User talk:Johnbod/14

Hello Johnbod. A couple years ago you participated in a discussion with me at Talk:Roman brick and offered some tips and advice on the article. It's been a couple years now and the article has changed significantly. I was wondering if you thought it appropriate to remove the "globalize" tag at this juncture. I would also be interested in any other tips you have on the article, Roman brick. I have added quite a lot of information, and it probably needs some minor tweaking (might be redundant in several places) but I was able to add info on some of your original suggestions too. The article isn't yet where it needs to be in terms of comprehensiveness but I think it now encompasses a much broader spectrum than what it once was, essentially Roman brick in modern American architecture - as you put it. Anyway, if you have the time when you return from your wikibreak your input would be greatly valued. Thanks. --IvoShandor (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. I agree whole heartedly with your last edit summary. I'm still looking for more information, of course, I am sure I will eventually find what is needed. Thanks again.--IvoShandor (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reply and a query has been made to your comment left here. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your revert and your note; I think I understand now. Do you have any suggestions about adding a category so Plum shows up as a Christian artist? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in the above. The author has only 7 other edits, so I'm guessing a school assignment of some sort. Still. Ceoil (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what happened to the name of this article after your comment at

As far as I can see, all I did was divert 2 redirects there, & rvt (22 April 08) someone who was trying to make the whole article a redirect to Famille du roi. Really i think the English name would be better - let me know if you set up a move proposal. Johnbod (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a GA Reassessment of

]

DYK for Silver-gilt

On DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Wikiproject: Did you know?

20:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Situla (vessel)

On DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

WP:DYK

20:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Little masters

Heh, close enough! Thanks for catching the mistake. LunarLander // talk // 15:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

freshacconci talktalk 00:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, these incredibly well-preserved statues appear to be the real thing. They are in a completely sheltered spot and wouldn't suffer from the usual processes of erosion. The problem in areas such as this is usually caused by water seepage from above, which then evaporates from the carved surfaces, bringing the salts to the surface and flaking off the stone. The more intricately carved the surface, the more water evaporates and the more that it corrodes. If there is little seepage, then the problem is minimised. My computer has been on the blink for a week.... just a little problem with the fan. Now the keyboard doesn't work! My dear son found me another keyboard from an almost vintage IBM. It's so solid and heavy that I feel as If I'm driving the computer with a prime mover. Amandajm (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I prefer classic keyboards myself, though I hear they are moving to remove the left hand caps lock, which would be sensible. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually redirecting to itself. I probably should have checked the capitalisation but its nothing for you to get worked up over. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you commented in the original CfD, you may be interested in commenting in the current successor CfD. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, when I said "it's not very well cited", I was referring to the hook rather than the article. And yes, you did a great job of expanding the article, but we do have our rules and the statement in the article about medieval art being an interplay between three different styles wasn't directly cited. Gatoclass (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but my reference to the pages was re the hook reference, which is really something you have to write a chapter rather than a sentence about, so those are the more useful references. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's rare to see such an important and well-written article pop up at DYK. Bravo! Savidan 19:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! It's rare to see such well-illustrated articles at Wikipedia anywhere. Srnec (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's really impressive!--Wetman (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two more categories to the CFD nomination. You may wish to add to what you wrote. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Orlady (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you edited

I restored the doubtless unintentionally dropped disambiguating information and fixed the offending redlinks.--Wetman (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The redlinks weren't a problem actually. The concern with dab page style is expediting finding a desired article. This includes paring descriptions, avoiding piped links, excluding entries with only partial title matches, and presenting information in as consistent a format as possible. Please see

MOS:DAB, per edit comments. I think that it's valid to have redlinks for settlements, but I don't need to fight their exclusion. By the way, are you, Wetman, also Johnbod? ENeville (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Absolutely - if you look at our histories you'll see we enjoy conversing with ourself. Johnbod (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A nunber of arts articles linked to

Thanks for creating quality articles, you're now an autoreviewer. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read up on your new self at

Wikipedia:Autoreviewer.--Wetman (talk) 06:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Perusal of the first 2 or so pages of this Google search shows how art historians refer to the work - not consistently, but a majority with no "the" or a lower-case one. I'm sure you're right about the article. Unlike literary works, few paintings of that date have an original and certain title in any case, though I doubt this one has ever been called anything else. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - a typo I didn't notice... Ty 23:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No prob! Do you "fancy" doing the Review nom? Johnbod (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not now thanks. I am squeezed for time. If you do, please notify me. Ty 00:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "silly tag," but thanks for the subsequent edit. Dppowell (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make a start on the The Disasters of War (still, sadly, a redirect) but am wondering about the background section. Would a lift of the same section from The Third of May 1808 (although since the disasters cover a 16 yr period the text would be necessaraly need to be more summary and extended to cover events to 1814) be unethical? I'm not sure how duplicated text accross articles is viewed here. I have a sketch in a txt file but don't want to post until I am more clear on this. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you can do it, but you have to link to the original article in the edit summary to preserve the history. Peninsular_War#Guerrilla_war is a start. I'll keep an eye out. Johnbod (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have always been fond of the way you tend to place an 2nd image just below the lead pic. But christ, its now some depressing artice. Ceoil (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goes with the territory! We can't really stick in a Kate Greenaway to compensate... Johnbod (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So says who. Precious! Ceoil (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to work on building these: 1; 2. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

NW (Talk) 17:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did not sign your comment at

Certainly! Hopefully we don't get both the Goya and the Callot on DYK at the same time, lest we be seen as morbid. Two idle thoughts while I'm here. Does "first anti-war statement" in western art seem a reasonable claim to you? I assume so, as you left it there. Second, I like the article under the French name. I was wondering when someone would suggest it be moved. I am going to add the artist link to the DYK statement. Outriggr (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I thought it was a bit OTT, & should be given a "said to be". Becker disagrees with it - he talks of (not a quote from him, but a paraphrase I've added to the Goya) "a wider European tradition of art about war and its effect on civilian life ... especially of Dutch artists depicting the Eighty Years War with Spain, and German 16th century artists such as Hans Baldung." and also says (this too rather extreme imo) "Callot's rather dispassionate view of war" & says the lack of identification "argues against attaching an anti-French or antiwar interpretation to the series"! A prima facie reading of the caption verses for example, gives an alls well that ends well absolutist story, but I think there's more to it than that. I think both sides need to be put. I think the current name is right - 2nd choice would be Les Ms & Malheurs .... Has the Goya been put up? I'll check - yes, but they are 3 days apart. Cheers Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Dutch. I figured you probably had an informed reason for excluding some (and of course how much on Commons can be taken for granted...). Anyway, I think having the artists first in the captions is a useful approach in an overview article, which was my main reason for digging in. That is a very nice article. Here, it is late summer (early autumn?) light and the fields look like Golden Age paintings to me. Outriggr (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's hardly an original name for a Dutch painting around. It was Ms Trip's sister (according to a family tree on the web) who was married to Balthazar Coynmans, not her, but who knows. He was until recently thought to be the subject of a famous Hals (very different in style [1]) but it is now established it was a distant & equally rich cousin of the same name. Landscape titles are totally random. I'm very pleased with it, but I'm going to try to avoid any other big ones for a while. Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... for the kind words. Bye!

... for the excellent job on the Gniezno Doors! --C. Trifle (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC) ...Yes, I do but I live 250 km from there. I contacted the Custodian today. He'll have a look. Happy New Year!--C. Trifle (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, thank you for taking the time to review the Quiriguá FA nom. Many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hughes is good enough for me, though I had to take leave of my smelling salts after reading the passage. I'm working off only the Hughes anthology and Connell for the moment, but heading into a good book store in the morning. Less of the sarky edit summaries though about spelling, like; I'm very sensitive;. Thanks though, Its great to watch you work. Ceoil (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Hi Johnbod, thanks for your edit--I'm working on this article and need all the help I can get: I know literature better than I know the visual arts. Please keep an eye out (if you can) and correct me if I embarass myself or anyone else. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on it - I'm intending to do Power of Women one day - I don't know what a google search with Judith might throw up. Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digging around on JSTOR, I've found this, after listing various Gothic 1630s Oxford buildings including the Jesus chapel window: "It has been questioned whether this was the result of Gothic Survival-that is Gothic was the only style known to the fellows and their craftsmen-or Revival-that is the fellows deliberately chose Gothic rather than Classical. It seems clear that the latter is the case." Now to read the rest of the article, understand it and cite it! I'll get there gradually.

Was there supposed to be a link there? I have stuff I can add on that. Eg in 1624 the fellows of St John's Cantab explained their choice of Gothic to the bishop who had donated the money for a new library:"men of judgement liked best the old fashion of church windows, holding it the most meet for such a building". Until the Sheldonian, there were only a few neo-classical doorways in Oxford, and less at Cambridge. Famously, the ChCh hall stairs (1640) are wholly Baroque in form, but wholly Perpendicular in decoration. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. It's now been added to the article. When you get a chance, can you take another look at it and the FAC, to see how things are coming along? Thanks,

Bencherlite^Talk 15:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

DYK for The Disasters of War

On DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

You were co-nom on this, but for some reason the bot forgot to deliver. Ceoil (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks Ceoil! Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Oh, bravo! Well done. - PKM (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a visual feist, but where is that gallery of bits and pieces you promised. Ceoil (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got 2 pics in the main text, so i think I need to collect more puns. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see some of the paintings with bird puns... Möchtest du mit mir vögeln? is still current slang in Germany today. Lithoderm 18:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hunter's Gift is my favourite - last in the genre painting section. There are also a number set in markets, somewhat alone the lines of the time years ago when the woman in front of me, buying mangos in Rupert Street market, told the stallholder she only liked "the big African ones", which he repeated to me with a solemn face. I'd better add a note.Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You dog. In other news, I've taken the Goya to PR; in the unlikely event that it recieves attention, could you keep an eye. I think we are near there for FAC at this stage, the famine and Inquisition sections need to be grown yet, but I have the Huges bio now, and that is relatively easy work. However, the process is not something I could take on on my own, would you give a hand. Ceoil (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Sure Johnbod (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Johnbod, as always your work on the page has been exemplarily. Ceoil (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your last comment in the deletion discussion, the categories Bevagna and Trevi existed long before Francesco Betti Sorbelli came on the scene: they were created by Bill Thayer, one of the best writers we have had on Italian subjects ancient and modern, back in October 2004.[2]

My suspicion is that the anonymous nomination for deletion was somehow related to the anonymous user who, through various IPs (including this one), previously conducted a ‘bizarre vendetta’ against him (see this edit for an example) and on more than one occasion depopulated the categories (see these edits for example) in order that they should be deleted.

Of course the putative motives of the nominator—and the matter of who created the categories—were entirely irrelevant to the question of whether the categories should exist and no doubt the decision that was made was perfectly defensible. Ian Spackman (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks - I was of course unaware of all this. I think the others were created by Sorbelli though? I still think it was right to delete them - they seem to be the only categories for such small Italian places. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inventors of categories seem not to understand that a category's actual use is as an index. A volume with a couple of indices is more usable than one with fourteen. Proliferated categories are just inflations of lists. If, for a start, they were all entered discreetly at the bottom of the page, then competitions for smallest possible category might be toned down. --Wetman (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to

Ok, I was unaware of that discussion, and as my move summary said, based my move on the recent Cfd discussion. I still remain of the view that "emblem" is an unacceptably poor disambiguator - seals often show emblems, but are not emblems themselves, and very many seals do not show emblems at all. I think it might be better to take it back to WP:MOVE. Now I read the discussion on the talk page, I was interested to see that you also came up with what I think is my preferred name: Seal (authentification), which was later supported by Timurite. This is the only term I can see that covers adequately all seals, and both the impression and the device. Modern company and legal seals, Chinese "chop" seals and historical Jewish and Egyptian seals are among the many types of seals that normally just use inscriptions (ie text). I think the discussion concentrated way too much on heraldry, a very localized aspect of the matter in my view. Somewhat by coincidence, I have just been working on Engraved gem, the major expression of the seal as an art form in the Western tradition, from the 14th century BC to the 19th century AD. Few of their very varied designs can really be called emblems. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a message at User talk:Wilhelm meis14:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to have an interest in notaries and seals, perhaps you can help me. I am interested in figuring out whether an American notary public (excluding American civil notaries such as Louisiana notaries) have the authority (if asked to do so by the document signer) to apply their seals to every page in a multi-page document. The aim would be to make it more difficult to substitute a page with different contents after the notarization ocurrs, and to satisfy the foreign governments that require this security measure.

This all supposes that the document is otherwise eligible for notarization, and with the understanding that any such answer will only apply to most states, since each state writes its own laws concerning notarization. This is a topic of discussion on various US notary forums, such as the one at http://www.notaryrotary.com (select the notary talk tab and search with the orange button for message no. 303594). --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, way too detailed for me! Try the talk page. In Europe, this is never normally done. Their seal goes over & fixes cord etc which binds the document together through a punch hole, and they only normally actually mark (other than the punch hole) only their notarization, which is a separate page (pages if a translation is included) at the front of the document. I have no experience of what happens in the US. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now returned from my travels back to my workplace, to find JJN's book waiting for me (on his 80th birthday, by chance) along with a 1930s Betjeman number. I've added some material from them, and some further architectural detail from the Royal Commission description, as well as a few more photographs where Flickr users have relicensed on request - I've been able to get some shots of architectural details, such as the chapel doorway and the shell-hood of the lodgings. Would you mind returning to

Fantastic.

Bencherlite^Talk 23:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

For all you do...

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		Especially when you have to deal with me, the non-art historian and my bishops. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WOW...Modernist (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whee, now I am indeed a twirly (do you know the joke?). Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do tell... Ty 11:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly (for non-Brits - you get a free bus pass at 60, or is it 65?, for use after 9.30 am) bus drivers/conductors call senior cits "twirlies", because they keep saying "Am I twirly, am I twirly?" (too early). A favourite of my father. Johnbod (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't heard it, but I like it. LOL. Ty 05:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Johnbod! Although 60,000 is the new 30,000, or something. Cheers, JNW (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially a footnoted footnote to Engraved gem. I hope you'll look it over.--Wetman (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O excellent!--Wetman (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise! There must be a pic somewhere, did you see it is currently "on loan"? Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I missed that; I think it isn't in Monaco any more. I added a ftnote on the Marlborough Antinous, and, further revolving about the sun of your Engraved gems: Antonio Maria Zanetti.--Wetman (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

BorgQueen (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also received this gratifying notification, which I didn't deserve: you are quick to share credit, John. I've just now come up this, through JSTOR, which I think you can access too: David Jaffé, "Aspects of Gem Collecting in the Early Seventeenth Century, Nicolas-Claude Peiresc and Lelio Pasqualini", The Burlington Magazine 135 No. 1079 (February 1993:103-120). Great detail add up to an atmospheric view.--Wetman (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can only read (sometimes) the first pages on JSTOR, which often gives tantalizing glimpses, but no more. Until the last couple of years there were only 2 UK subscribers to JSTOR, although I can get (with some messing about) Grove at home through the local library. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I came across the above for the first time today, after someone linked to it in a discussion, and I just wanted to say that it's superb, a real pleasure to read. It has almost restored my faith in Wikipedia. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks indeed! I rashly promised User:Ceoil & Outriggr a mini-galley of visual sex puns, which I suppose will be the crowning glory.... Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tp, tap, tap. Ceoil (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

BorgQueen (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Saxon hoard found Ealdgyth - Talk 22:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the

Staffordshire hoard Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Hi John! How are you? I've just consistently expanded

I also added Amedeo di Castellamonte and Carlo di Castellamonte (upcoming as I'm writing) which could need your precious help. Grazie ancora. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]