User talk:Johnbod/41

John, Re your latest revisions

1. English spellings fine. I will not use American alternatives again.
   
2. Revised start to the article. This now seems to confuse the essential first step to understanding the majolica/maiolica muddle which is to understand there are two distinct processes producing products that are called by many names including 'majolica' and 'maiolica'. So, can we have a sequence that goes Confusion -> different processes a) coloured glazes on biscuit b) tin-glaze with brush painted enamels. May I revise your latest sequence along these lines? Then you re-revise if you don't agree? Is this the correct way to proceed?
   

Davidmadelena (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, give that a try - but (per

WP:LEAD) we need a lead of a decent length that concisely covers the key points of the subject. The subject is obviously inherently fiddly and confusing, as I'm sure we agree, but I think it's easier to start with the words rather than the techniques. This is partly because I'm sure the great majority of our readers simply glaze over (see what I did there) at any talk of pottery techniques, especially if chemistry is at all involved. They are far happier with talk about words, countries and periods. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. I'll try. Appreciate your help. Intro lead of decent length understood. Totally agree with everything you say above about glazing over (haha very good) etc. but the use of both words and other words for both products is the root cause of almost universal misunderstanding (exceptions Paul Atterbury and V & A). I feel somehow in this case we have to coax the reader over the facts hurdle first.
Davidmadelena (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
John, nearly done. I propose deleting the Section Victorian Majolica, and using anything useful in the article text.

Davidmadelena (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not reading the "no citation templates" notice at the top of the page when editing. I let my zeal for citations get the better of me, and no citebanditry was intended.—A garbage person (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zecca of Venice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand Canal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know which comment to press the "thank button" for on today's ERRORS, so I'll say thanks for all of them, instead. Cassianto^Talk 16:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, I've looked at the history of this article and seen that you have never come across it. Which is a solid shame, but it may not be to late! I think that this article is most definitely encyclopaedic, but also very peculiar, to say the least. What do you think? Regards, --Edelseider (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very wierd formatting, which I've tidied up in the upper part. Johnbod (talk) 11:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the tone! I love formulations like "In his thesis Arnhold addresses the possibility of these two life-size statues being by the Maître de Chaource, dates them between 1518 and 1520 and states that there is archival evidence that they were brought to Saint Pouange in 1861, and had previously stood on the west facade of Troyes Cathedral." Totally acceptable, but somehow very different from how Wikipedia sentences should look and sound. At least I discovered an important Northern Renaissance sculptor. Did you know him? --Edelseider (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd heard of him, but not much more. It's a neglected area. The article is not by a native speaker I think. Johnbod (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neglected, yes, apart from some household names (Michael Pacher, Tilman Riemenschneider, Veit Stoss). --Edelseider (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notes on the FAR for this article. When the dust settles I think I may revise and resubmit. If I copied your notes to date to the article's talk page would you consider reviewing the article to the end so that I can address your concerns enmass before it comes back? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure. I was not likely to not support, as you may have guessed. You can't expect perfection with a subject like that. Sorry I seem to have struck the death-blow, along with Borsorka. Is it my memory, or did I do something like that before? Johnbod (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not your memory, yes you did, probably quite rightly on the grounds (I think) that there was not enough analysis and too much narrative. This one is better but I guessed you were unlikely to support. Bazorka seems intent on reworking it to match his middle European Catholic view of history, I think that was the death blow Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was almost certain to support this time (double negative above). Quite where it's heading now, I don't know. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Norfolkbigfish:, just for clarification: I am central European, but I am not Catholic. It is so funny that we can so easily misunderstand each other's objectives. When reading the article and experiencing your unwillingness to modify highly biased sentences relating to Turkish history, I was convinced that you are on the payroll of the Turkish government or of a chauvinistic Turkish NGO. We could read unverified sentences, for instance, about the Seljuks' peaceful immigration to Anatolia and about their peaceful rule over local Arabs and Christians. Now I am sure you do not receive salary for this article. Borsoka (talk) 07:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is good to know, I consider that an achievement in itself. Hopefully, the article won't have gone backwards when this current spate of editing ends. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you wikihound me again, I will have you sanctioned. I don't know what gripe you have with me, but either you stop, or I will have someone make you stop. This is the last time I will address your ownership behavior, and out of magnanimity I will let your ill advised edit pass. KingofGangsters (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Johnbod reported by User:KingofGangsters (Result: ). Thank you. KingofGangsters (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. Given the new image supplied by WereSpielChequers, I wonder if it could eventually be taken to DYK. I have a bunch of Art Gallery of Ontario (who have a significant collection of Gothic boxwood miniatures) sources somewhere in my mounds of books and pdfs; there are loads of others sources out there. Yet it seems as if the so named Adam Dircksz has fallen though the cracks of history. I know you are knowledgeable on the Waddesdon Bequest objects, so suggesting. Ceoil (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for doing that. Yes, it would be good to take that to DYK. I may even try for some close up photos of the details referred to. Not sure however if I can get to the BM soon enough for the DYK schedule. As with other items in the Waddesdon bequest, I see far more detail when I look at a blown up photograph than I can in real life. ϢereSpielChequers 15:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's ready for DYK as is (& should be nominated in the next few days). I doubt there's much more on this specifically. If you look at the BM bibliography: Read & Dalton (the latter compact) are online, Tait is given in full in the BM online - these pieces were never covered by the partial full catalogues - & you have Thornton. I don't know the rest but it doesn't look as if they'd add much on the piece - Adam Dircksz I think you've covered in the main article. For DYK the nom should go in soon, but it might easily be a month or more before it is actually used, so that gives more time for photos. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you can do a double with Adam Dircksz. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly John, I dont know how with all the new rules; can you do the hounours. I can add an extra bit about Gothic vs Italian influences. Ceoil (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok have a hook that will tie them together, will do, prob on Sunday. Ceoil (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, give me a link to it, & I'll watchlist & keep an eye out. Johnbod (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles now at [1]. Will work a bit more on Dircksz. Have cropped versions of SpielChequers's pic. Ceoil (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of Venice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CE (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod. Do you reckon there's consensus for adding the proposal about multiples and sets to VAMOS? Cheers, Ham II (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - done that. Thanks for the reminder! Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John! I am trying to start a Gupta art article. Your expertise is welcome!! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea! Next stop Kushan art! Are you planning to add lots more? I can certainly add, but it may be best if we don't have two people on it at the same time. Best, Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My ressources on Gupta Art are already nearly exhausted at this point. Please do take up the task if you have knowledge on the subject!! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do, though I have several irons in the fire at the moment. Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Khalili Collections, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nieuwe Kerk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 October 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Castleford Pottery, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that many Castleford-type ceramic teapots have either hinged or sliding lids (examples pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Castleford Pottery. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Castleford Pottery), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am hoping that maybe someone somehow can do an intervention on our friends that will somehow make things better and even maybe smooth. I remember yo and Srnec (sp.?) seemed to have a good grasp on things. I have no idea how any sort of mediation process works. Do you have any suggestions about how to peacefully head off a (potential) storm? Tks ♦ 

Many of these courses let the students choose off-topic subjects, & always have done. I don't see it is our business to interfere in this way (telling them how to run their courses). There is a general issue with these tags, which are often placed on articles the students are only meant to review. Either way, these tags are piling up on art articles, & very often the students leave no trace in the edit history of either article or talk. You should pick your battles more sensibly. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not telling them how they run their courses. I am telling them to not span irrelevant tags to article talk pages. If it is an off-topic subject, then there is no link between the course and the article anyway. Your addition, that many of these assigments lead to nothing at all and that these tags are piling up, is only more reason not to have this tag. If most are useless, then a discussion should be had to get rid of the others as well; readding this one solves nothing though.

Fram (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

No more does removing it - beyond buggering up the project's statistics, the main reason they are there. It would be a good idea to initiate a general discussion that old ones should be removed (and indeed that all talk page stuff over say 3 years old should be auto-archived, which I tried a while back). That would be a useful thing to do. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made a real quick stub, but I'm a bit stuck--the book sources I was looking at don't show me a lot of content, I don't understand how a fresco is put on fabric, and I am not so well-acquainted with the formatting as you are. If you could help, that would be great. There is no rush. I was thinking of this painting as a cover for a Boniface book, but it's a bit too 19th century, too Romantic, too nationalistic, haha. Thanks for any help you can provide! Drmies (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Indian Culture Award
		Thank you for your erudite and expansive contributions on Gupta art, as well as many other articles related to Indian culture (who else could so brillantly write about Māru-Gurjara architecture)!! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gupta art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vijaya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't remember who was working on this once: you, Ceoil, Modernist..? But saw your name atop talk page:

• Unraveling the mysteries of ancient Egypt's spellbinding mummy portraits ♦ 
  Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Years ago, yes. The article seems to have rather deteriorated since. I'll add the link. Johnbod (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Just amazed by your work in Gupta art! Thank You for your valuable contribution to the Indian and other arts. Nizil (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...One more piece in the puzzle: Kushan art. Help welcome! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a great start. I'll get on to it in a bit. Johnbod (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed renaming Category:Lists of artists by biographer. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_6#Category:Lists_of_artists_by_biographer. – Fayenatic London 08:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks - commented there. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ratnagiri, Odisha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kalinga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Johnbod (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #27556 was submitted on Nov 11, 2019 15:02:10. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, following up from

WP:BOTN, the notice above seems to be related to UTRS ticket 27556 that was resolved by Ohnoitsjamie. This is an automated notification that your ticket was closed. Did you not actually create that ticket? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

No, why would I, since I've not been blocked? Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you submit a ticket to UTRS about your account being autoblocked? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NO!! Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This may be relevant. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I reversed the rights management action I performed earlier, since you didn't request it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you made this edit[3] but a student has changed it recently to say ", so it is assumed this color had a very significant meaning in their culture even though we do not know what." I find nothing on p.28[4] so I'm confused. Doug Weller talk 11:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eek - great spelling! You are unlikely to find anything anywhere with that sort of search! Note that I gave the source as Sandar's 1st edition, not online; unfortunately my copy is boxed up just now - perhaps not for long. Google preview of the 2nd edn, as later rearranged with the pics in the text, shows coverage of the VFs between pages 40 & 50, not all of which I can see, the bits I can not mentioning that point. That bit may have been rewritten. I'll look when I've unpacked. This and this cover the "ochre as symbol of life" bit, which also shows up in many book snippets.

Btw, this is a useful general paper on prehistoric oche use]. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks interesting but I have no time. I'll add it to the Ochre talk page. Doug Weller talk 12:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johnbod:, unfortunately the Royal Society have decided not to publish portrait of Fellows of the Royal Society anymore, I'm trying to get more information from them about why (and I've emailed you some details) Duncan.Hull (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Duncan - how silly of them, frankly! As you know, all my contacts have left, but if there's anything I can do (including a meeting) please let me know. Should I write anyway? It would be useful to know at what level the decision was made. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Byzantine illuminated manuscripts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syriac Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, thanks for your additions to this article. If these had been made by a newly-registered account or an IP, I would of course have deleted them as uncited and out of place in the lead section, and while welcoming their efforts to improve the encyclopedia on their talk page, I would have explained to them about the importance of reliable sources and the vital need for verifiability, linking to the relevant policies. In the unlikely event that they responded, I would point out further that a link to another Wikipedia article did not in any way substitute for a link to a reliable source, as Wikipedia itself did not constitute a reliable source and in any case many articles were inadequately cited; nor would it make sense to follow links from one article to another in a potentially endless chain, finding few or no suitable sources as one progressed.

I'll move the art paragraph out of the lead and find a source for it, since I assume such exists. However .... Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[PLEASE SEE THE NOTE AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE!] shall almost certainly move them back, with more material below. The article as it stood, and presumably now stands, is grossly misleading, and there needs to be non-yoga stuff in the lead, more than I added, if

Asana (yoga) etc. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

On 21 November 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Māru-Gurjara architecture, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Māru-Gurjara architecture (example pictured) originated in Gujarat and Rajasthan from the 11th to 13th centuries, but can now be found in Antwerp and Potters Bar? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Māru-Gurjara architecture), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to [email protected], so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at [email protected].

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, I do not intend to create sorrow by removing your helpful and accurate introduction to the use of the sacred lotus in Asian art, but you must be aware that it is not only a personal feeling on my part that additions to Wikipedia must be cited:

• No, it is not our policy that all additions must be cited. What
  WP:V
  actually says is "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation". In this case, the content in question is not a quotation and it doesn't appear that Chiswick Chap is challenging it as they say that it is helpful and accurate.

Demanding pro-forma citations for everything is vexatious busy work which disrupts Wikipedia's development by annoying good faith editors and filling our articles with unnecessary clutter which intimidates new editors. Perfectionism is commonly understood to be counter-productive and so should be resisted. For more on this, see perfect is the enemy of good which I started specifically to ensure that this is understood. That article gets a high readership and it's interesting to note that its pattern of readership follows the working week – people seem to consult it when they have to get real work done. See also teaching grandmother to suck eggs.

Andrew D. (talk) 10:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sarnath capital, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Percy Brown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

History of the Republic of Venice (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Grand Canal

Lalitasana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ghantasala

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I wasn't aware of Gupta art. Haven't looked at its history but just read through the lead and glanced at some other sections. Some sentences sound (historically) accurate, but others less so. I'm troubled a few things: by the title, "Gupta art," which fudges the distinction between "art of the Gupta period" and "art from regions under Gupta hegemony;" by the inclusion of Ajanta in the art of the Gupta empire as opposed to the Gupta period; by the overuse of Radhakumud Mookerji (he was writing nationalistic histories in the 20s, 30s, and 40s, the book cannot have been published in the 90s; it might be a facsimile); by the implication that Taxila or Gandhara was under Gupta control. Gupta hegemony never got beyond the Ravi river in the Punjab. You certainly know a lot about Ajanta, so I'll defer to your judgment, but those are the things that jumped out at me. Thus far. :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the 2nd para of the lead explains, fudging "Gupta" as regards both time and place is pretty standard in art history RS, as the style doesn't conform neatly to history's boundaries. Hence also the title, intended to convey that it is a style term, rather than "Art of the Gupta Empire/period". The Elephanta Caves sculptures (c. 530-550) are probably the single most iconic group of examples of the style, but are further out on the Gupta fringe than Ajanta, timewise. This sort of thing is not exactly uncommon in art history, as while it is irresistably tempting to art historians to give artistic styles easily recognisable political labels, they rarely actually fit neatly into the box - Carolingian art and Ottonian art are European examples, and China offers plenty more.

There was a lot of Mookerji in the version I was given, & he has the advantages of being mostly online, and covering things like coins which the standard works I have rather distain. I've removed a number of uses, and supplemented more with other sources in the refs, & adjusted the language in several places. He obviously isn't a specialist, & is pretty brief, which is sometimes a blessing. I remember his comments on "schools" of sculpture did need adjusting. I'll check over his appearances.

I see that Taxila does actually have a section on its Gupta period! I'll check over the references to Gandharan influence, which was certainly important.

Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I don't usually pay attention to Indian art history pages, unless they have some kind of impact on the India page, by way of being linked and I don't know the conventions of art history, but I'm still concerned a little. I notice that Promod Chandra's longish piece on Indian Sculpture in Britannica's South Asian Arts page, is titled Gupta period c. 4th-6th. centuries. Although the term "Gupta art" is certainly used as a catch-all term, and Chandra himself uses it, I am generally of the view that on India-related pages, we have to be more careful, as the potential for ideological tinkering is much greater than average. Anyway, I'll post something the article's talk page soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS I just remembered that I had written a subsection Ganges#Ganges_in_classical_Indian_iconography as a part of a larger section. You may find it interesting. I had forgotten all about it. I was reading Diana Eck's books before a visit to India and Varanasi at that time, ca 2011, and one of the pictures in the National Museum there I might have taken myself. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should probably continue discussing the Gupta question at talk there. I hadn't seen the Ganga section. That's rather interesting from the copying POV - should it be moved or copied to

Ganga in Hinduism (a page with a decent 300-odd vpd)? It is much fuller than the present coverage, and would be more prominent there, and at c. 134K bytes Ganges is very long. The same might go for other parts of the cultural significance section. But I don't like the title as the Ganga & Yamuna pair at doorways also appears in Buddhist contexts (and Jain too, I expect), and I think the earliest survivals may be Buddhist (not sure). Your addition is very nice, but neither of these two articles mention non-Hindu use, nor clarify that the normal early & medieval set-up is Ganga and Yamuna on opposite sides of the doorway, often carved into the doorjamb. You may have noticed that the big terracotta one in Delhi is illustrated in Gupta art. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, I forgot about this discussion. I will now watchlist your page. The religious significance section was added to the

Ganga in Hinduism article. The POV wars had gone on for quite some time. Finally, a number of editors including me had attempted an NPOV expansion and rewrite. But we succeeded in only half the article (Hydrology, Religion and Culture, and one other section). You are right, the religion and culture section is an uneasy fit there, and bulky. But, I generally don't like copying. Also, moving, or for that matter copying, will increase the burden of watching. As a part of Ganges, which has many watchers, the material has been decently maintained. I wasn't aware of the non-Hindu use. I will look into it. I was aware of the door-jamb carvings. In fact, an early sentence, "Hindu temples all over India had statues and reliefs of the goddess carved at their entrances, symbolically washing the sins of arriving worshippers and guarding the gods within." is an indirect reference. I will have to think more about all this. Whatever is the resolution, it will have to be part of an overall resolution for Ganges. That page has lately been quiet. Half of me is leery about waking the sleeping dogs of POV-land from their slumbers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Johnbod, MJL has posted to the review that they've addressed all of the issues raised, but did not ping you, so I thought you might not have noticed that the review now needs your input. Thanks for all the great work you've done thus far. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod! I don't know how to describe adequately the evolution of Hindu art from the Gupta period down to the modern period, as seen in the art of Mathura (I think it shows, since I can only line up image galleries for that period!!!). By any chance, are there a few relevant lines you could add? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to have been a big fall-off in production once the Post-Gupta period was over. In Harle and Rowland Mathura just drops off the map, with areas further east taking over the spotlight. No doubt it is more complicated than that. I see the city was sacked by the Sultanate in 1014 I think, which may have stopped activity. If I see anything I'll add it. There are pics like this "late medieval" figure from Govardhan near the city, and various others. One could certainly get a gallery row up. I can see some of this book which has a few late pics.

I think in general the medieval period saw a shift away from city "schools" to more widespread production, more often just ascribed to regions & dynasties. I suppose something similar happened in Europe. Of course sculptors are easier to move than large pieces of stone. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It seems there are many of these later Medieval sculptures in the Mathura Museum, but the style seems quite stereotyped, and their abundance may only be due to their being comparatively recent. It is indeed possible that style became uniformized throughout the country. Any help is welcome... Happy Christmas to you too!! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's generally East Indian styles that are discussed re north India in the period to say 1200, & presumably led the field - as "Pala" & "Sena", or by area. The Mathura Museum ones seem broadly similar, but not as precise or sharp-featured. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 December 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gupta art, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that ancient Gupta art of India includes gold coins commemorating the Ashvamedha Vedic horse sacrifice (example pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gupta art. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gupta art), 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.

--valereee (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Ozzie10aaaa (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've pinged you liberally at Talk:Beaune Altarpiece, mainly to help explain that we don't know exact dates for 600 year old altarpieces, hence the use of "circa". And also to explain that most art of this period don't have titles and instead are often described by where they are held, hence our use of Prado to describe van der Weyden's Desposition. I could be wrong and am too tired to explain more than I can, so I pulled you in. Feel free to ignore. I would, if I were you. Thanks for the xmas card DYK! Very nice article, very nice image. Victoria (tk) 20:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been watching that madness from afar, & letting Sandy & you carry it, but I'm happy to help. Did I catch all the points for me? Thanks re the card - They're in the post! Johnbod (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod and Victoria, I saw this, and went and checked your feedback on talk ... I am worried that several of the things I did, then, will need to be undone. Feel free! I was only trying to lessen the load. I know I added the "Christ", and changed something to a c. that maybe shouldn't be, at least. And the short description. Please feel free to do whatever needs to be done with my edits. This is a great example of how copyeditors not familiar with the topic or sources can lead us astray. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, very helpful, & you have more patience than I do! Johnbod (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments & for the card! Sandy it's all good. Victoria (tk) 00:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mystical Nativity (Filippo Lippi), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Goldfinch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

]

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well J. MarnetteD|Talk 21:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2020 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! All the best Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Io Saturnalia!

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

		Season's Greetings
		May your Holidays and the Year that follows shine as much as this coin still does beneath the tarnish of bygone weather and long use. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!!

	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a very Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️ and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Johnbod--merry Christmas! I'm working on something, and I don't quite know how to finish, or reorganize, or what. I need to reconsider the title as well: the draft I have focuses on Western Europe, from the 1500s on. As some of the sources point out, esp. the Deluga article, sources are scarce. I don't know what you have on your shelf, but even without that, maybe you have some advice re:structure and content. Whatever you can do will be greatly appreciated. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll look at it from about 3 jan. There was a 16th-century rabbi who got into trouble with the other top rabbis after he or his fans did a medal with his head on, to exchange with his Renaissance Humanist pals. Can't remember where I saw that. Jewish art (click it and weep) has been on my to do list for ever. Johnbod (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'll probably find it yourself, but I think this was Elazar Rokeach of Amsterdam, around 1735.[5][6][7] It would be quite nice to have the image in his article. I wonder if there is a museum with a free version. Theramin (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that looks like him - mostly right then! It would have to be one of the US museums who have done big releases, as medals count as 3D. Johnbod (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~~ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• We're getting old, Johnbod! You too, Gerda! (And if you have a moment, is there anything you can add to Georg Goldberg? Thanks!) Drmies (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  We're (gracefully) getting old but staying awesome, even if sometimes bad-tempered ;) - Happy 2020! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	Merry Christmas Johnbod
	Hi Johnbod, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia this past year,    –Davey2010talk 00:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	Holiday Cheer
	To Johnbod, best wishes to you and your family for a joyous Holiday Season and a happy and healthy New Year. Ewulp (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{

subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec19b

}} to your friends' talk pages.

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		Faithful friends who are dear to us
		... gather near to us once more. May your heart be light and your troubles out of sight, now and in the New Year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear
	Be well. Keep well. With or without a period! Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Bellows, North River (1908), Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts.		Best wishes for a healthy and prosperous 2020.
		Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 December 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mystical Nativity (Filippo Lippi), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Filippo Lippi's Mystical Nativity (shown) of c. 1459 includes "no cave, no shed, no Joseph, no angels, no ox, no ass"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mystical Nativity (Filippo Lippi). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mystical Nativity (Filippo Lippi)), 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) 00:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	Season's greetings!
	I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2020 will be safe, successful and rewarding...keep hope alive....Modernist (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you arbitrarily removing my changes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nativity_of_Jesus_in_art&type=revision&diff=932338322&oldid=932329306

I added 2 of the most famous Bible illustrations depicting the Nativity. One is from Gustave Dore, the other is from Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld. Both Bible editions have been some of the most important published and are reproduced countless times. --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 04:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Happy Holiday Season Johnbod and best wishes for the New Year! Coldcreation (talk) 10:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johnbod: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Johnbod,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010^Talk 00:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

On 2 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ratnagiri, Odisha, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Buddhist site of Ratnagiri (Buddha head pictured) in Odisha, India, includes rare carved scenes that seem to combine eroticism and hair-cutting? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ratnagiri, Odisha. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ratnagiri, Odisha), 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.

--valereee (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The 2020 WikiCup began at the start of January and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you are interested in joining, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Creative editors like yourself seem to enjoy taking part, and many return year after year. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lalitasana, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in Buddhist art, bodhisattvas are often shown seated in royal ease (example pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lalitasana. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lalitasana), 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) 12:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod! I've always been puzzled by the dates given for this statue... I've looked up a bit. One author I've found says the date is generally given as 2nd century CE, but thinks it is actually 4th century CE in Pieris, Sita; Raven, Ellen (2010). ABIA: South and Southeast Asian Art and Archaeology Index: Volume Three – South Asia. BRILL. p. 264.

I've no personal view - I see: Blurton, T. Richard, Hindu Art, 1994, British Museum Press, ISBN 0 7141 1442 1, p. 78 says "most scholars ... now accept.. on stylistic grounds ... [a date of ] 2nd or 1st century BC". I'll poke around. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ellwood, 47 from 2000 says "has been dated between" 2C BC & 1C AD. I think I'll widen the range & add stuff. Blurton & Ellwood have longish accounts. Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem there is quite a lot of divergence on the dates. Thank you for the feedback! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On

Buddha with fine proportions / Well designed and sitting on lotuses" (example pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lotus throne. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lotus throne), 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

.

--valereee (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sculpture in the Indian subcontinent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Skanda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --evrik ^(talk) 04:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 h for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   Sandstein 20:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandstein, I am only here because I’m currently in conversation with Johnbod on a completely unconnected matter, but can we please have a diff for this supposed personal attack. You see, Johnbod is one of our more esteemed, long serving content editors not associated with incivility or associated behaviour. Giano (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's hardly hard to find: User_talk:Evrik#WHAT_THE_FUCK!!! Andy Dingley (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m glad my life has not been so sheltered that WTF as modern parlance has not totally escaped me. Your great grandchildren must consider you a treasure indeed. Giano (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, Giano, as refreshingly charming as ever. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed and you and Sandstein remain unchanged by time too. Talking of time, did you know that when The Low Countries were governed by narrow minded people, rather like Wikipedia, in the 17th century, the intelligentsia invented coded ways of saying the word “Fuck”, they did this by painting little birds as the Dutch word for bird was then currently slang for recreational sex (bad) as opposed to procreational sex (good). So presumably a bird flying away could mean...well, I’ll let you work it out. Giano (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not seriously vested in this discussion whatsoever, I just wanted to say that I absolutely love what you just said and appreciate your cultural awareness. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• How the fuck is "what the fuck" a personal attack? You're a fuck, sure. But "what the fuck" is the equivalent to "what on earth". How is this blockable? freshacconci (✉) 21:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The upper casing and the three exclamation points were the bounce. Should have been [EDIT: presented as] a politely worded question instead, [EDIT: WHATTHEFUCK???], upper cased with three question marks. It's all in the wrist. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC) (Free Johnbod, and Epstein didn't kill himself) [EDIT: Edited later to make clear what I originally intended][reply]

Well that is true no doubt. But it is totally typical that blatent and unapologetic breaches of policy are overlooked (see User:Primefac's comments at the Evric talk section). Johnbod (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

!!!kcuF eht tahW Randy Kryn (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC) (dobnhoJ eerF) p.s. this should have been talked out before a ban, given the clean slate. But women like bad boys, so there's that (I've got two bans to my record, and the scars to prove it)[reply]

• • All I can say is that sometimes it happens to all of us, WTF; OMG; but we do go on...Modernist (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Johnbod (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As User:Freshacconci points out above, there was no personal attack. Certainly my edit was bad-tempered, in reaction to a sneaky (no edit summary) breach of the rules (as Sandstein agrees). I was especially annoyed that I had not spotted his mess for over 3 weeks. One tries not to lose one's temper on WP, and nearly always succeeds, but sometimes it happens. I see from Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks that "A block is not intended as punishment; it's meant to prevent you from making disruptive edits, either in good faith or as vandalism." After 220,000 edits over 15 years, without ever previously being blocked, how likely is this to be a problem over the next 22 hours? Any "disruption" here came from Evric, who everyone but him agrees did breach policy, but refuses to accept or even discuss this, and will no doubt continue to edit regardless of policy. Johnbod (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I am completely convinced by John's reasoning. the unblock will present no danger to the wiki. RexxS (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rexx! Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As noted at

WP:ANI, I would have agreed to unblock Johnbod if they had acknowledged that their conduct was wrong and committed not to repeat it. That not being the case, it is likely that the conduct will reoccur and the block remains needed. Sandstein 22:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Sandstein, Johnbod's post is very close to what you're looking for. Johnbod, please consider bringing it even closer. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ringstone, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that small Indian ringstones of the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE typically have four nude female figures around the central hole? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ringstone. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ringstone), 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.

--valereee (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the "attorney" part you reverted to on Mike DeWine, and made it "former attorney." That should be descriptive enough and not mislead any readers. Thoughts? MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't really care but normally we just pile up all appropriate career designations. What happens when he loses office & goes back to the law? Johnbod (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Domestic architecture. Since you had some involvement with the Domestic architecture redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How odd! We must have both moved it at exactly the same time. Never known that before. You must have been a milli-second before me. Giano (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - I was puzzled when I saw it. I think I'm done now (I kept the lower placing - I expect the village are as unkeen to have their article dominated by strangers crashing into each other above them as the manor were). Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks! Agreed. I gave up editing when I realised we were both in there together. Giano (talk) 11:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]