User talk:Johnbod/12 from October 08

Johnbod, we are preparing to take the Louvre to FAC and I hoped that you might stop by and comment on the article's breadth--are any subjects too detailed or not detailed enough? Is the attention paid each subject the correct amount? Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for taking a quick peek. I know that you're busy with RCC up at FAC. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Flagellation of Christ, 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 .

Cirt (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, John! I'm glad you were able to turn my mistake into a DYK-worthy article. Neelix (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to that straw poll at User talk:Jimbo Wales, I was unaware it had been going on. Was an announcement about this discussion/poll posted anywhere at the start of it? Cheers, Cirt (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should have been added to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, Wikipedia:Village pump, and perhaps also Wikipedia:Community portal. Cirt (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Purple Barnstar
		Because like this barnstar, you stand out with exceptional vibrancy! talk) 20:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply ]

I included a defnition of naval gunfire support in the ariticle. Does this address your concern regarding a definition? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please review this comment with reference to

Reviewed - fine. Johnbod (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Virgin of Mercy, 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 .

Good work on the DYK lead hook. Cbl62 (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Cbl62 (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my new comments at

Sorry for removing most of the interwiki links in the article, since once I viewed Polish edition, and the article contains a Wikipedia logo, and I thought the article is about graphics, not printmaking. It looks like a pure bitmal image rather than a printmaking image, and the name "Grafika" looks pretty like "Graphics", and Polish and English languages belong to the Indo-European family. Many of the words in the two languages are cognates, and there're many wrong interwiki links in different Wikipedia editions, so I thought it was a mistake (Of this language family I'm only familiar with English). Next time I'll be more careful while doing interwiki jobs. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bosom of Abraham Trinity, 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) 07:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the improvements you have made to the article on John Romney. As you will have realised, I am ignorant about the techniques of printmaking, so you have added value to the article; my intention was to have an article about an interesting Cestrian, especially as an excellent article about him has recently been published in Cheshire History. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nice addition. Johnbod (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, the discussion at FACR has had another choice added -- I wanted to let you know in case you wanted to change your comment. Mike Christie (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support in my recent RfA, which passed at 61/0/0. I especially appreciated the support because we have worked together in the past, and likely will in the future. Kind Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hee-hee! Jesus College seemed to go through a spell under John Rhys of dishing out Hon. Fellowships to anyone vaguely famous with a Welsh accent, but seems to have calmed down recently... A lovely OTT quote, isn't it? Regards,

If Infoart put the info in, then he would know... However, I think it was a little premature and they were possibly destined for The Triumph of Painting Part VI (new young artists). After Part II the Saatchi Gallery vacated County Hall in a hurry and the rest of the series was postponed. They were not listed in parts I to V,[1] though the gallery does change some things at short notice. Infoart is back and I've just had to have an extensive look at his large edit on the Saatchi Gallery. A lot of promotional editing going on. Ty 03:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked Tim Lokiec, who's not on the ToP list, though his biog on the Saatchi site gives ToP III, so it's verifiable... (He's an editorial artist, as part of the Saatchi collection not self-uploaded.) Ty 03:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Church?

Pardon? I don't recall assigning anything to that category. --

And for the record, I do look, actually. I only use "RCC" as a last resort if I can find absolutely nothing else that fits the article. Which has been one, maybe two, if I remember correctly. --

Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 01:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I have no idea. However, I have now gone back close to two full pages in your history, and have not yet found one article which I authored. Perhaps I missed one, maybe two. But I dispute the notion that I make a habit of it. --

Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 01:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

DYK for Hans Wechtlin

On 15 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hans Wechtlin, 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 .

Your many DYK articles and time spent reviewing other hooks are appreciated! Royalbroil 03:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for appreciating my efforts but for two reasons I will not transfer this award to my award page:

• I understand the humour but when the award is named after Mr Princip who plunged the world into misery my laughter turns sour
• I cannot bear to look at that misspelling with a "p" and since the award contains that spelling ...

But thanks anyway. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Minor Barnstar
		It wasn't a huge deal, but you were a pleasure to interact with. Cheers. — [ roux ] [x] 15:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd seen the post and noticed its absence, but didn't know who'd removed it. Have you seen the latest edits on the article - check out the history. This is bizarre. Ty 09:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol. It can be arranged... Ty 10:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point letting trifles like that get in the way! Ty 10:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know

WP:GOOGLE, but it counts for something and there's even The Dead Talk Back. Be worried. Be very worried! Ty 11:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I see your point. Thanks for explaining it to me. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a skeleton of Portraiture of Elizabeth I. - PKM (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I missed all that - just got back from a week offline in NY. I'm not quite sure what should be done there... digging. - PKM (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, by all means, insert anything you think fitting on the architecture and/or missal. I do not have the specialised sources for that sort of thing, and frankly don't have the training either. Help yourself! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please feel free to add any art history bits to any medieval bishop you find. I would be grateful, since my training is as a historian, not an art historian. I try to cover it, but I know I don't do a good job. Thanks muchly for the work you've done already, by the way. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need the title of the chapters/articles that Gem did in both the Westminster Abbey book and the English Romanesque book, and for the Tuner ref in the Golden Age book, to format the citations properly. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

gem in WA: Chapter 1 "The origins of the Abbey"; in ER: "English Romanesque Architecture". In Golden Age (like ER an exhibition catalogue) Turner's are catalogue entries in "Part II, The Golden Age" in the "Illuminated Manuscripts" section. The Benedictional was #40, the missal # 50. Let me know if you need more. If I knew how to do those notes I would have added the other 2 of the top 4 late A-S MS were the

Benedictional of St Aethelwold and the Harley Psalter. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You mean the explanatory notes separate from the source footnotes? they are somewhat easy... do {{#tag:ref|(longwinded explanation you don't want in the body of the text)<ref>source for explanation</ref>|group=notes}} which gives it to you in the body, then add {{reflist|group=notes}} in your referencing area. Did that make sense? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've placed categories like Drawing, Photography, and Painting in Category:Art media and out of Category:Visual arts. It seems like these are major types of visual art. Also, Category:Art media is more for the actual physical object required for a work. It makes those big topics hard to find. What am I missing? Was there an arts categorization discussion I missed? --Clubmarx (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was in July 07, right? As far as I recall I was just tidying what is clearly the way the two had been and are used, so I doubt there was much of a discussion, but I can't really remember. "Visual arts" is for by nationality, by period & all that sort of stuff, while media is for types of art by technique etc. You can't mix the two it seems to me. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am in that category a lot and not seeing them there was odd. I thought there might have been a global change that was not in the history. I do see that lots of these change are old. Hmm. Weird!! The 'media' category I still think is for items that can be manipulated, not for types of visual arts. I need to look further. --Clubmarx (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happier if they could tell left from right. Another variant of this one (or maybe a cut-down original?). - PKM (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you took some interest in this article at PR, I thought you'd like to know that it's now at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for the V0.7 nominations, which just made it in before the deadline! I'm more or less having to review everything myself, and now we are past our deadline I'm having to cut procedural corners to get through the backlog. Therefore instead of posting comments on individual talk pages, I've just given feedback on the (new) page at Wikipedia:Version_0.7_Nominations#Everyday_Life. I've also given my general thoughts there on the selection you nominated, some of which I loved and others which I didn't like. Many thanks for a great nomination, Walkerma (talk) 08:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested to Ling.Nut that he takes this to FAC - and with good reason - but he wants a co-nominator to brave the storm. If you do the honours, I'm sure the resulting input (outside of passive voice, forced image soze, dash and comma related demands) would improve the page and give a wider readership. No worries either way. Ceoil ^sláinte 01:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey I'm on the run so just a quick note.. can you look at the respective threads on my talk and

Oh wait, there's a comment from Ceoil above. Just now noticed. Gotta run!

Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I am in so deep on Portraiture of Elizabeth I I can't see it objectively - any help or comments would be appreciated!

Also, I notice User:Qp10qp hasn't posted in over a month - should I be worried? Any idea what's up? - PKM (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that too, and left her a message. Hopefully she is disrtacted by brigther and better things than the internet. (sorry to but in) Ceoil ^sláinte 22:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, thanks for the excellent feedback. I have long galleries etc on my mental list, and I do need to add prints and medals - scanning a replica medal today. Any help you can give on the paintings context would be appreciated, as my references are hyperfocused - I have nothing useful to cite on Bronzino, for example.

The Doran book which I stumbled across yesterday looks very intriguing; her theory is that the portraits commissioned by the courtiers play up the Virgin Queen whereas those commissioned by the crown play up the Protestant ruler, disagreeing in emphasis with what she calls the "Warburg school" meaning Yates and Strong. There are multiple sample chapters online (at the Maritime Museum and also at her publisher). Strong's Gloriana has good stuff on the prints; the William Rogers (if I recall) are thought to be based on the unfinished Oliver miniature, which I also have stacked by the scanner. And Doran has good info about the frontispiece to the Bishops' Bible and the use of Personifications (which tend to be female) with images of Elizabeth as something new in the 1560s. Ties in nicely with the Tudor Succession.

This is going to be one long article. As QP said, the problem isn't the dearth of material, it's the abundance. - PKM (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, turns out my "replica" medallion is the reverse of one conflated with an obverse of another. Never mind. - PKM (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just back from the exhibition which I saw with a mutual pal - I'll start on a "context" section later. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did some work on context before I saw your message, but please pick up and edit/replace as you see fit; you've got a much better perspective on this stuff. I also did a bit on prints which could be massively expanded. Thanks so much. - PKM (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Spearhafoc, 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 .

Royalbroil 05:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great article! - PKM (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You've participated in the debate about deleting of category:Former Towns of RSK 1991-95 [2]. Now, there's a similar voting on deletion on the article (created, although the results of discussion was delete, not listify). The links to the voting is here merger suggestion?. Since you've participated previously in the discussion, you're invited to participate again. Please, give your opinion. Kubura (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please come give us your opinion by voting here [3], Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 17:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have give the article a MAJOR overhaul since your commented at the AfD. It was a total pain-in-my-butt to weed out the fluff and find proper sources. I think he might now been seen as having a minor notability... once I pulled his own HUGE ego out of the article. I can do no more, and my fingers are tired. I will accept your opinion, as I now have to get to work. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey John, could you please indicate what it is you don't like. Currently your second vote is placed somewhere in nomansland. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly the place where it should be. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no! Now I got confused myself. It is not placed under sentence 2.

But I will now move the discussion in-between to a different sub-section and hope that this will raise no objections. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, thanks for leaving an encouraging comment on my talk page on Sept. 9. Unfortunately,

Hello again, if I can try your patience a bit more- I am conducting now a new vote here [4] but this is on whether or not you think the sources support the article text in note 1 which follows Catholic Church in the lead sentence. Soidi has challenged that my sources do not support the text. Please come give me your opinion so I can have consensus either one way or the other so we can move forward. NancyHeise ^talk 03:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What??? G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What stupid argument is that this is not German WP? Is there any rule about this in German or anything else? I allways write some words such as some offices, charges, titles, professions, etc, for purposes of importance, with capital letters, in my whole life, in Portuguese, English or whatever, and there is nor rule against it, nor anyone will make do the opposite based on some stupid alledged ghost "rule"!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? No one is to say how I or one writes!... It's not like it's Grammar!... No other language, certainly not mine, has such a "rule"!... Is it a wiki-pseudo-rule or it's just another insularity? If I were English I'd demand capital letters and no one would make me not use them!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any book of English? Well, I've never seen that in any book of English (I've learned from), nor I've heard that in any school class!... And you're wrong, in Portuguese we have no rule, nor any pointless, stupid rule to disrupt!... And even if we did I'd certainly never follow such one!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because many people doesn't do it it doesn't mean we must do it or that there is any rule!... Just because some scum writes Titles or people's Nationalities with minor letters I won't do it. It's the same principle in every case!... And don't trust the Brazilians for good Portuguese!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an unknown or perhaps new rule, and of course it had to be a wikipedia one, we all know how they are with rules!... I'll still write Poet with a capital P - and I don't even like Poets!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont suppose I'd get away with two Ingres nom's in one week; but I'd appreciate a sharp eye on

Thanks, but I wasn't asking for a grammer lesson; more if you might have other sources. I understand I need a grammer lesson mind you, but thats another days work. That said, having re-read, you did a fine job. Ceoil ^sláinte 01:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, any comments that you can make here: [5] and/or here: [6] would be greatly appreciated by me. Thanks..Modernist (talk) 03:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, I've retracted and rethought my previous edit, made in haste this AM, I hope you aren't offended by my change of heart..Thanks...Modernist (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Xandar conducted a new discussion on the use of "official" our original sentence going into FAC that survived Peer Review and several months of mutliple editors. I have agreed not to vote on this one but to agree to whatever consensus of editors decides. Can you please come back for one more vote here: [7]. Thanks for you help in deciding the matter once and for all. NancyHeise ^talk 15:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in teaming up (at some point) on an article on the painting The Family of Sir Thomas More in all its incarnations? You know more about Holbein than I ever will. I have tracked down all 3 variants by Rowland Lockey for the commons now, which was a prerequisite in my mind. - PKM (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly chip in, but I'm not sure how much specific stuff on it I have - probably some. It's about time to remainder the Tate exhibition catalogue .... Johnbod (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a copy if we need it. Most of the preliminary Holbein drawings of the sitters are not in the commons, alas, so I'll collect those as time permits. I've started a "Family of Sir Thomas More" Category in commons to collect everything in one place. Too many articles to write! - PKM (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific. These articles seem to belong there. Indeed there is a SHORTAGE of relevant articles in this category. Why don't you write some?--Ambrosius007 (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to be specific. WHICH article does not belong there in your view --Ambrosius007 (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize you had deliberately move the Beth Hamedrash Hagadol image up. I'm usually the only person who edits the article, and I was editing it at the time, so I thought I had just made an error in placement. I moved the image downwards because I thought the lower section was more relevant to the turn of the 20th century. The section you put it in is mostly about the 1820s to the 1890s, whereas the picture was taken a few years after that. I can move it back, if you really think it should go higher. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone my edit, I see your insertions discuss the image. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there is now a considerable amount of material in the article specifically related to the building, its construction, architecture, materials, modifications, etc. Is it enough to remove your objection to FA status? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will give it another edit with the stuff from the form, & then it should be ok to go. The Wolfe book should reallly be looked at though, since it is precisely on this subject. Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your improvements. Regarding the Wolfe book, do you know if it deals in any great detail with this specific synagogue? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm:"Tall. Introducion by Harry Golden. Profusely illustrated with Blacl/White photograqphs.36 pp of discussion, the rest of the 172 pp are photos and sources." from Abebooks. Perhaps not too much - 36/? how many LES synagogues? It would be good to see it, but I wouldn't oppose at FAC on it. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nebuchadnezzar (Blake), 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 .

Royalbroil 06:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks so far for your comments on Frederick III, German Emperor's FA review. I'm asking here because I don't want to clutter the review with this as its a matter of taste I believe. Do you think the image of William I being crowned emperor of Germany should be included with the article? I think it leaves the article just a bit cluttered and isn't entirely needed, especially since the subject of the painting is mostly William I, and Bismarck. Since you put it up though I'd like to hear what you think and if you think the article isn't too cluttered with the image. Thanks! --Banime (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put it in originally, just re-added it. I think it's fine (the clutter comes from the templates imo), but I don't feel stonmgly about it. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll think about it more and see as I reread through it and try to copyedit it some more. As for the templates, do yo mean the tables such as Issue, and Ancestry type things? We could move those to the bottom I suppose if you think that would improve it. I didn't add those in and they're not templates but they might fit better down there. --Banime (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at the least I think more should be below the references. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I removed some of the infoboxes that were pretty useless. I'll look into moving those tables down, however because theyre not infoboxes I'm not sure how to do that and I wouldn't know how to align them center, but I'll look. I could remove them entirely as well if needed. --Banime (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been modeling it more and more after the FA Alexandra_of_Denmark, and its getting close now (with regards to amount of infoboxes, etc). She also has an ancestry table but its minimizable. I could do that if I found out how and if it was needed. Do you still think it should be changed? Take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks for all of your time on this. --Banime (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine now. I'm ready to support but I do think the prose needs a run-through. Johnbod (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll be reading through it myself and trying to improve it, however I've been really close to the text the past few months so I'll ask a fellow editor to help as well. Thanks so far for your help. --Banime (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again. The article went through another large copyedit and slight expansion, if you want to look at it again. Thanks for all of your time. --Banime (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your latest copyedit! Its really helping the article. --Banime (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this reply on my talk page as well: Yes, it was in January 1888 and his father died in March. Thanks for catching that. --Banime (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rowland Lockey, 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 .

Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was going to add a section on the development of the figure over time, and perhaps split the Celtic literature material into that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am ashamed to admit that I really did have to click on Sisyphus to discover its meaning. Rolling a boulder up a hill I am sure is not more fun than getting RCC through FAC! NancyHeise ^talk 01:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too looked, but decided not to revert. I see you did [8] I'm not so sure he was not correct, I'd like to see a reference for that fact, and a good one too. Regards.

I re-wrote, to tone it down considerably. He is of course wrong to imply these places did not have large cathedrals at the date in question. Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I see, but do we have a reference for this desire of the Florentines, they were inovators not keeping up with the neighbours! If you see the difference. The civilized world followed them not the other way arownd, so I would still like a reference for that to remain.

talk) 18:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I think he is right, and without a reference to the contrary would like the whole phrase removed.

talk) 18:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The rivalry with Siena, whose plans were already huge, is the main point, so I have expanded on that & generalized the rest. That needs referencing much less than most of the article. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am reading my great book of the Duomo now, and will ref and re-add if it's there. Why Wikipedia alone in the world has to call it Florence Cathedral, God alone knows, I look forward to visiting New York and London Cathedrals some day.

talk) 18:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Don't let's go there again! How are you anyway? Johnbod (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmph, you damm well I will when the mood takes me, I have not surrendered there by any means, I am merely having a cease-fire. - Anyway in the meantime I have some good news for you, it appears

talk) 18:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Johnbod. I think the comparison I am making is very valid. The Catholic Church article has been refused FA for a fifth time, due to claims the article is POV by being too positive and not carrying enough criticisms. However the Islam article not only got FA, but got that FA confirmed at FAR this year despite being extremely positive, and not carrying ANY significant criticism. With heavy critics of RCC like Marskell being key determinants in the FAR of Islam, the double-standard is too strong to ignore. It needs correcting, otherwise "being back in the New Year" serves little purpose. On the evidence of Islam, the RCC article needs only to remove ALL negative criticism and mention of Inquisitions, abuse-scandal etc, and it will be FA ready. The issue is also important since anyone using Wikipedia for comparative religion purposes will see A) A Catholic article full of criticisms of the Church on dozens of issues and a highlighting of major negative aspects, and B) An Islam article which glosses over all negative aspects and presents a wholly "clean" and positive image. This is utterly misleading and provides a dangerously false impression. There has to be consistent between articles as well as within them. Xandar 20:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is, the consistency could well be neither being FAs. I still think RCC is do-able. Johnbod (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you explain the following ad hominem comment. "all art objects are works of art, by your own definition in the other article."Research Method (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, sometimes I forgot to use the "+pt", I apologise. --89.101.93.81 (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've added a few sentences about Ho Chi Minh using the legacy of Phan Dinh Phung and so forth. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 05:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - were you planning to do the split here? The admins & bots don't seem to be planning to. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but then my computer died... and my wife asked me to not do any Wikipedia for a while... but I expect I will do it in time, if no one else does.--

talk) 20:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, I may start it, but probably won't do it all. You obviously have a very sensible wife! Johnbod (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting the FAC.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, Johnbod, do you know anything about the bust on this page? It looks school of the Leoni, but I don't know. I don't think this sort of page is satisfactory (what's a cultural depiction? One can't just have all the portraits), but it serves as a useful deposit for the listy excrescences that amass at the bottom of some articles. I tried to include a range of portrayals, using only decent reproductions (on the whole, but couldn't find a really nice one of the essential Pantoja de la Cruz). A sculpture is needed, but 3D images are in short supply, owing to the copyright issues, which is why I used that one. Just need to fill the caption up. Cheers. qp10qp (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very much "school of" I'd say, though Milan was Leoni's base. User:Giovanni Dall'Orto is almost the only Commons uploader to give reliable information for his pictures, so I doubt if more can be said. You want the Titian & Mor full-lengths, and the Leoni, which is on Commons with a confirmed licence (!), so that's ok. The art should be promoted above the historical novels I feel. Johnbod (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I'll have another look in Commons. I was a bit hesitant with adding the galleries because it was a bit of an innovation for this family of articles, which seems to concentrate on historical recreations such as films, novels, etc., for some reason. Durova started this system off, but it's time to rethink it, I believe, adding contemproary portraits and iconography and referencing everything. I took most of the upper matter off the bottom of the Philip article, shedding what I couldn't ref. The "anything goes" days should be over, even for trivia, I reckon. Thanks for your help.

By the way, I'm thinking of having a go at the execrable Hans Holbein the Younger article; it's a daunting prospect, but I do have some terrific books on him. Would appreciate your eye on my efforts. I'm thinking of exchanging the Horenbout portrait for the self portrait at the top of the article, but I'm not sure. The trouble is that someone obviously coloured in a fine original drawing and added inept shoulders/shirt etc. qp10qp (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oer! I've just noticed there's a non-Holbein in the gallery there (Edward VI). Editors should put not their trust in image titles. qp10qp (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No indeed! My guess is "Cultural doo-dah of ..." articles are added to piecemeal & generally don't have regular editors who feel strongly about them. If the worse comes to the worse we could slink off to Portraiture of Philip II to match Portraiture of Elizabeth I. I can add a bit on how no one wanted to work for him, about which Trevor-Roper is maliciously amusing. I'll watchlist Young Hans. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I can assist as needed on a main-type spinoff of Portraiture of Philip II - I am thinking about Portraiture of Mary I of England (and toying with Portraiture of Mary, Queen of Scots in my masochistic moments - that one's fraught with passion and good-faith misinformation, right up there with Lady Jane Grey.) - PKM (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Johnbod, we are about a week away from noming Caspar David Friedrich if you are interested, and your input would certainly be appreciated. There are gaps yet in the bio coverage, and the landscape section is under construction, but these are realitevly easy jobs. As a side note, I was surprised Titian's portrait of Philip II wasn't featured in qp's article there above. I could add a section on that if needed. Ceoil ^sláinte 04:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that wasn't meant as a quid pro quo; I will add a Titian section. Eeek. Ceoil ^sláinte 04:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rokeby Venus is up for mainpage on the 22nd. Lots of vandelism with this one, I expect. Ceoil ^sláinte 13:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll watch out. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm not convinced by this - it actually covers the period 70-500, earlier than that being New Testament Christianity. Nor is it really just a history category, as so many issues & articles are still highly relevant. I don't think "Ancient Christian" is a commonly used term, or a clear one. Christianity was very much a religion of the Empire, & the relatively minor extent of it beyond those borders before 500 does not pose a big problem I feel. Armenia & Georgia, the main areas concerned, were in and out of the Roman Empire during the period. Johnbod (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1st-- it does "cover" New Testament Christianity, but that is a just under "New Testament history" within "Ancient Roman Christianity"

2nd-- a change to "Category:Ancient Christianity" would be okay with me instead.

3rd-- Again... Persian, Ethiopia, some germans, Celts, Armenia, Georgia, Indian! Many many small examples. Note well that plenty of Europe was non Roman as well.

4th-- If it is "relatively minor" the "extent of it beyond those borders before 500" then all the more reason to change to the more useful and incluesive "

talk) 01:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi John, I notice that you don't have an "E-mail this user" button. Would you be so kind as to e-mail me instead? It's relatively important. My address is on my user page, or you can use my "E-mail this user" button. Thanks! Proteins (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again John, thanks for your reply! I sent you a note a few days ago, which I hope you got; please let me know if it didn't arrive. I'm sorry to impose upon your time, but I'd be very grateful for a reply. Thanks! Proteins (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John! Could I trouble you with one more question within your expertise? I just sent it by e-mail. Much obliged for your help, Proteins (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the category renaming point, I made a new suggestion and would welcome your thoughts. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art Deco's editors are looking for advice. I was wondering if you could offer a more detailed peer review than the one I just posted to the talk page. Art Deco is a little late for me.

It's much too late for me, but I will see if I can add anything. Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

talk) 00:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I know that it didn't work with the reward for the core contest and I'm willing to sponsor it by sending a package of quality lebkuchen. All I need is an adress. My email is kurt.scholz[at]gmx.de. In case you have reservations, sending me your adress User:Proteins has agreed to handle the distribution. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo, Johnbod: top of your form. I'd write "Orléans Collection" in the text throughout, leaving the accent out of the title. (Without the accent I always hear "Or-leens".) When I have a chance to settle down with it, I hope I may add a minor factoid or two, just to say "...and I helped!"... --Wetman (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, would you be able to identify this? I think it's a fresco from the Sistine Chapel, and if so, I need to know from which passage and if it has an individual title. Thanks either way. Ceoil (talk) 11:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - don't recognise it. It's not the Sistine Image:Rome Sistine Chapel 01.jpg Last Judgement & looks more like a sea-battle or shipwreck. I'm pretty sure it's not Michelangelo, though it looks like one of his followers. Hard to tell from the blurry image. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, but I found it from here, which just a fantastic resource. Thanks anyway. Ceoil (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To ask the question in a different way, who might Géricault have been influenced by when drafting The Raft of the Medusa; and where are all the sketches held. I'm relying on web sources for now; books have not arrived yet. Ceoil (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might enjoy this. I'm very fond of Brian Sewell, I think this is a gental parody]]. Ceoil (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I agree WP:OWN is relevant here, the attitude of some members of WP:BIO is reminiscent of the Maasai attitude to cattle - wherever they are in the world, they all belong to them." Brilliant! Execept the Maasai aren't crazy enough to try and brand all the world's cattle as theirs by launching a "drive-by assessment drive". Cheers. --

[9] I agree with its removal here and with the edit summary in the context of this article, but not as a general point. The text only mentions it briefly. If the text expanded on this as a significant aspect of the article, then I would see it differently. However, there are far more imporant aspects of the Spanish Civil War to be enlarged in the article, before the painting. Ty 19:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's just wrong - from the exactly relevant example of

WP:NFC#Unacceptable use Images # 4 this is permitted as iconic. That the painting itself has an article is the new argument, & doesn't seem a reason to remove it to me, so I have reverted him. He removed it from Spain, which I won't contest. Amazingly, another of the imagepolitzei removed the famous Iwo Jima photo from Battle of Iwo Jima, despite it being the example in the policy of where a photo can be used! Johnbod (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, Guernica per #4 "has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war", but see #5 for other non-iconic images. Ty 00:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - it's amusing - the real case for fair use can only be made at the article about the image here: Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Funny how people can think fair use is a blanket that allows them to use any image anywhere. Megapixie (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a

strawman argument. No one is suggesting that. Ty 01:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Funny how people can't be bothered to read policy too. Johnbod (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would actually be a guideline. The policy is above that section. Megapixie (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Orleans Collection, 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) 20:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, There are a couple of images that refer to a Nicola Porta but he has no page and a simple Google search shows nothing.

Is that name right? Any ideas who he is? A different name? If so, I can do a better search and make a stub-page for him.

Thanks History2007 (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's not on the Getty name list, which means he's really obscure. The source for the one on the right says it's a copy of a painting by someone else. They're not very attractive works, I think. Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I guess he is obscure then. I wonder if a notice can be added to the Wikimedia forms to ask people to double check an artist's name against the Getty list before they add an image. That way a lot of those multi-spelling issues can be reduced. Anway, I think I will just let the Porta thing rest then. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing to ask would be that people record the name of the artist, date, or location etc at all. Most who upload their own photos give no details at all & some really nice photos can't be used for that reason. Ah well! Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava Rima is creating a huge batch of Milton articles for DYK on December 9th, the 400th anniversary of his birth (Milton's, of course). I am currently working on two articles for William Blake's Illustrations to Milton,[10][11] and it would be nice if you could write something on John Baptist Medina (see here). There isn't even an article on him yet, much less his illustrations to Milton. Either that, or you could write something on Dore's illustrations to Milton, on which I'm sure more has been written.

This may not be your era exactly, but I didn't know who else to ask regarding prints.. You could always just help out with my articles once I launch them... I'm hoping that my direct contact with OR will be minimal- right now he's going off on Ceoil at Talk:The Lucy poems.

By the way, I'd like to translate the German wiki article on Ritter, Tod, und Teufel in the next week or two, and I'm sure you will be able to help with that. Maybe some other works by Dürer too, I'll have to see. Thanks,

Ok. Medina is new to me I must confess, but deserves something. I could certainly help with the Durer. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your careful consideration at

Johnbod, Marskell left some comments on my talk page regarding RCC. Sandy, Karanacs and Malleus also commented. I responded to them but I was wondering what you thought about all this since you have been in on a lot of the conversations throughout the many months we have worked on this. Please let me know if you are in agreement with them - I disagreed. See [12] - Sandy's post is just below it. NancyHeise ^talk 03:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to this article which appeared in the DYK section today. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These categories should only be used for works written, or at least compiled, in the century concerned. They are categories for texts, not manuscripts. There is no point in adding perfectly standard Gospel etc manuscripts. If you want to add by-century cats, Category:Biblical manuscripts would be the parent to use. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dissagree with you-- and purposly created these categories with the best term to indicate the century created, not "written."

For example, your proposel to use the term "Biblical manuscripts" instead, or even "manuscripts," would not account for the many works that are not handwritten and thus not manuscripts. --

talk) 19:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

continued on Carlaude's talk. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was quick... I have been ill and making up late work this weekend, or I would have done more on Blake. There seems to be decent info here (or at least decent images), and here it gives the engraver's name as Michael Burgesse. There's another good- quality illustration here, too... I'll probably go ahead and upload all of them to WMCommons.

Never mind, I've added all of his illustrations to Paradise Lost in a gallery... Maybe we could use one of his portraits for the lead? Oddly enough, the site I got them from [13] gave all 12 illustrations, while your text says only eight are extant...?

derm 00:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Only 8 are by him. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I apologize for not reading the relevant section very carefully. I don't have JSTOR, unfortunately. Since there seems to be a dispute over the attribution of the prints, I'll leave all of them in the gallery, and indicate the ones that are certainly his.

derm 04:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Well certainty seems elusive - 8 are signed by him (ie the engraver put in his signature), but that may be 1 more than he did. but I think that is the way to go. Johnbod (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Palma Vecchio" is misleading, as "Vecchio" (or "Giovane") is not the surname, but a nickname (the true surname being another, as I've pointed out in the Palma il Giovane article). Don't you call Lucas Cranach "the Elder" or Bruegel "the Younger"? The fact it is used on most English textbooks, is not relevant, as many are full of errors when dealing with Italian names (Carravagio, Carraci, Bartolommeo... the list is endless). Ciao and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to our official rules, we Italians must follow the English grammar as possible. And we write English names as they are written in English. So, "Richard Harris" doesn't become "Riciard Arris", despite we don't pronounce the "h". --'''Attilios''' (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you swiftly moved

Palma Giovane, without asking consent as you do usually (but is the same for me). With crying heart, I can agree (I see this matter of Italian names in horrendous English text will never be solved, as most Anglosaxons seem completely unable to spell foreign names correctly), but at least ascertain that there are no articles referring to him as "Giovane" alone, is if it was his surname... Anyway I must tell that the solution to mention the Italian (correct) equivalent separately at the end of introduction is really clumsy. Ciao and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Is that more fluent now, closely following spelling and style of S.J. Freedberg, a standard authority? Correcting the common usages of one's second language is not often the high road to general applause.--Wetman (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my gosh, the pressure is killing me :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rolando Gomez. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cerejota (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in your block log,[14] so I have no idea what's going on. You weren't blocked when you posted to my page, or you wouldn't have been able to. Even if an IP had been blocked, your user name shouldn't have been. It could have been a range block, I suppose, or a bug in the system. Anyway, you have a clean record. Maybe your IP doesn't though - you could look at the block log of your IP to see if there's anything in it. Ty 04:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering where you were yesterday...when were you blocked? ...Modernist (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ty. I was only blocked for about 5 mins, although it was set to run for more than 24 hours according to the notice. Johnbod (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I find I'm blocked on French WP until 18/12:

Vous n’avez pas la permission de modifier cette page, pour la raison suivante :

Votre compte utilisateur ou votre adresse IP « 89.167.221.3 » a été bloqué(e) par Phe pour la raison suivante : proxy ouvert. Ceci signifie que vous pouvez toujours lire l’encyclopédie, mais pas la modifier. Consultez votre page de discussion pour plus de détails. Vous pouvez contacter Phe ou un des autres administrateurs pour en discuter.

Expiration du blocage : 18 décembre 2008 à 20:45

Boff!!! Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Say, if you can spare a few minutes, would you have a look at the CFD for renaming Category:Solidarity & Category:Solidarity activists? For some reason the discussion seems to have stalled out after just a handful of comments, but maybe it will revive if a new editor puts his 2 cents in. Best, Cgingold (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Baptist Medina, 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) 18:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you any views on whether the Holbein portrait inscribed as above at Windsor should go in the Anne Boleyn article? I've proposed it in the bottom part of this thread. The scholarship is conflicted, but I think there's enough on its side to justify its inclusion, with reservations noted, of course. I'd also like to do a little article on images of Anne (or perhaps one of those "cultural depictions of" thingies), which is a fascinating subject, but I'm put off by the fact that two key items, the medal and the ring, might count as 3D. I'll ask what PKM thinks, as well.qp10qp (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note by the way that the article, in my opinion, over-confidently identifies the Sittow as Katherine of Aragon. qp10qp (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A pearl I have just found in the Gregory VII article, cleary taken from an Anglosaxon source of old times: Robert Guiscard defined as DUKE OF NORMANDY!!!!!!! I think the dusty editor who compiled the article confused his "Norman" ethnicity with "Normandy": he clearly did not know at all that existed a powerful Norman state in southern Italy at the time, which, by the way, was far richer and more powerful than England itself at the time. Not to be polemic, but I just wanted to stress how unreliable are some of the sources regarding Italy you could occur to use (consider many continue to propagate as it's renowned that most writers just limit themselves to copy from previous books)... Ciao and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history, you will see some well-meaning but underinformed editor changed it from "... the Norman duke Robert Guiscard... " very recently. The original was a fair description as Robert certainly identified as Norman, and who knows what the full original text was. A warning that people should be cautious about making edits on matters they don't have good knowledge of. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never got round the disorientation of seeing Norman castles in Sicily. There's one in a valley close to the Greek temple at

Ragusa, failing to grasp what I was looking at. (I hadn't then grown out of my conviction that nothing interesting happened in the world after 1650.)qp10qp (talk) 13:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

My own first northern barbarian campaign for Sicily was halted by severe sunburn at Paestum & I've never got much further south than that in Italy since. One day ... Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my... it seems that ignorance is recent! Did you notice other mistakes? I must remember to put Pope Gregory VII's page under watch. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another nice, recent pearl: Fontana Maggiora in Perugia, from Giovanni Pisano. Eh eh (pardon me for boring you, I promise I'll stop soon but I confess it's a really funny game to find such ridiculous errors... ;-) --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear John, how I disagree with you now I live in Turin (before I was in Rome, but with a strategical sea house in Gaeta), all the time gloomy, raining, foggy, when not snowing! My nights are starred by dreams of burning summer days in desolate beaches, with the sun and sky having those colours, the wind having that sound which only in southern Italy you can see... Waaaah!! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I love Naples & the area around, but have never managed to get very far beyond that. Johnbod (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've still got an awful long way to go with Holbein (I'm working on a couple of paragraphs about the religious stuff in a sandbox at the moment, and it will include something on Noli Me Tangere). I haven't really worked on the gallery yet and have loads more scans to upload to Commons. I daresay the images are jostling on some screens, and I'll try looking at the article on small fonts sometime.

A couple of technical questions you may be able to help with. Are centre-positioned images at all the done thing? I think the Christ in his Tomb (which can't be omitted) would fit best across the page, but I've a feeling that's deprecated. Also, do you know a way of making image descriptions (not captions) appear by mouse hovering? I've noticed

I think the FAC attitude to galleries in art articles has softened considerably, if used properly. One day I may put Raphael up & we'll see - I think the galleries would be accepted now. Centred panoramas have passed without comment - I think there is something specific about them in one of the policies - & I think you should try it with Christ. I've never used hovering text, but if you look at the FAC's or talk pages for

Queluz National Palace you will see even fancier stuff, and the helpful bods who put it all in for the clueless nominators. I think User:Tyrenius did some on Meninas, and User:Victuallers Queluz (see talk). Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

When deleting (before restoring) this, you should really have noticed that it was originally a redirect to medal, which should have been left. Hatnote now added. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, must have been distracted by the is-it-or-isn't-it notability issues. I'll try to be more careful in future. --fvw* 23:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao! It's again me... I've recently made many additions for stuff regarding

Thanks very much for help! Ciao and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Well of Moses at CMArt.JPG. Have you checked categories at Commons? I tagged it with the museum it was taken in (Carnegie Museum of Art in Pittsburgh).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I didn't see. It must be a cast though. Johnbod (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your five-word contribution to

I think we know who is suffering from bile here :) Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry. It smelled like bile. Maybe it was just piss. Try to swing your

talk) 16:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Similarly. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be OK now.[16] Ty 01:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[17]. Ty 03:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good article, but where does the information about the leaf in the Getty originate from? Muttley0702 (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The Getty bit is online/in Kren & McK. The price was from an art magazine or maybe website I couldn't refind. The dealer was Sam Fogg in London. [18]. A further search turns up this rather garbled French report last sentence, which I've added. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just wanted to get another opinion on this. I'm coming to you because you have extensive experience with CfD and Christianity. What is your take on Category:Christian genre types? It seems like a really odd and arbitrary grouping as is. Does it make sense to you? Does it need clean up, or is it even salvageable? Thanks for your input.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... looks like you already have run across the editor in question.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many times! Actually the genre one seems maybe ok to me - especially if it clears out main categories. I'll keep looking at it. How's things? All the best for Christmas!Johnbod (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why the music & branches of study etc are there. If it was restricted to types of text I think it may be justified, but would bow to specialists. He was adding loads of individual illuminated manuscripts of no textual interest to Category:Christian texts a week or two ago. Many of his categories are sensible, but he tends to create them without consultation. Johnbod (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao John! I've just added a

Done - but I would have used the Italian title myself, as it is much commoner in English! Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for the corrections!! Ciao and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, I'm having difficulty selecting a lead image for Lucy poems, the temptaion is to just go with a Wordsworth portrait, but I'D prefer to use something along the lines of this, if I could find anything that was inspired, even in part, by the series, or even by Lyrical Ballads. Any ideas? Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey! Wrong landscape but [19] might work. Nothing too Victorian, certainly. Early Millais? Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey indeed; the page recently erupted into civil war over this issue. I quite like the Samuel Palmer, and I've suggested it to Ottava. I'll take a trawl through Millais see what I can find. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Palmer. I'm very pleased with it. Ceoil (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing me from the category! LOL. However, as things stand it is a highly misleading category, as it doesn't contain any of the notable works one would expect in such a category, only as you say unclassifiable ones. "Contemporary" is dodgy as it's likely to be sabotaged by time. I'd urge a rethink here.

Sorry! - I see Contemporary art describes 2 definitions, one being all post WW2. I'm open to suggestions on the categories. I was trying to clean out Category:Works of art, which is a head cat which shouldn't have any articles in it. If we put everything into this one it would be huge, as the number of articles are enormous. Maybe we should make this a head cat with the other sub-cats below it. But I think 1945 is a bit too far back. There is "Modern" as well of course - equally difficult to define. I certainly don't have the inclination to fill them, but maybe if the bare tree is set up, the leaves will appear. Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, when I added the Warhol, Pollock, de Kooning, the David Smiths, Bacon, Lichtenstein and the Hamilton which basically are 1950s and 1960s stuff, (although the Pollock is from the 1940s and the Lichtenstein is from the 1990s), I just assumed that they all were contemporary....I guess (Post-War still means contemporary to me) but actually your definition of unclassifiable as a kind of extra category is fine, all of those works are in or might be included in several other categories anyway. I guess I was a little confused though...but - Happy holidays, and job well done..Modernist (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's tricky, and of course by no means all sculptures (in particular) done in the last 5 years say, and with articles, would be accepted by a New York gallerist as "contemporary art"! Does one apply a stylistic test too? Maybe it's something to bring to the project page in the New Year? Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod. Please explain your removal of [[Category:Painting]] from

Very few articles should be in that top-level category. It is in the Japanese art cat & there may be other suitable categories for it - in fact I have added it to Category:Japanese painting, which I did not see before, but it should never have been in the top one. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I struggle with the categories concept at times.--

talk) 17:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I can understand :) But generally it's a case of finding the most precise categories, which can involve a bit of hunting in the thickets. Johnbod (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear John. The two-paragraph China section you added to the wiki on Genocides in history was clear and well-written, and was obviously made in good faith. I reverted it because there has been controversy in the talk page that you were probably not aware of. Because of this controversy, I think it would be better to go through the talk page and reach a consensus there before we decide to re-open a China section. I hope this is all right with you. This would also be fairer to those whose text has been deleted for lack of two reliable sources making an explicit claim of genocide. If you're interested, I just finished a long post on the talk page with many suggestions on how to re-open a China section. After consulting your user page, I also see that you've done truly amazing work on art and art history! Congratulations, and keep up the good work. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen the talk page; I just thought it an obvious ommission. There should be something on the subject, and other genocides not covered. Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that other genocides should be covered, as long as we find reliable scholarly sources claiming that they constituted genocide. There must be some sources out there (like the two I found on the Dzungars), but I unfortunately have too little time to look up more right now. I hope someone can do it, or maybe I will try in a few days after Christmas. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jacques de Baerze, 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) 12:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Melchior Broederlam, 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 .

talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas

, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{

subst:User:Flaming/MC2008

}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

History2007 (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. Many thanks for all the wonderful articles you've added this year. I have read a good few of them and have learned a lot. They are among the most enjoyable and interesting articles on Wikipedia for me. qp10qp (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both, and Happy Christmas/Holidays to one and all, & all the best for the New Year! Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnbod. Do you have any interest in Korean art, especially Goryeo celadon (also spelled as Koryo celadon)? I've noticed that you've created valuable articles regarding visual arts. The subject would be top or high rating to Korean project, but Wikipedia does not have the article yet. Ive always wanted to create the article, but my English and knowledge are limited to the sophisticated topic. Therefore, if you're interested in Asian subject, could you create it? This is a mere suggestion, so if you can freely turn down it. Thanks, and merry Christmas!--Caspian blue 19:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know enough about it - much less than the short but I think well-informed coverage we have in Category:Korean pottery. It's not an area we cover well at all here. Merry Christmas to you too! Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; at some point, our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the same to you! Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In several articles I have found wrong categories. For instance in manuscripts of New Testament from the 10th century. They were categorised as Christian texts from the 10th century. They are only copies of text from the first century. I found also wrong categories in artiecles Biblical criticism, Textual criticism, Eusebian Canons. Why do we need Category:Christian genre types. Carlaude is not only one person, who edit in my articles, but he is one who does not understand subject of this articles. This problem is old - about six months - several users explained to him many times, but he do the same again and again. I really have enough. All we need editors, who support our work, but this kind of editions do not help for us. As you said: "I wish you would consult with local editors before setting up all these categories!" Merry Christmas. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See his talk - he's ok with renaming it, & I hope reducing the scope. Merry Christmas! Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Merry Christmas to you and yours! - PKM (talk) 04:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and a Happy Christmas from Wetman (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and to you two of course, with a few hours to go! Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not sure what happened here, when you restored a lot of his old deleted conversations. Since users can remove anything they wish from the active user talk page, and he'd previously removed all that, I undid that.

Oops, he'd linked to an old version, which I edited just to add a date. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Westminster Retable, 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 .

Self-awarded, as I wrote most of the version featured, after it was nomed. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. Nice work. - PKM (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm close to taking The Raft of the Medusa to FAC, but would appreciate if you could cast your usual weary eye over the text before the final push. If you are taken with other projects, no worries. Ceoil (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you have anything you can add from JSTOR about this painter? If you do, perhaps we can DYK it. Thanks,

Sorry, I can't access Jstor, and I don't think I have any print sources on him. Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright. What about these printmakers? Interested in collaborating on any of them?

• Master W. with the Key
• Master LCz
• Master b g
• Master i.e.
• Master F.V.B.
• Master of the Meshed Backgrounds
• Mair von Landshut
• Girolamo Mocetto

I should have stuff on most of those, but little is known. My priority missing ones are Giovanni Battista Palumba, Cristofano Robetta, Benedetto Montagna, and improving Jacques Bellange, Master I. A. M. of Zwolle, Francesco Rosselli. Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I currently have sources on Master I.A.M. of Zwolle and Francesco Rosselli, and will be heading to the Library this Monday for more regarding them, and Dürer. Knight, Death, and the Devil is also in my near future...

derm 03:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for the message. I do not understand your reasoning for your sudden and unilateral changes to long standing categories, my argument for restoration is based on maintaining the status quo until consensus is reached. I would be happy with slimmed down categories but this needs to be by agreement with the community. Therefore I will revert pending discussion and agreement. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.22.238 (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion started here. Have you read the policy yet? Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jean Malouel, 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 .

Sandstein 20:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you look at [CFD] again? Unfortunately I made the error of typing 1696 when I meant 1596. This makes a great difference! I repeat that an ambassador is an envoy from the monarch, not from his ministers. Unless some one will provide evidence of separate embassies from the Stuart kings after 1603 as king of Scotland, distinct from those as king of England, I say that the mereger should go ahead. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry. I understand how it works now.

By the way, thank you for your help with the Church of the Transfiguration. --Fipplet (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Btw, I thought I'd seen an article on the Orthodox monastery there, but couldn't find it. Maybe another mountain. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I don't think that article has been created yet. If you're interested I have some sources. Otherwise I might create it. I was, btw, very happy to see the transfiguration church article on the main page, so thank you once again. Cheers! --Fipplet (talk) 02:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. (I'm sure you probably would have seen this nomination in the course of your consistent CfD participations but I usually notify creators ...) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Holocaust discussion

Hi, I am Arilang1234. There is now discussion between me and user Madalibi regarding the naming of

Chinese Holocaust on my user talk page, would you come to the discussion and give us your opinions? Thanks. Arilang ^talk 22:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

DYK for Champmol

On 1 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Champmol, 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 .

Proposed deletion of Medallist

A

Medallist

, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

As written, fails to assert notability per

WP:BAND

.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's

dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page

.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the

proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Victor Lopes (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment on CFD discussion

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

As I suggested, I was offended by your comment: ""Country equates a political division" is neither true, nor if I may say so, very grammatical for someone sporting a "native speaker of English" userbox." I hope you can see why, if you were in my shoes. 86.149.49.231 (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Country

I thankyou every much for your contributions to

^Pounce! 01:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks! I'm clocking off now, but should be able to add refs in the next 48 hrs, if that's ok. Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine, thanks for your co-operation. Happy editing!

^Pounce! 02:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Just a ping, in case you have forgotten. If you have not forgotten, and just have not had time, feel free to disregard this message.

^Pounce! 04:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Not quite forgotten! Did you see my comments on the talk page? I was hoping for some discussion there before proceeding. Johnbod (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Germany

Please be a little less patronizing, especially with "Gulp....you're joking, right?". BlueVine (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CFD discussion

I have decided to withdraw my nom, based on your highlight of Princeton 5, which I had misread earlier. I want to thank you from a professional stand-point for improving my understanding of the definition of a country. From a personal stand-point, though, I found you to very rude and patronizing, as has been noted by another user. Based on your lack of response to a previous statement by me to that effect, I presume you acknowledge as well those attitudes were yours. However, as I said again, from a professional stand-point, thank you. 217.44.215.61 (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel (Bishop of Ely)

Would greatly appreciate if you have a chance to glance at this article and see if there are any art/architecture angles I've missed? It's not yet quite ready for copyediting and taking to FAC (I still need to expand the lead somewhat, and I have a couple of books still making their way towards me) but it's getting pretty close. Your help would be greatly appreciated! Better to find out now than at FAC! Ealdgyth - Talk 05:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship?

Hello, Johnbod. I don't think we've crossed paths much, but

a/c) 17:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Greetings Johnbod; (LazulilasHer here, not lancer...although may be a good new username for me). Anyway, I agree with Hersfold; as I am sure that you know, the project needs talented, dedicated, and trustworthy individuals to become admins. Your wideranging contributions to the project demonstrate this committment; also, your committment to academic integrity and research in your chosen subject area is commendable. It is my belief that the admin corps needs editors such as you; I hope that you accept the nomination. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's time, Johnbod. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I think that image represents a knighting...not an execution. Er...Lazulilasher (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the kind words, both of you! I have been asked before, and I'm still sure I don't want to be an admin. I'm useless at the techical (templates etc) side, don't know much about some of the necessary areas of policy, and generally think my time here is best spent on article-writing. I probably spend too much time on talking pages as it is. I notice on my intermittent visits to Rfa there has been a shortage of candidates lately, & maybe an increase in expectations of them. So good luck with the search! Thanks again. Johnbod (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, ah well. There has been a shortage of candidates; and, I've intermittently worried about possible dangers of our best contributors (like you and Finetooth) not becoming admins. Hmm...oh well ;) All the best, Lazulilasher (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've known your feelings on this point well enough not to ask, nor am I trying to convince you, but I too wish we had more admins like you. That said, I'm glad you will still be devoting your time to writing and copy-editing. I'm big fan of your work, and your style. Happy New Year, Kafka Liz (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks & Happy New Year to you too! Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kafka Liz accidentally deleted my little message, which I thought quite ironically captured today's situation. Here is the message: hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm :) :) Lazulilasher (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Time for muntion" definitely has a ring... Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about deleting your message, Lazulilasher! Kafka Liz (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johnbod. It grieves me that you do not aspire to admin status, but your contributions elsewhere are still greatly appreciated! EdJohnston (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Master I. A. M. of Zwolle

I've expanded the titular article, but have exhausted my one source-- if you can expand this further it can go up for DYK. And, yes, I know it isn't the right artist. Thanks,

derm 21:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

By the time I got there you'd exhausted mine, and more. Grove might have more, and the Illustrated Bartsch if you've got access, & they've reached him. But he's nicely covered now. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how many prints by Master I. A. M. did Ferdinand Columbus own? Since you have a relevant source (Mark McDonald, Ferdinand Columbus, Renaissance Collector,2005,British Museum Press,

derm 00:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

That only mentions the one exhibited. There is?/will be a fuller book on the collection by McDonald, but I imagine many prints aren't identified very confidently, since all that survives is a catalogue of 3,204 prints with sizes & prose descriptions, which then have to be matched with surviving prints. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway. If you are concerned about my uploading of images from ARTstor, I can give you, or anyone else who wants to know, a list of my uploads from that source. I am not entirely certain about some of the Friedrich paintings, but most I remember. Yes, some ARTstor uploads are high-resolution, but some are no better than the images on commons, some are blatantly lifted from museum websites, and most are lacking accurate source and media information.

derm 00:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Well they operate by agreements with museums, & that the images are not their own, and that they charge for their service makes them more likely to want to be seen taking steps to protect their partners IP rights. Johnbod (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing... I'm not sure if I can accurately refer to his engravings as incunabula, as I have in

derm 01:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I've changed the article, as I'm sure this wrong - OED talks only of "books", & the Incunabula Short Title Catalogue doesn't include prints. Johnbod (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Art pottery and categories

Thank you for your note. There's clearly a need to work this out as my expertise doesn't go that far; I've dropped some ideas/rationales on Talk:ceramics in hope that we can come up with some system of categories. Is there somewhere else we can go to attract more decorative arts eyes to look into this? Mangoe (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped a note at visual arts as you suggested. Mangoe (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, you seem to be proceeding as though porcelain were a kind of pottery. Faience and maiolica are kinds of pottery. Pottery and porcelain are kinds of ceramics. I don't think British and American usage differ. Yes?--Wetman (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pottery and ceramics are synonyms, no? One is a

derm 18:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Agreed, more or less. Porcelain is a kind of pottery, as is shown by the absence of a word like "porcelainer" for the person who makes it. Porcelain was late coming to England, and like every other European language we kept the name it was imported with, there being no Anglo-Saxon one. "Ceramics" is the posh term, or china, although that is now used for all tableware. The OED definition of "porcelain" begins "A fine kind of earthenware ...", which isn't how I would have put it myself. Johnbod (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British toffs do talk of "Greek pots". Or they did when I was a fly on the wall. Well, I was taught to talk of "pictures", because "paintings" was middle-class. Then I went to work in a museum and soon got set straight. "Ceramics" isn't posh, Johnbod: pronouncing it "keramics" is, though..... --Wetman (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought not calling porcelain pottery was more a popular and trade usage than academic, but a quick look shows nothing to cite on this, which would be needed I suppose. Have you a view on the definition of art pottery - link at top? Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think of

derm 23:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

RE: Medallist

I've restored the article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Joconde

On January 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joconde, 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.

Royalbroil 04:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbo!

I think I fixed the Royal Academy thing. How was Christmas? We had the nine lessons and carols, with a choir and all, in a tiny weatherboard church that seats about 100 people at a squeeze, in a village on the side of a mountain. Christmas dinner on the verandah was cold spread, but with the traditional blazing plum pudding of course! Happy New Year! Amandajm (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year to you! Mine followed what is now a pretty regular & pleasant routine at home & round the family, with what now seems to be (from last year) the newly traditional element of a week's bad health starting suddenly on New Year's Eve. Just a cold this time, now fading. Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boer War

Long live Breaker Morant and the thousands of other Australians who volunteered for the Boer War! Ty 14:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing what you learn, spending hours reading wikipedia. It comes in incredibly useful for, er... editing wikipedia. Ty 14:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod!

I hope you're feeling better! 45,000 edits! Wow. Do you save after every word, or what?

Seriously, I been having a little go at

St Chad's Cathedral and St Philip's Cathedral, Birmingham. Do you know anything about them? I've been to St Philip's but never to St Chad's. Can you please check out what I've written, for glaring errors? Amandajm (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• I've never been to either, but I may have stuff. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move Ceramic talk

Sorry if I've done it the wrong way. I'll put it back and leave a note.

talk) 00:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I moved this from your user page. Don't mind me....

derm 00:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

DYK for History of the Han Dynasty

I think people would be shocked to see its length! Lol. Alright, then, I'm game. Can't wait to see the responses (if there will be any).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao!

Ciao John... how are you? I've just finished Madonna del Bordone by [Coppo di Marcovaldo]]. As usual, if you can you can help me with tweaks about English and art languge. Thanks very much and have fun! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medeshamstede/Peterborough

I'm following up on your comments here, particularly about Medeshamstede. The article seemed to imply that Medehamstede was destroyed in the 9th century and a monastery was established later nearly 100 years later, ie, not continuous, which grew into the current city. ("Nothing is known of Medeshamstede's history from the later 9th century, when it is traditionally believed to have been destroyed by Vikings, until the later 10th century, when it was restored as a Benedictine abbey...") On that basis, I tagged the article as a "lost/former settlement". I'd like to consider your reservations and resolve the problems - which other examples are "dodgy"? Regards. Folks at 137 (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think in AS history "nothing is known" is absence of evidence, not evidence of absence. The category has been deleted now, with any recreation to be on different lines, so I'm not sure what else there is to say. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but surely a significant settlement, or a continuation, would have generated some evidence of existance? The category has been renamed, not deleted, but as you seem content, that's ok. Folks at 137 (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFM

I began a Request for Mediation here [21] and listed you as a party. Please sign your name here [22] to agree to participate. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 06:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ritter, Tod, und Teufel

Hi, I'm starting to read my sources on Duerer's Knight, Death, and the Devil, and have not found so far any indication of how many copies are known to exist. Can you find anything? By the way, you have a belated DYK [23]....

derm 04:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

No, Hollstein is what you need there - I should think a good number though, & I doubt if accurate figures exist. Johnbod (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - never saw that - he posted it here too. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Juste de Juste

On January 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Juste de Juste, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 07:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A

request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Student7 (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

(Would appreciate your insight. Thanks.)Student7 (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoj!

Ciao! Maybe you'd be gently interested in little tweaks in my new masterwork (?), Carrara Cathedral... ciao and thanks. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Roman pottery

Thanks for the note. It was a rather stupid error on my part. My apologies. Cheers, Pigman☿ 17:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no problem! Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Raft

Hi Johnbod, Thanks to your excellent work the raft has become a FA....thanks..Modernist (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done all! Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		Congratulations Johnbod for bringing The Raft of the Medusa to FA and for adding so much historical insight ...Modernist (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church . For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 06:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.