User talk:Johnbod/37

Art Gallery of Ontario

Hello Johnbod, you may be interested in this discussion about the gallery section of Art Gallery of Ontario. Coldcreation (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

memo to self - arty student project pages to check through

• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/California State University Sacramento/Art of the Ancient Mediterranean (Fall 2017)
• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Amherst College/Women and Art in Early Modern Europe (Spring 2017)
• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/College of DuPage/History of Art- Prehistory to 1300 (Fall 2017)
• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Duke University/Art in Renaissance Italy (Fall 2017)
• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Duke University/Art in Renaissance Italy (Spring 2017)

Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hours of Mary of Burgundy

Would you mind taking another peak. Update is I've taken it as far as I can, I think, without spending serious money on a near facsimile mrs Ceoil promises I can have *next Cristmas*. Hope all is well, and your sudden holiday break wants too stressful. Ceoil (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Celtic brooch Page Edits

Johnbod - I went back to take a look at the page again tonight. Looks like you created it. Great article imo. Problem is that last bit. I don't know why you reverted it. I'm the guy that sort of made a stink about it (the last bit) being a bunch of crap. If I'm wrong, I'd love to see some actual citations from TheLost Byte as I have been requesting he either supply or delete his part for about 15 days with no response except a revert and telling me to 'go use the sandbox' via some bot script.

Anyway. I went to the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team. I wasn't a dick...I didn't just go revert it and say anything shitty to anyone. After sometime of talking via email to Cordless Larry... this is the final response I got after about 7 emails explaining the situation. +++++++++ "Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team 4:41 PM (5 hours ago)

to me Dear Russ,

Since this was such an egregious case of original research, I have removed the material myself.

Yours sincerely, Lawrence Devereaux

-- Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/

+++++++++

Here is the link where I tried to explain to TheLost Byte after he sent a slightly snotty talk page to me or to recognize my IP or whatever....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:184.58.156.91

Do you actually disagree with what I was saying? There are ZERO citations to ANY type of evidence at all! I mean he didn't even bother trying to find a crap source; if one even exists. The only 2 links are to pictures...that's it. Now, I deleted the content the first time because of this and well...because it's a historically absurd idea that Vikings were touring around Africa looking for trade routes swappin' ideas on jewellery design. If I'm wrong..I'd love to see a credible source on the subject! lol.. Also, what DNA study?! Who the hell writes an article and can't cite a damn DNA study? Even with that...wouldn't that need to be MORE than just a DNA study?! It would need to actually need to have something to do with the say the imaginary trade route to Africa? lol c'mon man. Anyway, no citations, this would qualify as original research unless someone can come up with credible or verifiable sources...right? Now, from what I understand both of those make his section addition against Wikipedia policy, or am I wrong?

If I sound a little annoyed; I sort of am to be honest. I do love history. I do love metalwork and jewellry as an artist. I do get annoyed a bit with lazy people. Do you realize I've probably spent 500% more time trying to get that garbage removed just for the sake of truthful verifiable information people can actually trust.

So please remove the last section until 'TheLost byte' can come up with some verifiable citations and fix it so he isn't telling the reader what this and that "imply" just off the top of his head. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a place for opinion pieces from my understanding.

Anyway...been up for 24 hours...I'm gettin old.... hope it gets fixed. Thanks for at least reading my rant on the matter,

RT 184.58.156.91 (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC) (lol)

P.S. Sorry about my crap formatting I know nothing about your editor or formatting styles on Wikipedia. This and the response I wrote to TheLost byte are the only times I've ever used it. meh...I didn't proofread it either too tired. I'm sure you will get the jist of what I am trying to say though.

Not exactly. I have restored the referenced material that had been there since the early days of the article on modern Berber usage of penannular brooches, without all the crap about links with Scotland for this, which had been added since November. The baby had been thrown out with the bathwater. Johnbod (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I gotta admit that is MUCH better the way it is today. My main issue was the DNA, Scottish, Viking etc. crap. Now the picture that is there today also shows similarities without a doubt just from a visual standpoint. It would be nice though if there was some sort of actual research presented that showed any type of linkage between the cultures being that the actual title of the page is, "Celtic Brooch" and not "Penannular Brooches." Again, the only citations in that section are links to pictures with nothing that links the cultures. I have seen bits of info out there on how Vikings made it into Iran, Africa, Italy, etc. Some historical texts do mention contact with Berbers (sorry cannot recall the name of the text atm) but I just wish if people were going to edit or add sections they would do it with some type of justification that people can verify. Anyway... glad at least it got changed from complete gibberish to what it is now... better than no change. Thanks (Even in this link which is supplied http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O79372/penannular-brooch-unknown/ They talk about it being from Roman influence and no mention of Vikings, Scots,etc..)

RT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.156.91 (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Penannular brooch redirects there, and was in fact the article title for several years. The section implies no "Celtic" connection with Africa, but both areas were part of the Roman Empire, where the simple brooch form was common. In fact they have them in Tibet too, which I might add one day. Glad you approve the article as it is now. Johnbod (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Venetian helmet-crown

Good afternoon, Johnbod, I hope you are keeping well. I've taken to doing a bit of AfC reviewing and came across the above. Obviously under-sourced, but is it real? I sort of think it may have the makings of an article, but wondered if you had ever heard of it? I've also asked Ceoil. Any thoughts would be much appreciated. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It's certainly a real thing. I've read stuff on it, though I forget where - very likely Rogers J.M. and Ward R.M.; Süleyman the Magnificent, 1988, British Museum Publications ISBN 0714114405. Can't access my books at the moment, I'm afraid. The title is wrong really: Süleyman the Magnificent's Venetian Helmet perhaps? That gives you better hits like this from the Met, and this lot. It is famous from the print of course - the actual object seems to have long been recycled. Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed. All very helpful and gives the making of an acceptable draft, I think. All best wishes. KJP1 (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

thanks

I'm very sorry for writing very late. Thanks for you answer there Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2017_October_20#Commons_Category:Paintings_by_name--Pierpao (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The School of Athens -- second or third?

Hi John, I see by this edit, that you were the editor who added the citation "Jones and Penny, p. 74" to the statement that "The School of Athens, representing Philosophy, was probably the second painting to be finished there,", as well as adding that contradictory statement that Parnassus was painted before. Did you mean to change "second" to "third"? What exactly does Jones and Peny p. 74 say? Notice also that our Raphael Rooms says that the The School of Athens was painted second (no source being given). Paul August ☎ 17:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Aah! Sadly I can't access my books at the moment, so can't check. Logic would suggest 2nd was a mistake for 3rd, but I can't be sure. Sorry! But don't let's say "2nd" while listing 2 previous. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I see User:Omnipaedista has now added a quote from J&P, supporting 3rd, for which many thanks. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and has also changed Raphael Rooms. Paul August ☎ 13:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

But now note, the dates given for The School of Athens and The Parnassus, at Raphael Rooms (and elsewhere) seem inconsistent. Paul August ☎ 13:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a bit. I think all we actually know is that Raphael arrived in Rome in 1508, was rapidly commissioned, and was on to the next room by 1512. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Question about your "Effigy" article contribution

Dear Johnbod,

I was wondering what were your sources of knowledge for the "Grand Rababou" Effigy in Switzerland? Does it have Anti-Jewish origins? It seems similar to "scapegoating" from long before, but with a possibly racist twist. Thank you and hope you are well.

Sincerely,

Jeffgr9 (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Don't know anything about that. Seems possible. I wasn't aware I had edited that bit. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Titus Burckhardt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orientalist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent comment

Hi Johnbod. As part of my duties to maintain decorum on arbitration pages, I removed a couple sentences from a comment you posted (though I did try to retain the core meaning of your comment). The material accused another editor of habitually wikilawyering, engaging in "irritable discussion", and ignoring most consensus, but you did not present any evidence to that effect on the evidence page. You are welcome to restore the material if you add diffs on the evidence page and link to that evidence in your comment. Let me know if I can be of assistance. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

​Johnbod wasn't just making facts up, he was giving the results of previous arbcom findings ("POTW has had a long history of editing articles with the focus on adding or modifying infoboxes" and "Pigsonthewing's contributions to discussions about the inclusion of infoboxes are generally unhelpful and tend to inflame the situation. He also selectively chooses what discussions he considers consensus"). See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2—this has been going on a looong time (as in, over a decade), and it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the arbs are aware of their own rulings. ‑ Iridescent 21:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

To be fair to L235, I am not sure that everybody has Iridescent's eidetic memory/willigness to read up all past Arbcom cases and ANI threads. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not criticising (although if the action was at the direction of an arb, I am criticising, since if they accept an infoboxes case they have a duty of care to read the previous case even in the unlikely event they're not already wearily aware of it). I'm far more familiar with that particular case than usual, as the thread which ultimately led to it originated on my talkpage. (Even if the current case doesn't degenerate into the war of all against all I predicted—thus far most people other than the usual serial whiners seem to be studiously refusing to participate—I'll be willing to bet that this or something similar will be landing on Arbcom's lap in the next month at most, so you'll probably want to get the popcorn ready.) ‑ Iridescent 21:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Greatly appreciated, Iridescent. In the Committee's 2015 review, the Committee loosened restrictions on Pigsonthewing, noting that "While Pigsonthewing's conduct has improved since the 2013 case, some of this behavior is still present." In 2016, the Committee adopted a motion rescinding all relevant sanctions against Pigsonthewing. It's not my place to weigh the evidence, but I am required to ask for diffs when editors post "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" (NPA). Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, Iridescent. I have restored a depersonalized version of the point, which I hope is ok with everyone. Johnbod (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Suspect Wikimedia file

Hi, Johnbod, there's a Wikimedia file - File:Opened up a Pandora's box.jpg - that was the creation of an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet and probably should not be there. The suspect file claims to be an etching based on a work by the Victorian F. S. Church - File:Pandora FSChurch.jpg - which it plainly is not. There is no evidence in the Wikimedia summary that it is even in copyright. My guess is that it is a photoshop version of a derivative work and maybe should be removed. I thought it was policy, anyway, to remove images provided by suspect contributors. Since you know your way around WP much better than I, and have an art focus, could you please see that action is taken on that file? Thanks - Sweetpool50 (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Really a Commons question - better ask there. Try [[1]]. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done so. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Branchwork, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rothenburg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

RfA Nomination

Hello. I'm thinking about nominating you for an RfA. Would you be interested? I think you meet all the needed requirements and you would make a great admin. Thanks, L293D (✉) 15:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have been on "don't wannabe" list for years. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The Tempest

existing most valued

Hello. I propose the " File:6,99Mo-Giorgione 019.jpg " on the page " Commons:Valued image candidates ". This one is better than the one on the pages reviewed by Archaeodontosaurus who is the author of " File:Accademia - La tempesta - Giorgione.jpg ". Specially in English "The Tempest (Giorgione)". I think as you that it has too much glare. The colors are wrong, especially the sky, vegetation, contrasts that are totally contrary to the style of Giorgione, ... So, if you are interested in the quality of the image of "The Tempest" on all the Wikipedia pages I invite you to come and vote, and do the people vote : Commons:Valued image candidates/Most valued review candidate list. (Excuse my French translated). Sincerely. (Ismoon (talk) 09:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC))

links: The Tempest (Giorgione), https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Valued_image_candidates/candidate_list#The_Tempest_by_Giorgione

Facto Post – Issue 10 – 12 March 2018

Facto Post – Issue 10 – 12 March 2018 Milestone for mix'n'match Around the time in February when Wikidata clicked past item Q50000000, another milestone was reached: the mix'n'match tool uploaded its 1000th dataset. Concisely defined by its author, Magnus Manske, it works "to match entries in external catalogs to Wikidata". The total number of entries is now well into eight figures, and more are constantly being added: a couple of new catalogs each day is normal. Since the end of 2013, mix'n'match has gradually come to play a significant part in adding statements to Wikidata. Particularly in areas with the flavour of digital humanities, but datasets can of course be about practically anything. There is a catalog on skyscrapers, and two on spiders. These days mix'n'match can be used in numerous modes, from the relaxed gamified click through a catalog looking for matches, with prompts, to the fantastically useful and often demanding search across all catalogs. I'll type that again: you can search 1000+ datasets from the simple box at the top right. The drop-down menu top left offers "creation candidates", Magnus's personal favourite. m:Mix'n'match/Manual for more. For the Wikidatan, a key point is that these matches, however carried out, add statements to Wikidata if, and naturally only if, there is a Wikidata property associated with the catalog. For everyone, however, the hands-on experience of deciding of what is a good match is an education, in a scholarly area, biographical catalogs being particularly fraught. Underpinning recent rapid progress is an open infrastructure for scraping and uploading. Congratulations to Magnus, our data Stakhanovite! Links 3D printing Wikipedia goes 3D allowing users to upload .STLs for digital reference, Beau Jackson for 3dprintingindustry.com, February 22 2018 WikiCite report (video) Formal publication and announcement of ISBN citation dataset, see Twitter post, February 23 2018 Plotting the Course Through Charted Waters, workshop on data visualization literacy from Mikhail Popov, Wikimedia Foundation Using Wikidata to build an authority list of Holocaust-era ghettos, Nancy Cooey, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, February 12 2018 Why Should You Learn SPARQL? Wikidata! Mark Longair, blogpost November 29 2017 Back to the future: Does graph database success hang on query language?, George Anadiotis for Big on Data, March 5 2018 To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?

Hi. Have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician/Archive#04 March 2018. The two socks added "lan-ga" templates at Belfast Telegraph, Anderstown News, People Before Profit Alliance, Solidarity (Ireland), Independent Alliance (Ireland) and others. Do you think another SPI is warranted in the light of this? --Scolaire (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid so. I'll get on it - thanks! Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Cleopatra

Hi John! You're one of the old guard around here like me, a respectable chap and a highly knowledgeable one at that. It's always been a pleasure running into you here at Wikipedia, as you always have something of worth to say and quality material to contribute. I was wondering if you'd take a look at my recent sub-section "Depictions in ancient art" in the article for Cleopatra, which I plan on raising to Featured status (as outlined on the talk page, Talk:Cleopatra). I'm not an expert in this field by any stretch of the imagination, but I am about to do a heavy amount of research. I just want to know if I'm missing any glaring information that should be shared. I would also like your input on how to structure and what to include in the Roman historiography sub-section, if you know much about the Roman historians and their respective views on Cleopatra. Duane W. Roller (2010) gives a good rundown of the historiography from what I've read, but I can't just go around consulting a Professor Emeritus of Classics from Ohio State University about stuff that he said in his biography on Cleo. Plus, a fresh set of eyes would do wonders in finding stuff that I can't find in regards to glaring errors or mistakes. Once I have my draft in place and the article is largely rewritten, I'd be honored for you to have a look at it again! Hopefully I'll have that accomplished by the end of the month. Regards,--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - on a quick look you've researched far more than I know, but I would be a bit more cautious about some of the identifications as C. It's obviously very tempting to ascribe any bust of the right period as being her. I'm not really the person to ask about the historiography - try the Classical project, which has some good people. Are you going to write up the later art? Happy to take a look later, but unfortunately at the moment my books are all boxed up. Johnbod (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the very candid answer! I'll try to contact the Classical project for input. As for artworks depicting Cleopatra, Duane Roller (an Oxford University Press publication) does provide an excellent rundown and explanation of why scholars view certain pieces as being more authentic than others which are still in dispute. I made sure to rely on a variety of sources as well, to avoid bias and discover the academic consensus about each piece. I'll let you know when the draft is finished and the article is largely rewritten. Even if it's not your area of expertise, it wouldn't hurt having a fresh pair of eyes to look things over. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The dream is now reality, good sir. Gaze upon my article and despair (or enjoy it, either one). What was just a Sandbox draft has now grown into a monster of over 200 citations from dozens of scholarly sources, fitted with a handsome array of images and structured as neatly as I could manage it. The biography section is a bit large and needs to be split into some new Life of Cleopatra article, but aside from that, everything looks good to me. Do let me know if you spot anything that needs fixing, reorganizing, or rewriting in your estimation, noble sir. I plan on nominating it for GA status right away, but an FA candidacy could come very soon. Regards, --Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Goode, faitheful, and nobelest of sires, hear me true: dare ye gaze now upon that accursed Oriental sorceress and the charmer of snakes herself, Cleopatra the Great? For ye hath opined before the shape and condition of so great an essay presented by yours most truly. Dost though desirest a most quality production and fitting publication for such an impactful queen such as she? Nominated for its quality in a boldest candidacy for "Good article" status? Then look ye no further than the linking, by digital contrivance and bluish, illuminated, highlighted print, to the aforementioned article exploring the likes of Cleopatra in great antiquity. But beholde, and bewares! Her charms might allure ye into most dangerous traps of compliance and failure to see the flaws of such a tale as this, which requires most diligent and competent editors with candid critique, willing to unveil this untouched bride and unmask the follies that no doubt arise from engaging in such a mighty yet foolhardy task: explaining in depths a colossus of olde such as she! Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Offensive edit summary

Please do not leave offensive edit summaries, as you did here. You will be well aware of our policies on civility, there is and was no need for offensive language. Polyamorph (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Your recent editing history at Celtic Britons shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. The Banner talk 17:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'll put this here as well. Edits like this one would get a less experienced editor a vandalism warning. As I know you are an experienced editor, I'll just ask you not to do any more like that. Quite apart from the unfriendly edit summary, your edit reduced the quality of the article in several ways that I would be happy to discuss with you in article talk. As it is, you're verging into sanctionable territory, so please don't do that again. Thanks. --John (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Oh, go away. Don't revert to impose your personal stylistic tics - promoting the extermination of "however" for example. You should do something useful, like writing articles, rather than these endless fiddling copyedits, and opining on policy pages. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --John (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@John: What's with the abuse of rollback and warning templates? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree - looks like Wikipedia:WikiBullying to me. Johnbod (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Cry me a river, Johnbod. Tip: in the future, when playing this passive-aggressive game, don't ruin it by making hostile, nasty edit summaries like this one. That gives the game away; you aren't trying to improve the article but making a point against me and my edit. At that point, AGF evaporates and yes it is vandalism. See you around. --John (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I've explicitly warned John that continuing this behavior would mean a trip to ANI. Your edit summary was no worse that his here --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, especially as I don't think we've interacted before. I'd be perfectly happy to explain, in detail, at the article talk what I thought was "weaselly" about his "fiddling", not to mention set out the cases for the endangered "however" and "several", but it might be best to let things simmer down a while first. He asked there for support from other editors, and as he notes on your talk, hasn't yet had any. Johnbod (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Cambridge Five

I've looked at the article. It's absurd that "Maclean and Burgess" are bracketed together, since their only joint enterprise was their defection. I can't do anything immediately, but I'm quite prepared to improve the Burgess section when I can find time. Brianboulton (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! What got my goat was the old 1st para, with: "Four members of the ring were originally identified: Kim Philby (cryptonym: Stanley), Donald Duart Maclean (cryptonym: Homer), Guy Burgess (cryptonym: Hicks) and Anthony Blunt (cryptonyms: Tony, Johnson). The ring was initially dubbed the Cambridge Four and later renamed the Cambridge Five when evidence came to light indicating that John Cairncross (cryptonym: Liszt) was also a member.[citation needed]" Grrr! Johnbod (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Honored- thus I send you the creation a diy e-liquid recipe (now retired) was based on. The loss of one simple ingredient pulled from the market has left an elr expect at a complete loss. Perhaps in the future, a new more clean version of such flavoring will be available. Best PhilEdits (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Social media

Re No social media in the 16th century. They had to make their own entertainment. Things weren't much better in the late 18th century, I suspect, judging from this Hogarth[2] Ceoil (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Fasinating

I have voiced concerns regarding parity and was pleasantly surprised that I am not the only one with such concerns. As long as Art and Feminism edit-a-thons get 'coverage' and funding, we think we are fixing a problem. We probably aren't-but they are a lot of fun. Thank you. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 23:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

We've long conflated the editor gender gap (undisputed and fairly clear within a range of c. 8-15% of editors being women) with the content gender gap, which after several years of conscious effort might not even exist, and is very hard to quantify - but try telling many people that. Editathon efforts have aimed to fix both problems at the same time. For me the first problem is the more important, and I've (having led many) rather lost faith that the typical biographical introductory editathon is creating enough new editors to justify the effort, even though numbers of bios are produced. I could go on for hours about this.... Johnbod (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rashtrapati Bhavan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ashokan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

DLB

John, Colin is pouring through dementia with Lewy bodies right now, and I was hoping you might take an interest after he is done. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, I'll certainly take a look, but bear in mind my qualifications to edit medical stuff are tenuous without the expertise of others behind me. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

It's my dreadful prose that needs help! Thanks, John. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, Johnbod (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Colin's done for the day, me too, and even Ceoil! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

My gratitude for your subtle wisdom

Dear John,

You are intelligent (IQ) and subtle (EQ), with ample conscience, my initial impression of you. My respect for you. We may still agree or disagree in future on topic by topic, just be kind and please be more assertive. Wikipedia has no bosses. Noisy or persistent editors have a say, unfortunately. it should be about collaborating for newer knowledge with scientific rigor while embracing the newer paradigm same scientific rigor but first empower those cultures, nations and societies to adopt this rigor. Conversely, we must learn their paradigm.

Thank you for your kind contribution to the Prehistory of Australia, Indigenous Australians and periodization. Please be more assertive. I felt you are apprehensive, with ample self-filters and censorship. That is good enough. You do not need approval/consensus from others. Just make your edit and then leave a message on the talkpage if you feel it can be challenged. If some one revert it then you can still leave another message on the talkpage and if no one replies for a week then you an just make your edits. later anyone reverts then you piont them to the talkpage. You are also welcome to leave a message on my talkpage to come participate in discussion should you feel I can add value and I will try to provide honest opinion and I will explain further it is just layman, versus emotional response versus a topic I know well off. I usually research before I respond. I am blunt. Not as assertive as I come across. Soft too (new/young kids, honest people, people i might have hurt (my blind side), who cares about wikipedia if we can not take care of fellow human/efitors feelings, but have to protect from being manipulated if we are too soft. Thanks again. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks - "apprehensive, with ample self-filters and censorship" isn't the usual criticism I get! Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 11 – 9 April 2018

Facto Post – Issue 11 – 9 April 2018 The 100 Skins of the Onion Open Citations Month, with its eminently guessable hashtag, is upon us. We should be utterly grateful that in the past 12 months, so much data on which papers cite which other papers has been made open, and that Wikidata is playing its part in hosting it as "cites" statements. At the time of writing, there are 15.3M Wikidata items that can do that. Pulling back to look at open access papers in the large, though, there is is less reason for celebration. Access in theory does not yet equate to practical access. A recent LSE IMPACT blogpost puts that issue down to "heterogeneity". A useful euphemism to save us from thinking that the whole concept doesn't fall into the realm of the oxymoron. Some home truths: aggregation is not content management, if it falls short on reusability. The PDF file format is wedded to how humans read documents, not how machines ingest them. The salami-slicer is our friend in the current downloading of open access papers, but for a better metaphor, think about skinning an onion, laboriously, 100 times with diminishing returns. There are of the order of 100 major publisher sites hosting open access papers, and the predominant offer there is still a PDF. Red onion cross section From the discoverability angle, Wikidata's bibliographic resources combined with the SPARQL query are superior in principle, by far, to existing keyword searches run over papers. Open access content should be managed into consistent HTML, something that is currently strenuous. The good news, such as it is, would be that much of it is already in XML. The organisational problem of removing further skins from the onion, with sensible prioritisation, is certainly not insuperable. The CORE group (the bloggers in the LSE posting) has some answers, but actually not all that is needed for the text and data mining purposes they highlight. The long tail, or in other words the onion heart when it has become fiddly beyond patience to skin, does call for a pis aller. But the real knack is to do more between the XML and the heart. Links Crossref as a new source of citation data: A comparison with Web of Science and Scopus, CWTS blogpost 17 January 2018, Nees Jan van Eck, Ludo Waltman, Vincent Larivière, Cassidy Sugimoto Citations with identifiers in Wikipedia, figshare dataset Making women more visible online—with Wikidata tools!, Wikimedia blogpost 29 March 2018 by Sandra Fauconnier Village pump discussion, Turn on mapframe? We’re ready if you are reaches conclusions The Power of the Wikimedia Movement beyond Wikimedia, Forbes 28 March 2018, Michael Bernick Tracing stolen bitcoin, blogpost 26 March 2018 by Ross J. Anderson To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Ashokan Pillars

hi,

there has been more work done one a handful of ashokan pillars to exhibit greek and persian influence in this article compared to countless persian and greek pillar taking influences from greek and egyptian respectively in other articles. there seem to be a specific agenda and bias being followed here.

the design and motifs are circulated over vast distances, greek have followed egyptain infleunces but not one word is written in greek column article. whereas the ashokan handful of pillars being elaborately and minutely discussed on its foreign influences and even called 'adaptation' of perhaps original versions.

im only arguing with authentic sources that ashokan pillars are not adaptations and are uniquely indian which is not being tolerated.

Because the sources don't say that - even the ones you claim to be citing. It is pretty clear where the "specific agenda and bias" is. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

what are you eve talking about? im am not even paraphrasing the tet, copying word by word from the source and yet you are editing it out. there are only 7 ashokan capitals in existence, compared to countless greek pillars which are technically copy paste versions of egyptain ones (not one basic change), please do research and write about egyptain adaptation on greek pillars. not one word is written in the greek column article about it.

I'm moving this to Talk:Pillars of Ashoka. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Neontology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Morphology and Taxonomy

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

added a link pointing to Acanthus

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Royal charters

Actually, if items are entirely wrong, that does justify their removal. As you wish to retain them, however, I have tagged them as uncited and dubious. Mauls (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

You don't know that they are entirely wrong - you just think they might be. I rather doubt they are myself. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding Articles

Please, I'm interested in adding a business to Wikipedia.

FOX NAIJA is the business. Foxnaija (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

No thanks - suggest you read WP:NOTABILITY and WP:COI. Johnbod (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Precious six years!

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda! Johnbod (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Florentine painting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tondo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

"Cite-banditry"—brilliant! Thanks for the laugh-out-loud moment  :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Particularly interested in the English medieval, Johnbod? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - for sure! Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Heh...I suppose that beer there was one of those ones you buy someone before asking them for a loan, if you know what I mean—  ;) but it occurs to me, I have a peer-review open; you might be interested. It's political rather than cultural, though, so I won't be offended if you haven't got the time and/or don't do PRs and/or not the slightest interest in the thing whatsoever! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup after usurping a title

Hello. I note you recently moved Leslie Webster (Australian politician), turning Leslie Webster into a name disambiguation page. Per WP:USURPTITLE, please strive to correct incoming links ("what links here") following such a move, to minimize disruptions. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I've done some,but won't do all. I think we have a bot that gets round to this eventually. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

i don't think that's correct, but I'd love to find out its true. To my knowledge, bots will shortcut redirects to redirects following a page move (i.e. if "Foobar (actor)" redirects to "Foobar Jones", and "Foobar Jones" is subsequently moved to "Foobar B. Jones", a bot will soon redirect "Foobar (actor)" directly to "Foobar B. Jones", but I don't think one will choose between a number of titles with the same name if the redirect is converted into a disambiguation. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

You may well be right. The page (LW) has been getting I think the lowest page views I've ever seen btw, of which I expect most were random page or looking for the other one. Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Portals

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

François de Vendôme, Vidame de Chartres

Hi, I just promoted your hook to Prep 6. The link to Bastardy redirects to Legitimacy (family law). Would you like to pipe it to Royal bastard, or some other page? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes please - much better! Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

An article you created has been nominated for speedy deletion.

See Bespoke. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

No, see Bespoke and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bespoke. It's altogether typical you can't do the notice properly, with a link. Johnbod (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

odd ... methinks there is more than meets the eye here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I think he's just got a bee in his bonnet. The article is disam+, but I thought worth doing.

Oh, Maya astronomy is just painful. It is hard to resist some basic cleanup ... some things cannot be unseen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia strongly cautions against stalking and harassment. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I want to look at that one ..... Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, maybe you are right. I have encountered him before, though I don't exactly remember where - probably something Pre-Col. There certainly seems to be some animus. Many thanks for your edits - FAC here we come (not)! Johnbod (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

no need to thank me ... it was a good distraction and fun. It is so much easier to edit outside of the medical realm. And so irritating to be living with, and realizing we have no article on, radiation colitis (which redirects to proctitis, which it is not). We just have nothing right in the prostate realm, the whole prostate cancer mess is too much to fix, and bespoke was fun work for sleepless nights. I am considering trying to have a friendly word with Mr. Cuete, but I suspect that would not be fruitful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably not. Delighted I was able to provide a distraction - I've been in a very comparable situation myself. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't sound good :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=838051806#Edit_warring_on_Bespoke. Have a nice day! Senor Cuete (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Aartswoud

Hey--the usual terms, but that's the problem here: Hoogwoud wasn't a parish or diocese or anything like that, as far as I know. It was called a "missionary station", which is no doubt related to the precarious position of Catholics in Dutchland. "De katholieken uit Aartswoud vielen onder de statie Hoogwoud"--"statie" has an entry in the Dutch Wikipedia, nl:Statie (missie). Ha, OK, now that I read that whole article, yeah--Catholicism was still suppressed in 1801, the cut-off point for that archive website, and they didn't get parishes until 1853. I don't know what the English equivalent of statie is, but it certainly is missionary, and not a parish. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, but I doubt mission is the appropriate word in English, & if it were it would need explanation - I'd just say "went to the Catholic church at Hoogwoud" - assuming there was a church. Johnbod (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

"Place of worship" is a nice neutral term to use when you're not sure. Sweetpool50 (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but it's not just about the place; it's really about membership and administration. I'll think on it some. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It's Calvinists (and Americans) who do "membership and administration". In European Catholicism you pretty much just turn up, or not. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

In the Netherlands of that time there's issues for Catholics, which is why there weren't parishes or (regular) bishops. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It was a similar situation in England, where the dioceses weren't restored until 1850, with much controversy (Scotland 1878). I don't think people talk about "missions" though. Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I've called in the cavalry--Rolf Bremmer and Genootschap Onze Taal. This is the term. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

François de Vendôme, Vidame de Chartres

Hi, there's a raging discussion over your hook going on at WP:ERRORS#DYK next next. Yoninah (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - of course I was unaware. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for François de Vendôme, Vidame de Chartres

On 26 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article François de Vendôme, Vidame de Chartres, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that François de Vendôme (pictured) lost favour at court by declining to marry brides chosen for him, including a second-generation royal bastard, and was eventually imprisoned in the Bastille? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/François de Vendôme, Vidame de Chartres. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, François de Vendôme, Vidame de Chartres), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Authority control

OK, will do. I'll scrub them from my list from here on. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Anytime. Although one might make an intriguing case for the Arnolfini Portrait as some kind of an allegory of the Trinity...if one wished to further one's career in the discipline. Might be an amusing exercise, at that. I think I retain enough jargon from my studies to cobble together a plausible paper for publication... :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

There was a lot more wrong than that. The trouble is, the more famous the painting, the more sources they have, and the more old/incorrect junk gets into the entry.... Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, the beauties of ancient sources. (Art history was my major discipline...I always used to joke that, given that I used Vasari as a text for my Italian Renaissance class, I officially had the oldest textbook of any of my friends.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)