, given that my field of interest was more nineteenth-century stuff. --

And speaking of masters...I looked at the National Gallery's alpha-by-artist list not too long ago, trying to get ideas. I swear they have something by over a hundred different "masters" of whatever thingummy you can imagine. --

Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 01:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You know, sometimes I think I should have focused on the Renaissance. One could make a career out of all the attributing and reattributing that goes on. --

Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 01:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I was going to add something to the caption of the Anne portrait on the Thomas Cranmer article, while going over the article for review. I've always thought that was an early seventeenth-century copy, and if it is not contemporary, I think that should bemade clear; but, annoyingly, I can't remember where I read that, and searching among my books and on the internet has confused me now. If this one at the NPG is the same one, then the note there ranks as one of the most unhelpful of all time (and my NPG book is even worse: doesn't even give a date!); I guess it means that it is a late sixteenth-century copy of a portrait painted between 1530 and 1536. The Commons image notes say late-sixteenth. (Strong seems interested, in Artists of the Tudor Court, in another little picture which he was itching to say is her: I don't have Tudor and Jacobean Portraits to see what he says about the other picture.) I wonder if, with all your books, you can find a date for the picture in the Cranmer article: I suppose it doesn't matter that much, but it's bugging me now.

That NPG page and others seem to be sure that other copies they have were of a Holbein. It's not impossible that he painted her, since he designed for her coronation and for her jewellery. But it strikes me as wishful thinking, and I wish galleries would not be so optimistic. There are two Holbein drawings inscribed as of Anne, both totally unlike each other, the inscriptions added later. Of the two, the one looking to the right seems the least unlikely to me.

One thing I did come across on my searches was a contemporary medal of Anne, in which she has a fair old jaw on her. It struck me then that, like most people, I have always assumed that the copy in the Cranmer article was more likely to look like her than this one: but seeing that medal makes me wonder why I should assume that the best-looking one is the more like, since, despite the NPG's commentary, she she was described at the time as being no oil painting, or words to that effect. qp10qp (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've added to the Hever pic info in particular - that was used, but as someone complained they've switched to the similar but slightly less attractive NPG one. The fullest discussion I know is in the online bio book cited at FAC, and a web page has a useful line-up of all the contenders - also linked at the Hever image commons page. I think no one is very willing to choose between late C16 & early C17 on lower quality copies. Most seem to accept they are derived from a contemporary image, though they seem a long way from Holbein. The tiny ring portrait is perhaps the most authentic, as the medal is not vey useful as a likeness. Let me know if you can't find the links. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Cromwell

Coming to the Cromwell portrait, it is captioned as being after a Holbein original. The first thing that strikes me is that I believe that scroll has long been removed, unless there are other copies. Rowlands, who I think is the best Holbein scholar, says that although the painting has been overcleaned, removing much subtlety, pentimenti indicate Holbein's own hand in the painting; and he attibutes this to Holbein straight. What do you think? Stephanie Buck's later book also attributes it to Holbein straight, maybe following Rowlands. Comparing the scroll-less picture in those two books with the one in Cranmer, they do look slightly different from the latter, but this may be just to do with cleaning. The two inauthentic Cromwells in Rowlands are different altogether.

Sorry to fuss, but in featured articles, I think the picture captions should be spot on; and you are the only person I can think of to consult. qp10qp (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the NPG version, still with scroll, which they still attribute to Holbein straight (link on commons page), so I guess we should, perhaps with an "attributed to". Are you thinking of the Frick version, with no scroll? My guide says "Of all the several versions of this painting, this (the Frick's) is considered the oldest and best". See the NPG for the miniatures also. I haven't looked at Artists of the Tudor court. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought there were other differences: like a fool, I have just noticed that Rowlands goes on to talk about the other two versions, so I needn't have pestered you. NPG says "after Holbein" for their one; Rowlands agrees. Well, I'd rather see a Holbein in the article (it's the Frick one, yes), without scroll, than an "after Holbein" with (the scrolls are later additions). I'll ask RelHist if he would mind a change to the one Rowlands thinks is an original. Cheers.

On Strong's favoured miniature of Anne, I notice that MacCulloch, on the strength of Strong, says in his biog of Cranmer, that it is Anne. Shows you can't trust historians on this sort of thing, because Strong, despite himself, stops short of making a definitive identification. The Chinese whispering in these matters never ceases to astonish me. qp10qp (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I misread the NPG, so Frick is certainly better if we have a decent pic. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll scan one up, if we haven't. qp10qp (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dutch Gift, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--BorgQueen (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you, but you better capitalize the D of the Holy Ghost and the S in

and from me too, for your vote of confidence in my RFA. I really appreciated all the support and hope to live up to it! --Slp1 (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a start because I didn't like that redlink at Dutch Gift. Too sleepy to make it better: off to bed...--Wetman (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion would be appreciated at

Dear Johnbod, thank you for improving my humble unnative English in the story of Ambrosius Holbein. I did hope somebody will do that. I really appreciate your help. --Feťour (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you are still watching this article, but I added a little to the "later history" section and a comment on the talk page. --Hegvald (talk) 07:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just wanted to say thanks for adding that ref. to samite, since it's moved onto the DYK template now and I can't respond there. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Samite, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--BorgQueen (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for adding more about the Utrecht Psalter. Quite a difference from what it looked like a week ago! Gimmetrow 04:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries on the co-nom; my additions were minor. I saw a bit of the portrait chat - that's a problem when your criterion is "verifiability" not "truth". Lots of nonsense is printed in reputable sources.

Yes we do need an article on the Portraits of Queen Elizabeth I. Some day! - PKM (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your help in my hour of most need is GREATLY APPRECIATED. If there isn't a barnstar of "being there for someone" there should be one created for you! NancyHeise (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya — there's a discussion currently occurring at