User talk:Johnbod/1 to Nov 06

'Bold text'Welcome!

Hello, Johnbod, and

to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

]

Ribera

Nice work bringing Ribera up to date. JNW 01:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John... took your advice on Art history and added aesthetics link in a new ref on the lede. thanks for help ... this piece needs a lot! Jules Julie Martello 13:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize you were working on this this very moment or I wouldn't have fiddled with it. --CliffC 04:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so please don't feel picked on. Here's my thing. I've been watching list of sculptors recently and have been weeding out the entries in red on the theory that this is an index of sculptors in wikipedia. However i have been reluctant to remove artists that I know or discover to be real, wikipedia worthy people, so am trying to decide if i should just do a stub - maybe a lot of stubs - of these folks or leave them on the list [I HATE lists with too much red - check out the List of Frank Lloyd Wright works for example.

For example, i checked out one,

]

I can hardly imagine what printmakers must be like. I just stumbled on a couple of books about lithotyping [i think?] Is that the same thing? I'm a big fan of Lynd Ward, but none of his work is pre 1923, or i'd have it up. Thanks for the support and i hope thatiI don't need it. Carptrash 05:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

for 'tidying up' my addition to the article on Heinrich Aldegrever. I regret I have no idea how to insert citations, cross-references etc. I thought it was better to have a reasonable article on Aldegrever without these rather than the very laconic text that was there before.

Nick Michael Nyon, Switzerland Yellow Lion

You added category Printmaking to the article Lucas Cranach the Elder. Could you add the material that associates Lucas Cranach the Elder with printmaking to the article with references please? Bejnar 19:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

had not read article presumably Johnbod 16:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How long did it take last week before Wikipedia decided to let you back into your account? --198.60.192.145 14:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC) (JesseBHolmes)[reply]

Twice I asked to be e-mailed a new password which came within 5 mins; the first time I then changed my password back to the old one (maybe a mistake), which worked ok the next few times (as far as i remember) & then was refused again. For the moment i'm using the 2nd new code I was sent Johnbod 14:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for any confusion in the above. By the way, it's best to follow protocol by bolding your "keep" comment at the beginning of the line, so it's not missed! Tyrenius 01:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I started Nuremberg Chronicle a long time ago to fill a request, despite knowing nothing about the topic, and it's good to see someone who actually has some background knowledge adding details and references. Here's some thanks in image form:

It looks like you've been adding great content all over, looking over your contribs. I would like to ask that you make sure that the title of the article is worked into the lead paragraph in bold in all the article that you're started. Also, please

]

- Many thanks for that. I think i always get the name in 1st sentence, but have forgot the bold initially. The "self-reference" in OMP is an attempt, needed i think, to disambiguate from printmaking which deals with the techniques, largely outside the historical context, but I will rejig to make that clearer. Johnbod 18:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to tell who is editing what. It is not the responsibility of the person editing to find out if someone else is editing in any case - if you want to edit an article without having your edits interrupted, you must let other users know this yourself. This can be done by placing the {{inuse}} tag at the top of the article. It generates this message:

{remove this{inuse}}

Please be considerate of other editors and remove this tag between editing sessions.

I should also note that none of your editing was lost - I merely corrected the title. All of your work is at Giulio Campagnola.

Hope this helps. Denni ^talk 19:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- ok, thanks. i did in fact lose the edit i was doing when you made the change; it just came up as REDIRECT & I had to repeat it at the new page Johnbod 19:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of pointers: to remove the {{inuse}} tag, just highlight it in the edit screen and press delete. To recover edits you've made when something happens (and it often does), just backup to the page where you first made the edits, select what you want to bring forward, and copy/paste into the most recent version. The most common situation in which this might happen is with an edit conflict. Often, several people will be working on an article, but the server can handle only one edit at a time. Therefore, it is always advisable to make small edits and save often. That has the side advantage of making your edit count rise more rapidly. Denni ^talk 19:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- ok thanks nm

Thanks for your comments on my edits to Arnolfini. If the factual error is known, it'll be corrected eventually - that was my main purpose. I still think the sentence I changed doesn't actually have any meaning, but am content to leave it if others disagree. I think that van Eyck's innovation in using oil paint is worth mention; other innovative points also, but I don't have the expertise. I did a fair bit of radical editing (most of which has been accepted) as pol098, but haven't done much for a fair while. My IP address is always the same.

Best wishes, 213.208.107.91 02:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have had the Arnolfini portrait & the biography on my to do list since I first saw it, so it will probably all get changed around - it is certainly the earliest very famous oil painting, which is worth saying

See you around Johnbod 03:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod. Thanks for explaining. I think we both learned something from our edits to Ligature :) It's good to work with someone (yourself) who's switched on.

I'm trying to be on wikileave this month but discovering how hard that is. I'd be very grateful if you could add Movable type to your watchlist and revert any POV-pushing edits by User talk:Gun Powder Ma. DGG, myself and others have established he is a crank who likes to push patent nonsense. His game is to insist that Johannes Gutenberg "invented" movable type; scholars say the Koreans invented it first. By defenition, "invented" means "devised it first". My wording in Movable type is that Gutenberg "perfected movable type in Europe". He reinvented it in Europe after the Koreans first devised it in the East, and my wording in the article mirrors this small but important difference. Refer to recent edits to Movable type to see the difference. It may seem like semantic quiblling, but it's a case of a small change making a big difference in meaning.

Thanks for any assistance you can provide.
Best regards, Arbo talk 21:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Ligature?! never touched any of them i think. Maybe you mean something else (or somebody else?). i have seen "movable type" since the great east/west controversy seems to be drifting my way. I had Mukerjee adding to woodblock printing today - content fine but he messed up the footnotes by accident. I share your position & will do what I can Johnbod 21:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I think you mean Username:Jor not me. But I will do what i can Johnbod 21:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On November 23, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Giulio Campagnola, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

GeeJo kindly nominated your article for DYK!Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have uploaded the S Beham print of Joseph & Potiphar's wife to the article on (Hans) Sebald Beham.

Are you aware that this particular print has been vandalised? Joseph has been voluntarily emasculated - look at the examples in Hollstein!!

This is interesting as I recently warned the auction house Galerie Bassenge in Berlin that they were selling an identical print with the identical vandalisation, but not drawing attention to it in the catalogue description. The print was subsequently bought in. I wonder if it is the very same one, or whether there are many examples of this print being vandalised in such a way!

You may like to choose a different print of Beham's for this article. I own quite a few and would be pleased to upload any of them (but I have little idea of how...).

Best wishes

Nick Michael, Nyon, Switzerland <nickmichael at dplanet dot ch>

- this image came from Bassenge, according to the file info (click on the image). Was it done manually I wonder? Actually HSB has better images on Commons than most printmakers - there seems to be nothing for Barthel for example & another Aldegraver would be nice. I've never uploaded images here but I suspect it is not too complicated - they are very concerned about copyright clearance which should not be a problem if they are your prints & you don't mind giving up the rights. Do let me know if you do get some up, or want to discuss further. Johnbod 18:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Israhel van Meckenem, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page .

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten to purge the Main Page after cropping the whitespace from the image. How does it look now? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Great, thanks Johnbod 17:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you understand why I am being more friendly and deferential than usual.DGG 01:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cited woodcut as a sample example in a policy request on

that you may wish to contribute to: wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias

My only objection is on the opening line which excludes Asia. Perhaps it isn't even your sentence. But I feel this sentence, on a topic where there is a clear relevance for Asia, shows systemic bias. The graphic arts is just a shoddy article, it does not make any claim of excluding any region or any trend.

If the article is on woodcut, it should show a whole world view, and not exclude regions.

For old master prints, there isn't a problem, for it is a technical term used in that sense. If you can show that "woodcut" also has this connotation, then too there would be no problem. Either the title should make it clear it is about region YYY, or it should not have that "leave out Asia" point. Do you find this unreasonable? mukerjee (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I certainly have more objections to the article than just the first sentence. Bear in mind:

1) that "woodcut" itself tends to be used only in relation to European work; for Asian work "woodblock" is generally used (but not always I accept). I have made this distinction in various articles on here. Nonetheless as a technical article it should cover both. 2) this is a technical article on an artistic medium; not a historical one. As I said above, there is a crying need for an art historical article on Asian prints (which are I think all woodblock, unlike the variety of techniques covered in "old master print"). A brief summary of that should go here. The technical side here needs expanding also - I have added to woodblock printing which now has more on the technique than here, which is the wrong way round. I can do that just about adequately I think & will before too long. 3) the first line therefore points to the historical article for Asian prints (which in fact also now covers Eygpt, so probably should be changed to reflect this). At the History section, there are 2 main article links, for Asia & Europe - but in fact the Asian one is to the only article I can find, which is on a more specific topic. Old Master prints is fuller, but so far only ?25% complete.

I think the structure is correct, but the content needs expanding in many places. Please correct the woodcut article - there's a whole screen with no text! Johnbod 20:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Johnbod, I get what you mean, but I still disagree.

Whatever difference there might be between woodcut and woodblock, that is not to say that the difference between European and Eastern printings should be the factor in determining whether we should merge the two articles.

To make such classification on such a broad topic based on East and West is biased. (Wikimachine 01:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

And I read both articles. I see no difference between them. (Wikimachine 01:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Words fail me! What classification between West & East? Did it escape your attention that woodcut is an article on an artistic medium, whilst woodblock printing (though certainly the same technique) was the main method of printing books in China for over 1000 years, and cloth in Eurasia for more like 2000; whereas text was only printed in it in europe for about 70 years, and never alone? Don't you think thats a difference?

I was editing the article on I forget which artist, who was described in the lead sentence as a

. Maybe you put that in. Johnbod 01:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The introductory sentence in woodcut says it's a "technique", and so is the woodblock. And I think woodblock printing is a form of printing - I don't get what you mean by non-printing use. (Wikimachine 02:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Did I say non-printing use - I can't see I did. I think you are thinking of "non-printmaking use", which is a very different thing - see Printmaking. Yes they are both printing, and the technique is exactly the same, but the woodcut article covers the artistic uses for images, whilst woodblock printing is an overview of the whole thing, & therefore gives more space to the text printing than the images, and also covers the cloth printing. Naturally there are overlaps, and some parts are cut & pasted between the two, but they should still be separate. Both the text and (especially) the cloth printing aspects of WP need more, whilst W needs more on some areas.

Johnbod 11:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Woodblock covers woodcut, they should be merged. What is WP and W again? (Wikimachine 01:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

First tell me if

]

William Gilpin

Hello Jonbod - I see you added William Gilpin artist to the William Gilpin disambiguation page. The dates you've given are the same as for William Gilpin clergyman so unless there is a remarkable co-incidence I think this must be the same man - maybe he should be described as 'clergyman, school master, author and artist' although I would leave off the artist as he is certainly more important for what he wrote about art than his actual work. Perhaps you were actually thinking of William Sawrey Gilpin 1762-1843, who already has an entry - he was William Gilpin 'clergyman's' nephew and I would describe him as 'artist, drawing master and landscape designer' - he worked in watercolour, but I think his uncle was more of a pencil and wash man. JPDW 21:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted out - They are the same, though one would hardly have known it from the page as it was. I think you undersestimate his art, not as to quality but as to influence. The books would not have made much impact without the etchings

Johnbod 21:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jonbod - I wouldn't say his own art was unimportant, but it was very much secondary to his writing - his real importance is as an aesthetic theorist, in which he was genuinely original. Although maybe you could argue that his published works inspired a generation of amateur artists to think 'I could do better than that!'. I notice that the Oxford DNB describes him simply as 'writer on art and headmaster'.

JPDW 14:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]