User talk:Johnbod/6 to May 07

I've been cleaning up bliaut but I have had no luck finding a contemporary illumination or other illustration showing the fine pleating/wrinkling around the torso that is obvious on statuary. If you know of such a thing, could you point me at it or add it, please? (The Clarica "Q" illustration clearly does not have pleats or wrinkles around the torso, and there isn't a decent size scan of it that I can find on the net, and it's not in the Commons.) Thanks - PKM 19:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS I feel

1200-1300 in fashion

looming in my future...

I can't think of anything offhand; the best bet may be pen & wash illuminations. I'll keep an eye out. Too early for panel paintings of course, & there just is a lot less surviving from that period. Yes - it (1200-1300) has to be done, although at some point I think we have to go to a longer period "Early Medieval .... " maybe. Johnbod 20:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, both Moerou toukon and Phillip Rosenthal were identified as likely sockpuppets of the same editor.

JFD 13:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - keep up the good work! Johnbod 13:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, I'd appreciate it if you could comment at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Evidence.

Thank you! JFD 14:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you have other demands on your time. However, since the case is near closing, sooner would be better than later.

Again, thank you. JFD 15:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still appreciate it if you could comment because I'd like your account of Freedom skies'/Phillip Rosenthal's/Moerou toukon's behavior to be part of the permanent record of his Arbitration case, regardless of whether or not it affects the Arbitrators' Final decision. It helps demonstrate just how broad a range of articles he's engaged in this behavior on.

The reason I asked you to hurry is because you won't be able to add your comments once the case is closed. (Well, you could, but it would be reverted by an admin.) Thanks, JFD 17:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more time, thank you. JFD 17:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might want to know, Moerou toukon and Phillip Rosenthal have been permanently banned as sockpuppets. Again, thanks for your help. JFD 00:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to comment on the fact that Freedom skies has just repeated the following outrageous lie about you "And yes, I accused Johnbod, who said that 'The word paper comes from your momma's pussy' of Chinese nationalism" [1] Paul B 12:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please weigh in on a building edit conflict at Western painting, thanks Modernist 14:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're too busy waiting tables, I suspect! On another note, having offered to help clean up the "JS people" category, I now realise that tonight will have to be my last night of WP editing for a couple of weeks as I'll be on holiday from the weekend. Regardless of the CfD debate result, (if and when it's closed...), I'm happy to have that on my "to-do" list when I'm back, in line with whatever levels of categorization are deemed appropriate: seeing as I started this whole debate, I might as well clean up afterwards! And I know there's no need to thank you for the civil tone of the debate we've been having, but I will, given some of the heated disputes I've seen elsewhere on CfD. So, thanks. Regards,

Likewise! Have a nice break Johnbod 18:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as no consensus, as you may have seen - no real surprise. I'll tidy up JSP when I'm back. How about this: I'll put musicians into the JSM alumni category and non-musicians into the JS alumni category, so we can see what the size of the non-musician cohort is, then you and I can discuss whether sub-cats for actors, dancers, etc are really needed. How does that sound? Regards,

I think there will be enough actors - that's already clear, which I suppose leaves the dancers as the residue (I know nothing about dance). I don't know how the school works (Fame is my nearest reference sadly) - are you always in one of the 3 divisions? If people have moved around that would complicate matters. Maybe the CfD will get a real Wikignome interested whilst you're away. If I have time I may start the actors - I will recognise names more easily. Have a good time. Johnbod 02:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again they are trying to delete images on Western painting. They've asked for opinions on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. I hope you can weigh in. Thanks. Modernist 21:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. You won the debate, but you're still wrong! You stated in reply to me: So what? It is clear and unambiguous. You keep saying things like "(chateau) is used solely to mean a palace, not a castle" in English, but this is plainly just not true, as I and other editors have pointed out. . Well, no. Firstly it is anything but clear and unambiguous. What is a fortified French château that makes it NOT a castle? As to editors pointing out that English speakers do say château when they mean castle: When have you ever driven through France, seen a castle and said "Ok look, a fortified French château"? I drive past Versailles and I see a château. I drive past Montpeyroux and I see a castle. I have only ever heard English speakers use the word 'château' to describe the palace type, never a castle. Even my French friends and neighbours make the distinction when they speak English. Oh well, Wikipedia users wanting to find castles in France will now have to be very clever and know that unlike in Germany, Spain, England, Wales, Scotland, Denmark etc etc etc there are no castles in France, only fortified French châteaux. Emeraude 11:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote in your message: "There will be no difficulty finding the French ones in the category; if you massage the code it will appear in the correct place in the "castles in " sequence." Sorry, but I haven't a clue what this means. Emeraude 16:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem you've left back some double redirects.... did you verify them? Ciao and good work. --Attilios 11:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had checked these - can you remember which articles? There are plenty of single redirects of course. Johnbod 16:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thanks you for your help on Western painting, hopefully the issue of using images in articles about visual art will begin to become more reflective of what editors need to convey. Modernist 13:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to trouble you again, I noticed today that User:Minderbinder reported Western painting and History painting here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cyde/Cleaned_up_lists I'm not familiar with all this, I'm not sure what will happen, do you know this process? Modernist 18:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So right. The result of too much free time, access to a computer, a world of misinformation to correct and entries to expand. Over the next few weeks I will be painting and vacationing, so my involvement should taper. Thank you for your contributions to

Thanks for the heads up. Did I ever mention that I dropped typing in high school? Framnet=fragment. Dsmdgold 17:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did Google it just in case it meant something; it's a good-sounding word in search of a meaning! Johnbod 17:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Antiquities, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page .

--ALoan (Talk) 10:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looted Art

Please check the "Looted art" discussion page, provide proper sources for your statements, do not delete the "disputed" tag without discussion and please - do not repeat spelling mistakes. Thank you.Okinawasan 22:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments there. Thank you. Johnbod 22:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of the Romanists

Hi, sorry about leading you on a bit of a goose-chase with the Chamber of rhetoric side of things there (and for perhaps stepping over a few of your edits--no harm meant). I got little overeager there in trying to stress the intellectual nature over the professional aspects of the "guild". I haven't seen much solid information on the Romanists lately, but it's my understanding that it lacked the professional aspect that the Guild of St. Luke did. However, I think your current article, with the Jaffé quote, reflects that. Does he call it a guild or a society? In general, I've noticed that the term Romanists is often applied to any of the late mannerist artists working in Antwerp, although it doesn't seem to reflect whether they were actually members of the intellectual society.

No problem - I didn't know about the Chambers of Rhetoric, & was glad to have the link, but from the few sources I have it doesn't seem the Guild actually was one - I looked at some sites on them in both English & Flemish & it wasn't mentioned. "The Violin" seems to have been the main Antwerp one, which actually did merge with the painters "Academy" (which had already absorbed the Guild) long afterwards. But obviously it was part of the same bourgeois social world as them. Jaffé actually calls it a "club" in his passing reference - my other sources use "society" or "fraternity". At this time the Guild was still going strong & I'm sure you're right about this just being social/informal. I find Rubens not being able to be full Dean of the Guild of St Luke because of his membership of the Romanists rather odd, but that's what my source (web paper I haven't refed yet) says. I want to find out more - I need to get to a library on it, although I suspect Dutch would be needed in the end. The Guild was I think only founded at the end of the 16th C (no date yet) & is really largely separate from both phases of the earlier Romanism (painting). I asked Piet the author of that for any info he has btw. I don't even know the name in Flemish, which would no doubt open a number of sources I can't read. I think it had a literary/intellectual side apart from the artists, but can't get a handle on that. Do you know the name & do you speak Flemish? Johnbod 19:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought for sure I signed my last note above (Stomme), but I guess I didn't. The guild/fraternity/society was definitely strong in the 17th century. I'm pretty sure that every working Antwerp artist was a member of St. Luke in the 16th/17th century, but I really don't know specifics about the relationship between the them and the Romanists. As far as my observation goes, romanism is just a term is used rather interchangeably with Netherlandish/Dutch/Flemish Mannerism in a lot of the literature. However, you actually have me thinking about the society of the Romanists because I come across it all the time but I've never read a study on them. I'm actually wondering if its been studied at all. I found a few citations with romanisten in Dutch and German articles, but they didn't offer anything I hadn't seen in English. I'll let you know if I come across anything. As far as Rubens not being made dean of St. Luke, I always thought of it as relating to the special relationship he had as court painter to the Archdukes and the privileges associated with that position, although I'm willing to learn. I fear that the real answer might require original research, however. --Stomme 21:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I knew it was you! I've added the Rubens ref; being Court painter was also an issue. I'm sure they've been studied, but maybe not in English. Please do add anything you find; I'm not sure when I will get to a library - at the moment I don't even have a book title. Johnbod 22:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oil sketch

looks great. When I have more time I will read it more carefully, but I suspect that copyediting on my part will be minor. It looks like you have done well in distinguishing between oil sketch as preparatory step vs. oil sketch as a finished idea in and of itself. I think of Constable, not only because modern taste (my own included) tends to favor his sketches, but also because he muddied the definitive water by painting 'full-size' sketches. I recall that Monet had some interesting thoughts about the terminology of 'sketch'. One of my dear colleagues, a wonderful drafsman and teacher, disliked the word when applied to drawing because he thought it implied something frivolous. I also will have a look at

Tiepolo, more for the pleasure of reading about him and enjoying your work than for making any contributions. Thanks for the heads up, and keep up the good work! JNW 14:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Have done some copy editing, which I hope is for the better. If it seems I have done havoc, please let me know, or just revert. I'd like to get a cite for the reference to Degas' use of essence. JNW 23:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oops

yeah sorry about that,and I didn't see anything in the edit summary.Arnon Chaffin ^{Got a message?} 15:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jácome Ratton

On 18 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jácome Ratton, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

P.S. Please add the name of the artist and a link to his article (if one exists) to the image description page on Commons. Thanks. --

chat} 00:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Oil sketch

On 18 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oil sketch, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--

chat} 22:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Review

Dear Johnbod/6 to May 07, I wanted to thankyou for the review you recently gave me. I found it constructive, and I shall build upon your comments, critisisms and kind words. I also have noticed that you have 23 DYK selected articles. This means that you qualify for

my list of the top 25 DYKers. If you are interested in adding your name and/or continuing to update that list, then that would befantastic. Kind regards, Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 00:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Philippe II

Come on! Just leave the tag, until someone puts at least one link as a reference. Nice user page. Energyfreezer 03:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall the whole article reads like it could easily come from the 1911 EB. The New Orleans article also has the same point (no citation of course). I you want to check that it's not in fact from 1911 EB, & then add a cite tag on the point, fine. But adding "unreferenced" tags to EB-tagged articles desn't help. Thanks (re user page). Johnbod 03:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Church article

For the sake of making sure we communicate in a timely manner, I'll copy my reply to your comments here.

OK, well, can you elaborate? You -- I think -- brought up two separate things.

• Christian Church should be broadened to a general survey of Christianity.
• OHCAC is a different concept from CC.

Is your concern still both of these, one of these, something else, ...? Can you give more detail on each (ideally responding to what I have said above)?

Obviously you can revert the redirect in OHCAC if you like.

You can reply in the CC talk page or here.

--Mcorazao 22:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

23 May, 2007, a fact from the article Otto van Veen, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--

Smee 17:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The DYK Medal

		The DYK Medal
		I, Smee 23:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply ]

DYK

24 May, 2007, a fact from the article Guild of Saint Luke, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--

Smee 08:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Christian Church (again)

Johnbod,

I added some additional comments in the discussion.

Apart from the merger discussion, though, I was hoping to ask a favor. Since you obviously have some concerns about the article in general, might I trouble you for a more general critique? I.e. not just how its written but appropriateness, scope, etc. I've only gotten bits and pieces from you at this point so I can't really utilize your commentary but I'd like to get your perspective.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao 15:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juilliard categories

Back from my break and my copy of AWB is working, for the moment at least, so I'm slowly going through Category:Juilliard School people as promised. I've left the following message on the talk pages of the categories affected, in case anyone's interested, and thought I'd leave you the same note in case you had any thoughts. I should have thought of doing this before I started work, but I was bold (and I hope sensible).

Following the CFD discussion on merging Category:Juilliard School of Music alumni and Category:Juilliard School alumni, which ended with "no consensus", I offered to help tidy up this parent category. I am doing so, using the following principles:

• Musicians who attended the Juilliard School go in Category:Juilliard School of Music alumni
• Non-musician alumni go in Category:Juilliard School alumni
• Faculty (music and non-music) go in Category:Juilliard School faculty

If it then appears that we need further sub-cats to distinguish between faculty divisions, or for the different non-music alumni, we can create them. Effectively, Category:Juilliard School people should be an article-free zone, unless there are people out there who are notable for their involvement with the School but who are/were neither alumni nor faculty. If anyone sees this, they are welcome to comment.

Hope this makes sense and that you agree. You'll see that the musicians category is filling up nicely!

Bencherlite 23:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. If you get a chance to help with the initial sorting, fine; if not, don't worry - I'm not expecting you to do so, and using AWB to move from page to page speeds things up for me nicely. Best wishes,

Bencherlite 01:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

AfD nomination of

First time buyer

An article that you have been involved in editing,

First time buyer, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First time buyer. Thank you. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

First time buyer

Thanks, not yet and considering the article probably not for quite a while! Davewild 18:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Rotonda

Ciao! You'll be surely interested in

this!! (As usual needs English language cleanup). Good work and thanks. --Attilios 08:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Beham and 1528 horse book

John, HSB's horse book is actually included (without mentioning the subject) in the 'Life' section, where it says: Beham was exiled again in 1528 for publishing a book regarded, rather unfairly, as plagiarised from an unpublished manuscript by Albrecht Dürer, who had recently died.

It is indeed this same manual that you have just added to the end of the 'Work' section - it may be a good idea to incorporate the two mentions as one....

All the best

Nick Nick Michael 08:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

Apparently my attempt to fix up that problem with the category renaming failed. The thing that vey much puzzles me is that you seemed to want to do exactly what I was trying to, and then you voted "oppose."

For some reason, the whole discussion turned into one on the validity of the term "musicwriter." This was extremely unfortunate, as the real issue was that the category "Songs by composer" was folded into the "Songs by songwriter" category. You wanted to recreate "Songs by composer," but that, according to Wikipedia rules, is impossible because that category was formally merged into "Songs by songwriter"! I was hoping that you would at least agree with me to reverse that decision, but instead you simply voted to oppose, and helped shut the door so that we could not, under the rules, do what you seemed to want done.

I simply cannot understand your vote. -- BRG 14:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make very heavy weather of all this. Please reread my contributions to the debate. As I said there, I don't believe there is any bar on you recreating the merged cat, but if you are not sure, ask Deletion Review - DON'T ask them to overturn any previous nom, just ask for confirmation you can recreate the composers one. Johnbod 14:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say I "make very heavy weather of all this" -- certainly I do. I feel very strongly that the earlier decision was a terrible one, and I wish I was aware of the vote when it was originally being taken. Unfortunately, whoever proposed the original change didn't read

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Howto#Notes_for_nominators. You "don't believe there is any bar on you recreating the merged cat" -- how can you possibly say this? Once a decision like this has been taken, one cannot just go and recreate something that has been deleted formally. That's contrary to Wikipedia policy. -- BRG 15:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

See my comments in the latest discussion. It was merged, but the nom, which was passed, specifically mentioned, having 3 categories. It also mentioned the then mixed contents of the category as a prime reason. But go to DR if you are not sure. Johnbod 15:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nom specifically mentioned having 3 categories, and then dismissed that idea! [The precise words are: "For the best logical arrangement we maybe ought to have 3 categories (by songwriter, by composer, by lyricist) but in the interests of avoiding over-categorisation I think renaming this category would be the best solution."] I have been trying to figure out how to go to DR; the procedures do not seem to allow for this case, where a category was merged into another. -- BRG 16:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "chose another alternative" rather than "dismissed". Just stick it up on DR, saying you want to clarify it is ok to restart the "by composer" category. As I say, you make very heavy weather of all this. Johnbod 22:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_30#Category:Songs_by_composer to verify that I am not misrepresenting your position. I still cannot see, however, that my "heavy weather" is unjustified; I think this decision, which was made without my having had an opportunity to comment, was quite a disaster, and I feel that you are taking it much too lightly. I wish I had your support; you actually seem to want the same thing I do. -- BRG 14:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]