User talk:Johnbod

This user is one of the 400 most active Wikipedians.

Dirty angel from the Monumental Cemetery of Staglieno in Genoa, c.1910

Poor images

We tend to have very poor images of celebrities and sports. Has been written about for years. Talk to our best image peeps and FP and they admit it. (I have talked to them at FP.)

Here is a story on it, and if you Google, you will find more. Sorry, I'm not going to do a study on it!

There are some other aspects to the issue (like bloggers often taking great pictures...yes they steal a lot, but they also cover more events with humans...look at FP...it is bird central.) But it's not about fixing everything. Just about making a step change. I totally know how to solve this problem. Or at least make a step chang improvement. (That is "solve" in my world.)

TCO (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

UNeSCO categories

A start: Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#Plain language. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Diff

Johnbod, I'm writing an opinion piece for the Signpost, and would like to use this diff of yours to quote "in my area of the visual arts ... most articles on major topics are crap (Indian art, Italian Renaissance sculpture, in fact anything to do with sculpture, Baroque, Rococo, Romantic art etc etc)". Is that OK? If you would prefer to see the op ed piece before agreeing, let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm sure that's fine. Johnbod (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, I've temporarily cut the quote because I had characterized it as saying that "art history is poorly covered". Sandy pointed out that in fact there have been quite a few people working on art history articles at FAC, so I think I need a better way to summarize your comment. Would it be fair to say: "You can also get an idea of what doesn't particularly interest Wikipedians by looking to see what areas are poorly covered: psychology, for example, or major topics in art"? The draft article is here, if you'd like to look, and this is the diff where I removed your quote; I'd add it back as given above if you think that's an accurate summary description. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

All the FAC articles, mine included, are on individual works or artists with relatively few surviving works (Robert Peake the Elder) - the major topics are indeed crap. Which was exactly my point. Where is this SG diff? Johnbod (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

On the talk page of the op ed draft. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw your note there and have re-added it to the draft with the description of "major topics in art". Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Judith Beheading Holofernes

Hello Johnbod--you have been busy, I see. Thanks: this article has been getting better and better, and I hope I'm not making it worse. (Boy, File:Judith beheading Holofernes.jpg is ugly.) I am trying to resist the temptation to put too many images in that gallery; for now I'm trying to work on the sourcing a bit. Now, between you and me, and this conversation is totally and completely private, in the vault, I have a secondary objective with this article: I have used it in class quite often when I'm teaching the Old English Judith. So I have a vested interest in this article being a gallery...and I might add a few more images in the next couple of decades; I guess I'm telling you this as fair warning, so you can keep an eye on me and rein me in if need be. And I have another secondary objective: I am working on an article on teaching Judith and want to make reference to our article (as a teaching aid, if you will), so it is in my best interest to have it look as good as possible.

Anyway, thanks for your work on the article, and feel free to let me know if I get carried away. I think there's more to be done here--perhaps a division into different art forms. We'll see. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I removed some guy who added his own works "after" Caravaggio (a very long way after). I have Power of Woman (women?) as a Renaissance theme on my to do list. Johnbod (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, did you see this (justified) edit? It's actually an interesting book, I've looked at a couple of the essays. I'll look at it again: I am tempted to stick it back in the main Judith article. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, or both. I have this: H Diane Russell;Eva/Ave; Women in Renaissance and Baroque Prints, National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1990; isbn 155861 0391, which has a good deal on the Power of Women. The Exhibition included at least 9 Judith prints. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Did you see the exhibition? And did you feel unmanned afterward? ;) Drmies (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No! But what with Jael, Tomyris, and others there are a lot of naked women with detached male body parts, as well as the usual victims and virgins. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You know we've only scratched the surface. Here's a fascinating note on Giorgone's. I'm about to walk over to the library and pick up Judith: sexual warrior, women and power in Western culture by Margarita Stocker. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff! Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If we bring this article up to higher status (there is a ton of work to do, of course), do you think we'll get laughed at by the Foundation, that it would be considered yet another unimportant little article only relevant to the specialists? It is a huge theme, of course--emasculation and the plethora of feminist and other critical readings of the topic in the various literary versions aren't even touched upon in the article yet. A way around that (at least to make it smaller and thus more manageable) would be to limit the article to depictions in the visual arts, but these literary versions are just as important. Then there's music; did you put the Vivaldi reference in? I'm sure there are lots more, and I've never even looked at that (if you couldn't tell, literature is my field). Do you have any thoughts on this? Is limiting to visual arts fair to the topic? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Literature and music are covered in Book of Judith; if relevant one could mention works here, but at the moment it seems to me to function ok as "art" only; there are probably special issues for art, like nudity, and that is where it was most popular. But if the article was expanded that might change. I don't think there would be an issue at FAC, if all the literature were covered, least of all from the foundation. It would be the first iconography FA I think. A lot of work though - you'll notice the HTR and also Royal Gold Cup have pretty tiny literatures, as does my next FAC. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I just had another look at Holy Thorn Reliquary--what a marvelous piece of work, both of them. You do the references the way MF does them as well. I usually use slightly different formatting, but I won't insist on my idiosyncrasies given your track record. In other words, any time you want to change this to your style is fine with me; if the article increases such change is probably necessary. What always bothers me a bit is that the journal template does not seem to allow "pages of the article" simultaneously with "page number of the quote." (The same applies to the book template if a chapter title is inserted, the format for all edited collections.) Since the article isn't that huge yet this is not insurmountable; if journal articles and essays/book chapters are moved to a bibliography section (what you usually call "References") then the page numbers for the quotes can still easily be retrieved. I'll gladly follow any suggestion you may have. In the meantime, thanks for your work on the article and your assistance. I'm going to work on my own Judith article a bit. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed you change the citation method, without discussion tut tut - well it is an improvement to the previous lot, though I like to keep things as simple as possible, if only not to add to the daunting aspects of WP for those disappearing new editors. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahem, yes, well, eh, I moved one or two things into templates. I like templates--I grew up within spitting distance of Germany, and Ordnung muss sein. Feel free to trout me--I think that agrees with my dietary restrictions. As for disappearing new editors, since I made admin I have more effective means of making them go away, and I am sure you know we get ten bucks a head, two for an IP. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Tee hee! That's ok. I'm just back from several very nice days in Amsterdam btw. Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Mail: off the back-burner

Hello, Johnbod. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Charles Matthews (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Royal manuscripts, British Library

Are you going to nominate for GA?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't going to, as I never do GA. I am about to expand the article from the exhibition catalogue, which the BL have kindly sent WMUK. Johnbod (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Northern Renaissance art

The absence of this article came up at Talk:Early Netherlandish painting. Would you be interested in collaboratively putting together an overview in the next week or so? I know it's a tall order but... Thanks, Lithoderm 18:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a very busy time for me, on and off-wiki. You'd better start without me! Certainly a major gap. When will you put your beginning & end dates? I did Northern Mannerism, as you may know. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist! As for start and end dates...(shrugs)... I'm really more up on the 19th and early 20th centuries, art historically. I know artist's names and work, but Kerner on the moment of self portraiture is really the only non- coffee table or text book I've read cover to cover on the subject of the period.

By the way, I just stubbed out Girolamo Mocetto and plan to expand it in the next few days with info from Spangenberg and the Grove- maybe for DYK if it gets large enough. If you have anything to add it would be a big help.

No pressure, I've got work to do myself- and reading if I'm going to be anything approaching informed on Northern Renaissance art. Thanks, Lithoderm 14:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'll have stuff there. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I've finished with Mocetto for now. More on my talk.. Cheers, Lithoderm 05:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images Arbitration request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Muhammad Images and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Requesting your expert advice

Hi Johnbod,

A new WikiProject to create Offline Wikipedias for Indian Schools has been started under aegis of WikiProject India. Our first project is to develop, convert and expand the SOS Children's Village compilation into one suitable for India. Acknowledging your work done on Indian art, may I request you to kindly help us develop the list on "Art" located over here? AshLin (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, comments tomorrow. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. AshLin (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Gentle reminder. AshLin (talk)

DYK for Scottish National Portrait Gallery

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Bodleian frieze

I have a draft on this, which is coming along; it is the tie-in for what Fæ is running up to with Glamox, as far as I'm concerned anyway. I have tried to give general context, which you might want to comment on. The paper by Bullard has a dozen sources from which the heads were copied (or restored), which I shall add next, and will make it more interesting for the art history, I think. (I only got this far because Jacobus Verheiden was one of my Dutch targets.)

The actual layout of the frieze is troublesome with the sources I have, since it is presumably around a six-sided L-shaped room per the map; I have some idea what is happening by looking at who is on the list and what you would naturally do with the walls you had. Free images are a definite problem. I'd like to have the content respectable before I get back to my contact at the Bodleian. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions. I have made pages now for the redlinks from the list of heads, so it is quite close to being ready to create as an article. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

As a point arising, illustrations for canon lawyers like Johannes de Imola are a blessing with a rather dry subject. I have found an illuminated manuscript page for him; there are others that would tie in with the BL GLAM thing. (I have added a bit on Wikipedia:GLAM/BL/Royal just now.) Charles Matthews (talk) 07:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It is now created as painted frieze of the Bodleian Library. I have also made Category:Friezes for our small collection, and dropped a line to the Bodleian about it. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Westminster Psalter, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Scorpio and Visitation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Christmas

Merry Christmas

History2007 (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Royal Manuscripts

I'm very interested in this one, and I signed up [1]. I have done some work on texts from this collection, notably by Walter Burley. Unfortunately I'm still banned here - is it possible that the form could be moved to the WMUK site? Best Edward. We met at the November London meetup, if you remember. 31.52.4.78 (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I do. The emphasis of the exhibition is mainly on illumination of course. The sign-up is ok, ISP or not. Johnbod (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes understand. However the signup will be deleted as soon as an administrator spots it. In fact, looking at Walter Burley, I see that most of it was deleted by admins. Let me know. 31.52.4.78 (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

PS I just see you wrote most of Royal manuscripts, British Library. Excellent piece of work! 31.52.4.78 (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Girolamo Mocetto

I went ahead and nominated the article... oh and here. Lithoderm 02:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Please...

... have a look at the FAC. Thanks for posting. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I have replied. I cannot understand why we are having a discussion over a line which is not even in the article. I swear on all the love I have for Beyonce that I was not trying to be rude. Sincerely, Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Master L. Cz.

Just a quick question: the Grove claims that Master LCz used aquatint in his prints, but this seems very dubious. I thought aquatint was a later invention...? Lithoderm 00:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Still digging on this, but it does seem odd, but not an isolated reference. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Unsolicited opinion: It must be an "aquatint-like effect" as he's at least 150-odd years too early (don't see it myself though - there's heavy cross-hatching in the Temptation) Yomangani^talk 14:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll copy & continue this at Talk:Master L. Cz.. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images arbitration case

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 11, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

My Sincere Wishes For This Festive Season

		★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★* Merry Christmas And Happy New Year 2012 *★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★
		I Wish You And Your Family A Merry Christmas And A Happy New Year 2012. May The New Year Bring Much Happiness, Prosperity, Peace, And Success In Your Life. I Am Very Happy To be Part of Wikipedia And To Have Great Friends Like You. Cheers. - From A Big Fan of ----> Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Holiday wishes...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Your Adoration

Thanks for your Christmas card (Le Nain), with mine: Es ist ein Ros entsprungen (Sandström), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Adoration of the Shepherds (Le Nain) is my Christmas card to everyone! Best wishes for Christmas and the New Year to all! Johnbod (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy Christmas

I salute you. There is nothing I can give you which you have not, but there is much that while I cannot give, you can take. No heaven can come to us unless our hearts find rest in it today. Take heaven. No peace lies in the future which is not hidden in this present instant. Take peace. The gloom of the world is but a shadow. Behind it, yet within our reach, is joy. Take joy. And so at this Christmastime, I greet you, with the prayer that for you, now and forever, the day breaks and the shadows flee away. — Fra Giovanni Giocondo, 1513 Peace and joy this holiday season. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Not quite as good as your card, of course. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Christmas Greetings from Downunder

Rejoice!
window by John Hardman of Birmingham, 1850s, St Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney

from Amandajm (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

More information needed about File:Cuthbert covercropped.jpg

Hello, Johnbod!

It was really helpful of you to you to upload File:Cuthbert covercropped.jpg. However, we need to properly format the image license information in order to keep and use new images.

If you can edit the description and add one of these templates, that would be great. If you're not sure how or would like some help, please ask us at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you.

Thanks again! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Gee, we disagree with ourself a lot; but it's nice to know that the joys of Wikipedia exist even in articles I left months ago. Obviously, only one evil editor could disagree with the Croatian Truth! Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Seasons greetings

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec11}} to your friends' talk pages.

Hi Johnbod, nice to see all that money pouring in as a result of your work in getting charitable status in the UK. ϢereSpielChequers 23:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Adoration of the Shepherds (Le Nain) is my Christmas card to everyone! Best wishes for Christmas and the New Year to all! Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Charming painting. It always somewhat amazes me that everyone is focused on that quite unremarkable baby, and no-one seems at all phased by the two children with large wings jutting from their shoulders. Amandajm (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Except that here one of the boys, & one of the angels, are coolly looking away from the Child. Approaching Magi or not, it seems very French - I can't imagine that in a 17th century Spanish or Italian work. Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice read, I expect they are just being polite about the wings. Otherwise the stonework looks a little massive for a stables, especially the columns and is that by any chance a stirrup on that donkey? ϢereSpielChequers 00:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Westminster Psalter

Merry Christmas Victuallers (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Girolamo Mocetto

EncycloPetey (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 08:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Joseph and Potiphar's Wife

Thanks for adding to the article. There are so many Rembrandt prints deserving of articles, and someday I'll add another. The Three Trees is on my shortlist.... Very happy holidays, JNW (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure, & good to see you active! Adoration of the Shepherds (Le Nain) is my card, with best wishes to all. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

All the best for the holidays!..Modernist (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

My Heartfelt Thanks

I express you my heartfelt thanks. ""Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" has passed. I am very happy. Your feedback and kind words helped me considerably. Thanks again. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Celebrate

Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and lets hope it's a good one! and keep on keeping on...Modernist (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Adoration of the Shepherds (Le Nain)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas! Hope it's a peaceful holiday for you. Also, I've gone ahead and nominated Master L. Cz. at DYK. If you'd like to add anything to it, please do, and I'll add you to the nom'. Thanks, Lithoderm 04:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me

I know this must be frustrating to you, but please propose a corrected version of that finding. [2] Thanks. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Johnbod. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop.
Message added 05:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I made a list. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I got myself a copy of [3] after seeing your link to Gruber's paper on ANI. Wikipedia is cultural experience in the most surprising places. Happy holidays. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I've discovered something interesting. Although it's generally true that manuscripts were only available to the elite, the popular ones were mass printed as litographs in the 19th century Iran, as described for example in [4]. Do you have access to that book by any chance (other than via google)? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No, but it is interesting. I've seen a 19th century carpet somewhere (for the wall rather than floor no doubt). Christiane Gruber, who is the main art historian of the subject working today is publishing a new book on the whole matter of images of Muhammad which is due out in 2013 (recently put back I think). It's a pity that will be too late. "She is currently writing her next book, The Praiseworthy One: The Prophet Muhammad in Islamic Texts and Images, due to be published in 2013". Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Need a little help identifying cover art

Could you identify (even roughly) what's on the cover of this book [5]?

I'm assembling a list of mainstream English academic biographies of Muhammad. User:ASCIIn2Bme/Mill.

JN466's favorite book is in fact not a biography of Muhammad, but a work on his reception in some Sufi literature. That's why it's amply illustrated with photos of manuscripts (incl. calligraphy). I have yet to find an actual biography of Muhammad in English that has calligraphy pictures inside (or Persian miniatures for that matter). The only thing I found inside so far are maps.

Although authors hardly ever decide what cover art is going to be on their books, which is decided by the publisher, I'm adding that info too whenever possible.

Thanks, ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like stucco architectural decoration, certainly with inscriptions, which may be Quranic. Possibly from Spain. That's as far as I can go I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I’m leaning more towards Egypt, and the words "The mihrab of al-Afdal, the Fatmid vizir, dated 1193, in The Mosque of Ibn-Tulun" somehow spring to mind. There’s a nice colour image here on Flickr with a link to some MIT OpenCourseWare which might give some more detailed info. Ian Spackman (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Very good! Looks like there's been some serious restoration work. Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Paging Superman

Hi Johnbod - can you give us some input regarding this issue? Thanks, and Happy New Year (in advance) Kafka Liz (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for input regarding core biographies, specifically of artists

I would appreciate any input you might have at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies#Proposed expansion of list. Your input, as an editor very familiar with the visual arts, would be very welcome, particularly any opinions you might have regarding the "qualification" of those artists suggested for the expanded list. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited State (printmaking), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mantegna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year

All the best!..Modernist (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

This use of rollback was clearly unwarranted. I doubt that your personal judgement about the value of my edits is sufficient to justify using of rollback (Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool), but I wouldn't mind if you had actually checked what you rolled back. Huon (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I explained in advance I would be using rollback - I don't have twinkle or other alternatives. You did a considerable number of edits that were wrong and with a plainly misleading edit summary, & I looked at them all, though some in more detail than others. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The vast majority of the categories I removed were not supported by sources or even by the article text. I acknowledged that my edit summaries could have been better, but I'm not aware that "bad edit summary" is a reason to revert an edit (and it's not as if edits with more precise edit summaries weren't rolled back). I would be surprised if you could point to just three categories I removed that were unambiguously supported by sources and did not run afoul of WP:CAT/EGRS. That you rolled back unrelated good edits in the process is just the icing on the cake. I even made sure to make that two edits, not one; you could have undone just one while keeping the other intact. Huon (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Names and things

I'm going to leave this one alone for now, but it dilutes the point of the articles if they're all about terms for different things. In most cases we should write about the things themselves, not the "terms" that "refer to" the things. We say Albert van Ouwater was an artist, not that Albert van Ouwater is the name of an artist. Anyway, happy editing in the new year. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Art Dagger

That is a kickass piece! Not really a dagger, but more proof that the "Art Knife" is not a modern invention. Thanks for posting that.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

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

Christ Carrying the Cross (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Dominican and Typology

Andachtsbilder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dominican

Dagger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mughal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Joy to you

Here's to a 2012 full of joy and satisfaction for you. --Wetman (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and to you of course, and thanks for Wentworth Woodhouse. If you ever get a chance to see the Dan Cruickshank tv prog mentioned at the bottom, it is well above the average of its sort, & these days about the only way to see inside. Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yogo reshoot

Your attention is requested here: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Reshoot_of_Yogo_sapphires. PumpkinSky talk 23:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Toto

Sorry, I don't have anything useful at all. -PKM (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad images case

Please do not edit the Muhammad images case pages for the next two days. Some of your edits, such as this one, have not been helpful, even considering the low standards for the discussion. NW (Talk) 17:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure of the status of this "request"! Fortunately I have just completed my evidence - probably. Does your "request" cover my evidence section? An interesting approach to procedure if so, with the deadline falling within that period. As I recognised in my next post, that one was based on a misreading of AC's post, but it is a feature of this whole affair that basic factual errors become internal memes that are restated in the many different pages this dispute has spread to, and it is highly helpful to point this out. AC is especially prone to this as he comes and goes from the discussion at intervals. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not a request, but an instruction, as provided for by the Arbitration Committee's practices (which are enforced by the clerks) on excluding disputants temporarily or permanently from case pages. If you edit any of the case pages within the next 48 hours, your account will be blocked. AGK [•] 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

So I am not allowed to adjust my evidence? Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No, you may not. Although your problematic edits were in the discussion sections of the case pages (especially the workshop), temporary case bans are from all case pages. If you edit Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images or its sub-pages, talk pages, or sub-talk pages, you will have violated the 48 hour case ban. I trust this clarifies the situation, AGK [•] 17:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Memo:

• AChole being "bullied"
• sensible discussion, Nov 11
• [March 2011 debate]
• Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive_22#Addressing_editors_who_have_significant_concerns_about_the_use_of_images_of_Muhammad_on_this_article Ahole bullied again

Stipple engraving

Thanks for coming in and filling out the content of that article! This is a problem with quid pro quo reviews - I don't know the field. The hold-up now is that the specific sentence needs to be referenced, and it appears to be in the book I can't see on GoogleBooks, so I'm dropping you a line to say that I'm asking at the DYK review for a page ref. at the end of that sentence. And of course if I've messed up in my wording of ALT3, please feel free to correct it. Thanks again, and I think you should get a co-credit, I just don't know how to do that. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Christ Carrying the Cross

Hi, I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Christ Carrying the Cross. There are some small concerns about it. If you could check them out, that would be awesome. :) --LauraHale (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, replied there. Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Magi

G'day John!

I was just looking at the Nativity in art, (on the 6th January, too late to be useful of course) and thinking that there ought to be a separate page for the Magi. I then found it, but it is called Adoration of the Magi and probably ought to be moved to a page name that is similar to the other. it also needs some work. The gallery has umpteen pics by Rubens while other important pictures are missing. Can I suggest that the word "Adoration" ought to be left out as it is just one aspect of the Magi story. An article on the Magi in art ought to include the journey etc.

Important works include the window in Canterbury Cathedral which shows the whole narrative (I s'pose it's one of the earliest relatively intact representations in England) , the Benozzo Gozzoli from the Medici Chapel (essential), the Stephan Lochner from Cologne Cathedral (also essential as that is where they are allegedly buried), the Giorgione of the Three Philosophers. One of my personal favourites is the magnificent Tissot of them lurching along on their camels in saffron robes.

What do you think? Is this the project for next Christmas?

Meanwhile, my Leonardo blog [6] has been visited by 1600 people, of whom perhaps 50 have read the greater part of it. I do wish that people would leave comments, even if they hate it.

Amandajm (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, let's do it for next Christmas. Dream of the Magi has been on my to-do list for years, though their journey doesn't really get going as a separate subject until the Renaissance. Galleries always tend to accumulate too many 17th works I find. The Shrine of the Three Kings is an important work, & see Chasse (casket). I've read a fair bit of the site - I'd read the lot if I could get a ticket to the bloody exhibition! Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

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

British Museum Department of Asia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Amaravati

English Baroque (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Whig

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Stipple engraving

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Sir John Swinburne, 6th Baronet

Knew everyone, joined everything, as far as I can see. The library at Capheaton Hall is enthused over by biographers of Swinburne the poet (grandson); I'm not finding any details. The RA external link explains why he knew plenty of artists and I've seen mentioned Turner, Cotman, Varley, Martin Archer Shee, David Wilkie, Thomas Lawrence, list goes on. This paper abstract suggests there is plenty more about collecting (Henry George Ward, a son-in-law, has an engraving after one of the daughters). I wondered if you had anything specific to add on his patronage. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no, but I'll keep an eye out. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance

Hi Johnbod, I was wondering if there's anything else you'd like me to address at the FAC? Or if not, would you be willing to change your "Comments" to "Support"? --Elonka 17:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Since I've only read about half the article that would be inappropriate. I hope to return to it. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the mis-post to your userpage! I wasn't paying attention.  :/ --Elonka 18:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Backed out "Saint" from Thomas More

I backed out your edit adding the "Saint" to the honorifics in Thomas More. My understanding is that the honorifics should be the ones the historic person possessed in life - which might have been used by some page announcing an arrival or in a document addressing the person. I've opened a discussion section on this in Talk:Thomas More to get a more official reading on this. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

What might be the pereniial question once again

Y u no adnim yet? Me thinx u probly beter kwalifid den me. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No thanks, I've long been on the list of refuseniks, wherever that is. Johnbod (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Believe me, I understand. I would like your opinion about a possible Christian art subproject, and maybe some other related projects, as per the WT:X comments. I don't know if any of them would necessarily produce any more activity than we already have, but it is possible, maybe, if I could get together a list of the highly regarded reference sources which might specialize on various subtopics of "Christianity", they might be useful in helping some editors find relevant sources. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

As you may remember, I'm dubious, in these days of falling editor numbers, of proliferating task forces etc. There aren't too many editors doing a lot on Christian art, & we aren't hard to find. Resources are a huge field; I have a long list of books I use on my user page, but an almost totally different one could be constructed, & the bibliographies of books & college reading lists via google is probably the best way to do this. Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Bozzetto vs. Maquette

On translating an article from German I came across a redirect from Bozzetto to Maquette. So I established an interwiki link, only to find out that in Swedish these are two different articles. Can you help me to understand? What's the preferred term in English. What's the plural of Maquette? We are talking of a collection of Bozzetti. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say maquette or modello are more common, & as very often any difference in meaning varies between different writers. Maquettes. I'd say the Swedish ones should be merged, but that's their affair - I can't read them. Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, helped, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Infobox World Heritage Site

You may be interested in my recent comment at Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#Plain language. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Christ Carrying the Cross

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Another cross

Good work creating that article and thanks for organising the tour of the Royal Manuscripts at the BL too. My eye was caught by the statue at the entrance which came from the Bristol High Cross. There wasn't an article about that so I started one which I hope to work up for DYK too. Just letting you know what the visit has inspired. Andrew Davidson (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Great stuff - I'll add to the page, where I'm trying to keep a tally of outcomes. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Pastiglia

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Peer review

John, would you mind taking a look here? -- Marek.69 ^talk 22:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

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

Era (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hijra

Jami' al-tawarikh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Timurid

John de Mowbray, 2nd Duke of Norfolk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lancastrian

Richard Burchett (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Henry VII

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think

You're referring to User:Wiqi55. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - thanks Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Previewing is good

Hi Johnbod, not a huge deal, but you've got like 17 edits to the same thread in the last few hours on the ArbCom page. I know this happens sometimes, but could I please respectfully request a little more previewing before saving? When there are several edits from the same editor, it makes things a little harder for me to review, both via my watchlist and with WP:POPUPS. Thanks, --Elonka 19:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Outline of architecture and Index of architecture articles

I note you have a passing interest in the subject. I'm looking at cleaning up the above, but in fact they only get about 20 hits a day (Architecture gets 3000) so maybe the solution is to get rid of them? Coverage of architecture is pretty dire until you get to the level of modest specifics, where there are some perfectly good articles. I am starting on the Index but interested in sorting out some of the mess more generally. Maybe at least the two should merge into a roundup of good or reasonable articles. Just looking for views at the moment... ProfDEH (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

My feeling is that both are somewhat better than nothing, especially the Outline - the categories are very large and chaotic. The outline has got a bit infested with local heroes, as these things do. One could adopt a qualitative approach and just remove poorer articles, or leave in the current undiscriminating style. 20 hits a day is 20k over 3 years or so, but they don't really warrant too much time. Does the architecture project use this thing - very useful, & you just sign up once? I'm increasingly directing my effort to low-quality/high traffic pages - unfortunately there are lots. Best of luck! Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

AGK

Hi. You probably want to respond to AGK at new section at the bottom of the proposed decision talk page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, working on it thanks. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Taking your name in vain...

Just so you're aware, I've quoted you in a conversation with PBS at Talk:Kenilworth_Castle#Thomas_Chaloner. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Balkh Provincial Museum

thanks so much for sorting out. Seems like the section to which you redirected was a great idea. If enough English language sources are eventually found to build an article, it can be moved back out. When I get the chance I'll see what I can find under the new name you found. StarM 01:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Vandal

i'm afraid the prose is instantly recognisable as that of my notorious former partner in literary crimes, Dr Colin Trodd. [7]. Paul B (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

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

Jami' al-tawarikh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mongol language

Saint Peter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Attribute

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments

Thanks for your comments at Sandy's page. I confess I've been swayed by a comment by user:Grondemar who feels the important distinctions are FA, GA, and everything else, so I've spent zero time looking into the gradations between C and B, beyond that which I pick up by osmosis. I'm not pushing to get any article grade changed, but I have considered urging Beebuk to submit some articles he has worked on to GA review. If they really were C class, this would be bad advice, plus it would mean I didn't have a clue as to what it means to be close to a GA. Your comment that the articles could be B class persuades me that I am not completely clueless (at least on this issue. :)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Glad it helped - when you look at the at which speed some people knock off assessments you don't take them too seriously. They are normally a very rough guide & done without much thought on how long a comprehensive article on a particular subject should be. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You messed up the Etymology section of Saint Peter

Why did you do this? A few weeks ago, it was plain and easy to read. Now its full of non-english characters and is hard to read.

Dude I don't mind certain Hebrew or Syriac charactrs, but it has to be more English-friendly. Please fix it. The article is already so often vandalized by daily editors. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveforMary (talk • contribs) 21:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Look at it now - and learn how to read an edit history - I added none of that stuff. Your edits are increasingly erratic; I can see it will end unhappily. Johnbod (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I see only three words not using the Latin alphabet (two Greek and one Hebrew) so I'm not convinced this is a problem. I can't imagine a way of discussing the name without using non-English words. Nev1 (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

There was a whole lot of Syriac/Hebrew stuff I booted into a long note just now, which that article has loads of. Johnbod (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sanity check in Immaculate Conception

I'd like to think I'm trying to be patient here, but this is getting on my nerves. Am I off base in insisting that "official dogma" is redundant? Mangoe (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

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

Jean Grolier de Servières (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to François I and Fleuron

King's Library (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Enlightenment

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Question about miniatures

Hi Johnbod - I want to upload this image from Froissart to add to Truce of Leulinghem but am a little put off by the BL claiming copyright. Any explanation for that? By the way, the swoon is quite nice! Truthkeeper (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's ok, though the logo is a pain. We don't recognise their claim here, under US law (Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.) & it may even be possible to get a logoless version. Several with logos are on Commons. Lovely hangings! Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Just checking to be sure - the logo is a pain but I can crop it out. I realized after posting here that I haven't checked commons yet. I've been noticing the hangings in these images - but these are particularly nice. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You could try cropping the same illumination out of this image of the entire page if you want to preserve the corner... Lithoderm 16:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted! Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Lith. I'll try that. The manuscripts are so beautiful! Truthkeeper (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images closed

An arbitration case regarding Muhammad images has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies on verifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision. The decision reached in this discussion will be appended to this case within two months from the close of the case.
2. Ludwigs2 is prohibited from contributing to any discussion concerning Muhammad.
3. Ludwigs2 is banned from the English Wikipedia for one year.
4. Tarc is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
5. FormerIP is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
6. Hans Adler is reminded to engage in discussions about disputed article content with an appropriate degree of civility.
7. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted.
8. The participants in the dispute about depictions of Muhammad are reminded that editors who engage extensively in an intractable dispute can become frustrated, and that it is important to be aware that as editors we are limited in our ability to contribute constructively to a deadlocked disagreement. Our exasperation with a dispute can make us unprofessional or unreceptive to compromise. We therefore encourage the disputants of this case to consider if their participation in the coming community discussion of depictions of Muhammad would be useful, and we remind them that if they disrupt the community discussion they may be banned from the discussion or otherwise sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions provision of this case.

Mlpearc (powwow) 16:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee

My comments on your RFC statements

I'm a bit confused as to where you want me to comment, can you move my point if you'd rather it was made somewhere else? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure - I'll copy it Johnbod (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion regarding WikiProject Christianity

Please see the discussion at User talk:Lionelt#Christianity WikiProject, and make any comments you deem reasonable. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Swoon of the Virgin

Hello! Your submission of Swoon of the Virgin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

girih

Hello, I gather you have some interest in islamic art, so I thought I'd ask you for assistance. I recently created the Girih article and proposed it as a DYK article [8]. Its history section has been criticized for paraphrasing one source too closely. It's a fair criticism, I relied heavily on Encyclopaedia Iranica for the historical section of the article, because it seems to be the only source on the Internet that has decent information on the topic. I'll try to rewrite the offending sections but thought it would be good to dilute the contribution of E. Iranica by finding non-Web sources. Would you happen to have any books on the topic that has some information on the art history of girih? If so, would you be able to expand the article a little? --İnfoCan (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've commented there, but I'm concerned that we are getting too many overlapping articles in this area: Girih, Girih tiles, Islamic geometric patterns, Islamic interlace patterns, Zellige, Zellige morocco (groan!), Qashani, not to mention Jali. No need for a new category by the way. What is the relevant term in Arabic & Turkish, btw? Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This glossary [9] says the Arabic term is "girih" (but "not a word used in the Gulf"!). I don't know Arabic, so I can't say more. However, looking at English articles about Moorish architecture (like the Alhambra) I do not see it mentioned. In Turkish, I found one lone academic article about an ancient Turkish document describing a 15th century Külliye; in it, among the description of the ornamentation of the buildings, the word girih is used correctly (but the author of the article seems to be unfamiliar with it, he guesses at its meaning). Many people seem to know the concept, talk about it in detail but call it just "Islamic art". The term has been popularized again by Gulru Necipoglu who wrote a book on the Topkapi Scroll, and, especially, the 2007 Science article about the girih tiles. There are many recent Turkish Web pages that mention the Science paper. --İnfoCan (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I haven't looked at my books, & I probably will have relevant stuff - don't know when I'll get to that - not in the next couple of weeks anyway. At some point we want to merge some of these articles I think. Islamic interlace patterns, which uses very old sources, should probably go into this for example. Johnbod (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I see your comment at the DYK nomination for Girih and I wonder whether you'd be amenable to adding a checkmark to it so it can be promoted? I read you as saying that in your view the concerns that were holding up the nomination have been satisfied. Sorry, I know you're busy, but it seems we have quite a backlog over there. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Although I have some disagreements, espceially relevance, I did want to thank you for setting out such a cogent and well thought out point summary at "Ice Age art." (That's perhap an interesting comment on ice thawing) Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Hans Memling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gul (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediation about the Muhammad images RFC

Just to let you know I've opened a request with the Mediation cabal about the Muhammad images RFC. Please see the mediation request if you want to comment. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)