Welcome to twinme.com on July 6 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

User talk:Johnbod

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Archives:/1 to Nov 06, /2 to mid-Dec 06, /3 to Jan 07, /4 to Mar 07, /5 to mid-April 07, /6 to May 07, /7 to July 07, /8 to Sept 07 oct in fact, /9 from Nov 07, /10 from April 08, /11 from July 08, /12 from October 08, /13 from Feb 09,

Contents

[edit] Explanation

Hi, Johnbod. Can you please explain to me more in detail what you meant about people categories being separate from other categories, or direct me to the WP policy on this matter? I am not familiar with that policy. Feel free to post on my talk page. Thanks. (LMBM2012 (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC))

[edit] Heads up

Hey Johnbod, The Raft of the Medusa is main page on the 10th. Thanks again for all your help with it, I'm sure it will be drastically improved after its day up front. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] High Cross

That's fine, all browsers are a bit different, they look about half the size to me. Change it if you think it's better. PurpleA (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical manuscripts by century

Hey, how are things? I don't remember if the idea of Category:Biblical manuscripts by century was discussed in the past or not. It seems like the idea is familiar, but I don't remember if there were any discussions on the topic, and where those discussions led. Is your memory any better than mine? heh. Thanks!-Andrew c [talk] 14:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Not really - it's a bit peripheral to my interests. Isn't the century of many of the most important ones uncertain? Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy categories

If I could direct your attention to WP:PHILO. Please note the navigation bar organizes the task forces such that we could reasonably expect that every "philosophy" article in WP would be covered by at least one task force. Ideally, each article should be within at least one task force for subject area, one for major tradition, one for period. This set up had been discussed at WT:PHIL a long time ago. Since it was set up, it has proven to be a good system of organization.

The article space categories do not mirror this organizational system perfectly. In fact, articles in the philosophy department need a lot of help generally. I am now doing my part by looking at the categories. Obviously, my goal has been to put them into a category structure similar to the task force structure.

I think there has already been an enormous amount of planning, thought, and consideration by many people to make the task force structure possible. I think we can reasonably conclude that it can serve as a model for organizing the article space categories. Furthermore, the proposal was posted at WT:PHILO explicitly for half a month. If anyone had objected we would have heard something by now already either in response to the task force set up or the latest proposal consistent with it.

Please cooperate with the proposal in consideration of the project. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me if I'm not impressed. The fact of the matter is all this is totally out of proportion to the editorial forces available, as shown by the ludicrous "aesthetics task force" which impinges on my area of interest & has done absolutely nothing but tagcruft in over a year. Are there really "many people" involved? Mostly it just looks like you. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Say listen this isn't helpful at all. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] What is a drawing

Asking your advice. I'm compiling items on Commons in preparation for a Wikipedia list of Holbein's drawings and an article on his drawings. I'm pretty clear in my mind about what a drawing is, but I'm going by my long-held assumptions rather than by any definitions I can find (the Wikipedia article Drawing ties itself in knots). I asssume that watercolour washes can be used in drawings, certainly in the way Holbein used them. For me, therefore, this is a drawing (even with bodycolour), as are these. Miniatures I would class as paintings, though I'd be hard put to say why–perhaps because they seek painterly solid form. (The only picture I am confused about is this, which is a Holbein drawing covered by someone else's daubs. But it raises different questions, and I'll probably list it as both a drawing and a painting.) I just thought I'd consult you before I carry on. Cheers. qp10qp (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's about right. Modern catalogues tend to duck overall terms, and just list the various media, but I think as long as a good number of the original lines can be seen, "drawing" is fine. The Barbers are now a painting with a Holbein underdrawing, & listing as both seems sensible. I've got the catalogue for this, btw; some of them are completely overpainted (not the ones shown). Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks. I was originally just going to make a list of works but then it dawned on me it would get ridiculously long for Wikipedia, hence the need to make the distinction. Fortunately it is for the most part straightforward with Holbein.
I came across some painted prints when looking into the charter images of Elizabeth I.qp10qp (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Christian art navigation template

One of several possibly lame ideas that have been put forward lately is the creation of various navigation templates for major subjects within Christianity, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum#Navigation boxes. I don't think they should necessarily be limited to just churches, however. Christian art strikes me as being an important theme within Christianity as well. As one of the editors with the greatest experience in that field, I was wondering whether you might be interested in helping set up such a template. I know that the differences between Eastern and Western Christianity may make it difficult, but it is probably at least worth a try. Worst comes to worst, we could create "child" templates for East/West, paint, etc./sculpture, and other fields as well. John Carter (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Frankly there are so many articles, and types of articles, that I think the category system is the best approach. Unfortunately it is also often true in art that the biggest subjects, which would belong on any template, have the weakest articles. I don't really fancy picking out top tens of artists, works of art, or subjects/types of work etc. Also art articles need all their "side" space for pics of works; any template would have to go at the bottom of the article. An Eastern Orthodox/Christian one would be much simpler, and practicable, but even one for say Western illuminated manuscripts would be tricky. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
We've already more or less agreed that any new templates would be the collapsable bottom kind. And the fact that the biggest subjects may have some of the weakest articles is exactly why we want this. Part of what I am going to try to set up is a system whereby each of the "core" articles to Christianity get an individual template, like the one proposed, in which we can link to the other articles which we think are most required for anyone to get a clear, comprehensive understanding of the subject of that core article. That may include articles on several individual works of art, or it may not. It may alternately be a list of the "subject" articles like Icon, Gothic art, or whatever, with maybe inclusion of List of notable Christian icons or something similar. Yeah, in general I know the more "core" articles tend to be the worse ones, that's one of the reasons I want to try to do this. If we can set up a system whereby the less "essential" articles in some way "feed into" the more important articles, we can better set up a sort of "outline" form of the Christian content, which given its size and scope may well be the only way to practicably go. So, in effect, maybe first a "Christian graphic art" template which includes links to, for instance, Icon, Illuminated manuscript, Nativity of Jesus in art (maybe), and whatever else. That would, in effect, also make those articles listed the "Top" importance articles in that field. Anyway, I do think that if anyone would be able to do a decent job of at least creating a draft of such a template, you would probably be the one to do it. John Carter (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
How many articles is this intended to go on? I don't think it should go on every Madonna, and anyway a low proportion of articles on "Christian art" are categorized as such. I'm also very wary indeed of "Christian artists". More reasons to start with an EO one, where these are less problematic issues. How do you want to proceed? Johnbod (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I see the template only going on the articles referenced in it, at least to start. If others were to agree to put it in other articles later, well, we can't really stop that, but I'd prefer that if such were done there would be consensus to do so first. Regarding "Christian artists", I'd myself try to avoid that one if at all possible. If anything, a link to List of Christian artists might be included. In some extreme cases, like maybe DaVinci and Leonardo, who made extremely notable works, they might be included. Maybe.
There might be, and probably already are, different templates on various more specific subjects, like the "Madonna in art". Having said that, the same principle might apply there for that template. If, for instance, Madonna in art is a High importance article, and a template on that subject was created, the other articles linked to in that template would be those which could reasonably be assessed at one importance level lower. The same might hold, for that matter, of the likes of Leonardo and Michelangelo, if we went that far. In cases like those, though, I'd personally prefer leaving that sort of decision to the people in the Visual Arts Project.
If you think starting with the EO is best, works for me. John Carter (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Portraits and other stuff

See this? - PKM (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I wish he'd break up the commons cats a bit though, but that's being picky. Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RCC note mediation

Hi Johnbod, there is some agreement on the note for the name but it I was wondering what you thought about it here [1]. I tried to make some adjustments but my efforts are quite unappreciated and I am not sure why. I was just trying to make the note agree with the sources. Please let us know what you think, it might be better if I just watch from the sidelines for a little bit here. NancyHeise talk 00:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, it rumbles on, but seems to be coming to a fairly satisfactory conclusion. I'm so far behind I'd rather not comment while that seems to be the case. Don't let it get you down! All the best, Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Poet and Muse diptych

Johnbod, would you vet my start? And input from any of the knowledgable types who lurk at this page would be welcome, too! --Wetman (talk) 10:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to look at it yet, but I'm looking forward to it. I love this period. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for Neal, James, Fordyce and Down

Updated DYK query On April 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Neal, James, Fordyce and Down, 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) 13:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] About spelling

Hi there. I had a question from your Catholicism revert. Are we then required to use British spellings in words on Wiki?MephYazata (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:ENGVAR for the rules on this. Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay I understand ENGVAR, but I am not sure how it is being applied. Is the version with "s" used elsewhere so consistency is hurt? I'm not nitpicking, just learning.MephYazata (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but the question is - why did you change it? Before changing to US spelling you need to do the tedious job of checking the article history to confirm it is using the US style, or did originally. That it has a Brit spelling there is prima facie evidence it is not, unless that was added after a US style had been established. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually that is the question I am asking you. I did not change it. I had noticed you had changed it from the "z" to the "s" and per my above question I was wondering if you saw that elsewhere it was using the "s". I was wondering where the British style was established that you saw the need to change to "s". That's all. BTW thanks for answering back :)MephYazata (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed you were the editor I was reverting [2], in fact an anon ISP. I will revert such changes with no edit summary, or one like "correct spelling" - there are too many Americans prone to "correct" UK spellings. If in doubt - & the history here is very tangled, ENGVAR says leave it, on a non-nationally specific subject. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay cool. That was what I was wondering because it seemed that the "z" would have been fine since I did not see an earlier "all UK" spelling throughout the article and I know that we can't consider Catholicism as only "UK". I may have missed something in some earlier history of the article though. That was all. No biggey. I just wanted to make sure I pay attention these in my own future edits. BTW I am using "UK" because some Americans use "british" with a sneer in their voice and I don't subscribe to that stuffMephYazata (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. As I said, the existence of UK spelling is prima facie evidence of a UK style, and vice versa. Of course you do get a problem if an article has acquired a mix of US/UK style, as many have. Then you are supposed (on "neutral" subjects) to get to the bottom of which came first in the history. Johnbod (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Overlinking at porcelain

Reference your comment "Normally only the 1st occurence of a term should be linked." :I don't understand. Where are these overlinks at porcelain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for John Shearman

Updated DYK query On April 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Shearman, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Troll

Please could you not add comments such as your recent one:- [[3]] A review of my edits can easily show that I have added to articles with information that is correct, accurate and supported with citations. I am at a loss to understand why you have challenged these changes. It seems that anything I do you revert out of hand. Now you appear to be attacking me. As I noted to you some days ago this is the type of reason why I have not previously joined the 'club' that is Wikipedia:- there appears interest in using it for winning arguments simply for personal satisfaction than disseminating correct information. Another recent example from yourself is over the use of 'fine ceramics'. I have demonstrated that is is applied, amongst many others, by a highly respected authority to a wholly different group of materials to that is being described. After I changed to a better description, which is actually used in Wikipedia itself, your response was to simply revert. You have not given any defintion for your interpretation of 'fine ceramics' yet you insist yours is correct. Again, again, again I note I am trying to improve Wikipedia nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I have not seen (having checked your contributions) you adding much at all. Most of your changes are small wording changes, or random tagging, to existing text; many fine, but many wrong, insensitive, or unnecessary (and often very carelessly done, with spelling or grammar errors). You only introduce references after challenges. If you can't see that changing "fine ceramics" to "pottery" is a significant shift in meaning, that is an indication of the problem. I don't accept that a specialized meaning for the term in a clearly different context forbids its use in the older meaning where confusion is most unlikely. You are very happy to edit other people's work to your own taste, but object strongly when your own contributions are edited. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
It may not be a problem that you are unaware that 'fine ceramics' is a recognised standard term for products significantly different to the article, although it does show, at best limited understanding, but it is a problem when you reject, ignore and revert appropriate citations.
You may not 'accept that a specialized meaning for the term in a clearly different context forbids its use in the older meaning where confusion.' But why is its meaning any more specialized than the one you wish to use, and one which is neither defined nor referenced?
It is also clearly not a different context. Both are about a group of ceramic materials / products. Also where possible it is important to avoid any confusion in articles, and as should be very apparent, 'ceramics' is a very large group of materials & products. The use of something other than 'fine ceramics' would do this: I am not fussed about the use or otherwise of 'pottery.' It is an option, and there are others, but 'fine ceramics' describes other products & materials.
I have sometimes made some small edits without initially giving citations. But I always gave the reason/s for the changes in the edit summary or on the discussion page. When these constructive & valid changes have been reverted I then added supporting citations. And you still reverted / criticised them - including such as 'Complete crap.'
You allege 'many wrong' - I refer you to the above and your seemingly limited understanding. I too have checked some of your contributions, and I may be wrong this time, but this limited understanding is apparent.
The review also reveals that you have made edits based on what appears to be just your opinion. For example you insist on claiming that 'Saint-Porchaire ware is the earliest very high quality French pottery.' Yet you have not supported this with any reference. This superlative may be justified, but your opinion alone is insufficient.
You also allege 'insensitive' although this is not obvious. It is nevertheless surprising to read from someone who reverts changes that have been both explained & supported with citations; who needlessly bandies about the insult of 'troll' and who describes the comments of an acknowledged expert and author as 'complete crap.'
You also allege 'unnecessary'. Errors which are corrected are not unnecessary.
You also allege that I 'object strongly when your own contributions are edited.' Yet when I presented facts and references to support a change you responded quite unnecessarily with 'Do you have nothing better to do than create these silly arguments?'
I do not doubt there are subjects about which you have knowledge and information which can be of benefit to Wikipedia. This does not appear to be ceramics. I have. And it is to these articles to which I will concentrate, and I hope you will not needlessly revert, change or criticise my improvements, just as I would not do to your edits on subjects which you are knowledgeable.
I would prefer to use my time for the improvemnt of articles. This may include editing existing content, which I believe is not only accepted but encouraged. I am happt to enaage in discussions on the content of articles, the reason for any changes or any other constructive subject. I do not want to spend time on such unconstructive wrangles as this.
Finally I hope you will accept that previously, now or in the future that I have no wish for ill-feeling or antagonism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for tetraconch

Updated DYK query On 19 April, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article tetraconch, 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.

Happy Easter, thanks for helping to celebrate the day. --Royalbroil 16:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for Semi-dome

Updated DYK query On April 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Semi-dome, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Imperial cult (ancient Rome)

Hi Johnbod... my, that was a long scroll-down! I'm doing a fair bit off-line as intro, based on Gradel and Brent for the most part, but I'm sure it'll all fit together somehow with what you're doing. Citation might be a problem with many of the statements in the article as it stands, mostly because many are good-faith re-interpretations many times removed, which amount in some cases to mis-interpretation by "primary" sources. Gradel in particular takes a very interesting and refreshing approach to what is essentially (or rather, historically) a standard Judaeo-Christian interpretation of material pretty well incomprehensible to a Judaeo-Christian mindset. It's a stripped down but less contentious approach now than it would have been even ten years back, but still quite difficult to grasp. It would be great to work with someone else on the article. I assume the article's on your watch-list. I'll discuss any issues on its talk-page. Regards - Haploidavey (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It is now, but I've only just encountered it & don't have any specialized sources, I'm afraid. This [4] might be handy for JC. I'll keep an eye out. Nobody else seems to be very active on it, though User:Wetman may drop by for a helpful "tweak". This is what brought me over there. If you're on a run, the general article Imperial cult seems free of any mention of Alexander & Middle Eastern stuff. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Funnily enough, I'm working on that one as well... btw, it really doesn't matter if you don't have what you regard as specialised sources. Whatever your sources, please do put your citations in with the edits! I posted to User:Wetman a short while back, with reference to developing Religion in Ancient Rome, which naturally has a great deal of overlap with Imperial cult. Things are simmering away quietly but with purpose. Best! Haploidavey (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I was adding from memory I'm afraid, and have no specific references. If you have anything, please rewrite/ref as you see fit. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
OK. You've a sound and impressive memory, and compendious knowledge. I really enjoyed reading the material by yourself and Wetman (on the talk-page linked in your first reply). Sincere regards. Haploidavey (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for Late Antique and medieval mosaics in Italy

Updated DYK query On April 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Late Antique and medieval mosaics in Italy, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Great article! I'm glad to see our interests are converging... Savidan 04:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It's still work in progress & I had not realized how much it overlapped with the very long history section at mosaic. Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pre FAC check...

Just want to make sure I haven't missed any architectural or artistic bits with Gilbert Foliot before I throw it up to FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Returning to this, can you think of any pictures that would work? I've changed out two of the previous ones, as the older ones lacked source information which would be a problem at FAC. I've looked for a picture of the Bishop's Chapel at Hereford or a pic of one of his manuscripts, no luck. The article seems a bit skimpy on images, but I can't honestly think of anything else to add. (I also expanded his writings section, having finally gotten a hold of a copy of an article I was waiting on) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the alabasters suggestion, those helped a bunch. I tried finding something on the Lateran Council, but no go on Commons. Ah, well. I did add a few, so hopefully it feels less skimpy now. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Bucer

Hello, the Martin Bucer FAC was archived. In my opinion, this was closed too early. I have renominated it; would you please vote or leave a comment on the new FAC? See Talk:Martin Bucer and click on "leave comments". Thanks. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Midtown Omaha

It was ridiculous because you didn't look at the article at all for any indication as to what it was about. It was ridiculous because the name Midtown was entirely suitable for Wikipedia because there are no other articles with that name currently. It was ridiculous because standardization of Wikipedia by randomly targeting articles for renaming is done only to prove a point, not for the benefit of the project. It was purely ridiculous because I took this much time to answer your comment. • Freechild'sup? 12:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Thank you for all your contributions to Oriental carpets in Renaissance painting! Phg (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please go ahead, your contributions seem to be very knowledgeable and truely enrich the article. I've already self-nominated it today. Best regards Phg (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
And what a delightful article on a delightful subject. --Wetman (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mansfield College Boat Club

You do pop up on my watchlist in some odd places - you're not turning into a boatie now, are you?! Thanks for the improvements you made me make for JCBC, and for the support. Regards, BencherliteTalk 16:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry - little chance of that! All the best. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

Hello Johnbod. I encountered your name on Talk: Hagia Sophia and I saw on your user page that you are interested in Byzantine art. I wonder if you would see fit to leave a comment on this RfC on the Justinian talk page. It is somewhat of a minor issue, with one user (me) believing that a particular reproduction is more true to the original, and another user (user:Kurt Leyman, plus the unanimous consensus of those that have commented) believing otherwise. Either way, I think it would be good to have a more informed opinion in addition to the brief comments of casual passers-by. Especially, if the "color balanced" picture turns out to be more authentic, I would appreciate it if you could briefly point out why you think this is the case, since that has been obscure to me until now. Regards, Iblardi (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. Iblardi (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Yes I'm fine with Somerset House as well, but isn't 1604 starting to be beyond Renaissance? Where would you put the boundary? Phg (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not for England, where the Renaissance is usually considered only to have got going properly about 1520, or even 1560! Actually calling Simone Martini, Van Eyck & co "Renaissance" is dubious too, & I think the article could be retitled, maybe just to "Western". At some point it could then be extended to the late 17th century, after which carpets in paintings become more routine. Johnbod (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Could we fairly say that the usage of Oriental carpets in painting is essentially a Renaissance phenomenon? We could rename to "Oriental carpets in European painting" by I am worried that the focus would be too wide... Phg (talk) 05:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Well I think it is a phenomenon, but a rather different one, in the 17th century, when they still retain some real luxury status, tailing off by the end of the century. But I don't feel strongly about the title, & I don't think we want to go beyond 1700, except maybe a line on Orientalism and John Frederick Lewis, perhaps Liotard. Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Portrait of a Lady known as Smeralda Bandinelli

Hi John! Could you do me a favour and take a look at User:Shakko's recent additions to Portrait of a Lady known as Smeralda Bandinelli? She asked me to fix her broken English, but I don't think mine is much better. I have not written anything but stubs here since I was forced to move to the Russian Wikipedia two years ago.

As an aside, Shakko is a professional art historian who has made a bunch of beautiful articles in the Russian Wikipedia such as ru:Троица (икона Рублёва), ru:Камея Гонзага, ru:Часослов Фарнезе, ru:Часослов Этьена Шевалье, ru:Портрет Минамото но Ёритомо, ru:Преображенская серия, ru:Лесбия, and many many others. It's a shame nobody would translate these. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Done a bit. The articles look fascinating, but I'm doing well if I can transliterate a few prpoer names, I'm afraid. All the best. Johnbod (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking your time to look at the page ! You've been a great help, as usual. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Victims of political repression

This is to notify you that Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_21#Victims_of_political_repression, which you participated in, reached no consensus to delete, but has been relisted to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_30#Victims_of_political_repression in order to determine if consensus can be reached on other alternatives. Your further input would be appreciated.--Aervanath (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your contributions to Marco Marziale! It was quite exciting to unearth this author, and to find his painting at the Louvre Museum, but I couldn't find much about him on Internet... Phg (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact he was on my to do list, but I had forgotten until just now that I have a lot on him in the Penny book. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Museum of Ceramics

Are there any other museums with this name? Or is your point that people might be looking for museums about ceramics in general, not just this one? Nyttend (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Still, we have no other articles named "Museum of Ceramics", just as we have no other articles entitled (for one example) Court Avenue — until/unless one is written, it should stay at the current title. Nyttend (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
In fact Museum of Ceramics redirects there for the moment, but it is misleading for example in looking at a category to give this museum (or indeed any other) the plain title. The same is true of Court Avenue. It is not such a problem there as it is only in Ohio categories, but even so. See WP:NAME. Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, i saw the side of this discussion at Nyttend's talk page, but not this here, until after i started Museum of Ceramics as a disambiguation page, received a note from Johnbod, and responded in next section here. Nyttend is right that in general it is not usually helpful to create disambiguation pages if there is just one wikipedia article to disambiguate. But, for NRHP places which we know are wikipedia-notable and will get articles eventually, I and others often do start disambiguation pages when only one article has been created. (Actually, I often start the disambiguation page when there are zero articles created, but then i make it a point to create at least one stub article so that disambig police types won't Prod or AfD the disambig page). Museums are like NRHPs in that pretty much any museum is clearly wikipedia-notable. So, I would feel free (and did) to start up a disambiguation page with just one entry linking to an actual museum article. doncram (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ceramics museums disambig or list-article

That's much better! There are a whole lot more in Category:Decorative arts museums. Let me know when you are done, & I will add some. I think myself it is better treated as a listy article than a disam page, but whatever. Cheers. Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC) (copied from Doncram's talk page.)

By all means, feel free to develop Museum of Ceramics into a list-article instead of a disambiguation page. Be sure to change it from being a disambiguation page using {{disambig}} to a set index article wp:sia using {{SIA}} instead, or the disambig page police will wreak their havoc eventually. Disambig pages are not allowed to have external links or footnotes. You might move it to "Ceramics museums", instead, too. Also, I just posted a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Museums about it, please see that too. I am done for now, myself. Cheers, doncram (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for Monumental sculpture

Updated DYK query On May 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Monumental sculpture, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for Marco Marziale

Updated DYK query On 5 May, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marco Marziale, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for Oriental carpets in Renaissance painting

Updated DYK query On May 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oriental carpets in Renaissance painting, 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.

Nice article, thank you. Paxse (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Exquisite work (and I learned a lot); queued for next update of Textile Arts portal DYK section, thanks a bunch! - PKM (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks both! Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Religious articles

Johnbod, sorry I am a bit late to the conversation but I want to know what you think of my response to the discussion your participated in here [5]. NancyHeise talk 20:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, if you mean your proposals, I doubt there's much chance of them being formally included, but remember that the FAC admins have leeway to give objections the weight they think they deserve - see how OR was ignored at Calvin (though I agreed with his main point, if not his vague & ott way of putting it). RCC is possibly the most difficult article to get through - Islam was given rather a soft ride I thought & was a while ago. Everybody thinks they are an expert, and just about any angle can be brought in. I hope you won't give up; it has been improving to meet the better points raised, & I suspect one day it will squeeze through. Johnbod (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Calling (religious)

Thanks! You were right to "promote" the section too. Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Glad you think so, since someone else didn't. If you don't mind, please post your agreement with my comment at Talk:Calling (religious).--Carlaude (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Just done it! Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Favorite

relocated from User talk:JHunterJ
What are you talking about? This is purely as WP:ENGVAR difference in spelling. You are the one doing the cut and paste moves. Please stop this silliness. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Favourite is the primary topic of "favourite", but it does not appear to be the primary topic of "favorite". Please take it up on the talk pages if you would like. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

A quick glance at the edit history of Favorite and Favorite (disambiguation) will clarify the source of the cut-n-paste moves. It is not purely an WP:ENGVAR, since the American spelling is not primarily used for royalty, as the U.S.A. lacks royals. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The article is not about royals in fact, and Americans have historians too, and use the term in this sense as a modern political metaphor also. You insist on removing what is the only other contender for a primary meaning, so I can't see what your argument is. If you look at the history, you will see the current Favourite was for years at Favorite until I moved it as indeed a subject that the UK spelling was more appropriate for. Johnbod (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Then you may well succeed in proposing a change to the primary topic for "favorite". But it has been moved and copied and moved and copied several times in its edit history, which is an indication that there is no primary topic. I would suggest making the proposal at Talk:Favorite. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I am making a proposal there. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Holbein

Both your and Awadewit's ALTs seem good to me, tbh. I think Maria Dostoyevsky was being a little dramatic in her description of the the occassion, so maybe I could aim the hook towards the dimensions of the painting...30.5cm x 200cm. Not sure how to make that come accross yet, though. Thanks for the look anyway. Ceoil (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of works by Thomas Eakins

(Cross-posted to a half-dozen people's talk pages)

After a couple of days of methodical typing, I've created List of works by Thomas Eakins. It's gotten to the point where other people can step in and add to it - titles need to be linked, dates need to be added, pictures need to be found/uploaded/added to the list, notes need to be added, etc. I'd appreciate your help building it up. Raul654 (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism

Johnbod, would you be interested in bringing this forward to FAC next time? I can assist you if you need me to do so. There are some very minor additions to text made by Richard in response to the last FAC that need citations. I think there are three. Otherwise the article should be good to go. I do not feel welcome at FAC and I find the process very upsetting and NOT FUN. If you feel the need for a Sisyphus experience, please feel free to nom. I will be happy to help with sources or in other ways. Thanks, NancyHeise talk 22:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm trying to cut down my time here, & have never done a "lead" FA nom, always as co-nom. I don't really have the books or expertise for this one either. I doubt if anyone finds it fun nominating - well, maybe they do. It is rather a tricky topic too, because it leads everywhere. All the best if you go ahead. Johnbod (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
What do you think? Should we just try to get it to Good Article and forget FAC altogether? I am OK with that. NancyHeise talk 03:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I also wanted to tell you that my daughter was her high school's Pathfinder Award nominee for her artwork. (Palm Beach Post Pathfinder Scholarship Awards) She did not win the actual Pathfinder Award but she got a $3000 scholarship (the highest scholarship award) from an artist sponsoring group that chose her out of all 35 art nominees (one per school). She gets mentoring from some well known artists and can sell her work at their next festival in addition to the scholarship. She also was awarded a $50,000 scholarship from Barry University but decided on a state university instead. She was accepted to three public state universities including FSU (I can't say where she decided to go for her privacy). She is writing a book (with my help) that she is illustrating herself. It's a comic take on a dictionary. How can a dictionary be funny you ask? She is very creative and her illustrations are hilarious. NancyHeise talk 04:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Icon

Hi Johnbod! And thank you for your message. The substance of the edit seems to me entirely consistent with what I've gleaned thus far. There's a rather long sentence midway - it might benefit from judicious splitting - but that's a minor issue. You seem to be doing admirably well. The interpretation of the tondo as cultic/iconic seems very sound - I don't doubt for a moment that it is an aspect of Imperial cult and will check my sources for statements in support - or possibly to the contrary, though that's very unlikely.

Unfortunately, I'm away for at least a week and won't have my sources to hand, but will be very happy to help where I can on my return. Best regards. Haploidavey (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A brief PS. I noticed a few indeterminates in Icon, such as "huge numbers" of pagan converts. I've a few sourcebooks which may be of help here (and possibly some pagan viewpoints for balance). I'll do the necessary as soon as I'm back. Haploidavey (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Aaaaargh!

Ok! Ok! Now that that is out......

I'll jam a reference in for every blinking sentence..... well, maybe not......

I stumbled on one article that is so over-referenced that it goes something like this:

John Bloggs was born on 1 April 1066[1] at Puddleby-on-Marsh[2] the son of Tom Bloggs[3] and Mary Bloggs[4] (nee Jones[5]), a baker[6] and pastrycook.[7] Every reference was to the same paragraph of the same book. The entire article was referenced like that. No-one who had been involved in raising it to FA status had commented on this foolishness or apparently saw it as a problem.

Part and parcel of the amateur nature of wikipedia is that the guidlines are often applied as rules, and often by people with little accademic experience, and sometimes (often, I suspect) by people on the Autistic Spectrum for whom rules can be so important that it can be inconceivable that flexibility is also desirable, because there are many instances where a situation hasn't been foreseen.

As for the pics, formatting for wide screen won't effect the mobile phone situation, and might actually improve it. I'll drop a not for the other editor. Can't do anything time consuming at the minute. Just going round the traps. Thanks, John! Amandajm (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RCC mediation

A draft of the note under mediation is up for comments here [6]. Thanks, NancyHeise talk 11:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for Ceramics museum

Updated DYK query On May 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ceramics museum, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gropecunt Lane

Hi there. I've made a few changes based upon your comment for the FAC entry for this article. I wonder if, when you have time, you could have a look and comment upon the changes. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Acquisition - Where did it go???

Acquisition in US military circles has nothing to do with "Target Acquisition" is a term related to how systems are procured in the military. The subcategories of the Acquisition page are all related to how US DoD buys its systems. Modeling and Simulation in US DoD is used in the Acquisition Cycle. I am surprised that no one sent me a talk/email to include me in the discussion be for making a decission to delete the Acquisition category.

By the way, I did see the discussion but not the details and though the Military Acquisition would be an appropriate change. I did not imagine that the category would be deleted. User:sidna (User_talk:sidna)

Thanks..i will, best of wishes.--Elmondo21st (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Torment of Saint Anthony

Is it possible you could add a little more to this? Quoting the relevant passages from Vasari and Condivi would be a start. It would be a nice DYK, having been in the news recently. Thanks, Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Severan Tondo

John, I forgot to thank you for the Tondo suggestion. I thought this link might be of further general interest - though perhaps you already know the work - [7]. Regards. Haploidavey (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC) PS: if you scroll down to the next page, the Tondo is mentioned, but the preceding pages are also very interesting.

Well, thank you! You've been involved in some excellent articles - I guess I'll be using the internal search function here rather more often from now on. Sincere regards. Haploidavey (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Torment of Saint Anthony (Michelangelo)

I'd like to nominate The Torment of Saint Anthony (Michelangelo) for Did You Know. Is that okay with you?

Of course! Johnbod (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

On another topic: Given that there are not yet any other subjects by this name, I'm wondering if the (Michaelangelo) DAB is needed. Are you planning on creating articles about similar subjects soon? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There is Temptation of Saint Anthony already. Johnbod (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
This particular wording may be unique. The Met lists the Schongauer as "Saint Anthony Tormented by Demons"- unless, that is, Shestack gives it a different title? Not that either work was titled originally. I think that dropping "Michelangelo" and adding a hatnote to The Temptation of Saint Anthony might do the trick. (ie: This article is about the painting by Michelangelo. For other artworks on the same theme see The Temptation of Saint Anthony). Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Shestack calls it "The Tribulatations of ..." saying "often called "The Tempatation of ...." or "St A carried aloft... " is more accurately identified as the saint's tribulations or torments". The subject is not unique, anyway, (etc) & personally I prefer the disam. Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but by disam you mean the "(Michelangelo)"? Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but I don't have strong feelings. I generally think all works with common subjects should be disamed by artist, as the Bosch Temptation should be. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I nominated it for DYK yesterday: see here. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I proposed moving the date to the 17th on the grounds that it didn't qualify earlier AND that even if the stub had been around for a long time, the expansion of the 17th would have qualified the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I replied there. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Albrecht Dürer

Hello. You recently reverted an edit I made on the Albrecht Dürer wikipedia page. The reason I made that edit was because I was trying to follow the wikipedia policy on weasel words. Is there a reason why that phrase wouldn't be a series of weasel words? It looks a lot like that to me. However, considering how much experience you have on wikipedia, you probably have a pretty good reason for leaving it on that page. BacktableSpeak to Meabout what I have done 02:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would say it is Subject-specific common knowledge - let me know if you can find a history of art that doesn't say something very similar. Apart from Holbein there isn't really much competition for the top slot. It should maybe be expanded on & referenced lower down, but doesn't need referencing in the lead - see WP:LEAD. The Bartrum reference below would in fact cover this. Johnbod (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Now I understand why you reverted my edit. I didn't know about that rule before. Thanks for the explanation. BacktableSpeak to Meabout what I have done 18:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome! Johnbod (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for The Torment of Saint Anthony (Michelangelo)

Updated DYK query On May 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Torment of Saint Anthony (Michelangelo), 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.

Jamie☆S93 18:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Evangelization

This article looks hopless to me.
First it is not even in English yet. Second, if it ever becomes an English article worth looking at, it would seem to overlap Evangelism, Christianization, and/or Mission (Christian). See Talk:Evangelization#Merge with Christianization. But since it is not even English I am not sure it is worthwile to waiting until then to merge/delete it.
Please comment and/or advise. Thank you. --Carlaude talk 03:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of papal tombs

Thanks for your edits. I have re-checked the Reardon book, and she indeed spells it "Pisani", but I wouldn't rule a type out at this point. I don't have to tell you how non-Italians can be with Italian names... Savidan 06:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Pisano did indeed spent a period at Pistoia around the right time, but I checked the John White & Pope-Hennessy books, which one would excpect to mention Papal tombs, and neither did - nor did they seem to have a Pisani. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it is more likely that they were left off the list of Pisano's works as they are non-extant. They were destroyed by Gérard du Puy, the papal governor of Perugia, in the late fourteenth century. Savidan 01:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd still expect a mention - he was youngish at the time, & they must have been significant commissions. "Pisani" is of course correct as the plural for him and his father; maybe that's how it happened. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Reardon does say "Giovanni Pisani" both times. I changed both to links to Pisano, but I'd feel more comfortable with it if there were some other source. Probably I will email her. Savidan 04:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Stolen

Hey. By any chance do you know of the top of your head which Vermeer was stolen by the INLA over here in the mid-1980's. I assume it was Lady writing a Letter with her Maid as it is now in the Nat Gallery in Dublin, but am unable to find a source of confirmation. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, See Sir Alfred Beit, 2nd Baronet - beit needs disaming if you're in the mood. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thats great thanks. Nice work on the Saint Anthony, bty. Ceoil (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Seems I got my thieves mixed up. It was the always inept Martin Cahill. Need to get my head around thoes Beits before I tackle their disamb! Thanks though. Ceoil (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I did an ALT hook for it. Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Its hard to write a hook for Vermeer. He wasn't really about pulse was he. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Letts and diaries

The ODNB has biographies of both John Letts and his son Thomas. The former references F. Vivian, ed., Letts keep a diary: an exhibition of the history of diary keeping in Great Britain from 16th–20th century in commemoration of 175 years of diary publishing by Letts (1987) [exhibition catalogue, Mall Galleries, London, 28 Sept – 25 Oct 1987], and W. H. Beable, "Charles Letts's diaries", Romance of great businesses, 2 (1926), 211–20. The latter has a reference to Charles Letts & Co., The romance of the business of a diary publisher (1949). --Hegvald (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll add to talk for now. The DYK guy thinks there is too much on Letts as it is! Johnbod (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Sittow

I finally decided to resume to Wikipedia - and as a first thing I expanded Michael Sittow from stub you created to somewhat bigger article (as you probably don't remember, we discussed it here a bit). I managed to dig up some quite interesting sources. However, I don't have access to Grove Art Online article about Sittow and don't know if there is anything else that could be added or changed - so, if possible, could you check the Grove Art and compare it to the wiki-article?

I hope to get some more material about Sittow in the near future (namely Michel Sittow 1469-1525, The Artist connecting Estonia with the Southern Netherlands, Eesti Kunstimuuseum 2002, ISBN 9985-78-255-0) and maybe get a photo of his house, too. Interestingly, Richardson, E. P. (1958). "Portrait of a Man in a Red Hat by Master Michiel". Bulletin of Detroit Institute of Arts speculates that the said picture is an auto-portrait of Sittow. That is probably not true, but it would be nice to get a color image of Portrait of a Man in a Red Hat for the article - but alas, at least my Googlemancer skills did not turn up any other results for that image. -- Sander Säde 13:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I won't have Grove access for a while, but i did when I first wrote it, & I doubt there is much more. I have done a ce. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Hopefully after adding material from the Kunstimuuseum's source will allow us to bring the article into the GA-standard. -- Sander Säde 07:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] StThomasSens.jpg

I've updated the licence permission for this image but the large image is broken. I don't know how to replace it could you do that? Apologies for late response, am not really in Wikipedia much these days. VAwebteam (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for Diary (stationery)

Updated DYK query On May 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Diary (stationery), 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.

-- PFHLai (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sistine Chapel ceiling GA delist warning

As part of GA Sweeps, I reviewed Sistine Chapel ceiling. I have placed it on hold in hopes that editors might bring it up to current standards. It had a flurry of activity for more than a week, but has now gone unedited for a full week. My most glaring concern is that it continues to have 16 paragraphs without any citations. Based on your editorial history with the article, I am notifying you that if no one makes it clear that very near term continued improvement can be expected it will be delisted in the next few days. See discussion at Talk:Sistine Chapel ceiling/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realize you only had four edits. However, by your previous participation in the discussion at Talk:Sistine Chapel ceiling/GA1, I considered you an interested party. I am sorry if you feel referencing articles to keep them up to standard is beneath you as you expressed on my talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Jewish film

I have nominated Category:Jewish film (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for renaming to Category:Jewish cinema (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Idealisation

I've been trying to find out about the origions of the oval idealised faces of 16th and 17th C. paintings, but it does not seem to be widely discussed as far as I can find. I remember as a child thinking that that was just how people looked in the old days - odd; and its interesting how ideals of beauty change. Anyway, mentioning it only as I'm thinking you might have the knowledge to knock up a very interesting article here, at some stage. Maybe one for the long finger. Ceoil (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I may have something, but I don't quite know what you'd call the article. Johnbod (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
qp10qp might be a good person to help with this, its roughly her area, I'll give a bell. I have nothing to add myself, but would be most interest in what the two of ye can find. Its something I've often wondered but read little about. Ceoil (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Thinking about this, idealization goes back a good deal further - it's pretty strong in the Netherlandish & Italian 15th century; angels tend to show the trends. Then all Gainsborough's women notoriously look the same, though as he pointed out to a client, no one knows the difference now. There must be books on the subject but I don't know them. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RCC Mediation

Your input is needed here [8] to decide on one of three options. Thanks, NancyHeise talk 03:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jahanpanah

Hello, Johnbod,

The DYK hook has landed in controversy, inspite of your supporting it. Is there anything to be done by to see it through?--Nvvchar (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much for the help. The DYK article appeared on the mainpage.--Nvvchar (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RCC mediation

Sorry to bother you again, we now have an option 4 to consider since no one could agree on 1,2 or 3. Can you please come vote again? [9] Thanks, NancyHeise talk 18:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] <<Ernest T. Cragg>> links

Thank you for finding the change in and repairing the link to his Air Force Biography. I have used that info to repair links on several other general officer pages.

ed

Ecragg (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure, thanks! The article seems sure to be kept now. Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Heritage categories

Hi. I don't know anything about the specifics, but regarding adding Category:Tamil writers to Pico Iyer, you should see this edit, which seems to be confirmed by the guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage, which says "Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors." You might want to ask that editor, or at that guideline's talkpage, for further details, if needed. That's all :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It came out of this debate, where the category, now kept, was emptied against all procedure by that editor. The passage from the guideline, itself not exactly clear, has been bandied about a lot by this editor; I don't see that this categorization conflicts with it. Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious about the more abstract heritage question itself, because I've seen (and wish I could find again, as an example) at least 2 edit-wars over whether or not an actress was considered [nationality]-American, due to having grandparents that were [nationality]. (Everyone wants to claim the beautiful ladies came from their own country!) But I couldn't find anything related to this in the BLP/MOS pages, except that category naming page.
I have no strong views either way. (I'm mostly post-nationalist, but understand that the rest of the world mostly isn't... ;)
Thanks anyway. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes "partial derivation from one or more ancestors" suggests we are imposing some Nuremberg Laws-type standard of racial purity. Johnbod (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question for you at spiritual theories

I have a list I am working through which I am only starting. I have a question at Category_talk:Spiritual_theories.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Formerly papal congregations etc

Thanks - answered on my talk page. HeartofaDog (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Spiritual theories

I have responded with a formulation of the "theory of mannerism" at Category talk:Spiritual theories. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tightening it up!

Come on now! You have to admit, this is tightening things up! I'll find a bunch more recommendations as I go too. I posted this to the c&t page too. (No not coffee and tea).

Proposed recommendations:
Theories:
Concepts:

Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic Church mediation outcome

Hi, you are receiving this message because you were an original party to the mediation process regarding the Catholic Church name issue. The mediation outcome has been summarized and moved to the Catholic Church talk page here [10]. Please feel free to come join our discussion of the outcome taking place now before making the actual changes in the article. Thanks for your help and kind cooperation toward a mutually agreeable solution. NancyHeise talk 14:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

Hi Johnbod. Would you like to have a go at disambiguating the incoming links to Weymouth, here? --Una Smith (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ANI discussion you may be interested in

I've raised the issue of Gregbard (talk · contribs)'s edits here [11] as he seems to be making some major changes at high speed which I'm not convinced have consensus. Dougweller (talk) 07:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Established Editors

Discussion of objectives here. Peter Damian (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Medieval Bible translations

Hi Johnbod, thanks for your help on Bible translations in the Middle Ages. This is a little outside my usual interests. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

De nada! Of course, I'm only really interested in the pictures... Johnbod (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Left aligned

This edit summary made me laugh. Of course, you shouldn't really be making jokes during such a serious and important debate. Some of them are admins, you know. Ceoil (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Listify

I think Kbdank has resolved the problem of me not knowing what you were talking about. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Priestley lead image alignment

You previously have commented on the RfC at Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment on whether or not the lead image should be left-aligned. A straw poll is under way to determine what, if any consensus have been developed towards resolving the debate. Go to Talk:Joseph_Priestley#Major_options and indicate your relative levels of support for each option. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Byzantine Papacy

I hope you'll be able to offer some guidance on the Byzantine influence on Roman art, architecture, and culture during this period. It's really all Greek to me... Savidan 07:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review for Surnames by Country

The discussion for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 6#Category:Surnames by country in which you participated was closed as delete and is now under review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 25#Category:Surnames by country. Your participation and input is invited. Alansohn (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for Andachtsbilder

Updated DYK query On June 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Andachtsbilder, 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.

Giants 27 20:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Humanism

After a very short visit on the talkpage for Humanism I have come to believe that the best way to proceed would be some kind of content dispute resolution process. Those two editors do not seem interested in cooperating at all. I don't know exactly what kinds of processes would be possible but I think we should investigate it.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Any relation?

[12]. Maybe a slow second cousin? Ceoil (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No, not my literary sock! He doesn't seem too likely to let the family name down. Did you get anywhere on the ideal faces? I'll add a bit above. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
No but thanks, Johngod. The only editors I would think capable of working on an article like that are you, Wetman, and Qp. It would be far beyond me. Ceoil (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for Mass of Saint Gregory

Updated DYK query On July 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mass of Saint Gregory, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. 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) 08:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johnbod"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs