User talk:Johnbod/46

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wilderness (garden history), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chatsworth.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Bringing you warm wishes for the New Year!
		In the midst of the snowy season, sending you some cheer with the sounds of nature I enjoy in my garden when the Indigo bunting return with the warmer weather. May you and yours have a healthful, happy and productive 2022! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

tee-hee - yes, let's hope it's not a repetition again! Johnbod (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

January songs

in friendship

Thank you for your beautiful traditional Christmas card! - Happy new year, in friendship! - One of my pics was on the Main page (DYK) and even made the stats. - In this young year, I enjoyed meetings with friends in real life, and wish you many of those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda! Same to you. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you! 2022 began happily with vacation. I uploaded images but stopped at 22 January - click on songs. 30 January means 10 years of Precious. It's also the birthday of a friend, - I'm so happy I mentioned his DYK on his 90th birthday when he was still alive. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hedge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hawthorn.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @johnbot I've put some comments at the Talk page of the John Byrne article. If you have a moment, could you possibly take a quick look? All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does this edit summary by User:Minafu look like a legal threat to you? Should he be warned of WP:NLT? Sweetpool50 (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not a serious one anyway. But I'm not the best person to ask. You could certainly warn him. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I think we can do better than this: "Other features, such as a

]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect

]

Take the Lead contest 2021

Thank you for participating in the Take the Lead contest. You are one of the winners. I have just sent you an email to coordinate the prize. Best, Karla Marte(WMUK) (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Writer's Barnstar
		Thank you for a quality article about, Garden rooms. Bruxton (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question: currently Category:English gardens only contains one article and one subcategory. I am inclined to think that the purpose of this category and its subcategory coincide. Do you agree? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really "English gardens" meaning English-style landscape gardens, wherever located, is a Continental-only term we should not be using. It should probably be renamed to "Gardens in the English landscape style", and the sub-cat split between ones in the British Isles & the imitations (never the same) elsewhere. But the whole area is a horrible mess, as I've said. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Illinois State University/The Middle Ages (Spring) - looks to be hitting a few art articles.... just a heads up. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - some anyway. But few edits seem to result.... usually. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May want to check out

Medieval English Architecture. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Aaargh, yes! Made a start. It's an orphan, so no one sees it. Tempted to keep it that way. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 7,338 views (611.5 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of February 2022 – nice work!

Bruxton (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cult image, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spirit.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... you probably did: India’s Art History United in a Single Source Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No I hadn't -that's paywalled, but this is their site. Are they free? Not clear. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not sure myself. I might have mistaken "open source" for "open access." :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Parterre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Temple.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this edit summay not only does not

]

At least I spelled the main guy's name correctly! There was a discussion very recently at one of the admin boards on this very bad practice of gutting Afd's before or during the deletion debate. I was one of many strongly against it - it is very bad practice indeed. I don't agree the content was that bad - such differences of opinion are a main reason why. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could have corrected the spelling of the name without reintroducing a bunch of unverified bullshit. Yet, you chose to re-include the unverified bullshit. Why? jps (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both the generally

WP:RS sources made the status of the claims perfectly clear. Add Rollston if you want. Not all the story is "bullshit". Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Do you think fluff pieces like that are "generally reliable" for making claims about the archaeological discoveries prior to any peer reviewed paper being published? Is that really your editorial philosophy? I note that you didn't feel it worth your while to add Rollston. I'm trying to figure out what your game is here. Are you just taken in by any

WP:SENSATIONalist piece you read? Or is this particular story somehow after your own heart? It is still entirely puzzling to me how you came to the conclusion that this revert was somehow an improvement. jps (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Now I see why you chose "AGF" as your header - yes, you should. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So is this an admission that you may have been hasty in that? Fine, if so. But you definitely doubled down on your actions in the AfD. Thus my arrival at your user talkpage. If you have a problem with the way I do things, it would be good to have out with it. But I take firm exception to the actions of those who deliberately reintroduce shoddy academic scholarship into the encyclopedia that are sourced entirely to newspaper articles. It makes me nervous about what other problematic content you may have been including here. My hope is this is just a one-off mistake on your part. jps (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it certainly is not. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod,

I'm sure you have a lot on your plate, but if you're interested in taking a look, I’ve been working on drafting a MOS:ERA RfC question in my sandbox. Please feel free to edit and/or comment if you have the inclination. For any page watchers here, this with regard to a recent discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Much appreciated, Generalrelative (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I haven't forgotten, but I am busy this week. But I'll get back to it soonish. Johnbod (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, no hurry! Generalrelative (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve said on the MOS Rfc: Option 1

, though I'm not wholly against Option 1….. I think it is a reasonable guess that you meant: Option 1

MOS:RETAIN

, though I'm not wholly against Option 2….. If my guess is wrong, please enlighten me as to what you mean by saying that you support Option 1, and are not wholly against it. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry - changed now. Your guess is correct. Johnbod (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGx5lEDLC4Q No hard feelings! --Schmutzman (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Another obsessive. I know enough German to know that German pronunciation varies quite a bit anyway. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused by your edit at Jonathan Jones (journalist). I made a series of edits, mostly adding reliable sources, but alos removing one piece of obvious SYN. Then Philafrenzy undid my edits and some previous edits by several other editors (mostly SYN and trivia), supposedly based on my alleged conflict of interest. Given that I am not that Jonathan Jones (but am, as I declare on my user page, Jonathan A. Jones) I'm confused about this supposed COI (are all people called Jonathan Jones supposed to form some sort of cabal?) I undid this revert. And then you undid this again. Can I ask why? Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Sauce boat. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. The personal attack was in your recent edit summary. Sandstein 04:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] which IMHO is a bad edit, and the existing text "Although Basque-like Neolithic farmers did populate Britain (and all of Northern Europe) during the Neolithic period" is wrong, isn't it? Then there's this.[2] Bell beakerman left a number of problems behind I think. Thanks. If you're too busy or not interested just tell me. Doug Weller talk 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm sure you're right, but I try to avoid DNA stuff, & the garden & Core Contest are keeping me too busy at the moment. I'll watchlist the articles though. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't blame you! Doug Weller talk 15:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm wondering if you could give me some advice. I recently uploaded a rewrite of tomb of Tutankhamun and created a new article on the discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun. I'm thinking about sending the article on the discovery to FAC, but one of the major aspects of the topic is a political dispute between the excavators and the Egyptian government in 1923 and 1924. Though I didn't participate in the discussions, I remember the blowup at FAC in 2018 over the articles on Black Friday (1910) and the Bengal famine of 1943. I expect you do, too. One of the major focuses of criticism in those cases was the practice of rewriting articles and then sending them to FAC as virtual faits accompli—a criticism that made me uncomfortable, because writing a new article or rewritten version offline, and then uploading it in one go, is how my writing process has always worked. It doesn't escape my attention that both the contentious FACs were related to controversies about the actions of the British government in the early 20th century, and while the dispute in the Tut discovery isn't really about the actions of the British government, it is definitely about British colonialism.

So although I did upload the discovery article in a lump, I'm sending it to peer review and will wait at least three months after uploading before sending it to FAC. I'm looking to notify people about it so the PR receives the input it needs, but I'm not sure where to look. Please note that I'm not asking you to participate in the PR (although you're more than welcome to do so if you like), but simply asking if there are any particular editors or wikiprojects I should be notifying. A. Parrot (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hello, i just learn drawing in prespective by books, and edited several articles in art. please review my deits. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.184.190.141 (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done to date. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here !

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a point to this list? Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - it was spun-off from the main article in 2004. I don't much object to such things myself, though they just summarize categories, or should. Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated

]

Provenance

Meenakshi Jain claims (Plate 6 caption) a part. sculpture in the Ashmolean Eastern Art Collection to have been found from the ruins of the Sun Temple at Multan. Any way to verify this? TrangaBellam (talk) 04:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, "purchased 1972". They don't mention it. You could ask the Asian curator there. It's pretty small to be an image of the primary deity of a big temple, perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite as herculean as your turning a redirect into an incredible article, but I didn't lose my will to live with my efforts on the Core Contest. I know it's lacking in art sections ... if you feel the urge, it can use those later ... but at least we're at a solid starting point for information to be added to it. Now I can return to my regularly scheduled obscure medieval topics... heh. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm happy to do that over the next month or two. I was just looking at - seems decent. I waited to start Italian Renaissance sculpture & will probably take it to the wire.., Best, Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Congratulations and excellent work to the two of you. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May songs

I don't know if you watched it: Hanning Schröder is now an article. - I like my talk today (actually mostly from 29 May - I took the title pic), enjoy the music, two related videos worth watching! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, you may like

]

Calumnia

Hi. You are right about the argument for the edit, because it is not really proven. But I did not write it in the article. So I didn't get, what you mean by "worse", since the argument of 'not proven' runs both ways. Then less might be more. - Maybe you didn't see it, I also changed "ancient lost" to lost ancient. I hope the logic is obvious. MenkinAlRire 16:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was what I meant by 1). Frankly I think you should be cautious with what you call "grammar" edits. I take it English is not your first language? Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there are a number of issues with what you wrote on the David Vases. Firstly the reference does not give the page number so it is difficult to check the validity of the assertion, secondly the claim that the date given is based on a 60 year Chinese calendar cycle appears to be incorrect - I have given the translation, and the date given is the reign era date (i.e. between 1341 and 1370), the 11th year of that era which would be 1351. Given its inaccuracy and I cannot check the source to see why the claim is made, I would delete it if no further sources are given. Hzh (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which reference? I've noted the discrepancy re the nature of the date. There is a vast amount of scholarship on this, which you've only scratched the surface of, and which I dug into many years ago. By all means comment out the 60 year bit for now, but I think there is more to say, & I will probably return at some point. Anyway, it's good to see something on them at last. There is a good analysis of the decoration in Watson's volume in the

Yale History of Art. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

DYK for Italian Renaissance sculpture

—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Italian Renaissance sculpture is really an outstanding new article. So beautiful. Superb effort! And started on my birthday! Thanks John! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Good to see the old user name back. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did I misunderstand you in this edit? Was there a spelling change involved, or just the case styling that I restored pending the outcome of the discussion? Dicklyon (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did. Check the diff when I revert you again. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

warning

J, I keep trying to improve the article, toward both status quo ante and what's suggested by

]

It's the under-capitaized version that is "recent", as my post on talk showed. You started the reverting, against the current title, to the one you prefer. Johnbod (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment there was misinformed, as I explained there. Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon, do you think you might be too caught up in all this? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so. And you? Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I am. I've written the first three or four chapters of the article. I would have been just as involved had you left a polite note on the article's talk page asking about the conventions for and against in the literature. In my view, the conventions employed in naming a page are not quite the ones of the main body, which can change throughout the article. I would go for IVC for the title; IVC for the first-blush appearance in a section, at least the early sections; Ic thereafter if "I" needs to be mentioned; but IVC when comparing it to Mesopotamia or Ancient Egypt; IVC, most likely, once in the concluding paragraphs of a section; and "the c," definitely not "the C" everywhere else. ngrams aren't able to catch those sorts of preferences. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jacopo da Trezzo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Portuguese Africa.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking if this was an intentional revert or if my (I believe non-controversial) edit got caught up in an unrelated dipute. Abecedare (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - sorry, now sorted I hope! Johnbod (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's an opinion about symbolism taken from the textbook, then attribute it to the textbook. "Likely" isn't good enough. DS (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes it is. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t tell you how painful it is NOT to use sfn! You will see there are a few sources (which I don’t have) where Count Giano omitted to put the page numbers in. There are indicated in the References as p.?. If you happen to be able to source any, that would be a great help. If not, I shall ask the count himself. KJP1 (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, are you done there? I generally don't have the same sources, but may have others. Actually, looking at them, I may not - certainly not Rowe. That might have been added by User:Wetman, who I think did a lot of the US stuff. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still playing around, and there's more to add, but I'll come out for now. It should be in a state to withstand FAR shortly, I think. KJP1 (talk)

Ok, you're doing great work. Looking at the article, I think there's stuff to add, but I'll wait until it's clear of the FAR rocks. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August songs

Thank you for having helped rescuing Palladian architecture for FA, - great to see it today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda! Johnbod (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the church where I heard VOCES8. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Congratulations on your win at the 2022 edition of the Core Contest. Please get in touch with me at [email protected] to coordinate your prize. Thank you. Karla Marte(WMUK) (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YMMV, I suppose, but while I wouldn't have added a stub tag to Louis Rorimer if I'd come across it in a different context than I did, it would have to be quite a bit longer than that before I would remove a stub tag that was already there. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YMMV? Ok, I might well have, although I haven't. In general I think there are far too many "stubs" for minor subjects. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Your mileage may vary". For what it's worth, I don't think there's any universal standard for how long an article has to be before it's no longer a stub, but my personal filter has a lot to do with whether I had to scroll to see the categories or not — if I can see the whole article, from header to categories, on a single screen without scrolling at all, then I'm not removing a stub tag from it. If I do have to scroll to reach the categories, however, then I might (for example, I did just remove stub tags from Jens Rosing, which is very clearly too long at this point to remain tagged as a stub.)

I don't necessarily disagree in principle with the idea that the stub system is a bit too granular sometimes — but the problem is that if we don't filter the stub categories at least somewhat, then the broad high-level ones like Category:Artist stubs typically become too large to be useful because people have to wade through hundreds or even thousands of pages to find one they're motivated to work on improving. So it's a tricky balance between not granularizing stubs so much that we're creating micro-level stub categories for just one or two articles, while also not leaving them so generalized that people don't make use of them at all because they have to sift through 45,000 articles per stub grouping. In truth, I'm not fully convinced that the stub system is actually serving its intended purpose at all, because so many articles just never get improved enough to justify destubbing them, but killing it off entirely isn't a battle I'm inclined to take on. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Yes, I generally agree, but I sort of ask myself how difficult, or necessary, it would be to significantly add to the article. I think "start" and "C" tend to be interpreted over-strictly too, and most classifiers tend just to look at the length, leaving some rather hollow articles over-rated. Johnbod (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated

]

Input request

Hi. A discussion is currently ongoing at

]

I see you reverted my edit on Yoruba art. However, the RfC so far clearly favours including "sub-Saharan Africa" (6 votes to 1). And User:MassiveEartha's recent edit removed that term, per their argument in the "discussion" section of the RfC. How is there a consensus for that change given the votes in the "survey" section? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I supported "S-S" in the straight choice, but favour dropping any geographical term, as I've made clear there. I think there are at least 4 favouring that position, in fact everybody except you who has commented on dropping it. That's how. Plus, as you know, you are reverting to restore a copyvio from the cited source. I wouldn't do that. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those who responded to the "survey" didn't contribute to the "discussion" or the proposal raised there. But they did vote 6-1 to include "S-S" in the last sentence of the lead (which was the question of the RfC: Should the first sentence of Yoruba art#History end in the word Africa, or in the phrase sub-Saharan Africa?). MassiveEartha's preferred wording deliberately avoids "S-S". 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can cancel my vote and at least two others of the six, who subsequently expressed a preference for dropping any location. What must we do, have another rfc? Report your edit-warring to preserve a copyvio? Let's see what happens. Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you understand large chunks (most?) of this article were written by User:Maestro2016, sockpuppet of User:Jagged_85, yes? Can you confirm to me that you are verifying references before restoring referenced text? I spent quite a lot of time verifying "Asher & Talbot 2008, pp. 50–52", and that reference was doing a lot of work, a lot of it quite dubious. If you can replace with better references then please do. Thanks. Merlinme (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you have only removed small parts, apparently because you thought wider context cluttered things up. The content seemed very banal and uncontoversial to me, but useful to readers. In fact Maestro's edits hardly touched the lead, but had a lot on the economy, demographics and also a lot taken from my Indo-Islamic architecture. Johnbod (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was removing parts with dubious use of references? Which was Jagged_85 did all the time? If you haven't checked the reference then it should either be removed or replaced with a better reference. Otherwise it gives the impression it is properly supported and referenced... and that impression is false. Unless you have personally verified the reference I would argue it is effectively not referenced. Merlinme (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I confirm please that you are aware of Maestro2016's contributions to the article from 2017? [3] Which include, for example, the first use of: ref name="asher-50-52", and the entire two paragraphs starting: "The context behind the rise of the Delhi Sultanate in India was part of a wider trend affecting much of the

steppes" which I deleted? Merlinme (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, I am now, but as I say, this is very standard stuff you could reference from anywhere, and important points to make. Verging on

WP:SKYISBLUE. It's late for me, but I'll look at Keay, John, India, a History, 2000, HarperCollins, ISBN 0002557177 tomorrow. Johnbod (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

But this is what is so insidious about Jagged85 edits. Some of it will look plausible. All of it will look referenced. But if you check the references you will find that they do not support what he wrote. Basically the normal modus operandi was to write down a bunch of stuff he half remembered, slanted towards the viewpoint he preferred, and then attribute it to a hard to check reference which simply doesn't support it. Unless you have personally checked th reference, or can rewrite with better references, it should not be allowed to stand. Merlinme (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I keep saying, the stuff I replaced is so basic that is the ref given does not support it, any numbers of others will. Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC) 12:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wat Umong, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian independence.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a moment, would you please have a look at

]

No need unless it provokes your curiosity. The contributing editor has declined to meet the OR challenge, so I have deleted. A pity, some good material in there and I spent a lot of time cleaning up the citations but in the end it seems to be a classical pseudo-science analysis (result first, evidence later). --

talk) 18:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I took a look, but wasn't sure what to say, without more digging. Sorry! Johnbod (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As it turned out, the contributor is not content and has virtually accused me of incompetence, bad faith and 'rape' of his work (despite previously thanking me at

talk) 13:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You might ask User:David Eppstein, who's a maths prof & tenacious in discussion. Probably what is needed. Johnbod (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Might I trouble you for an assessment at Sylvain Lesné? I'm sorry to keep bothering you for these, but I don't know anyone else who does them! I put it up to C-class, but can't take it higher, as I wrote the whole thing. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - done as B. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]