User talk:Johnbod/2 to mid-Dec 06

Hi Johnbod!

Thanks for your little addition to Poor Man's Bible. Good to make your aquaintance.

Illustrations to your articles... where do you find them? What do you need? --Amandajm 07:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - likewise. I've never uploaded any images myself, partly because of concerns about the copyright situation in the UK where I am. Most of the decent images would be regarded as copyright by their owners. It is a real problem though, especially with old master prints, my main area of interest. The external link at the bottom of that page is to the best prints link page. Mind you, with people like Giulio Campagnola there aren't that many decent on-line images anyway.

Do you do a lot of uploading?Johnbod 13:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, i started commons:Meister_der_Spielkarten. Adding pics is very welcome. If you are interessted i can mail these two articles (PDF)

• Anne H. van Buren, Sheila Edmunds: Playing Cards and Manuscripts: Some Widely Disseminated Fifteenth Century Model Sheets, In: The Art Bulletin 56. March 1974, p.12-30,
  ISSN 0004-3079, abstract
• Martha Wolff: Some Manuscript Sources for the Playing Card Master's Number Cards, In: The Art Bulletin 64, Dec. 1982, p.587-600,
  ISSN 0004-3079, abstract

-- Greetings from

]

Johnbod, are you plannning to do an article for Master of thePlaying Cards. ? I'd like to refer to it for "Printing"DGG 16:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DGG - I thought you said somewhere you were planning to do him? I could have a go, but he is not that well covered in my own books. Do you have access to: HELLMUT LEHMANN-HAUPT, Gutenberg and the Master of the Playing Cards,(Yale) which I know has come up at JG? Also: "Master of the Playing Cards," article in Medieval Germany: An Encyclopedia. New York, Garland, 2001. (by Jane Campbell Hutchison). Also I'm sure there was a relatively recent article (ie post-2000) in "Print Quarterly", which would be on JSTOR - maybe just a review, but would be authoritative.

Yes, I can get LH & the JStor & look for the other. So I will start the article, & put in the basic, and then you can edit it for errors & to put in some erudition. , but not till Jan when the term ends. DGG 19:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cherubino - I don't do pics (so far anyway) - I don't think most of them would be legal to upload from the UK, where I am. Either I or DGG, which ever does the article, would love to have the pdf's I'm sure - let us sort it out & we'll let you know who to send to - Many ThanksJohnbod 18:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cherubino, Nics pics btw - plus i see the Master ES ones are now much better. Was that you? Johnbod 18:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, Great - I may start a stub, in case we can hook in anyone else with knowledge. Do you want the PDF's or shall I take them first? Johnbod 19:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I planed to do the german articel some time ago (still in the beginnings at de:Benutzer:Cherubino/Spielwiese).

I just did some online research and got the following pdfs (again):

• Early Popular Imagery. JANE CAMPBELL HUTCHISON. Europe, 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World. Ed. Jonathan Dewald. Vol. 5. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2004. p66-70. 6 vols.

to get the article, go here, choose "Academic One File", use id & pw, choose "Gale Virtual Reference Library", choose "Gale Virtual Reference Library - Special Edition", search for "Early Popular Imagery"

To get the two articles above go here, choose "ProQuest Trials", use pw, choose the first " Periodicals Archive Online", search for eg "Number Cards" and "Playing Cards and Manuscripts".

If you like you can e-mail your pictures to me, so i can upload them using the commons:Template:PD-Art for artists who died more than 70 years ago (§ 64 UrhG in Germany)

Meister ES pictures better? IDGI My last IP (172...) edit on the article was in Dec05, the last M.ES picture i did upload was the Passionswappen in March06 -- Cherubino 23:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cherubino - Thanks, will try them later. I don't have any pics myself - they would be on-line; but of course I can give you the addresses. I won't start on this for a bit. Are you interested in

- my new article - no other Wikipedia has him yet? Johnbod 23:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cherubino, let me add a few words. It looks like I/we may want to do the Mainz Psalter as well, because of its printed color initials. Is it in any of the other versions--and do you by any miracle have a illustration?DGG 00:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

once a month i get to German National Library Frankfurt (de:Deutsche Bibliothek, reference library), that collects all german books since 1913. If you know a book to copy from tell me (see OPAC [1]). Scans are quite expensive, base price 5€ plus 2€ per exemplar (low 200 dpi). I got a minimized b/w copy of "Helmut Lehmann-Haupt: Gutenberg und der Meister der Spielkarten, in: Gutenberg Jahrbuch 1962" with some pictures comparing details of the "Mainzer Riesenbibel" (pic the lion on the right is similar to a lion on playing card "Raubtier Neun") to some playing cards. I could try to scan it to pdf. You also could search our still small Wikipedia Library ;-) I'm no art historian, but a layman -- Cherubino 01:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cherubino, Ok thanks - are online images ok for you. I know where quite a few of these are?

Johnbod 02:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, you can use "E-mail this user" on my side if you prefer. But i can not plunder a whole data base ;-) see [2] -- Cherubino 03:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the inconvenience, i wondered about the e-mail and noticed i had not "Confirmed e-mail address" yet - which i finally did. Please send again. -- Cherubino 13:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about no source. But as a Kircher specialist I happen to KNOW that. Cheers, --dunnhaupt 23:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What more can I say? I have already said I am sorry.--dunnhaupt 01:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, you could read this, from "How to edit a page" (on your welcome message):

When editing an article page on this site, a logged-in user can mark that edit as being "minor". Minor edits generally mean spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearrangement of text. It is possible to "hide" minor edits when viewing the recent changes. Marking a significant change as a minor edit is considered bad behavior, especially when it involves the deletion of some text (not counting errors such as repeated words). If you accidentally mark an edit as minor, you should edit the source once more, mark it major (or, rather, ensure that the check-box for "This is a minor edit" is not checked), and note that your previous edit was major in the new edit summary. Johnbod 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for leaving the notice on our project page! Bernhard von Breidenbach (or Bernhard von Breydenbach)( sounds like a good topic for an article, I have added him to our To do list. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 11:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I didn't provide adequate feedback on assessments. I try and put a little note in the history, but I don't usually do more than that. According to the assessment page: NOTE: This is only to rate the article on quality - you may or may not get feedback on the article. If you desire a review, use the peer review process. If you'd like more input, I would suggest that process: Wikipedia: Peer review. JRP 19:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Jacopo de' Barberi, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page .

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 22:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On December 7, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Erhard Reuwich, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks again for your contributions John, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ludwig von Siegen, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page .

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I did browse the article before putting it up, guess I need to look a bit closer next time :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Ran across your article State (printmaking) on Special:Newpages, looks like a good candidate for DYK. And thanks for all the hard work you've put into a rather under-covered area on Wikipedia - it's great to see expansion in areas like these with such well-written and referenced articles. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for that - I'll look at State, but it might be difficult to boil down - maybe i'll just go for the definition

Johnbod 21:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind sentiment. Best of luck! JNW 11:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of this deck being called cards "in the style of Mantegna" or "Baldini cards" Seriously, It's a good Wikipedia contribution. Thumbs up! Smiloid 05:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well similar to parts of the deck maybe would be more accurate! - enough to fool plenty of non-playing C19 art historians apparently. Thanks Johnbod 05:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding your observation,I put my link on for several reasons: one-I am considered a master illustrator and just recently finished a series that was funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities. Two-I noticed that on several pages, there were links to examples of the category and I think that is good. Those of us who have been around for a long time are mentors for those 'coming up' professionally! Hardly anyone knows what gouache is (for instance)and I happen to use it in a rather unusual way. Do what you wish...Happy Holiday, LHBarker

On 14 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article State (printmaking), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page .

Yomangani^talk 18:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, on are you basing your claim that medieval tabards were usually belted? Can you provide a citation for that? I'd probably consider that to be a surcoat or jupon, then.--Eva ^bd 19:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only say they could be belted, as in the illustration in the gallery of Godfroi de Bouillon. I'd imagine military ones, or any light ones for riding, pretty much had to be, not to mention peasant's ones -Johnbod 19:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I see I do say military ones were usually belted. I don't have a specific authority, but the earlier pictures on Commons for knight seem to bear that out - eg stained-glass Cleric knight & peasant. But change it if you like. I don't have any views on when a tabard becomes a surcoat etc. The Arnolfini one is pretty long, but described as a tabard or "heuque" in the National Gallery Catalogue Johnbod 20:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Abraham Bosse, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page .

--Yomangani^talk 00:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I will do. But, ironically, after research, I'm less wed to "Kiki de Montparnasse" as the name, as some reputable sources do refer to her as simply "Kiki". (The Library of Congress, for example, gives just "Kiki" as her primary name, with "Kiki de Montparnasse" and "Alice Prin" as links back to that.) I'm not sure "Kiki" alone would make a good name for a wiki page, though. Maybe too ambiguous. But it should definitely be named something besides "Alice Prin"... That makes about as much sense (or less) as naming the Sting page "Gordon Sumner". 16:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd support either, although K is shorter & avoids the "de" / "of" issue Johnbod 16:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I find it interesting that you still do not give up on your "Grossdeutschland" comparison (see

). Meyer's encyclopedia entry is not from "1942" as you claimed, but from 1880-1884, and the date has been listed among the references from the very beginning of the thread, something which you choose to ignore completely, although you have been refered to it in the course of the 'discussion'.

Going by the WP rules on Wikipedia:Civility[edit]#Caution the offender I see no other choice than to place a warning template on your talk page. Regards Gun Powder Ma 11:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC) When in an editorial dispute, it's usually best to observe the following guidelines:[reply]

• Solicit feedback and ask questions on
  talk pages
  .
• Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
• Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Thanks, and happy editing!

Ma,

• 1) The heading is precisely appropriate, as I have explained below there.
• 2) I recall numerous recent occasions when you have objected strongly, in the course of discussions with other editors (not involving me at all), to any changes to the record of discussions. In general, I agree with you on this. As you have pointed out in other contexts, if I changed or removed the heading, your reactions would seem even more over the top than they already do. (I may dig out the links for this later). Am I supposed to change them too?
• 3) You can hardly think I was suggesting you were expressing a personal view of any sort. It was clear, both in my original post and in the follow-ups, that I was just saying that such provocative material could not be used straight, without editing, as appears to have been your original intention. Or rather, you saw the problems, but wanted to leave it for others to sort out.
• 4) In your note at the top of the talk page you just said Meyer was "pretty dated"; I had not noticed the dates in the references of the article at that point. I did not "claim" Meyer was from 1942, it was a (somewhat rhetorical) question. By the way, the dates you give above are different to those you give in the references.
• 5) As regards civility, I think you are hardly the best person to be complaining. Anyone who looks at your responses on this heading, or indeed the talk page of this or any other article you are active on, can see the truth of the matter.
• 6) As far as I am concerned, you have taken offence quite unecessarily (not for the first time). If I thought I had been offensive I would change the edit and apologise, but I really (considering all the points above) don't see the need. I am very happy to confirm I was not attributing any personal views to you on the matter.
• 7) As regards the article itself, we are now clearly making great progress, & well on the way to solving the problems. This is after all, the main thing.

Best wishes, Johnbod 15:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would have welcomed him(?) a little differently. ;) How did you pick this up? 1/A great many fights over Manchurian place names, apparently to distinguish Manchurian from (Han)Chinese. 2/ :Zhou Enlai|Zhou Enlai was a nice name, but didn't do anything much with it, 3/ User:disambiguation -- that was cute, but how did it get past new user review? 4/ Haven't checked them all, but weird to bother to that extent. 5/ maybe WK wanted to come back & do some work? More likely, to establish a record of good edits before ... 6/See what it is to have a slightly more subtle opponent? DGG 01:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only saw (on WK) a handful of the usual to-and-fro over the net edits on printing topics, & claims of newbie-ness.

That's why I'm so fond of Ma - you know where you are with him/her! Johnbod 01:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the WK user page to see how I picked it up - he's now a non-person who never was, like in the spy films! Johnbod 01:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The warning templates here are useful for posting warnings to vandals. The administrators will take the need to block someone more seriously if they are used cumulatively. Goldfritha 04:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I know, but I admit I don't have them ready to hand. Sometimes I think a personal message can be more effective, especially if given within 90 seconds Johnbod 15:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about the usefulness of that particular article, which should at least link to

]

Yes, ok - I had seen another list with the same names but not the dates, & thought it included/was under-sheriffs, several at a time. I left a note on the Medieval history talk-page about how useless the articles were - more of a priority than the lists, I would say. I'll stick Sir JD & the link on the list anyway Johnbod 16:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Georges de La Tour, which you substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page .

— ERcheck (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On December 21, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sir John Donne, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

- Thanks again for all the classical history John. Happy editing, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Codices This list is getting so long it should be in a separate article. I'm a bit dubious about it frankly as most very famous Codices are called something else (xxx bible, xxx gospels etc). It isn't much use without a line of brief description - date , place of origin, type of work, why it is famous etc. Is there another list of manuscripts that overlaps?

Johnbod 02:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nasz"

There is not too many of medieval codices. Separated art, list -ok. I agree that it will be good to add inline date origin/region, language, scriptocontinua or writing style, contens type, but I remember most of that data :) or there is hyperlink. Another solution is grouping by category but category will not have multiple fields: date, type etc. The most useful will be a grouping of all old written “things” inscription, papyry, codices,.., in one place accessible by descriptable fields. So far ther is hardly easy to find "words of deceased” especially high resolution photo of original, followed by grapheme by symbol "transliteration" , scriptocontinua braking and word by word translation and in the end "poethic presentation". There is a lot talk/bytes about <the last results but very litle documented sources. Now is the technology to change it. A lot of websites will be happy to host multi megabytes microscopic resolution artefacts' photos, but what we have at quick acces? iif 100 dpi unreadable thubnails scatered on www. Nasz 03:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the short descriptions would be a good start. Did you notice there is a fairly recent discussion of this question on the talk page? I think photos & the rest should all be at the individual articles. See also

List of books Johnbod 14:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]