User talk:Johnbod/24

< ...and a Happy Christmas, too, from Wetman (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC) , who needlessly checked to see whether the new Domenichino article was yours....[reply]

I note that you have added some non-existent categories to some pages, namely

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_14#Category:Ancient_Christianity. I'm afraid you don't know what you are talking about re Category:Early Christian art, an entirely standard period in art history. Johnbod (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must have imagined the textbook I had titled Early Christian Art in college.... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The name of a textbook is not necessarily a good name for a category in WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seem odd to pre-empt the outcome of a CfD especially since it is not a clearcut discussion either way. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need Category:Early Christian art either way. The other one can follow the result. Johnbod (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your bold removal with the edit summary: "(remove collections section entirely; all seems to be a straight lift from the museum website)" It wasn't entirely clear from that summary whether you thought that all the material might be copy-vio or not sufficiently paraphrased, or whether you thought it did not add any value (since the information can be found via the linked museum website), or possibly both. I think it might be worth raising on the Talk Page to clarify - if only to placate any miffed editors like me who have spent a while trying to tweak and copy-edit all of that stuff. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I only compared a couple of sections, but these were 100% copied, & as the style is consistent I assume all are. The history section may need checking too. The older versions, pre the copyvio, could be used. Johnbod (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all quite dishearteningly clear now. "Oh botheration" as Robertson Hare used to say on All Gas and Gaiters Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for keeping me honest! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So in BE "is a painting of 1631" is the preferred phrasing over "is a 1631 painting"? To my American English ears, your preferred version sounds wordy and awkward. I'll also note that the category is 1631 paintings. LadyofShalott 04:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the preferred phrasing, but the only one. You will not find American academics in serious journals or books using "a 1631 painting" either. Editors knock such things out. Johnbod (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(So there's no doubt: I'm not arguing with you anymore, just discussing a linguistic phenomenon I now find curious.) That's very weird to me. Why is "of <year>" considered necessary? Is the same phrasing used when speaking of other things produced in a certain year: "Blah blah is a book of 2012"? As I said before, it seems wordy and awkward to me - "2012 book" is clear (to me) and more concise. I don't know that I've regularly encountered the "of year" phrasing either. LadyofShalott 05:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are other ways of phrasing it (from, in etc) but in normal formal English you can't treat a year date as an adjective, other than cases like car models where it has become established. It's one of the most notable ticks of much WP writing, where it is certainly rife - the other is paintings being "housed" or "residing" in museums, which is pure journalese. Johnbod (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See

Wikipedia:VAMOS#Dates btw. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Aniconism in Judaism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Menorah

Jesus healing the bleeding woman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Adventus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you said you wouldn't watch the page: [8]. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing my edits with edit summaries that amount to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. I deferred to your objections which were valid and made a separate paragraph on the Three Marys Manuscript and you reverted with a objectionable edit summary. You also changed the English title to the French. This is English Wikipedia and that was inappropriate as well. You then followed my contribs to Jean de Venette and again made changes in a manner intended to be difficult to revert. That is vandalism. Next time I will report you. I am not a Newbie. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Report away! Obviously the correct French title of the poem should be given. Note that " Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." Johnbod (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(

Bencherlite^Talk 10:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for your review on Jainism. I have addressed most of the points you raised and would like your opinion on how the article could be further improved to gain your support for FA.

Hello, Johnbod. You have new messages at Talk:Jean de Venette.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I answered you question on the article talk page. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

The Three Marys (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Attributes and Lazarus

Laughing Cavalier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pourtalès

Portrait of a Lady known as Esmeralda Brandini (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver

)

added a link pointing to Pourtalès

Transfiguration (Raphael) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ascoli

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian church councils, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or 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. JFHutson (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, I started an article on the Portrait of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and Category:Portraits of the British Royal Family, realizing our coverage of Royal portraits is extremely poor. I was wondering if you could create a list of missing notable royal portraits. I'm keen to improve coverage in this area.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wooo! No thanks, nor do I really approve of what is bound to be always be a drastically incomplete list. Categories are the way to go, & I have added some easy ones, but I'm sure there are plenty more. Then there are statues of course - tons of those. By the way

WP:VAMOS deprecates "Portrait of .." titles. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

You misunderstand. I don't want a huge list. I just want say 5-10 very notable portraits you can think of with another sources to make them worth starting..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, George IV by

Anthonis Mor - several versions. Really a "Portraiture of ..." article, like Elizabeth I's, is the best way to go from Henry VII to Victoria, especially as it allows for prints & coins, & later stamps, which are obviously the way most people experienced the royal portrait. Charles II, Henry VIII and Victoria would make especially good articles. Johnbod (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hokay, thanks.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few statues. Actually a big Portraiture of the English Royal Family & then a British one, might be a good way to get into this. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you were one of a number of editors who participated in

Category:Artist authors, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or 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) 18:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Utrecht Psalter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catalan (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) 11:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting those edits, I was just questioning the same serious of edits. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'd left a much shorter version last night, which is quite enough I think. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a few bits and pieces to add to this, but will prob nom in a week or two. You added a lot of the content, I might list you as co-nom? Ceoil (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomed now. Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EEng is "stalking" you and reverting your edits (see my last two edits: I reverted to your versions) as well as other highly active Wikipedia editors (including Lockley). Looking at the rude comments he leaves everywhere (refer to User talk:Lockley), I believe that he's some angry teen. Can something be done about him? 87.67.21.139 (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it stalking - those are AFAIK the only articles we've both edited, and I think he mostly wrote the Gage one. Johnbod (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing what's really going on, Johnbod. The IP is upset about [9] (the lobotomy article attracts a lot of angry people -- and see the bottomn of [10] to understand who's stalking whom). For the record, I came to Gutenberg Bible while working on Harry Elkins Widener, where it's mentioned. As to the "country counts", I was indeed a bit exasperated -- perhaps you see now that the counts are explicitly in the table, but as I said I leave the final decision as to whether to repeat them in the text to your judgment. EEng (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedian,

I am Marina. I am writing to you in order to clarify my fears. One of the users have been reverting my edits on Western Europe, as well as other European-related issues. I noticed, that his or her page is full of talk page entries related just to that. Would you mind to stay in touch with me? I read about vandalism on Wikipedia and I fear this is one of these cases... I hope, of course that I am wrong but... the evidence seems to suggest otherwise. By evidence I mean Arcilla's talk page as well as entry, and the fact that rather than move a critical comment from user page to a talk page, it was simply reverted. --Martina Moreau (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to misuse rollback, that right will be removed to prevent further abuse. If taking a moment to pay attention is too difficult for you, you do not need to be editing. If you continue to use rollback, I will manually revert the edits until you decide to edit properly; using tools correctly is not optional. Your aggressive accusations and lack of understanding are not helped by compounding them with abusing user rights given to you. -

You really are a piece of work! I might add that going through the edits it was entirely clear to me that Knorp had given them adequate consideration, as he varied his edits in many cases, while you (as you have admitted) did not attempt to look at each article as you reverted, and even with your limited knowledge at the time a glance would have been enough to show that your reversion was incorrect. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, your issue was originally that I "did it too quickly", yet your edits show several edits per minute. However, I did not abuse user rights to edit Wikipedia, so your kettle has become a little more black. Yet I am "a piece of work", despite that? Your response does not inspire confidence, and until you edit properly I will be reverting any rollback abuse I see, and if you continue to abuse that rollback it will be taken to ANI and removed. This is just childish, and if you continue to

Ghost 16:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Your persistence in making these edits, and failing to address the arguments several editors have made against them at User_talk:Fnorp#Concerning_your_edits does in my opinion constitute vandalism. It does not take a moment to see that in a modern article a list of European countries including Holland is wrong, and cannot be right, likewise talk of Holland in international sports. Take it to ANI by all means, and see what happens. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Now you're just backing into a corner trying to throw anything and hope it sticks. You were already informed that I did indeed "address the arguments", on my talk page and others, so you're

Ghost 16:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

You clearly have not addressed the arguments and apparently still believe your edits were a positive contribution to the project. Iknow very well what vandalism is, thank you very much. What is " the very thing you were critical of me for" pray? Unlike you (and like Fnorp) I actually looked at the articles before editing. I explained I would be using rollback on your talk page, and you clearly saw that, as you removed it in your usual style. Your tone is really quite astonishing under the circumstances. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you know "very well what vandalism is" doesn't somehow make you look any better, in fact it speaks very poorly of you to know what vandalism is and is not, and to choose to disregard that at the first sign of any sort of disagreement. This edit summary doesn't fare much better, it seems you took my removal of your comment a bit personally and any comments about "my tone" do not impress, given the tone of your own edit summaries. "Given the circumstances" a content dispute is one thing, abusing user rights and knowingly mislabeling edits as vandalism is quite another and is unnecessarily disruptive. With that in mind, I'm not the least bit concerned about anything you'd say about my actions, as your own behavior has been much more disruptive than any content dispute.

The next time you find yourself in a position to jump in the middle of a discussion between other editors, it might help if you keep your ego out of it; don't take it as some kind of personal insult when someone removes a comment on their talk page per

Ghost 17:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Really, this is ridiculous. My edits improve the encyclopedia, your's dont, and you won't be told that, but insist on arguing the toss no matter how many editors tell you, and reverting to your version, while abusing those involved. Please go away. Expect to end up at ANI if this behaviour continues. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can stop throwing mud and hoping something sticks, because in doing so you're only getting yourself dirty. Now you've lowered yourself to personal attacks, and I would ask you to please strike the comments you made above. I'll leave your talk page alone but please do not attack other editors in this manner, including disingenuous comments about "being abused"; asking you not to abuse rollback or mislabel edits as vandalism is not abuse. -

Ghost 17:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi. I'd like to ask you about a problem: It's about this pic: [11]. A befriended administrator of mine moved it to commons and since that change the pic seems to be broken. It doesn't appear anymore, neither in articles, nor in it's thumbnail section at Commons. Do you have any idea how to fix that? Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems ok, now, on Commons & in one :de article. Johnbod (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, now it works. Thx, though. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Academy of Sciences of the Institute of Bologna. I don't know if I care. The current name does maybe sound better. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed your DYK nomination, and I passed it. I think you could even add a picture of the Fuller Brooch, however, and make it even better. Just a thought. Cdtew (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I was thinking of uploading one of the NPG photos of him, but failing that the brooch would be good. I see it's gone to a queue now, oh well. Johnbod (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks very much for your review. Another editor suggested an ALT hook after you gave the tick, and the page creator and I prefer the ALT. Would you mind looking at it again and giving it your approval? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to express my gratitude for your strong support two days ago and for restoring my edits, sometimes even improving them as in the case of Breslau. Please note that SuboGhost apparently has labelled at least one of your edits as vandalism. Fnorp (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I think they are pretty much all caught, no? Actually that edit is by someone else. I expect Sugo Ghost will want to give him one of his stern lectures. Johnbod (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did an excellent job, not only reverting but also discussing with him on a level that I could not. Not only is my English not good enough, I don't know my way in the regulations and had to catch a train as well. I'm sorry you had to clean up the mess he made. I lost track of all the corrected pages, but will soon continue by inspecting the pages that link to Holland. This time I'll make sure I do give an edit summary any time, although that obviously is not good enough for our mutual friend. As for Breslau, I meant this edit. Fnorp (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Brescia Casket (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to

Judas, Susanna and Lazarus

Catalogue number (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Accession number and Catalogue

Celts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Galicia

Charles Hercules Read (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to National Portrait Gallery

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KTC (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that you'd know how to fix the border of a box that I'd like to continue using for Wikipedia:GLAM/smarthistory. The border is very wide on the left, and narrow on the right. See The_Allegory_of_Good_and_Bad_Government#Notes for one example.

If you have any advice on the the GLAM/Smarthistory project do please let me know. I seem to be the only person working on it. Probably the problem is that many people see this project as just adding external links to Smarthistory videos, which would be quite boring and very useless if the links were buried in the External links section. Do please look at the overall type of editing I've been doing on these articles, e.g. diff. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the last person to ask, but I've fiddled at that example. I got the picture, but not the video box over. See my edits. I've seen many of your changes via my watchlist & I think you're doing great work. I & Whiteghost did some on the list, but we're both busy on other stuff for now. Too few editors! Johnbod (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see that the Met is deaccessioning a number of things (including a portrait attributed to Memling) via Sotheby's on 31 Jan? Someone got a batch of them into Commons before I did. - PKM (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How very clever of you to think of that picture; I'd forgotten about that, complete with it's extended ivy on the wall drawn by me to hide all the horrible cars and people walking past. Have you seen it recently? Completely restored at vast expence and looking as good as the day iy was built - I must tty and get another picture somsetime. I don't agree with you over the horrible American house, which is Gothic, but I'm sure something better will turn up sooner of later. Going to be near Bedford Park today, that should dbeinteresting. Giano (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you - I didn't know the house or picture at all, but turned it up on Commons. Searching for "Queen Anne architecture" was of course no use at all, but I found it eventually. It's the smaller types of house Commons doesn't have many of - loads of vast mansions. When was it actually built - must look it up. Hope you're well. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Winslow Hall: can't remember when it was built - although I did write the page after I was given a load of old articles and papers on it from the 1900s and 1920s. Very interesting as its saod by some to be by Christopher Wren - and in my unbiased view it probably is by him, but no one will ever know for sure. The proportions are perfect, and only a master would have dared stick that great chimney stack on top and get away with it looking perfectly normal. I am well - back on form, one might almost say. Giano (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, added - now I do remember reading the article. My visual memory for architecture isn't what it should be. Good to hear you're back, it's been like the Western Front for content writers lately! Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]