User talk:Johnbod/25

Incivility and borderline attack at Talk:Alfons Mucha

Please refrain from making accusations that assume bad faith against other editors, as you did here and here at Talk:Alfons Mucha#Alphonse vs. Alfons, as it borders on a personal attack, and is unhelpfully critical of the editor rather than the edit. Article talk pages are not for addressing editor behavior issues; this is what user talk pages are for. While I appreciate that you corrected NihonJoe's absurd accusation of WP:OWNership, you followed with further ad hominem aspersions, including an accusation that I am ignorant of or incompetent with regard to the visual arts (which could not be further from the truth; I'm a semi-professional antiques dealer, who specializes in Victorian through Interwar, including Nouveau!). Furthermore, I had already stated that I had not been aware of the old naming discussion before performing the move, so your further accusation that I "disregard[ed]...the views of other editors" is an accusation that I'm a liar, and thus a blatant personal attack. So is your unfounded accusation that I "typically" make moves against consensus; I am in fact a frequent user of WP:RM and have been for years. I have over eighty thousand edits, over 99.9% of them non-AWB, but individually performed, and mostly wikignoming tasks; a few errors (and I did not actually consider this one an error, because the case for "Alfons" outweighs that for "Alphonse") are inevitable and not a big deal; this is a wiki and it's just text. You also accused me, without specificity or evidence, of disregarding policy, in your further attempts to personalize the dispute instead of addressing anything of substance relevant to that article talk page. In short, you are severely overreacting, and bringing a grossly inappropriate level of personal hostility to bear. Finally, ranting at another editor in public with unsupportable accusations as you did at that article talk page, even after already being warned to stop abusing the article talk page for that purpose, is not any kind of example of how to work toward consensus in a collegial manner. There's an essay at Meta that begins "Don't be a..." that it is more of an example of. And this is not the first time I've been wrongfully verbally abused by you like this. If it happens again, expect a WP:ANI filing about your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, who is ranting and making personal attacks? By your own account, you didn't bother looking at the short talk page, and even after the section was pointed out, showed no awareness that that affected the move issue, which was very clearly against policy on moves. Nor does your subsequent post show any awareness of, or refer to, the policies regarding article names, let alone any hint of an apology for the out of process move. I know that you have been editing long enough to be well aware of policies, but choose to ignore them. I can't actually remember when we have encountered each other before, but I know that your username triggers a (faint) warning light for me (and I suspect many at ANI). Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You own your own emotions, and I have no control over how you react to other people's usernames. I have never been RFC/U'd, legtimately AN or AN/I'd, ArbCom'd (other than being mentioned as a potential party in a case I eventually was not a party in), community sanctioned, blocked, or even legitimately warned by an admin for actual transgressions. I have seven and half years experience here, across virtually all aspects of Wikipedianism. Who is ranting and making person attacks? You and Nihonjoe are, for reasons that have been explained to you both in detail. I did not violate any policy on moves; there was a discussion that ended inconclusively over three years ago, neither for or against any particular article title. The content of that discussion is arguably no longer relevant for multiple reasons. WP:BOLD is policy and invoked it. You have subsequently, per WP:BRD, asked that my move be reversed. No policy has been violated. Please do not lecture other users about policy when you do not understand the policies in question. I do not need to cite WP:AT or any part of it such as WP:COMMONNAME and the various policies that interact with it in order to understand them. When the RM gets going for real, I will cite them as needed. Dinner is calling; more later if needed, and hopefully it won't be needed. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 03:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No more here please, & I suggest you reread those policies. You edit summary made it pretty clear you were well aware the move was at the least potentially controversial. Johnbod (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ethiopian art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chiffon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Holbein, The Ambassadors

I just reverted your good faith change to this, objecting to "his". My comment did not fully reproduce the link to the archived discussion of singular "they/their" which is here [1] --Wikiain (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. It was silly to restore an inaccurate version when an easy change can be made with less effort. Always link to pages you are discussing on talk please. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me: I suggested that you have another go, rather than me just making the change you have now made which, as I mentioned for your consideration, has been a topic of controversy.--Wikiain (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Martin Harrison

You say that Harrison is British . . . surely? I don't know. I haven't read anything, and I know little about him. What I do know is compatible with his being British, but that's all. How do you (almost) know? (Does he perhaps speak with a British accent? I wouldn't know, as I've not heard him speak.) Perhaps you could comment in Talk:Martin Harrison (curator). -- Hoary (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Chemical milling

You said you disagreed with the merge in your edit summary. From what I could tell from reading my source (listed on the Chemical milling page) and the previous Industrial etching article, they described exactly the same thing: chemical etching used in manufacturing and industry. What was the difference? —Kierkkadon ^{talk/contribs} 17:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

We should continue this at the merge discussion you prematurely acted on, but ask yourself if the images in the article show the results of the process as now described. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Sculpture

JB,

Please see my edits at Sculpture and some explanation on the talk page. In general, I think the layout on highly illustrated articles is now really messed-up, and this is a test case for me. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly not easy, but I'm doubtful that with all the different screen sizes there is a single right answer any more. What looks good on some screens won't on others, and tastes vary. The guidelines have rather given up, & hardly changed for years. Sculpture gets around 2,500 views a day, & also quite a few edits, so reverting back a week may lose changes, & a lot of people see any test. It is certainly a very crowded article for images, but its an overview that has to get a lot in. I'm sure there are lots of equally crowded art articles that are less busy, & more suitable for testing. Or you could copy it to a sandbox & do it there. Me setting my preferences high doesn't impose anything on anyone; are you saying we shouldn't have preference options? The default at 220px is much too low really, but fixing pixels is the better way to go. Actually I do use "upright" parameters every now & then, mostly to scale tall narrow pics down, or boost wide narrow one to go right across the screen. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification of discussion

A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

re: edit conflict/undo Trinity

Splitting off Art and gallery images to a new page would be a good way to tighten up this unweildy mess of a page, my shorter summary para created AFTER the split you undid now means both compete for readers rather confused attention MrsKrishan (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Not since I removed it. I'm sorry, but it really won't do, and the proposed split-off is much too recent to act on yet. But this discussion should be kept at the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Relief, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intaglio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

African art (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Gusii and Kisii

Hoodie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chaperon

Khosrow and Shirin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nezami

Shirin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nezami

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, in ictu oculi is an article mainly on the painting. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Johnbod, it's people like you that make this project have value. Thanks for your fine, fine work. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Why, thanks! Flattering, especially from you. Best to all! Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Peiraikos

Hello! Your submission of Peiraikos at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Gamaliel (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Culture of Italy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Neoclassical

Genre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Western

Realism (arts) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bouquet

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Mixture of languages

What about this? : "Neanderthal" language (!!!) + Black African (Aurignacian)languages + "Vasconic" (Solutrean) languages + Uralic(Magdalenian) languages / (& the Indo-European languages in Anatolia and in Caucasus in 7000 BC... The Indo-Europeans came to "France" between 4500-4000 BC.) Regards, Böri (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

??? What's this. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I asked on Magdalenian talk page: "Were they Uralic?" (at least we know that they were non-Indo-Europeans. They were the mixture of the cultures above.) / Your opinions... Böri (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I know. Probably not Indo-European, but beyond that who knows. Archaeologists generally avoid speculating. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Peiraikos

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Barbara McClintock FAR

Hi Johnbod - You commented a while ago at WP:Featured article review/Barbara McClintock/archive1. The article has undergone quite a bit of work, and the review now needs additional comments. If you have the time and interest, would you mind returning to the article to expand or revise your existing comments? Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Naturalism (arts)

I saw your edit where you changed Naturalism (arts) from an article to a redirect to the disambiguation page Naturalism. Your edit summary said "Redirect to disam, as this covers only painting, & is very inaccurate. Realism is where this belongs". One of the effects of that is that there are 200+ links which now go to the disambiguation page.

Rather than go into those articles and edit the links there, do you think it would be appropriate to change Naturalism (arts) to a redirect to Realism?

Thanks, SchreiberBike (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You mean Realism (arts) - well that's what I meant. Yes, I suppose so, with the articles as they are now. Naturalism and Realism, uncapitalized, usually are virtually synonymous in the arts, and both the capitalized movements are covered there. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, Realism (arts) is what I meant. I've made the change and avoided a big stack of disambiguations. Thanks, SchreiberBike (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - it's all a bit messy now, reflecting the usage of these imprecise terms, but I think this is the best solution. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Conjectural history

This is all Jill Cook-style background. It's a longish new article of mine on 18th century stuff, could get longer but the final section (re India) is worth an article of its own. Related is noble savage but that's fairly much a rambling mess at the moment. I find it interesting that the BM is in effect reinventing the idea of a "natural history", as it would have seemed to those Scots. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Jacopo Caraglio

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The 200 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal

		The 200 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		It gives me great pleasure to garland you with this award. Many congratulations are in order, as you have become one of the few Wikipedians to contribute two hundred articles to the Main page in the "Did you know?" section, increasing not only our knowledge but also beauty, by your focus on art. You have made a huge impact and are a great asset to the encyclopedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Great work! Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks both! Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Giovanni Battista Agucchi

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Most likely admin candidate...

Have you seen this - Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Potential_admin_candidates? (Click on the link at the end of Scottywong's post)... Black Kite (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

anti-azerbaijani sentiment article

I was just talking about how the Anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan has a "see also" section which includes the page Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia. So why can't the other page also have a "see also" section? Ninetoyadome (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Neither should have them, as both have links to the other in the lede. Johnbod (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank You Ninetoyadome (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Rabbits in the arts and Three hares

Johnbod, Given your contribution history, I would appreciate it if you would please take a look. I was referred to you by a mutual acquaintance. If you can find the time, and it is not too much trouble. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Jacopo Caraglio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Diogenes

St James' Church, Sydney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rector

Style (visual arts) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Arabesque

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting object

Ivory pyx with Passion of Christ scenes

I found this beautiful object while searching Commons for something quite unrelated. There are seven other views of it, which I've now corralled at Commons:Category:Passion of Christ pyx from Sierra Leone. Thought you might be interested in it. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Those Walters pics are full of lovely things, with good descriptions. I started http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:African_export_ivory to which loads could be added. Like everything else to do with African art, we have next to no coverage. Johnbod (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes:

I've archived the debate [2]. Nothing more productive was going to come, and the majority approved the motion that info boxes are not always necessary. Seems a good compromise.  Giano  19:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Johnbod (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Isenheim Altarpiece

As a laugh, Carl A. P. Ruck seems to think it was painted by mushrooms... History2007 (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Crikey - I remember Allegro's paperback going round in my youth. Johnbod (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I only found out about Ruck because he wrote a 30 page item at the end of the new version of Allegro's book... History2007 (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Wells Cathedra etcl

Noted your edit to the intro of Wells. It's so nice to have people around who can change ones expression for something that is more, rather than less, accurate!

How are you feeling about Pope Francis?

Amandajm (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Well, intrigued. I happened to be starting cooking with the news channel on when the white smoke came out, & saw the whole theatrical thing through. I see none of the media have yet pointed out that he's the first Hispanic pope since Pope Alexander VI, something the Vatican Press Office will not be mentioning I expect. We shall see, but I wonder what one person can do. All the best to all! I gather St James' Church, Sydney is going for GA is it? Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Ha! Yes, well I think he's a different kettle of fish, but he may prove just as controversial.

I didn't know St James was up for GA. Last time I looked at it, it wasn't anything like ready for that. Maybe I should take another look!

Cheers! Amandajm (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I just took a look. It's only rated C. It doesn't have a banner saying it's up for GA. It needs a fair bit of work.

Amandajm (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Acheiropoieta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to San Silvestro

Formalism (art) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Shard

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Category Pairs

They follow the pattern suggested by Art of Europe. Dimadick (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous artist "names"

Good morning, Johnbod! Isn't there an English term for de:Notname? I have found several cases in JSTOR of English-language texts that just use the German term in italics. Google Scholar, and Google in general, is impossible, as their overly generous search results give me every case of "(he did) not name (somebody or something)" and similar phrases. --Hegvald (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no direct equivalent term in English I think - you mostly just see "called", "known as", "identified for convenience as" etc. "Nonce name" (see nonce word) was nearly an equivalent, but now sounds pretty outdated anyway. See for example pp. 310 & 317 in The Luxus Phenomenon. I. The Taucheira Painter and Closely Related Hands, Patricia Lawrence, Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens , Vol. 67, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1998), pp. 303-322, Published by: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens

Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2668476

There are a couple of alternatives I can't remember right now.

Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Judging from JSTOR hits alone, "Nonce name" seems far less common in use in English than the German term. (Neither of the other hits use it in this particular sense.) Thanks for the reference to Lawrence. I am now curious about the description of something as "having in its panther's face the same accidental expression that recalls a cartoonist's stereotype of a hobo alcoholic".

The German article is probably to weakly cited for a translation to survive the page patrol (and I'm not comfortable with translating it without actually having seen the references it does have, so I'd have to check those first.) --Hegvald (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Arnold of Nijmegen

Thanks for the help, John! Amandajm (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Jainism: Peer review request

Hello,

The article has been improved significantly since its second nomination which you reviewed. I have listed the article for a peer review. If possible, I would like your review in it. The link to the peer review is: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Jainism/archive2.

Thanks

Rahul Jain (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice

if you could stick in a reference to your most recent addition at Statue. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

What a relief to go check an edit to this page and for once have it be a solid, sourced, improvement. You give me hope in humanity. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Adriaen van Cronenburg

Can you add anything useful to Adriaen van Cronenburg? He's really hard to pin down. I can add lots more to Commons, just need some free time...! - PKM (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, gulp! The whole of JSTOR has only 1 ref, saying (I think) that the Rijkmuseum de-attributed a work from him in 1902. Now that's what I call obscure, but I'll keep plugging. Did you ask Jane23? Johnbod (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I have JSTOR access now too, and was not able to find anything there. Asking Jane is a good idea, will do that. - PKM (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Doubts?

It occurs to me you might enjoy knowing what brought me to Doubting Thos. -- search Thomas in [3]. EEng (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

"childish pointy tag"

Don't be a prat, it's below you. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yo, guys (& dolls?) Wikipedia is tough enough without having two respected, long time editors squabbling with each other. If you are not careful I will leap into the fray, start with my carping and we will have a pack of administrators on us in no time. Remember deep breaths – oxygen to the brain does wonders. If that does not work, a cup of tea (Ceylon or Darjeeling only) should do the trick. Carptrash (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Royal Gold Cup

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --John (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Message on article talk page

Hello, Johnbod. You have new messages at Talk:Yoruba traditional art.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I responded to your comment on the article talk page. Thanks. Alexandrathom (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it - it's on my watchlist & there's no need for a note thanks. I hope you'll be able to get on to African art, which is a real mess. Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Re:Doubting Thomas

I saw your comment on Crisco's talk page and I thought I might weigh in on it. I don't think that putting it in on Easter Monday is a good idea because Easter Monday co-incides with April Fools Day and I don't think it would be right for a serious article such as this to go in with a lot of "humourous" entries. But that's just my opinion The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I agree, I only realized that later. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I applaud that caution. Doubting_Thomas#Girdle_of_Thomas would be especially susceptible to ungenerous misinterpretation. EEng (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC) P.S. If you'll let me know when your current manic burst of energy has spent itself, I'd like to give the article a copyedit pass -- not to say it especially "needs" it, but I take great pleasure in stylistic tinkering, particularly when there's something else I really ought to be doing in real life.

Sharing the love

I see from your userpage that you've run into him too. [4] EEng (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, although latterly we got on pretty well. Castelseprio was the main bone. He doesn't seem to be around much now. Johnbod (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, we're all for Latterly harmony, of course. Don't know if you read through my long post to him, but it was the contrast between all that labeling of other editors as stupid, versus [5]], that first brought him into my Who you calling illiterate? column. EEng (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Group of Monuments at Mahabalipuram

Hi there - Regarding Template:Did you know nominations/Group of Monuments at Mahabalipuram, I responded on the nom page. I think that what was unclear was that the pages were worked in Sandbox from 1-1-13 until their nom date. Thanks for looking them over. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Crucifixion diptych

See the post from Cynwolfe on TK's talk page. Would be interested if you had any insights. Ceoil (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Doubting Thomas

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

5,944 on the day, who hoo! Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

AV vs KJV

I am not sure that your latest edit is an improvement: it might be understood to mean that the name AV is used everywhere else except in the USA. I don't have hard data but my "informed impression" is that KJV is used in many parts of the world. Perhaps you'd like to give this a little more thought? Jpacobb (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I think something needs to be said at the start - also that the actual present article title is a compromise mish-mash that I don't think anybody uses as such - at least I've never heard or read it. I don't really mind that. The whole subject is dealt with lower down, but AFAIK "Authorized" is still standard for the UK, though KJV used & maybe growing, & of course KJV for the US. Elsewhere I don't really know. I suspect Austalia uses Authorized. I note the artiucle keeps switching to & fro also. I'm sure there is a better wording, can you suggest one? Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree that the present title is a compromise mish-mash and am wondering if the title could be changed to "Authorized or King James Version". I seem to remember seeing links in other articles direct to the mish-mash title and if this occurs it is misinformation. (I have found one book title which uses the mish-mash form, but this is obviously publisher's attempt to sell the book on both sides of the Atlantic.) The usage of AV and KJV within the article is by no means uniform and I think it could standardised as follows: (i) when possible obviate the problem by saying "this version / translation /edition"; (ii) otherwise use AV or KJV depending on whether the sentence refers to the English situation or not. I will try and find a more adequate opening to the article to meet the relatively minor concern that started this thread.Jpacobb (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

"Or" titles are I think strongly discouraged, & I'd leave it alone to prevent a cross-Atlantic tussle. But mention it's either/or in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

My views on the subject; copied from Jpacobb's talk page:

As you will have guessed, there have been repeated discussions on this subject on the talk page - though you may need to go back through a lot of archive material to find all the relevant opionions. In principle one might say that, as the article refers to a 'British' subject, so the title should reflect 'British' published scholarly usage; which until recently would strongly favour the form 'Authorized Version'. However, this Bible version has also a major (and independent) history in the United States; and internet search would certainly find 'King James Bible' as prediminating in scholarship there. It is noticeable that the recent 40 years celebrations - though UK centred - used the latter form.

On the other hand, specificity is important for encyclopaedic usage; this Bible has a 'standard' form, and that is the Oxford text originating in 1769. It is the Oxford standard text that is found in Wikisource; and that text is published bu OUP with the title 'Authorized King James Version'. If you go into a bookshop, or on the internet, and search for an 'Authorized King James Version' Bible, you can be sure of getting the primary text to which the article and Wikisource refers.

There is the added problem that if - on the contrary - you search for a complete 'King James Bible'; or 'King James Version', you almost certainly will not get the text discussed in the article. A few years ago (in pursuit of just this matter) I checked in a local Christian bookshop, and not one of the books sold as the 'King James Bible' included the books of the Apocrypha - although most of them claimed to be 'complete'. Indeed, I suspect that the vast majority of 'King James Bible' references that you find in an internet search denote this shorter text. We might perhaps have two articles; one called 'Authorized Version' for the English Bible including the Apocrypha; and one called 'King James Bible' for the English Bible without Apocrypha. But personally, I think the current arrangement is more specific, more accurate and less confusing. Hope this helps TomHennell (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC

Indeed - issue solved as far as I'm concerned. I wasn't aware (or aware enough) of the Oxford title. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

First Glasgow Wiki Meetup

You are invited to the first ever Glasgow Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Sir John Moore, 260-292 Argyle Street, City of Glasgow G2 8QW on Sunday 12 May 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Scottish topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Bach and others

I try hard to stay out of ANI and even Bach. Please clarify for my personal understanding what you mean by "All the recent ones I know, like this, have been initiated by people adding an infobox, without prior discussion of course." - I did NOT add an infobox to Bach (or Robert Stoepel, or Handel), I suggested to add one, the Stoepel one was taken, the Bach one was not welcome enough, I moved on. What precisely do you mean by "all the recent ones"? How should I understand of course? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't keep a record, but Montacute House, Little Moreton Hall, plus .... anyone? Apologies re your Bach suggestion, I will adjust. Andy never starts a discussion, on principle, or something... Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adjusting. I didn't know that there are restrictions on infoboxes for buildings. Andy added one to Holzhausenschlösschen, I said thank you ;) Now I will have to look what's left of it, at least it was not completely reverted this time. - Did you know that I translated part of Little Moreton Hall to German? With great success on their Main page, >30k views ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

That's great! I suppose it has an appeal equivalent to Neuschwanstein Castle for us - both of course being equally untypical of their respective countries. Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Girdle of Thomas

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Statue

I don't know if you are still watching the Statue page, but I came across and added an item about Byzantine avoidance as I was playing with that page. In view of the aniconism page that I no longer watch, but just took a brief look at now, how widespread was that statue avooidance effect do you think? If you are not sure, it does not matter, but I was surprised to see that issue about Byz statues. Was the effect as widespread as the source suggested? History2007 (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Very widespread - I expect Justinian was the last Emperor to have a full-size statue made, or one of them. Small ones in ivory & reliefs (large ones rare) were ok. Secular ones of any size are also virtually non-existent after iconoclasm - I suppose the skill was lost for one thing. I think there is a late tomb effigy in relief, but really very little except for ivories. Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I will just add this there, if you have sources, please add. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Johnbod. You have new messages at Tom Morris's talk page.
Message added 12:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Tom Morris (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bowing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Speaker of the House of Commons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your recent work related to art history/manuscripts. Keep up the good work! Stalwart111 08:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

casing of art
Thank you for casing in your articles the treasures of art, books and knowledge, like some medieval manuscripts were luxuriously bound in gold, silver and jewels, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (17 December 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 97th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ink wash painting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Literati

Wash (painting) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to National Portrait Gallery

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Style (visual arts)

Hello! Your submission of Style (visual arts) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 20:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: British Library

Not a problem, I will stop immediately. Apologies. I was attempting to be bold, but perhaps I was too bold. Please see my comment here for context. Please feel free to respond here or on my talk page. I'd be happy to revert my page moves, assuming that is something a non-admin can do. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I had seen those. I'm not sure I have a problem, but such changes should be raised at the main BL GLAM page. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will raise the question there. Are you still opposed to moving British Museum GLAM pages? --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) : I questioned whether or not there was opposition to move institution-specific GLAM pages on several projects, but received only one response: see here. Next time to I will wait a longer time to hear back from more editors, ideally the project coordinators themselves (I was rarin' to go!). --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I posted on the project's talk page. Sorry again for the lack of warning. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Romanticism

"No way" diff is a little bit short; please explain more. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Romanticism is an artistic not a "spiritual" movement. The article is already crowded with text & images & there's no room for stuff like that. Johnbod (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Johnbod. I see your point, though Romanticism has also had a huge impact on modern spirituality. Most articles related to spirituality ar crowded with Perennialist notions, which is rooted in Romanticism. How about adding this line to Schleiermacher:

"Wayne Proudfoot traces the roots of the notion of "religious experience" further back to the German theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), who argued that religion is based on a feeling of the infinite. The notion of "religious experience" was used by Schleiermacher to defend religion against the growing scientific and secular citique. It was adopted by many scholars of religion, of which William James was the most influential. (Source: Sharf, Robert H. (2000), The Rhetoric of Experience and the Study of Religion. In: Journal of Consciousness Studies, 7, No. 11-12, 2000, pp. 267-87 (PDF))"

See also Spirituality#Spiritual experience. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wayne sounds a bit of a prat to me - such ideas are hardly an innovation of the Romantic period. Johnbod (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

After reading the sentence on Schleiermacher in the article, a better sentence would be: "This move has had a great influence on modern spirituality and it's notion of the centrality of religious experience". Sharf is a respected scholar. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a bit vague, but something could be added. A link to spirituality doesn't take the average reader very far frankly. Johnbod (talk) 10:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean, on the influence of Schleiermacjer on modern spirituality? The link can also be specified as Spirituality. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Buddhas of Bamiyan

No problem. In fact I was just fixing what was already in the article and cited to the NPR report but using weasel words. Nonetheless, I've fixed the citation style and added a ref to the second sentence just to make it explicitly clear. Cheers, Peregrine981 (talk) 11:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, great, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Archaeology - sweeping changes

Hi John, good to catch up the other week. I've discovered new WP vigour and want to tackle the WikiProject archaeology pages and some organisational stuff in order to (hopefully) tempt more archaeologists to get involved and convince experienced Wikipedians that we know what we're doing! I've begun in a sandbox here: User:PatHadley/Map of Archaeology. What do you think? Cheers, PatHadley (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Style (visual arts)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Try explaining yourself

Sorry about the GODHELPUS spelling mistake, you know what it's like editing Wikipedia I hope, you could have been clearer, I really didn't see it, I live in France (have done for twenty years), and have been an English Language Teacher for 15. I regularly use dictionaries, translate and so on and would just like to point out that in French, for example, the word is adresse whereas in English it is address, and so on, there are numerous examples of doubled consonants in English/French which are single in the opposite language. So I was more concentrated on the underlying issues and didn't see my (apparently glaring) spelling mistake, you could try and be a bit less agressive in future. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Frankly you're a fine one to talk. Johnbod (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

A very coherent reply, from a very coherent editor, we are not in the playground, I expected a little bit more than yatter yatter yatter. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Lindisfarne Gospels

Please clarify this edit summary in Lindisfarne Gospels: "((ec)No, you mustn't do that - see WP:ERA..." WP:ERA states, "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content." The established era style was AD. When it was just changed to CE, I reverted the edit. What were you referring to? Bede735 (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary there was an edit conflict & my summary was directed at the ISP. But clearly a gospel book of 700 does not need to specify either AD or CE. Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It was just unclear toward whom your edit summary was directed. Bede735 (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Art in Medieval Scotland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fleuron

Camuliana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Avar

Palladium (protective image) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Russian Orthodoxy

Pignora imperii (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Numa

Portrait of Pope Julius II (Raphael) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Crossed keys

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox artifact

Hi, could you please give more detailed explanation than just 'no thanks' to removing infoboxes? I can see that the objects in the Pergamon museum are rather large-scale, still they were taken from where they had been & placed in a museum. If they are not artifacts, how would you classify them? AntonBryl (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't remember what you are talking about but never mind. You must be very new to this if you don't realize that many infoboxes are controversial. See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Hidden_infoboxes and other discussions linked from there. Johnbod (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Concerning David Park (art historian)

I'm not suggesting that it isn't, only that I don't know, but are there any sources that show that the Society of Antiquaries of London is a society that being a Fellow of would meet WP:PROF #3? The society's Wikipedia article doesn't have much by way of third-party sources, so it's kind of hard to judge from what I can see. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, and I have no issue with withdrawing the nomination for deletion, but I just wanted to ask for further clarification first, if you wouldn't mind. - SudoGhost 20:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I see you have withdrawn it anyway. Frankly if being a fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers does it, I think it's clear this should. Johnbod (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The information is easily found on their website: "Members of the Society are called Fellows and are known as Fellows of the Society of Antiquaries (FSA). To be elected persons shall be 'excelling in the knowledge of the antiquities and history of this and other nations' and be 'desirous to promote the honour, business and emoluments of the Society'. Proposals for membership can only come from existing Fellows of the Society. The General Secretary and staff at Burlington House are not able to assist individuals in this matter. Elections are by secret ballot and it is possible for candidates to be rejected. The number of Fellows is limited by statute, and currently is around 2,900: current policy is to expand the Fellowship to 3,000." Make of it what you will. It may not be quite enough on its own, but add it to other distinctions and you have notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Perov and Dostoyevsky

Hello Johnbod,

do you have a book with information about Vasily Perov's painting Portrait of Fedor Dostoyevsky? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I think my Tretchakov Gallery guide will have a brief note on it - I expect you can get more online though. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Duino Elegies - Les Saltimbanques

I removed the link you put in the image caption per WP:OVERLINK...the article for the painting is already linked in the text right next to the image. Thanks for cleaning up some of the prose. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

And I'm reverting you because captions should always repeat links, as no doubt some policy says. Oddly WP:CAPTION seems not to, but this has always been usual practice. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK actually says: " Consider including links where readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, at the openings of new sections, in the cells of tables, and in image captions. But note below that as a rule of thumb editors should only link the term's first occurrence in the text of the article." (my bold). Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Palladium (protective image)

Not really. There's one possible exception: the killing of the Apis bull by Cambyses II, as described by Herodotus. Whether that actually happened is, like a lot of what Herodotus wrote, seriously doubted, but he may well have been recording genuine Egyptian traditions about Cambyses. A modern book that mentions the killing of the bull says "this terrible act of disrespect was held to be the cause of every evil that befell the Egyptians from that time on", but it's a book for popular consumption, not a high-quality RS. Herodotus himself doesn't seem to say anything to that effect, and his point seems to be that Cambyses was crazy and bad, and possibly cursed by the gods for his behavior.

The Egyptians had their own cult statues, of course (and Apis and other sacred animals were sort of live equivalents of cult statues), but I don't remember seeing anything about protective powers being ascribed to them. I imagine some cult images were stolen in the days of foreign invasions—I'm thinking particularly of the Assyrians, who sacked Thebes and probably some other cities, don't seem to have played at being pharaohs to the extent that some other foreign conquerors did, and generally liked to plunder other people's stuff. But anyone who was able to seize a cult statue would have already overcome Egypt's natural and man-made defenses, broken through any fortifications a city had, and forced its way into the rather fortress-like temple at the city's heart. If the cult statue was lost, the city was already screwed. This was the sort of calamity the Egyptians didn't like to think about and that simply would not have happened during any of the three great kingdoms.

I can easily see how Greek city-states, constantly fighting each other, could develop the sort of capture-the-flag mentality about cult images that the story of the Trojan palladion demonstrates. In contrast, Egypt's natural stability gave its people an absolute dread of instability that, I would guess, prevented beliefs from developing in that direction. They did ascribe apotropaic powers to objects like amulets and ritual tools, but nothing that I know of stood for the well-being of a city or the nation in that way. A. Parrot (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, many thanks for this. Johnbod (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter (May 2013)

Hi, I thought I would drop you a note to say that I mentioned in this month's issue of Ichthus. If you wish to receive the full content in future, please drop me a note on my talk page.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Art in Medieval Scotland

Thanks for the additions to the Art in Medieval Scotland. If you get the chance could you take a look at Scottish art in the Prehistoric era? There is a good chance you will know some significant item I have missed. am happy to look out sources if necessary. All the best.--SabreBD (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Camuliana

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)