User talk:Johnbod/10 from April 08

Hi Johnbod!

My goodness, you are going well! I just took a look at the Anti-pope tomb article. Great work! Amandajm (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sculpture... I was just having a fiddle with Church monuments. I haven't been writing much on wiki lately bbecause I have beenn to exhausted to think seriously. I've been fiddling around on Simple English Wikipedia, which takes much less effort. Transferred several articles, wrote a few incl. list of Renaissance artists. I knew that I had left out someone really important.. Breughel.

I'm doing an art course. It's quite funny really .... it's a course that I used to teach, greatly improved, because it's now the 21st century, and everyone is much more professional, not like the 1970s when the teachers were all stoned and use to wander in a say "Just express yourselves...." and wander out again with glazed eyes. (Not me! I never touched the stuff!). Anyway, I'm finding it all great fun because I'm not under any pressure... the models are all provided, and I pay next to nothing ....but I'm exhausted.... and suddenly I have homework to do! Amandajm (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Yes, I still need to learn. However I think that the book is very useful. Thanks Artethical (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funerary art

Hi again,

I'm making huge progress on the d-----------, thanks in large part to stupendous insights/info I'm getting from a fellow Wikipedian... This is a note to tell you that I have emailed or talk-page-messaged several folks about User:Ling.Nut/Funerary art‎, and rec'd various degrees of support. Some offers sounded more concrete than others, but almost everyone said it would be a week or two before they could start. I didn't find anyone to help with the African section. Last I looked, my best friend among those who know about African stuff, Mark Dingemanse, seems to have been off-wiki for a longish while. Madman2001 seemed interested in working on the Americas, and PericlesofAthens also expressed interest in the Chinese section. A few other heavy-hitters offered more general expressions of support, and may show up in time.

I have been saying for 6 months that I'm gonna stay off-wiki, but this time seems more real. ;-) I'm sure I'll look in once in a while, but I'm really gonna try this time not to get involved for several months. I wholeheartedly wish you all the best, both on Funerary art & all your other interests! Ling.Nut (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Third of May 1808

Hi Johnbod, I have begun expansion of Goya's Third of May, in hopes that you and some of the other all-stars might be interested in turning it into featured article material over the next few weeks. I have used few sources, so there is much work to be done. It only occurred to me in the last week that May 3 will be the 200th anniversary of the event, so it would be great if this could be the FA for the day. Cheers, JNW (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK etc

Hi John: I see that you were surprised that the RfC was still open, in fact so was I, but the user who started it seems to have also "forgoten" and then escalated it to a RfA at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#IZAK 2, take a look. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solid craftsmanship

..kudos on the work on Funerary art! Later, Ling.Nut (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this doesn't make you miss the message below... but I mighta mentioned "the woman in the door" in a dyk before the bat god... but both are interesting. The bat god is good. I agree with your judgment. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a pic is worth a thousand words, and the bat god is easier to explain. The woman in the door is... sex and violence, without the violence. ;-) let me know if you wanna send it to FA. I'll work on it more (it's good enough for GA "as is"— with the caveat that GA reviewing is uneven and unpredictable. In fact, what the heck, do you wanna nom it for GA now? It needs cats and wikiprojects. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it will fill out— the real question is, will it fill out with qulaity info, or with cruft? :-) It desperately needs info on Africa, forex. I think/hope I will have a meaningful block of time time two weeks from now. I'll try to write the Africa section then, if possible. Anyhow, it's good enough for a GA nom as is. If you don't wanna do it, I will. I hate to sound like a WP:WBFAN addict, 'cause I'd be quite happy to let others nom it if they wanted. But I also like to see things move forward smartly through the review process. It's a form of motivation (intrinsic or extrinsic? hmmm...). Ling.Nut (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Yeah I must confess I've gotten hacked off a couple times and snapped at reviewers, but... if someone says something silly, it's best to just reply calmly but firmly that the suggested change is unnecessary, and cite some guideline etc. to back up the assertion.. I'll ask a good reviewer to look at it. My big fear for FA is comprehensiveness; an article like this can't actually be comprehnsive, of course! But maybe if we cover enough bases (hence Africa), it'll be "comprehensive enough." Ling.Nut (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage of the Virgin

The following has been shifted from Johnbod's Userpage: (Wetman (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)) Hi, Johnbod. Thanks for your posting on my Talk page about the article Marriage of the Virgin. Yes, my understanding is that the Orthodox do not speak of Mary and Joseph as married, at least in the sense that they never consummated the marriage. Saint Joseph is not normally referred to as the "Spouse of the Virgin Mary", as he is sometimes in the West. Instead, he is referred to as "Joseph the Betrothed". I did briefly look up some patristic statements about it and when I have a little more time I will add some info to the article--but it may be a while. Thanks. MishaPan (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Books' by Koestler

Dear Johnbod, thanks for explaining the situation, but I have made this comment on the discussion -

'Isn't it then better to rename the sub cats 'Fiction by AK' and 'Non-fiction by AK'? Where is there a 'standard scheme' that decrees that a 'book' is 'non-fiction'? This is not a definition which would occur to the average WP user!'

If we get to the Humpty-Dumpty situation where the word 'book' means what WP wants it to mean, aren't we missing the point of WP? Best wishes, Smerus (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image for Geertgen tot Sint Jans

The current image in the infobox of Geertgen tot Sint Jans is misleading. The name "Geertgen" is probably not common in any language nowadays, and this way it seems as if the painter was a woman. Since the infobox documentation mentions "an image of the artist", I think the current image should be removed. Maybe we can find a (speculated) portrait of the painter? – Ilse @ 22:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA nom comments

See GA nom comments here. Ling.Nut (talk) 06:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put {{Semi-retired}} on my pages. Sorry to kinda quit right in the middle, but life intervenes. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eve, the Serpent and Death

Hi Johnbod. I created Baldung's Eve, the Serpent and Death, which I am drawing your attention to, since, if you're interested, you're much more able to make something of it than I am. I might put it up for DYK if it's not too late and not too short... Regards, –Outriggr § 00:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nom of Funerary art

On 12 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Funerary art, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

I was going to notify Ling.Nut, but it appears he's in need of a break :( Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sure. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting him know! ;-) I will have a free day on the 26th. If no one has written the Africa section by then, I can give it a go. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four Freedoms

With all the debate about the hook for Four Freedoms (painting series) it seems there was no agreement on a hook and the thing is getting passed over for the main page. I would have moved it to T:DYK/N myself, but you are not suppose to move your own hook.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

coffin portraits

Indeed, but would you agree that the usage of this term is predominantly related to the Polish case? Comapre: [1] vs [2], for example.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add a section on that to the article, as lead should be a summary, and not include information not discussed below? I am familiar with Polish customs, but not with the wider burial rituals.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martyrs question

Hi Johnbod. I wanted to ask you a question about another martyrs category before I went ahead and made a nomination. Do you think the category Category:Catholic martyrs and its subcategories should use "Roman Catholic"? The category definition seems to suggest it's limited to Roman Catholics, but do you think the categories in fact include what we could call Eastern Catholic martyrs? For some of the early martyrs I imagine there's somewhat of an overlap. Anyways, since you had good input on the Orthodox martyrs rename, I thought I would ask you because I'm unsure about this one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New user

I saw your name on Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages. There's a new user, User:Nortonius, who seems to be very busy adding to William II of England. I dunno if salutations etc. are in order. Ling.Nut (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New people who know their stuff are a Good Thing. ;-) later! Ling.Nut (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro de' Medici

As I said, every source I found used terminology for his mother such as "Moorish," "North African," and "black." The claim in the article is sourced, multiple times. If you would like to find a source that says otherwise, go ahead and add it. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The texts I've quoted from were both written by art historians with what appears to me sound knowledge of the Renaissance period. I believe the authors involved are university professors. And, judging from the portraits of Alessandro included in his article, he was of partial African descent. So was his daughter. In any event, the claims in the Giulia de' Medici article have been sourced. Go ahead and add to the article if there are conflicting claims. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I've qualified the article a bit given your concerns; still, the evidence seems quite substantial. Simonetta may well have been both an Italian peasant and of Moorish descent. The portraits seem pretty convincing evidence. Go ahead and add it to the article itself. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seems that "Moorish" doesn't have an exact meaning. It could be people from Morocco, could be from some other locale. There was probably some north African ancestry in the Italian population well before the Renaissance period due to the Roman Empire, too, judging from the DNA studies. It was quite a melting pot. But Alessandro looks convincingly north African to me in his portraits, however he came by his ancestry. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Mundhum

Hi - to address your concern, I've added some fresh references to the Mundhum article - [3]. For the Gurung source, I do not have specific page numbers, but the other sources also discuss that Kirati people/culture existed before the Aryan settlement of South Asia and the Vedic civilisation. This should suffice in the Mundhum hook. But for Camling, I must admit that I could not find any new source that directly asserts that Camling pre-dates Vedic times, so I have changed the nominations and will correct the article as well. Vishnava (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the nomination is that Mundhum is the central scripture and source of the = Kirati religion, customs, social identity, which pre-date Vedic civilization. The pre-dating claim is attached to the Kiranti culture and religion in general; the sources provided indicate that the Mundhum is very ancient and originated from verbal traditions, but with no specific date. Hence, I though it prudent not to make that claim. Vishnava (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made this change - [4]:

...that Mundhum is the central scripture of the ancient Kirant Mundhum religion and encompasses Kirant customs, law and culture that pre-date Vedic civilization in South Asia?

This statement asserts what is verified by sources - that the Kiranti culture is older than the Vedic civilization. It asserts that the Mundhum includes all such ancient Kiranti customs, but is not necessarily its source. Does it address your concern? Vishnava (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the change. For the sake of record, I request you to please state on that page that you are now OK with both the nominations? Vishnava (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This change for the Mundhum page itself. Vishnava (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me - I do realize the need to keep things accurate and sober. Vishnava (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 16 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Giulia de' Medici, 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.

--Cirt (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Not my nom, I just commented. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I was going by the next update credits. Cirt (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian princesses

Do you happen to know if those in Category:Belgian princesses are all royal, and, if so, whether there are non-royal princesses in Belgium? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Princess d'Arenberg in 1912, on an elephant, in New York. Life in 2008 seems relatively disappointing. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caution on Talk:Albrecht Dürer

Your sentiment may have been correct in your response at Talk:Albrecht Dürer, however I want to caution you against using language that appears to violate WP:OWN.

"Frankly I think you should build up more experience on other articles before tackling such an important one." could be cut and pasted into Wikipedia:Ownership of articles#Comments. You are a great editor and I don't want to see anyone have any reason to attack you.

With respect, Secisek (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you weren't right in your reverts. Just try not to bite the newcomers. Point him to the style guides if you have not already done so. -- Secisek (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sent him a welcome and did a little work on the stub, too. -- Secisek (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ec? Sorry, this abbrv. eludes me. Extra Credit, perhaps? -- Secisek (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, all yours. I didn't get that you were on it. did you want a (s)ec and not an ec? -- Secisek (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OH! edit conflict. Forgive me, again, have him. -- Secisek (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe organs

Would you say this is worth an article (or subsection of the school article)? (There is an article on J. W. Walker & Sons Ltd.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks, Johnbod, for your good wishes. Actually, contributing on Wikipedia has helped me to prepare for the column, which will be a short monthly feature composed of pleasant musings on specific artworks. I hope it is not too much to aspire to be something of a cross between [5] and [6], notwithstanding the disturbing visual connotations of such a melding. JNW (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I must apologize because I moved a text which you worked on today, which I was not aware of.The new title Blessed Virgin Mary and Christian Churches includes your text in full. tomorrow I will add some Protestant theologians. Is this agreeable to you?

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heckl;ing

just so you know my heckle was meant as a witticism, nothing more... ++Lar: t/c 22:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah

In Talk:Jehovah you wrote

"Malcolm's points seem reasonable to me - the separate existence of this article is surely only justifiable if it is indeed the/a Christian view or history of of an originally Jewish topic, where the other article represents the Jewish tradition/topic. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)"

Now in my opinion Malcolm's points are not reasonable at all. Moreover, he has succeeded so far in creating a big mess, making Jehovah much worse. His mistake, and apparently also yours, is thinking that Jehovah is an originally Jewish topic. But it is not. You mention "the other article". I do not know which one you had in mind, but there is also Yahweh. Also that is not a Jewish topic. I am not aware of any specifically Jewish articles on a similar topic - some time ago I recreated Tetragrammaton but at the moment that mostly points to other places. Since this is a religious topic, and people have strong feelings about the proper name of their deity, be it "God" or "Allah" or "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "YHWH", all of these articles must exist. Many people would react very strongly if God was made a redirect to Allah. For others these two words are synonymous. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other article was of course Yahweh; I'm sorry if this was not clear. Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seurat

I'm hoping Bathers will be the next collobaration, and have been talking to Amanda about Mona Lisa. Any interest? Ceoil (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Suzanne, and the general feeling is that all that fringe stuff has to go. Its a major painting, and to echo Modernist, it may not be a favourite, but it should be a focus. I'm kind of obsessed with Seurat at the moment; but maybe its outside your range of interest. If so do you want to suggest another work for work; I kind of feel we are on a roll, and working with this group is very satisfying and I'd like it to continue. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to cut down? I hear you brother. The Virgin never really grabbed me, but as a half way, I really, really, really, like the Annunciation. Now there is a painting I would happily spend weeks tinkering with its page. And it has a great back story. Ceoil (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As we are all reading Goya books at the moment, maybe Saturn Devouring His Son? Ceoil (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to down the edit summaries there, john. Ceoil (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking the article is fine now, and once Noetica finishes her ce, we can all go home. [The above comment was meant in humour bty]. Ceoil (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snore

Teed off with the conversation at M0S. Is it just me, or is the French thing a red herring? The same two styles occur in English, which is what we are writing, and each is acceptable. The problem I find is that one has to contradict certain article titles in order to achieve consistency in one article. I don't think Wikipedia should attempt a house style, mind. That thread misses an opportunity to discuss the issue properly. Sigh. qp10qp (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Award

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		What can I say! Once again, it was a real pleasure to work with you. Ceoil (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)\|}[reply] I can't read your last comment Johnbod. Either you are really dry (a good thing), or you are really sarcastic (a bad thing); dunno, I cant tell. Ceoil (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valet

Thanks for expanding the article. Feel free to do what you want with it (DYK, etc.). I'm just glad that there's some info there that would be helpful to people. --Stomme (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mecca Time

Hi Johnbod - I request that you examine this article, which I've just created. There is a possibility that I've created this article on a topic that's not compliant with the notability policy; I've added the information from news sources, but it may turn out to be a fringe theory or something. I will appreciate your feedback to settle the question. Vishnava (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention to this article. It is always interesting to see how others perceive things, and I think your opinion on this is a good one. Erechtheus (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto - thank you for your help. I'll put in some more work on the article, which I do hope to nominate for DYK if/once it is ready. Vishnava (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mecca Time AfD

Hi Johnbod - following up on our prior discussion, I felt growing unease because I couldn't find any other source or background info as you had suggested. I felt the need to put the article up for wider community review through an AfD, primarily because I couldn't find any other source than the BBC report and a Gulf Times article, both of which do not give any information on why this particular conference should be taken seriously, or who its participants are. Please have a look and give your opinion, and thanks for your help on this issue, Vishnava (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral.

Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations.

Thank you again, VanTucky

Congratulations

for the Third of May 1808, reaching FA and it's still April.....Modernist (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Johnbod, for adding the Third of May to 'Today's featured article requests'. Cheers, JNW (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Language of flowers

Just as a tip, this could be a really beautful article, if you ever have time. Ceoil (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich is going slow, to be perfectly honest. I only have two books, and both are very dry. Haven't found an angle yet. The flowers page I think is great, but I haven't been able to track down any sources. Ceoil (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conjecture and speculation, mostly thanks to ips. Ceoil (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unregistered users. Like this happy fellow. Ceoil (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Grub is such a great word. How is cutting down going by the way. I've tried a few times, even had my user page deleted. Here I am still. Ceoil (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't watched TV in about 11 months. Maybe thats a good thing, maybe not, dunno, but its a significant fact about the way I spend my time. Ceoil (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KleeImage:KleeSP.jpg

Given the hopeless overabundance of images in Self-portrait and the absolutely mininal commently on this image within the article how do you justify the claim that "Its inclusion in the article(s) adds significantly to the article(s)"?Geni 00:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholders

Thanks - I hadn't seen it. I'm rather glad this person is on the other side. --Kleinzach (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

I was rather surprised by your strong reaction here, and am not understanding exactly what your concern was.[7] Could you please explain? Thanks, El on ka 06:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked quite closely at both the before and after versions, but at least on my browser and screen resolution, I am seeing no difference. So could you please explain? I will freely admit that I am not an image expert, so if there is some subtlety that I am missing, I would very much like to improve my knowledge. Thanks, El on ka 07:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference on my screen is about half a foot of white space in the before version. Ceoil (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, which browser and screen resolution are you using? I will try to duplicate. --El on ka 07:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IE, and 1152 res. Displaced text is a vey common prob on wiki, and a very annoying one too! Ceoil (talk) 08:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Explorer - don't know my screen res I'm afraid. I see this very commonly, when the picture is at the start of a section. If it was just below the template itself it would have been ok. Johnbod (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see it now, it does indeed cause problems with IE. Whereas both versions display identically in Firefox. Fascinating. Okay, that's good to know. :) However, just as a bit of constructive advice, a better edit summary would have been "moving image so it doesn't cause problems with IE", rather than a masked vulgarity rant at other editors. :)

Sorry if I'm seeming a bit over-protective, but I've been working really hard to address a series of civility and edit-warring issues with a variety of editors (see User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment), and the Petržalka article has been one of the targets, so it's under close supervision (check the history and you'll see the warz). The kind of edit summary that you used, would have been the kind of thing that I would have blocked one of them for saying, as a violation of WP:CIVIL, and making a controversial edit without adequately explaining it on the talkpage. ;) However, you're not on the editing restrictions that they are! So anyway, wanted to let you know. I really need all experienced editors in that topic area, such as yourself, to set excellent examples, which will help socialize some of the more disruptive editors that I'm dealing with. Thanks, --El on ka 08:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I had no idea it might be ok on some browsers! Johnbod (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether you did or didn't, an edit summary of "does no one look when they add these f###ing templates?" is uncivil. Could you please just acknowledge that? An apology or, "Good point, I'll keep that in mind," would be all that's needed. --El on ka 08:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness! do editors with Admin status just block other editors they are engaged in struggles with, if those editors make uncivil edit summaries? --Wetman (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be the coming thing - see also this rumpus. Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to Wetman) I have no idea if you are referring to other struggles, but in this particular case I'm enforcing ArbCom restrictions on editors who are under those restrictions. Once the editors have been warned and formally notified, if they proceed with incivility, then yes they may be blocked. But it's a bit unfair for them to be under strict restrictions, and then on the very same article where they're working, they see a random editor (Johnbod) come in and be extraordinarily rude in an edit summary, and not get put under restrictions. Which is why I'm following up. Technically, I could put Johnbod under ArbCom restrictions right now, since he was editing in the topic area, and he seems unable or unwilling to even admit that his comment violated WP:CIVIL. However, since it appears to be a one-time drive-by, I'm just leaving a talkpage note. If Johnbod were to stick around in that very volatile topic area though (Eastern Europe), and continue with incivility, then he'd probably get put under ArbCom restrictions as well, just like everyone else there who is being disruptive. And if he still continued after that, he might well be blocked. It is unfortunate that Johnbod couldn't simply say, "Oops, sorry, won't happen again". Civility is a policy which applies to all of us, including him. His edit summary was the kind of thing that raises tensions on an article, when what we're trying to do is lower tensions, and let everyone get back to harmonious editing. --El on ka 04:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Sorry. Won't happen again. --Wetman (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So restrictions are blanket; we don't -shouldn't- take into account context, intention, edit history or reputation? We just spray sanctions automatically, as a matter of convenience; having left behind a talk warning that took at least ten minutes to write? It all seems very unjudged. If you are going to act in such a reflexive manner, then maybe we need more bots. I thought it obvious from the first that the only intention was aesthetic. Ceoil (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit wasn't the problem, the edit summary was. It's a violation of WP:CIVIL, by any standard, reputation or no. --El on ka 01:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was to an ip, it was harmless, and it was one edit. The reason was explained. End of story. This is a long thread on an established editors talk. It seems you want him to apologise to you. You are the one providing back story, justifying, and revisiting. Ceoil (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your edit summary: Harassment is also a policy. (sorry Johnbod!) Ceoil (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen the latest posts here & elsewhere on all this. Not sure who I'm supposed to apologise to. On checking, the problem was in fact not caused by the template-inserter (some time last year), but a later rearranger (this January). I suggest we all drop this, but thanks for the support. Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valet de chambre again

Wow, you did a good job of turning my little stub-of-necessity into a real article. Who would have known that it would lead to aviation disasters? The DYK is all your work. --Stomme (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Icon (disambiguation)

I suggest you support my recent edit if you want mention of the religious context; working together is good. :) Abtract (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Third of May 1808

Thank you, Johnbod, for all of your contributions to The 3rd, which were instrumental in getting the piece to FA status. If it reaches the main page next weekend, I would like all the contributing editors to meet in a pub to celebrate. Barring that, since I gather that some live in Ireland, some in Australia, some in England, and some in the U.S., a virtual toast will be in order. Cheers, JNW (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkwood

Could you start a new line if you have any further comments; this is getting difficult to read. Savidan 22:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in about your FAC comments. Take as much time as you need to for the Hundred Years War thing; could you update me on how the article stands other than that though? Thanks. Savidan 22:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I look forward to some more comments. Thanks for all you've done for the article so far. Savidan 16:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA reviewer put eight {{fact}} tags on Funerary art

Hi Johnbod,

Hope things are going well! The GA reviewer put eight {{fact}} tags on Funerary art. Can you put any of them out of their misery by adding a cite? Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. Some were not from my bits, & some hard to reference, though obvious to my mind - eg the first. How does one reference clothes not generally being considered as art? This is why I never do GA noms. I'll see what I can do, but it may well not be all. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can Google Scholar or Google Books any cites. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've killed several tags; there are only 3 left. I think you may have a hard time finding a cite for "tombs are humanity's oldest known archaeological constructions." Ling.Nut (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Brack not a Print Maker ?

Johnbod you have removed the Print Maker category tag from his entry. Why ? Are you unaware of the prints he has made and that are still on sale ? The reference work 'Sasha Grishin, The Art of John Brack, (1990) Oxford University Press. ISBN 019553199X' list Brack's works that were produced as prints. Well known printer makers produced his prints, for example Graham King.

dnw (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being in the Australian printmakers cat he should not be in the main one as well. Johnbod (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion

Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.

That discussion must produce a conclusion.

We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).

Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.

Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.

Funerary Art

Hi, I feel that Funerary Art meets the GA standards. Thank you for working with me and congratulations. Lazulilasher (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

african funerary arts

Johnbod,

I can't find much. There are many many snippets, spread across many sources, about the Akan funerary art. I am sure a paragraph about this can be written. I left a nice paragraph about rock art in the article's talk page. I can't find much else, sorry.... Ling.Nut (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like the WP:GA process. I think it is extremely important! It is one very common kind of "Orientation to writing articles" here at Wikipedia...but I seem to find myself disagreeing with GA people more and more often in the past few months. The crew has experienced 100% turnover since I first started, and I just don't seem to share the mindset of the newer crew (with one or two exceptions, such as User:Elcobbola and User:Geometry guy). Later! Ling.Nut (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you from Horologium

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed unanimously with the support of 100 editors. Your kindness is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Wizardman, Black Falcon and jc37 for nominating me. — Horologium

Re: polyglot

Thanks for your response! I thought I was going senile there for a bit, hehe :) TerraFrost (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bosch

Johnbod, I've begun work on The Garden of Earthly Delights‎ but am a bit stuck. While I can expand the existing sections, I haven't yet found an angel to develope the article further. I have two dedicated books, but both are descriptive and rather circular. Any ideas? Ceoil (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I appreciate that you are cutting down and good luck with that. I don't wish to drag you in for that reason. And Bosch is not to everybody's taste. So grand, I'll search the literature, which surprisingly for such a rich painting, is rather dry. Ceoil (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Safeway (UK)

Just did a search of wiki but added UK and I got this. Looks like the company is no longer. --CubBC (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:EvasionOGP

I have reduced it to a temporary block. You're right, his/her computer may have been used by someone else. Thanks for your feedback! Royal broil 14:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passive voice?

I don't currently have the source in question -- this is exactly why I need input on my changes. I was trying to eliminate the passive voice here; is there any way we can do this? Kafka Liz (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When in doubt, blame the Belgians. Would "Art historians speculate that..." be too weasle-ish? Kafka Liz (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nice fix :) Kafka Liz (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quis Custodet Custodes? Waterloo

I was hanging fire on writing a piece on the "history of the history" of the battle but it seems that the reviewers, of which you are one, have dropped any attempt at dialogue.

Surely you cannot be surprised that the people who have put a great deal of effort into writing on a subject, and I think that the page on Waterloo is probably the finest treatment for its length anywhere, show decided opinions about relevance/non relevance issues.

I merely note that the Battle of Albuera, which I have also contributed to, is of FA status and appears to have relatively little "flummery" added to its narrative.

Urselius (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a published author in the Napoleonic military history field, I consider my opinion as being at least as valid as that of the reviewers. I do understand what is being asked for as an addition to the Waterloo article, I just have a rather different appreciation of its usefulness and relevance to an article on the battle itself.

You added a link to the Uxbridge's leg page, I added some more facts to that page. I know a great deal about the life and times of Henry Paget (nee Bayly) I just didn't think that mention of his leg was an indispensible adjunct, though it was, no doubt, painful to Uxbridge and a personal tragedy to him, to the record of a battle that sealed the fate of empires and cost many thousands of lives.

Its all a judgement issue, no one viewpoint, including my own, is unassailably correct.

Urselius (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying it is a matter of opinion whether it should have been added to "See also"? Johnbod (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Urselius (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most editors reviewing for FA would I'm fairly sure say that any article with such a closely-related subject should be included there, if it is not mentioned in the text. I think you need to be more aware of wider WP editing style. Johnbod (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would hardly have expected that the noble soon-to-be marquess's limb would merit its own page. Uxbridge's name within the Waterloo article links to the biographical page for the person; biographies of limbs are unusual and the interested would doubtless have found the leg page via the biography page. Urselius (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really how WP works. I'm not saying you should have been aware of the article (though obviously others were), but once found, it clearly should have a link; that is encyclopedic style. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that the well-known incident of his leg loss and one-liner with Wellington is not mentioned in the main text. Ty 06:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of the Blood

What happened to the text of the article you wrote, entitled "Prince of the Blood"? I complimented your effort on this on the talk page of Prince du Sang. Was it merged into Prince du Sang, since "Prince of the Blood" now re-directs there? The previous article on Prince du Sang was France-specific and should have been a section under Prince or under "Prince of the Blood", but I can't figure out what has actually been done. FactStraight (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous artists

I'll try to get to them tomorrow; sadly, there's very little on most of them online. I'm trying to deviate from the source as much as I can, but it's not always easy.

Regarding the cat...there's a lot of these artists yet to be covered, and I was surprised that it exists as a category in the Italian, French and German Wikipedias, but it wasn't over here. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 04:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US-centric

Re: "and also probably too US-centric here", I would very much like to see a discussion on what BrEng says. What's your feeling about how well the Guardian link at the bottom of WP:MOS or New Hart's Rules do a good job of representing consensus among, well, any group? British Wikipedians seem to me to rely on a wide variety of sources, and this makes me wonder if determining consensus among, say, journalists on issues of British usage or Commonwealth usage is harder than it is in the US or North America. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, where is the quote from? There are fewer and shorter British guides (many would feel the whole idea is somehow un-British). The Guardian is very short, even in book form, and the online versionb doesn't mention "British Isles" I notice (probably because it didn't think it was an issue) and does not follow best modern practice on "Breughel". Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Talk:Roman Catholic Church#Straw poll. I did get the sense that the Guardian site was very terse. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lowercasing "british isles and ireland", I'm still getting 53K. But that's still a level of Google hits that doesn't necessarily mean anything. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegorical

"as a definition that is terrible"...I'm not sure what you're saying. If you're saying that "symbolic" is a terrible definition for "allegorical", I agree, I didn't mean it as one. The question was "What's wrong with calling Gabriel allegorical?", and the answer was that that has a strong flavor of "fictitious", which is gratuitously POV in the intended contexts. Did I understand you correctly? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. Your kind words about my content contributions are very much appreciated. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOS

I haven't studied it enough to pronounce one way or the other, so abstain on this. Ty 06:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Citizens of Israel

Ready to cast your vote?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find it now. Link please! Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frieze of Parnassus

Thanks for the work on Frieze of Parnassus. It has made the WP:DYK nomination much easier. I've changed the nomination and asked for you to be credited as well. Thanks again. I've asked several people to check I identified the right people, but if you could help with that as well, that would be great. Any ideas for "ROB DE COURCY"? Carcharoth (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No footnotes

Sorry if I caused any offence - I just happened to wander into this area of WP out of a new interest on the general theme, thought I'd identfied some issues regarding verifiability and acted accordingly; I must have been wrong. I would have thought the in-line citation principle applied to any WP article, particularly those dealing with historical subjects. It certainly does in the Military History projects that I have some connections with; I've never had any problems tagging as appropriate there and never had any comments about the tag itself, which of course is not my invention and is the agreed/approved means of flagging-up citation issues, 1911 EB or not. I guess I'll just wander out of this area again and stick to what I think I know. Scoop100 (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for putting me straight - I'm out of here now. Scoop100 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little coincidence...

Funny that you and I placed DYKs on the Dutch Gift and the Dutch Bantam immediately next to one another. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 05:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiThanks, and real ones too

WikiThanks

...for finding the perfect link at The Garden of Earthly Delights. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Symbology of Christ

This got me thinking: is there such a page -- apart from Arma Christi, that is? Any interest in working on one? Kafka Liz (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are various articles in Category:Artistic portrayals of Jesus and Category:Christian iconography, but the "main" one Depiction of Jesus in art is not much good. I will get round to a pair to Life of the Virgin one day, on medieval and later cycles, which would cover most of the main narrative iconography. A huuuge subject obviously - at the moment I do little articles or sections in feast day etc articles, like Trinity. Or perhaps one should hjust start with the scaffolding & links now - I'm very busy at the moment & trying to cut down here, so won't do much. But have a go. Iconography of Christ perhaps? Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it'd be a crazy huge project, even if it were just a sort of scaffold like the Saint symbology page. I'd like to give it a shot, at least at some point -- I've got a lot on my plate at the moment. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insular Art

Hi, I found this picture of the Aberlemno Pictish stone and wondered if it should be included in the insular art section as it looks particularly impressive, although its covered in Pictish carvings. Does it qualify as a good example?

The Pictish *Obar Leamhnach* Kirkyard Stone

Celtic Harper (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers your probably right about that I'll move it to PS and the battle it comemorates. RegardsCeltic Harper (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicookie

Thank you!

Samite

Great article. - PKM (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - but see the history - great 2-line stub from me, the rest added by return of post by User:Wetman! Johnbod (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heavens, how did I miss that?! - PKM (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

On 23 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Master of Anthony of Burgundy, 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.

weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 19:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Note

I just searched wikipedia for "Tomb of Philippe Pot" and the only reference I could find was on Funerary Art (it's the lead photo...and now also in the Sculpture section of the Louvre), which I totally forgot I did the GA Review. Funny how that happens...good to work with you, again. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That should have been Funerary art....Lazulilasher (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Came home from a rotten day at work to see a very nice message indicating that one of my poor, misshapen babies has grown quite lovely under your nurturing care. Many, many thanks.

Might you have any interest in helping me whip those things from New Grove into better shape?

Also, if there are any anonymous artists I missed in creating the category, I'd appreciate any help in tracking them down; I'm a bit at sea in the Renaissance, given that my field of interest was more nineteenth-century stuff. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 01:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I try to create titles based on something that already exists, although it's tricky in the case of some of the Italian translations (I seriously did about five Google searches for variants of "master", "altar" or "altarpiece", and "Ten Commandments". Nothing - the only reason I went ahead and created that article is because it's in the Italian Wiki, and hence I'm assuming there's something out there about him.)

And speaking of masters...I looked at the National Gallery's alpha-by-artist list not too long ago, trying to get ideas. I swear they have something by over a hundred different "masters" of whatever thingummy you can imagine. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 01:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, sometimes I think I should have focused on the Renaissance. One could make a career out of all the attributing and reattributing that goes on. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 01:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Boleyn

I was going to add something to the caption of the Anne portrait on the Thomas Cranmer article, while going over the article for review. I've always thought that was an early seventeenth-century copy, and if it is not contemporary, I think that should bemade clear; but, annoyingly, I can't remember where I read that, and searching among my books and on the internet has confused me now. If this one at the NPG is the same one, then the note there ranks as one of the most unhelpful of all time (and my NPG book is even worse: doesn't even give a date!); I guess it means that it is a late sixteenth-century copy of a portrait painted between 1530 and 1536. The Commons image notes say late-sixteenth. (Strong seems interested, in Artists of the Tudor Court, in another little picture which he was itching to say is her: I don't have Tudor and Jacobean Portraits to see what he says about the other picture.) I wonder if, with all your books, you can find a date for the picture in the Cranmer article: I suppose it doesn't matter that much, but it's bugging me now.

That NPG page and others seem to be sure that other copies they have were of a Holbein. It's not impossible that he painted her, since he designed for her coronation and for her jewellery. But it strikes me as wishful thinking, and I wish galleries would not be so optimistic. There are two Holbein drawings inscribed as of Anne, both totally unlike each other, the inscriptions added later. Of the two, the one looking to the right seems the least unlikely to me.

One thing I did come across on my searches was a contemporary medal of Anne, in which she has a fair old jaw on her. It struck me then that, like most people, I have always assumed that the copy in the Cranmer article was more likely to look like her than this one: but seeing that medal makes me wonder why I should assume that the best-looking one is the more like, since, despite the NPG's commentary, she she was described at the time as being no oil painting, or words to that effect. qp10qp (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've added to the Hever pic info in particular - that was used, but as someone complained they've switched to the similar but slightly less attractive NPG one. The fullest discussion I know is in the online bio book cited at FAC, and a web page has a useful line-up of all the contenders - also linked at the Hever image commons page. I think no one is very willing to choose between late C16 & early C17 on lower quality copies. Most seem to accept they are derived from a contemporary image, though they seem a long way from Holbein. The tiny ring portrait is perhaps the most authentic, as the medal is not vey useful as a likeness. Let me know if you can't find the links. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Cromwell

Coming to the Cromwell portrait, it is captioned as being after a Holbein original. The first thing that strikes me is that I believe that scroll has long been removed, unless there are other copies. Rowlands, who I think is the best Holbein scholar, says that although the painting has been overcleaned, removing much subtlety, pentimenti indicate Holbein's own hand in the painting; and he attibutes this to Holbein straight. What do you think? Stephanie Buck's later book also attributes it to Holbein straight, maybe following Rowlands. Comparing the scroll-less picture in those two books with the one in Cranmer, they do look slightly different from the latter, but this may be just to do with cleaning. The two inauthentic Cromwells in Rowlands are different altogether.

Sorry to fuss, but in featured articles, I think the picture captions should be spot on; and you are the only person I can think of to consult. qp10qp (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the NPG version, still with scroll, which they still attribute to Holbein straight (link on commons page), so I guess we should, perhaps with an "attributed to". Are you thinking of the Frick version, with no scroll? My guide says "Of all the several versions of this painting, this (the Frick's) is considered the oldest and best". See the NPG for the miniatures also. I haven't looked at Artists of the Tudor court. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought there were other differences: like a fool, I have just noticed that Rowlands goes on to talk about the other two versions, so I needn't have pestered you. NPG says "after Holbein" for their one; Rowlands agrees. Well, I'd rather see a Holbein in the article (it's the Frick one, yes), without scroll, than an "after Holbein" with (the scrolls are later additions). I'll ask RelHist if he would mind a change to the one Rowlands thinks is an original. Cheers.

On Strong's favoured miniature of Anne, I notice that MacCulloch, on the strength of Strong, says in his biog of Cranmer, that it is Anne. Shows you can't trust historians on this sort of thing, because Strong, despite himself, stops short of making a definitive identification. The Chinese whispering in these matters never ceases to astonish me. qp10qp (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I misread the NPG, so Frick is certainly better if we have a decent pic. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll scan one up, if we haven't. qp10qp (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Gift

On 25 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dutch Gift, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Nice to see you, but you better capitalize the D of the Holy Ghost and the S in Lamb! --Observer99 (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and from me too, for your vote of confidence in my RFA. I really appreciated all the support and hope to live up to it! --Slp1 (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vendramin

I made a start because I didn't like that redlink at Dutch Gift. Too sleepy to make it better: off to bed...--Wetman (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tudor group portrait

Your opinion would be appreciated at Talk:Elizabeth I of England#Rare portrait. Cheers. qp10qp (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one! -- Hoary 16:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC) ¶ So much for that. I suppose a second AfD would be premature; shall I give it six months? -- Hoary (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks

Dear Johnbod, thank you for improving my humble unnative English in the story of Ambrosius Holbein. I did hope somebody will do that. I really appreciate your help. --Feťour (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Conspiracy of Claudius Civilis

Not sure if you are still watching this article, but I added a little to the "later history" section and a comment on the talk page. --Hegvald (talk) 07:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samite

Hi. Just wanted to say thanks for adding that ref. to samite, since it's moved onto the DYK template now and I can't respond there. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samite

On 28 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Samite, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utrecht

Hey, thanks for adding more about the Utrecht Psalter. Quite a difference from what it looked like a week ago! Gimmetrow 04:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samite, the Queen, etc.

No worries on the co-nom; my additions were minor. I saw a bit of the portrait chat - that's a problem when your criterion is "verifiability" not "truth". Lots of nonsense is printed in reputable sources.

Yes we do need an article on the Portraits of Queen Elizabeth I. Some day! - PKM (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RCC

Your help in my hour of most need is GREATLY APPRECIATED. If there isn't a barnstar of "being there for someone" there should be one created for you! NancyHeise (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming discussion

Hiya — there's a discussion currently occurring at Naming conventions (names and titles) about "simplifying titles, through which it is suggested that we remove "prince" from royals with substantive titles. The proposal was "passed" after 12 days, with the input of only five editors. I strongly encourage you to take part in the discussion such that a properly-agreed solution can be reached. D B D 23:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utrecht Psalter

On 31 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Utrecht Psalter, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6/1 DYK

On 1 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Andrea Vendramin, and Vendramin, 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.

--Bedford ^Pray 02:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

support for renaming to Cat:Fooians of Booian descent

Hi Johnbod. Just as the changeover s been completed for French, Germans and Brazilians, voting on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 28 for another nomination (Danes, Ecuadorians, Argentines and Czechs) needs a bit more support to ensure avoiding a 'no consensus' result, it looks. Can I ask for your vote again, kind sir? Obliged, Mayumashu (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch! Mayumashu (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sistine Chapel‎

Its not clear in my mind yet what shape the article will take, but if you could watchlist and comment from time to time that would be great. Its a substantial subject, but lets try anyway. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

Johnbod, I wanted to thank you for your participation in my RFA. I realize there was some very real concerns about my CSD tagging, and I've taken steps to address these misunderstandings. an in-depth analysis of my RFA touches on these concerns and also outlines my plan for alleviating them. your further comments are welcome. (also I've left some templated thank spam for you below). best regards, xenocidic (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

templated rfa thank-spam

Thank you for your support

I would like to thank the community for placing their trust in me during my recent request for adminship, which passed 72 13 2 . Rest assured, I have read each comment thoroughly and will be addressing the various concerns raised as I step cautiously into my new role as janitor. In particular, I would like to thank Balloonman for putting so much time into reviewing my contributions and writing such a thoughtful nomination statement after knowing me for only a brief period of time (and for convincing me that I was ready to take up the mop now, rather than go through admin coaching).

To my fellow admins - please let me know right away if I ever take any mis-steps with my new tools. Should I make a mistake, and you reverse the action, I will not consider it to be wheel-warring (but please tell me so I can understand what I did wrong).

To everyone - please feel free to slap me around a bit if I ever lose sight of the core philosophy of Wikipedia as I understand it - the advancement of knowledge through the processes of mutual understanding and respect. As always, feel free to drop by my talk page if I can be of any assistance. =)

Sincerely,

~xenocidic, 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support vote at Roman Catholic Church NancyHeise (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adopt-a-woodblock printer

Howdy, I was wondering if you could improve Tadashi Nakayama (artist) a bit. He is apparently a well known 20th century Japanese woodblock print artist. I created a place holder for him while I worked on Tadashi Nakayama (mathematician), but I want someone with some subject knowledge to give him at least one informed sentence in his wikipedia bio. I've not had anything other than a greek-renaissance european art history class, so I cannot begin to comment on his importance (other than "this biography says he is great"). Basically, I don't want him to end up on AfD just because some art-illiterate guy like myself wrote the stub. JackSchmidt (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, looks good. I think it should be fine until someone has the interest to find some nice reliable print sources. Basically I just didn't want an AfD to delete the artist, then a CSD to delete the disambig, then someone moves the mathematician, then someone else thinks "oh the artist is so much more notable than the mathematician", moves the math guy again, and by this time most of the links are pointing to the wrong guy. I figure a simple stub as placeholder should work well. Thanks, again. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rialto Bridge

This isn't a pedestrian bridge? The article seems to think it is. - Denimadept (talk) 04:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is, but the whole new category is a subcat of the pedestrian one. Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So all bridges in Venice are pedestrian bridges! Whoa. No regular roads at all? - Denimadept (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, hadn't you heard, the streets are full of water. No cars at all beyond the car park at the end of the causeway. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They've had time to build real streets. Hundreds of years. I figured they'd have done it by now. - Denimadept (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They have plenty of streets, just no cars on them. Johnbod (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barbaro family

As an established use who has some expertise in this area, I would like to ask you to take a look at the edits made by Mctrain to the Barbaro page. Mctrain was blocked a while back for massive sock puppetry abuse, possibly related to an attempt to add a hoax regarding the alleged current Barbaro title family holder and various East coast collegiate secret societies. The problem is that Mctrain and his socks also added a good deal of content that appears perfectly legitimate. As I do not have much experience in this field, I would greatly appreciate your input. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm! I now vaguely remember seeing the page last year, when the silliness was at its height. On a quick look through, most of the McTrain material seems non-hoax, but often overstated, like the claims of Ancient Roman descent (dealt with on the talk page last year - no doubt actually made by the family in the past, but most unlikely to be true), not too well-written, and often most relevant to other articles like the one on the villa. On the whole, better out than in. I will keep an eye on the article. Johnbod (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this related? Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's factual, please put it back. I've been removing the various edits of the hoaxer. So much of what he has done is false, I figured it was easier to just pull everything and (as my edit summary says) let people with actual knowledge restore anything factual. Edward321 (talk) 05:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would have to be researched, referenced, rewritten, and often placed elsewhere. I may get round to salvaging some, but really you have to decide for the whole of it - out or in? I think out is better. Johnbod (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I don't know if you noticed, but there was a possible sock puppet for user Mctrain who was blocked yesterday, claiming that the info was "one million percent accurate." --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious cats

user:Carlaude is making a lot of category edits per second. Some look rather odd to me. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK Image Copyrights

You (and the Visual Arts project) may want to keep an eye on this discussion which suggests that any photo of an artwork taken in the UK in the last (70 years?) and either first printed there or simultaneously printed there and in the US has UK copyright and therefore is inadmissable in the Commons or Wikipedia under any circumstances.

The implications for arts articles are obvious. If anyone has a counter-argument, now would be the time to raise it. - PKM (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The painting is at Hampton Court (Victoria purchased it at auction). It's open to the public, perhaps he thinks that makes it a museum?

Well, it would count, but I'm puzzled as to why it is not on their (RC) website, when two poor heads after Scrots are, and clearly there is a good colour photo. We are sure we're not mixing it up with the one in red, which would have been at Hampton Court, at least until they moved most of he paintings out? I'm also going by what the NPG link at the discussion says. This is clearly a "louvre" type. Did you tell qp10p? He has better books than i on this. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will be interesting to see how this goes. PKM (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at it, the more sure I am that the only "Hampton Court" Scrots Edward is this one. Johnbod (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That link is not coming up for me, but I think I know the one. The featured picture is a real left-of-centre version (apparently there are four) and I had not set eyes on it till PKM produced it. If I read Hearn aright, it is in worse condition than the "view of Hunsdon House" one (the prototype, I think) and the one at the Louvre, which are the two always reproduced in history books; and so perhaps that is why it is not well known. I haven't got that Strong book (saving up for it), but if he says it was at Hampton Court (so, Royal Collection) in 1969, perhaps it has been moved on. No one's going to bother about copyright on the photo of it, that's for sure.

On that question, I believe it is a mistake for Wikipedians to self-censor images like this that push the boundary of free information, which is what Wikipedia is about. The copyright situation on photos of old paintings may appear to be tighter in the UK, but that is only because the galleries and archive collectors do not dare test this one in the courts, knowing full well that, since they would have to prove they had added something to the original (and the art of photographing paintings being to produce an accurate image), the result would be Bridgeman/Corel all over again, and they would end up losing once and for all some of the vestigial rights they purport to hold. And this isn't about caring for the income of the photographers, because they were paid their flat fee long ago and get no royalties for this sort of work. A copyright that no one is prepared to defend is a dead letter.qp10qp (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just think there has been a mix-up between the red one in the RC and this - I can't believe that with a good photo available they would not use it on the very comprehensive site (also their pic library catalogue) or mention it in their catalogue entry.

Is this link better [8] - or google Royal collection & search on Scrots.

I'm sure you're right about the legal side, but that won't cut any ice at the deletion debate I think. It could go on WP for fair use I suppose. Did you see the guy at the V&A here who got them to release some lowish-res photos - they are supposed to be educating/sharing with the nation after all. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Low res images for educational purposes are not going to be challenged (our scanned images are not for commercial purposes and do not anyway compete with the held photograph; they threaten no loss of income to the photograph holder). Perhaps this example stands out because it has been blown up so large, but the quality of a blown-up scan does not challenge the quality of an original, high-quality art photo: quite the opposite, because those who wish to reproduce the image for a commercial book will want (and will have to have) a photograph, not a second-hand scan from another book. Wikipedia will need to think about this issue when it comes to selling book versions or CDs, though: that is differentqp10qp (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent> I do wish WP's licensing didn't allow commercial reuse of WP content. I think that causes a lot of problems with putative rights holders.

Strong specifically places our image at Hampton Court in 1969 and says Victoria purchased it. Hearn says there are four variants, one at the Louvre (she has a B&W image of it - it's the one with the white hose) and one in the Royal Collection acquired in 1882. I think there is a 3rd one in Ireland but I can't find a link offhand.

I agree, self-censorship is really the problem here. There is no court case; there is only what someone assumed a UK court would be "likely" to do and therefore set a guideline around.

If this image is deleted, a year from now someone else will add it back in, sourced from Tudor-portraits.com or whatever, and no one will blink. Or that's my theory. - PKM (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. Hampton Court = Royal Collection. Perhaps the "Irish" one is the one now in LA. The NPG talks about 5 images of 2 types - Louvre & Hampton Court (presumably the red one). I still think it's odd as they never sell anything, & I live 3 miles from Hampton Court & don't recall ever seeing this one. Just put it up on WP again if it goes. Actually WP seems to be thev only place this one is online, searchable by the expected terms anyway. None of the usual Tudor sites seem to have it. Johnbod (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it has been withdrawn as a fake, or something? There must be some answer to this mystery. qp10qp (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but it would not be the first mistake in a Strong book. When doing Royal entry I used some of his vivid description (from the festival book) of a magnificent Habsburg entry to Antwerp (I think) only to find out later that the whole thing had been virtually called off because of torrential rain. Easy to make a slip matching plate nos & their details. The picture is certainly elusive, perhaps suggesting a private collection. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Strong is riddled with mistakes. But he writes like a dream, I will say. Perhaps it was on loan/lease to Hampton Court, or something. qp10qp (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Vp.art

Hi Johnbod, regarding this AfD, you might be interested in the same thing over at de:WP, including ad hominem attacks. The user also recycles his keep comments between the two discussions. Minderbinder@de:WP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.206.47.130 (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! These disputes sound so much better in German, not that I can read it all, I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Renaissance cat

Hi Johnbod - I saw your new Category:Arts in the court of Philip the Good and was surprised to notice that the accompanying Category:Northern Renaissance did not exist. I did some research on existing categories and went ahead and created this new category. Then - perhaps belatedly - I though perhaps I had better stop and ask your advice before running around adding it everywhere and changing other categories. I believe it would be a helpful category but don't want to piss everyone else off. My understanding of the guidelines is that adding this category would prompt the removal of the broader Category:Renaissance, while in other instances Category:Northern Renaissance would be superseded by Category:Dutch Renaissance and the like. Your thoughts? Kafka Liz (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was surprised too, but didn't stop to see what else was around. I still can't see antything now, so it definately needed setting up. Most things should be either in the main cat or this, though I've added the Dutch & German cats to this, but left them on the main one. Mind you, the definition of the NR is always a bit vague - should we include Early Netherlandish painting/ers en masse? Maybe so. Johnbod (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, unless you put a colon before cats you are talking about, they only show at the bottom of the page, and the talk page is categorised! Johnbod (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops -- I didn't mean to make you an Art in the Court of Philip the Good! ;) I think the Early Netherlandish painters and their works should definitely be included. I know the definition can be vague; how do you feel about using the Getty Art & Architecture Thesaurus definition as a guideline? I've got some errands to run, but I should be able to start adding pages later today. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather minimalist one - "late 15th century" - which would exclude P the Good for example. Others include all the "Late Gothic" for example this: Harbison, Craig. The Art of the Northern Renaissance, 1995, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, ISBN 0297835122 - all the C15 & some late C14 too. See also [9],

Northern Renaissance art, 1400-1600: sources and documents

by Wolfgang Stechow - Art - 1966 - 187 pages, Reprint. Originally published: Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-Hall, 1966

The Northern Renaissance

by Jeffrey Chipps Smith - Art - 2004 - 448 pages - An up-to-date survey covering the years 1389-1580

Northern Renaissance Art: Painting, Sculpture, the Graphic Arts from 1350 to ...

by James Snyder - Art - 2004 - 592 pages - from a Google Book search.

I suppose we should go for a widish definition. The EN painters can go in in one edit. Mind you, some would exclude Poland. Johnbod (talk)

Broader is fine by me; I'm sure we'll hear about it if folks object. Sorry to disappear over the weekend -- I didn't have access to my library and discovered that my personal books on this period somehow migrated to my parents' house. They live a few hundred miles away but will be bringing the books later this week when my father comes up for a ballgame. I believe I have Snyder and possibly Smith, so I thought I'd wait and see. I did pick up the Harbison, though. Thanks for the references! Kafka Liz (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only have Harbison I just picked the other two off a Google book search on NR for the dates in the titles. Actually I think i mispasted & "An up-to-date survey covering the years 1389-1580" goes with Chipps not Snyder - I'll move. The only thing anyone ever objects to in this area is the Dutch/Flemish/Netherlandish Bermuda triangle, where they come at you from all sides. Johnbod (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh heh. :D Reminds me of why I've never gotten involved with Saint Naum. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being patient with me -- I'm new to working with categories on a broader scale like this. What you say makes perfect sense. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rood

This article appears to have been a strange juxtaposition of content on an Old English measurement and on rood-as-a-kind-of-crucifix, until somebody removed the whole latter part on the 6th of May. I restored the removed content (which is perhaps overly focused on a particular rood in Oxfordshire), but I suppose that it may be a better idea to separate the different meanings into different articles. This seems to be your area, so you may know what to do. I am uncertain about English terminology in this area, so I won't do anything about this myself. --Hegvald (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was just random vandalism. Since they come from the same meaning there is something to be said for keeping them together - I'll keep an eye on it/them though. Otherwise one would just merge with the much longer rood screen I think. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one reason to separate rood-as-crucifix into a separate article would be to be able to link to the other Wikipedias. The current links from "rood" all appear to go to articles on the measurement, but the Swedish and German Wikipedias have articles at "Triumfkrucifix" and "Triumphkreuz", respectively. --Hegvald (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They should go to rood screen - and Swedish Lektorium should go to English Pulpitum - one bay east! I have changed some of these. Johnbod (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced. I think rood screen is the rough equivalent of a korskrank, a screen between the nave and the chancel which occurs but is quite unusual in Swedish churches. In most Swedish churches, the triumfkrucifix just hangs or stands on a single beam, trabes, in the arch between the nave and the chancel (the triumfbåge, or "triumphal arch"), but with no screen below it. There is a monograph by the art historian Anna Nilsén about this, and it is available in an English edition which discusses terminological issues. I have only browsed it but will have to take another look. I will need to get back to you about this. Hegvald (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many more examples of Swedish "triumphal crucifixes" here and here. (The ring type is peculiar to Gotland.) --Hegvald (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The beam type was very common elsewhere too, though of course many have gone, and in Gothic Revival English churches. Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hegwald, if you're watching, there is further relevant discussion at Talk:Rood screen. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've read the discussion. I really need to read a bit more on the subject. --Hegvald (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For being a friend

Thanks Johnbod, I really appreciated you support and persistent help through the wild RCC FAC. NancyHeise (talk) 06:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you, Johnbod, for your note. I have responded on my talk page. Please feel free to keep in touch. Cheers, JNW (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Miélot

On 16 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jean Miélot, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Museum of Beirut review

please go ahead and make any changes you see fit. Eli + 17:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate what you did to the article, i couldn't have done a better job. thank you.Eli + 18:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the Byzantine chancel element is actually a sort of balustrade with a mythological bull protome Eli + 18:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feature Article Candidate Roman Catholic Church

The nomination of the above article was archived by the Featured Articles Director, with the comment that the page had again grown too long. He has asked that all remaining objectors produce a list of their specific problems with the article in its current form. These will then be addressed by the article's editorial team before re-presentation for FA status.

Can you therefore please post a complete list of any specific remaining objections you may have on the article's talk page at: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church. If possible can we have this list in by the end of June, so that editors can begin to address them all in detail in July. To prevent the nomination again becoming over-long, we would ask that you raise ALL of your remaining concerns at this stage, making your comments as specific and comprehensive as possible. It would help if all your comments were gathered under your name in a single heading on the page. Thank you. Xandar (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copied over from Xandar's talk page:) Johnbod, would you be willing to become a more active editor on the article? Perhaps after a suitable break--goodness knows, I can quite sympathize with your not being able to "face looking at" it right now. But I do think that if X and NH could expand the editing team, that would be a great step forward. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michelangelo

Hi Johnbod. I respect your action and what you've said, but I would first like to point out that I have read WP:ENGVAR and do understand the importance of it. Before making that edit, I deliberately checked which variant of English the article was mostly written in. I may not have been fully accurate, but it seemed like the article was written in American English, and my American Firefox browser didn't pick up any "typos" (or what it calls them) other than those two ones. Perhaps "consistency; English variants" would have been a better ES. However, since I was making a consistency fix, it was actually accurate for that to be labeled as a typographical error. I know at first it looks like a mindless edit in conflict with WP:ENGVAR claiming to be "fixing typos", but I just wanted to say that there was a reason behind my edit and its summary. Kind regards, Jamie^☆S93 23:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I did check & it seemed to be UK English; I forget what else there was. It was the edit summary that made me assume you just weren't aware. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know...

Johnbod, I know you don't want to be drawn back in... But perhaps you could look here and add your two cents. I'm suggesting you as someone who both does seem to value scholarship, and who has also won the trust of NancyHeise. Obviously, if you don't have the time (or would rather stick pins in your eyes), then so be it... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not tonight, certainly. Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Coke

Re this; Oh I have worse, however human decency, scurillous sources and fear of the afterlife prevent me from adding. Ceoil (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well done there - hope I didn't ec you! The son seems to have been even worse. Johnbod (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His son is another days work. Ceoil (talk) 01:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA thanks

I apologize for not thanking you sooner for your assistance. You may want to post this somewhere:

This user helped promote Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell) to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Floor

Just noticed your comment on Karen's RFA: - we need more blood on the floor there (and then we'll have less here). I know you don't like this kind of thing, but interesting image all the same, esp. the hanging lightbulbs [10]. For sure Bacon was a drama queen, but I think here, unusually for his late period, he found something even Goya would streach to reach in terms of realism. It looks like war photography to me. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know the painting - would be a nice image for her Rfa thank you spam, perhaps! It's a pity more people don't take a firmer line in some of the Editor Review cases, though I was rather overstating at the Rfa. I used to live near South Kensington, & getting on a bus one day looked up to see Bacon giving me a very intense stare indeed - it would have been striking from anyone. Johnbod (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eek. The man did have some glare to be fair, and anybody that could cut down Lucian Freud or Graham Sutherland with such severity was probably rough as stick to begin with. If you ever saw the 1984 South Bank Show, you can see he could cut glass at the bat of an eyelid, all the while playing footsie with Brag on camera. I went back just now, and I would think the grandure of this 1985 Self-Portrait puts him with the old masters, though I worry that bathos could be thrown at it. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well the eyes are softened to nothing, which is certainly not how he appeared in reality. Johnbod (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I suspect you found him on day he forgot to put on his black eye liner or leather suspenders. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! Where'd that come from?

re: CFD City councillors You said:

“

From a UK perspective, "city" is the problem, not "councillors" - don't the US & Canada have rural councils? I know the US doesn't have towns, but in most parts of the world there is a distinction between towns and cities. Rename Category:Local government council members perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

”

Harumph! Yes we do, in many flavors. Your rural councils are probably what most states here call a boro or township government. Towns are in between that and a city. Most towns have mayors, some townships do though may not. Each of the fifty states rolls their "own rules" though, so varies quite a bit, while still being basically the same as your back yard. Youse don't like it, move to the next state. Works!

I for one, have no interest in living in any incorporated "city" sub-national entity—the federal anti-discrimination laws force such to accept a certain percentage of federally subsidized low rent housing, which equates to police problems in the main and declining propery values or huge police forces. Add in bad schools with concurrent discipline problems. Not the quiet little neighborhood town one wants to raise kids in, given a choice, means (and common sense! <g>). Cheers! // FrankB 21:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was by way of a rhetorical question, as I've visited some of the wide open spaces. But eg Tuba City would not be so called over here, & we have Rural District Councils which are under no obligation to have houses next to each other at all. Johnbod (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me thinks, (In me best shakespeare accent) that forsooth, thou makest too much of a name, and too little of the title. In Arizona, though, 8K could be an incorporated city--regardless of the name. Virginia City of fame and infamy was not a city either, and probably still isn't. In any case, on this side of the pond is a matter of intersection between state, federal and county government (state constitutions, depending). I suspect there is a minimum population threshold, but that may vary state by state. I know "home rule" rules, here mostly, and here in Massachusetts, towns over 30,000 have to dance a very fine quickstep to NOT become cities under the commonwealth's laws. Based on some local politics a few years back I recollect it's fairly easy to get city status after 22-25,000, but I may mis-recollect. In my native Pennsylvania, many rural aggregations of that population range are quite happy staying as townships and not paying a mayor or town manager. My brother-in-law has done his bit on the township council, so rule by committee works there. Well, thanks for the diversion. It all goes to show you all politics IS local, and that no matter what, the world is an interesting place once you get beyond the next hill or three. Cheers and happy summer solstice! // FrankB 02:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To you too! I see in fact we abolished or reorganized the Rural District Councils some years ago, which shows you how much I know. Meanwhile City status in the United Kingdom is highly sought-after, and rival candidates fight like tigers with each other. Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Times archive

Have you seen this new archive. Ceoil ^sláinte 11:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd heard about it but not used it - very impressive. Johnbod (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble a brewing. Don't spare the damn horses when defending against mainpage hell. I expect the legacy will comme under scrunity; or maybe just nobody at all will care enough to remark except to point out that Sean is gay. Either way...defend the staus quo! Sean is straight....is the official story; arb com be damned. Ceoil ^sláinte

You may need this...

Hi Johnbod, if you have time to return to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 14#Category:Accounting associations you'll see I have suggested a rename, and would welcome your comment there. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guilds of Florence

Thanks for the artists section. Don't hesitate to add more if you get the urge; I think I might have bitten off more than I knew with this article. Savidan 03:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was cut & paste from Guild of Saint Luke & in fact mostly by User:Stomme who I did that one with. So I don't have any more ready on that I'm afraid. It's a very useful addition - I've seen loads of redlinks, or no-links, to the various guilds. In fact setting up redirects to this one from the names of the various major guilds might turn up a good deal of info, by following back "what links here". Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Champagne fairs

Are you interested in the Champagne fairs? I was surprised to read a short while ago that Our Founder thought all the importsant stuff had already pretty well been covered...--Wetman (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha - yes! If only. Braudel has a good bit, though Snrec seems to have covered the ground pretty well. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have some material from the textiles perspective. Traveling on business this week, but let me see what I can dig up. - PKM (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O yes. I've lost my Mediterranean in the Age of Philip II. I couldn't find much in vol. II of Civilization and Capitalism. There must be more at JSTOR.--Wetman (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vol 3 has lots more index refs Johnbod (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some stuff from the Cambridge Western Textiles and my new toy (The English Fur Trade in the Later Middle Ages). I have The Mediterranean in the Age of Philip II but no time to unearth it till I get back.

Are there any images of the Champagne fairs? - PKM (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. It was Arte di Calimala I was hunting for in Braudel just now and not finding. I'll work Braudel into the text. --Wetman (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've done bits but am stopping now. Didn't get to le pauvre France left helpless inside the spinning wheel of Euro-commerce. Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Garden of Earthly Delights

Can you keep an eye here...an image hunter keeps deleting the Miro from the Legacy section and I don't want to violate 3RRs but he's gonna keep on deleting, I suspect...Thanks Modernist (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 23 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Simon Marmion, 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) 12:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great expansion. - PKM (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Access stats

John, Thank you very much for the access stats link. It was eye opening. It was different from the raw data I had looked at before when I was looking at the idea of automating link generation. I am glad you provided that link. Cheers History2007 (talk) 05:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, eye-opening is the word. Enjoy! Johnbod (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

John, I really benefitted from your note and your page. Thank you very much. Keep up the good work. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRV of Category:British occupations

As a participant in the discussion, you may be interested in the Deletion Review that has been listed regarding my closure of the discussion as "no consensus". Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 23:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hortus conclusus

Would you look this over? Your name is missing from its page history, a notable absence. --Wetman (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marian art

Hi, yes, this is the last in the series! I think I have done enough on these articles after that. I am sure you would agree on that point. As you saw, it is just getting started now that the churches article is almost done. Please look at it again in about 10 days. And if you would please list the similar articles that you mentioned, that will be helpful. I assume you noticed it from Salus Populi Romani which as you saw was missing a key fact about Pius XII that I just added. Anyway, your suggestions and the list of the other articles you mentioned will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 27 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Guilds of Florence, 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.

--EncycloPetey (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Matt Smith (illustrator) AfD

I'm sure that you mean well, but please do not distort my comments on the Matt Smith (illustrator) AfD, especially by characterizing my keep as a delete. I consider this the same as misrepresenting others' views on Talk pages. Thank you. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not distorting your comments, but imho they are evidence it should be deleted, ie if that is all that can be said of him. Johnbod (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I guess I feel that he meets the spirit of WP:BIO and that numerous smaller third-party references are as good as one or two references from a major media outlet. Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

On 29 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William de Brailes, 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.

-- Sandstein 18:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hortus conclusus DYK

On 30 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hortus conclusus, 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.

--Circeus (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]