User talk:Johnbod/19

nominate

) 14:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

'School of Athens' protection

Appreciate your starting year by taking time to protect another article. 'School of Athens' is likely largely consulted by students, as seasonal hit surges correspond to school terms: Ag-Dec 2010 logged over 165k hits. As a result, there'll be recurrent immature meddling with content. But the idea that even a small fraction will improve their knowledge and understanding through the article make your efforts worthwhile. New Year's greetings, Alethe (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Toy, for you...

Leofric Missal. It's at DYK, but while I have the new edition of it coming shortly, I think it'll need some help later if it goes through GA or FAC. Certainly an important work though! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added what I can, though I'm surprised at the books I have that don't cover it. Johnbod (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was kinda surprised at how little coverage Dodwell gave it, honestly. It'll be a long-term project, but I figured while I was working on Leofric, I should work on both his missal and his Exeter Book while I was on the subject, so to speak. Thanks for the additions, by the way! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to be even mentioned in:

• Brown, Michelle P., Manuscripts from the Anglo-Saxon Age, 2007, British Library,
  ISBN 9780712306805
• Wilson, David M.; Anglo-Saxon Art: From The Seventh Century To The Norman Conquest, Thames and Hudson (US edn. Overlook Press), 1984.
• Backhouse, Janet, Turner, D.H., and Webster, Leslie, eds.; The Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon Art, 966-1066, 1984, British Museum Publications Ltd,
  ISBN 0714105325

- this may be because the drawings are so faded. Johnbod (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

because..

		The Original Barnstar
		They don't have a good visual arts related barnstar, I give you the original instead. I thank you for always being there for my occasional forays into art articles, and for your tireless paitence with an ecclesiastically minded person mucking about with your art stuff! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page for foreign courts doing Maundy

What page in Cole was that? I want to add it and I've lost it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't in Cole, it was in the other one. Anyway, I've made some changes and some comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about that! Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I was reading Cole word for word for a while though!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project

Thanks for note. I knew it was on loan but I obviously got it the wtrong way round. Key Jos. Wright item in Derby Museum is the Orrery painting - although they have a brilliant model of it too. They also have the Alchemist and 600 other Wright related artefacts.... so pleased you are intrigued Victuallers (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAC for William Warelwast...

I'll get to your very helpful comments tomorrow - was busy with some Wikipedia related stuff with the Children's Museum of Indianapolis today (which was mucho fun) and came home to having

William Longchamp on the main page. Whee. Going to be busy tomorrow, I'm sure. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear Johnbod, I need some support. I made a list this morning of painters under George Frideric Handel. Handel owned quit a few paintings which were sold in 1760 after his death. I was very surprised to see so many names I had never heard of. It does not list his collection of paintings, because that would be impossible to finish. Now there is someone from Sidney who likes Handel but obviously he is not interested in paintings and reverted it. Can you give your opinion? Taksen (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came here after seeing your work at Monza ampullae to ask your help with two noted art historians, father and son. Could you point me to some biographies of other art historians that you consider to be good examples? I have mostly worked on biographies of scientists in the past, and I would like to improve both of these. In particular, I would like guidance on including some of Wikipedia's images of art related to their interests, if you have the time to think about this. Thanks! betsythedevine (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review the Maya stelae FA nom. Much appreciated, best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading and admiring your GLAM talk. But why does the Mosque lamp image show up as a blue question mark thingy? Clicking on the question takes you straight to the image. Just a small cavil regarding an excellent talk. betsythedevine (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked it! it shows ok for me, though the one on the linked draft took a few seconds to load. I suppose I should move it to mainspace anyway now. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about the BL at all; totally understand. Glad you liked Natural dye. - PKM (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing

And more...

talk) 19:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, passed now. Johnbod (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention to this article. Now I'll just wait for it to show up!

talk) 22:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, As far as you know, is there a distinction between artistic depictions of Jesus and those of Jesus Christ? Does the claim to being Christ, or separately being Son of God as a distinct title/issue get represented in art? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No - it is surely a prime theological point that the two can't be distinguished in this way? In depictions of the Trinity things can be a little different - see that article. Johnbod (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously there is a key theological issue about being Christ regardless of being Son of God. It has its own implications of course, e.g. how in the trials of Jesus the high priest and Pilate reacted very differently to the claims of being Christ vs being the Son of God, etc. Being part of the Trinity does not imply being Christ, etc. However, I am not sure if that gets depicted in art. And now my guess is that if someone tried to depict that in the 16th century, it might have seemed that they were distinguishing Jesus from Christ and they would have had their paintbrushes taken away, so did not attempt it. History2007 (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, I'm in the process of removing the rampant plagiarism from

Struck some of my comments. I read your comment on the GA review and will research this. If you could find an ODNB for Potter and send to me, I'd appreciate it very much. It would save quite a lot of reading. Thanks.

talk) 03:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

From memory only her first one or two books were printed using wood blocks - then they used some new-fangled process. I'll try to look further tomorrow. Johnbod (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colour lithography?--Wetman (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you. She used the Hentschel process which I need to research. I don't quite know how the plates were produced.

talk) 16:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, that's the one - I think "Hentschel of Fleet St" were just the printers who pioneered the 3-colour process in the UK. But exactly which of the many 3-colour techniques it was I'm not sure. I suppose it could have been an early form of the modern photographic process with filters. When I said above "From memory only her first one or two books were printed using wood blocks.." I might have been thinking of Kate Greenaway. A quick look at Bamber Gascoine does not clear up any of this. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. I'll have to dig to see what I can find. It's interesting that the source indicates the illustrations were ready to be sent to the block maker (had to be the Evans firm) but the proofs were spotty because of the chemicals used in the printing process. This doesn't seem to indicate

talk) 17:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I e-mailed you btw. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Hentschel deserves a Wikipedia page.--Wetman (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Johnbod - the bio is very helpful. Agree, the Hentschel link should be turned blue.

talk) 17:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Another quick question: I've found this Walter Crane image

talk) 02:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

No idea, I'm afraid. I'd guess that black is black. The letting is also black & superimposing on them might be very tricky - any shaky registering would show up all too clearly. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks. Some of the other pages from the book do have register problems - all the pages are against a black background.

talk) 03:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, Happy New Year! I had a discussion yesterday that got me thinking about the full stop in the names of some DGA painters, like Hans Gillisz. Bollongier. I put my thoughts on Vincent's talk page, since he just finished a major overhaul of the categories on Commons. Can you comment there please? Link is here: Vincent's talk page. Thanks in advance! Jane (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While researching André Grabar, I came across a thesis online that includes as its Figure 21 a nice reproduction of a photo from his book Ampoules de Saint Terre. (Grabar, André, and Denise Fourmont. Ampoules de Terre Sainte (Monza, Bobbio). Paris: C. Klincksieck, 1958.) Is this image of antique art copyright or could we reproduce it in Wikipedia? There is no image of an ampulla in our article. betsythedevine (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll copy this to the article talk page. All the images are good & many others somewhat relevant (the Vatican box reliquary fig 22 especially - I think it is mentioned in the text). I won't add to further reading as the subject is somewhat tangential & it is only an MA thesis. But some may find it worth a look. Figs 21-22 are nearly the last pages. The photo is 3-D so almost certainly copyright (Bridgeman-Corel does not apply). We have links to other online images in the notes at various places, & I'll work this one in later. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this thesis using a search technique that I bet will have wider application to other scholar bios, searching on his name plus a fairly obscure word associated with his field "hagiosoritissa." This turned up way fewer useless results and some interesting relevant ones that had previously been buried when I searched for stuff like "andre grabar icon." I feel like an archeologist with a new tool, or at least a new site to sift through. :-) betsythedevine (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of three-dimensional objects are always subject to copyright: angle, lighting, etc vary. Documentary photos of paintings have no copyrightable "character": they're indistinguishable (if they're any good) one from others.--Wetman (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article André Grabar, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that art historian André Grabar fled St. Petersburg a few days after the Russian Revolution, to become a leading expert in Byzantine and Medieval art? If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you removed some relevant projects from the

Since the culture eventually covered most of Western Europe the number of project tags involved would be potentially excessive, & I am very dubious of the benefits of tags in "steering collaboration" or anything else. Better to stick to the few most relevant. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see the worry of having too many countries listed there per say, but La Tène belongs as much to Czech Republic as much as it belongs to Switzerland as far as I am concerned. It doesn't matter if is was named about a town in modern country, thousands of years later. Each country listed has archaeological sites, museums, specialists, and conversely contributors in the corresponding WikiProjects who can add something valuable. La Tène seems to belong predominantly to Celts, but Dacians, Illyrians and others were clearly influenced. What would make collaboration dubious?! Isn't it the core idea of the

WP:OWN it. --Codrin.B (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd much rather remove Switzerland than add 25 other projects. It's a pity you can't find something more constructive to do. Project tagging is one of the least useful forms of activity here. Johnbod (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad if you'd cast your benevolent and corrective eye over the start to Il Guerrin Meschino.--Wetman (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

just touches - it is in prose I hope. How would one translate the nicely sinister "superiori", or is just a bureaucratic term of art? Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Padri superiori, in charge of licensing printing in Venice? Wikipedia has no article on

Father Superior. --Wetman (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Or just "the higher-ups"? It strikes me as a very Venetian formula. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing two Bach cantatas for DYK! There is one more nominated for 30 January, illustrated with a famous picture, under the name of Anna Reynolds (singer), would you take a look? (There is one more which was supposed to appear 23 January, well, anytime now. I was travelling and couldn't do much about it.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think asking specific reviewers to look is discouraged, so I'd better not review it (also no link given). Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understand. I asked unspecifically before, just thought you might be interested in the picture. Different question: Why is Aert de Gelder Arent de Gelder? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for the cantata unspecifically again a different spot, hoping that someone will spot it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now in q4, finally. Next picture in

BWV 83, question above still open, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

On, Aert/Arent, because someone moved him in 2009. I've moved him back in English and Dutch; The Getty Union Artist's Name List only mentions "Aert", but the

Can you watchlist this please?..Ty...Modernist (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments at User talk:Andrewa#Talk:Art of the United Kingdom. I have replied there. Andrewa (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you recommended Greg Lindquist's page to be deleted-- he is an emerging artist of critical note.

remind me, where? Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has been reviewed in Art in America, ARTnews, Bomb Magazine, Frieze, The New York Sun, The New York Observer, The New York Press and Sculpture. He was a 2009-10 Pollock-Krasner Foundation Grantee. Most of these publications are not available on-line, but are all on his webpage and his NYC gallery's webpage, eharrisgallery.com. That's legitimate.

I meant a link. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greg_Lindquist Blueprintmemory1 (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Blueprintmemory1 [reply]

Ok, I see it's all over now! I expect none, or little, of that was in the article & I suspect might not have been enough anyway. It's not my area, but I suspect a "2009-10 Pollock-Krasner Foundation Grantee" is someone who might be notable in a few years, but isn't yet. It's a pity there weren't more views expressed, but the nom was open for a while, unfortunately over Christmas. I'm afraid I can't now remember the article. If you want to recreate it, an admin should let you have the text on a sandbox page, & I would suggest adding as many refs as you can, then asking for comments at

WP:COI that you appear to have. Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for that explanation, it was over the holidays and I was on vacation from the gallery. Can you please explain what you mean by "being open about the WP:COI that you appear to have" and what a sandbox is and how it functions? thank you. Blueprintmemory1 (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Blueprintmemory1[reply]

See the COI link above, and also maybe

WP:SANDBOX. Johnbod (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, but I'm still not clear what the COI is with this page. Can you please explain? Blueprintmemory1 (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Blueprintmemory1[reply]

You can't have read the policy very carefully! " As his gallery representative who spent hours on the page...", here. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like around a few corners of

In an effort to turn our interactions more positive, I'd like to invite you to be a pro-active and productive member of the project! Perhaps you could make yourself a project leader and take on some component you find most important. To do this, simply sign up on our

I'd very much like to make our interactions more productive and am interested in finding a positive way to do this rather that how it's happened in the past. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea: why don't you create a list of public art in the town you live or that your originally from, or that you just like. In your list, make it of all of things you think about how public art should or shouldn't be represented in Wikipedia:

Once you've done that, make articles for all of the artworks that fit your criteria of notability, or make one large article about all of the artworks in the city.

It would be great for others to see you as productive member of WikiProject Public Art, rather than the project's ongoing critic! --RichardMcCoy (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention (as I think I explained long ago) of joining the project as "public art" is not an area, or an approach to art, that interests me much personally. However I am very interested in the overall picture of our coverage of visual art, of which your project forms a small part (or does it? - since you refuse to define the scope). However I have always welcomed and supported the project in a broad way; but not necessarily every single thing it does. I'm afraid you are showing a clear

George Washington (bust by Houdon) up for Afd, where it would stand no chance at all of surviving as it is, nor do I intend to. This is partly because I don't want your student to see their work wasted, though it would have been better if you had suggested a more notable subject before they began work. I have pointed out, to the usual barrage of abuse, that it is not notable so that the issue is addressed for future assignments. You have to accept that pages on WP, even project pages, are open for all to comment on, and apply policy to, and the views of others may not match your own. Rather than responding with repeated personal attacks, ignoring sensible questions (like PamD's back in December), or silly hiding behind the furniture, as just today on the scope of the project, you should respond making your case and keeping an open mind as to whether that is the last word on the matter. Disagreeing with you does not equal negativity. I've read your email, but am convalescing from a hard dish failure & at the moment can only read, not send, e-mails. Probably that's just as well. Johnbod (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I've cleaned up some on that article on the copy of the sculpture - but my opinion is that it wouldn't qualify for

WP:GNG, quite honestly. A plaster copy of a bust isn't really notable. The original sculpture is, quite likely, but just because a bust is in a public place, doesn't mean it's worthy of a wikipedia article. I'm not one to bother with AfDs but I strongly suggest that if someone is telling their students that subjects such as that are suitable for wikipedia articles, they are wrong. You need significant substantial coverage of the object in question in third party sources to make the subject notable. If I had felt like it (and I hadn't realized that the article was mostly written by a newcomer) I could have tagged a LOT on that article - there are numerous problems with it .. from the insane number of peripheral external links, to the lack of notablity, to the non-reliable sources, to the section on the sculptor .. which doesn't really fit in the article, to the title, which implies the work is by the 18th century artist when in fact the piece is a plaster copy of an 18th century work. I did fix the overlinking and punctuation issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk 02:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the note -- saw that we were into an ec (and made similar changes!) so I moved onto something else. Will get back to it today to see whether my changes still will be useful. Really like the gallery you created. _ _ _ _83d40m (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've re-added your main text additions, which I hope I've got right. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnbod. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm

}} template.

Unfortately I can read but not send emails at the moment. Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be grateful if you'd look over Humanist minuscule for gaffes and omissions before it's DYKed.--Wetman (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Useful article on a subject I know very little about. Very little to do, but it badly needs some pics, which I wouldn't trust myself to choose. Did you see, at DYK recently, the late medieval Bohemian Gospel? MS in a Slav-ish script that was thought to have been scribed by St Jerome & so incorporated in French coronations? At Lyons I think - I can't see it at all now. Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added this one. I have an earlier one I can scan as well, but it's not in color. - PKM (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found this too. Of course we have thousands of pics of Greek minuscule, inadequately categorized, from the indefatigable Lester. Johnbod (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O good job! Now it's quite presentable. Thank you.--Wetman (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - a nice pic, formerly uncategorized on Commons. Johnbod (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh most excellent! (Isn't it 4 in the morning where you are?) - PKM (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, yes. I'm off to bed now. Btw, you'll see I have got caught up on Persian miniatures, on which I have a big fat book coming, so I don't know when I'll get back to Byzantine silk. Johnbod (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death and the Sculptor? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm done. Actually, thanks for jumping in - I just got that CONFLICT OF INTEREST or whatever message and it threw me off stride just a bit. Carptrash (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What was that? I'm done now - nice piece! Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It was a sort of smash and grab, get in, get it on, get out sort of event, but I think it works. Your descriptions help a heap. Carptrash (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, and a big thank you for the get-well message on my talk page. I'm feeling a lot better at the moment but not quite ready to take on admin duties again just yet!

I was wondering, in the future, whether you would be comfortable being interviewed about featured articles? We're doing a series of videos for the contribution team and we'd really love to get your input for the video! If that's ok of course... All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 13:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear you're better. Sure - I'll be seeing you tomorrow I hope? Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on tomorrow? All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 14:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, it's next week (meetup)! I have turned up on the wrong day before. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully! I was also going to invite you to our thing

on Wednesday if you're interested? All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 14:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, probably. Can I confirm say Monday? Maybe not all of it - 2-5pm say? Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's not a problem at all! Hope to see you there. All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 14:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnbod. You have new messages at Talk:Castra.
Message added 15:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, do you want to pitch in to this conversation again? I am trying to clarify castra vs castrum once and for all since I am trying to create articles and categories on different castra/castrum and would like to know how to properly name them. Thanks! Codrin.B (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll merge. Please let me see the old one. Johnbod 13:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's undeleted under a redirect. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Johnbod 14:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, you or one of the lurkers here may be able to improve the article on the Regisole of Pavia.--Wetman (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've given it a going-over, & added a couple of links to it. Do we have Colossus of Barletta? Ah, good. Johnbod (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will you explain your removal of Category:Public art (among other categories) from articles about public art? Thanks, --RichardMcCoy (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure:

WP:OCAT. It is a fundamental principle of WP categorization that categories are normally added only at one level in a tree. If every one of the thousands of articles in the "outdoor sculptures" tree were added to head cats like "sculptures" and "public art" the head cats would become useless. As it is, I'm trying to get the category down to just one page, so it can all be seen at once. really it should be smaller. This is routine maintenance which often needs doing, and is very tedious. Please advise the PA people in Washington, Indiana and Wisconsin (especially) to check the policy out. Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

And please stop reverting these changes. If you don't believe me ask at the policy talkpage or

WP:CFD. Johnbod (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks --RichardMcCoy (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It very clearly is OCAT. It is simply not the purpose of the Public art category to contain every single work of public art. Anything in an "outdoor sculpture" cat does not need also to be in the "public art" one. The articles I changed were already in the "Culture of city" trees, normally via "Outdoor sculptures in...". I'm afraid you just don't understand how the category system is supposed to work. You obviously won't hear it from me, so I suggest you raise this in a wider forum & see what response you get. There are probably some other new public art sub-cats that could usefully be created. Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, I've simply asked for you to discuss your approach to working on articles about public art. I'm not sure why you are so defensive. On second thought, perhaps I was wrong, and you were right.

I thank you for working on these articles and you productive efforts. It would be most interesting if you would post a summary of your work and thoughts on how to best categorize such articles on the

Wikipedia:WikiProject Public art talk page. Certainly we would all benefit from your work and expertise, particularly if you could provide some guidance and expertise in using the public art category correctly. I'd like to find a new space to consider your expertise and simply not see you as an instigator. Thanks! --RichardMcCoy (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Sure. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago you were involved in a discussion regarding the silliness of the above article. Things did not progress and I have today begun a big, big cut back without reference to the original contributor. He has had his chance, as far as I am concerned. It will take me a day or two to sort it out but I thought I should let you know as a courtesy. It is noted on the article talk page also. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Panyd has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Thank you for your well-wishes. They were very much appreciated and made me feel a lot better during my time off. For your kindness I present you with a kitten! May it love you and keep you. (And I'm sorry but I shan't be making tomorrow. Hope to see you soon though!) Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:05, 12 February 2011 (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. Mike Selinker (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Nebra sky disk

Something strange is going on at

Nebra sky disk. Since you are one of the editors who has been editing that article, I thought I'd ask if you had time to take a look? Carcharoth (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Seems ok now - I'll keep an eye on it, though i think all i did was add a category. Dbachmann seems to have gone away in a huff; he would normally keep an eye out. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do me a favor?

Look at the last two edits at Glossary of sculpting and come up with an opinion. I removed something and it has now been put back and I don't wish to get in an editing war, so decided to ask for a neutral opinion. What ever you decide will be fine with me. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seem ok, but I don't know about the trademark. Never heard of it, but i notice [1] this - no TM. Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that they are pushing one particular product, made by one manufacturer and what about the trademark? This seems dicey to me, what if 20 other companies show up with their versions of . ... whatever. But I asked you so I'll leave it as is. Carptrash (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean, but

Play-doh for that matter. I know nothing about the product area, & if anyone wants to change it i'm ok with that too. Johnbod (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

My goodness. I read the word "plasticine" and I could smell it. I am tempted to change "plasticine" for "modeling clay" and see what happens. Carptrash (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Register

Hi, you may have some comments about outreach:GLAM/Ambassador register or want to add your name to the trial version. Cheers Fæ (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classicism and Neoclassicism

Hi John,

I noticed that you moved

French Rococo and Neoclassicism. According to the classicism and neoclassicism

articles, classicism is a 17th-century movement while neoclassicism is an 18th-century movement. Any clarification about your reasoning behind the move would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the classicism article? The use of both terms is rather elastic, but I would not say that "classicism" in English is a usual name for a movement in French architecture. "French classical baroque" is more typical. "Classicism" appears neither in the chapter names, nor even the extensive index of: Blunt, Anthony, Art and Architecture in France, 1500-1700, 2nd edn 1957, Penguin, one of the main sources of the article, nor is there a French WP article on this, nor a main article. In fact looking at the article harder, it is really just a fork of French Baroque architecture, and should be merged there. It is categorized under "decorative arts" but has only one sentence on them. Half of it is historical chit-chat. The short, and pretty poor, bit on painting is already word-for-word in French art. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black market

Perhaps you could add tax content to the Black market article. I counted only 9 sentences having to do with tax. 173.54.187.121 (talk) 05:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems plenty to me, the main point obviously being that they don't pay any! are you suggesting that they are not in fact a form of tax evasion? Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever your gripe is...

[2]JohnBod, whatever you've got against me, I suggest you stay professional and don't let it disrupt important Wikipedia process. I assume there was some clash years ago or something, but I don't remember it and it is not mutual. All I know is that you frequently express hostility against me and have in the past appeared to insert yourself into discussions merely to try to make my life difficult. Also, what's your gripe with your name? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are delusional if you think I am following you around. As regards my name, I can only suggest you consult an optician. Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's never bad to see an optician. Good advice! Anyway, I don't think you are 'following [me] 'around', but you've got some beef (as you seem to admit on Ealdgyth's page). Fancy sharing it with me instead of focusing on point scoring? That way we can move on ... I've zero interest in personal disputes, especially as this one is such a mystery to me. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's merely that every time I come across you (whether or not I make any edit myself) your comments seem entirely wrong-headed and very aggressively expressed. Your intervention at the move debate here is just the most recent example. Johnbod (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was one of the instances I was thinking of actually. On that debate I tried to stick with the point that the benefits of the change were minuscule but there was potential for it to create drama ... but what was You and Smokeskins are fine ones to talk. all about? That's an accusation out of the air. My concern in that debate was to protect editors from a pointless new front in a big dispute (of which most of the editors who came there were part). There are plenty of editors I disagree with. If one participates in these debates often, it's just not economical to fudge about the issues during or hold grudges after. Any other examples? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What, one of the instances of me following you around? There would have been no dispute; art articles are mercifully free of nationalist nutters, with a very few exceptions on specific points. No one was able to point to any actual point in the article that might be disputed. Johnbod (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to ... every time I come across you (whether or not I make any edit myself) your comments seem entirely wrong-headed and very aggressively expressed. Re the nutter, you are very lucky to be free of such users in art articles, but in history articles we are tyrannized by them. Unfortunately, not finding examples of potential dispute at that time is not enough. I don't know enough about art history and you can't see the future; I'm experienced to know that avoiding United Kingdom to British changes is just heuristically well-advised. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry

I thought this might of interest to you: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Incunabula Short Title Catalogue Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

commented there. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Hello, Johnbod. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm

}} template.

DYK for Abd al-Samad

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.

Gatoclass (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abd al-Samad

John, does the link I've added refer to the correct

Shah Shuja of Shiraz? What a splendid new article. Among your best.--Wetman (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks - it turns out we have

Shah Shuja (Muzaffarid) - d. 1384, which is about right. Thanks for that! I'm enjoying my oriental jaunt, though someone else started a Beeldenstorm, which has brought me back to the mud of Flanders with a thud. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your support!

Hi John,

Of all the support !votes I received during my RfA, I personally appreciate yours the most. I remember that our first interaction on Wikipedia was a conflict in which I was in the wrong. Thanks for not giving up on me as an editor. I greatly appreciate both your support comment and your countering of opposition. I look forward to collaborating with you in the future.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that & congratulations! It was touch & go for a while, but good sense won through. Happily I can't remember that first interaction - a good while ago I imagine, but I have always found you very ready to respond to points made in discussion. Best of luck with the mop! Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beeldenstorm

Johnbod, thanks for taking a whack at Beeldenstorm, but you need to keep in mind that it was indeed a "storm" that lasted only for a short period in 1566. Therefore this quote "The Beeldenstorm started in what is now the arrondissement of Dunkirk in French Flanders, with open-air sermons (Dutch: hagepreken). The first took place on the Cloostervelt near Hondschoote and the largest sermon was held near Boeschepe on July 12, 1562." must be reworded to be "origins of unrest" or something along those lines. Keep up the good work and I feel sure you'll feel up to tackling the "Dutch Revolt/80 Year's War" articles! Jane (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That bit was left over from the previous version. 1562 might be a typo. I'll look into the passage & the first bit certainly needs changing. I think the text now makes the timing of the actual attacks very clear, which it didn't before. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded that bit considerably; I don't think anything else much is left from the orginal version. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eighty Year'War is still ridiculously long, but I am not going near it with a ten-foot pole! I wish you luck with the watchers on that one too - as I recall there's someone who thinks its his (or her) article...Jane (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going there either, except for the bit I changed! Johnbod (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember now the issue with the 80 yrs war - it's a Belgian/Dutch thing. If you look at the old school textbooks from both countries in, say, 1960 or thereabouts, you will read two totally different stories. Someone recently explained to me that it is no longer seen as "a war", but a long string of skirmishes with just a few main events. Who knows what is fact or fiction? Perhaps the period master paintings are the most reliable sources in and of themselves...In this case, in the English version, a timeline would do, with links to all the sub articles, and who cares what the Dutch and French wikipedias say!Jane (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was interesting on dutch "embarassment" over the beeldenstorm. I've noticed that articles on towns/churches tend to say just that the "statues of saints" were removed & so on, rather than that the whole church & priest's house ransacked, as is more likely the case. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

L. Ron Hubbard

Due to concerns expressed by reviewers about the length of the L. Ron Hubbard article, I have reduced the size of the article by about 20%. Could you please confirm on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/L. Ron Hubbard/archive2 that you are happy with the updated version? I would appreciate it if you could do this ASAP as the FAC review needs to be concluded very soon. Helatrobus (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your participation in the featured article review of

Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr.

, a featured article, as a model). I hope this goes some way to resolving your concerns about losing the material.

L. Ron Hubbard is currently being considered as a candidate for the day's featured article on March 13, 2011, on the centenary of Hubbard's birth - see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#March 13. You may have a view on the matter. Helatrobus (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ibrahim Mirza

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) 02:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Beeldenstorm

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.

Thank you for your article Victuallers (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carpets in Renaissance art

I wanted to make sure you saw this one. - PKM (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...Oh! and a nice gilt-brass table clock, too, with a 24-hour silvered dial and a single hour hand. The space is ambiguous in the cropped image: the clock seems to be levitating...--Wetman (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - added to gallery, and commons cats for clocks & carpets in art. They are nice quality pics, though I've had a moan on commons that the upload does not categorize even by artist & museum, which I'm sure it could. Johnbod (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

I rather liked your suggestion, it takes the load of the candidate, and would hopefully make the nay-sayers reflect before voting 'oppose' because questions were ignored. Anyway, a start needs to be made somewhere. I was lucky on my nevertheless contentious RfA, I got no technical questions, and very few silly ones. I can't make my mind up whether that was to do with my constant bickering at

WT:RfA, or because people already had confidence in my use of technical operations (if only they knew!) --Kudpung (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Dark Ages

It's on the move: Talk:Dark_Ages#Requested_move Kauffner (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Micha Cárdenas

Although your focus is not on contemporary art, I was wondering if you had any suggestions on what to do with this page. It reads like a promotional bio as opposed to a wikipedia bio -- the article does have POV and COI issues. I am leaning towards putting it up for deletion but its already been through that process twice so I am willing to attempt a rewrite but reliable third party references are slim at best -- most written in the same promotional style as the article itself. But, if it doesn't go up for AfD I am wondering what the best way would be to structure such an article XinJeisan (talk) 10:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most on the VA deletion list are much worse! It does get 20-odd views per day, which is some sort of test. I've tidied it up a bit. It could do with some rewriting, but sometimes its best just to move on. Johnbod (talk) 10:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that last its just best to move on before starting to rewrite it.... It seems that someone in this instance is using wikipeida as a way to promote a particular artist. i know that happens all the time but anyways maybe after this its just best to move on.Thanks for your advice XinJeisan (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mosque lamp

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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Reza Abbasi

Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The article just needs a little more to satisfy the 5x expansion requirement. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

RHD art

Do we have art for the last sentence of Right hemisphere brain damage? A gallery would be interesting. History2007 (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoooh! Theories about medical conditions affecting art are usually very controversial, first appearing in medical journals & being furiously chased off by art historians. This is a new one on me, sorry! Johnbod (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theories are a dime a dozen, they change every week. But if I eventually find two paintings by an artist, before and after some incident I will let you know. What is well known is that people who have even minor brain operations (even Arthroscopy) can change character and I wonder if they also change art... But let me not get tangential here... I will let you know if I find anything. History2007 (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Muraqqa

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.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting

hello Johnbod, would you help correcting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Toponymy, that I wrote entirely. Thank-you in advance.Nortmannus (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Reza Abbasi

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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

Hands of God

Thanks. I don't mind keeping the article if it can be sourced, but even google.pl doesn't seem to help, at least Google Books. Chrome automatically translates (if you set it that way) which is very useful. Next best is the Bing search engine. Could you take a look at my comment and respond? And it is claimed to be a pictogram, thus archaeology.

talk) 13:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Done - I have also left Dbachmann a note - he may know more. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant idea, I should have thought of it. Thanks. Glad he isn't gone for good.

talk) 14:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Arabesque

Can we please tie up the Arabesque discussion. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

It's been on my mind, but I've been diverted. I have to add more there, which may clarify matters. I think the Western arabesque is much more specific than the wide subject covered by your new article, which is a fine start (although some detail is iffy) but should be retitled - I think I said this. Maybe tonight, or tomorrow. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK issue

Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —  AjaxSmack  00:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Please see new note on DYK talk page. Yoninah (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

FYI Holy Spirit in Christian art is less than 5% written, and started from the talk on Holy Spirit, but I will probably not have time to work on it for a while, in case you want to play with it. History2007 (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I've a fair bit on but I may look in. Johnbod (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rembrandt

I checked carefully where the links went – I was mostly linking to galleries which were not yet linked, and fixing several redirects. London and Paris were already being linked – though I agree that we can do without that. Not a big issue, but I found your edit summary a bit condescending, since my edit was not thoughtless. Lfh (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, National Gallery always used to go to a disam page, but I see does go to London now. Some of the others weren't quite right - there is more than one Gemaldgalerie ("Picture Gallery") in Dresden for example. Johnbod (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point about Dresden, it does have a Galerie Neue Meister, sometimes called a Gemäldegalerie. The list is fine now, no worries. Lfh (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnbod/19&oldid=1143093698"

• Toggle limited content width