User talk:Johnbod/29

nominate

) 10:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Mirror symmetry article

Hey Johnbod,

I just wanted to let you know that I've finished revising the mirror symmetry (string theory) article that we discussed with User:Ozob. I think it's quite accessible now, and I'd love to hear your thoughts. In particular, I'd like to know if you find it accessible. If you're interested, please leave comments at this page.

Thanks for all your help!

Polytope24 (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copies of British Library manuscripts

I am working on topics in tenth century Anglo-Saxon history, and there are charters in the British Library which would make useful illustrations. You have worked on a number of manuscripts, so I wonder whether you can advise whether it is possible to arrange to photograph mss - or obtain copies made by other people which can be used on Wikipedia - and if so who is the best person to approach. Thanks if you can help. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. These days their emphasis is on digitizing, but I suppose they haven't reached these yet - I presume you've checked? If you just want sample items I'd expect some to be on their site already, which might count as 2-D, and so be uploadable to Commons. User:Andrew Gray was Wikipedian-in-Residence there for a year recently and would know better than I. Have you asked this lot if there are some open images? Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I think I will email the BL direct. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - try Sarah J Biggs, one of the MS curators. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have emailed her with a list of the charters I am interested in. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi both. In general terms, we can try persuading BL to release (at least downsampled) copies of a good bit of material if the images exist, but it's harder to ask for anything to be digitised from scratch - unsurprisingly this costs money and so they're less likely to do it on spec! As a general rule, anything on the Catalogue of Illuminated Manuscripts is PD and able to be released, but as the name suggests that skews towards later prettily-illustrated manuscripts and not to the less visually exciting charters.

Do you have specific MSS numbers you're looking for, or just a general example of a charter? Andrew Gray (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am working in my sandbox on an article on the royal scribe known as Æthelstan A, and the only suitable images I can think of are the two charters which survive as originals in his own hand. They are:

S 416 London, British Library, Add. 15350, ff. 81v-83r (s. xii med.)

S 425 London, British Library, Cotton Augustus ii. 65 (s. x med.; BM Facs., iii. 5)

The first is reproduced in a recent book but there is a copyright notice on the list of illustrations page saying "British Library Board. All rights reserved."

2. I have Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians going through A Class review, but it is short of images. Historians regard the ability of him and his wife Æthelflæd to issue charters in their own name without reference to the king as one indication of his semi-regal status, so a reproduction of one of these charters would be a good addition to the article. One is

S 221 London, British Library, Cotton Charters viii. 27 (s. ix/x; BM Facs., iii. 1)

There are others but I would need to track them down.

3. Ditto for Æthelflæd, who I intend working on in the future. An example of a charter of hers after her husband's death is

S 225 London, British Library, Cotton Claudius B. VI, f. 14r-v (s. xiii in.)

4. I put

Æthelwold of Wessex

through GA but I could not find any images, and the only charter he witnessed is

S 356 London, British Library, Lansdowne 417, f. 16r-v (s. xiv/xv)

Thanks very much. It sounds from what you say as if the chances are low apart from possibly the one which has already been reproduced - unless BM Facs means that a facsimile exists? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For #1, the problem is that it may have been done commercially for the book and such images don't always end up in the curator's possession. It probably did, but you never know :). However, there's a good chance it means it does exist in an accessible fashion. For #4 there's a page of Lansdowne 417 on the CIM here but sadly the wrong page.

BM Facs apparently means a 19th century facsimile edition - which, hurrah, has been digitised by Google! Google Books is not displaying it, but the Bodleian is - see here. So there's a start.

For the others, I'd normally email someone and ask then to check if they do exist - but my previous contact has now gone, & I see you've already emailed someone, so I guess that's as good as I could do! Andrew Gray (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the Bodleian only seems to have the first volume up to 838, but I have now found further information. According to Kemble here it has images of almost all single sheet charters, but these are copyright, password protected and only available for private study. It does not seem right to me that public institutions treat images of ancient documents as private property. Most single sheets were published between 1873 and 1884 in 4 volumes by Bond and 3 by Sanders. Perhaps it would be possible to get a BL readers card so that I could photocopy the charters? I understand that it is much easier now to become a reader than when I was one in the 1980s. Thanks very much for your help. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They let anyone in at all now - see the website. I'm not sure you can do it in one visit though, maybe you can. Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

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

Four Masters of the Yuan Dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wang Meng (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) 08:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adoration of the Shepherds

New and enthusiastic user I'm cleaning up after. Think it is useful to have an example of an icon, but not the way he did it; it's a good example of the use in religious practice, I think, but unless labelled as an icon, all its value is lost. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it's Ukraine it might be from a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, Russian Orthodox, or plain RC mileu, & so whether it is quite an icon as the term is usually used (Orthodox only) is a question. Most of his additions looked essentially Catholic in iconography to me. I removed some of his, but left others, as maybe you saw. An article on the topic as such would be interesting; they are very charming but certainly folk art. Enjoy the Edinburgh meet-up; I hope it's fuller than #2 (?) that I went to! Johnbod (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the museum page, which says it is an icon. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Others might disagree - the usage of the term in English (not their native language at all) is not straightforward. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

England in the Late Middle Ages

Hi. Thanks for the helpful additions to the article. Unfortunately I cannot quite close the circle on the references. According to my source pages 108-116 of Alexander and Binski 1987 is not by Williamson, but Stratford (both are on carving - so I cannot really guess whether its the pages or author that is right). Also for some reason my list of chapters doesn't say the author and title for pp. 511-515, so if you could let me have the details I will put them in. Thanks again.--SabreBD (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, Stratford, on ivory. The later pages are in the catalogue section, with various authors, in fact just 2 for the alabasters, but catalogue entries attributed by initials only don't normally get seperate author listings. Johnbod (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that explains it - I can work with that. Thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania session on face-to-face training

Hi John, I'm interested in co-presenting Face to face editing training: is it worth the effort?. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• OR drohowa you may wish to talk with John about presenting at this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hi John, I'm also interested in co-presenting. We've done a lot of work to increase the numbers of sustained users post Edit-a-Thons. See my work here for details

talk) 14:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, we're (Andrew Gray & I) thinking about this - there's only so many presenters a 30 min session can have! Can you email me any links to where you've expressed your views, or with top line notes on what they are. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

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

History of the English language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (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) 08:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

b'star

		The Wikimedia UK Barnstar
		Your work at the Royal Society has been give this plug from the New Scientist
		this WikiAward was given to Johnbod by Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) on 10:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC) for contributions to the UK chapter[reply]

Thanks! Hadn't seen that. Johnbod (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014 Core Contest

	First Prize
	Congratulations for really hitting Ottonian art out of the ground in 2014. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this Johnbod. Congratulations! Victoria (tk) 12:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Could you apply your expertise to Hildesheim Cathedral. A ref to that it is Ottonian Romanesque (if it is) would be appreciated, as any other. (The typical German article, without any inline citations.) - I am dreaming of a list of its treasure, for the reopening on 15 August. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP Catholicism in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Catholicism for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revertion

Sorry you had to correct my edition. The first I made was uncorrect, as I noticed when I saw the article again. The second one was made to correct that mistake. I did realize how strange the ref was, but I didn´t eliminate it since I wasn´t sure wether it was correct or not. Even so, it would be easy for you just erased it instead of reverting my edition, which after all was ok.

If I´m saying this is because it is not easy to encorage yourself to correct a mistake (even more when it´s not your first language), and action like that make it even worst. By giving us a chance to prove we know what we are doing, instead of reverting at first shot, more people will feel like going into it, probably. (sorry for my writing. This is not by best skil).

--Fmaestre (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Aglionby FRS

Just happened on him in the list of Fellows. He does seem an interesting chap, and somewhat neglected by scholars in the past. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - I don't think I'd heard of him. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hove amber cup, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Baltic and Whetstone (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) 08:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bespoke disambiguation page

That is fabulous work. Thank you for taking care of that. I am really impressed!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - not sure whether to class it as a disam page, in whicvh case I can't I think use refs. Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it's fine. Perhaps 'tis best to see if anyone complains?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even the robots have turned against us

I'm sure you saw this...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think I'll "un-disam" this one, & set up a seperate disam page. Johnbod (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - mind you some of those links should go to bespoke tailoring by the look of them. I don't see a better alternative for the cars & planes. Johnbod (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work yet again; I don't really see a need to have the word linked in most cases, since it's actually just a word, but I suppose it'll all sort itself out eventually.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it's a word many won't know - it is in the process of moving out of gents tailoring into computing, training & engineering, in an interesting way. I may add more to the article in a while. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again

casing of art
Thank you for casing in your articles the treasures of art, books and knowledge, like some medieval manuscripts were luxuriously bound in gold, silver and jewels, - repeating: you are an

awesome Wikipedian

(17 December 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago, you were the 97th recipient of my

Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

... and now you won for Ottonian art, well deserved. Have your expert look at Hildesheim Cathedral, I noticed it only today, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I just asked User:Furius to do things like the doors and the column, where I can add, when he has time. I don't do so much on straight architecture. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2014 (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.

Appledore, Torridge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tiverton

Bespoke (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Off-the-shelf

Edward Calvert (painter) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tiverton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johnbod, On the German-language Wikipedia the community has introduced a system for several years in what users conform that they have met other users in real life. This system was created to create more trust between users and thus creating a better and nicer place to work on the wiki. On the German-language Wikipedia it is a huge success and I translated almost everything of this tool in English so that also users from other Wikipedias can use it. It only makes sense to sign up into the system if you have met at least three other users in person. We have met and you have been several occasions where you have met other Wikimedians, so that shouldn't be a problem. You can sign up for the tool, after three other users confirm they have met you, you can confirm other users yourself. About this system, more information can be found at Wikipedia:Personal acquaintances. In the green section are the instructions. On Wikipedia:Personal acquaintances/Participants will grow a list of participants who are active in the English speaking parts of the world. It would be great if would you sign up! :-) Greetings - Romaine (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: On the German-language Wikipedia, everything is translated into English, but you need perhaps to set your preferences on English to show it in this language. Romaine (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, I asked myself that question many times, and I have suggested a talk myself here. Just letting you know that we now plan to intervene by means of persuasive computing, and in August our first results should be available. If you want me to join your discussion, just let me know. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prehistoric_art&diff=605620756&oldid=605620257

The opening – as an opening – didn't feel as succinct as it might be, so I tried some distillation. Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Browning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Borough of Southwark (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) 08:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

diff - I'm pretty sure even I would have heard if Gothic Architecture had suddenly been decided to have developed in Syria in the 9th century. I did a search on JSTOR and Google Scholar and nothing is showing such a fundamental change in architectural history. You know anything I don't? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an old argument - there are (if not recently destroyed...) some very early Syriac churches with pointed arches, then they appear in Muslim buildings, including in Spain and Sicily. See Gothic_architecture#Possible_Islamic_influence. But there is much more to Gothic than pointed arches, and the whole Gothic package of thin walls, large vaults and lots of windows is certainly new and French in origin, with St Denis etc, and there is little dispute now about that. This could be better put at the Gothic article really. This is useful on the history of the argument and seems balanced, unlike some stuff in the same publication on the subject. It might be worth a clause or sentence, but not more. I'm afraid I selfishly refrain from pointing out to the Boyana brigade that they should really be arguing at Medieval art, where a mention is appropriate.... Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks. I guess if *I* point them that way it'd be a bad thing, huh? Thanks, I didn't think Gothic architecture as a whole (not just the pointed arch, which I was aware predated the actual gothic style) started in Syria, but I'm doing good to stay abreast of non-artistic history trends... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, go ahead. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I'm trying to leave the art history parts there at MA to you. Did run across this though... got it for something else and just ran across it. Draper's very clear that the arch did come from Islam, but that this does not mean that Gothic architecture came from Islam - there are so many other parts of the whole of Gothic. Definitely something better suited to discussions at either Medieval art or Medieval architecture ... and it's clear that no one is arguing that the whole architectural style started in Syria, which is what the diff above is saying. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 29 April 2014 (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) 08:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your comments at Talk:Pevensey Castle#Merge. You might want to look at the article as it is now. Prioryman (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[4] I don't know Lasko`s book, but the Lotharkreuz at Aachen Cathedral was very likely a gift from the French king to get pardon for a raid to Aachen in 978 (TH. Jülich, Gemmenkreuze, in: Aachener Kunstblätter 54/55, 1986/87, S. 99-258 (204)). It seems Lasko follows this newer opinion, which is - in my opinion - the correct one. -- 217.70.160.66 (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Carbuncle (gemstone) 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:

• ], "precious stones of a red or fiery colour", usually [[garnet]]s.<ref>[[OED]], "Carbuncle": 1) stone, 3) medical</ref>
• "Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child;") Her husband and Maker is God, "Thy Maker is thine husband." (Is 54:5 KJV)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Raymond Postgate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FRS (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) 08:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John Byrne,

as I caught your attention, for better or worse, with a little dispute with Jerome Kohl about citations, I'm asking the same question to you, since you appear to be in an ideal position to answer questions to relative wikipedia novices.

The fun of browsing the

My attempts to use hyperlinked references met resistance because of a

Having tried to get the template:citation style to conform to the convention Jerome Kohl adheres to, I find that it is possible in principle (although it might be necessary to add an option to lines 1915 and 1949 of the code in Module:Citation/CS1), but it's really quite tedious to do, and a huge overhead for a simple hyperlink to a reference^{[citations? 2]}. If there's no hyperlink mechanism as agnostic of style conventions as the original

So my questions To Whom It May Concern (e.g., you, I hope) are:

What would make hyperlinks painless and low-overhead enough to be used with any style convention that you would actually use them?

... and the other question is: What would be a mechanism that inserts hyperlinks to your prolific existing work while maintaining any chosen display and citation style with minimal overhead?

Alternatively: Why do you decide not to bother about hyperlinks to references? There may be a valid reason that I'm completely missing.

Regards, Tatzelbrumm (talk) 07:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I don't use citation templates because I'm not very technical, I don't see the advantages myself, and they don't suit the kind of extra remarks and combined refs for different sources that come naturally in my normal subject area of art history. But I shall have to get to grips with them for cancer articles, where they are pretty much de rigeur, and they like to reference the abstracts of papers, not page numbers. Perhaps I will become a convert, who knows? But I do use hyperlinks, normally whenever possible, including ones to google books "previews", which many don't. But my core sources are typically printed books, very often not online at all, or JSTOR articles, which I always link to (unless I forget). Sometimes the link will be an extra click or mouse-move away, in a reference section, but I don't think that's the end of the world. As I often use different pages from the same work at many points, I don't think it's too much to make people go down to references for a link. For google books one could add customised links to each page that's referenced, but I normally only link to each work one. Not too many people know how to change the linked page on these, which is perhaps a pity. I didn't myself for a long time. I hope that helps. You might ask your questions of User:RexxS, who is a true believer when it comes to templates, and alweays articulate if not always pursuasive (for me) on their technicalities and benefits. Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that as the result of my discussion with Jerome Kohl, I came up with a lightweight scheme to add two-way hyperlinks to documents containing references and then proceeded to thoroughly vandalize one of Jerome Kohl's pages with it.

I hope to provide people like you with a tool that will get you into the habit of hyperlinking your references, irrespective of what citation style (that may be incompatible with template:citation and its many bells and whistles) you prefer to use. What does it take to convince you? — Tatzelbrumm (talk) 07:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know - I do already link if it is a web reference that I only use once, or maybe twice, in the article. Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I will have to revert that, won't I? But it never likes going back to what it was before!

How are you, anyway? Do you want to do something to make me happy? Go to the Vital articles project page and OK some of my proposal

[5] Amandajm (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I put it back. Very grudgingly, of course! Amandajm (talk) 05:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John, dear, I should have asked first, before reverting: were you expressing a preference, or merely making a point? Amandajm (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's my preference, just because I think it's more usual, and shorter, and also probably easier to find by a search. User:Anthony Appleyard is always super-helpful & quick doing admin-only moves, which I think this now is. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you want me to do? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sorry Anthony, Amanda has managed to move it back - it never seems to let me do that. Have a good weekend! Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John! I haven't actually looked at your contribution yet. I can see a point in labelling an article as vital if it results in: a) getting essential work done on it b) defending it from vandalism. But it only works if it is properly thought through. These "Vital articles" seem to be almost as arbitrary as FA's are. People suggest articles, and other people pass them. No-one seems to look at the "big picture". Amandajm (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Johnbod, I saw your note on category edits. If you have a concrete example of something wrong, I'll surely correct it. But I think (hope) that I only removed a category in parent-child, grandparent-grandchild etc. relationships. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnbod. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 16:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I have been checking the sources for Warren Cup, there's a way to go yet but I have put some initial points on the talk page. If you have a moment, would you care to drop some thoughts about what ought to be done to get through GAR? I doubt that FA would be realistic for the subject, but I'm hoping that GA can be done with a couple of weeks of minor improvements. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd been seeing it on my watchlist & will take a look when I can. I don't see why FA is out of reach at all, though I think you have to nail where the "fake" theory stands now, if you haven't done. I imagine the BM is standing 4-square behind it? I don't have as much time these days, as you can imagine. It's good there is an Objects in Focus on it. Cheers Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement, I look forward to your comments. I'm heading for GA first, we'll see what comes up in terms of any contentious issues before thinking if FA is reasonable in June/July (FA would really mean me working through Giuliani's original paper in German, something that can be skipped and instead rely on summaries to achieve GA, probably). I have yet to go through our copy of Williams' book (well, pamphlet) but have spent time checking other references. I doubt that the article can do more than summarize what the different sources have said as they are not in agreement. Fortunately there are only a couple of substantial sources, others tend to be passing mentions of the core sources without adding anything really new (e.g. the popular Beard or MacGregor). Done in the right way, I suspect the on-going uncertainty could become part of the interest for the encyclopaedia article, rather than a real stability issue. --Fæ (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Williams' small book is a good inspiration for the article, I have yet to factor his viewpoint in, and this will probably add a fair amount to the body of the article. I now have permission for an rather good illustrative video, this will cheer up the article no end; I'll probably be able to push on with it in about two weeks. --Fæ (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say thanks for your support so far for the memorial, and looking forward to seeing you online on Saturday. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good luck! Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

are your ears burning? Metropolitan Museum gave major props at http://wikiconferenceusa.org/wiki/Submissions:If_we_build_it,_will_they_come%3F_Bringing_library_collections_to_the_people_through_Wikipedia Duckduckstop (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I knew it was happening & I glad it went well. Hope you are all having a good time - say hi to all. Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just looked at the history of the page and noticed you were 'playing' on it too. Great, this page can be really good (and it is an important page, at least in title, to the topic). I've been just going out and grabbing pages after quick reads. The gold crowns aren't prehistoric, which is why I took them off (less than 5,500 years old. I have dust bunnies older than that). I haven't looked at the category, which should be a prehistoric gold mine of data. I thought a photo of the earliest art could be included, and the lead should really be beefed up with a very well written intro. I came across the page while doing additions to {{Prehistoric technology}} which you may want to glance at and see if you can add pages to it as full listings or as sub-sections. Good to meet you! Randy Kryn 13:52 31 May 2014 (UTC)

"Prehistoric art" is anything from Prehistory. In Europe, that means anything still outside the expanding Roman Empire, so up to 50 AD for England for example. That is the standard definition - there's no point inventing your own. I don't go in for lists much - I can't really see the point when we have categories. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that prehistoric eras were so recent in most areas. So North American Indian culture is prehistoric until folks from Europe arrived? Thanks for educating me about something so simple but something I wasn't aware of. I find lists garner many more "views" than categories, as some people look at lists while others look at categories. I'm a list person, and seldom look at categories (which is why I didn't even glance at the Prehistoric art category, which is huge, until you mentioned it). Then with lists you can add lead data and pictures and other information. Categories usually branch off into half a dozen of more sub-categories, which is one reason myself and probably others look elsewhere. After finding out Prehistoric is considered just last week (for that one Island tribe that other people won't approach because they kill everybody who lands there) I must go drown myself in mango juice. Thanks again! Randy Kryn 14:50 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes it is strictly although it is not usually referred to as such. Of course in Meso- and South America things are different, as several cultures had "writing" systems. You could rename your list using "Stone Age" maybe, then have Bronze Age and Iron Age ones as well - these are respectively mostly and partly prehistoric, depending on the culture. Or keep it all in one, in which case there's a lot to add. Images are certainly good. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like "list of Stone Age artworks" as it's what most people think of as prehistory (I'd guess). The list wasn't mine, but it did look woefully small and undernourished when I clicked on it - begging me for water and things like that. So I don't think I'd play with Bronze and Iron, although I guess the template itself will still have to include those. A good idea, and I'll give it a go. Another thing about lists is that they can go on See also lists, which up their availability, and everything is on one page and not spread out over many categories. I guess someone is either a category person or a list person, and never Mark Twain shall meet. More later, thanks again. Randy Kryn 19:38 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look in a while. I'm nothing against lists that are reasonably complete in terms of what articles we have, so good luck! Johnbod (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Have done some nice work on List of Stone Age art, but of course it is far from where it should be. Many more listings will go on the page, could you take a look and either add some important ones that you know of or give me a heads up on the major pages which aren't listed as yet. Each listing which doesn't have a summary will be summarized, with data about the object/cave and for the individual objects, for their present location. I try to give the artists their due - most of the time when people, at least myself, think of prehistoric art we forget that there was a very creative person working at the time. Thanks for a look if you have a minute. In all, Randy Kryn 13:34 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Before anything else: thanks for your contribution! I am currently translating this article for the french wiki and may need your advice every now and then. I will let you know as soon as the translation is ready (most likely it will be included in the article fr:gravure or fr:histoire de la gravure, and completed with 19th and 20th).

For the moment just one question: Burgkmair, Baldung and Graf are mentioned in the "little masters" section. However, neither my sources nor the "little masters" article mention them. Should I "move" them to the upper section? (The North after Dürer)

Thanks! --Npy (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a mistake with the header which I've moved down a paragraph. Of course, just ask. Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, the translation is taking shape here, still very much a WIP. As you can see, I have modified the division of contents, and added some information taken from fr:estampe. Please feel free to modify, comment etc. Small point, you mention Annibale Carracci, but maybe his brother Agostino is more relevant to old master prints? (not sure at all)

I've worked all 3 in, though the 2A's are the more significant. I suppose I should reference the article. By the way, isn't one of the most active figures in the French chapter a historian of prints? Johnbod (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the sourcing! Concerning Berthelot, I am not sure, but will check --Npy (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, lot of new references =) Do you intend to add more? If so, I will wait before updating the translation. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npy (talk • contribs) 18:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in theory. I've only done some of the books I used. I won't do much in the week. Johnbod (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John,

Are you going to the refresher on the 28th? I have created a page for it wmuk:Train the Trainers refresher 2014. Signing-up there isn't compulsory, but we can use the page to coordinate and discuss what we want to get out of the day.

Yaris678 (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me a while to respond to your comments. I won't make up excuses—I simply forgot. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I won't be able to add my bit until the w/e. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering on your feedback on the lead.

Moving to other account - will look tomorrow Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor comment. In this edit, you added the following observation: "Traditional sunburst morifs usually show the rays narrowing as they get further from the centre; from the later 19th century they often get wider, which is more appropriate in optical terms." In a strictly physical sense this might be true (you obviously allude to beam divergence), but the human eye perceives the rays or beams emanating from the sun in the traditional way as illustrated neatly by the first photo. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought we just see sunlight, no? What camera lenses do is another matter. Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure this kind of tapering off of beams surronding the sun (and other light sources) can be seen by the human eye as well as the camera lens. At least I seem to recall perceiving this phenomenon. The beams may widen, but their brightness decreases. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well out of my area of expertise, I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, I finally got around to responding to your question at Talk:Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry#Title. Please read my reply there. It took me some time, but I tried to check each of the sources I mentioned more carefully, and I put the results on the Talk page. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically

Your edit would have led to people trying to move the page to

WP:REFERS is clear that it is not a hard-and-fast rule. Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Johnbod. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

, Sorry to bother you, but the project needs expertise about the picture of the day. About Manet's Olympia... too chose the right copy on picture. Hafspajen (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Were you still intending to fix up the religious background of The Blind Leading the Blind? The article has three supports now, so I was worried it might be promoted before you got to it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sculpture in the Indian subcontinent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kailash Temple (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) 09:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gupta Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deogarh. 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) 08:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnbod. Your opinion is welcome on Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 61#remove image from articles. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know the backstory, but no doubt you are right. Too small for a bot it seems, but fiddly to do manually. Suggest a replacement on talk pages in English maybe? Good to hear from you. Johnbod (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say I left a question at User talk:Wiki at Royal Society John, but it appears that because of some markup left by someone else the talk page is a little messed up right now. I didn't want to try to fix it myself, since it looks like you're training someone, but FYI that last comment (with the weird effect of duplicating the comment and the note, and note substituting my signature) is from me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes wierd - there was just a missing final ">". Give me a few days on that. Or ask User:PatHadley actually - he might just know. Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that your recent three reverts at

No, they don't - I have read not only the MOS but 3RR, as well as your own rather spectacular ANI/block record. I am beginning to see how this came about. You are clearly ignorant of

MOS:FOOTERS. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Do you have a bad day or something? Since i regard the incident as minor i leave it at that.

prokaryotes (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Very wise. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod,
Thank you so much for expanding the little stub I started. From memory, I read about a few months ago in the local rag, then looked it up on Wikipedia to find out more about it. And there was the painting, in Giulio Cesare, with no article about it.

• At present, the article is about the one painting, and there are a number of others: should it be perhaps moved to The Banquet of Cleopatra (Tiepolo painting)?
• "The Banquet of Cleopatra" is a subject of many works of visual art, music and literature: should the article be about the Banquet of Cleopatra itself, with the works as sections?
• Ya wanna get
  WP:DYK
  ?

ps: My favourite work in the collection of the NGV is this 1986 anonymous work of performance and/or conceptual art. (After all, it really is just another Picasso. Don't tell anyone else I said this!) Piet AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes I was going to do the DYK - or you could; should go today. Some time later this could go to The Banquet of Cleopatra (Tieplo) and the plain name be worked up a bit to cover the whole subject - when I have time. It's rather like Feast of the Gods (art) but a bit less to say. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But all the thanks should be to you. It now looks like a real encyclopedia article.

That said, every time I look at the painting, for no particularly good reason I get the

Arrival of the Queen of Sheba as an Ohrwurm

.

Even worse, looking at Feast of the Gods (art) yields Led Zep's Immigrant Song: "the Feast of the Gods... etc". Aargh! --Shirt58 (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Handel & Tiepolo go pretty well together. Cleopatra is a main character in his

Merry Company bring forth? Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Disambiguation link notification for July 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Banquet of Cleopatra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Accademia. 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) 08:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Banquet of Cleopatra 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:

• the Eighteenth Century'', 1994, Yale University Press/[[Royal Academy of Arts]], ISBN 0300061862 (Catalogue for exhibition in London and Washington

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

talk) 14:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The Banquet of Cleopatra

Tasty work! And an effective antidote to that

Gc-MAF stuff. (Now we just need to get her to swing those hips... arf, arf!) 31.48.175.145 (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Banquet of Cleopatra

On 30 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Banquet of Cleopatra, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Tiepolo's The Banquet of Cleopatra (pictured) of 1744, now in Melbourne, shows Cleopatra about to dissolve a pearl in vinegar in order to win a bet? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Banquet of Cleopatra. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Orlady (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overview section for radiocarbon dating

The activity at the PR has died down somewhat, so I wanted to come back and ask you about this again. I'm still not quite sure what you have in mind here; apologies if I'm being thick. Can you give me some more details? I take your point about more people needing to know what a date means than need to understand the whole process -- would it help to add a sentence or two to the lead such as "Radiocarbon dates are frequently reported in archaeological research; a typical uncalibrated date looks like this: '3510 ± 60 BP' and means that the samples is between 3570 and 3450 years before 1950 AD. 'Uncalibrated' means that it has not been corrected for the variation in 14C over time. A corrected, or calibrated date, might be reported as 'cal 1220–1281 AD', which means that once the corrections are applied, the best estimate of calendar age is between 1220 AD and 1281 AD." Would that address your concern? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Part of it, but there is more to say, is there not? Probability/confidence, and so on. Do different labs still use different calibrations, so that dates from different sources shouldn't be mixed? Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I know about the subject I found out by researching the article, so I can't answer that with the authority an archaeologist would have. I know that Radiocarbon now recommends that all calibrated dates include details of the software used to do the calibration, including rev number, and that would imply the calibration curve, I assume. As far as I can tell the INTCAL curves are used for most dates, but it's not the sort of thing that's going to be citable to a secondary source. Re the probability/confidence: yes, but it's too complicated for the lead, at least if done right. I think a mention of the 68% confidence could be given by adding "with 68% confidence" in two places to the suggested sentence above. Do you think I should mention standard deviations in the lead, or the fact that calibrated intervals don't have distributions describable by formulae? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Folly definition

Hi Johnbod. Back on 10 April 2010 you made this edit to Folly which changed the definition of the topic to the version that that stands, more-or-less, to this day. A discussion about it, originally focused on grammatical tweaks, is taking place here. However, there's now a call for a reliably sourced definition. Would you happen to have a source for your edit/definition? Thanks. —Waldhorn (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I may not have time for this until after Wikimania. I doubt the term is capable of very precise definition, but the current one should be able to be sourced. I think the first sentence of the lead is ok, and somewhat sourced below (note 4), but I'm doubtful about the 2nd sentence. Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Following your comment here: [6] please read:

• Civility
• Assume good faith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.99.185.183 (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit-warring. You are doing too many edits based on your personal preferences and prejudices rather than WP policy. I suggest you go more slowly and carefully. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• My edits of bone china were to clarify a badly written and confusing statement - what is wrong with that?
• My edit of Simon Schama is because he is British, hence GBP is appropriate, and as a major currency it does not need conversion.
• Again, please be civil and assume good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.99.185.183 (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Currencies says that "as a major currency it does not need conversion" you are misreading it. In any case Schama has mostly lived and worked in the US since 1980. Your many edit summaries are not notable for either civility or good English. Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I would be interested to know the policy which directs a major currency, which is used for the nationality of the subject of the article, to be converted to another.

No policy either requires or deprecates it, and it is very common, especially in topics which span the Atlantic, as this one does. You may not like it, but you should not complain if your removals are reverted. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "you should not complain if your removals are reverted." Pot calling the kettle black ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.99.185.183 (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, please be civil as there is no need for discussions to degenerate into playground bickering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.99.185.183 (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of a Young Girl (Christus)‎‎

Well, we got there in the end - after how many years? Was the most difficult page I've been involved with; what can you say about a painting of which so little is known. Any info gathered was always like hens teeth. Anyway wanted to say that it was a good collab, am proud the finished article, and best wishes. Ceoil (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but it's nice to see a small work as an FA, as a bit of a change. Well done! Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited UK Native Seed Hub, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Down. 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) 09:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFC at MOS:BIO

I have opened an RFC on the question of appointment of Catholic bishops and the larger matter of inclusion of future jobs in infobox, list, etc. at

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Inclusion of future job positions in infobox, list, etc. Thank you! Elizium23 (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnbod/29&oldid=1076070071"

• Toggle limited content width