Thanks for your comments at Sandy's page. I confess I've been swayed by a comment by user:Grondemar who feels the important distinctions are FA, GA, and everything else, so I've spent zero time looking into the gradations between C and B, beyond that which I pick up by osmosis. I'm not pushing to get any article grade changed, but I have considered urging Beebuk to submit some articles he has worked on to GA review. If they really were C class, this would be bad advice, plus it would mean I didn't have a clue as to what it means to be close to a GA. Your comment that the articles could be B class persuades me that I am not completely clueless (at least on this issue. :)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glad it helped - when you look at the at which speed some people knock off assessments you don't take them too seriously. They are normally a very rough guide & done without much thought on how long a comprehensive article on a particular subject should be. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You messed up the Etymology section of Saint Peter
Why did you do this? A few weeks ago, it was plain and easy to read. Now its full of non-english characters and is hard to read.
Dude I don't mind certain Hebrew or Syriac charactrs, but it has to be more English-friendly. Please fix it. The article is already so often vandalized by daily editors. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveforMary (talk • contribs) 21:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look at it now - and learn how to read an edit history - I added none of that stuff. Your edits are increasingly erratic; I can see it will end unhappily. Johnbod (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see only three words not using the Latin alphabet (two Greek and one Hebrew) so I'm not convinced this is a problem. I can't imagine a way of discussing the name without using non-English words.
There was a whole lot of Syriac/Hebrew stuff I booted into a long note just now, which that article has loads of. Johnbod (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to think I'm trying to be patient here, but this is getting on my nerves. Am I off base in insisting that "official dogma" is redundant? Mangoe (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's ok, though the logo is a pain. We don't recognise their claim here, under US law (Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.) & it may even be possible to get a logoless version. Several with logos are on Commons. Lovely hangings! Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking to be sure - the logo is a pain but I can crop it out. I realized after posting here that I haven't checked commons yet. I've been noticing the hangings in these images - but these are particularly nice.
Back again with another question. Who is the Master of the Getty? [1]. That has me very confused. Thanks, if you can help. Also, good to see the Belles Heures getting attention ...
An arbitration case regarding Muhammad images has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies on verifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision. The decision reached in this discussion will be appended to this case within two months from the close of the case.
Ludwigs2 is prohibited from contributing to any discussion concerning Muhammad.
Ludwigs2 is banned from the English Wikipedia for one year.
Tarc is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
FormerIP is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
Hans Adler is reminded to engage in discussions about disputed article content with an appropriate degree of civility.
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to Muhammad
, broadly interpreted.
The participants in the dispute about depictions of Muhammad are reminded that editors who engage extensively in an intractable dispute can become frustrated, and that it is important to be aware that as editors we are limited in our ability to contribute constructively to a deadlocked disagreement. Our exasperation with a dispute can make us unprofessional or unreceptive to compromise. We therefore encourage the disputants of this case to consider if their participation in the coming community discussion of depictions of Muhammad would be useful, and we remind them that if they disrupt the community discussion they may be banned from the discussion or otherwise sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions provision of this case.
I'm a bit confused as to where you want me to comment, can you move my point if you'd rather it was made somewhere else? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - I'll copy it Johnbod (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion regarding WikiProject Christianity
Please see the discussion at User talk:Lionelt#Christianity WikiProject, and make any comments you deem reasonable. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of Swoon of the Virgin
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! Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
girih
Hello, I gather you have some interest in islamic art, so I thought I'd ask you for assistance. I recently created the Girih article and proposed it as a DYK article [2]. Its history section has been criticized for paraphrasing one source too closely. It's a fair criticism, I relied heavily on Encyclopaedia Iranica for the historical section of the article, because it seems to be the only source on the Internet that has decent information on the topic. I'll try to rewrite the offending sections but thought it would be good to dilute the contribution of E. Iranica by finding non-Web sources. Would you happen to have any books on the topic that has some information on the art history of girih? If so, would you be able to expand the article a little? --İnfoCan (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented there, but I'm concerned that we are getting too many overlapping articles in this area:
Zellige morocco (groan!), Qashani, not to mention Jali. No need for a new category by the way. What is the relevant term in Arabic & Turkish, btw? Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
This glossary [3] says the Arabic term is "girih" (but "not a word used in the Gulf"!). I don't know Arabic, so I can't say more. However, looking at English articles about Moorish architecture (like the
Topkapi Scroll, and, especially, the 2007 Science article about the girih tiles. There are many recent Turkish Web pages that mention the Science paper. --İnfoCan (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok, I haven't looked at my books, & I probably will have relevant stuff - don't know when I'll get to that - not in the next couple of weeks anyway. At some point we want to merge some of these articles I think.
Islamic interlace patterns, which uses very old sources, should probably go into this for example. Johnbod (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi, I see your comment at the DYK nomination for Girih and I wonder whether you'd be amenable to adding a checkmark to it so it can be promoted? I read you as saying that in your view the concerns that were holding up the nomination have been satisfied. Sorry, I know you're busy, but it seems we have quite a backlog over there. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Although I have some disagreements, espceially relevance, I did want to thank you for setting out such a cogent and well thought out point summary at "Ice Age art." (That's perhap an interesting comment on ice thawing) Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Hans Memling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gul (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation about the Muhammad images RFC
Just to let you know I've opened a request with the Mediation cabal about the Muhammad images RFC. Please see the mediation request if you want to comment. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Query
Regarding this edit, are you sure the article you have linked is applicable. The Funerary Monument to Sir. John Hawkwood is a fresco, not a panel. Am I missing something here? Savidan 04:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See below; the article does mention frescos, & the procedure is largely the same. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer of frescoes
Thanks for the improvements to stipple engraving and transfer of panel paintings, especially for all the links to the latter which I couldn't be bother to do. I'm not sure, though, that it's useful to link transferred frescoes to it. I'm hoping write to a separate article on the subject in the next week or two, though as I'm starting from a position of complete ignorance, nothing can be guaranteed.Ruskinmonkey (talk) 11:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered about that, but my thought was it was best to cover all transfers in the same article for now. transferred to canvas should redirect there. You get other things like the Goyas - oil on wall to canvas, vellum to canvas, canvas to panel etc etc. Just Transfer of paintings or something might be better. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but I always find concise articles easier to read - and the panel article needs a bit of expansion, for instance about the declining enthusiasm for the practice, the use of new panel rather than canvas, and the exact procedure for attachment (which seemed to involve ironing). Covering all the techniques in the one article could make it rather baggy and confusing. Transfer of wall paintings might be better than transfer of frescoes, and would cover most of the ground not dealt with in the panel article.Ruskinmonkey (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article can grow a good deal and still be concise, & you can't start articles for all the permutations. The basic principles are I think the same anyway. The 19th century loved ironing paintings & large numbers still on their original canvas have been ironed (setting silks & delicates). Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I've added some more refs, and a section on Hughes' credentials on the talk page. The article has today been submitted for peer review. Looking at the "volunteers" list, it seems that you might be the most appropriate reviewer; are you interested? Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I'll work on it. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Farms near Auvers (Van Gogh)
Hi Johnbod,
I see you have edited at Farms near Auvers, which I've just been editing. I'm planning to contribute stubs for the entire Auvers period. I'll be working backwards in the catalogue I think. All welcome to join! I suggest we take Farms as our model. LornaDooneBlackmore (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not my period & I doubt I'll be adding much. It might be better to start with an overall article on the period rather than a load of stubs. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Request
Hi Johnbod,
Could you please have a look at Nasturtiums (E.Phillips Fox) that I have just put up? I want to use it for outreach and would therefore like its markup to be exemplary. Also want to suggest it for DYK and am hoping there are no big flaws. Thanks, appreciate it. Whiteghost.ink 02:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fine for DYK. Not all the web cites have access dates folderol etc. Nice article. Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! Yes, "renowned" is not such a good word. And yes, Australian dollars (adding that came to mind overnight) :) Whiteghost.ink 07:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CfD
Hey John. I've invoked your name at the "arts"-related
Yes - many pages like that have hardly had substantive improvement in years. Good to see you cheerful anyway, with so much doom & gloom around! Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's one of those huge topics that needs lots of sources - whenever I look at it my eyes spin. I've had Beowulf on my watchlist for ages, hoping to get to that someday, but I never get there, or when I do get there to tidy, it's quickly overturned. I've decided to ignore the doom and gloom and carry on.
Good; I gave Beowulf a better pic from the MS a while back, if that encourages you. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that. It's a huge amount of work and I don't have the sources I need. Not my period either - but I keep it on my watchlist as a reminder of work to be done - as though there isn't enough.
Pictish stones, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject
.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Requested move at
Talk:Arabesque (Islamic art)#Requested move
You may be interested in
Talk:Arabesque (Islamic art)#Requested move. TimBentley(talk) 17:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Garden categories
I have put the Islamic garden category back on 'Types of garden now. Is
WP:Subcategorization
.
My suggestion for now would be to repost your and my comments on the Talk page of Category:Types of garden, and ask opionions of other editors too. Wiki-uk (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image tagging for File:Benefits Supervisor Sleeping.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Benefits Supervisor Sleeping.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rudyard Kipling and Bombay Presidency and British raj
You also forgot to edit the main article where the two terms are used in describing Kipling's birth place. Also Bombay is now called Mumbai so why did you leave it as Bombay in the infobox? To truly be consistent you should also change that to the modern place name Mumbai and perhaps also include the modern state of India in which Mumbai lies, Maharashtra. Please explain. Dabbler (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I added it to the main article! Place of birth in an infobox is a geographical statement; the article text should have the historical background. I'm indifferent between Mumbai & Bombay - many outside India have not got used to the former yet. Hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out the Talk page archive
British raj, of which Bombay was one principal city and the princely states which were separate nations, albeit under British oversight, not for nothing was it called the sub-continent. Dabbler (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I have not changed Mubai/Bombay. I won't repeat the principle for a 3rd time, but it seems this has not been considered, & you still don't seem to get it. Infoboxes (see the guideline) should only be used for simple unambiguous details, which a geographical place is, but a historico/political statement very often is not (simple enough in this case I accept). Many articles do not follow this principle, but they should. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you accept the formula used for
Jinnah? They have the correct historical birthplace details and then add the modern one immediately afterwards as in (now in Gujarat, India) and (now in Sindh, Pakistan)? That seems to me to be a reasonable compromise between the two positions as you don't seem to understand that modern India is not the same geographically as the historic British India. Dabbler (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I understand perfectly that Bombay/Mumbai IS IN INDIA. The infobox is NOT the place for going into complicated political history - just use the CURRENT GEOGRAPHY. How many times do I need to say it? Do that in the text, where there is room, but also include the modern state. The Gandhi article illustrates the problems perfectly, and should certainly be changed. Read
WP:INFOBOX. This is the cruftification of WP that people who can't write articles infect us with. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Just curious, and seriously as an English speaker who trieds to use the language for clear communication, what does this strange word "cruftification" mean? Is is some in-speak that only true Wikipedians understand? The rest of us who only start a few articles and edit only some are not permitted to be admitted to the higher understanding? I onluy ask because I want to know. Dabbler (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind I found it to be insulting geek speak. Dabbler (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't directing it at you. Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded. Do you have any images to suggest? Savidan 23:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid not, & I have yet to read the article properly. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some edits and responded. Savidan 19:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame we aren't seeing eye to eye on this one. I've found your FAC comments helpful in the past. Savidan 01:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still being kept busy with my own, and other things & I don't think I'll have time for a full review, and certainly not if I have to point out each thing individually. I'm sure the quality is there but the article does need making more accessible. Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly I suppose, but the old link at least explained it without leaving the page. These constructions are uniquely American as far as I know. Johnbod (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for March 5
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ice age art --> Muhammad ______
Hi there is a request by Elonka in the Introduction discussion at the mediation to move or re-title your page and it's talk. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've said that's fine. Johnbod (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response
In response to this, the unanimous court joined the opinion, not just the judgment. To join only the judgment, the judges would have to note that they concur in the judgment only, including by writing a concurrence. Savidan 18:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, didn't see that you made the same comment at FAC. I'll respond there. Savidan 18:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback on Muhammad images
So, I've been digging around for feedback on a little tool I proposed-- for those who don't have a "hide all images" button right in browser, instead of making people jump through techy solutions, we should just give them the 1-click-to-view-without-images button that tech users already have. Screenshots ARE available :) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images/Functional hatnote demo.
Basically, in contacting you, I'm hope to wind up with my humble little proposal being the switzerland in the giant world war that is the Muhammad Image debate. A "click here to hide images" button isn't a moral debate, it's a software debate. Our current software workflow takes like six clicks and a very skilled user. I have a script that does the same thing in one click for an unskilled user. It's not part of the "main" debate here, it's geek side issue.
Or so I hope, anyway. It may not get any consensus at all. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Netherlandish
You prob already know this, but there is a wealth of articles, journal pieces and JSTOR type stuff at the Met website. Start here and follow the links. [5]. From these, I might have a crack at adding a sect on illuminated manuscripts to the early netherlandish page; can you keep an eye pls if I slip up and maybe advise on imgs. I could seriously use your help and input on that page at some stage - I'm only learning as I go along; I dont have a "birds eye" view yet. The scope and italian sections are fairly weak for starters, though I have enough material now to rewrite. Tks if you have the time and inclination, but no worries either way. Ceoil (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
British Museum prints & drawings images
Hi. Good to talk to you at the meet-up this afternoon.
Here's an example of the image issue I was talking about:
What I think is happening is that the BM image has been reduced using a "decimate" algorithm (also called eg "no interpolation" or a "point" algorithm). This produces problems, particularly in monochrome images of etchings, when spatial frequencies in the original high-resolution image clash with the pixel periodicity of the reduced resolution (an issue called
spatial aliasing
). This can be fixed by filtering out the spatial frequencies causing the problem. Some benefit can be obtained by simply averaging over all the several pixels in the original high-res image that will contribute to a coarser reduced-resolution pixel (known as using a box filter); but better results can be obtained with a purpose-designed filter, eg the Lanczos filter.
Here are some examples created by using various options with the ImageMagick program to reduce a test image, to show the kind of differences that different filtering options can make. (The thumbnails don't show much, but click through to see the difference):
Original image
Decimation
Box filter
Lanczos filter
I don't know how widespread the problem is, but all the results from the
search query that I originally used seemed to be affected, and other engravings too.
The issue tends to be a lot less pronounced and less visible with colour images, because they typically don't contain the same repeated structures as the lines in engravings. But it can produced rather spotty thumbnails (expand eg image right for an example; again, click through to properly see it), which I do think I see quite a lot on the BM prints website, so it may be that their apparent use of "decimation" is in fact quite widespread.
Assuming the original full-resolution scans are readily available to the BM, it should be comparatively straightforward to loop over them in a fairly simple way to produce new candidates for reduced-resolution images for whole directories at a time. For example, using ImageMagick the last test image above was obtained simply with the command
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Lindau Gospels
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, and thanks for participating in the drafting of the Muhammad images RfC. I encourage you to continue editing it. However, instead of repeatedly reverting it to your own preferred version, perhaps you could try to offer compromise wording? That will be the best way to move forward, thanks. --Elonka 05:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The "Ice Age" stuff had already been discussed and adjusted by several people - rather more than are currently editing the RFC draft - and also approved by Gruber. We should stick to it as far as possible. Your last two changes are just odd: Islamic / Western is a perfectly straighforward and informative division and there is no point trying to twist it into something else that will just puzzle people. If necessary we should take remaining questions back to the talk page for a wider view and a vote. There is absolutely no reason not to call Ilkhanate images from the Jami Islamic. Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, if you keep reverting my text wholesale, I'm eventually going to report you for edit-warring. So please, stop it. If you'd like to suggest a compromise, I'm listening, but this repeated wholesale removal of my additions is getting old. --Elonka 05:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing this at the talk page; let's keep it there. Johnbod (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a new ALT2 proposed for this DYK nomination. As you are the reviewer of the nomination—and the one who requested an improved hook—could you give the new hook a quick review and a final check mark (or request for further changes)? Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! and manuscripts MANUSCRIPT CLEANUP
Was just logging out, checked my watchlist and saw that St. Cuthbert's has been promoted. Congratulations, very nice job! Btw - don't know whether you have them on your watchlist, but a lot of activity of Berry's books of hours ...
Thanks, and thanks for your support! I hadn't noticed in fact. I'll check out Berry, which is on my list but I hadn't been following. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I'll wait to see if he's finished & then I think merge back most of the old content he's just removed, & tidy up. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting! Those 2 are certainly big improvements, if needing tidying up. At least none look like copyvio. Tres Riches seems to use French sources, and the other 2 English. No action on
Turin-Milan Hours/Très Belles Heures de Notre-Dame de Duc Jean de Berry, which is originally probably Berry, nor on Holy Thorn Reliquary or Royal Gold Cup. I'll try to find out what is going on. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
Hi! John, in answer to your question, I'm not currently aware of any classes that might be focusing on John Duc de Berry's books of the hours (such a narrow focus, too!), but I'm reaching out to find out if anyone else in the EP knows about this. Very odd activity, indeed! Rob SchnautZ (WMF)(talk • contribs) 15:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - add Lindisfarne Gospels, so the 5 articles now cover a range of illuminated manuscripts. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Back with an answer, but not one of much consequence. The students are not registered with the Wikipedia Education Program (that's the Foundation-funded program that currently includes the U.S., Canada, and Brazil). These edits are probably being done by students participating either in one of the Chapter-funded programs or one of the various independent programs, like
WP:Schools and universities project. Sorry for the (likely) disappointing answer! Rob SchnautZ (WMF)(talk • contribs) 19:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok thanks for looking - I suspect they may not be in touch with any programme at all. There was a similar outbreak in April 2010, see Talk:Illuminated_manuscript#Student_class_project.3F. The quality seems a bit better this year. Johnbod (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, I think the RfC looks pretty good. Well done. I've made two small additions to the background section which I'm hoping are acceptable: [6] If you're happy with those, green light from me. JN466 08:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations
100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!
If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.
This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.
In celebration of 100,000 edits, please accept a sack of 100 Lolcats for you to enjoy throwing at vandals in your short breaks from tireless article improvement and GLAM programme initiatives.
Thanks! I won't tell the cat. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mais oui!
Hi. The above editor is continuing to plough on with their mass replacement of references to the United Kingdom - either in text or categories - with ones to constituent countries of the UK. A few examples from today: [7], [8], [9] and [10], although to merely view this editors edit history is telling.
It is patently clear that these edits form part of a WP:CAMPAIGN. Do you think that there is anything which could be done to curb this behaviour? Thanks. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they do, but he is being relatively careful these days. There is a history here but I don't know it. I'm not sure what can be done. Have you tried the UK project? Johnbod (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that he seems to pursue the campaign in bursts, presumably in an attempt to mask the activity, although a single burst can affect a very large number of articles. I haven't approached anyone else about this yet, I decided to sound you out initially because I remembered your involvement at SSE plc on this point, and because of your general level of experience. I might post something on the UK project page. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think he just does an hour or two when he has nothing better to do, or someone from London has annoyed him on the telly, which I expect is frequently. Is there a policy on campaigning, btw?
WP:CAMPAIGN isn't it. Johnbod (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Apologies you're right that link is not relevant. I will try and locate the relevant policy/guideline, which I remember reading last year sometime. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Grandes Heures of Anne of Brittany
nominate
) 10:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations
100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!
If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.
This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.
picture collection, assembled in a rush to complement a painter who was on the Main page today, - room for improvement if you look at many more artists and paintings on de ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Do you have some time for a peer review?
Hi. I've noticed your comments at FAC, and I respect your abilities. I'm working on an article, Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders, preparing it for FAC. Do you have time to do a peer review of it? It is a very fascinating topic, and you won't be bored. The PR page is here. If you don't have time, thanks for considering it anyway. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Ok, I'll take a look but probably not for a few days. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you while you're working so furiously, but wanted to tell you that I can add in references regarding the fairy tales - have them right at my finger tips! - if you'd like. I might find other references lying around, regarding lit, if that would be helpful. I don't want to edit conflict you, so post to let me know when you'll be gone and I'll sneak in then to add what I have. Nice job, btw! I thought about tackling this but to be honest I don't know enough. I was impressed when I saw you begin the work & still impressed.
Oh, thanks, please do. I'm going to water the garden now. I know more than when I started, but it's still rather a mess. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added one for the fairy tales, but needs to be added to the sources too. I can find references for the romantic movement in American lit and will add those in too. It's looking much better than it was - it's a huge topic! Back later.
Thanks for the edits... and are there any pictures that you think are wrongly chosen or pictures I should include? I've got a bit more research to do before I consider the thing FA worthy - including some on Late Medieval Art - but I figured I'd get your input on the picture choices now... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll return to it over the next couple of days. The 2 art sections are pretty short & use general sources, so I may expand a bit. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation Cabal: Case update
Dear Johnbod/22: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:
is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our
talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Xavexgoem, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
I've had a go at what I think you have requested. Is this suitable, or do I need to go further, or seek more help? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable fair use File:Faddan More Psalter cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Faddan More Psalter cover.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
Go to
di-replaceable fair use disputed
}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf.☼ 06:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fanelli sculptures from Welbeck?
Ideally the article Welbeck Academy I have just done would have an image of a Francesco Fanelli sculpture from Welbeck Abbey, commissioned by William Cavendish, 1st Duke of Newcastle around 1630 to 1640. There is a near-miss in the Fanelli article: it is very like equestrian bronzes that would fit, but isn't one. The V&A has plenty of his works, but of course the images are not usable here. Since these are close to kitschy, if that word applies to the 17th century, and the Fanelli workshop did many similar works, I think art historians aren't too bothered anyway. Just mentioning in case there might be a free source that comes to mind. George Vertue knew all about them. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Actually the photo has only been on Commons about a week - part of the fabulous haul of c20,000 images from the Walters Art Museum. They were presumably cast in editions & I don't know if any known to have belonged to Cavendish are traceable, so this will do fine I think. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, there is a slip on some of the V&A pages about which Duke of Newcastle this is. I have floated with a couple of people the idea that one aspect of GLAM, which could "add value" to relationships, would be to set up a portal or one-stop shop so that people like me who see these things often enough wouldn't have to hunt around for how to contact the institution and comment in a format they'd want to have. This is to kick around as a concept. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Need your valuable feedback
Hi John!
I need your valuable feedback here. I hope you see the point. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated!
Thank you! :) Brendon ishere 08:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
JSTOR
(Cross posting to everyone who commented in the JSTOR discussion on
WT:FAC
)
I have now created
Wikipedia:Requests for JSTOR access. Feel free to sign up. Raul654 (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute resolution survey
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite
Hello Johnbod. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated
DR goes to Wikimania! 11:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Hilliard?
What do you think, early Hilliard? 1572 or 73, so the dates would work... :-) (Zeeuws Museum says 1572-73, which is consistent with the clothes and hairstyle.)
It doesn't appear to have been out of Holland since it was sent abroad. I wonder if anyone like Strong has ever even seen it? (Ah, that frisson of discovery....)
- PKM (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks ok to me, but I'm no connosser! Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There...
I've substantially improved two "core" articles - Middle Ages and William the Conqueror. Daddy-John, can I go back to obscure horses and clergypersons now?? (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 20:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course - well done! I'm just starting to retouch the arty bits of MA & will not get thwe ref/cite formats quite right. Is there meant to be a Late MA equivalent section? Johnbod (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having severe difficulties finding current survey books on any aspect of the Late MA - they just don't exist. I really don't wanna depend on Huzinga, that's a bit dated. There is still a good bit I'd like to add into the MA article - some military stuff, a bit more social/economic stuff, but it's certainly at a good enough spot for GA right now. If you have something on the later MA in art/architecture, go ahead and add it and I'll tweak the cites for you afterwards - I know your aversion to templates. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you soooo much for the edits to Middle Ages. I've gone through and fixed the refs - but otherwise everything looks pretty good. I may copyedit a hair, but thank you thank you thank you. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tanks! I need to add some refs, & tinker a little, but I won't make it much longer at all. An interesting excercise in compression! Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Request for help in images
Given your status as one of our most knowledgeable editors regarding religious art, I think if you would have any ideas for images of churches and/or artwork which might be useful for inclusion in the Christianity newsletter, the next one of which is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/May 2012, I at least would be very grateful. The talk page might be a good place to propose images, singular or multiple, if you so desire. John Carter (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what to suggest, but you might find something on the articles on my user page, or the new stuff at Category:Collections_of_the_Walters_Art_Museum on Commons. For Easter this English alabaster is nice, or there's a detail version. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 12
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dilettanti
Might be your kind of thing. The immediate problem is the image in John Smyth (1748–1811), and the verbose caption I have added: the identifications in the group portrait should be on the Commons description page, clearly. I suppose there are much better references; and are all these young blades notable? There are two Reynolds paintings of groups of Dilettanti, and what we have on Commons are two engravings, which certainly could be improved and replaced in articles. And that leaves aside buffing up Society of Dilettanti. I once failed to buy a biography of William Hamilton (diplomat) second-hand, which is unlike me. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eek - no doubt they all held ministerial jobs so are notable - more middle-aged blades aren't they? Not really my period; I didn't realize they were still going. Do we know which club the Reynolds are in? Brooks? I can't believe the modern "references" on the society article have been seen. Wetman might take an interest. Johnbod (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:
Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
When the 1-year period is up, check
applications page
to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit | c 20:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Johnbod!
I really need your feedback, again. Made some changes and finally it is ready, I guess. Click here. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! Thank you!
Brilliant, thanks - I'm just going to update the article now. Johnbod (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say how wonderful this is. A beautiful article about something so beautiful and significant and hitherto unknown (to me). Ah, how satisfying to have learned about it! So glad it made it to the front page. Whiteghost.ink 00:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Purely by chance I'm working on Thomas Allen (mathematician) and his library today. If I had to hazard a guess, the Gospel might have gone to his friend Robert Hegge who worked on Cuthbert. In which case it might have ended up with a nephew Stephen Hegge (ODNB). Which would leave only a century gap! Purely speculative, but intriguing. In any case Allen is known to have passed many of his manuscripts in his lifetime, so who knows. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
St Cuthbert Gospel
Don't try to tell me what to do again. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Precious
casing of art
Thank you for casing in your articles the treasures of art, books and knowledge, like some medieval manuscripts were luxuriously bound in gold, silver and jewels, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Cuthbert covercropped.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered,
Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kellyhi! 20:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Disambiguation link notification for April 19
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Casket with Scenes of Romances (Walters 71264)
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.
Thanks for your contribution to the FAC. I am no expert in architecture (as, judging from your excellent articles, you are), and frankly I am confused about all these terms. Even using the sources you suggest, I do not feel adequate to produce the sort of critique you are requesting. So I should be most grateful to accept your offer to add this material to the article; I am absolutely happy to share any credit for the article's becoming a FA with you. In fact my intention was for this to be a biography rather than an article on architecture. I fear that a railway expert might demand more on Sharpe's controversies over what is now the West Coast Main Line, the "Little" North Western Railway, the Morecambe Bay Harbour Project, and the Conwy Valley line, to say nothing of the ventures abroad, if this were to be considered to be a "railway" article, which of course it is not. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I'm just going away for the w/e so it won't be until next week. Johnbod (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia_reliability a drive to slow down self-published book references is getting started. Would you like to join that project? Membership is free. History2007 (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
I think it's helpful and necessary. I had created a "Theophanies" category, but I think with the examples given, "Christophany" is the phrase most commonly used. Obviously this is very interpretive - only Christian interpreters would consider it a Christophany, and not certainly not all Christian interpreters at that. But it's a notable concept, and a source of many interesting debates. I had thought of having a category name like "Claimed examples of Christophanies in the Hebrew Bible" (which is the heading in the Christophany article), but I thought an explanatory note on the category page would be OK. We do need better sourcing in all the relevant articles - the Christophany article has a lot of unreferenced examples commented out. I'll do some more work on it when I get a chance. StAnselm (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 26
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
