User talk:Johnbod/30

Please watch and protect Shahnameh. Attacked by a Pan-Turkist with typical Turkifying the WP behavior: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]--188.158.72.218 (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sorted - protected, and user blocked, by User:RegentsPark. I'm not an admin. btw. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have a question about the changes you made to some text which I had written on the Gilbert Stuart page, noting the current location of The Athenaeum portrait of George Washington as the National Portrait Gallery, which you edited to say that it was on display at the NPG as of late 2014. Is this a standard practice to fix hanging locations in time rather than note that a work's current location? Is it something specific to multi-owner works like The Anthenaeum? The Stuart page had for several years included text that the work "now hangs in Boston's Museum of Fine Arts," which was for at least 18 months (to my knowledge) an incorrect statement, as it had been on display in DC for at least that time frame. Would like to be clear if I encounter this type of text elsewhere. AFox83 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's far better to avoid "currently" or "now" for precisely the reason you saw re Boston. It might be better to avoid giving a current status at all, but at least if you date it people may know to mistrust it if it's 10 years old. Johnbod (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John

Thanks for your questions on my funding application for working with UNESCO, I've answered on the talk page.

Cheers

Hello Johnbod, please see my little message on I Modi... Hope this is helpfull. Best, -- Spiessens 21:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiessens (talk • contribs)

Thanks. I haven't actually ever edited the article much. It would be best if you added these points, as you have seen the references, which I haven't. I can tidy up after if need be. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

\ An RfC has been opened at

I took my eye off the ball on this one. Sorry. The Prado issue is not resolved. Ceoil (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding and helping. Ceoil (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crown of Saint Wenceslas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crown. 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, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Majorat, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC) --MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod,

The Wimbledon Common page is in need of a name change and since you were so helpful with the MSPB page I thought I'd ask for help again with it. Really this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wimbledon_Common is a page for Wimbledon Common and Putney Heath. The commons are managed in conjunction by the same body and are in every respect to be treated as one.

There is no Putney Heath page (and there should not be). Despite the common being locally known as "Wimbledon Common" this is not the name of the site. I have posted on the talk page indicating such.

Can you be of help?

Jgdb500 (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't know how to put a link to a category in a comment without it appearing - as a category - at the bottom of the page.Rathfelder (talk) 11:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aah! You put a colon after the 2 square brackets, like: Category:Nomadic groups in Eurasia. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of scope for expansion here if you have anything. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod. I've just opened a peer review for Texas Revolution as the final step before we try for FA status. I'd very much appreciate your opinion and/or your copyediting skills. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try to take a look, but it will be next week. Remind me if nothing by say next Weds. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do

Better than it was, thanks to you! And still enough to increase my knowledge of the subject considerably. I suppose pics are tricky to identify? I think Limoges Renaissance enamel will be my next effort in that direction, plus expanding Waddesdon Bequest for their reopening in June. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not make personal attacks against other editors, as you made against me in your edit summary at
  Table of nations. Remember to comment on content but not the contributor. In fact, what you changed it to has misconstrued me; if you would comprehend what I had written on the talkpage, there is NO evidence that the term 'table' was ever used for this in English BEFORE the 1830s. 03:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Lunt (talk • contribs
  )

Well please find a way of saying that in comprehensible English, and learn to sign your talk page posts. What you now say is in fact in my version, but not in yours. Johnbod (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright - if you continue with childish name-calling editors or refer to me as "idiot" you will receive a warning from someone able to handle the situation. Did you catch my meaning that time? Mr. Lunt (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're just proving my point. Johnbod (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Call me "idiot" - one... more... time. 04:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC) Mr. Lunt (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see you have objected to the PROD of Devon Domesday Book tenants-in-chief; do you think the same notability exists in the case of Cornwall Domesday Book tenants-in-chief which has also been given a PROD?--Johnsoniensis (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message has been sent to you to inform you that a case involving Tirgil34 has been filed at

Johnbod, I wasn't sure whether you'd gotten the ping: you wanted to know when the nomination was ready for further reviewing, and the nominator seems to be indicating that it is. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Johnbod. I've made some of the changes you suggested to Mano Blanca, and I'd be grateful if you'd take a look at the nomination again. I actually did it a few days ago and pinged you, but I've heard of several instances of pings not working, so I thought I'd drop you a message as well. If you've simply been busy, then apologies. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just following POV republican edits from a new editor, when I found POV unionist edits. Just taught I would keep it neutral. Thanks for the appreciation. Murry1975 (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually explaining to Iñaki LL that you and Carlstak were not socks.

Regards,

--Omar-toons (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed above by Omar-toons. Of course you are not a sockpuppet, that is clear. I made my point on your inclusion in the relevant post. I have posted this notification on the rest of editors mentioned. You are on your right to make your point in the ongoing sockpuppeting investigation, feel free to use it. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hebe (mythology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gavin Hamilton. 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, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not following your concerns, and I would ask you to be a little more explicit in what perspective it is that you want the article to include. To me the common usage of "culture" to refer to the artistic expressions particularly of elite groups or exotic ethnic groups is simply a common superficial and analytically pedestrian use of the word in the same way that most people use the word "grammar" to refer to punctuation and spelling. I think that concept belongs in the article the arts. But I am of course willing to educate myself and include other views in so far as they can be shown to be relevant through sources that are about specifically culture. If you can point me to some sources that you think are representatives of the view of culture that you mean to include that would be very helpful.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't sound like it frankly! I will return to this when I have more time. Johnbod (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well you haven't exactly been clear in what your concern actually is, except that you think anthropology shouldn't dominate. I think that it definitely should be the main since no other disciplines (pace cultural studies in recent decades) have developed the concept theoretically and analytically or used it as a central axis in the discipline. I simply doubt very much that there are any works that are explicitly about "culture" that are not centered around the anthropological perspective.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact I just mentioned a very famous one to you, which you'd never heard of! Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, in all the material I have read about culture - which is not a little, I have never once come across a reference to T.S. Elliot's book on the subject. So if it is famous an influential then that would be in a field that I am not familiar with. That is why I am asking you to actually point me to what field this is? Where are the works that consider Elliot an important theorist of culture? As far as I know Elliot is known as a poet, not a scholar of culture. You say "if you look the right places", that is not good enough, you need to tell me where those places are. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Anywhere outside the anthropology section of the library? Johnbod (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are not giving me a lot of good reasons to continue this conversation I must say.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I found one such place[9]. Here Eliot's essay is described basically as a defense of the elitist idea of culture, that sees the culture of the higher classes as more sophisticated than folk culture. That idea definitely will appear in the article and it is good to have a prominent proponent of the idea. It was of course an idea that had been rejected by anthropology for 50 years, in favor of cultural relativism, when he wrote it - but Eliot's conception of course is more prevalent in general society even today. So yes, definitely a good perspective to include.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No that isn't what Elliot says at all, nor what the source says about his work! If you read on there you will get more books btw. Johnbod (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually what the source says about his work yes. It also says that he argued that "folk culture" was in danger of being washed away by "mass culture", another common but simplistic view of culture today. Do you mean the other books by Leavis and Leavis mentioned in the next paragraph?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot wrote: " By “culture,” then, I mean first of all what the anthropologists mean..."(T.S. Eliot, Christianity and Culture, p. 198) ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and then what? "first of all" implies a list. Johnbod (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This book seems to get a little closer to the debate that we are looking at - the humanistic concept of culture as selfcultivation and sophistication vs. a social science concept of culture as all learned habits. And on page 253 it does give a different idea of Eliot's thinking than the Sociology Encyclopedia I linked to above - noting that he in fact was trying to expand the concept of culture to include both high culture and folk culture (to an anthropologist that comes across as reinventing anthropology 50years later, but Ok). I will make sure to read more of this body of literature and include it in the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I'm afraid I reject your conception of "the debate" as complete and partisan nonsense. It really is. But I'm afraid I don't have anything like enough time at present to point you to better sources - cultural theory is actually something I try to avoid, normally with considerable success. The trouble, it seems to me, is partly that anthropology lays claim to vast areas of the humanities, but actually concentrates on a far narrower range. So it actually knows very little about much of its supposed subject area, and is not taken all that much notice of by local specialists working in other disciplines. Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to reject anything you like, but your objections are useless and impossible to even consider as long as you remain recalcitrant to even attempt to explain them, and offer nothing but objections and rejections. I actually think your understanding of anthropology and how it uses the concept of culture is a lot more limited than my insight into the way it is used in the humanities. If you have constructive input to offer at some future point I will be happy to listen, but at this point I see no further use to trying to pry anything meaningful out of you.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My issues are not with how anthroplogy "uses the concept of culture" but what other disciplines have to say about the matter. So far your comments passim have shown a very incorrect understanding of this. But I really don't have time at present. Johnbod (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (2nd nomination) EEng (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Johnbod,

It looks like Romanticism is alive and well in terms of page views, as it shows up in the most recent weekly top 5000 report with a very respectable ranking. So it looks like in this era of mobile devices, we should not trust the grok.se page count, but rather the weekly top 5000 page count as our guide to which pages are most viewed. Thanks for the interesting discussion of that issue on the Core contest page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You think? The wild swings in "mobile %" don't inspire confidence. The link to where the figures come from doesn't go there. Johnbod (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other day you left me a note about saints categories. Is there actually some consensus about the appropriate way of categorizing saints? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there a bunch of historical concensuses on parts of the scheme. Whether they all tie up I'm not sure. For example, I recall a CFD decision to have a unified Category:Ante-Nicene Christian saints - Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_2#Category:Ancient_Christian_saints (and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_27#Category:Ante-Nicene_Christian_female_saints) but I doubt they all "join up". There is ridiculous duplication between by location/by tradition categories, but changes towards over-precise categories that leave some people stranded with no category aren't a solution. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In theory it shouldn't be that difficult. If we would completely diffuse by contemporary location and period, and if we would only diffuse by denomination if there is a split between RC and EO we're almost there - without any duplication. Then for Eastern Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran saints, listifying would be a better solution than categorization because of the huge overlap between saints of these denominations and saints of either RC or EO. Or do I oversee something? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I doubt that would work, and I'm certainly not going to get involved in such a massive overhaul. Sorry. Johnbod (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2015 (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) 09:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You called the peer review nomination that I filed on Talk:Vladimir Lenin "abuse". Why? --Mr. Guye (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC) You commented on the peer review page.[reply]

Yes, "abuse" was too strong - apologies. Johnbod (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2015 (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.

Allegory of Fortune

added a link pointing to Pantheon

Celts

added a link pointing to

Coptic Christianity

Penitent Magdalene (Titian, 1533)

added a link pointing to Religious drama

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John, You're receiving this update because you asked to be informed about the Wikipedia Science Conference taking place in London on 2nd and 3rd of September. Thanks for your interest.

The call for proposals is now public and session proposals are coming in. The two keynotes, and some other invited speakers, have graciously accepted. In mid-May we will bring together a programme, a publicity poster, and an online booking form. Then we'll begin the main publicity and will need your help getting the word out.

Please put in a session proposal if you've been thinking of doing so: the deadline is the 8th May. This is far from the only way to be involved. The conference will need session moderators, a programme review group, and other volunteers: if there is a specific role you are interested in, or if you have any other questions, please email me at m.l.poulterbristol.ac.uk.

There will be a large "unconference" session in the programme and - fingers crossed - a "hackathon" event two days later on the Saturday, so even if you do not have a proposal accepted, you will have a chance to shape the conference activities.

Please pass on the word to any colleagues who might want to put in a proposal or help the conference in any way. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be serious. We're talking about the lead—you're saying that nearly a quarter of the lead of this 3000-year-old city should be taken up with news in progress? Those details should be in the body, not the lead. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. And you left a one-line, one sentence para, which is never good. Why do you think the article has had 260K views in the last 30 days? The lead is generally too short anyway - it's crazy to make it shorter by cutting the immensely topical element. In the long run there will be clearer details & less interest & it can be revisited. Johnbod (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't know anything more about restoration than I put in the transfer of panel paintings article. It's just something I researched because it seemed to demand an explanation. But my general feeling is that there needs to be a quite explicit description of the procedure. Unfortuately I have't been able to watch the videos and a lot of the the Manchester Art Gallery links are coming up as 404 not found. If the old canvas was entirely removed the article should say something along the lines of "the paint layer was removed from the original canvas and attached to a new one" or "the original canvas was removed from the back of the paint layer and a new one attached". However is this actually what was done? The quotes here from a restorer implies that it was a less drastic relining with the original canvas left in place, and only what is described, rather obscurely as "a 1930s glue lining" removed. http://issuu.com/potion/docs/mga_mag_p1-36/32

The videos might make ths clearer.Ruskinmonkey (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC) 13:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more of a new article for old canvas to replacement canvas transfers, for this to link to. Or could one adapt your panel one to cover both original supports, & rename it "Transfer of oil paintings"? I don't know much about it but many stages of the technique seem essentially the same. I've felt the lack of such an article before, & there would be tons of potential incoming links. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be best covered as one aspect in an article about the lining of canvases generally. I'll what I can do in the next few days.Ruskinmonkey (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Superb, many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now an article, I hope not too prematurely. Hope the title Lining of paintings is OKRuskinmonkey (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, many thanks! I think the title is ok, but may not be clear to those outside the field. I might add an alternative (or 2) as redirects. I think canvas paintings are also often transferred to a solid support these days. If this version gets added later one might move it to "Transfer of oil paintings" or similar. Will you do a DYK? I will look for images when I have a moment, and there must be videos for ELs. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Etty, I've expanded the restoration section slightly to make it clearer what was done (and also to mention the half-hearted earlier restoration attempt). I've tried to keep it very brief, on the assumption that the overwhelming majority of readers will be people interested in the subject rather than the restoration who won't care about silicone putty and retouching techniques. Much as it pains me, this has meant citing a YouTube video, but I think in this case it's justified. Annoyingly, the MAG has now taken about 2/3 of their website down pending a redesign, but the video is hosted externally so should be safe. – 

iridescent 17:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Landscape with the Fall of Icarus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Man Who Fell to Earth. 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, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit - mind adding a citation? I believe it, but it's a GA and I'd like to keep it well-referenced. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thangka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Himalayan. 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) 08:58, 30 March 2015 (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.

Power of Women

added links pointing to Spinning, Samson and Delilah and James Snyder

Bocca della Verità

added a link pointing to James Snyder

Yael

added a link pointing to Samson and Delilah

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of

electronic cigarettes.
The details of these sanctions are described here

.

uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here

. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

SPACKlick (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2015 (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) 11:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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

]

Thanks Gerda! and thanks for all your work too! Johnbod (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Election

Hi mate, I see you reverted my change to propose

Conditional Election for deletion. However, you didn't explain why. Did you want me to open up a full deletion process, have I inadvertently proposed for deletion something that's already been proposed before? SourAcidHoldout (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

No, you've proposed for deletion a concept that is totally notable, and easily verifiable (even if unreferenced) - see my comment at your ANI section, and [10]. You are making edits that are clearly out of your depth at present, and should find a less drastic way of editing until you are more experienced. Is ussgest you only add things, since you have little idea what to delete. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

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

Goltzius. 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) 09:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Rodham Clinton

- Move Discussion

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a

Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move

. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Power of Women

On 27 April 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Power of Women, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that images of the Power of Women, such as Phyllis Riding Aristotle (example pictured), decorated several Renaissance German town halls? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Power of Women. 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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

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.

Archducal hat

added a link pointing to Margaret of Austria

Muqarnas

added a link pointing to

Vaulting

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Conrad Meit

On 28 April 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Conrad Meit, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the anatomy of the nude figures of Conrad Meit draws more from the works of Albrecht Dürer than from classical sculpture? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Conrad Meit. 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.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A CFD discussion you may be interested in - Churches/Church buildings

As a participent in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 17#Category:Churches, you may be interested in knowing that I've just initiated a new CFR discussion to fix the whole tree - Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 1#Churches/Church buildings. Feel free to participate there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

funerary art fa

Hello Johnbod, I used to be Ling.Nut. Hope everything is going well for you! Sandy is apparently reviewing all old FAs or something. Do yo feel up to looking at

Reader 09:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi! I have, a few times. Little has changed. It is, and always will be, incomplete, but I think otherwise ok. I'm not sure Sandy's review covers stuff that recent. Maybe. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does (2010 - wow), but I have done a 5,000 mile service. Johnbod (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How come I don't remember you two working together on that? Sheeeeesh, I'm getting old in here. In the "olden days", FAR ran about two to three years behind on generating a

WP:URFA list, but in 2010, FAR fell off the map, so now we are ... well ... probably too many years behind to catch up. Time flies ... 2010 FAs have had four or five years to deteriorate! But there are so so many missing nominators, that I'm not seeing how we can pretend to review all old FAs, so we need to focus on the abandoned ones. If we can at least prune out those that are being watched, we may have a chance to identify the worst of the lot. It was sure nice of NuttyLing to show up in the midst of this effort! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Quite a lot of them won't have changed much - like mine & Iri's. One advantage of obscure subjects, and declining editing .... Others do a lot of watching of mine. Are you finding many really deteriorated ones? Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More than I'm comfortable with ... a good number of the unwatched FAs are in pop culture topics, and are probably hard hit. A concern right now is to figure out how we will approach the matter of so many missing nominators, but we should have a better sense of the scope of the problem after a couple more weeks of slowly pinging in the most active nominators, and carefully pruning based on their responses. It's frightful how many big fat RETIRED messages I'm finding among FA writers. In those cases, I'm not even trying (yet) to glance at their articles, because it will be too depressing, I fear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the attrition among article writers has been awful, and is ongoing, though some do come back, often on a more limited scale. Actually I think WP is a more comfortable & easier atmosphere for experienced editors than 5 years ago, if only because there are fewer other editors and actually the mechanisms for suppressing troublemakers of various kinds work better than they did. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While that is perhaps broadly true, for me, student editing is killing it ... and there aren't enough other editors to contain and deal with all the damage. If you consider that I resigned as FAC delegate to deal with medical content and student editing, one wonders if I have accomplished ... anything at all. Student editing issues got dramatically worse, FA writing and reviewing declined broadly, and FAR fell off the map ... and Chavez/Venezuela are still a POV wreck. So, what am I doing in here anyway? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of good stuff! really. At least there will be a break on the student editing for a while. It's odd how bad it mostly is. Keep on keeping on! Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Baby!, the first on the list doesn't seem too bad. Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Wars of the Roses Archiver

Just to clarify, was it set to archive after a month, and you reset it to two? If so, good catch. Cheers!

I hope that's what I did! Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2015 (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) 10:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, Long time no speak! Hope all's well with you! I've just wanted to point you to a couple of things that art history related things that are going on in York at the moment. Firstly, I've managed to start an Art History WikiClub with the student art history society at the University. We've only met once so far but I thought you might want to keep an eye on it and possibly partner with keener editors (should they emerge!?). Hopefully, they'll get keen and they're access to resources will lead to great things! Also, we're getting more and more of York Art Gallery's collection up (CommonsCat here) and there are potentially some useful images. I'm getting my head around the GWToolset but in the meantime you can download and reuse images from the online collection as you wish: YMT Online collections. Let me know if you have any thoughts! Unfortunately other art collections in the region have been a little sluggish responding but fingers crossed. Cheers, PatHadley (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! See you're already on it! PatHadley (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is AusLondonder's battleground conduct. Thank you. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello old friend...I was pleased to see that you edited Delacroix's

]

Just been watching it on the news. but it's not my period at all! I'll take a look. Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medical FA edit notice

I just noticed I never put one of these:

User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#Medical_FA_editnotice

at Pancreatic cancer. If you look through them (for example coeliac and ketogenic), you'll see we can also deal with ENGVAR. Do you want me to install one? If so, which variety? I try to keep track of them in my sandbox should we ever need to change them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please - we are talking about tumors there. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK ... I forget ... British English? That is, can I just copy this one? Template:Editnotices/Page/Coeliac disease SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, American. We use "tumour". Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geeez, archive your talk page ... all this scrolling down is giving me arthritis (and anxiety, since it's taking me so long to respond)!!! LOL.

OK, then I think that means I have to craft new wording, because I am confused. It uses American English except for the word tumour? I am not up on different varieties of English ... isn't tumour British ? See samples: Template:Editnotices/Page/Chagas disease doesn't mention any language issues, while Template:Editnotices/Page/Coeliac disease does. Which do you want? Or do I need to customize it? Anyway, I guess you know then that it will come up on every edit, and only sysops or template editors can change it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the archive :) OK, I get it now. By "we" above, you were referring to the British, not the article! SO, I'll install the generic version then. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Editnotices/Page/Pancreatic cancer SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beverley

Hi, I noticed that you have been reverting edits changing

Viking → Norsemen, can you have a look at this edit to Beverley and see if it should also be reverted. Many thanks. Keith D (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, done. Johnbod (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Keith D (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr.

Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr. and feel free to comment there. Thanks! —sroc 💬 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matisse/Picasso/Seurat

Not sure if you're the right person to ask, but thought I'd check, since I know you're knowledgeable on art topics. I'm getting rid of thousands of books, and among them are some collections single-artist coffee table books. In many cases these books are worth essentially nothing; I can sell them on eBay for maybe a dollar or two. Am I right in thinking that if I slice out the pages and scan the pictures I can upload them to commons? The books are published in the 60s to 80s, generally, but of course I'm only talking about paintings that were painted before 1923. Is this worth doing? Or are most well-known artists now well represented on commons? It's not zero effort, so I'd rather not unless it has value. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure on either score I'm afraid. Scans from books, especially ones printed pre- the 80s are generally low quality. I think the US law refers to works published before 1923, and perhaps only if in the US, which might mean publicly exhibited, or not. Seurat & Matisse at least are out of EU copyright (life + 70) so should be ok. Picasso certainly not on that basis. More obscure artists might be more useful. With Old Masters you know there are no copyright issues. I'd just pick a few examples & try to find them on Commons. Generally Commons coverage of the top 2 divisions (as it were) is pretty good, below that not. Hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll take a look on commons, and may ask at the image copyright page before doing anything. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generations of Noah

In regard to Elamites being 'the' ancestors of the Persians.

I appreciate that you acknowledge the page's lack of credibility, however I do not recall the theory claiming that Persians were descended from Elamites, let alone that Elamites were 'the' ancestor of the Persians. I only recall it claiming that perhaps Elamites were descended from Elam-- an entirely separate topic of controversy I do not currently care to discuss-- as opposed to simply being an individual people of Haltamti.

Would you please either revert it to my previous edit, or at least include a citation which states that the theory refers to Elamites as the sole ancestor of the Persians?

No, this is talking about what some people believed 2,000 or so years ago. If you have problems with the text use the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but I am asking for proof that they even believed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 15:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Flavius Josephus section is all referenced (and can easily be checked online I think), as is most of the article. If you are concerned about a bit that isn't, add a cite tag, or ask on talk. Or both. It's not an article I edit, but I will protect it from unjustified deletions. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will add a cite tag. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 15:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted. The Josephus text is quoted, and linked to at the ref above. It is very clear. "6. 4. Shem, the third son of Noah, had five sons, who inhabited the land that began at Euphrates, and reached to the Indian Ocean. For Elam left behind him the Elamites, the ancestors of the Persians." All the article says is that Josephus wrote this. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you add that Josephus believed it. Because it appears as though Josephus only believed Elamites came from Elam, and that the person who added this to the Wikipedia page believed Persians came from Elamites. Please add the citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 16:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a string of direct quotations from Josephus, all covered by the reference at the top (currently # 25), with a link to the online text. That seems fine to me. A search on "Elam" there takes you straight to the passage. The quotation above is very clear. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose if it is regarding itself as merely a quotation and not an absolute historic fact, I will let that specific topic go for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 17:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP: don't be lazy. Actually no: CS (common sense): don't be lazy

Hi. You did EXACTLY what I predicted on the article's talk page: instead of fixing the problem (art. IS A MESS, USELESS for the user who needs the basic info), you quoted some WP guideline that is NOT meant as a crutch for lazy editing, and removed... whatever I did to make the art. OF SOME PRACTICAL USE. WP is not meant as a playground for players of logic games, i.e. "how can I respect all guidelines", but as a WORK OF REFERENCE put out there TO OFFER GOOD, CONCISE INFO. For those who cannot grasp it, editing WP is a disservice to the users. Arminden (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden[reply]

You could try actually reading it maybe. Johnbod (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike you? Because I'll repeat here what I have written already: I DID and it took me AGES, and still w/o a clear answer. That's the difference between a WORK OF REFERENCE and a MANUAL. The latter u need to study from first to last page to pass the exam; the former is supposed to give a CONCISE, INTELLIGIBLE answer to a common answer like: what, where, when...? But if this still needs to be explained, it's a useless exercise.Arminden (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden[reply]

I think you considerably overstate how concise Wikipedia is trying to be in longer articles. Adding shouty bolding for key points is just not our style. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentarians on fire

Thanks for the compliment earlier today regarding the 1836 map. I'm good at finding maps, but I have yet to find the treasure map that we all would like to get our hands on.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't know where we are heading with that one. The natives seem most unfriendly. Johnbod (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Palmyra

You deleted a source about the sentence of Palmyrene art being more influenced by Parthia. A sentence you wrote and I sourced ! I think its rude to tell me that it is "better". Im planning on taking this to FA and I put a source to every sentence while you are adding a lot of stuffs without adding a source. Dont you think that it is better to explain about the Palmyrene art before explain it connection to Rome ? You made the section about Rome !--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's rude is to start editing a section someone else is working on, causing edit conflicts. Trust me, the article is a long way off FA quality, and adding vast numbers of low-quality sources won't help much. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that I took it from a very low quality article into a GA and that an expert editor in FA told me that it is an FA quality then I beg to differ. The sources are not low quality. You should open them.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, lets not be childish, the article have a reference style and it would be nice to stick to it. The reference you are adding are in a different style, maybe you can make them consistent with the rest of the references. I have explained what is a Palmyrene art then I put the influence on Rome in its own paragraph. I hope its logical and not rude.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec-again)Take it from another "expert editor in FA" that it isn't. Non-specialized would be more accurate. For art history art historians are what you need. You are welcome to reformat the refs, but I'm afraid I avoid cite templates. For FAC, I recommend getting the works used into a "references" section, with shorter citations for the text. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is one opinion I can respect. I prefer that a reader be able to read the sentences in the source. Now, can you explain about the Roman connection in their own paragraph ? its weird to talk about frontality and its influence on Rome without first explaining that Palmyrene art had frontality ! This article is about Palmyra, the focus in the beginning of the section should be first on its art before moving to show that it had no effect on Roman one !--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CRUK review

Hi John. I'm writing up some notes on expert review efforts at en.Wikipedia. Can you tell me which cancer articles went through the CRUK review process, please? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for John Frederick Lewis

On 29 May 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Frederick Lewis, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that unlike many Orientalist painters, John Frederick Lewis never painted a nude, and used his wife as a model in some harem scenes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Frederick Lewis. 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.

Thanks from me and the project Victuallers (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination

Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Talkback

Hello, Johnbod. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Chape.
Message added 17:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Giorgione 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:

• *''[[Castelfranco Madonna]]'' (''Madonna and Child Enthroned between St. Francis and St. Nicasius''; c. 1505 <small>- Oil on wood,

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

talk) 20:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

DYK for Joachim Wtewael

On 31 May 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Joachim Wtewael, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that erotic sections of two drawings by Joachim Wtewael for his paintings of Mars and Venus Surprised by the Gods (detail pictured) were cut out by later collectors? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Joachim Wtewael. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnbod/30&oldid=1089856734"

• Toggle limited content width