Portrait of a Young Fiancée may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page
.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
id=27757&dirids=1 NO RETURN link] to "turn-the pages" for the Warsaw copy of the ''Sforziada'']</ref> This is a printed book with hand-illuminated additions containing a long propagandistic
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stirling torcs may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
[[File:Stirling HoardDSCF6398.jpg|thumb|1 and 2) The two twisted torcs]]
[[File:Stirling HoardDSCF6396.jpg|thumb|right|300px|4) A golden torc made from eight gold wires twisted together, intricately decorated terminals with a
[[File:Stirling HoardDSCF6397.jpg|thumb|right|300px|3) Fragments of torc apparently from southwestern France]]
I am new to arbcom, please teach me. You said "stick to your section", - I would think I may reply to a comment which is not in "my section" that mentions me, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said that to Andy. Admittedly this one seems to be spreading all over the place, but I believe you are supposed to stick to your section & go "@Andy ... " etc when responding to points in another section. I, as an "other", wouldn't comment in one of the other sections. I don't have that much experience of arbcom myself (you could ask Andy, tee hee!). Don't use the Arb's space, that's for sure. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 2 August 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I have a completed entry for the Turkey Cafe, and I believe you offered to start the new entry for me? Here are a couple of lines that you can use to start the page:
The Turkey Cafe is a grade two listed building, and it was originally owned and designed by architect Arthur Wakerley. Wakerley designed the building for his first tenant John Winn. Winn planned on opening the building up as a new cafe to join his other successes in Manchester and Leicester (Farquhar 1987). The building is known for its art nouveau style architecture; and, to the people of Leicester, the building certainly is worth preserving and does have an interesting history. The building has served as a cafe, restaurant, meeting place, ice-cream parlour, and unexpectedly an office for opticians. While numerous buildings were destroyed during and after the World Wars, including all of Winn’s other cafes, the Turkey Cafe has remained (Taylor 1997). Now, the building has come full circle, standing restored in its original appearance and serving as a cafe.
I can insert page numbers and references, but if you want the two listed above here they are:
I notice that you have reverted my recent change to Cuthbert. I am in the process of adding better/extra references and detailed information to the article, but I have not actually started to do that yet. All I have done so far is to copy-edit the article, as it read poorly, and organise some of the sections to help the article make more sense to a casual reader. Thank you for noticing that some of the references were deleted - this was not my intention. I will endeavour to retain them as I continue to improve the quality of the article. Hel-hama (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - you also seemed to have added the possibility that Cuthbert was of royal birth, with no references. That wasn't in any source I can remember when I added much of this stuff, and is surely complete speculation. It wasn't obvious to me it read better afterwards, but it can be hard to compare. Johnbod (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - I was getting round to it, but that's what we need. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brideshead and other thoughts
I have just made this edit [1] following a suggestion of yours made three years ago on the talk page; I thought I had added it three years ago - clearly not! Do you by any chance have the reff for it? I know it looks pretty obvious, but some people do like their page numbers and ISBNs. Giano 20:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Torc, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galicia (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) 11:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An advance in tracking articles matching the DNB
Having talked to you in London, and then to Magnus Manske yesterday at our meetup here, I'm further ahead in the proposed upgrading of articles with DNB text.
For example I can now easily find articles carrying {{
1911
}} is relevant over 5000 times, so I think that counts as a backlog!
Johnbod, I was surprised you objected to my striking what is clearly a a facetious vote at the Maize RM. I doubt the request will be successful anyway; surely you don't need to try to count a vote that's mocking your position. --BDD (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A vote is a vote. Earlier someone tried to delete it altogether, but it should be left as it is. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Blake
Hey John, I was wondering if you would be interested in helping with
WP:Blake. It seems right along your interests, and is a GLAM cooperation with the William Blake Archive, and I am trying to rally some support to help flesh out and expand more of the content around William Blake. If you are interested, you should add yourself to the members list for the task force and check out the most recent update I posted, Sadads (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for signing up! I will put out updates when we do the Education class and when we have the editathon. It would be nice to have someone with as much experience as you to help give feedback! Sadads (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of feedback, etc. Could you take a look at Visionary Heads. User:Dmitrismirnov usually writes on RU Wikipedia, but has been so good to write a new article here. I plan on nominating it for DYK, but another set of eyes over it would be great! Cheers, and Happy editing! Sadads (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John - After a very busy summer, I am starting to slowly get back into the swing of things on WP. Taking Agriculture to GAN is still on my to-do list for this fall. First of all, I want to thank you for taking the time to review the article and make comments earlier in the year - your thoughts were extremely helpful in the course of my work on the article. Secondly, I believe I have addressed (or at least replied to) all of your comments on the talk page. If you have the time and interest, would you mind stopping by to take another look. IMHO, I think the article is fairly close to a place where it could be nominated for GA, although obviously more work is always possible on an article of this size. I don't have any plans at this point to take the article to FAC, although comments in that direction would be appreciated if they are offered. Thanks in advance, and no worries if you don't have the time/interest - your work already goes above and beyond. Dana boomer (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, sure - remind me if you don't see anything after a week. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings and... reply
Greetings Johnbod. Thank you for your note. It's true that there are several other John Moores, including other military officers, bishops and what-have-ye. That's what disambig. pages are for. However, going on the premise of "the simpler, the better" as regards article titles, I really see no harm in
John Moore (soldier)
. The profession is the standard disambig. when using parenthesis, and this one hadn't been taken, I saw no reason for not going back to basics.
Disambiguating: "In most cases these nouns are standard, commonly used tags such as "(musician)" and "(politician)"... "Try also to limit the tag to a single, recognizable and highly applicable word"... or "Try to avoid using abbreviations or anything capitalised"
(my italics).
Notwithstanding all of the above, if you insist that that particular disambig. title is the best possible, I really have no objection. After all, searching for John Moore (optimistic search) will eventually take you to the same place as searching for John Moore (lieutenant-general) (knowledgeable search, but too precise, too wordy and has a hyphen). Regards, --Technopat (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to put it back? I STRONGLY advise against more such edits - look at
Wikipedia:NCP#Disambiguating to justify this is totally specious. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
As I commented to you above: "I really have no objection." As for the "specious" justification, I was simply explaining my rationale. Hardly warrants that "STRONGLY". Regards, --Technopat (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead image is once more being discussed. Apparantly the fact that the Sutton Hoo helmet is in the lead is an example of how "over-zealous editors deliberately misrepresent an entire period of history for (seemingly) no real reason other than preference". Funny, i thought I spent rather more than a year reworking the whole article (with your very great help on the art sections) to make sure the article didn't misrepresent history - I guess one picture is worth more than 14,000 words or something. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw. Just sounding off I think. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sup, both of you should actually engage with the debate rather than shutting it down and bitching behind closed doors - you might give the impression of corrupt practices, just FYI
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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission
You mentioned that infoboxes are problematic for bios. Could you explain that a little just for my own edification? I'm interested in why you think that. I'm trying to understand this issue a little better and possibly craft an RfC if it turns out that no one else is willing. Thanks in advance. Equazcion(talk) 21:19, 26 Aug 2013 (UTC)
See my evidence in the case, and the discussion and the various linked discussions, at length. They are fine for sportspeople, politicians etc, but otherwise often very likely to lead to inaccuracy. Johnbod (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For your contributions to bring Middle Ages (estimated annual readership: 1,733,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:
If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I owe you this, too:
The Half Million Award
For your contributions to bring Rembrandt (estimated annual readership: 601,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! -- ~~~~
Probably shouldn't count the Google Doodle. But good God, what a load of traffic that brings in! Anyway, thanks for these terrific contributions; it's great to see these brought up to quality status. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese Jade reversion
Hi, You're obviously a big contributor, so I must assume that you were otherwise occupied and reverted my edit without actually reading the edits I made to both pages ("Chinese jade" and "Jade"). The "Names" section on "Chinese jade" was prey to a number of errors and assumptions that have no place in an encyclopedic article, declaring "jade" to be a concept too lofty for non-Chinese to appreciate, then rambling as far afield as the relative value of different colors of jade (which is in fact already and more appropriately described elsewhere in the article); the word 玉 is in fact the word most often used in Mainland China to refer to jade, and both "玉" and "jade" refer to the same class of stones. There is no "misunderstanding" here. This paragraph as originally written also did not touch on the concept of "Chinese jade" as defined at the top of the article (Chinese carved jade items, basically). Nor does "硬玉" receive broad enough popular circulation to be included in major dictionaries like 商务印刷馆's 《现代汉语词典》, though all markets and museums featuring jade have the carvings in sections labeled "玉器". In fact, 软玉 refers to the raw material, though the article had already defined "Chinese jade" as the artisinal product.
However, the original author did raise an interesting point by implying how 玉 is used abstractly and symbolically ("The cultural concept of 'jade' is considerably broader in China and Korea than in the West", and "The Chinese names for many ornamental non-jade rocks also incorporate this character as a radical, and it is widely understood by native speakers that such stones are not, in fact, true precious nephrite or jadeite"), so I essentially re-wrote this paragraph, adding a few real examples from the language, then realized that it would be more appropriate in the "Jade" article, which did not already include similar content. I encourage you to read my contribution there, and then would be happy to discuss further if you like. Satkomuni (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Follow-up] Meh. Alright. When you put it that way, though, I would consider this article more properly titled "Jade in China", largely since the first sentence as it currently stands (too strictly) defines the term "Chinese jade" as items carved in China from jade, which was why I'd moved it to "Jade". I see there is already a redirect in place from "Jade in China" to this page; if you agree, would you mind making that change? I've not made that sort of change before. Satkomuni (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can't really see the issue there. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 30
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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Medieval tapestries question
Hi John, have an interesting topic here. I was writing about Der Busant with User:Drmies and there's a bit of visual arts material which you might be interested in (or even able to expand?). Apparently the poem has spawned numerous tapestries, which seem to have drawn a bit of commentary on their own. Do you have any access to further sources than what's in the article, perhaps? Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wimbledon House, and for your congratulatory note!.--Wetman (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
DYK for Powder flask
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.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Love the Turkey café story - must go and visit it. Following through to Doulton (an article that really needs developing - it is a great story) I found the link to John Slater which goes to a disambiguation page on which there was no reference of this important Slater. I added him there and changed the link to the specific one but all this Doulton content needs a lot of work. Anyway, well done on the Turkey café! Whiteghost.ink (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - but I only started it for the new editor who added most of the content. Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for September 6
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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Useful, I'm sure. Did you talk to User:Jane023, who has been doing some work on this from a different angle (in Haarlem Also Werespielcheckers? Johnbod (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is WSC directly in touch with the BBC people, or are you still involved? The case of John Curtis on that list is quite intriguing. The DNB doesn't have much, "Your Paintings" really has no idea, the ODNB is like "Nothing is known of his subsequent career" after 1797, and mentions an auction sale in the 1980s, and the landscapes on the YP site might or might not be a good fit. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at intervals. The BBC aren't really involved - they just host the site for YP. Many of these people are just very obscure, & not yet reached by modern reseach. Others will be, but books are the best approach, or local museums. Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For people in the DNB the basic notability isn't typically the issue: more likely whoever was sent to off the library and archives didn't get the whole story. Case in point today is William Paulet Carey, where the DNB gets the rather dull puffing of "British Art", but not the early engravings, the radicalism, the treason trial case and other things going on in Dublin. Anyway, thanks for the advice. I have tried WSC before on the big picture of giving feedback to GLAM sites where we'd like their info improved (because we can't put OR here, amongst other things). It would be great to have a mechanism that was less case-by-case. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant that nothing much is known about them, and possibly knowable - this is especially the case for watercolourists, who nobody has ever bothered to write about much, either in their time or now. But YP only covers works in oils. Johnbod (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
September 2013
Hello, I'm
Britons (Celtic people) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page
.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
]), with a smaller migration to [[Britonia]] in modern [[Galicia (Spain)|Galicia]], [[Spain]]).<ref name="KochBritons"/>
earlier changes. But all the work on the figures remains Bellini's.<ref>Jaffé, 108; Bull, 242; [http://www.nga.gov/content/ngaweb/Collection/art-object-page.1138.html?opensection=inscription NGA "
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited World landscape, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Snyder (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) 10:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possible typo at The Monarch of the Glenn
I've corrected [2] what I think was a typo of yours[3], but I'd appreciate your checking it, as (assuming I'm right) I'm surprised it wasn't found earlier. Andrewa (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course (source is online too). Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you
The Barnstar of Fine Arts
Thanks for improving the encyclopedia's coverage of art-related topics with your creation of the new World landscape article. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few years ago, you inserted at Catacombs of Rome a reference to ‘Toynbee’, without a title. Would you please fill up the details such as title, year, publisher? Thank you very much, in advance.
— 189.61.0.190 (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heavens, 5 years ago! It will be Jocelyn Toynbee, maybe Death and Burial in the Roman World, 1971. Johnbod (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod Dear, I have been taking your name in vain! Pleeease come over to the talk page of Middle Ages. I don't care how rude you are, as long as poor Ealdgyth doesn't have to continue to put up with the brunt of my annoyance, without support from the other two major contributors to the article. It's not fair!
Are you OK?
I love the lead pic on your front page. Come and Choose something else just as representational.
Amandajm (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just found the ivory that you contributed. It's a good suggestion.Amandajm (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In mission situations maybe, but not in central Europe. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Redfern in Sydney, New South Wales. Hardly a mission situation. I personally couldn't care less whether the Jesuits do or don't, but what I object to is editors changing sourced material. If you have a source that says that the Jesuits didn't run primary schools in Austria-Hungary in the 1890's, go right ahead and add it. I am sick to death of editors just dropping by and changing information in articles "coz they know". Challenge the source properly with an alternative source. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly it is a missionary situation in NSW. You have also lazily reverted the correction of "monastery" which was explained in the edit summary, which is the sort of thing I am sick of. The article is in poor English, and I only removed "primary", which is highly unlikely to be correct, leaving "school" which may well be. . There is already a cn tag just later. And G'day to you too. Any more on the article talk page, which is the appropriate place. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for September 20
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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
feather tights
I was interested to see your hairy Mary additions, but I'm unconvinced by the explanation for the bare breasts. Is there any other example of human depictions being based on the fact that animals often have bare areas around the nipples? Is it likely that medieval costumes would have had this feature, even if the character was played by men? I'm just wondering, it seems such a bizarre thing to see in religious paintings Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is wierd, & other explanations are welcome, though I don't think mere titillation would be right. The knees worn bare by prayer is in the dissertation (pretty much as speculation), but I haven't seen that explaining the breasts, which was my OR. In most (all?) domesticated dairy animals the udders are all effectively hairless, as 15th-century people would have been well aware. The dramatic characters would have been played by boys, but I think also women as they were only one-off am dram. Either way I imagine the breasts would have been plain cloth if there were suits. They seemed to use women in tableaus etc in
Madonna Lactans of course. This lady seems the expert (googling "jolly medieval hair" she's the first hit), & I might ask her. One of those titles has a wonderful discussion of medieval & Renaissance female pubic hair, in art, Rabelais and life, plus mention of several other hairy female saints, apart from Wilgefortis new to me. A useful way of putting off husbands, Roman prefects etc. On "and now for something completely different", did I meet your wife? If so, say hi. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Painterwork
Painterwork, are you interested to edit this? Hafspajen (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I've done a little - it's clearly about decorating in 1910, and not art at all. I'm far from sure we need it. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John, my understanding was that if, while writing an article for Wikipedia, one wishes to quote directly from a primary source (e.g. Pliny the Elder, Theophrastus, etc.) he can still do so, which, by its nature, would require him to cite the reference source. Perhaps we can find a middle ground, but to neglect mentioning these great botanists and their opinions, in my humble opinion, would have been counter-productive to an article which treats on gum-resins used in incense, and - by way of extension - on botanical plants.Davidbena (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but almost all your references seem to be primary, which is not good. More from Amar, Macht etc would be good. Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chemical Heritage Foundation. Bring your own content to work on, or get an early start on Ada Lovelace Day with our resources about women in science, chemistry and the history of science. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Disambiguation link notification for September 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Penitent Magdalene (Donatello), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Penitent Magdalen (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) 11:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SG for "Der Busant"
On 28 September 2013, Schon gewusst? was updated with a fact from your translation of the article "Der Busant", which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was: Das mittelalterliche Versepos Der Busant handelt von einem Bussard, Abenteuern im Wald und einer Liebesgeschichte.. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (quick check).
Well the "wrong" version is protected, but as "autoconfirmed" I think I'll try a new milder one. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm dubious about 'relic enthusiast' or both 'however' and 'although'.
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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to St Mark's Basilica may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
*Buckton, David, et al., [http://www.metmuseum.org/research/metpublications/The_Treasury_of_San_Marco_Venice ''The Treasury
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Merry company may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
en-gb "Merry Company"], Istvan nemeth, Museum of Fine Arts, budapest, for Google Cultural Institute]</ref> In the Renaissance such scenes tended to be given specific settings from religion or
References to the artist are most common under the name Giorgio da Sebenico,<ref.Kokole</ref><ref name="Heydenreich-1996">
*Schulz, Anne Markham, "Giorgio da Sebenico and the Workshop of Giovanni Bon", [[http://www.ipu.hr/uploads/documents/1291.pdf online PDF] from [[Brown University]], Providence,
was often copied and distributed in small bronzes, is at the [[Uffizi]] Gallery, Florence.<ref>([http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/b/bandinel/laocoon.html BANDINELLI, Baccio]. Web Gallery of
giving no occupation. Recent new research has recovered two documents in the municipal archives (badly indexed, and so missed by earlier researchers, which has enabled a much more precise location
Would appreciate an openion here. Also on a choice of diptychs for that page. Ceoil (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for World landscape
nominate
) 16:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
DYK for The Feast of the Gods
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. 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bellini/Titian
Johnbo, do you want me to put in some of those pics I cropped, or what? I think the pheasant and the tub would be a good addition, for a start. Amandajm (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please do. I've been offline most of the time - I'd add a gallery, as you won't get many more in the text. Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 13 October 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"He made over 1,400 brilliantly detailed etchings that chronicled the life of his period..."
Please explain what justifies the use of the word "brilliantly" in this clause, and why removal of the word makes a nonsense of it.
For my own part, I will introduce you to
WP:PEACOCK
or, if you are aware of this policy, I will remind you of it:
Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.
that the image caption that you added at Grotesque would be better placed in the text, with a reference to the picture. But . ... your edit, your call. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe - its a considerably shortened version of what I found elsewhere, where it was wholly inappropriate. I'm not sure the content is really justified in the text. I don't have strong views. Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is not your work I'll probably take an ax to it. But not now. Carptrash (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kingston edit-a-thon, Monday 28 October
John, Two emails I've copied to you about Kingston have been "delayed" and "rejected by the server". "Message will be retried for 2 more day(s)". The emails were not important, but there may well be other emails you're not getting. Edward Edwardx (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I haven't had any since yesterday. I'll look into it. Johnbod (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Feast of the Gods (art)
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. 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leonardo Loredan
In
Odescalchi (although that page redirects to one on a different family that added the name Odescalchi to their own after a marriage to a female of the older Odescalchis many generations later, in the 18th century). The online source is now dead. --Hegvald (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorted, and Erba-Odescalchi - it is the same family, 17th century nouveau-riche. Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations!
Great article! Great fun to read!
I love the expression on Juno as she looks at her husband and wishes that he would put some clothes on in front of the young maidens.
I have fiddled with that layout and put them all in three blocks. Because having the odd pics on their own wasn't working visually.
That formatting does something peculiar. Every time you load it, it makes the blocks of pics smaller or larger in a seemingly random way as if they were differently formatted. Then, next time you look, they are all identical heights. I don't know why. It doesn't relate exactly to the proportion of the page on the screen (I've tried that.) I'll look again and make sure it is behaving.
Thanks! Which Juno? It was fun to write, & an interesting comparison with Merry company with its fully-clothed maybe-prostitutes. Maybe I should expand on that, but I don't have much in the sources. Did you see the puzzle on the talk-page? Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Geology Hall
You removed two statements of its being in the Gothic Revival style. Rutgers says it is, sources say it is, the NRHP and NABS documents says it is, histories of the university say it is, and Hardenbergh supposedly designed it to be in an understated Gothic Revival style....so, what is your basis for removing it. I'm only interested in accuracy.--
There are enough photos to show it clearly isn't in any meaningful sense. The text says something about "Gothic elements" which there may be somewhere, but the main elevations have no trace of Gothic whatsoever, except the two little butresses flanking the main door. The windows are just as un-Gothic as it is possible to be. "Understated" is, well, an understatement. Show me a specialized architectural source, or some photos with any trace of Gothic; then an appropriately limited statement could be made. You do know what Gothic looks like, I take it? General American sources can be very keen to attach a distinct style to buildings that don't have one. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A missing "isn't" here, I expect. I left the one bit in the text, but the building really cannot and should not be described as GR overall. Johnbod (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't was missing...added above. Understood on the rest...in your estimation, something I can keep for future reference in case a new more detailed source emerges...what is it?--
You mean how should it's style be described? I'd say its detailing draws on vernacular styles in the porch and gable windows at the top, & overall its a sort of late Regency (in English terms) - can one describe it as Federal style? I wouldn't know. The very flattened rounded tops of many of the windows are really only a 19th-century thing. The window at top above the porch has a single column with capital in the middle - what style is the capital? Other details are very subdued Baroque/Neo-classicalish - the pediment & the projecting keystones over the windows. It's not an unattractive building, dignified & restrained, & better as it is than if tarted up in a Revival style imo. In terms of the overall form, it's closer to Romanesque Revival, but the windows & details firmly avoid going that way. You might ask User:Wetman, who might have sources & knows more than I do. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at this essentially utilitarian structure as a block with an extension (where the entrance is), you'll see that in every way it is symmetrical: not Gothic, not even Picturesque. The round arch of the entrance has a sequence of dropped keystones: a Serlian Mannerist motif. Not a pointed arch in evidence anywhere. It just isn't Gothic at all. --Wetman (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kitsch
A FlamingoSome professors of Medieval Studies
Kitsch was an pretty long article once. Now it is only scraps left. Will you, are you - interested? Silly that The English Wikipedia doesn't have a good article on the subject ( just compare with other Wikis). I think you could be the man who can fix this. Hafspajen (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wooo! No thanks, not my area at all. It gets a lot of hits & should be better. A decent source is needed. Some of the old stuff might be sneaked back in. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.Well, well. That article will never come in shape, ever... Hafspajen (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list
. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Followup on Blake Editathon
Hey Johnbod, sorry I didn't follow up sooner on the activities at
Good faith mistakes, but I don't want it too linger too long. I already did a pass through at Beulah (Blake) (and you can see the changes I ended up making). I also brought up the concerns at his talk page, and will be keeping an eye on his future edits, Sadads (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Francis Bacon
Dear Sir Madam,
Having read the Francis Bacon article I wanted to correct British description my comments are below -which you deleted from the talk page , I thought I would have an orderly discussion and not an outright deletion -there is nothing in what I have written that is not true. Please see Pablo Picasso's page he was born in Spain and lived the great majority of his life in France he has never been described as French, similar to Bacon- I think wikipedia should reflect facts and not opinion.
On the issue of the description of Bacon as "Irish born, British figurative painter" this has been a subject of dispute among a number of user/editors of Wikipedia, clearly the talk page requests users to be objective and report Facts supported by evidence in adhering to this principle the description "Irish born" is entirely appropriate back up by historical evidence of the Irish National census of 1911 (please see link http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/reels/nai002575018/) .There is clearly a bias against describing Bacon as Irish as his nationality and forcefully purporting him to be a "British painter" due to his parents nationality they are described as "English" yes his mother was born in England but his father was born in Australia -as can be seen again the census 1911 enumerators abstract. In reporting these facts I would request the Lede be changed to reflect facts "Francis Bacon was born in Dublin, Ireland in 1909" etc, and delete the British description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseoffergeld (talk • contribs) 01:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseoffergeld (talk • contribs)
I don't believe I deleted anything of yours, but I've made my position on this clear many times, as have many other editors. Johnbod (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Francis Bacon (Edit History) you have reverted my change from British to Irish- You should supply evidence
that Bacon was British before you edit , I have supplied a census as evidence available online to support the change-
its very odd to describe someone as "Irish born British painter" yes bacon lived in Britain but he also live in various parts of Europe - you should look at Pablo Picasso's page he lived the majority of his life in France but was born in Spain and has
all ways been described as Spanish . When editing we must be objective and report only Facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseoffergeld (talk • contribs) 01:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Johnbod. You have new messages at Bailmoney27's talk page. Message added 16:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
It is true that, in informal contexts, that the language spoken in Belgium is sometimes called 'Flemish'. This is true in Dutch, French and English equally, which have two distinct words for 'Dutch' and 'Flemish'. Formally, however, the language is definitely called Dutch; every level of government calls it Dutch, neutral outsiders call it Dutch and the constitution calls it Dutch. Even on the Dutch-language Wikipedia they refer to it as Dutch (not Flemish). (The confusion probably comes from the region and the people - the Dutch speakers in Belgium are Flemish, and are not Dutch (the nationality). You're definitely not crazy anyways.)
Every single page on Wikipedia that I have encountered calls it Dutch. This includes Belgium, Flanders and all major cities. So I can't really point to a policy, because this hasn't really come up before and the practice is already uniform. Any questions, let me know. Oreo Priesttalk 15:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I knew I wasn't crazy, thanks. We are talking about English usage, not Belgian. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 1
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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflicts
Sorry 'bout that :) I'm off for the day so can't do more there, but seeing that lead on the main page sent me into spasms of despair. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's not what it should be - possibly too much chewed over. I'll try to propose something over the next days. Good to see you back & busy. I always sit out the seasonal fireworks but I have been following. Do you really think admin cabals have got worse? - thankfully I've never been a target but they seem rather weaker to me, if only as participation continues to tail. Of course I agree with you re content. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back. It will be a long response (surprise :) I don't think they've gotten worse in term of numbers (yes, overall decline in participation), but I do think they've gotten worse in terms of negative effect overall: on content, on established editors, on editor retention, and on the increasingly hostile environment (which is more than a problem of profanity).
Evidence of that length would not be accepted today. And you can't really demonstrate "cabalism" without digging out all the buried bodies. The Infoboxes case should have been presented as the Cla68 Omnibus case was, and I know where all the bodies are buried, but even if I hadn't had Much More Important Real Life Matters to attend to this summer, I doubt I would have seen the benefit in spending three weeks of my time putting together all the evidence, as I did in 2008, because I don't think the current ArbCom has the stomach to do anything about the issues. Partly because of declining participation; partly because ArbCom is too big and can't come to agreement on decisions; partly because increasing the size of ArbCom led to less worthy candidates, IMO, and a weaker ArbCom overall.
I don't believe the current ArbCom has the stomach for desysopping, or even strong sanctions. Unless presented with a clear case of wheel-warring, and a past history of same (the Hawkeye desysop)-- in other words, an easy one-- I don't think they'll do anything, so spending three weeks to dig out the buried bodies would be a waste of time.
Ditto for socking. Relative to older ArbComs, the current arbs are relatively tolerant of socking, making possible situations like the one that led to the Breaking of the FA process (and it is really broken!).
In the issues leading up to the 2008 Ommibus Arbcase (that is, in the "olden days") we had more admins who were more involved in and cared more about content. Many of them were around as Wikipedia was building its core content from nothing. We didn't have so many admins who weren't as passionate about content, simply frequented the drama boards, did gnomish admins tasks, etc. Many of the issues in that case revolved around admins who actually wrote content, and cared about policy to the extent it affected the POV they wanted to preserve in certain articles. More of the problematic admins today don't care as much about content as they do about the absolute power derived from being members of a group. Meaning they are less aware of or likely to be concerned about the effects their actions have on content and editors who build it-- unless those editors happen to be part of the cabal that furthers the admin's perception of power. They will protect anything that might affect the articles and interests of "their friends", but not because of a personal vested interest in the content, for better or worse, per se. They derive their perception of power based on which content contributors they are aligned with, but not because they are personally invested in content.
Or-- even more lame than the old alignments around POV-- now we find editors aligned around technical issues (eg, infoboxes and citation style). Compare how the lame MOS warriors in the old date-delinking debacle were dealt with, and the relatively small effect they had on most editors, compared to the infobox and citation style warriors, whose battleground encompassed half the world. The three situations were similar in that they initially targeted FAs (thinking that would trickle down and their preferred version would take hold), but different in that the a) the date-delinkers worked with guidelines while the infobox warriors ignored them; and b) the date-delinkers didn't have admins protecting them, while the citation-style changers and infobox warriors did.
Add to that, the overall decline in participation, the circus that the drama boards have become, and the significant decline in civility, and we end up with battles for the pure sake of power and preservation of group status. A bigger net negative for all: editors and content. Fewer admins aligning themselves with groups, but having a greater effect on the overall deterioration than we saw in the "olden days", where more admins aligned together around specific POV articles. POV is still protected by admins, but they don't even realize it.
Eric isn't the problem. But because those who see the double standard that Eric sees defend him, and because he continues to spout profanity, the perception is that potty-mouthed FA writers have a cabal. No, the non-potty-mouthed FA writers are a real problem-- at least Eric is honest. But I suspect we'd have a much better shot at doing something about the non-potty-mouthed really nasty editors and the admins who protect them if Eric would stop cursing at people, because anyone trying to point out the double standard and admin abuse in the Eric message is losing credibility, since most people only see the F'ing C's. So, status quo-- progress unlikely on any front. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
National Gallery
Funny, isn't it? I wish it was true! Towards the end of 2011, I kept hoping that they would twig to what their findings actually implied, but they never did. They managed to come up with statements that supported the theory of Martin Davies, (previous director), rather than saying "Wow! We have extraordinary new evidence that needs to be taken into account!" Meanwhile, Martin Kemp has his own reasons for not wanting to see what is before his eyes: it contradicts what he has written himself, and also conflicts with his dating of the Met drawings, which have a little optical diagram on the same page.
As for Salvator Mundi, they have cleaned it so viciously that all the shadow has gone from the face, leaving it a fuzzy shade of brown The highlights have gone. The shadows have gone. If you compare the washed-out face with the magnificently three-dimensional hand, you get an idea of what it might have been like. Such a pity! Amandajm (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request for peer review
Hi, I just listed Clarence Chesterfield Howerton for a peer review; and saw that you were in the 'Arts' section (where I listed it) as a volunteer reviewer. I appreciate that this article may not be in the ordinary line of Arts, yet I felt that this was the right place to request; given Howerton's work in film. I noticed that you had an extraordinarily wide range of topics you wrote articles on; also taking the time to nominate them for DYK. These led me to ask if you would mind performing a peer review on the article for me? Thanks, Matty.007 12:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind if you don't want to do a peer review, but please could you let me know if that is the case? Thanks, Matty.007 17:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I don't Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ada's Angel Award
Ada Lovelace Award
Thank you for all of the effort you put into the Ada Lovelace events in October 2013. This is an award for supporting the Royal Society event in UK. --Daria Cybulska (WMUK) (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, not the Ada Lovelace award! I'm envious! When do I get the Lord Byron award for my Italian suite of poems?
Anyway, speaking of Italy, you have done marvellous things with San Marco's, but all those piddling little illustrations at thumb and upright scale are offending my sensibilities. I like BIG pictures, and lots of them! Besides which, I am putting together a little Wikipedia book of churches, and I went to St Mark's page specifically to see if it was in a mess and it wasn't, thanks to you!
That is a fine piece of work, John. Hey, the 2015 Tour de France is to start in Utrecht--perhaps we should get funding for a "research trip". Maybe the WMF will pay for it if we say we'll bring the article up to GA. The food in Utrecht is excellent as well! On another note, I'm working on an article on teaching Judith in various English classes, and want to include a section on the Wikipedia articles on the text(s) and the images, so I'll be getting to work on that as well. If the spirit moves you and you want to do some tinkering, I'd appreciate it. Who knows, I might stick you (and perhaps me) in the footnote of my article, as a kind of plug for the quality of (some) WP articles. Mutual back-scratching, so to speak...have a great weekend, Drmies (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but actually far more of it was User:Gimmetrow, sadly now more or less departed. I'll take a look. The Power of Women has been on my to-do list for ages, but this is rather early. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jean de Wavrin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anthony of Burgundy (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) 09:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Editing
Hello Johnbod, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 12:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Counter-Maniera
nominate
) 08:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Pasquino
Hi, Johnbod. Thanks for your recent edits to Pasquino. Can you do anything about the mysterious reference in Note 2 "the modern opinion is from Helbig"? I can guess who Helbig is (he has his own Wikipedia entry), but we really need to know where he published this "modern opinion"! John O'London (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One would imagine in Das homerische Epos, aus den Denkmälern erläutert (The Homeric epic, explained from the monuments), Leipzig 1884, second edition 1887, but I don't know for sure. Haskell & Penny must surely give a yet more "modern" opinion. I'll ask User:Wetman, who added it [4]. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably meant Helbig was quoted by Schweitzer and Hackenbeil 1936 as a modern opinion, but it's not my field! John O'London (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The modern opinion would be in the most recent (much re-edited) edition of W. Helbig, Führer durch die öffentlicher Sammlungen klassischer Altertümer in Rom. The fourth edition may have been superceeded. --Wetman (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History/The Royal Society 2013
Hello, Johnbod.
Just wondering, is there another 'round' of this edit-a-thon going on as I noted a few new pages all related to doctors at
Yes [5], not that people need to get together to write articles, of course. Nice to see anyway, cheers, Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good, it all makes sense, now. They may want to avoid the bare URLs, though that's an opportunity to show them
REFLINKS! :-) 220ofBorg 11:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
Bartlomiej Strobel may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page
.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
*[http://culture.pl/en/artist/bartholomeus-bartlomiej-strobel Jagiello, Jakub, biography from the
The red link has been driving me crazy for the longest time, but of course I decide to do that while I'm cooking! I didn't mind the edit conflict and please continue - I really don't have time for to start a page, but at least now it's done and a blue link. He's interesting and I think with time the page can be developed quite nicely. Victoria (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean The Burlington Magazine, it is technically The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, rather splendidly. But WP is having none of that! Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blue Grotto (Capri), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Triton (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) 09:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bracket bot
Hello, I am Bracket bot. Well, no I am not. Don't you think that this jump from Baroque to Modern is a bit fast? What about 17th Century, Rembrandt, rococco, François Boucher, and a lot more... like File:Antoine Watteau - The Toilette - WGA25473.jpg, File:François Boucher, Ruhendes Mädchen (1751, Wallraf-Richartz Museum).jpg Hafspajen (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what are you talking about? Johnbod (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, is it Nude (art)? Well, yes it is. And the 19th century before Renoir et al. Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, I forgot that you didn't follow me and what I was telling you. Yes, it is the Nude (art). I understod that it is mainly our friendly friend's work, this article, but he might just jumped over some eras. I would love to have more about the 19th century before Renoir and all that. Hafspajen (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, mr Johnbod. We have met before, a long ago, now don't you remember? And that was a lot of fun! We were fighting on the same side... Right, I changed my name lately , from Warrington to Hafspajen but you can't forget this one->Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 12#Why Galleries are useful, eh? And you can call me Warrington, like Dr Mies. handshakes handshakes do you remember? Hafspajen (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nativity Scene article
Not sure what you were trying to do, in one of your recent edits you duplicated the first sentence again within the first paragraph. I am sure it was due to the edit conflict. The comment was about simplifying. Not sure which way to go to correct it.Marauder40 (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done - it was an ec indeed. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. looking at the History, I see you have been very active in the Nativity of Jesus in Art. As has been commented there, there is obvious overlap, and I want to see how we can clean up things to increase focus and quality of both articles. I am fascinated by the emergence of the Czech "folk" crèche as a direct consequence of the Emperor's prohibition of crèches in churches. I would want to avoid creating a third article :-), but obviously folk culture needs to go somewhere, ideally in one single place... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaplos (talk • contribs) 22:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just new, and to fill a gap at Historicism (Christianity). There was already a German article, and I've moved in the image. Which presents the problem that the image description of the manuscript page is a bit light. I believe I have a sensible caption, but perhaps you could have a look. There are quite likely other related MS. (In fact looking around deWP turns up the Berry Apocalypse in addition to the Douce Apocalypse, and some relation to iconography of the Sistine Chapel. Plenty on JSTOR too.) Charles Matthews (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
this a while back. I'm expanding Repin at the moment in case you feel like messing with it at all. I've done a decent bit of work with the bio (though I'll come back to it at some point with other sources), but the artistic work section is the real challenge of course. That'll take some time and effort. Any help or advice would be great. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 05:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Looks good so far. I have some short sources, but there should be plenty of books on the web. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find much that wasn't "no preview" or "snippet" on Google books, but I think I've done him justice for the time being, and found enough sourcing to keep away the disfiguring "one source" tag. I like to blast away at articles before my short attention span and lack of patience do me in, so I'm done with this one. I think it looks pretty nice for now. INeverCry 00:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A Boy was Born
A Boy was Born was created on the day a boy was born 100 years ago, and is approved for a Christmas DYK. I guess you will have a painting project in mind for that day? For the boy, I would like a more suitable picture, best English, clearly showing a boy, 15th or 16th century, because that's the time of the texts, or 1030s, the time of the composition. I trust that you are an expert, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I had a go - in most he is too small for this purpose. Change if you don't like. I need to find a DYK subject. Johnbod (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your Christmas card, - I enjoyed the zooming-in of the National Gallery! What a face, that boy! - Sorry about the boy above, I withdrew the nomination, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I saw. I can understand your feelings, but isn't that rather an over-reaction? Rather a pity I thought. All best wishes for Christmas again! Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard "pedantry at its worst" and "disruptive" for trying to protect "my" baby, so I stopped protecting - for the sake of peace - and feel like I abandoned the boy who made me quite proud and expectant on his birthday. Thanks for understanding my feelings, if you do ;) - --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Things improved, our hooks share that they are not pictured, but I used the exquisite boy you picked in my personal Christmas card, on my talk. Enjoy these days! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Agesander of Rhodes
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.
How do I propose something for deletion not eligible for PROD?
I would like to propose for deletion the page
WP:PROD
would NOT be uncontroversial (as far as the creator is concerned anyway). That means, I guess, that the deletion shouldn't be proposed that way. I looked at the Wiki policies and couldn't quite figure out what the alternative is, procedurally. It seems clear to me that the article's subject is wayyyyy below the threshold of notability. Seratelli is a minor league ballplayer who has been active for the past 8-10 years, and is not expected to have a major league career. It was on linked from the main page's DYK section today (11/29/13) via the factoid: "[DYK] that baseball player Anthony Seratelli bowled two perfect games in high school?" Honestly, it's an embarrassment to the project to have a minor-league ballplayer's high school bowling achievements posted on the main page. On the article's talk page, I asked the creator of the article to explain why the guy is notable, and the response was, essentially, that if you have 2 or 3 articles written about you over a period of time, and you didn't write the articles yourself, you are notable. My reading of the notability criteria is that there need to be "significant" independently-sourced coverage of the subject. I generally take a inclusive view of notability, but there has to be some limit, surely. I hate to bother you with this, but we crossed paths somehow a little while ago, and you seem to take an active role in admin stuff. I usually focus on writing and sourcing, and I have no expertise in WikiProcesses. If you could point me in the right direction that would be very helpful. Thanks!
David.thompson.esq (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASE/N is the place to start. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks -- according to
WP:BASE/N, a player is "presumed notable" if he has played 1 or more games in major league baseball. This player has apparently played zero games in the majors (as per MLB.com), so he is not "presumed." His existence has been documented several times by "trade" sites (MLB.com and its minor league equivalent; ESPN.com has a multi-sentence article documenting his signing with the Mets minor league organization, the article cites a couple of human interest stories about him. (The article is properly cited, just a question of whether the citations establish notability or the lack thereof). Still, if every player who has ever played a single MLB game is notable, then the bar is set pretty low already. Maybe this guy's high school bowling achievements merit inclusion. Based on your greater experience with such things, should I bother thinking about this further? David.thompson.esq (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Give it a go - the bar is set very low for sportspeople - not my area at all. It will depend on the quality of the coverage, not his actual achievements. Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm 
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
But good God, what a load of traffic that brings in! Anyway, thanks for these terrific contributions; it's great to see these brought up to quality status. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
