User talk:Johnbod/9 from Nov 07

On November 16, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Artists of the Tudor court, 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we're talking about scholars on the CFD, there's an issue at

As a CFD regular, have you any thoughts on my proposal at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Not_a_structured_database? (Note: I am sending this message to a few editors who I notice are experienced particpants). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cc'd your comments from the journalism academics CFD to Category talk:Scholars by subject. --Lquilter (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been volunteered![2] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. Do you like my article? Which is your cathedral? Amandajm (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know St George's at all. We generally pay a visit to St Saviour's when we are in the UK, mainly so my son can look up Shakepeare's nose and see if there iis still chewing gum up his left nostril. The only RC Cathedral I know well is Westminster, where I sometimes get a quick cup of coffee in the basement. For visitors to the Abbey, one of the best kept secrets is the basement cafeteria at Wesley Central Methodist. Amandajm (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone got it at the time, either. But, no. I haven't got a television.

Funnily enough, I was thinking about you a moment ago. I've just removed the attribution to

By the way, while I'm pestering you...I intend to get hold of one of the Strong books on Elizabeth's portraits; do you know of any other good books on that fascinating subject? qp10qp (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Oh, on Category:European court festivities, I'm working up an article on Catherine de' Medici's "magnificences" in my sandbox, here. It's still in the jottings stage, really, and is going to be a long time coming now that I've saddled myself with Elizabeth. I think I noticed that you or someone ploughed the "magnificent entertainment" franchise into one of the joyous entry type articles. I haven't found an article equivalent to the one I'm working on, and am wondering what to call it. qp10qp (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the mention on Qp10qp's talk page. I hope you got the questions right! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking on the categories in question is (I hope) pretty straightforward. The categories "English Renaissance plays" and "17th century plays" are not synonymous; some plays (Romeo and Juliet is an obvious example) belong in the first but not the second, while others (those of John Dryden, say) belong in the second but not the first. And yes, plays and masques that date from 1600 to 1642 logically belong in both categories. Ugajin (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you on "by author" subcats; good idea. Ugajin (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Johnbod! I made a change to the Book of Kells section, realised after a while that I was wrong and went back to fix it... and discovered that you had deleted the whole section. Good move! It seems inappropriate to have a section on the nativity in art, which only deals with one (to most people, rather obscure) aspect of the subject. A nice Christmassy article might be warranted. How about I do one? It probably won't be very scholarly, but it will be pretty! Amandajm (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually working on it, offline. I don't think it will be exactly deep or analytical. But I'll get some good pics together for Christmas.

The midwives is interesting. There was obviously a conviction that there was no way that Mary would have had to deliver the baby without help, even though she was not in her own village, and couldn't get proper lodgings. It's quite easy for a person in our society to die of neglect, but I suspect it was less the case. The town had a responsibility to its visitors. There were obliged to be hospitable. ... Oh Dear, it's two am! Amandajm (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, just wondered in you might consider clarifying your !vote in CfD November 22#Category:Rider_legislation. I !voted "delete" on a nomination to delete, and you said "oppose per BHG", which doesn't seem to make sense to me. (That may of course just be my misunderstanding!) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a good start on Armada Portrait and I've put in a DYK nom for it. Need to add dimensions and maybe more on technique and the clothes. - PKM (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion at Category talk:Surnames about Category:Surnames which I hope will be able to address the issues in common to the surnames category tree, without implicating issues particular to any one group of surnames. I'm posting this notice to all participants of the 11/11 CFD. --Lquilter (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd welcome your thoughts on my suggestion on how to assess these categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will try not to forget. Have a nice day ?/night ?

Eras-mus (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my new article Favourite is more Wiki-topical than I realized? Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify that for me? Just what are you trying to hint at? Speak plainly so that I can understand. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, In reply to your question, the reference was generally to the air of intrigue and over-excitement that we currently have in parts of the project, without any very specific references to persons. I should say I was completely unaware of all this at the time, and know nothing of your relations with Durova. Anyway, since metaphors from court life seem to come naturally to those discussing these matters - "god-king", "star-chamber" - "cabal" and so on, and our coverage of the historical topics is exceptionally poor (other than in biographies), I shall be plugging away on courtier, and similar topics like Alexandre Bontemps. I am not sure you have quite completed your transition to a Bicycle monarchy, but best luck in your efforts. Johnbod (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Favourite, 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 .

--WjBscribe 09:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the best hook I've seen. Andplus (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your next-to-last response troubled me; you seemed to think I was being intentionally obtuse or argumentative. I hope my response clarified that I'm not invested in the topic at all, and was merely trying to point out a possible flaw in the logic used in reasoning for the proposed change. I certainly wasn't trying to vociferously argue a technicality; I apologize without reservation if it came across that way. Maralia (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Scrots, 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 .

--

Another long-brewing project: I have started Accession Day tilt, which I suspect you may want to play with. - PKM (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When in doubt, consult Strong. :-) - PKM (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alexandre Bontemps, 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, Daniel 23:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment on my talk page asking me not to change VA tags. Please see the VA project stating 'It's not necessary to list your name here to edit this page or edit related articles.' Thanks Tom 15:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your second comment on my talk page. Again, please understand that anyone is allowed to edit such pages.

This is the criteria for the visual arts assessment which the project links to. Instead of making personal comments on people's talk pages sucha as, "If you think Raphael is B-class from the VA point of view, you clearly have little feel for the subject area, so please leave the VA tags for those who do," please just simply write on the article talk page why you think don't think an article meets a particular criteria. Thanks Tom 16:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey johnbod, I really don't want to see a whole new page of accusations getting thrown about. We've had this on multiple pages when Gryffindor, Rarelibra, and PhJ show up. The German perspective is that it should be South Tyrol, and only South Tyrol. The issue people forget is that we are not here to back the German perspective, or the Italian perspective (Alto Adige) for that matter. If you look at the page now, it is about as neutral as it can get, and now has a lot of information for the reader to understand the different names used. Anyway, getting back to the reason I wanted to message you. You stated correctly that things are still unstable. Maybe you can just press pause on that vote once again? It can be discussed sometime early next year, and I would suggest having some Admins help decide the best name for the categories rather than these constant votes. That or have someone like Lar babysit the discussions. :-) take care, Icsunonove 18:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I am really glad that you at least like the article content so far. :) I'd like to get some feedback on the title then when you have a chance. The problem in my view is that when we deviate from a title like Alto Adige/South Tyrol or Province of Bolzano-Bozen, it becomes biased towards one particular national point of view. At least in this case we've found that it is quite common to 'hybridize' the title; hopefully saving everyone a lot of grief. German usage itself concentrates on the term Südtirol, and I'll have to accept the majority of native-German speakers will want the only English usage to be South Tyrol. I just wish that people could see the compromise in using Province of Bolzano-Bozen, and also all the work that was done to really educate readers on the different names. Nothing is missing afterall. Anyway, either keep or reject, hopefully that request can be closed soon..hah. It is already turning into another b**** fest with stuff like Gryffindor's "or else I'll have to slap an official warning on you.". Oh Dear. :-) regards, Icsunonove 19:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Johnbo! Hey, are you doing something to Raphael? Do you want me to stick my nose in and make suggestions or not? Amandajm 12:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's your show, mate. I wasn't intending to make major contributions, just egg you on to achievement. You can shout me lunch, if I ever get back to England..... Amandajm 08:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See

As you participated in the discussion on Female writers (10th century), I thought you may be interested in the proposal I have made in which that category is subsumed.--Matthew Proctor 06:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Bowing to your superior knowledge and experience (I'm serious); I'd like to ask your advice. Do you think that the recently updated article

Started William Segar (found 2 images of him while digging for heraldic banners. Everything is related.) Will cleanup the stuff in Commons soon. - PKM (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help with Raphael, though I watch with fascination. Have fun there. Segar can sit for a few days; I have to go deal with real life. - PKM (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grand! Must be a nice diversion from the fine work on Raphael. JNW (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod! On the whole, it's great!

Vasari needs to be reference at his first mention.

I've had a little fiddle with the intro, improving the flow of the language, I hope.

About the pics, I think that a number of them should be larger.. I'll do an arrangement, and if you don't like it, well, you can always revert it! (we get kinda used to that!)

... I just found a really horrid little bit of vandalism in Giotto easy to overlook.

Amandajm (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not people who do it, Johnno, it's person... Hmmmph! I'll do it tomorrow! It's about 11.45 in the Great South Land (this clock has never worked since the day I got the blinking computer! I've had enough of Jesse Trees and so on, tonight. I've just been working on Leadlight, trying to compensate for the fact that someone insists that there is no difference between stained glass and leadlight.

Check out the "Leadlights" at Sydney Central. They really are stunning. Australia has some wonderful 19th/early 20th century glass, including a fantastic Deco designer, Napier Waller. Daniel Cottier set up a studio with the artist Lyon (I've suddenly forgotten his first name) who was a brilliant draftsman and colourist, and he developed a very good sense of how colour worked under Australian conditions. .....Yawn!.... busy day, tomorrow...Amandajm (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Students of Easington Community Science College, was decided to be kept. Whether or not you voted for this, your contribution to the CFD was valued.Thanks.--Sunderland06 17:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have Removed the above from articles having Prophets of the Hebrew Bible Cat. I was using List of Prophets of Christianity as a reference where Joseph, father of Jesus is listed as a Prophet of Christianity in the Secondary List. Kathleen.wright5 20:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the painting has indeed been re-interpreted since I was a student. I let the changed title go, since a google search (!?) confirmed the Batholomew credit, and I figured the editor was a different person or a contributor gone good. Either way, the painting is indeed now known as St Philip. Thanks for the correction. JNW (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, FYI, In restoring a couple of comments on the talk page of this article, you inadvertantly deleted a number of others. I think the talk page has been fully restored. Pastordavid (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Charismatic religious leaders was previously nominated for deletion by User:The Wild West guy who said "Isn't this POV?". However that CFD was incomplete because the nominator didn't tag the category itself. You participated in the previous discussion so I'm notifying you that I've renominated (and tagged) the category; discussion is here. --Lquilter (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I have a preferred way of subdiving the ~500 Italian Renaissance painters. Since there already exist geographic subdivisions for Italian painters, a temporal one seemed preferable. I was not completely satisfied with syntax of Category:Italian Renaissance XV century painters. Suggestions welcome.Baroque1700 (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh! I just got a CD of the three tenors singing Christmas Carols for Christmas! They must be really missing Luci! I know I am....

OK... I'll get it going.... I've been having a bit of drama on this side of the planet and haven't got a lot of energy left, after I've been round the traps and fixed vandalism etc.

The other thing that I want for Christmas is a white Mercedez convertible. I've been asking Santa for one for the last 48 years. Oh, well, I'll have to settle for Yardleys lavender water, and a jar of Major Grey Chutney. Amandajm (talk) 10:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also:Nativity of Jesus in art

I've made a start. Amandajm (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Johnbo, you can call the murky past whatever you like.... Amandajm (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goin' great, Mate! Where you have the reference to plays and temporary Nativities, I'll write a description of all the various media that are used to depict the Nativity: sarcophagi, mural, ivory carving, panel and oil painting, sculpture, tableau etc.

If you are working on that history section, then I'll grub around for moore pics on commons. I know some of the things that I want but havven't located themm yyet.

I love Altdorffer's pictures. In The one that I chose the Baby looks so delighted with the big pile of coins, the old king is so delighted with the baby, the middle King is grinning all over his ugly face with tears in his eyes, and no regard for the mmagnificent present he has bbrought, and the young King loooks so extremely humble and adoring. They most a really remarkable contrast to the arrongancce of Durer's Kings (one of which is Durer himself) who are comparing gifts. Amandajm (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that page from the Book of Kells ought to go in, with the explanation that was at the other page that it celebrates the Nativity of Christ in a symbolic rather than pictorial way. Amandajm I'm going to dump this talk on the pages talk page and continue there, OK! (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John! I've got the three tenors on, full blast, because I'm at the other end of the house. Luckily it's lunchtime, not midnight. Amandajm (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - We recently had a CFD on Category:Journalism academics that closed with no consensus ([3]). You commented on that discussion, so I thought you might be interested in continuing the discussion at Category talk:Journalism academics to try to arrive at a consensus-based decision. --Lquilter (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! You participated in the CfD of Category:Articles needing an infobox. You may be interested in the DRV I opened at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 12#Category:Articles needing an infobox. Thank you! Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 01:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dear Oddbod, here's the plan

1. Finish combine my waffle with yours
2. Cut or combine all galleries to 4 pics- this means that where there are five you use the important ones like the one with the glowing baby and the long caption within the text. (which is where the Book of Kells now is.)
3. You could split the talk into sections between the galleries, if you wanted to, and if you think it works.

Have fun! Amandajm (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, sorry for the random canvass, but I've seen you around a fair bit and have a request. <A hem>I've put Las Meninas up for peer review here, and would greatly appreciate any though or comments you might have. Thanks either way.Ceoil (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits, and the van Eyck detail looks very well. 'currently housed' is gone. Ceoil (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is never allowed to travel to exhibitions. That's interesting; is it because of its condition, value? Ceoil (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone through a great re-write. I will continue to pore over it, but it's always fun to catch sentences like that. JNW (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to look it over, maybe later tonight. I've got Lopez-Rey's magnum opus from 1999, which might be of help. JNW (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question of style: I've been changing references to deceased authors to past tense ('Janson suggested' rather than' 'Janson suggests')--is that a legitimate copy edit, or just silly? Thanks, JNW (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Click there for my RfA spam haikus! → → →

Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will new mop act?
Ooops, .com blocked

New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well Main Page

New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault

A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out

DRV

A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye

blocked

Shucks those range blocks are tricky!
Will get it straight soon.

Colbert's elephants
stampede Wikipedia
Must

protect, protect

Wiki fortress not.

Open gates, knowledge wings free

But

fiends

are about

Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ... A. B.

This RfA thank you card is based on a card originally done by Phaedriel

John, thanks so much for your support in my RfA.

Have you thought of becoming an admin yourself? We need "content-oriented" admins as much if not more than the more numerous "behaviour-oriented" admins and you are an editor's editor.

Think about it and in the meantime, enjoy your haiku. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done Johnbod! I really like the headings under which you have grouped the pics. With regards to that window from Canterbury, it has been pieced together from a number of windows. Luckily most of the Magi are intact, but a couple of the scenes, eg Lot's wife don't seem to bee typologically related. There is another one on the other side for which I haven't identified a subject. Further down the content gets still messier.

I didn't like the OTT Rubens which seems to be quite huge, reproduced smaller then the de la Tour, so I've swapped it (after a bit of trial and error) with one of the same shape as the de la Tour. I hope you approve.

I like the Magi set and the folk art set. it works well. Amandajm (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lot's wife.... very good! Maybe the whole upper part of the windo is more intact than the bottom is. Perhaps the other scenes relate as well. Have yyou alreaday reverted my change?

That new pic you have put in is stunning. Iv'e never seen it before. I notice your comment about it "still having" Byzantine elements. This is true of course, but it's complex, because the artist is of a Gothic rather than Byzantine tradition. It is obvious that the influence on his work is Italian. It has elements very similar to the Lorenzetti. It's comment needs to refllect that.

We don't need two Rubens. The other one looks quite goood as a thumb, because oof the intense colour. I've increased the size of the ter Brugghen, otherwise it's just wasted because it looks muddy.

Amandajm (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, I'm about to tell you very rudely that I don't care (much) about how registered users see the page. What matters to me is how kids see the page when they are doing their school assignments. Which is why I size nearly all the images. Anyway, I think the page is looking good. I just added a little bit to the Bohemian Master, but then I realised I wasn't signed in. Amandajm (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmph! I just fiddled with Las Meninas. Gotta go and visit sick relations. Wish it wasn't pouring with rain.Amandajm (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

	Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 62/0/0 yesterday! I want to thank Dincher for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and since you are reading this, I haven't yet deleted your talk page by accident!). Please let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance, and keep an eye out for a little green fish with a mop on the road to an even better encyclopedia. Thanks again and take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod,

Thanks for the GA review again. In the review you mentioned we should mention about Martin & his other work. Also, you mentioned some of the language is clunky, & it is underlinked. Would you please elaborate a little bit on that. Thanks very much in advance, --Be happy!! (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your comment! I've also responded to your comment on the talk page. --Be happy!! (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again very much!!! --Be happy!! (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nativity of Jesus in art, 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, Daniel 11:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		Congratulations on being the inspiration for the Nativity of Jesus in art article and doing such excellent work on it! Amandajm (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yes this is really beautiful work. Excellent!!! Talk? 13:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply ]

Well done! - PKM (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey: I don't care if you revert the changes but don't send me a message about it as if were an idiot. I know they aren't spelling mistakes. I just don't like most Commonwealth spellings, aesthetically speaking. The article wasn't related to the British or places that prefer Commonwealth spellings so I felt it was irrelevant (and it is). My edit was unrelated to spelling; I moved a paragraph that seemed as if it were injected inappropriately in the middle of a section, towards the end of a section. Why don't you focus on that edit, and trying to make it a better article in lieu of nitpicking over superficialities like my preference for Center over Centre. It's my preference, I was the last one to make the change, changed things in that section. You can do the same. Get over it and stop preaching. Or better yet undo my edits and keep it to yourself. Also, proofread your posts. Arthurian Legend (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnbod. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at

You tweaked the caption of the monk drinking wine in medieval cuisine with the motivation that it's POV. I don't actually know the context of the illumination since the source dodesn't specify the origin, but the furtive look on his face is what made me write that caption. Do you by any chance know what kind of document it's from?

Peter ^Isotalo 08:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the Commons info that's the issue but the source itself. I might have missed some note on which archive and document it was from, but there was really no information about what kind of document it was from.

-Peter ^Isotalo 08:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits. I have changed some. The problem is the images are now better and more profuse than the text. I am trying to expand the text to incorporate the images so that there is not an incongruous gallery at the bottom. I have also tried to link to some of the spare images in the text, I'm not sure this allowed but I can't see the harm - it seems a shame to wast any. The problem is trying to expand and keep the page stable at the same time. Personally, I think it is looking pretty good, certainly one of Wikipedia's best illustrated architectural pages.

Hello, how come you call one of the best History of Art sites - all-art.org - a spam ? Why do you keep deleteing it ? Try google "history of art" - this site comes at 6th place. Pretty good for a spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.44.36.154 (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod: just wanted to make sure you know, this [4] derives from the same site as this [5]. Cheers, JNW (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a funny link. I especially like the understatement of the text, which notes that Baldung lacked Durer's sense of decorum. A new article, perhaps: Gastric misfortunes in Western Art. JNW (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; next day or two: I'll look forward to it—that painting fascinates me. Annoyingly, I used to have some good books on Velásquez but was in the habit of giving my books away. Quite the opposite now Wikipedia has come along...more and more shelves! qp10qp (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, I just wanted to thank you for all you expertise and help over the last week. The article is now much stonger and tighter than I could have hoped for. Ceoil (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA. Would you have any problem with a co nom, some of the more technical comments I might have difficulty with. Ceoil (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I'm talking with JNW about working together on the Rokeby Venus. Any interest. Ceoil (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting is so trivial, anal, and irrelevant, but beware it can be heartbreaking for your scrupulously researched, detailed, poured over article to be held to random standards. But anyway, onwards; who knows somebody may actually read it. Ceoil (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, there is a full essay on the venus in the Carr book, which I highly recommend. Ceoil (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, I've been catching up on CFDs that came up while I was taking a "rest-break" of sorts. I came back just in time to discover that one of my own, Category:People who emigrated to escape Nazism, is up for renaming. Would you be good enough to have a look at my comment -- I'm pretty sure you'll want to change your position on that particular CFD. I think you'll also be interested in my suggestion re Category:Worker's NGOs -- not sure if you'll agree, but give it some thought, eh? And lastly, I've made a significant alternative proposal re Category:Natural sciences, which is starting to gain support. I'm sure whatever you have to say there will be of value. Hope you'll find the time to respond! Regards, Cgingold (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that -- the CFD was relisted on a new date. I just fixed the link at Category:Natural sciences, so you can get to the CFD by that route now! See ya later, Cgingold (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is is significant to mention that the Mazo portrait of Margarita depicts her and her attendants in mourning for her father? (It's significant from a clothing perspective, not so sure in this context, so I didn't add it.) - PKM (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the image captions could be tightned. Images serve as good hooks for people just scanning, and at the moment some of the close ups look like they are randomly thrown in. Ceoil (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I nom later tonight, I have a bit more housekeeping (formatting and checking refs) to do before then. Do you think we're missing anything at this stage. Ceoil (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, gimme a few hours, a cigarette, and a stiff drink. Ceoil (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now is fine, I have a few sources on intrepation I need to read through. Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we are heading to AN/I re: 'painting of 1656' vs. '1656 painting'! Replyed on talk to your points bty. Ceoil (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I haven't got to this as soon as I'd hoped. I am half way through reading it and making notes. I will have some challenging questions, and I don't know if you would prefer to sort these at PR rather than FAC. I need a couple more days. qp10qp (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, qp10qp, we'll wait. Take your time. Ceoil (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are happy with your responces to qp10qp's comments, please feel to do the honours on FAC. I think its ready. Ceoil (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to leave 24 hrs - qp will (let's hope) be back tonight. But it could go any time. Things will be quiet for the next 2 days I expect. You should stick it up. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats probably wise. I've read the article so many times I don't see the words anymore. Some distance and a last tidy seems like the best course. Ceoil (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To take me out of circular discussions, I went away and nomed. Ceoil (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you help yesterday, it was appreciated. Back to editing at last. Have good holiday season. Ceoil (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, I cannot find an article in wikipedia on Modernist drama -- there's a category, Category:Modernist drama, theatre and performance -- but no article. Can this be so? Can you think of something I've missed? --Lquilter (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. --Elonka 02:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Category:South Tyrol

supparluca emptied and redirected Category:South Tyrol despite consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 28#Category:South Tyrol to leave it alone. Chris (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Copied CfD talk Johnbod (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

block on Ceoil

You are right its not a good block, any day of the year. take it to AN/I. i will be there to support you. DGG (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Thanks for your good work and for your help, much appreciated. Modernist (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Thanks for all your hhelp and encouragement! Amandajm (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 17:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Darius Painter

One likes to check, but is there a reason you've deleted out my edit? Twospoonfuls (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matisse paintings

I noticed as I was putting on the template that there are a number of meagre articles, not even sufficient stubs. I suggest a decision as to which ones are worth adding to and which are not. I kept them so that other editors could have a look. Tyrenius (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CFD CPCA bishops

You stated "Delete per nom" there, but I nominated the cat for renaming, not deletion. You may wish to clarify your response. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of clothing and textiles

I've started expanding History of clothing and textiles - I would appreciate your thoughts. PKM (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Michelangelo_Caravaggio_038.jpg

This is very clearly a far worse image than the one you have replaced it with - a typical washed-out Yorck project scan from a 50-year-old book. Please reverse this imediately! I am very concerned that you could possibly think this the better image and would be grateful if you could explain your reasoning, preferably at on en WP. diff on en Johnbod 23:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. OK so what is the issue again? The other version is higher resolution and feels better. Your version is simply darker. --

chi?

23:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it is much richer and has far better colour values. Your preferred version is washed out. Caravaggio is famously dark - that is why the image is at Chiaroscuro. I am concerned because when I can be bothered to check these bot-changes to so-called "improved" images they are often worse. Do you actually know what works like this look like in the original? I have removed the tag on Commons on the other image - is there anything else needed to stop the replacement process? Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is trivially easy for me to revert the bot edits. I will do this now. I will quote this thread too. --

chi?

23:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I think I have reverted all the en:WP changes. But what can we do to stop futre occurences? I saw the original of this a year or so ago btw. Johnbod (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best solution is finding a high quality image of high resolution. We have a high quality image with low resolution which is not good. Where is the source of the image located? A nearby wikipedian can take a photo of it for example.

In the future DO NOT revert CommonsDelinker. On the pages you reverted commons delinker a link to this thread was not generated. I could have deleted either version and you would have generated redlinks. Manual reverts of commonsdelinker creates problems and no benefit.

--

chi?

00:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It is in Italy, & not supposed to be photographed (of course). An amateur photo would be worse than either of these anyway; you need special lighting - it is about 2m high. I won't revert Delinker if you don't tag superior images for replacement - deal? Johnbod (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The museum may have a better quality image for our taking. Museums typically have these DVDs full of the content inside the museum so people visiting can take the photos. So that may be an option. You could contact the museum for a better image as well.

Commons has over 2 million media. We commons admins try to juggle these 2 million images trying to get the best ones for the +250 wikis these images are used at. This isn't very easy as there are so few of us around. It makes our job more difficult and time consuming when people contradict CommonsDelinker. We can't force anyone to obey us but all we ask is to let us work from a central location. So I ask you not to revert CommonsDelinker even if you are 100% right to do so. Just page me or some other commons admin and we will sort the issue centrally. I or any commons admin may make a mistake. This is no big deal and it would be easier for everybody if we do this.

--

chi?

02:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I appreciate your prompt response & will do so in the future. The better image is actually far better than the vast majority of our images of paintings, a great number of which are, like the poorer version of this, scans from books over 50 years old with similar faded & washed out values (Yorck project etc), no matter how high the resolution. This painting is actually in a church, as you can see from the file description. I remain concerned that decisions like this are being taken; perhaps you could let me know if you are tempted to replace any more images of

old master paintings. I am rather distrustful of Commons procedures here, especially after finding this 1930s reproduction replacing the one of an original (yes looking more faded) in the Met NY, which now is hidden away], only accesible from the file of the fake (sorry repro). It was clear from the discussion on this that knowledge of older artworks is in very short supply on Commons. If this can happen to the most famous image in Japanese graphics, God knows what is going on elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I cant remember how many images I juggled today so I can't make any such promises. I do however invite you to work on commons. You could help better categorize painting images and work on the quality. You could even help with the featured pictured thing as well as

chi?

02:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I do a certain amount of categorising there, but only see these deletion & replacement tags when they crop up on articles I watch. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to use the undeletion process (

chi?

03:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that is a helpful link - I don't generally find Commons procedures & working pages easy to track down. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VA MOS

In your edit summary for

talk 03:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Meninas

Yeah, notwithstanding my intent to carry on a normal life, I'm unable to exit. And a very happy new year to you, too! My concern was that Las Meninas would collapse under the weight of so many well-meaning edits of the last two weeks, but quite the contrary has occurred. Congratulations for all the fine work, and for the crusade to make sure that 1656 does not become an adjective...here's hoping that 2008 will be modified by positive adjectives. Cheers, JNW (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Later in the day I will get back to Lopez-Rey to find more specific references to the 'cutting down'. He is actually very detailed as to the various sizes that the painting was listed at under each inventory, whether or not it was framed, etc. JNW (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure--how so? Gotta run, but will return. By the way, agreed re: the Picasso business. JNW (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quentin Metsys the Younger

I have begun the merest stub of Quentin Metsys the Younger. - PKM (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pentimenti

Hi Johnbod. Please note this from Grove Art Online:

Pentiment [pentimento; It.: ‘repentance’].

Visible evidence of an alteration to a painting or drawing that suggests a change of mind on the part of the artist. In particular, it refers to previous workings (see also Underdrawing) revealed by the change in the refractive index of oil paint that occurs as it ages: thin layers of paint that were originally opaque may become semi-transparent. In Titian’s group portrait of the Vendramin Family (c. 1543–7; London, N.G.), for example, the figure of a young, bearded man on the far left was moved inwards. The head of the figure in the original position is now evident as a ghostly image on a patch of sky. The term is also used to refer to such effects where they do not necessarily imply a deviation from the original intention. In Pieter de Hooch’s Interior (London, N.G.), for example, the chequered floor is visible beneath a maid’s dress, confirming that the figure was added after the floor was painted. This may have been necessary given the precise geometric pattern of the floor and the perspective involved. Pentimenti suggest that painters refined and altered compositions as they worked, and, for this reason, they are often cited as evidence of authenticity; similarly, they are less likely to appear in copies. The term is also used to describe the hesitant preliminary workings that show beneath some drawings.

And this from

OED

online:

A sign or trace of an alteration in a literary or artistic work; (spec. in Painting) a visible trace of a mistake or an earlier composition seen through later layers of paint on a canvas.

Pentimenti are seen particularly in oil painting (see quot. 1951).

'1823' Edinb. Rev. '38' 430 This seems to be a pentimento of the author. '1850' Edinb. Rev. Oct. 566 The pentimentos in Ariosto's manuscript are numberless. 1903 R. FRY Let. 6 Mar. (1972) I. 204 What looks like a retouch above the man's left shoulder turns out on closer inspection to be an original pentimento. 1951 R. MAYER Artist's Handbk. ii. 100 The refractive index of the oil film has changed and a thin coat of paint..has become sufficiently transparent to allow under-painting or drawing to show through. The effect is called pentimento. '1991' Apollo Mar. 164/1 X-radiographs..indicate a pentimento to the outline of the rock.

The article Pentimento is therefore faulty, and should be fixed.

Best wishes! I'll back off now, while you edit. But more needs to be done.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note at my page, Johnbod. Let's conduct our conversation here though, for convenience. You ask how Pentimento and the definitions above differ. Let me set that aside for a moment and compare the earlier wording in Las Meninas with Grove Art and OED:

Examination under infrared light has shown that Velázquez made minor pentimenti (alterations) to the figures as he worked;...

According to this, a pentimento is an alteration; according to the sources I cite, a pentimento is a trace of or evidence of an alteration. So by their lights it is incorrect to say that the artist "made minor pentimenti". OED's citations give no precedent for this usage. Turning now to the article Pentimento, I should say that it looks pretty good! But it does begin like this:

A pentimento (plural pentimenti) is an alteration in a painting...

That initial statement itself is not directly supported by any source; it is contradicted by respected and notable sources; and therefore it is in need of alteration to show the distinction I draw attention to, and at least to recognise the Grove–OED definition as well. I see that a couple of the external links support the initial statement, but this all needs to be made explicit and clear. Some might think this is hair-splitting. As far as I'm concerned it is not. Not for an article that is to become a featured article – as Las Meninas surely will, very soon. – Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what, in a painting, the difference between an alteration and "A sign or trace of an alteration" might be (nor, on a different note what a "pentimento" in a literary work, as opposed to a manuscript, might be). The word alteration could be substituted in all the OED examples without changing the sense. If you look at the Italian origin - "repentance" - the pentimento is the alteration, but the alteration is only evidenced by the traces of earlier states. I see you have reverted me & will leave it as it is. Johnbod (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, I reverted you in rather unusual circumstances. You had started editing and reverting in the very section I was working in (as you could have seen from the record). I reverted only provisionally, so that I did not lose other closely considered work that I had just done.

I do not agree with you that alteration could be put in place of pentimento in the OED citations without change of sense. In a couple of cases you do retain a sense that would work in the context, but it is not precisely the same sense. (It may be a better sense, in one case.) In the last case ("the effect is called pentimento"), alteration would be inaccurate and strange.

No matter! This is all easily fixed. If you will allow me, I'll now do an edit that allows for both senses. Then we won't have to wrangle over this side issue, and can move things forward.

Of course I agree about the Italian; but that doesn't settle anything. It is common for shifts in exact meaning to occur in transit from language to language. And I don't say that Grove and OED are "right" (though it is indisputable that they faithfully record some dominant usages); I only say that they carry weight, and we should not lightly ignore them. Not in a featured article.

In a minute or two you'll see my compromise at Las Meninas.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with it as it now is. Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After my compromise edit, you mean? Good!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, before - the "temporary" version is better, as shorter, I think. Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Begging pardon for dropping in, but how about just Examination under infrared light reveals minor pentimenti, without the parenthetic clause that now follows? JNW (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well i'm sure most people would feel the need for some explanation of the word, link or no link; bu I don't think it should be too long. Johnbod (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article references the NG Glossary (online) "Pentimento is a change made by the artist during the process of painting". I don't see it as a different understanding, but a wider one, so I have no objection to the earlier marks being described as pentimenti, which is of course very common, & also found in the pentimento article. Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval iconographers

Johnbod, I came across your post here and just wanted to say that I am not, in fact, a puppet of Aramgar's but another editor with a genuine interest in Medieval iconography, among other subjects. I was very pleased that you liked the article I started, so I wanted to correct any impression that I might not be an actual person. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jan 08

here

Zao!!

Hi John!! How are you? Wish you a merry new year!! Finally I've been able to add a new article here: it's

Monastero di Santa Giulia, Brescia. Maybe it'd need your help, as (for example) I don't know how it's the English equivalent of tiburio... ?!?! Ciao and thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Attilios (talk • contribs) 23:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Queluz National Palace

This article, to which you contributed, will be featured on the Main Page on January 5, 2008.[6] Risker (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biblio in Las Meninas

Thanks for your note, John. The article looks great. I think there should be no impediment to its promotion now.

You recover, OK? :)

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you are feeling better. Cheers, JNW (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Great to see that Las Meninas has now been promoted, John. It really is a gem.

All the best to you.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help - I know how long it takes to do those things.

Congratulations John; it was team effort at its best. I'm working slowly through the Venus, as soon as there is a reasonable amount of content I'll be calling in the heavies again, so expect a call! Ceoil (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbo! I just looked at Las Meninas (which I didn't have watched) and saw it has a gold star! Congratulations for all your hard work! Things have been a bit of a mess hhere as myy compuuettr crashed and its taken me a while too gget my intternet connection going...aanndd guess what?.... I've got double letters againn! It mmust be Meee! Amandajm (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in nem. con. with 45 support, 0 oppose, and 0 neutral. Thank you for your support and all the kind words that were expressed. I will try to live up to the trust placed in me by the community. I now have my homework to do and then pass the Marigolds.

Oh, yeah ... cheeky .... Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High culture

Hello! I'd like to see a caption that explains why this image is considered to be such a very exceptional example of high culture. Show, don't tell! And yes, the troll is quite impressive. Cheers, --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Michael Wright

Hi, sorry, back briefly - up to my eyebrows in the Real World. This is great. - PKM (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Peake the Elder

I've stuck this up now, and wonder if you'd be kind enough to cast an eye over it. I can't believe there's much more info to go in, because I've pretty well rinsed my sources dry; but I've put some queries on the talk page that you might be able to help with. Cheers. qp10qp (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been following the discussion on Talk:Robert Peake the Elder? We're having far too much fun there. - PKM (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Norman

A

db-author}} to the top of David Norman. LeyteWolfer (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks!

		Thanks for your support
		Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Joseph

Thanks for contributing to the discussion on the Saint Joseph talk page. We definitely needed the help. When I first came across the article, it said: "Joseph [...] was, according to the canonical Christian Gospel accounts and tradition, the husband of Mary and the father of Jesus of Nazareth." I thought it was a simple error and tried to correct it, but that met with fierce oposition, as you can see on the talk page. Anyway, I was getting extremely frustrated, so I hope you'll stick around until it gets resolved. Again, thank you. Fratprez (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wright

Can you supply the book and page number? Unfortunately <ref>Waterhouse</ref> isn't likely to satisfy as an authoritative reference?--

Doc^g 08:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Italian musical instruments

I was surprised by your tone and puzzled by your comments at this category's discussion. In my opinion removing the category from the articles improved the articles, otherwise I wouldn't have removed it from them. There was nothing improper in that, surely? I then noticed the category was effectively empty, and since I couldn't think of any "Italian musical instruments" I nominated it for discussion to see whether there might be consensus that it should be deleted. Was that improper?

Nowhere in any procedure can I find that a category once nominated for deletion must have articles that were removed from it restored. Neither can I see any policy that bars a Wikipedian who removes a category from articles from nominating that category for deletion. Even if there is a procedure, as you appear to suggest, that I must restore what I think is an inappropriate category to articles that I don't believe need it, and if necessary work against all comers to keep it there, I shall respectfully

decline

.

In what way does the absence of the articles from the category "clearly make comment […] very difficult"? The relevant articles are listed in the nomination.

I suspect there may be some long-standing Wikipedians who know CFD who would find your assertion that the procedure is new to me quite funny.

Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 10:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Snotty" comment withdrawn. Sorry you felt that way - it wasn't my intention. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Senior wranglers

User:Roundhouse0 has brought it to my attention that I wasn't clear in this CfD nomination. I meant for Category:Senior wranglers and Category:Second wranglers to be discussed together, but didn't make it clear that I was including Category:Second wranglers in the same discussion. If this makes you want to change anything you have said or add anything new, please do so. Sorry for the confusion. LeSnail (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Beham

Yes, it was the only off-Wiki site - not that it was a brilliant one anyway. But all I have (well, prints anyway) is now on Commons. Did you see my latest J Hopfer acquisition: Charles V, a wonderful example of the 'Hopfer style', also ill. in Landau? See you have been under anaesthetics for the New Year - presume non-alcoholic ones? Anyway I hope all's well now... Nick Michael (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm fine now, thanks. I know the print but hadn't seen yours - in fact I'm sure this has grown considerably since I last looked - lovely stuff. You might, or might well not, be interested in Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of erotic depictions - whether the review or (apparently less contentious) adding something to the article. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of erotic depictions looks like another can of worms: I've enough of this with Toilet and Pubic hair. I mean, how the hell did I get into this stuff anyway...? My eldest has just become an admin on Simple Wiki and now spends more time arguing and bickering than he does writing articles! Nick Michael (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wlliam Larkin

Can you help identify this portrait? - PKM (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the expansion of William Larkin - comments and contributions welcome! - PKM (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify this portrait?

John, I wonder if this portrait rings a bell. It is a C19 copy, but I am certain there is an original as I have seen it elsewhere. Any clue? Nick Michael (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I butt in? Image:Clouet Claude de Beaune de Semblancay.jpg - PKM (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Felicien Rops images

Hey. To make things clear: I know one image isn't enough for an artist, but there's a commons link to a whole gallery of his works... I don't see why they need to be duplicated. The Wikipedia article loses its layout and overview by adding images.

talk) 13:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You're wrong, I'm afraid. I presume you don't work on visual arts articles much? Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain why I'm wrong? I did the edit after I read what the guidelines have to say about this. Maybe this will help this discussion, from

Wikipedia:Layout

:

If an article has many images, so many, in fact, that they lengthen the page beyond the length of the text itself (...), you can try to use a gallery, but the ideal solution might be to create a page or category combining all of them at Wikimedia Commons and use a relevant template (...) and link to it instead, so that further images are readily found and available when the article is expanded.

I'll be glad to agree with you, if you can tell me how I'm misusing this guideline.

(PS: you can keep the discussion on this talk page if you'd like, that way it's less confusing for me.)

talk) 13:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Articles on art are a special case - the pictures are often more important than the text, not just an illustration as usual. A gallery probably would be the ideal solution, but to cut to one, somewhat untypical, picture is not. See also

Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style, though it does not addresss this specific situation. You should also remember that images can appear very differently depending on the users settings and equipment. Hope this helps. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for refering to the visual arts manual of style, I didn't know about its existance. But even there, they actually give the same guideline:

talk) 14:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

No, I have big settings, as I expect you do, but most users don't. The two pictures together give a resonable enough impression of the range of his art, which neither alone would do. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My settings are default. I think most people will have those too. The whole commons gallery gives a reasonable enough impression of the range of his art. It's not like the images are lost to the readers. I'm going to stop arguing about this, though: probably for the best, since we're not really convincing each other. Please, think about it again, and about the guidelines. I'm pretty sure you have to read them with default settings in mind.

talk) 14:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Venus

Went to my local bookstore yesterday and by freakish conicdence (its a very small family run operation, more concerned with mil-hist and self-help books than art) found a copy of this. And its great. By the way, do you know of a copy of the picture featured in the times of the canvass post richardsons cleaver attack, pre repair. Ceoil (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know which bits and I'll work with you on it. By the way, I hope we didn't fall out over that FAR. Ceoil (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have an artists impression of how the painting looked after the slahes, but its an artists impression, and under coptright. Ceoil (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "It is an admirable light for....whilst raising the said..."? Ceoil (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OWN?

I've spent some months on this, so I'm probably guilty of a bit of WP:OWN - sorry about that. However, that's best remedied by discussing things, and your problems with my edits, not by personal attacks in edit summaries[7]. I'm very happy to discuss any changes on the talk page.--

Doc^g 13:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Vel

	The Velázquez Barnstar of Cultural Transcendence
	I Ceoil award this for past and future work on the great master. Its been an honour to work with you, sir. Ceoil (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelis Ketel

I started Cornelis Ketel but it's not really a coherent narrative. Would love your input if you have time. - PKM (talk) 07:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Most Phallic Building contest

Most Phallic Building contest, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most Phallic Building contest. Thank you. faithless (^speak) 08:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Timoteo Viti

Hey, how are you? Can you review the entry I've created for Timoteo Viti. It was difficult to translate and reword from the original source, if you can look it over for me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's what I was getting at, I'm usually good at rewording and combining sources. Thanks a lot, looks a lot better. -RiverHockey (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, thats why I asked you to do it. He needed an entry but I didn't have any other resources, and you seem like an expert. -RiverHockey (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 30 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cornelis Ketel, 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 .

--Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tabloid always wins; thanks for the great hook. - PKM (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murillo

My apologies! I am so sorry to have caused you offense, or problems with the display on your monitor, by using the Murillo under the heading "art". But a painting of Jesus clutching a bird is misplaced under the heading "canonical Gospel accounts". The incident is an invention of Murillo, no matter how credible. However, the addition of a picture in the context of this article is not worth arguing about; and I have therefore happily withdrawn the picture from the article altogether. Since I originally introduced the Murillo painting into this article (which I did not in order to turn this article into an art gallery but to demonstrate the point I was making, namely that there was a discernible shift of the portrayal of Joseph from a doddery old man to a youthful looking man), I trust no one is going to feel offended by my having withdrawn the picture now in response to your objection. must insist though that, contrary to your assertion, my edit summary was entirely true. 22:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks yr message. You have a point concerning the pic, as do I. But in the context of this article, the purpose of which is not an art gallery, let's not expend any further time on this point. – As regards the subject matter, I cast my bread on the water. After all, it is not a purely scholarly matter, since there are also strong opinions about it; and the better the article manages to disentangle the one from the other, the closer it moves towards encyclopedia standard. 23:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.190.28 (talk)

Freud

Johnbod, the comments by Grayling that I removed ("the judgment of time seems to be running against him", etc) weren't a specific criticism of Freud. They were just a vague, rhetorical observation, and I see no reason why this sort of thing should be in the Freud article at all, whether written by Grayling or anyone else.Skoojal (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VAwebteam

Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_January_30#Image:Copper_snuffbox.jpg FYI Tyrenius (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought you'd ask. ;) Tyrenius (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

• This user helped promote Lisa del Giocondo to featured article status.

• Just a doodad and a thank you. -
  talk) 05:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  

Thanks for your help on Sigmund Freud

There are many determined Freud supporters who revert edits pointing out how widely and severely he is criticized. Any help you can give is appreciated. NuclearWinner (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peake

Sorry about edit conflicts; I will leave alone at this time. –Outriggr § 03:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings, I hope, on the gallery issue. Overall, I think the article is excellently written. I am shocked that there wasn't an article about Peake before (I have actually heard of him and seen his work before), and I'm grateful that you guys took the time to create it and get it ready for FA. We were getting a little spirited, and I wanted to make it clear that I do think it's a good article. Karanacs (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PROD of Cornelis de Heem

As far as I can tell, the Spanish and French articles are only really copies of this one (or the other way round) – I only speak French. The German article is a little more lengthy, but still doesn't cite any references for the person. Not being notable is a criteria for deletion, and as far as I can tell, there's no notability asserted in the article through

WP:BIO. Please let me know if I'm wrong — alex.muller (talk • edits) 18:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Las Meninas

I see Las Meninas will be FA on 5 February - congratulations! - PKM (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Timoteo Viti, 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 .

--

talk) 20:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

FAC

No worries, and no skulking. The game's afoot. I've started improving our image store for Isaac Oliver. I also just ordered Karen Hearn's Tate exhibit catalogue on Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger; it's been remaindered. - PKM (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Las Meninas

News to me but its on the main page today. Its attracting quality edits like this, actually lots of them. I have a few disused grenades, a pellet gun, mines, and a sub to hand. Still, help needed. Ceoil (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will be interesting to see if the article improves in anyway in the next 23 hours. I doubt it. I hesitate to use my flame-thrower, but jesus christ I'm not being presented with a wide bunch of options, so far. Ceoil (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may join the conversation...

Looks great on page one, doesn't it? I have added something on etymology to stop Portuguese irregulars from attacking the flank. Handy to have this information here, I think. It is not easy to get hold of elsewhere, and people DO wonder about the meaning and origin. "Menina" does not mean "girl" in Spanish: depend on it!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note at my page, J. Simply discuss with me here if you like. I'll watch here. Yes, the quote is from that dictionary (a very large and respected Spanish reference work), as is the information that menina is feminine of menino, and that menino is from Portuguese and means boy. Clear enough, in the note? A check in a large Portuguese dictionary confirms the Portuguese angle.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hello Johnbod, I have granted rollback rights to your account. The reason for this is that, after a review of some of your contributions, I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended use of reverting

Wikipedia:Rollback feature

. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck.

Just the right time for this. Well spotted on the vandalism. I normally check back, but I wanted to block the IP asap to stop more of the same.

Tyrenius (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that drastic! But it's handy - as long as you check the preceding edit(s) also, of course. :) It just rolls back all the edits of the last editor. Tyrenius (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never normally in these?

Which is why I removed them. Did I miss something?

Yomangani^talk 01:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

No, I misread the diff completely, sorry! Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easily done during Mainpage Madness.

Yomangani^talk 01:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

AIV Report

I commented on the talk page there, but figured I'd add a bit here also.
The bot removed your report because it thought it was a comment attached to the previous report.
I'm not sure what other formats the bot recognizes, but reports should generally follow one of these formats.

• {{IPvandal|IP address}} brief reason for listing (keep it short) ~~~~
• {{Vandal|Username}} brief reason for listing (keep it short) ~~~~
  

If the report follows one of those formats, it's my understanding that the bots will leave them alone unless the account has been blocked. Hope that helps. --Onorem♠Dil 16:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The formats are listed in the comments of the "User-reported" section where you added the report. --Onorem♠Dil 16:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't visible on the page itself. You should be able to see the comments when you are editing within the section. --Onorem♠Dil 16:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Develop a proper codicology page?

Hi Johnbot,

Thanks for your response to my query to that totally incomprehensible quote in Las Meninas.

But the main point: For one reason or another, I followed a Wiki-ref for folio--as in that thing with verso and recto--and it wound up on bookbinding. A further wikiref to codicology was hardly worth mentioning. Of anyone I've seen here, you seem the most hip to these issues. Would you consider helping pumping codicology up? Or at least keep an eye on it while I mess around? (I took a graduate class in codicology--mostly medieval mss.--about 20 years ago, sad to say, and lost all my solid notes....) Best,---Shlishke (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Missing something' "for" or "against" these categories

We appear to be failing to communicate - All I was trying to do was find out the nature of your confusion. i.e. which direction were you missing the point. Missing why these categories "should" exist or missing why these categories "should not" exist. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of assumed that direction. Isn't English a wonderful language; we all use and abuse it in different ways. It's why it is so important to keep talking and assume "good faith". Cheers :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

File:Party.gif

It appears our boy has his star! Many thanks for all your help, particularly on fielding the points at FAC: it is much appreciated. I have found working with you, PKM and Amandajm one of the most enjoyable experiences I have had on Wikipedia. I am learning fast about art articles, which are a curiously different beast to straight history subjects. Of course, hardly anyone will read Peake, but at least that will preserve it (I cannot keep up with the endless changes to articles like

Elizabeth I of England that I've worked on: it becomes quite dismaying). qp10qp (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Battle of the Nudes (engraving)

On 8 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of the Nudes (engraving), 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 .

--BorgQueen (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

John, I'm surprised that you weren't told, or didn't learn, before being given rollback, that you're only to use it on genuine vandalism. This is not an acceptable use of rollback, particularly given that you also completely failed to check what the problem was that motivated the edit. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinet (architecture)

I've made a start off the top of my head. You'll be interested in the subject, I think.--Wetman (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dang! couldn't find Cabinet painting. Well done!--Wetman (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Simon Belle

Many thanks for your speedy assessment! Xn4 05:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About getting along

John, I'm sure you realise yourself that this edit summary was out of place. Can you please not do it again? Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

John, you are becoming increasingly incoherent. What happened was that a Commons user ignored an overwrite warning and overwrote an earlier image called Pan.jpg, which showed the newsreader. The correct thing to do was to revert this user's mistake, and re-upload the image under a new name. Commons does not check for namespace collisions with Wikipedia. This has been known as a bug for years, it's number 889 if you want to look it up. Nobody has taken the time to implement a solution, nor can images be moved (the number for that bug is referenced in the aforementioned). So after re-uploading the image under a new name, I discovered that this bug existed, and that the new name collided with an existing image on en-wp. The only solution was to re-upload the image under yet another name that would not collide. As stated, I did not have time to execute this, leaving the only sane option as the deletion of the (now incorrect) image from the article, in the hope that someone else would take the time to fix the problem, which I felt was clearly described in appropriate language for someone else to understand. I note that you did not seek to (a) understand the problem, or even (b) fix the it. Instead, you assumed bad faith and used rollback on the edit, which I have already told you was against protocol. You then edit-warred with another editor who had a better insight into the problem. At some point, one might have expected that the fact you were warring with a sysop would give you pause to consider the possibility that they were not out to destroy everything holy. Instead, you chose to make a reference to their mental health, which I cannot, and I'm looking at you very seriously here, cannot condone. Marvelling at the fact that apparently, nobody cared to restore the image correctly, I eventually got around to re-uploading under a name that at least does not collide with the English Wikipedia, although it may collide with any number of local wikipedias, wiktionaries, wikibooks, etc.

I worry that because of your demonstrated lack of technical knowledge, much of this will sound like gobbledy-gook to you, but that leads me to question whether you should really be editing Wikipedia in the judgmental manner you are doing, asserting that you understand who made what mistake when. I should mention to you that an administrator would be expected to be able to conduct the kind of forensic research necessary to understand the nature of such problems.

Overall, Wikipedia suggest that you

be bold in making changes, and we have a {{sofixit

}} template that I would strongly recommend to you as a mantra before you run around the wiki again, accusing others of various perceived crimes.

Yours firmly,

Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Frigerio

I wonder if you could point me to the Ghit that showed he "painted stuff in a palace in Brescia". Thanks. Tyrenius (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC) here Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good find. Tyrenius (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rubric (typography)

On Rubric (typography), 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 .

--BorgQueen (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note the nod (should be written in red?)

On 14 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cabinet (room), 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 .

--Victuallers (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see here Victuallers (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC) oops ... fixed now Victuallers (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Green

I stole your suggestion for the lead. I hope you don't mind!!!! Can you tell me where you found that image? I was looking for it. BTW, I was shocked, just shocked, that Tower Green wasn't an article. I saw a bunch of red links here and there, while reading up on Anne Boleyn. I haven't created that many articles, certainly none in English history, considering how many years I spent in London as an expat. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doczilla's RfA

deleted for turning whole page below green!

Crap articles on ho-hum photographers

Hi and thank you for your input on Vadukul. Are we friends now? Oh dear, how boring. Wonderful!

I noted your comment that A quick look around

here

.

Probably no need to reply, but if you'd like to do so please do so here. Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was making a resolution to myself never to look at another photographer article again! There is a problem, touched on in the NYT article I added, that commercial photographers don't get written about as much as "art" photographers - the pictures do the talking, at least until they are dead, which I personally greatly prefer. It's the same with journalists - how many of them really get written about, as opposed to being argued with? Don't lets even think about authors! Artists have an "included in major collections" notability criterion; personally I would support an "x Vogue covers" (or even "earns y $M") one for photographers on the same principle. I usually look at anything on the VA-related list, but otherwise their agents' creations are safe from me. Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not being interested in frocks, I tend not to be interested in photos of frocks. And I suppose that people who are interested in frocks are more interested in the frocks than in the photos of them. Ditto for celebs. I think the reason why the better commercial photographers aren't as much written about as the better art photographers is simply that the former just aren't usually very interesting, at least as long as they are commercial photographers. (Honorable exceptions include Avedon's elephant photo, and miscellaneous work by Jūmonji.) But then I go to bookstores in the hope of seeing some interesting new photobooks, and there are instead piles of books showing beautiful (I suppose) people in beautiful (I suppose) frocks. (A little devil tells me just to say that such books are directed at people too gullible and thick to say anything intelligible and interesting about the photographs or photographers, but I mustn't say that, must I?) As I look at Vogue covers, I can't see anything significant about the name of the person who pressed the button of one or even twenty of them: it is I suppose be the art director who has most of the job of presenting yet another frock in a way that will make readers fear that without buying a copy they won't know what's what and may appear slightly dowdy to their more dutifully consuming friends.

There's nothing much wrong with commercial photography. A good friend of mine (without an article at en:WP) is a commercial photographer. But, like many commercial photographers I can think of, he does unrelated work in his spare time, and it's this that gets into Asahi Camera and/or Nippon Camera and into the occasional book, and that might eventually be written up.

As for the an "'included in major collections' notability criterion", art and photo galleries do have collections of photos, and these do include fashion/celeb photography. (Far too high a percentage of it, I'd say.) That could be a criterion for photographic notability.

Having knocked commercial photography, I should end by saying that I find some good but not outstanding commercial photography a lot more interesting than a fair amount of "art" photography; and by the latter I don't only mean what unrecognized geniuses (or not) claim is their own "art", but also some of what Nazraeli and respected critics trumpet as "art". Bah humbug.

Back to my obligations in the real world, and later perhaps I should try to knock Teikō Shiotani into something that starts to resemble a decent article on this dreamy and gloriously uncommercial artist. -- Hoary (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rubric

This would be a great example of a retro use of rubrics if the quality wasn't so poor. I'll see if I can't track down a better image of rubrics in Kelmscott Press work (the 1972 Dover edition has the rubrics, if I recall). - PKM (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got one. Image:Kelmscott Press Laudes.png. Adding... - PKM (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typo redirect

Royal progress

WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Note sure why my previous attempt to comment turned your page green. Maybe I should just shut up. - PKM (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naw. What in world did someone think it was a typo for????? - PKM (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval household

Thanks, I added a "to do" box. Lampman (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Royal progress

Hi John - you wrote: WTF are you playing at deleting this redirect? It is a very closely related topic, and the nearest article we have. I shall set it up again, please do not delete. The rationale you used, according to the bot, must be the wrong one - makes no sense at all. PS I see you have been hit by the curse of Doczilla too!

I saw a closed AFD with a bluelink, which made no mention of turning the page into a redirect. The result of that AFD was speedy delete, as the article had been transwikied. As far as I was aware it's not common practice to make redirects from articles that are AFD'd unless it is clearly stated in the AFD that it's a good idea. There was also a [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Royal_progress|template request to speedy-delete the redirect]. Under the circumstances, it made perfect sense to me to do so. And yes, Doczilla's been stomping around a bit lately! Grutness...wha? 22:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - should've checked the summary, you're right - sorry. Thanks for fixing the Doczilla "greening". Grutness...wha? 22:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The green curse

Oy.

Like I told Grutness after I noticed the exchange above, I have no dadgum idea why that greening effect happens to some people but not others, and certainly not why it comes and go. With a couple of people, it's obviously interacting with the formatting of their talk pages. With others, I just can't see what the deal is. I had tested that thing repeatly and even had somebody help me test so I could know how it looks on other computers it before I inflicted it on people. The greening effect had never happened during testing. It's some consequence of the effect which makes it collapsible, the purpose of which was to be less intrusive on other people's pages rather than more. *sigh* Ah, well. Sorry about that, chief. Doczilla _RAWR! 06:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AGF

I just read your recent comments on IZAK's talk page. I also responded to your own clear failure to verify your own claims on the talk page of the Judaism project. I have actually acknowledged the mistake, and, if you bothered to check the recent edit history, removed the banner from several articles. I have taken responsibility for my actions. You, on the other hand, have consistently shown an unwillingness to verify your own presumptions and regularly rushed to judgement. Presumably, I'm responsible for your failures to verify the claims you make as well. :) John Carter (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? I haven't edited the Judaism project talk page for months. Yet another case of mistaken identity? This is getting beyond a joke. Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, for once, you're right. I hit the wrong link when referring to Steven Anderson. Unfortunately, your writing styles, if that's the word which applies, are remarkably similar. Blaming others. My apologies for lumping you in with all the others who are make as irresponsible statements. John Carter (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is the third time in less than twenty-four hours you have confused me with other editors. Do you find you are becoming increasingly forgetful? Johnbod (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments elsewhere are common very, very close to violating

List of notable converts to Christianity, you will see that it was discussed there, and that the parties involved in that discussion were in fact the ones who signed aboard. Does it concern you that you seemingly rarely, if ever, bother to find out if your allegations are accurate? Also, as has already been indicated, consensus with other projects regarding banner placement is not required. In fact, given the rather pronounced ownership tendencies that some groups have, requiring such would even be counterproductive. Does it bother you that you have now repeatedly sought recourse in what are potentially irrelevant and off-topic defenses of your own conduct? And you call me "pugnacious"? John Carter (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

A reply is hardly necessary under the circumstances! Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Largely because, unfortunately, the facts indicate that you are being at least as "pugnacious" as anyone else. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease attempting to misrepresent things. I was referring to the attempt to block me, and I thought that was clear from the context. Yes, I acknowledge you had notified me of the earlier discussion, but that is an entirely separate thing than an at best, dare I say, incompetent request to have me blocked. Such continued attempts to try to paint yourself and others in the best possible light while attempting to place the blame for their actions on others, in this case me, can be seen as giving people a clear indication of your character. Unfortunately, in this case. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying I should have notified you of a new section started by someone else, which I made clear early on I did not agree with? What is this about Project Judaism? You are beginning to parody yourself! Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you are proving even more your own inability to cease taking the defensive. I was indicating there, as I have indicated elsewhere, that IZAK should have notified me of an attempt to block. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that you are incapable of trying to speak to the facts, despite your insisting that others do so. You are not, at this point, beginning to parody yourself; seemingly, you have been doing so for some time. John Carter (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is pointless to continue this, as you have stopped recognising that you keep mixing me up with other people (3 times so far), so I can't tell if you are actually complaining about me or someone else. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I regret I have to agree. At no point did I say that I was confusing you with IZAK, or that I was actually blaming you for IZAK's actions. You lept to that completely inaccurate assumption completely on your own, and then, once again, tried to turn the blame for your own incapacity of understanding on to others, by accusing me of a misunderstanding which happened entirely within your own head. If you review the material, I never specifically mentioned you. I was referring to the circumstances, not the individuals involved. Unfortunately, that seems to be a differentiation you are either incapable of making or unwilling to make. John Carter (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'll have to look at the Judaism project myself to see WTF you are going on about, if anything. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Anne in the Eastern tradition

Hi Johnbod, I was wondering if you had a source you could recommend for St. Anne in the Orthodox tradition. I have some good materials for the west but am having a hard time finding eastern sources. I know she was not a major figure there but was wondering if you had any information. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I know Justinian dedicated a church to her, but I haven't yet found much else. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Printmaking

I've done some tweaking and removed some random code. It looks OK on my low res screen now. You can play around with it if you want. Change "float: right" to "float: left" to move horizontally. Tyrenius (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trim

Here you go! Image:Burchett sandown trimmed.jpg‎ - PKM (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:The Problem with Projects

I believe you would be well advised to become aware of the following guidelines, if you are not in fact already aware of them:

WP:DE. Neither of your recent comments on the above page even remotely deals with the subject under discussion. Please try to confine your comments to the subject, as opposed to off-topic comments about the author. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Your commentary to date on the talk page above has clearly yet to even remotely address, even peripherally, the actual content of the page, which, so far as can be told by your comments, you have yet to even read. I think you can reasonably understand that, should you continue in like manner, any future similar comments you might make could, and possibly should, be removed from the page as completely off-topic. I realize that, for whatever reason, you have taken it upon yourself to be a critic of me, and my recent actions regarding the creation of new national and subnational projects. I actually went through rather a great deal of effort explaining why I had done so to another editor, which can be found at

User talk:Otebig/archive 1#Additional comment. You might be interested in knowing the motivations for my recent actions, rather than simply coming to your own conclusions regarding them. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for indicating by your previous edit summary that rational discussion or even consideration of subjects about which you have already jumped to conclusions is something you have absolutely no interest in. On that basis, I guess I am obligated to say that, if you continue to disrupt the essay in question with your entirely off-topic remarks, I will have reasonable cause to remove them, and, possibly, to request that you be perhaps blocked for repeatedly violating

WP:DE. John Carter (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Reported here. The recommended link to

User talk:Otebig/archive 1#Additional comment is indeed a remarkable read. Johnbod (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Henry Lyte

O master of woodcuts, can you advise me if the Henry Lyte who "published" A Niewe Herball (1578) was himself an herbalist or just the publisher? I assume the former but I can't seem to find confirmation. (The link is needed for slip (needlework).) Thanks! - PKM (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New to you or not, that was exactly what I needed. I think I prefer "horticulturalist" to "herbalist". Thanks much. He's mentioned in passing a number of places, but does not have his own page. - PKM (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that; "botantist" per DNB. - PKM (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massively expanded and discusses woodcuts in his first edition, which might interest you in passing. - PKM (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still at it

Just ease up. Keep yourself in the clear. Comment on edits, not editors, which you have done.

WP:DENY was a bit out of line, but ignore it. Tyrenius (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Heads up

Just thought you'd like to know that someone was enquiring about something you'd done at

Bencherlite^Talk 23:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Art in Ruins

Sorry I may have stepped on one of your changes when I submitted the new draft of this article. I'm the one who listed it in the Visual Arts-related deletions, so I'm happy that more people have shown up at the AfD. If you have other ideas for what to do with this, go ahead. I just thought the original version was full of potential copyright problems due to the lengthy quotes. The external links could be mined for useful info (they are probably excessive at present). EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On February 29, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Burchett, 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.

Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words!! Yes it really does annoy me that despite what I've put into the project I still get messages like that on a daily basis, I think editors should be encouraging each other rather than focusing on the negative. If there is anything less than perfect, my god you are made to be aware of it aren't you!!! Best regards and congrats on the DYK

$1,000,000? 16:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Giulio Clovio

Because of your edits on talk page of this article I am informing you that talk page will be deleted. Reason for deleting is that all discussions are started by banned user:Velebit puppet which has not been allowed to edit in time of his writing. His edits has not been allowed so all will be deleted. This deleting is in line with wiki rules but is used rarely, but in case of this user edits must be deleted, because he is coming again and again with only intention to write POV articles. After helping to block his 3 puppets this year I have started to delete all his edits. this is done with hope that he will stop writing after seeing that all his edits are deleted. Again I am sorry for deleting you comments on talk page but .....--Rjecina (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look. From what I can see, the talk page(s) should be restored. If there is a user that is a sock of a banned user, then Rjecina should prove it and get the sock indef blocked. Even so, that's no reason to delete posts by other users, unless they agree to it. Tyrenius (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by banned users can be removed. I think common sense should prevail, as to whether the material on the talk page is worth keeping, if it addresses arguments that will otherwise need to be gone over again. And again, the removal doesn't apply to other editors' posts. There should be consensus over what to do. Tyrenius (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We must be talking about the edits of

WP:RM proposal for renaming the article, started by Orsini, which would be lost if the page is deleted. If there is too much invective on the Talk page, I suggest archiving it. EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Banned editors on this talk page are:user:GiorgioOrsini , user:BarryMar, user:NovaNova, 4.249.3.225 , 4.249.6.191 All 5 users are puppets of banned user:Velebit. In my personal thinking user:Velebit is having mental problems (if you look all his edits on wikipedia)

After his puppets has been blocked again during last month few wikipedia editors has started to rewrite "his" articles. Sorry but edits on talk page will stay deleted. Even this article need to be rewrited because of changes which are made by this editor but it is low priority so I do not believe that anybody will do that. My english is not good enough so other editors are rewriting articles. --Rjecina (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you know how te edit talk page without comments of banned user you can do that, but for me this has been problem. This is only talk page which I have deleted because in my thinking it has not been possible to leave comments of other user after deleting of Velebit comments. If you can do that please revert part of talk page.--Rjecina (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks

...for the work you did on

St. Anne. The article is much improved and looks better too. My apologies for not mentioning it sooner. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The FAR

I'd like to take a monent to thank you for the time your spent on the History of erotic depictions FAR. I know that it wasn't particularly pleasant, but it was work that needed to be done. Your input was very helpful indeed. --Zantastik talk 23:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life of the Virgin

Good work! Can I have a fiddle with it? Amandajm (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John! I'm glad you approve of the efforts of this Protestant. I once walked into St. Peter's while mass was taking place. A chorister was singing a solo during the Communion, a simple repetitive modern melody. Evangelical stuff. He had a big voice, not quite in the same league as young Aled but hauntingly beautiful in a gutsy, Italian sort of way. The combination of time, place, music was absolutely magical. People were drifting about as if they were being born along on a voice.

One of the things I love about St Peter's is the way people visiting for the first time walk in the door and fall on their knees. It's hard to convey that sort of stuff on wikipedia. Oh, I had another little treat. The year that the Orthodox church turned up in full force, I just happened to be at Santa Maria Maggiore when the Patriach of Antioch arrived and was borne down the aisle in a huge procession with about a dozen cardinals and enough bishops to sink a ship. What is Benedict doing, renouncing his title as Patriarch of Rome?

By the way, I have rewritten San Pedro in a simpler for and it's up on Simple English Wiki as well. [8] Amandajm (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Kells

Hi, Johnbod. I'm at a point with the Book of Kells -- the Decoration section -- where Calkins may be the better source. Would you like to take a look? I don't want to be "hogging" the article. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fondation Calvet

I wrote a few words on this museum because many years ago I chanced on what is left ofEsprit Calvet's cabinet of curiosities while looking for an insect collection in the Musée Calvet in Avignon. This museum,important for early entomology, is maintained by the Fondation Calvet.I put a few words together to stave off deletion on the proposed deletion page where the art spoke for more than I thought.You may be interested in my comment on Vitrelli Many thanks Robert Notafly (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cats

No evidence of deletion. Those category pages do not seem to have ever been created. Click on red link to create them. Yes, template should be deleted! Ty 01:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the template to Visual arts where it was in use and then deleted it. Ty 04:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My talkpage

I got it, I don't need to be carped at on my talk page, your message was understood and removed. It's my talkpage, not an article or a public forum. You both need to learn what is your business and what is not. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get that it is incorrect, on my talkpage I have done it for expediency. I appreciate your invitation to join the Kells discussion, but it is not my particular area of expertise, so there is nothing I could add. Please, do we really need to drag this on? I am getting ready to go live in Japan, and if I hit one button rather than another, on my own talk page, I am a 2 1/2 year editor, not some vandal, and really don't need to be roasted. Good luck with Kells, and good night. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted your Book of Kells FAC at our Project, so if there are others interested, they can participate. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today was a pretty stressful day for me, in real life. Otherwise, things have been "keeping" well. How about you? It was nice to see the notes you dropped by on my talk page. I was scared that you hated me ever since that Saint Joseph business :Þ Hope you have a great weekend.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caspar David Friedrich

Hi Johnbod, finally I'm pushing on the Venus so any contribution from you would be great. I'm working, slowly on Friedrich with Outriggr, so please feel free to intergect there if the mood takes you. Best Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas de Heere

I finally found and scanned a good de Heere in color, but it needs context. We really must clean up his article, one of these days. So much to do... PKM (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK: Giovanni Faber, Life of the Virgin

On 9 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Life of the Virgin, 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 .

On 9 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Giovanni Faber, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--PFHLai (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New account

Hi, I'm Johnboddie, I have created a new account and I plan to be active in ACLU issues. I was asked if I was you - obviously not, so I'll send people your way if other people seem to be confused. I like your user page. Johnboddie (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon?

Regarding our apparent disagreement at

National Gallery in London. Making condescending remarks while not explaining or defending the changes you're making after I've put in the work writing in the article in insulting and counter-productive. faithless (^speak) 14:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

"in New York" most certainly needs adding. The comma form with the NG is entirely ok (as would be MoMA", New York"). Neither London nor New York need linking here per MoS (though you could add NY City if you feel it necessary). Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clearly you feel that way, but would you care to explain why? If you feel "in New York" should be included, fine, that's not a big deal (though it should obviously be New York City instead of just New York). But as far as the second point is concerned, it is both more accurate and useful to say "the

National Gallery in London?" faithless (^speak) 14:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

As I said in my last, neither London not New York City should be linked per the MoS, as the cities themselves are rather well known and not relevant to the articles. Otherwise ok, though if you knew the subject area better you would know that "National Gallery, London" is a very standard way to refer to the museum (which is why the article title is set up that way, to avoid the need for disamming. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's sort of my point, though. No doubt you do know more about art than do I, but I believe that we should strive towards writing for the layperson; nor do I doubt that it is common to refer to it as the 'National Gallery, London' but who refers to it that way? People that are familiar with the subject. As far as not linking the cities, you might technically be right, but in practice cities are always linked in these cases; for instance, everyone knows that the Louvre is in Paris and the Smithsonian is in D.C., but we still link these because it's realistic to think that the reader might want to click the link, and that doing so would increase their understanding of the subject. faithless (^speak) 15:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little strange you began by claiming MoMA did not need to have New York added, and are now trying to claim that 'National Gallery, London' is some sort of art-insiders code! A few google searches would dispel that notion. Actually many editors do follow the MoS, including me. How would clicking on London increase anyone's understanding of this subject? It wouldn't. Actually large numbers of people outside the US don't know where the Smithsonian, or MoMA are, but they have heard of Washington and New York. They need the name, they don't need the link. If you put articles up for DYK that is exactly the sort of changes people make; if you don't like it I suggest you don't nominate your articles. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me

I'll thank you not to edit my userpage without first consulting me. Maybe upon consideration it wasn't an appropriate category but it was not your place to remove it. It was mine. Feel free to bask in my glow, who knows, you might get a tan! 15:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise. In my defence tell that to

User:Wikiburger. Feel free to bask in my glow, who knows, you might get a tan! 16:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Depiction of Jesus

That was an inappropriate edit. Selected galleries with informative captions should not be "moved" to Commons (where they probably came from in the first place), least of all without raising the matter first. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is common practice. This is why commons exists. It was not moved from commons because I created the commons page. I do not have to extensively discuss weather or not I can make edits. I'd find the suggestion of such a thing very disturbing. --

chi?

16:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not common practice, and is a bad edit. Someone else very rightly reverted it. Selected galleries as part of articles are a legitimate part of articles, including FAs. I know you hate discussing your actions, but this was completely out of line. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not hate discussing my edits. I do not wish to discuss this edit. I am completely uninterested what happens to the article. Do as you please. What more do you wish me to say? --

chi?

16:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine. You may find

WP:Galleries was A) never accepted by the community and B) referred to stand-alone galleries, not those in articles. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I was going to use this to illustrate the possible move of images from Mohamed picture depiction to commons as a compromise to settle the dispute. This whole thing demonstrated how naive I was to think such a thing. I suppose I got what I deserved. --

chi?

18:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Divine Mercy (Adolf Hyla painting)2007-08-16.jpg

fyi, [9] Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 11 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Christ taking leave of his Mother, 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 .

--Gatoclass (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rokeby Venus

Nomed the fucker, in light of a deafening silence. Please join in. Ceoil (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback so far has been very helpful and I think the article has come on quite a bit as a result. I have mentioned you a co-noiminator, I hope you don't mind putting your name to the article. The main outstanding area is on influence, I can add from Prater but do not have Carr to hand, so if you could add that would be great. Ceoil (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As in later artists. Yomagan had some tips for me if you look at his talk, and there are bits and pieces in Prater but not a coherient discussion. I'll be away over the weekend, so I really need to focus today; do you see many other o/s areas? How do you feel about merging "Nudes in 17th-century Spain" into background? Ceoil (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. How would you retitle "description"? I'm sorry if I nomed a little early; I was out of ideas and generally work better under pressure. I have asked Amanda to take a look, after the final push I'll ping Noetica. And then we are done. Friedrich seems to be the next looming project for FAC bty, Outriggr is leading and JNW and Modernist are already working; any interest? Ceoil (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I began a section on 'Legacy' but it is woefully underdevoped. I have no sources for this at the moment, any ideas? Ceoil (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out of time to reply to this. Ceoil (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations and fantastic editing, again. It was transformed into a fine article by the end of the process, my mispellings aside. Ceoil (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Situationism

Did you ever reach a conclusion as to your opinion on the renaming? I ask because the discussion has now been closed as "no consensus." You never responded to my last comment, and I really do not feel that the discussion was finished. I think the discussion should be reopened. Do you have any opinion on the matter? ---

The'FortyFive' 15:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your response. I am going to think about this awhile before I do anything. ---

The'FortyFive' 15:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The 50 DYK Medal

		The 50 DYK Medal
		Fifty is nifty! Thank you for all of your work contributing to 50 DYK articles. People all around the world have benefited from all of your effort. Keep up the great work! Royalbroil 15:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tomb of Antipope John XXIII fac

I just got the Lightbown book and think that I have rememdied the remainder of your comments (it's a little hard to tell with the formatting...). Could you take another look and, if you have any remaining issues, just start a new section so its more readable. Thanks for your help so far! Savidan 18:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...fast turnover by any standard. Thanks for your all your help. Savidan 00:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category issue

Hello. Before I bring this up on CfD, I wonder what your opinion of the matter is. I'm talking about this stuff (

Basescu) that one category seems sufficient to me. Thoughts? Biruitorul (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for the RfA condolences; I'll let you know when I run again (assuming it's

legal). You're right the conclusion is logical - but note that Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians by nationality was only created March 7, as were all its subcategories. Its creator has thoroughly but to my mind still rather unconvincingly defended the move. He himself suggested bringing it to CfD, so I may take him up one of these days. Biruitorul (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

ShamanDhia

I just posted the re-write for my bio based on what I read from comments today. Please comment on edits -- some are trying to coach me to keep this article even though its auto, etc. we're trying to use the AfD sys to improve the article, so comments and suggestions for edits are appreciated. Thanks the Hitochi Princess (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia[reply]

Iconography

Hi. Thanks for your insights regarding the intended differences between the articles on Iconography and Icon. I guess I was concentrating more on the first two definitions given in the introductory paragraph: "Iconography is the branch of art history which studies the identification, description, and the interpretation of the content of images ... A secondary meaning is the painting of icons in the Byzantine and Orthodox Christian tradition." About semiotics, I really have no knowledge at all. I had hoped my most recent edits would draw the Eastern Christianity section more towards the final definition in the intro: "Iconography, a set of specified or traditional symbolic forms associated with the subject or theme of a stylized work of art". I will continue working on it. Honestly, I haven't wanted to tackle the sprawling "Icon" article yet. I need to get my courage up first. But I certainly welcome any further recommendations you have on "Iconography". MishaPan (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horse ballet

Copied from qp's talk:

Horse ballet seems inevitable now - know anything about those? Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We once had a horse jump into the garden, and a certain amount of ballet was involved in getting it back out again—but that's about it. qp10qp (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With that edit summary, I just had to look :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that and

Étienne du Perac's engraving?--Wetman (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Not to the present

carrousel certainly. I can't raise the source link but the picture looks more like a staged tournament, or "tournoi à thème", which this [truncated article tends to confirm. Strong in "Art and Power" pl. 44 says he shows the earliest print of a "figure" in a horse ballet, from 1608. All the ones he shows are rather neater and geometrical, and use more space (Boboli gardens etc). But I don't know much about these. Strong & those he quotes use the word, probably not wholly consistently, apparently meaning riding round in circles, whereas the ballet has more complicated figures, that pause when they are achieved. All clearly very closely related anyway. Johnbod (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

This is a bit more like it [10] - a very different story re the Place du Carrousel from the en article. Johnbod (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article on Dieter Speidel's "horse musicals". The dressage of the Hapsburg Spanish Riding School, ending in the "quadrille" has seventeenth-century roots and within human memory was performed to live music to a white-tie audience. --Wetman (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. The Spanish are still at it, with a more relaxed dress code, I imagine, Berkeley are getting in on the act too. I'll need to work Buffalo Bill's "tournoi à thème" in too. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm copying this out of Qp's back-garden to my own talk; better carry on there if there's anything to add, or the neighbours will complain. Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pieta of V-A

Hummmph! Amandajm (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, John!

I've been writing on the Simple English page. Just rewrote H.M.the Queen. Sorry I haven't got around to Rokeby Venus. As for Italian Renaissance, some of it reads as if it's been lifted straight from Britannica and other sources, uncited. And the opening sentence is clumsy.

As for the translations, I almost always prefer a "Something of Somewhere" form. But not always. "The Manchester Madonnna" is fine.It has a nice alliteration. But "The Madonna of Bruges" is much better than "The Bruges Madonna". Partly because it is an object of veneration that carries some of the significance beyond any museum classification. Were the Pieta of V-A still above the altar in a church, rather than hanging on a rather sterile wall (grey, I seem to remember. We were exhausted by the time we found it), then it would be THE PIETA of of V-A, and a devotional object surrounded by petitions and candles. I don't think anybody in Manchester ever hung silver hearts and bronze baby's boots in front of the Manchester Madonna. I'm very tempted to hang votive thimgummies around the Virgin of the Rocks. She was invoked at times of plague. I hate seeing them just as collector's objects, often with the sacred and profane all jumbled up together.

Oh well, have a lovely Easter! I'm off to my dear little church on the side of the mountain, where we will be carolled by songbirds and have the Prayer of Humble Access interrupted by the roar of forty big motorbike engines. Amandajm (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CDF

Hi Johnbod. I don't quite follow your recent edit summary to Caspar David Friedrich. The article is referring only to the German Romantic painters in that assertion. –Outriggr § 04:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I follow it now. That's all I ever meant. –Outriggr § 04:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Thank you!) –Outriggr § 05:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iconography

Hi Johnbod, I think this presents an excellent summary. I might want to add a clearer description of Panofsky's "three levels of analysis" as laid out in his "Iconography and iconology, an introduction to the study of Renaissance art," in the collection of his essays called Meaning in the visual arts. Some reference to Krautheimer's idea of an iconography of architecture might also be useful ("Introduction to an 'iconography of medieval architecture'," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 5 (1942), 1-33), as this continues to be used by architectural historians as a very productive approach. Maybe add a brief summary of a specific iconographic interpretation? A classic is Panofsky on the Merode Altarpiece (in his Early Netherlandish Painting); the critique of this reading by Michael Ann Holly (in Past Looking, Ch. 6) gives some idea of how iconography became passe. I'm afraid I do not have the time to do this at present, nor will I until probably May. In general though I think it's an exceptionally lucid introduction, makes all the most important points, and I think it was a very good idea to introduce the institutional aspect, thus the Index of Christian Art and the various databases. Best, --Javits2000 (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ling.Nut/Funerary art

Hello Johnbod,

Ling.Nut (talk) 05:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Your opinion requested re: not always reflect... thanks!
  Ling.Nut (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

remove the px from {{

click

}}

... to kill the supernovae on your user page...

Ling.Nut (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Fayum mummy portraits

Are the

Ling.Nut (talk) 10:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Greek style, yes, but not in "Ancient Greece." I dunno; I'm a freakin' linguist (well OK applied linguistics, which is the red-headed step-child...). :-) But to me, they woud be in the Egyptian sectian, but with clear explanation that the style is Greek (via expats etc.). But I defer to your greater knowledge.

Ling.Nut (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Seriously, I defer to your greater knowledge. But if it's to be Greek, then the fine points of the distinction should be spelled out clearly. Even more urgently, the

Ling.Nut (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

(See message immediately above) Oops the {{

Ling.Nut (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I twiddled with the wording of that section in the sandbox. Please read it carefully, and tell me if its content is kosher. :-)

Ling.Nut (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

As a side note/trivia, where I live I see

Ling.Nut (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

(undent) I'd be happy to work on

Ling.Nut (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Giampietro Campana

You'll be interested in the man behind those "Campana Collection" labels at the

Musée du Louvre, the eponym of "Campana" molded terracotta reliefs.--Wetman (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

very nice work indeed

• Now I know why everyone mentioned your name first when I inquired about "reliable editors". Nice work. 12:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Do any FAs have mini-galleries? Plus I noticed that some section were lightly cited... are you of the "we don't need no stinkin' inline cites" school (a la
  Ling.Nut (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• "..though some still have prejudices against them that reflect no policy" which is the
  Ling.Nut (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I replied just above.. and:
• Image:2-Earl Robert deFerrieres & wife Margaret Peverel-MerevaleAbbey-sm.jpg
• Image:20071027203332!CMOC Treasures of Ancient China exhibit - jade disk retouched.jpg
• Image:AncientCherokeeGorget.png
• Image:AncientEgyptianModelOfAHouse-ROM.png
• Image:Antarados sarkophagus face.JPG
• Image:Aten temple, Meryre's tomb.jpg
• Image:Banquet scene in Huya's tomb.png
• Image:Cat mummy mask.jpg
• Image:Funerary helmet Getty Villa 92.AC.7.1.jpg
• Image:Humaneffigypipepearls.png
• Image:Iron sickle, torc and adze.JPG
• Image:King Muryeong's tomb 2.jpg
• Image:KoreantombmuralB.JPG
• Image:Magatamarm.jpg
• Image:Musée Cernuschi - tomb figure.JPG
• Image:Scythian Warriors.jpg
• Image:Shaft tomb culture village scene.jpg
• Image:Thracian Tomb of Kazanlak.jpg
• Image:Tiwi island 2631.jpg
• Image:Tomb of Nakht.jpg
• Image:Tomb of Nakht (2).jpg
• Image:Tomb of Nakht (3).jpg
• Image:Tomb of the Diver symposium.jpg
• Image:Western Mexican tomb culture tableau (Tom Aleto).jpg
• Image:Yongle Emperor.png
• Ling.Nut (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• ...a bit of rain must fall...
  Ling.Nut (talk
  )

Humph!

Well, we'll see... :-)

Ling.Nut (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

are you online?

Would you mind going on by yourself on our project? I kinda started it and kinda wrote... at least some of it. :-) But you're the better contributor. I have things in real life I need to do.. I'm thinking of moving the Africa section right out of the article & shelving it on Talk, slapping a band-aid on China and moving it into mainspace immediately...

Ling.Nut (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Well we can leave it where it is for now, if you'll officially adopt it. :-) I've already moved some stuff to its talk but that's reversible if you want. You can move the whole thing into mainspace whenever you feel ready...

Ling.Nut (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not sure what a cuckoo in my nest is ;-) but you have been a huge help. I... have been saying for 6 months that I need to write my dissertation, and I haven't been doing it. Typical dissertation anxiety/procrastination, but it simply must stop. So... 6 months no logons, cross your fingers. That should get me kickstarted. I hope some day my students will call me "Dr. Ling.Nut". Please do send me an email if the article gets to FA. :-)

Ling.Nut (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Holbein's Ambassadors

But

caftan here doesn't he? [11] Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I used to live not far from Stamford_Hill and I remember there were many -relic like- characters roaming in that part of London (who were dresses quite similarly in those sort of robes etc.) I must check the area and kindly ask the inhabitants if they recognise Holbein's character as one of their kin honestly! I really have! I'll get then back to you! Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, yes, according to the photo in this German wiki-article, the caftan is a clothing item of choice of the Jewish religious establishment [12] Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be surprised if the "cartoon" -via these more or less subtle sartorial allusions- sarcastically hinted at Sarkozy's own Jewish maternal (and paternal?) ethnic background. Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured picture candidate

I've nominated a new higher res scan of the

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Elizabeth I by Steven van der Meulen - PKM (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

RE:

Hofkirche, Innsbruck

I changed it per this diff at

Talk:Hofkirche, Innsbruck page as it states in the article that it was a memorial. Regards. Woody (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You have just added

"frequently depicted in medieval devotional literature and art, arising from a trope of medieval devotional literature and art" to Seven Joys of the Virgin.

You may want to elaborate on the distinction between "frequent depiction" and "trope" for my benefit and the benefit of the reader of the Wikipedia. patsw (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice on

WP:RM. patsw (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

removing my comment?

I'm going to assume removing this was a mistake since it has nothing to do with our discussion on the project. If I'm missing something, please let me know but I have no idea why you'd remove my comment to another user that has nothing to do with you. Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I figured it must have been something like that, or cutting a section when you meant to copy. Figured I'd leave you a note when I reverted it since it seemed to be in error. Have a good night! TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did? Whoops. Off to fix, sorry about that. I'd guess only the removal of my comment showed in the diff and I might not have realised you added something. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw, and from your other comment I see where the miscommunication on castles, etc. came about. Glad we straightened that one out. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]