User talk:Johnbod/8 to Sept 07

Best wishes, JNW 14:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yeah my dust jacket says Masterpieced of Illumination as well, but I was always taught that the title page is the definitive title. I'm kinda groggy today. I was up early watching the lunar eclipse, so I'm doing some essentially mindless tasks, such as adding to the reference sections. Dsmdgold 14:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, I checked Worldcat and it's only indexed under Codices Codices Illustres, even in the German, French and Spanish editions. The eclipse was cool. We were cloudless, I got the best pictures that I could expect given my crappy camera, and my daughter greatly enjoyed it. It was the first time she had seen one. Dsmdgold 15:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty busy right now (new semester just started, and I need to do some painting, etc.) but I will take a look at at this when I get the chance. Also, if you have a good reference to help with the third and fourth paragraphs for Art, that would be great. I'm going to look for some stronger material than that which is there now, which I had already removed, and tagged upon its return. Thanks, JNW 15:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Art--you're right on it. There are certain topics, abstract and interesting enough to invite lots of unsourced prose. The result seems to be a hodgepodge of an article, composed of contributions both good and indifferent. Thank you for your additions. JNW 22:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet commented on Chiaroscuro, feeling I have little to add. I've always thought of the term primarily as the Caravaggio conceit, referring to larger compositional motives, so your contributions are broader in scope and informative. And kudos for your work, along with User:Modernist, on Self-portrait. JNW 14:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you re:
  Delacroix, which I might work on a little this morning, since it's pouring rain outside. There are gaps everywhere, so occasionally I spackle with a small trowel. JNW 14:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

First I was using them, then I was asked not to by one editor, so I stopped. I just put four articles through GA and I was told to strike through items as they are addressed. One thing is certain, FAC is an arbitrary process and after studying what has passed and what has failed, the tag is of questionable value in my mind. After Cranmer, I am through with FA articles and intend to work only to GA - where the standards seem to be more widely understood by the reviewers. -- SECisek 16:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John! I spent several hours cleaning up a few recently created articles on Coptic topics. They all contain copyright infringements, apparently unbeknownst to the editor who created them. Would you mind taking a look at something like Coptic architecture and maybe giving it some finishing touches when you have time? I feel bad that I've had to seriously trim down on a lot of the material that was included, and I am no expert on the topic. Thank you, — Zerida 07:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts Johnbod. It seems that copyright issues are quite hard to avoid. ~ Troy 20:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're busy at work on Coptic architecture, John. Looks beautiful, many thanks for the prompt attention, — Zerida 21:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they certainly seem to be popping up frequently. Will see what I can do. — Zerida 03:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, this is going to take days. At least we now know so something can be done about it. Troy has been recruiting other Wikipedians, so hopefully more help is on the way. — Zerida 03:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod! I don't think I have anything. All my info is very European. I haven't got any useful photos. What a pity. Anyway, you have the article looking good! --Amandajm 14:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		I, DYN? in 48 hours. — Zerida 21:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply ]

Thanks John! — Zerida 21:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose Wikipedia_talk:Hinduism-related_topics_notice_board#Dharmic_Religions for a centralized discussion about use of the phrase in many Wikipedia articles. Andries 21:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to clarify your comment here? I'm not sure if you support the nomination (by me) to rename, or are arguing to keep the name. Carcharoth 12:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I've added more at the CfD itself. Carcharoth 12:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one disagrees that Category:Fields of History should be changed to lower case, and I can't see any circumstances under which the renamed version would be deleted.--ragesoss 16:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, no I don't. But the name itself is simply against naming conventions. Maybe the discussion will get crazy and a "consensus" will develop of people who are completely unfamiliar with the discipline of history yet won't take my word for the way that historical jargon (like "fields of history") is used. I'll take that chance, and meanwhile, try to clean up the category.--ragesoss 16:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, that was fast, I was on my way to add the cat and edit conflicted with you. Dsmdgold —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmdgold (talk • contribs) 22:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to

talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 01:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

I would surly agree to this rename sounds very good although i did not finish reading yet all the pros and cons it sounds very reasonable, thanks for trying to bring this to a consensus.--יודל 18:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion is up for review. In case you'd like to chime in, go here. --Orange Mike 18:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Coptic architecture, 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 .

--Carabinieri 22:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Some remarks:

• I reentered the two sentences about El Greco in Italy you removed, expressing my disagreement. I do not intend to initiate an edit war, so, if you insist on removing them, I will respect that, but I do not see something wrong with these sentences. If you don't like the phrasing, you can rephrase them.
• Yes, the preponderant opinion is that Theotokopoulos was Orthodox by birth, but why is it wrong to include the dissenting opinions as well? Yes, they are from sites, but those who write in these sites are respectable researchers.
• If you want to edit the timeline, just go to Timeline of El Greco's life.
• It is great to add new sources, but PLEASE!!! keep the same form I have adopted in Citations and References. E.g. in citations only writer-book-page, in References all the other data (ISPB etc.). If you want to cite more than one sources in one citation, put them one after the other in different lines using the symbols <br> and * (next line). The article is featured, and, believe it or not, all these details are important, in order to keep its featured status, and not to have "stupid" nominations in FAR. At least, these details matter for me who nominated the article!

By the way, thank you for keeping the article safe from vandals. If this phenomenon continues, inform me, and I will semi-protect the article, until the vandal attacks are over. Cheers!--Yannismarou 12:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take this message as canvasing for your vote. I write to u in hopes that u can clarify this problem, since some claims are surfacing that a particular organization isn't notable enough, i, as an orthodox Jew, am not familiar with its issue, and thus could not testify to this regards, Please be so kind to shed your knowledge on this [4]. Thanks.--יודל 12:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's here? Handicapper 15:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an attempt currently under way to delete Stuart Dauermanns biography, i understand that much info is based on sites fond of his work, but this man seems very prominent and notable on outside websites from Google can u help save it? by correcting the problems if u find some on it. Thanks--יודל 21:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A common misunderstanding between a casual use of the term "book" and a more correct term which has the book as a physical media of delivery for written or pictorial content. "Work by" is all encompassing for the author's output. Essays for instance could get included under "Works by" quite happily or under a subcategory or "Essays by", however only rarely are these published (or delivered) as a stand alone book. Often not in books at all. "Short stories by" could regarded similarly. However "Novels by" are little more tricky in they are often just referred to as "books" however this belies the fact they are not the "book" per se but the style and form of writing normally published that way. Does that help at all. So my short response to "no" I don't think so, however I do think that the categories you speak of are rather untidy are are in need of work, which is gradually what I am working on. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a quick look at the two you mention and see if a fix is obvious. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some work on the "Thomas Mann" cats in particular. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'few "non-book" works have articles', essays, short stories, excluded of course. Ok I don't pretend there is an easy solution to the problem especially when it is so large. However I am trying my best. "Works by" is the catch-all and when I use "Books by" at all it is mainly to isolate clearly 'book published' non-fiction material by the author. And this I mark clearly in the category description. Categorization is never an exact science, which is one of the things I rapidly learnt at Library School (I trained as a librarian if that makes any difference at all of course). The problem often comes where people use terminology so loosely in real life and categorization is an attempt to bring tidiness to this untidy world. Ah well we try our best. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I could go with nearly all of that, but we would need a clear naming convention for the non-fiction "books by" category. And I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "+drama & poetry" element. Surely that is catered for by the "poetry by" and "# play" conventions although the last is a bit odd in format. Also the level of change is very large and I'm not sure everyone would be ready yet for it! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You won't let me put in objective information about Madonna as a compromise, so this is an edit war. What is wrong with referring to Madonna as "the most successful female artist by record sales" in the disambiguation page?

Madonna > * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.89.122 (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You won't let me put in objective information about Madonna as a compromise, so this is an edit war. What is wrong with referring to Madonna as "the most successful female artist by record sales" in the disambiguation page?

Madonna > *

Okay, so what if I get an account so I can add it to the main page? Would I still be blocked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.89.122 (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Give it a shot. We probably should delete Auto/portrait when all is done. Modernist 15:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you've cut and pasted material from it, then GFDL needs to be preserved with a history merge or a redirect. If not, then it can be deleted. Tyrenius 22:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image of Matthew Paris in the article is widely believed to be a self portrait. I can't think of any more from the Middle Ages off of the top of my head. But I know that there are some manuscipts that contain picures of illuminators, that could be considered self-portraits, I could dig around some more if you like, might take a week or two though. There may be some in Renaissance MSS. Dsmdgold 16:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. - PKM 18:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you mentioned Paris, now. The Dunstan image is the right choice to display, I think, because, if I remember correctly, Matthew based his image on Dunstan's. While looking around commons a bit, I found this one. Not the highest quality image, granted, but would illustrate the point of illuminators showing themselves at work. Dsmdgold 22:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely, thanks. There's a cracker in the BnF by the "Coronation Master", but their site is totally impenetrable, even with reasonable French. Thanks again. Johnbod 22:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Vigee-Lebrun link! I'll keep an eye open for 18th century s-ps. - PKM 17:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got this one? Image:George Desmarées 001.jpg? - PKM 19:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with changing the licence. I don't understand the grasshopper business. Doubt if I'll have time for self-portrait, I'm afraid. I'll leave it to the experts! Tyrenius 22:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between

Please note that I had admitted my earlier mistake [5] on Iconography on the talk page and that I tried not to make the same mistake in my latest edit [6] that was signicantly different to my admittedly mistaken former edit. Your comment suggests that you did not notice this difference. Andries 13:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is currently a discussion about the notability of Rabbi

Self-portrait lead me to finally tackle expanding Nicholas Hilliard from the totally inadequate 1911 EB entry that was there. Lots more to add (like, everything between 1579 and 1600, charters, the Great Seal, etc.). Jump in if it interests you.

It probably says something about my taste that the Phoenix and Pelican portraits are my favorite images of Elizabeth I... - PKM 03:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great additions; thank you - I don't have Strong's 1975 Hilliard.

Some day we should tackle a survey article on Tudor and early Stuart portraiture.... - PKM 17:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for DYK; we're just squeaking in under the deadline I believe. - PKM 20:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short, and half of what was there was EB 1911 and just, well, let's say not consonant with current scholarship (Alice Brandon "may" have been the niece or granddaughter of Charles Brandon Duke of Suffolk? Only on the wrong side of the blanket... and I'd want a recent citation to back it!) - PKM 20:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! - 01:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PKM (talk • contribs)

FYI . I wasn't happy about the conclusion in the closing out of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_2. Mike Selinker has directed me to post my concern at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_10#Rename_Category:Political_views_by_candidate Which I've now done. Its the first time I've had to do such a thing so hopefully I've done it right. As you contributed the final choice of name you might like to review it. Rgds, Ephebi 17:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're thinking about this--consider the case of people like Michelangelo or Wagner, where the works category is much more encompassing. For another possibility you mention: the fiction/non-fiction distinction is one thing, but consider also other imaginative literature like poetry. this is tricky, & I can think of objections to almost anything. I suggest setting up a work page with some examples. DGG (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep this here, if that's ok. Wagner doesn't have a Works category, only Category:Compositions by Richard Wagner, nor does Michelangelo (Paintings by...), whose poems seem to have no articles. Nor do Shakespeare, Balzac, Robert Ludlum .... Category:Works by artist (finally found it!) is divided strictly by type of work, and I am talking about the next one down Category:Works by author which is only for "all types of written works". So I don't think that's a problem. The top one should be Category:Works by creator, but that's for another day. I will copy this to my sandbox Modest Proposal to kick the discussion off there, I hope... Johnbod 00:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the categories you are removing lead to the Philosophy category. If you remove them, they are no longer under philosophy. Please visit the task force pages to see a list of categories that are entirely within the purview of the respective task force. You will notice that Aesthetics takes responsibility for some of the categories you are deleting. Greg Bard 04:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is still under philosophy, as the whole of cat:arts is, which I have left. Modernism (in the meaning of that category) is not a "philosophical school otr tradition" and to pretend it is is ridiculous. See my comments on the other category talk page also. Johnbod 04:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find your approach unusually confrontational and intransigent for an experienced editor. So far as I can see, you have not provided an adequate explanation for you changes on the Philosophy cats. Why must we take your view? Banno 20:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - I seem to have had a case of the wiki equivalent of

face blindness. Banno 05:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your comments John, I will add the Info that is requested.Jfreyre —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfreyre (talk • contribs) 15:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You tagged Vilma Lwoff-Parlaghy for wikification indicating some issue with language translation. If a page needs translating, you should use {{notenglish}}. In any case, it is unclear what work needs to be done one the article. Perhaps you can leave a note on the article's talk page indicating what is in need of improvement. Regards. -- Whpq 22:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice the poor grammar because I only scanned the article looking for foreign language text. For grammar and related editting improvements, the {{copyedit}} tag would be the appropriate one. I've retagged the article. Regards. -- Whpq 12:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On September 14, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nicholas Hilliard, 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.

Well done again John.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, is there a specific reason that you removed a

I do not know what article you're talking about. Ludvikus 13:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out. But I do not know how to clean it up. I did not categorize my own User and Talk pages.

Can you give me some leads, please?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot even find where on my 2 pages the Category Tags are coming from? --Ludvikus 13:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked, and looked, and ..., in the Edit Mode of course, but I still cannot find where these Categort Tags are coming from. I know I did not intentionally put them there. And I know the were there for quite a long time - but no one but you brought the matter to my attention. Can you recommend, or ask, some Wiki expert to help me on this?

Thanks. --Ludvikus 14:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks for you observations!!!

Requested cleanup completed successfully!!! --Ludvikus 15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod: It's funny how certain paintings inspire such strong, even visceral reaction regarding their attribution. And so, I have a personal favorite for de-attribution: A Daumier 'Painter at His Easel' in Williamstown, which I find so inferior in drawing and handling to the one in the Phillips Collection, and to his late works in general. Alas, I'm not aware of any scholarship to support my POV, though. Cheers, JNW 14:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, everyone has off days--it is not glib to say that artists have off-years, even a flat decade or two. However, there are certain passages, certain paintings, that seem jarringly inconsistent. Being a painter does not, unfortunately, necessarily insure my connoisseurship, for I naturally have my own prejudices and inclinations. But a good hunch is always fun, and makes us think we know something unique. JNW 15:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry for my sloppiness on your User Page. I'm trying to Award you a another Barnstar. But the Grammar has changed since the last time I've made an award. So now I need your help in cleaning up YOUR User Page. Sorry. --Ludvikus 15:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		Diligence Barnstar
		I hereby award you this Diligence Barnstar for your diligence in spotting sloppiness which requires cleanup, and your general helpfulness in that regard. --Ludvikus 15:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted - Thanks again. Johnbod 17:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, thanks for that link! I am also very happy with Hilliard - how would you feel about going for a Peer Review with an eye toward GA status on that? - PKM 17:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add more citations to

1600-1650 in fashion. Can you add the Dutch Portaits catalogue to the references please? Thanks - PKM 18:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Have finally made tuck (sewing) after long gestation; I want to link to it from breeching in describing the portrait. May not get to breeching today. - PKM 19:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now can you help me Move the above article in order to get rid of the "X" at the end? Thanks. Ludvikus 20:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatel, you given me instruction I knew already. The problem is (I think) that the "place" I want to move the article to is currently occupied. So that's why the move cannot be done now (I think).

Try it - you'll see what I mean.

I've asked for "quick deletion(s)" of the "occupied" blank {stubs}.

So it looks like that "X" has to stay a while.

Or can you solve this puzzle?

Ludvikus 21:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't want to have the following time-waster:

    Cut and paste move fixes': To request page histories to be merged,
    list them at 
cut and paste move repairs
.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I usede to do that too. But now I'd like the numerous Stubs that I start and develop into full Articles to show that I'm the guy who was with it from the very beginning. I think that the Cut & Paste method defeats that objective. --Ludvikus 22:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I've just made an alternative proposal regarding the renaming of Category:Emotion, and I thought you might like to comment before the discussion closes. Thanks. Cgingold 15:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unbreeched boys deserve an article. I just uploaded the perfect image - you can even see that his gown and kirtle both have tucks to shorten them. - PKM 18:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a good image you suggested - I want to work on Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger anyway. Let me see if I can find (or make) a good scan. I'll keep an eye out for the other one.

Do you know if there was any small rite of passage around breeching a boy? I will see if I can find anything.

And re: the Edicts of 1633, I've been keeping an eye out for solid information - most of what I have is offhand references in comment on Charles II setting a new court costume - there's some info in a PD translation of a French treatise on lacemaking (which I have bookmarked somewhere). Making a note to dig. PKM 02:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - pennies from the neighbours & a photo taken in C19. No doubt something similar before - it was certainly a rite of passage. Have you seen the Museum of Childhood (London) page? Lots of academics get very excited on the Freudian implications of course... Johnbod 02:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try this:[9] Johnbod 02:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this [10] the picture you're thinking of? It's in b&w in The English Icon, but I am sure I have seen it in color somewhere.

Thanks much for the links! Have to go tend to real life now, but all this will be good. Feel free to start breeching if you're inclined - if not I'll do it soon. - PKM 02:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, though that's excellent too. It was say 1620-30, with even more kids. Johnbod 02:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed reading the page. By the way, here's a contest you may want to take part in. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(restarting indents)

Breeching is wonderful! Did you put it up for DYK? Sorry I haven't been more help; completely buried in real life until the weekend. - PKM 20:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just took a look at your breeching article. The open coat that the little boy is wearing appears to have been much more worn by boys than girls. I'm interested in the emmbroidery. Is there any chance that he is a member of the Rovere family?

Do you known Eckersberg's portrait of the Nathanson family? It's a very interesting pic from the point of variations on childrens costume, 1818, because their are six little girls all wearing slightly dfferent clothes. Annyway, toddling baby boy wears an orange dress. Four yr old boy wears a knee length dress or coat with matching breeches so that the outfit falls somewhere between a dress with pantaloons and breeches and short jacket. Amandajm 14:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The top boy is by an unknown Flemish artist, & presumably Flemish himself. I didn't know the Nathonson's, who are nice though I can't make out the older boy's clothes well here. Very good for girls as you say. Again a whip to clarify the younger boy! I'll move this to the breeching section above. Johnbod 14:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to chip in tomorrow... (wan smile) - PKM 03:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added a short note; being more about girls than boys I folded it into a footnote. Ashelford has a whole chapter on children's dress. - PKM 03:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathanson Boy has coat which appears to have greater fullness at back and perhaps just a couple of unpressed pleats at front. I think that it may be double breasted. I downloaded a clearer pic some time ago, but I'm not sure where it came from. As for the boy by Flemish artist, the blackwork embroidery is not suggestive of Italy, merely the motif of the acorn, which was the symbol of the Rovere. It's a great picture.

There's a nice picture by Gainsborough in the National Gallery of Washington which shows a little boy in a white dress and pink sash. The dress is quite plain, but he's really a bit old for it. I have the feeling that his indulgent mother wanted a last picture of her baby before he was breeched.

Something that I want to ask- Some years ago (15 probably) I came across a Dutch painting ((of the Vermeerish, der Hoochish variety) which has, right in the foreground, a table covered with a velvet cloth or table carpet or some such, over which is laid a linen cloth with Spanish reticular lace. Having seen it and lost it, I can't find it again! It's been frustrating me for years! It isn't in any of my books. I keep thinking I might have seen it in Vienna. Do you know the painting I mean? Is lace one of your things? Amandajm 10:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy this to PKM - it's much more her thing. It doesn't ring bells with me, but I'll keep an eye out. The Flemish boy could be called Van Eyck of course! Johnbod 11:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got the message - doesn't ring immediate bells with me either, but will look.

And I believe this is the picture you were thinking of... [11]. PS: I have it in a book, can scan a better version than this. - PKM 15:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The levitating child on the right is holding a bow. I think it's a boy.  :-) - PKM 16:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the two with the largish dogs are boys as well. These are 7 of thirteen children... PKM 19:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS I have a drawing of

Elizabeth of Bohemia with Prince Frederick Henry in skirts where she is holding his leading strings; will add. - PKM 19:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Added an image and a handful of inline citations, did some minor expansions (frocks). - PKM 03:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently sans telephone and DSL, working on the backup dial-up line. Have more things to upload as I can, but it's slow; will make Commons category for boys' dresses. - PKM 22:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might like that one. :-) - PKM 22:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also added the one at right, and the Lucy family, and an 1841 fashion plate. More anon. - PKM 23:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized this Image:Pieter Bruegel d. Ä. 012.jpg is a boy; the girls all have kerchiefs. PKM 03:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and much valued. I certainly expected lots of disagreement but no-one so far has had any problem at all with any of the articles/stubs moved from "Cathédrale de...". There was however a solitary objector to a move I made from an impossibly long English title, whose real problem, apart from a lack of any sense of logic, seems to be that I am an editor from England and therefore an imperialist swine. Such is life. All best, and thanks again. HeartofaDog (talk • contribs) 22:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can finally understand it now! Saudade7 08:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK! Put it back if you must! ....

I have to admit that one gets bored with having to cite a reference to every blinking sentence. It's probably quite enough to say that its from the NNG catalogue.... somewhere.

My personal opinion is that there is far too much emmphasis on the "wealth" stuff. If one comppares this room with its bare floorboards and unglazed window with a room of other wealthy Italians, then this shows prosperity, but not extreme wealth.

All the business about the size of the chandelier and the size of the miirror is nonsense. The ffact is, van Eyck was not really interested in accurate linear perspective or depicting things the right comparative sizes. This is obvious from other painting both by him and by other Netherlandish painters. The Virgin, when shown in a church, for example, fills a nave that is fifty feet high! These tow figures are too big for the space. Gianni wouldn't need any pully to lower that chandelier,being as tall as he is! he would change the blinking light globes with one hand tied behind his back, so to speak.

As for the oranges- there's no speculation there- they ARE a symbol of marriage. Prince Albert had an exquisite coronet mmade for Victoria of gold and enamelled orange blossom, and then added a tiny green orange for each successive child. I had orange blossom on my wedding cakke (twice actually and it worked both times.)

OK,, I'lll but out and leave it to you.... but pplease agree that the leading paragraph is an improvement... I can't stand things that say "a 1434 painting". It's not a blinking 1434 painting! It's a painting done in the year 1434 (or whatever...)

Hope I haven't made you cross!

Seeya Amandajm 12:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Not at all! I think the point is (& there is much scholarship on this that is not included) that he is extremely interested in, and manipulative of, the relative size of things in his paintings, and achieves much of his effect by cunning distortion of them. The Berlin Madonna is a classic case - see the

Tellya what I'll do.... I'll just content myself with writing about the ones that no-one has done yet... and fixing those annoying dates.... OK? Amandajm 12:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carry on by all means! Johnbod 13:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The oranges thing is Italian. It's really very Italian.

I must say I'm surprised about the Duke of Burgundy's windows. As for the size of the mirror, I don't think it's related to the wealth issue. It's to do with what the artists wanted to show in it.

While it is correct that beds were placed in rooms other than bedrooms, and that visiting guests might sleep in the best room in the house (which might be a reception room) and that in Holland there was often a bed in the kitchen, I still don't understand why this is not a bedroom. There is nothing in this picture to indicate that it is anything other than a bedroom, given that it is not very large (the unseen corner can be seen in the reflection) and all it has in it is a bed, a chair and a chest. It doesn't answer to the description of reception room. It makes me think that whoever wrote the NG catalogue wanted to include absolutely every bit of knowledge that they had about the perio, even if it was superfluous and didn't really fit. Do we have to have all that stuff here?

Amandajm 13:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean, although the size of the room is also manipulated by Van Eyck - there are some complicated pieces of work investigating this, using the mirror reflection etc. But we have to go with the authorities I think. An argument for it not being a bedroom is that they are receiving visitors (or whatever it is they are doing), and having their portrait painted there. Johnbod 14:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(moved breeching stuff to section above)

I changed a few things - notably the apple, which Campbell is clear is an orange too ("with green stalk"). A citation on oranges for marriage that early is needed really. I took out the "British National Collection" which I don't think is a phrase with official standing, and not something we have an article on. "National Gallery" dates to the Budget Speech of 1824, well before the fact. Johnbod 15:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, be civil.

Ok, thank you. The template is the first step in setting up an overall plan to bring cohesion to articles about print; would you like to join me? I think the next step is recruiting people from Wikipedia:WikiProject Media and Wikipedia:WikiProject Technology to help. There needs to be some overall plan and consensus as to the scope of 'print.' Right now, the Printing category is chaotic. —Parhamr 18:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh your expertise will be great, I'll make a note of it. You will hear more from me soon—classes start again on Monday so my schedule is about to change drastically. Thanks! —Parhamr 18:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, www.virtuelles-kupferstichkabinett.de is new and actually confronted with the Slashdot effect. See [12] [13] Greetings -- Cherubino 19:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is reachable now, but as said here the site claims copyfraud. -- Cherubino 05:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Eastern categorization is a mess for two reasons: one, there are a lot of different denominations, and the Eastern Catholics make things only more complicated and two, an editor or two went around and added parent level cats to Eastern specific articles (Category:Christian liturgy, rites, and worship services is particularly a mess, but also things like Category:Prayer and Category:Fasting were populated with articles that don't belong in there). Good luck with your endeavours, and if I can help out in any way, just ask. I have the intents of one day trying to clean up "Christian liturgy, rites, and worship services". Thanks for the message.-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Breeching, 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 .

--Carabinieri 18:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Grutness, bearing in mind what Edward VII said to Kaiser Bill on the subject.

OK, I'll bite - what did he say? Grutness...wha? 00:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - that explains it, thanks! Grutness...wha? 08:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just popping in to say thanks for starting and massively awesomizing the breeching page, currently linked to on the main page. It's not often that one sees a good article on an interesting topic - with a gallery and everything! - fashioned out of whole cloth by a single party. --Kizor 01:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jean Duvet, 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 .

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 09:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A number of our smaller unbreeched boys are wearing/carrying these items, which must be the period equivalent of modern teething rings - they are always red or white (coral or ivory?) set in a handle on a ribbon or chain. Do you know what they are called? I've had no luck so far (best bet is probably a museum or gallery catalogue). - PKM 20:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the younger Badger child is holding something almost identical to Charles II, with the red point down. Perhaps the red/white part is for teething and the handle is a rattle? The consistency is quite amazing.

Agree the Velazquez dwarf is holding just a rattle or a jester-stick. - PKM 20:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, excellently done! Explains the coral necklaces as well. Google "teething necklace" for contemporary amber examples. I think "teething stick" is the name we should use. I'll guess the whitish ones are also coral. - PKM 20:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great working tracking down "teething coral", thanks for the Badger links as well. - PKM 19:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Look closely - I think Frederick Henry is wearing a small teething coral in the Hilliard drawing - it's partially hidden behind the ribbon rosette at his waist. - PKM 20:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PPS added category "teething coral" in the Commons, subcat of coral and of pacifier. - PKM —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. I think the article is something to be proud of, thanks to you and your efforts, I think it's become a really good piece of work. Modernist 20:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help too! Johnbod 20:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a rambling comment at the CFD but coming up with a realistic and objective standard for what constitutes a civil war escapes me. I listed a bunch of "conflicts" in my ramble and then tried mentally to see if I would call any of them civil wars and while probably some RSes could be found calling any and all of them civil wars, I think that serious writers on the subject probably would avoid using that term because it is politically charged or begs the question/assumes the result. I wouldn't want a category to be subjective - know it when we see it - and I wouldn't want to adopt the allegations of others as the touchstone (see, some RS called it a civil war - so it must be). Uninvolved NGOs and governments tend to use NPOV euphemisms like civil disturbances, civil unrest, and sectarian violence, but civil disturbances and unrest could mean general strikes (as it would be in say US tourist advisories from our State Dept about being careful in France or Italy but would be a huge understatement applied to Iraq or Somalia). Any further thoughts? Carlossuarez46 07:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is difficult - it's partly a matter of established terms, like the English & American ones, but these days they tend not to get called that it seems to me. On the one hand you have rebellions, on the other conflicts. When you have organised armies - cavalry, tanks, artillery on two sides for a sustained period (over a year?), with mostly local fighters, that's a war in my book. But guerilla conflicts are harder. So you can widen the description to include "conflicts" & just try to define a boundary for that. At the moment I know my position is not very logical; I'll have another think. Johnbod 13:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just bitten the bullet and put half a dozen articles up for Featured Article review. including Romanesque architecture, Gothic architecture and Renaissance architecture. If you would like to add your twopence worth as to whether they are among the best articles on wiki, then please do! Amandajm 07:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John! You might be able to help me refute a few of the silly arguments. Somme of these people are out of their depth with Art and Architecture. They expect an inline reference for everything. If you say that Notre Dame Cathedral is Gothic, they want an inline reference to prove it! Amandajm 13:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt use a translator... I translated what I could... this Italiano friend of mine wanted me to translate that article for him and I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HumayunMirzajr (talk • contribs) 10:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! The exam went well. I took 23 out of 30, so now I just miss the final dissertation. I'm now half-time on Wikipedia than before, but I've anyway added two all-new articles lately (

Ciao Johnb!! I've just finished

Cappella Tornabuoni. Sure it needs some copyedit from you, if you've time. Thanks and good work.--Attilios 11:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

[14] I wonder how long after a main page it takes to restore a page back to normal - I thought I had found all the silly changes appears not.

A spectacularly rapid progress towards a Featured Article — though I'd never recommend an article for that ordeal!--Wetman 18:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Applause) Oh, well done! - PKM 15:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for info, the original Pale one was outside of, from which the phrase comes, was round Dublin, to keep the Irish out, not the Ukrainian etc one. Persecuted minorities (or in the Irish case, majorities) of the world unite! I agree with your comments. Cheers Johnbod 23:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I actually considered several possible links, but under the circumstances how could I possibly pass up Pale of Settlement?! It was tailor-made for the occasion. Now that you've brought it up, I can't help wondering, when the early Jewish immigrants arrived in Ireland (not sure what exact time period that was), were they allowed to live inside the Pale, or were they also kept on the other side?? Hmmm....

By the way, I hadn't been by your talk page recently, so I've just seen all the kudos, huzzahs and congratulations for your article on breeching. Quite interesting -- I knew about the practice, but I'd never read up on it before. So how, pray tell, did you happen to get onto that particular subject?

And then, of course, there's breaching. :) Cgingold 02:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Orozco, and Rufino Tamayo are better known Mexican artists than Frida Kahlo and I'm not even dealing with the entirety of Latin America yet. I'll do Brazil next if you like. If you said, "one of the most well known", or mentioned that "she entered popular culture when a movie about her was released in the United States", there wouldn't be an issue. Read the discussion page. Someone called "Modernist" made very good points on this same subject on this page. What's wrong with the verifiable fact that she "was a Mexican painter"? Is there something personal at stake here with you that you have to make her THE MOST? Diego Rivera certainly would argue that, with is work at Rockefeller Center, he is "better known" than Frida. Even in the movie, alas, Molina's character had greater impact. She may be the most well known to you and to many others, but you can't speak for the world or even the country, can you? If so, please cite the finding. Wikipedia's policy is to cite references and not make sweeping generalizations that grow from opinions. In addition, as I believe is noted on this page, artists aren't "produced" by anything other than biological reproduction, circumstance and training. Certainly not "produced by Latin America". That's poor writing. This section is full of hyperbole and opinion and needs verifiable content. I would imagine Kahlo herself would feel better served by the facts and not the flattery. She was a remarkable woman at a remarkable time, but ̛I know that's just my opinion. And that's the point.Bmccarren 06:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for that smart copyediting!!! Yes, the Ducal Palace is from me... the fact is that I noticed I was making it too comlicated (from the official site). Maybe I'd finish it simply by translating frmo the Italian article, which is decent anyway. Let's see. Thanks and good work. --Attilios 09:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings: I'm posting this note for each of the five editors who left a comment on the CFD for Category:Muslim Holocaust deniers prior to my own comments on the subject. I'm seriously puzzled by the complete lack of response to my comments, as I was anticipating a very thoughtful exchange of views. But after 3 entire days, not a single reply. I honestly don't know what to make of it.

In any event, please consider this a personal request for your response to my remarks. As I said, I'm looking forward to a thoughtful discussion. Regards, Cgingold 11:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, I removed the personal attack from the Kahlo talkpage, hopefully it'll stay that way, I'm sorry I didn't remove it this morning but I left very early. Thank you for your input, the whole business has become ludicrous. Modernist 21:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work, on Frida, and elsewhere. Cheers, JNW 02:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a deletion review of the CfD that deleted this category at [15]. You were the only one who spoke for retention at the CfD. Personally, I have no opinion--this is just fyi.DGG (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, It was stupid of mme! I didn't realise it would be such a problem! Thanks for your help and encouragement!

I think the Restoration one is fine. But trying to find references for things that I didn't write but have been incorporated, is difficult. I did abig cleanup on Leonardoo yesterday and then lost the lot because of some stupid computer problem. There is much to be said for saving after every minor edit instead of after every 1,000 words... Amandajm 00:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, you really must get in on the discussion re Category:People who have walked or run around the world or are attempting before it closes (it may be in its final day). What a hoot! (And what a contrast with the heavy-weight discussions I've been weighing in on of late). Don't deprive yourself of the pleasure of joining this wonderfully amusing meeting of great minds -- and above all, please don't deprive us of your uniquely penetrating insights! Regards, Cgingold 13:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you asked that the GA review of Rembrandt be held while the article is in work. What is the status? If it is ready for review, please remove your comment from the nominations page. If not, we can remove the nomination for now. --Bloodzombie 15:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expanding that page. I only had online sources available, your source and other additions are a very welcome extra.

]

DYK

On Royal Entry, 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 .

Cheers, D_arkF_alls ^talk 01:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Could you give me any examples? qp10qp 01:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified the judgement slightly, but, as you know, Blunt says it twice: "...a conviction which makes us forget the confusion and technical incompetence" and "both are confused, technically incompetent...". He doesn't mean techically incompetent in the engraving process but rather, as you imply, in the composition and draughtsmanship. Is not that point balanced by the praise for Duvet that I have included? In a sense, it's an antithesis.

Just to indulge in "original thought" for a moment, I don't agree with you that his compositions were entirely under control; in broad outline, yes, but the filling in seems compulsive. (For an example of technical incompetence look at that dark gap between Adam and the priest in the top picture. And what's up with the bottom right hand corner of the Babylon picture? Despite these cavils, I love these works; kudos to you for producing this delightful article on an artist I had never looked at closely before.) qp10qp 02:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I irritated you with my comment about "Culture and Value" at the John Peel CFD; I was trying to play games with your Wittgenstein reference, which was probably a bit frivolous of me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Johnbod: Why did you find it necessary to add a "Comment": "The closer will no doubt note that all deleters so far cite per IZAK, and the weight given to their vote here should be adjusted in accordance with the weight given to his wildly POV 'people who don't agree with me, must be mad, bad, or just deeply confused' rant above" [16] at the

You are rather proving my point, I think. Johnbod 15:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you don't have a point, other than that you dislike a thorough presentation of a subject and that you simply wish to insult me even though we have never crossed paths. IZAK 10:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that must be right. As per my original point, that someone could hold a different opinion from you without being mad, bad or deeply confused is obviously impossible! Johnbod 12:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 October, 2007, a fact from the article Tornabuoni Chapel, which you recently nominated, was 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 .

--Allen3 ^talk 15:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, I fear any edit conflict was my doing--I jumped in while you were working, and great work at that! Best, JNW 02:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all yours. I'm done for now. JNW 02:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Johnbod: I very nearly passed on it, but then I wound up posting an important proposal on Category:Jewish football players which I dearly hope you'll be able to find time to take a look at. Cgingold 15:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, sorry to be such a pest, I know you don't have time to comment on every CFD. But if memory serves, I think I dimly recollect your making a suggestion a while back that resembles the compromise proposal for occupational subcats of ethnicities that I've put forward in this CFD. BHG and I are having a very interesting discussion, and I am sure it would benefit greatly by your participation. Regards, Cgingold 17:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. See my reply at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Ghost_in_the_Machine_-_I.27m_fwightened.21. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For all I have improved, I still have not got the finer points of the Commons down. -- SECisek 17:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit to Sumptuary law, but it could use more info on on the middle ages to early modern. (Maybe even a main article on Medieval sumptuary laws...?) - PKM 17:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew I could count on you for this one.  :-) - PKM 16:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some bits and references on Renaissance Europe and Ancient Rome. - PKM 17:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see my note on structure at Talk:Sumptuary law. - PKM 17:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps we should let the debate proceed as well. The reason for my changes were that the user in question who suddenly recategorized everything had modified a number of pages which I had started at first and updated over time and he did so perhaps to subtly express a personal point of view. And it is not the first time or first topic he has applied this method to, for although a good user, he has a habit of making dramatic changes all of a sudden to various categories. Anyway, thank you for pointing this out. But I did think carefully and researched the categories and only added one new umbrella category to make things smoother. The rest was just reverting things back to the way they were a few days ago before he totally restructured them. I did leave him a message for him a day or two before I did any editing. Thanks. History2007 14:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the name Jurriaen Ovens? This is the name he is and became known in Holland. Why no free canvas, because Rembrandt was disappointed after such a treatment. The lead has to have something down to earth, I think.

Most of all we have to cooperate, I am working now to add information from Dutch articles, dont be too hasty, please.

Can you think of a few more headings for the paragraphs? Please tell if I am allowed to go on nowTaksen 21:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is only referred to as Jurgen at the Getty name list, which often lists up to 20 variants - as a minor figure 1 name is enough. I don't really see the point of the free canvas - how much was that worth? - and in the lead it just gives an effect of bathos. Do carry on, but try just to include relevant points, not everything to hand. Your other reference quoted 7 page refs to come up with the vaguest possible sentence: " It is assumed the Amsterdam mayor Cornelis Jan Witsen had to do with it.<reCrenshaw". I'm afraid with edits like that, and your not so great English, you are going to have to get used to being re-edited & not complaining about it. But please carry on. Johnbod 22:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John, I have never seen an article growing so quickly, I am fairly new here, but why did you repeat the books you were using under the references? They are mentioned In the notes already, it looks stupid to me. Also the order your notes look chaos to me, there seems to be no system in it. Please improve!

Probably this is one of the very few cases in which Ovens is not a minor figure, dont be so strict, my dear. Also Flinck was a German, which was important when the commission was provided, because German royalty announced to come and see the famous building. Dont reject everything you have never heard of. I am quite sure I know more about the history of Amsterdam than you.

How many languages do you speak or write? My English is sufficient, and I have to admit not as good as my German.

I hope someone will add pages to the books by Adda and Schama, so they can be used as references. Bye Taksen 05:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, The Picasso's copyright usability is a problem. I was gonna change a few things Modernist 02:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking about putting Kahlo where Yo Picasso is now, and then we need a great picture to replace Kahlo - any ideas? I'd like something great. Modernist 02:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try a second Van Gogh, leaving Kahlo alone. I wish we had a Bonnard. Modernist 02:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a Poussin to the gallery. Yes, I do hope things stay quiet over there. Modernist 02:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive the swap, but the image page said that Image:Hokusai-fuji7.png had been superseded by a new version, Image:Red Fuji southern wind clear morning.jpg (reason given was "higher quality"). If this "new" version is a different print, then the image page for Image:Hokusai-fuji7.png shouldn't say that it has been superseded.

On the other hand, why have a grudge against the image printed a hundred years later? It is still a print, isn't it? It is still art, right? The description page says it uses the same blocks, and the quality of the latter is unquestionably better. Whose interests are being served by using a low quality image of an "authentic" print, when a much higher quality image is available of essentially the same thing? Jeff Dahl 01:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Conspiracy of Claudius Civilis, 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 .

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message! I'm really feeling much better. It's Sunday lunchtime here, and our local has a new bistro, I'm about to head down there... De-licious! I'm so glad another critic has turned up with such complimentary things to say. It's very encouraging. Did you notice, I decided on putting the list back in. I'll have a go at citing all the points individually, because think some of them are in chapters other than Colalucci's. You don't happen to have "The Glorious Restoration" by any chance, do you? Amandajm 02:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Johnbod! I didn't know about these triple crowns and things. I'm not really very competitive. I haven't got any DYKs. I'll have a look at the main page and find out. I've started several articles, been the major contributor to a number of GAs but I don't have an FAnything! Yet. OK, I'll get myself a DYK! Amandajm 04:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ho, Johnno! Seems that I dooo have an FA! Thanks for all your help annd encouragement! Now for a DYK! Amandajm 07:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, I've got to ask? Don't you do anything except sleep and wiki?... I've just had a go-in with a fellow I offended (or maybe it was me that was offended but didn't really notice)... all over the logging of the forests in Tasmania. Oh Dear! It's apalling! One company controls the operation all over the island. They can take out trees up to 80 metres. Which means that in the last 10 years, theve left a few of these huge giants standing completely unsupoorted by the forest that surrounds them, and of course they are soon struck by lightning or have the top blow off, then they can log those as well. These are the tallest flowering plants on the planet, the biggest, now gone, being taller than the big redwoods. Take a look. I took the photo that's in the info box. The tree, which was called "El Grande" was the most mmassive, as they are often as bare as a mast for 200 feet. El Grande was destroyed "accidentally" when the loggers set fire to a pile of debris. This tree was the most gloriously wonderful thing I have ever seen in my life. One of the biggest living things on the planet... It's time I went to bed. It's quite late here Downunder! Oh to be in England.... My Son, his wife and my grandchildren are there. It's Eucalyptus regnans Amandajm 13:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, hello. Do you have any interest in helping

• P.S. Also do you remember your source for "seven years" being how long Leonardo may have painted Mona Lisa? -
  Susanlesch 18:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thanks for your revert here, Johnbod. Everything that I twice reverted has been restored, though, by three different IPs coming from the same area. It is mostly nonsense, with a number of invalid links. I have left messages for two admins. Thanks, and good work on Claudius Civilus. JNW 17:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That "gently caricaturing" is a quote from a Victorian translation from the French here: http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Lef%26eacute%3Bbure%2C%20Ernest%2C%20b.%201835 (part 2), and yeah, it should probably be reworded.

I stumbled across the Bosses here: http://expositions.bnf.fr/bosse/expo/salle1/index.htm and think Commons has a blanket license for the Bibliothèque nationale - I saw a permissions tag for that somewhere.

I've added the lady in reformed dress to the Commons as well.

I can decipher some French, but I don't really read it. - PKM 19:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced in the image in

1600-1650 in fashion along with some text refinements; making one more tweak to the wording at sumptuary law before I run out the door...PKM 19:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm sure you've already seen my comments at the CFD, Johnbod. I have to say, I rather enjoyed this one -- and to think, I nearly took a pass on it. Why, I might never have learned about Touchdown Jesus! (my life is now complete, LOL) Btw, we're in agreement on the non-human roadside attractions, though I've added the Paul Bunyan & Jolly Green Giant statues individually. Cgingold 03:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How funny that you're asking me about Mount Rushmore of all things -- seeing as I had just created Category:Black Hills and stuck Mount Rushmore in it. (This all started with a search for better cats for Crazy Horse Memorial.) To answer your question: not once in my entire life have I ever thought of Mount Rushmore as a statue -- and I passed up the opportunity to add it to Category:Colossal statues last night. But I have added quite a few other articles, including a nice bunch of Egyptian statues and several more Soviet examplars. And, oh yeah, I almost forgot to mention -- I also created Category:Colossal Buddha statues, which is now up to 10 articles. Wow.

The one article that gave me pause was Statue of Lenin (Seattle), which rings in at about 16 feet. (No doubt Otto will have conniptions if he sees it.) I figure that's roughly 3Xhuman, which seems like a reasonable minimum size -- I mean, that's pretty damn big, even if it falls short of "ginormous", as my daughter might say. :) What do you think? And thanks for the "heads up" re your 10-day hiatus. Cgingold 12:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some quite conscious counter-propaganda in play in this commemorative engraving, staged in the imagination rather than on the ground, of a self-consciously Protestant entry: emblematic figures embody themes of instinctive and personal patriotism (which is getting its modern birth right here) and piety. I can't bring this to bear without squeaks of "POV". Can you? Does Roy Strong make a passing reference to this quasi-parallel? --Wetman 22:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're right - the old but good RH Wilenski begins extraordinarily begins his book on Dutch painting with about 10 pages on the excesses and insincerity of the later Habsburg Netherlands entries, which he sees as what Dutch Golden Age painting was reacting against. I am curious as to what the Dutch did instead - I'm sure civic festivals at least continued. I might look at Scharma's Excess of Riches again. Strong stops at 1650, & I can't recall a mention - not his cup of tea I think. Here they are also trying I think to match the jollity of the 1660 Restoration as well - or would a Dutch artist have thought of that? I'm just off to Spain for 10 days, so can't follow up now. Johnbod 23:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly interesting. I've got the Schama. Will let you know if I find anything.--Wetman 11:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put this category up for deletion and you recommended a "merge" with "Category:Achelous class repair ships". I'm not sure what "merge" means exactly, what is the point of merging it rather than deleting it? Gatoclass 02:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would appreciate your comments here. Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the closing admin has chosen to see a consensus where there was none, and went with the British Isles over the other alternatives, ignoring your suggestion for dating the category. I normally think you come up with some good naming choices, and while it was the least bad alternative, IMHO, this now means that there's a whole bunch of illogicallity as a result - e.g. how does a British Imperial Adventure like Dunsterforce now relates to the history of the British Isles? Brace yourself, as there are legions of similarly orphaned categories and articles as a result of this choice that should keep the CfDs busy for a while 8-( Ephebi 15:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC) PS - Apologies if above seems a bit blunt... no disrespect intended, I'm just thinking that there is unfinished business as a result of a rather premature close. Ephebi 15:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation :) Gatoclass 08:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started expanding Edmund Blacket and got carried away.... well, honestly, the whole world needs to know about him! I'm still working on it, but if you don't know this architect, you might like to. He was a "Gentleman architect", but not quite, because his parents were in the "rag trade" and Southwark is not the best address, and Stockton and Darlington Railways not the most elite of employers.

But once you get to Australia, Matey, your talent, good humour, the cut of your coat and 600 pounds in your pocket say more than a title. He left his mark all over New South Wales in the form of dear little sandstone churches with beautifully proportioned chancel arches, beautifully finished details and little bellcotes with Whitechapel bells in them. Picture St. Peter's, Watson's Bay (of which there is a pic) multiplied 50 times, and always a little different. Probably multiplied 1000 times in fact, because Blacket set the style that was repeated by every other church builder, most frequently in weatherboard. I'm sure that there must be some statement in all this that is worth a "DYK"!

Amandajm 11:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YooHoo, Johnbo!

How do I do this thing? Amandajm 09:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray! I've just discovered that we can -- at long last -- pop the cork on a colossal bottle of champagne and toast the survival of Category:Colossal statues of Jesus. The CfD stayed open for 10 days because nobody wanted to touch it. LOL! (be sure to read kbdank's remarks near the end). Cgingold 22:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to make the same edit. Ty - Modernist 01:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a little concerned about issues emanating here: [17] - Modernist 03:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain in more detail why you think the image needs to be at the top of the article? Our use of nonfree images must be minimal (

Please note my comment at Talk:Roman brick, you overlooked one key element in your application of the tag. I don't think its use is appropriate on the article. IvoShandor 02:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to reply, I appreciate it. IvoShandor 00:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making me laugh. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. I added the Greek characters. Cheers and sorry for the delay.--Yannismarou 11:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm nagging you - but I promise it'll be the last time this year. Why am I bugging you again? Not because we agree more often (although I have noticed that). But, because you'd be a great admin - there is talk about letting anon's create pages - lots more work and more trouble. I wouldn't suppose that your areas of interest would be targeted heavily for spurious articles but just having the ability to speedy the crap that you do come across (consistent with

On responding with considerable restraint when challenged with personal and inappropriate remarks. Keep up the good work, JNW 23:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]