User talk:Johnbod/7 to July 07

Thoughts on costume article 15th century

Dear John,

Well, if you did all this it's a lovely bit of work. Just the right length and full of meat. Congratulations. I will just give you my thoughts below, which may or may not inspire you to add/change anything. Don't feel obliged in any way though:

Cotton well documented for undergarments.

Bras existed! Experto crede! I have an undeniable ref. of one ca 1470's (too esoteric for Wiki probably).

Braies held up by a belt? Drawstring rather, no?

Shirts plain open neck, or drawstring, or ties.

Hose often had no toes or heels (just a strap under the foot).

Hose tied to the doublet by points. Points are laces of cloth of leather, often with metal ends for easy threading. Usually tied in a half-bow, ie: with one loop and two 'ends' showing. I know of no instance of hose being attached to a belt – any refs of this? Workmen often loosen the back points for ease of movement (no elastic!). Courtiers wouldn't be seen dead doing this – rather like loosening your tie today, or rolling up your shirt sleeves (as today, class level could be ascertained by the amount of flesh shown…). Can sometimes see workmen with doublet taken off, still attached to hose, dragging behind.

No pockets observed pre-1500 (would like to see these – I can hardly believe they were not). Purses ubiquitous. Rings worn on any finger – particularly the index – and any joint!

Hose was still worn low-down on the hips in the 1470's, although doublets no longer had much 'skirt'. Rare now to see separate hose, except maybe in rural scenes.

Shoes: boots possibly more common than shoes outside courtly life. Turnshoes most common. Short boots often made of one piece of leather. Hobnails observed, also what appears to be thin rope sewn on to soles, for traction. None of these pointy – only in court and maybe bourgeois circles.

Very common: long riding boots made of one skin, the top of the foot folded over and strapped to the edge. No seams except the back one, perfect for waterproofness. Thighs often worn folded down under knee. When worn up, often a strap attached to doublet to keep them up.

Unbelievably quick change from pointy shoes to square ones. Circa 1490's, and all over Europe, apparently instantaneously..! Reaction against pointy shoes? There is an interesting figure in one scene from Durer's 'Maximilian's Triumphal Arch' where a group of captives includes a figure dressed in the manner of the 1470's, tight hose, short doublet, pointy shoes and all – bizarre! The change happened so quickly everywhere, anyone would think they all subscribed to fashion mags circulated by email.

Hats: Tall berets in 1470's Burgundy a must (like the silly one the Bastard is wearing in the Memling), or, more typically, the illustration that comes after it in your article.

General: Italy, as usual, quite different from northern Europe.

Now I want to pick your brains: what is the little semi-circle that often protrudes from womens' headgear on to their hairlines? You can see it clearly in the van der Goes (no. 5 in your 1450-1460 examples), and you can just make it out in the van der Weyden (no. 1). It is very common indeed in northern Europe (although I can't recall any English examples). Never seen it in Italy either. No costume 'expert' has ever mentioned this flagrant accoutrement, and all appear to ignore it so it goes away and no one asks questions. Any ideas?

Nick

I have just noticed there is a crown with a loop here cheers Johnbod 00:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I never! You'll find a bowler hat next... Thanks a lot - funny never noticed it in Fouquet. Nick Michael 07:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Victoria and Albert

Hi, you may want to join the discussions on WP:COIN and on WT:WPSPAM (discussions about eserver.com, mitpress.mit.edu, europeanlibrary.org, vam.ac.uk, etc). I do see that these library and museum links can be useful (or should I say: 'are useful'?), but addition of such links (without adding content to articles, even if they call the links references) by editors involved in the organisation does fall under WP:COI (WP:NPOV?). Whether or not they sell things, they still get the site-traffic and hits. Have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on eliminating Category:(Nationality) (instrument) by genre from the categorization guidelines

In case you're interested and miss the notices I have posted on various WikiProject pages, I have started a discussion here about whether we need the category level of Category:American pianists by genre, etc, and I would appreciate views being expressed (at that location, of course). My (possibly incomplete) list of categories that would be upmerged if the guidelines change as I suggest is here. I thought you might be interested. Bencherlite 22:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but i tend to leave these nationality permutation discussions alone; I don't have strong views either way. Johnbod 01:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 30 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Annunciation (van Eyck, Washington), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 12:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Juilliard School people

Done. Lots of names in both Category:Juilliard School alumni (mainly actors) and Category:Juilliard School of Music alumni. Any thoughts on whether we should have Category:Juilliard School Drama Division alumni or something similar? Bencherlite 14:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. Wasn't sure about that article - it says "She is a graduate of both the Juilliard School of Music and the Columbia School of Drama", which makes it sound as though she was a musician, but she seems to be more of an actor than a musician. Tell you what, I'll pop a note on the talk page and ask for comments there. Bencherlite 15:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"someone who thought the whole setup is called that" - as I did not so long ago! Bencherlite 15:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Vädersolstavlan

Good Lord. Thank you for sharing this. I must read the article when I have a month or two. At first sight it did remind me of the Altdorfer, but...JNW 02:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You may be able to help

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Infoart and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Infoart articles. Tyrenius 14:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Natural family planning category

I'm here to comment on your "until local dispute is resolved" vote on the natural family planning category deletion nomination. Joie de Vivre and I have had this same dispute over FA and NFP definitions repeatedly: at the birth contol article (here) in March (which got the article protected from our edit warring for almost a month - diff), and at the fertility awareness article (here) in November. Eight months into this disagreement, and across multiple articles, we don't seem to be making any progress on agreeing with each other. I don't believe there is much hope for resolving it between ourselves.

If the NFP category is kept, I believe both it and the FA category will remain with all their articles in their current form for the foreseeable future. Because it was created just last week, in the middle of a renaming discussion and without consensus, I'm really hoping we won't be put in the position of a no-consensus result (default keep) - it would seem to encourage this kind of do-what-I-want-without-consensus behavior. I'm hoping you will change your !vote to reflect how you would like the categories to look, and not make it conditional on JdV and I resolving our dispute on our own. While I of course would prefer you agree with me to delete the category :), if you believe it is a good category perhaps you will be persuasive and get a consensus going that way. The worst outcome, for me, would be a no consensus result.

Alternatively (or in addition), if you have any suggestions for tools to resolve this dispute, that would be very welcome as well. Lyrl ^Talk _C 21:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

DRV

Done. Sorry I thought it was apparent that a significant category disjoint from the original could be created without issue. --pgk 18:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		For your erudite and expansive contributions, and for making me laugh re: van Dyck and Brueghel [1]. JNW 16:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Kosigrim

Yeah the guy is just bullheaded and I don't think it's worth dealing with him and his attitude. He at least had the good sense not to keep trying to pass off copyvio content on one of the articles he created (after I put forth more effort than normal to clean it up). Good luck. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 23:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Battle of Alexander at Issus at GA

Lets see what happens. I'm going to try and touch it up a bit, but I think that you, for all of your artistic knowledge, would be a valued contributor to it while it is at GA. Lets make as many touchups as we can and see how it goes. Yours, Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 00:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha! Dont worry - I'm sure Alexander is ready for GA witha few touchups. Whatever happens, I think the both of us have done a great job on the article. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 00:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Japanese prints

Hey, I wasn't sure I actually wanted them in there, its just as well having them out, though. I wasn't the editor who put them in before, although I was aware that you took them out a while back. The temptation is of course - the influence on western painting...and they are so compelling and beautiful. Thanks for your input, Modernist 01:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I know its tempting - as you may know, prints are a big interest of mine - & I think the text is ok, but especially with pressure to cut the number of pictures, I think it's best to stick to the strict title. Cheers, Johnbod 14:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Feast of the Gods

I couldn't quite see what you had done there, until I realised it said "Bellini, Giorgione and possibly Titian". It was meant to read "Bellini, Titian and possibly Giorgione". I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever about Titian's contribution. It must have looked glorious in the same room as the Bacchus and Ariadne. Wouldn't it be nice to see them brought together for an exhibition? Thanks for sorting it out.

As for Borgo, well, yes, Milan is hardly provincial, I need to see some more of his paintings I think. It's a bit on the quaint side. --Amandajm 05:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your message! We all need a bit of encouragement at times! When you say NG, I take it you mean London. I find it extremely frustrating being ten thousand miles from the National Gallery. But over the past few years I've been to London several times because my eldest son is there. The last major exhibition I saw was Caravaggio. I can't remember which year that was!

Out of curiosity, what do you think about the National Gallery's newly aquired Raphael? I believe someone has written a book stating that both it and a recently attributed (I think it's) Duccio are both 19th century. --Amandajm 13:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it mightn't be much of a Rubens, but it's really quite impresive for Jordaens. --Amandajm 15:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's modern (but the technicalities are not my area). I've always thought it was a Jordaens. Quite a lot of Rubens pics were reproduced. There's a Diana picture, for example. One of them looks like 100% Rubens, the other, almost identical, looks like a van Dyck. This painting (I've just checked out the website) has very much the streakier thinner way of applying the paint that Jordaens used. It's getting awfully late on this side of the planet. Gotta get up again in a few hours. Toodle-oo!--Amandajm 16:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Canvas

If you get a chance, can you review and add some references to the historical "canvas for painting" section of Canvas? Thanks! - PKM 17:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again - PKM 17:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnbod. I have made minor changes there--we will see if they withstand the scrutiny of those who really know about artists' materials. By the way, I interpreted FOG to mean not Feast of the Gods, but Friends of Giorgione. Some wikibreak! JNW 18:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Please comment on proposed article:link list for V&A Museum

Hello ... With my assistance, VAwebteam (talk · contribs) has completed their first assignment on User:VAwebteam/To do list for the 50+ proposed article:link pairs following the reverts and the discussion at WP:COI/N#Victoria and Albert Museum (2) ... I have been in contact with VAwebteam by email, and this turns out to be rather low on their list of priorities, so they'll only be working on it once or twice a week.

The first assignment was to recover the links and create a subsection for each proposed article:link pair, to make it easier to evaluate and comment on each one ... I have archived the version of the project page as of yesterday on the talk page for the project, so that the second assignment has a clean slate without the clutter of previous comments.

The second assignment is to examine both the article and the V&A page to make a decision, as described in the introduction to the list ... with the help of other experienced editors, 14 of them have already been dealt with, either as rejected, or as acceptable and integrated into the article, either as a citation or in the External link(s) section of the article.

While VAwebteam works from the top down, I have been working from the bottom up, and suggest that you do the same ... the project page User:VAwebteam/To do list now has two sections:

• Second assignment for VAwebteam - these 45 are the the ones that need to be evaluated ... the ones that have the article linked in the section header still contain the "raw" link, i.e, the {{cite web}} boilerplate has not been applied yet, and that is part of VAwebteam's second assignment ... when you have time, please work from the bottom up in this section and add your comments.

• Reviewed article:link proposals - these 14 have been dealt with already, with a "†" to indicate "integrated", and "‡" to indicate rejected ... you may review them, but I don't think that you'll need to make any comments ... when consensus is reached on an article:link proposal from the previous section, I will move it to this section with the appropriate dagger to flag it.

Thanks in advance for your help ... Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 (talk · contribs) 09:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Song categories

The result is not exactly what I wanted, but at least acceptable. In effect, the result was a reversal, as I requested (I'm not sure how it differs from explicitly reversing the old decision!) and I was not about to argue the question of "musicwriter" vs. "composer" -- as I said, that was a comparatively minor point. I would probably not have a "by songwriter" group alone, except as a supercategory; which would mean songs by people who wrote both music and lyrics would be categorized as (e. g.) both "Songs with lyrics by Irving Berlin" and "Songs with music by Irving Berlin," but this clearly (as evidenced by Mike Selinker's comments) would not satisfy people interested in the newer music. It does, however, lead to some irregularities with regard to a few people (e. g., Frank Loesser wrote mostly lyrics, but a number of complete songs; Johnny Mercer wrote almost nothing but lyrics, but he did also write music for at least one song). But I can live with the result as it's turned out. -- BRG 13:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Humanists and Renaissance Humanists CfDs

Hi, thanks for contacting me. The bot gets it work orders from WP:CFDW so I assume it was either incorrectly listed there or there's a bug in the code somewhere. In any case, I'll be looking into it and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. I'll let you know what's going on as soon as I've figured it out. Cheers --Seed 2.0 20:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy, well, if you don't mind, can I double check with you if I understand this correctly?

The following categories were renamed correctly:

• Category:Dutch humanists to Category:Dutch Renaissance humanists
• Category:French humanists to Category:French Renaissance humanists
• Category:German humanists to Category:German Renaissance humanists
• Category:Italian humanists to Category:Italian Renaissance humanists

and then the listing specified this rename:

• Category:Humanists by nationality to Category:Renaissance humanists

which should not have happened, right?

Hmm, since Kbdank71 who is the closing admin put the listing on WP:CFDW, I assume that's how he intended the rename to be carried out (unless I'm misunderstanding something which is, of course, a possibility). Could you do me a favor and check with him, if the above is how he wanted to close the CFD (I'm terribly busy right now -- sorry)? In any case, I have a logfile of the bots activity and I'd obviously be happy to roll back the changes the bot has made or fix any mistakes there may have been. Thanks. -- Seed 2.0 20:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :) I think I got it fixed. Just to make sure, could you please check if everything is as it should be now? Thanks. -- Seed 2.0 07:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You're very much welcome. I'm glad I could help out. Happy editing. Cheers Seed 2.0 20:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Post-CfD

That Humanists category nomination was weird anyway. The discussion was split into three spearate sections on two pages. I am not surprised that something strange happened after the discussion was closed. Dr. Submillimeter 21:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Request of copyedit

Maybe you can give a copyedit glance (language) to Vittore Carpaccio and the articles about paintings I've just made (you can find them in my user:Contributions of June 14). Ciao and thanks!!! --Attilios 09:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Pitt Club

See my comment on the talk page, or look at the sources yourself. Those were not valid references. A passing mention in a pair of biographies? You can think that it looks bad for me to remove them, but I think it looks worse to have them there. If you want to ask for a third opinion we can, but I don't think it's a good idea to pretend they're anything in the way of significant coverage. FrozenPurpleCube 02:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Double-decker buses

Would you be happy if I created a Category:Double-decker buses for double-decker buses? This seems to be much less ambiguous than "London buses", and it probably would be useful for navigation. (Also, did you see my comment on single-decker buses in Category:London buses?) Dr. Submillimeter 11:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I will go ahead and create Category:Double-decker buses and also use the category to make a list of bus models used in London public transport. I hope you or someone can contribute references and discussion for the list. (I have no idea what to make of the name for the French category, but I would not necessarily trust them to name a Quarter Pounder, either.) Dr. Submillimeter 14:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

See Buses in London. This article already contains a list of the buses used in London. I am just going to transfer all bus models from Category:London buses to the list in Buses in London. Dr. Submillimeter 12:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Name ordering

I've reverted your change to Jan van Eyck. Name ordering in categories should be based on the first letter of the last name. Dutch habits are not relevant on the English wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Ordering names in a category. Piet | Talk 13:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Primates

I have preserved lists of PW's creations via User:Roundhouse0/test1-500. There are also various stubs with assoc cats at User:Roundhouse0/test7 (which include 3 or 4 presiding bishops cats). I suppose it is typical of him to support merge in this case when presumably he could have supplied chapter and verse to oppose. -- roundhouse0 18:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Earl's Court Underground Station

I would contend that the Earl's Court Underground Station should be considered "historic" and categorized as such. The original station was built in the 1870s during the westward extension of the District Line, and both this station and the railway greatly influenced the growth of locations in Southwest London. This in turn has had long-term consequences in the diffusion of both people and commerce from Inner London to Outer London. Moreover, the Underground itself, including the construction of the District Line and the pivotal role played by Earl's Court on the District Line, was pioneering in terms of the development of urbal mass transit. Furthermore, the architecture of the Earl's Court Underground Station itself dates from the Victorian era, and it remains relatively unchanged (particularly the Earl's Court Road facade and the District Line platforms), so it may be considered exemplary of such rail architecture from the era. (Most of this can be found in C. Wolmar's The Subterranean Railway.) Moreover, many parts of the world (including Australia, New Zealand, Oceania, the Western United States and Canada), any building that dates from the nineteenth century would indeed be considered a historic landmark and would probably be registered on government-maintained lists of historic buildings. Hence, categorization of the Earl's Court Underground Station as "historic" seems highly appropriate.

However, you might disagree with me, and I know that other people on Wikipedia will disagree.

You see, I have thought through the meaning of the word "historic" and my nominations of "historic building" categories very thoroughly. In fact, I had thought about this long before I started working on Wikipedia. The term is highly subjective and really depends on the person applying the label. Classifying buildings by century would be OK, but a broad "historic" category is not. Dr. Submillimeter 10:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, except for categories for England, all of the historic building categories have been nominated for renaming/merging. The only reason why I did not nominate the England categories was because there were too many of them to nominate without some additional editing. (Few buildings outside of the UK are currently classified as "historic"; see Category:Historic houses.)

As for examples, well, what would you consider old enough to be historic? In the London category, I can find buildings from the 17th century (Fenton House, Kneller Hall), 18th century (Frognal House, Hare Hall), and 19th century (6 Ellerdale Road, Seaford House). I even found one from the 20th century, but I cannot really locate that house at the moment. However, it seems like anything that predates 1900 could be called "historic" in the United Kingdom. That would include most of Inner London. However, I know that the label "historic" has been applied to younger buildings in the United States. Buildings and structures from the 1920's and 1930's are considered "historic" in New Mexico and Arizona simply because they are the oldest buildings there.

Now, if we were really interested in categorizing these things well, I would recommend categorizing by century, which seems more objective than categorizing things as "historic". I would also recommend categorizing things as "listed" or even "grade I" or "grade II" because those also has objective definitions. "Historic" is really as useless as "notable" or "famous" when applied to any pre-1900 building; it just seems to mean that the building is old. Dr. Submillimeter 11:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I see the reason why we disagree here.

I wholeheartedly support using the Category:Listed buildings hierarchy, as being listed is an objective inclusion criterion that can be used for categorization. However, I do not like the idea of simply categorizing buildings as "historical" because determining whether or not a building is "historical" requires making a subjective judgment. For example, the house that I live in out in Ealing could be considered "historical" because it dates from the 19th century and thus it could be placed into Category:Historical houses in London. However, it is not listed, so it would not be placed into Category:Listed houses in London. Does this make sense? Dr. Submillimeter 13:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You said, "...any UK house plausibly categorized as historic will be listed." Doesn't this indicate that only "historic" houses are listed in Wikipedia anyway? If this is the case, then do the categories need "historic" in their titles? Doesn't it seem redundant? Dr. Submillimeter 15:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you feel happy if I changed all the rename nominations to "Listed homes in X"? I really do not know if all the homes are listed, which is why I chose the safer, neutral route.

Also, as I said before, a nomination for the England categories will take longer because Wikipedia has many more such categories, which is the only reason that I did not nominate them. However, since this seems to be a problem with you, I will make the proposal within the next 24 hours.

Also, I cannot help if the United States uses the terms "National Register of Historic Places" and "National Historic Landmark" whereas the equivalent UK terms are mostly variations on "listed building", such as "grade I listed building" and "grade II listed building" (although "English Heritage site" is probably a realistic option). If I had suggested changing Category:Listed buildings to Category:Buildings designated as historically important by the United Kingdom government, I would receive a lot of accusations of being an ignorant American. Unfortunately, the dichotomy between the American and United Kingdom terminology is going to result in buildings being "listed" in the United Kingdom and "in the National Register of Historic Places" in the United States. Dr. Submillimeter 16:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Barthelemy

Ciao. Your edits to Barthelemy d'Eyck are very good, but, as for my little adttions, it seems that your practice is just to take them and throw them in the garbage. I refer to, for example, adding the final full stop at the end of the caption, italicizing etc. Why? Can't you progress from my last edited version and keeping what I've added... of course you can't agree about some, but why throw all the rest away? Do you think that leaving stuff such as "c1443" or "1401-2" or "...whose dates of birth and death are unknown..." is fine from styilistical point of view? Ciao and anyway compliments fo good work (I also refer to Annunciation (Van Eyck). --Attilios 09:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 21 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Barthélemy d'Eyck, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Yomangani^talk 11:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Offensive comments

Please stop saying that I am not thinking through my nominations regarding "historic houses". I thought that I made it clear that I had already thought through these issues. Disagreement is expected, but the personal attacks are unnecessary. Dr. Submillimeter 22:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Visual arts Afds

Hi, that delsorting was a result of me having a brainfart; my apologies. There were 50 odd musicals listed on Afd all at once, and I was trying to spread them over a few delsorting lists to avoid placing too much work on the same set of people. Initially, I forgot that musicals were performing arts rather than visual arts, so it wasnt until I was about half way through that I consistently started using the "music" delsort list as a fallback if the regional list was already full. We have been discussing improvements to the delsorting breakdown, so I have proposed a "performing arts" list at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting#List Modifications. Cheers, John Vandenberg 23:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Van eyck

The original book was obscure and difficult to find. I never do that when there are page number, but if there are none, and I can give a version of the book with an ISBN, it doesn't make much of a difference in the end. Circeus 02:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Offensive comments

Hi, you have recently called me an idiot on my talk page. That may or may not be the case; however, it is considered highly impolite to call anyone that. You might want to change your tone in the future; my experience on Wikipedia (and believe me, I have some) shows that if one shows hostility to others here, one will receive hostility in the long run. Just a friendly advice.

Anyway, I figure this has to do with my redirect of Master Theodoric to Theodoric the Great. I figured this to be correct as the latter "became magister militum (or Master of Soldiers)", as the article says. If I am wrong, it's a honest mistake. However, redirecting a person to a place, as you did, does not strike me as entirely correct either. Maybe Master Theodoric should be deleted, until someone writes an article? You seem to know about this guy, how about it?

WikiLove, --Magnus Manske 15:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not an "honest mistake"; it's gross negligence - you didn't even bother to do a Google search - 10/10 of the first ghits are for the Gothic painter, not Theodoric the Great of 1,000 years earlier. Nor did you see "what links here" after you'd done it; that would also have put you right. I have spent enough time clearing up your messes without setting up a deletion. The current link is the best available and does take people to his main work and a picture by him, plus by link to his commons category. If you want to delete it, fine. Johnbod 19:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Rolin and Madonna

Seen you excellent Annunciation (van Eyck), maybe you'd be interested in Madonna with Nicolas Rolin I've just finished. As usual I think the greatest flaw'd be my language. Ciao and good work. --Attilios 11:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I also remember Johnbod's superb work on the Annunciation. Let's hope that he will find time to expand this stub about one of the key paintings in the history of Western art. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested AFD

Done. /Blaxthos 21:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Matthias Grünewald

I just noticed that our article about Matthias Grünewald is disgrace, and it's not even on your to-do list. Would you be interested in expanding this pitiful stub? --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

French Wikipedia has a featured article about him. It is not extensive but there's enough factual material for unstubbing. The modern Britannica also has an informative entry on the subject; I will be glad to send it to you by e-mail. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Guines edit

Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I've fixed all references of the French Guines to be Guînes with the required accent. Rjwilmsi 22:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

St Catherines

Hi John, the Greek baffles me in places with vocab and forms outside my area. However, it does talk of "symphony" of Romanian, Roman-Catholic, Russian and even Coptic (I presume) monks. My problem is, it uses particles that can be contrastive or negating in ancient dialects, these change a lot over time, they are short words and the vowels shift too. I think your source and you are on to something, it is interesting that Catholics are listed. I do think a lot rests on just what was intended by the word communion. St Catherines does seem to have traditions of fellowship with non-orthodox institutions, these are documented as practices, without there being an official "contract". I'll have a poke at your other quote and that date reference. Alastair Haines 03:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

PS Sorry if I've been no help. I'm intending to give a gentle squeeze regarding writing up Weitzman. Perhaps I'll do it myself, and see if people complain when I do it. But on another matter ... sometime, no rush, I'd like to know more about Christopher de Hamel. He is notable in the area of manuscripts and I'm ignorant, where I suspect you are familiar. ... Just another thing to fill in all that spare time ... ;) Cheers. Alastair Haines 07:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply regarding de Hamel. You're a good man John, it's so good to hear you say, "it may deny ... it would settle the matter." Your objectivity is clear to me, sometimes people find it hard to see in others what they are not used to in their own circumstances ... Your contributions are just outstanding, your style of discourse is good humoured, you are an example to other Wikipedians (like me). Sorry to make personal comments, it's a bad habit of mine. Anyway, all the best ... Alastair Haines 01:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin time?

You are a very productive wikipedian, and I greatly respect you. Not only do you contribute substantial article content, but you do a lot of behind the scenes work as well. Would you mind if I nominated you at WP:RfA?-Andrew c 16:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As "they" say, WP:ADMIN shouldn't be a big deal. I think you may come to a point where you may need the tools (I hit that wall just last week when I was helping with CfD closing and found they had protected the /working page). But I can completely understand not wanting to spend more time on wikipedia, or have any "official" connections. (though "they" also say a wikipedian who has the tools but only uses them once a year is still helping the project). Anyway, if you reconsider, you'll still have my support. And you don't need me to say this, but keep up the excellent work! As for me, thank you for the offer. I'd be more than honored if you nominated me. -Andrew c 17:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, great summary. Thanks for your work on this. Just tell me when you get the RfA page started, and I'll start working on my part with the questions and such. Thanks again.-Andrew c 00:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll second both nominations! I keep encountering the outstanding work you've both been doing. Please let me know if there's a time and place I can register my very positive opinion of you both. Alastair Haines 01:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the nom and the work you put into this. As for the talk page, I wrapped the unformatted text in a <pre> tag, to conform with the look of other RfA talk pages.-Andrew c 04:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Subtley/subtly

Thank you for your criticism. I used the Oxford American Dictionary (1980 ed.) before posting my "correction", but I suppose I shall have to start using a British English dictionary to double-check. I went to university in Canada (which tends to favour British usage) and thought I knew it fairly well. Please accept my sincerest apologies. Writtenright 21:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

Pianists by style

Hi there. I have given further rationale to this that could change minds. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_27#Category:Pianists_by_style. Thank you. (Mind meal 03:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC))

americans convicted of murder

Hi - on the category for discussion page you suggested I do a "group nomination" for changing the name of the category to something more reasonable. How does one go about doing that? Thanks! csloat 10:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A fan writes...

I liked your comment on Portmanteaus. I was disappointed not to see Lady Bracknells' handbag in the the aforementioned category. Gareth E Kegg 12:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

☆

		The Epic Barnstar
		Awarded to Johnbod for superlative work on the history of medieval art by Ghirla-трёп- 18:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at Bibliotheca Palatina, a stubby entry started by Dbachmann and me. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Eski Imaret Mosque

You are absolutely right John, "Macedonian" refers of course to the dinasty, the error was mine. Many thanks, Alex2006 05:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 28 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Enguerrand Quarton, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Yomangani^talk 12:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Piero

Ciao art friend!! Maybe you'd like to check my last additions about Piero della Francesca (paintings entries and expansion of main articles). As usual, what worries me is my poor English. Thanks and good work. --Attilios 13:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

25 DYK milestone

		The 25 DYK Medal
		For your work in creating over 25 DYK, a belated 25 DYK Medal is awarded to you. Congratulations! Chris 14:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Things in Georgia are fine. I have only lived in the state since 2000. Chris 21:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Spot on

[2] Tyrenius 22:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ostromir Gospel

Please compare:

• 75 hits
• 39 hits
• 30 hits. --Ghirla^-трёп- 01:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Minneapolis

		The Original Barnstar
		To Johnbod, on the occasion of Minneapolis, Minnesota reaching featured article. -Susanlesch 05:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. It was successful, and I am now, may God have mercy on us all, an administrator. Look at all the new buttons! I had heard about 'protect,' 'block user,' and 'delete,' but no one told me about 'kill,' 'eject,' and 'purée.' I appreciate the trust the community has in me, and I'll try hard not to delete the main page or block Jimbo. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c's RfA

Thank you for your kind nomination and support in my recent RfA, which, as you know, was successful at 61/1/0. If you ever need assistance, I'd be glad to try and help to the best of my abilities. If you want to comment on my progress as a wikipedian, I welcome comments and criticism. And if you ever find yourself in a situation where you require the tools, or if you reconsider your previously stated position, my offer to nominate you still stands. Thanks again.-Andrew c 13:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Trumpeterists players

Category:Hornists, anyone?! Yuck... I'm not keen on Category:Violists either and would prefer Category:Viola players but that one predates my time here and isn't worth bothering about. I only went from Category:Trumpet players because inconsistent names were being used within the category. And I was hoping that this wouldn't be as controversial as the suggested rename of Category:Tubists, which is still being talked about. Bencherlite^Talk 00:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It's parented by Category:Classical musicians by instrument, not Category:Musicians by instrument (same goes for Category:Harpsichordists) which is why you didn't spot it earlier, I think. Bencherlite^Talk 00:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

A poster/publisher does not need to claim authorship -- copyright status is automatic unless specifically disclaimed. Direct quotes from Wikipedia should be sourced, and derivative works must be licensed under the GFDL, so if it isn't either, I have no reason to believe the author isn't the web page owner. Mdotley 02:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Hi Johnbod, just a quick note to say thanks for participating in my request for adminship. It was successful and I now have some shiny new buttons. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Happy editing, mattbr 10:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 4 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Speculum Humanae Salvationis, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 19:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Gothic architecture

Very good... there was a dreadful imbalance in that section, half a million examples from the US.

Do you feel like taking on the "Secular Gothic", or will I just get on with it? I'm very much better at Cathedrals than Castles!

--Amandajm 01:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

There's a Catholic POV crusader who continues to revert my addition of a lurid (and famous) activity by John Bosco in the latter's article. I've even scanned the source for him, and he continues to deleted it accusing me of POV!!!! Can you help? Ciao and good work. --Attilios 18:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on Dutch or Flemish painters

Thanks. Any help welcome. I have tread lightly on using Getty as the only source of dates, their website warns that licensing might be needed for extensive use (no definitions provided). I use the Google book sources not only because they may resurrect the memory of forgotten and dead painters, but also they leave wikipedia free of copyright violations.

It might be worthwhile to recruit someone, perhaps from Dutch/French wikipedia to add to area of Dutch and Flemish painters. I was trying to remain in the scope of Italian painters. CARAVAGGISTI 23:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment would be appreciated

• At the stub Genealogia deorum gentilium I just made an article from. Please edit to make any improvements you can see or give me some suggestions on the article Talk Page. Thanks.--Doug ^talk 12:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Bosco

Thanks for San Michele Maggiore. I see you're maybe keeping an eye to my edits, that's good, as they're often crappily written. I'd also ask your opinion in the ongoing edit war with Catholic crusader, Evrik, in Don Bosco . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attilios (talk • contribs) 13:34, 9 July 2007

• I just want to be clear on this (and then I'll take it to the talk page). I don't want an edit war, I also don't want half-baked paragraphs inserted just to make a point. --evrik ^(talk) 23:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Potential plagiarism at Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro

Hi Johnbod, if you have a few minutes, could you take a look at Talk:Dionigi_di_Borgo_San_Sepolcro#Plagiarism.3F and comment? Thanks. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_10#Category:Historical_maps_by_User:Briangotts

Thanks for your sensible intervention and commentary. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr.G

I hope we are not in for another round. Not wholly unrelated, if you do go up for admin, let me know. But I do have to warn you the experiences becomes addictive. DGG (talk) I shall make a point of avoiding 4 great inventions :) As for MPC, I started learning new things & am aware of how much I do not know. Haven't done real bibliography for many years--even more addictive than WP.DGG (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Salus Populi Romani

Could you take a look at the page? It has been languishing in this sorry state since 2005. Do you think it is salvageable? --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've given it a wash and brush-up. It is a monument of scholarship compared to many in Category:Depictions of the Virgin Mary. I'll look around on the art history later, but from the Volto Santo of Lucca I know art historians tend to avoid works recreated in layers. Johnbod 12:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! The article looks better now and the lead is much more informative and to the point. The details you supplied on Hodegetria are also most welcome. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Romanesque architecture

I've just done a little rewrite. Would you like to check out the History and so on and so forth. There's also some brief talk about wall paintings. You might like to make some suggestions there as to what, if anything, should be added. --Amandajm 17:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Romanesque architecture

Thanks Johnbod, I didn't realise that you were still at work. I'll do something else for a bit if you like. Why don't you put up the inuse banner until you have finished? --Amandajm 01:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod. Good work on the scheme of wall paintings. Thanks for your corrections and the explanation re Tunisia etc.--Amandajm 02:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Stick the sculpture in the gallery for the time being. What we could really use is a good pic of the Jeremiah at Moissac, and the interior of something incredibly like Vezelay and a good clear pic of a painted interior. I've searched and searched, finally found a half-decent long shot of the interior of an abbey, which I photo editted to improve (I'm fairly expert at bringing up dark shots or pale washed-out ones). I'd really like Saint Savin or something similar. I've got a small bit of a ceiling in a church near Limoges but I don't think it's good enough, and I probably can't remember which blinking church it is anyway. Hey, I've just remembered a sarcophgus I've got a pic of as well with Christ in a mandorla! Gotta go and do some real work! Then we are doing the Harry Potter movie (2nd time). It's 1.20 pm in the land of Oz.--Amandajm 03:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In and out the argument, can I ask you little help for Angouleme Cathedral and Cahors Cathedral... I translated them from French, so ain't quite sure about the result... Ciao!! --Attilios 15:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

WOW!! Thanks you a lot. It was funny to discover that I translated the Italian mandorla to "almond" where it didn't need it. Ciao and thanks again. --Attilios 18:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Dinnerstein

Thanks for catching the erroneous deletion, not my first of the day. JNW 03:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the category work you did earlier, then saw all the tags on the article. I studied with Harvey about twenty five years ago, and knew that the info was good, it just needed sources and expansion. JNW 03:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Where did you see his picture? I drew him a few times--he posed once or twice when models took ill--and he really is distinctive. Here's a painting of him done by his friend, Burt Silverman: [3] JNW 03:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it really does allude to Degas, (and Eakins, esp. his 'Thinker' in the Met) who was an influence on them both, as he was on me, too. Cheers, JNW 03:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio Royal Collection

Hi, yes unfortunately the user M.Cho has done a lot of copy and paste editing in the past - in particular on the British Museum article. It took an argument and a lot of requests to get references and copyvio editing of the material in that article. As for the Royal collection I noticed the vast amount of copyvio waffle, not wikilinked etc so just removed it from the article and put it on the talk page. He did however message me to say that he was working on dealing with the references and the copyvio on the Royal Collection, but that was months ago. As for the article perhaps we could ask the league of copyeditors to deal with it in the meantime? LordHarris 14:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my successful RfA. I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me. Carlossuarez46 22:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please help comment on the proposed links

Hello

I was wondering if you might have time to comment on the list of article links I’ve been making on my Sandbox page User:VAwebteam/Sandbox (edit | [[Talk:User:VAwebteam/Sandbox|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Also, if you can bear it my To Do List page User:VAwebteam/To_do_list (edit | [[Talk:User:VAwebteam/To_do_list|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been completed now. I'd really welcome all your comments/advice and hope I've gone about this the right way this time. Thanks for your help. VAwebteam 09:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments and advice.VAwebteam 16:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Complaints about me

Could you tell me what you dislike about my behavior? You seem to be quick to find fault with me. Dr. Submillimeter 16:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I really want to know about wider issues. Dr. Submillimeter 20:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I am having problems with the professional biologist because we seem to have severe communication problems and problems compromising. I often feel like you and I can compromise, but I still sense that something about me irritates you, and I would rather find out what that problem is as soon as possible and change it. (I don't know if I will be working on WP:CFD much longer anyway, so maybe we will not conflict as much.) Dr. Submillimeter 07:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Haggadah

Don't fret. I had to strain my eyes on those captions before I had any clue what was going on there. --Eliyak T·C 02:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Et expecto...

Hello Johnbod, It was very kind of you to leave that message, and if you consult my early contributions you will see what I am talking about. Simone, i morti ti salutano! One simply cannot use wikipedia as the place to defend openly the rationale of every nuance of one's elsewhere-published statements: the process would be endless, like having one's vitals gnawed out, and nothing else would ever get done. Hence I am now a different person altogether, and having said all I wanted to on the earlier topics will address some new ones in a less personally identified way. I look forward to a new phase of life entirely! Thanks again, and best wishes, Kretzsch 16:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Cermonial counties

Hi Johnbod, I'm not sure that I understood your message - perhaps you could clarify what you meant? Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 16:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. I'm not sure what to do though - sorry. Tewfik^Talk 16:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Flagellation

Ciao! In your multiform tasks, maybe you'd have time to check my recent reorganisation of Piero della Francesca's Flagellation. The former version too much stressed the interpretation of a single scholar; I've revised and dried the matter, and listed more traditional versions. Ciao and good work. --Attilios 18:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to be nominated for admin?

I keep running into you at various xfd, and although we don't always agree you're always civil, and I think you'd be a great asset to helping plow through and closing them. It's also gratifying to me that there are editors here who care about topics that are not only "here and now". Think about it, it can - to the extent you let it - cut into mainspace editing time. Just let me know on my talk page - one way or another - and if it's "yes", I'll get on the ball and do the nom. Either way, I think you're a damn good editor. Carlossuarez46 21:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Fair enough, it shouldn't be entered into lightly. As for being more humanities inclined than technical, I am having a bit of that issue too, and the how-to guides are often outdated or assume knowledge I don't possess. I am trying to get a few of us newbie admins to get together and write a "things I ought to know on day 1" for admins and those who might be interested in becoming admins to allay some technology concerns. Not a second push: but, if you change your mind, any time, just let me know. Carlossuarez46 00:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

religious radio stations

No problem. You might want to look at Category:Catholic radio stations to see if it deserves a parallel breakdown by country, and to fix its sorting by first letter of the station rather than by second, which is how it's normally done.--Mike Selinker 13:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating in Hammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Kells

I think you misunderstood my tag of the article. I was not trying to suggest anything sectarian or make any real-world claim for the ownership of the book for one faith or another. I wasn't suggesting that any "Anglican" POV needs to be covered or that Anglican specific material needs to be added. The article is FA and is wonderful as is.

You spoke at length about "claims". The project banners do not "claim" any kind of ownership of an article, thatisn't allowed (WP:OWN) What the banners do is help editors find articles that relate to their projects. An editor tossed our project banner off of a 13th century saint stub the other day, with the reasoning that he "wasn't Anglican". The saint is commemorated as such in the calendar of the Church of England, why would he NOT be of interest to us? There was a HUGE debate where somebody suggested that the Archbishops of Canterbury needed to be split along the lines of "ours" and "yours". With so many articles needing work, that kind of thinking is really poor.

What I WAS trying to do was draw the attention of the editors of our project to this well-known book in the hopes that somebody, someday, might pick up one of the red links and run with them or - my real goal - to get our editors more intrested in the early Churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Most of The Archbishops of Canterbury from that period are still just stubs - did they "belong" to the Anglican Communion? No not, really. Do they relate to our project? Yes, in fact, our editors have done most of the work on those archbishops thus far. Much more needs to be done. Articles concerned with Pre-Reformation Christianity in Britian and Ireland are typicaly not of high importance to our project, but they are still of some importance.

If seeing our project's banner on "your" Book of Kells talk page is totaly offensive to you, then, in the spirit of peace, remove it. I just think that doing so would be very petty: WP:OWN. I am sure your removal was done in good faith. My restoration was done as well as outlined above. -- SECisek 05:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Cranmer

Your suggestions have been most excellent and are certain to improve the article when fully carried out. I have been asking for serious critical advice on this article and you are the first editor to have offered such. I look forward to more suggestions from you throughout the FAC process. Thank you for your time on this project. -- SECisek 05:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your nice welcome-back note at yesterday's CfD. I don't expect to be back at Cfd to the extent I was a month or so ago: it just takes too much time, and I'm suffering from a bit of CfD fatigue after sorting out so many of Pastorwayne's bizarre categories. So I've mostly gone back now to working on British Members of Parliament and Parliamentary constituencies ... but if there's anything at CfD you'd like my input on, pls msg me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)