User talk:Johnbod

Archives:

• /1 to Nov 06
• /2 to mid-Dec 06
• /3 to Jan 07
• /4 to Mar 07
• /5 to mid-April 07
• /6 to May 07
• /7 to July 07
• /8 to Sept 07 oct in fact
• /9 from Nov 07

Zao!!

Hi John!! How are you? Wish you a merry new year!! Finally I've been able to add a new article here: it's Monastero di Santa Giulia, Brescia. Maybe it'd need your help, as (for example) I don't know how it's the English equivalent of tiburio... ?!?! Ciao and thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Attilios (talk • contribs) 23:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Queluz National Palace

This article, to which you contributed, will be featured on the Main Page on January 5, 2008.[1] Risker (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Biblio in Las Meninas

Thanks for your note, John. The article looks great. I think there should be no impediment to its promotion now.

You recover, OK? :)

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hope you are feeling better. Cheers, JNW (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Great to see that Las Meninas has now been promoted, John. It really is a gem.

All the best to you.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help - I know how long it takes to do those things.

Congratulations John; it was team effort at its best. I'm working slowly through the Venus, as soon as there is a reasonable amount of content I'll be calling in the heavies again, so expect a call! Ceoil (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Johnbo! I just looked at Las Meninas (which I didn't have watched) and saw it has a gold star! Congratulations for all your hard work! Things have been a bit of a mess hhere as myy compuuettr crashed and its taken me a while too gget my intternet connection going...aanndd guess what?.... I've got double letters againn! It mmust be Meee! Amandajm (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which which passed nem. con. with 45 support, 0 oppose, and 0 neutral. Thank you for your support and all the kind words that were expressed. I will try to live up to the trust placed in me by the community. I now have my homework to do and then pass the Marigolds.

Oh, yeah ... cheeky .... Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

High culture

Hello! I'd like to see a caption that explains why this image is considered to be such a very exceptional example of high culture. Show, don't tell! And yes, the troll is quite impressive. Cheers, --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

John Michael Wright

Hi, sorry, back briefly - up to my eyebrows in the Real World. This is great. - PKM (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Robert Peake the Elder

I've stuck this up now, and wonder if you'd be kind enough to cast an eye over it. I can't believe there's much more info to go in, because I've pretty well rinsed my sources dry; but I've put some queries on the talk page that you might be able to help with. Cheers. qp10qp (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you been following the discussion on Talk:Robert Peake the Elder? We're having far too much fun there. - PKM (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

David Norman

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article David Norman, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of David Norman. LeyteWolfer (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

		Thanks for your support
		Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Saint Joseph

Thanks for contributing to the discussion on the Saint Joseph talk page. We definitely needed the help. When I first came across the article, it said: "Joseph [...] was, according to the canonical Christian Gospel accounts and tradition, the husband of Mary and the father of Jesus of Nazareth." I thought it was a simple error and tried to correct it, but that met with fierce oposition, as you can see on the talk page. Anyway, I was getting extremely frustrated, so I hope you'll stick around until it gets resolved. Again, thank you. Fratprez (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wright

Can you supply the book and page number? Unfortunately <ref>Waterhouse</ref> isn't likely to satisfy as an authoritative reference?--Doc^g 08:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Italian musical instruments

I was surprised by your tone and puzzled by your comments at this category's discussion. In my opinion removing the category from the articles improved the articles, otherwise I wouldn't have removed it from them. There was nothing improper in that, surely? I then noticed the category was effectively empty, and since I couldn't think of any "Italian musical instruments" I nominated it for discussion to see whether there might be consensus that it should be deleted. Was that improper?

Nowhere in any procedure can I find that a category once nominated for deletion must have articles that were removed from it restored. Neither can I see any policy that bars a Wikipedian who removes a category from articles from nominating that category for deletion. Even if there is a procedure, as you appear to suggest, that I must restore what I think is an inappropriate category to articles that I don't believe need it, and if necessary work against all comers to keep it there, I shall respectfully decline.

In what way does the absence of the articles from the category "clearly make comment […] very difficult"? The relevant articles are listed in the nomination.

I suspect there may be some long-standing Wikipedians who know CFD who would find your assertion that the procedure is new to me quite funny. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 10:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Snotty" comment withdrawn. Sorry you felt that way - it wasn't my intention. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Senior wranglers

User:Roundhouse0 has brought it to my attention that I wasn't clear in this CfD nomination. I meant for Category:Senior wranglers and Category:Second wranglers to be discussed together, but didn't make it clear that I was including Category:Second wranglers in the same discussion. If this makes you want to change anything you have said or add anything new, please do so. Sorry for the confusion. LeSnail (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Beham

Yes, it was the only off-Wiki site - not that it was a brilliant one anyway. But all I have (well, prints anyway) is now on Commons. Did you see my latest J Hopfer acquisition: Charles V, a wonderful example of the 'Hopfer style', also ill. in Landau? See you have been under anaesthetics for the New Year - presume non-alcoholic ones? Anyway I hope all's well now... Nick Michael (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fine now, thanks. I know the print but hadn't seen yours - in fact I'm sure this has grown considerably since I last looked - lovely stuff. You might, or might well not, be interested in Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of erotic depictions - whether the review or (apparently less contentious) adding something to the article. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of erotic depictions looks like another can of worms: I've enough of this with Toilet and Pubic hair. I mean, how the hell did I get into this stuff anyway...? My eldest has just become an admin on Simple Wiki and now spends more time arguing and bickering than he does writing articles! Nick Michael (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wlliam Larkin

Can you help identify this portrait? - PKM (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've started the expansion of William Larkin - comments and contributions welcome! - PKM (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you identify this portrait?

John, I wonder if this portrait rings a bell. It is a C19 copy, but I am certain there is an original as I have seen it elsewhere. Any clue? Nick Michael (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

May I butt in? Image:Clouet Claude de Beaune de Semblancay.jpg - PKM (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Felicien Rops images

Hey. To make things clear: I know one image isn't enough for an artist, but there's a commons link to a whole gallery of his works... I don't see why they need to be duplicated. The Wikipedia article loses its layout and overview by adding images. Key (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong, I'm afraid. I presume you don't work on visual arts articles much? Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain why I'm wrong? I did the edit after I read what the guidelines have to say about this. Maybe this will help this discussion, from Wikipedia:Layout:

If an article has many images, so many, in fact, that they lengthen the page beyond the length of the text itself (...), you can try to use a gallery, but the ideal solution might be to create a page or category combining all of them at Wikimedia Commons and use a relevant template (...) and link to it instead, so that further images are readily found and available when the article is expanded.

I'll be glad to agree with you, if you can tell me how I'm misusing this guideline.

(PS: you can keep the discussion on this talk page if you'd like, that way it's less confusing for me.) Key (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles on art are a special case - the pictures are often more important than the text, not just an illustration as usual. A gallery probably would be the ideal solution, but to cut to one, somewhat untypical, picture is not. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style, though it does not addresss this specific situation. You should also remember that images can appear very differently depending on the users settings and equipment. Hope this helps. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for refering to the visual arts manual of style, I didn't know about its existance. But even there, they actually give the same guideline: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Visual_arts/Art_Manual_of_Style#Too_many_pictures.2C_too_little_text.3F. Or are you saying that when you view it with your settings, the images don't go past the length of the text? Because my Wikipedia image settings are standard. Also, for the record, if the other picture is more typical, I'm fine with keeping that one. Key (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I have big settings, as I expect you do, but most users don't. The two pictures together give a resonable enough impression of the range of his art, which neither alone would do. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My settings are default. I think most people will have those too. The whole commons gallery gives a reasonable enough impression of the range of his art. It's not like the images are lost to the readers. I'm going to stop arguing about this, though: probably for the best, since we're not really convincing each other. Please, think about it again, and about the guidelines. I'm pretty sure you have to read them with default settings in mind. Key (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Venus

Went to my local bookstore yesterday and by freakish conicdence (its a very small family run operation, more concerned with mil-hist and self-help books than art) found a copy of this. And its great. By the way, do you know of a copy of the picture featured in the times of the canvass post richardsons cleaver attack, pre repair. Ceoil (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me know which bits and I'll work with you on it. By the way, I hope we didn't fall out over that FAR. Ceoil (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have an artists impression of how the painting looked after the slahes, but its an artists impression, and under coptright. Ceoil (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean "It is an admirable light for....whilst raising the said..."? Ceoil (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OWN?

I've spent some months on this, so I'm probably guilty of a bit of WP:OWN - sorry about that. However, that's best remedied by discussing things, and your problems with my edits, not by personal attacks in edit summaries[2]. I'm very happy to discuss any changes on the talk page.--Doc^g 13:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Vel

	The Velázquez Barnstar of Cultural Transcendence
	I Ceoil award this for past and future work on the great master. Its been an honour to work with you, sir. Ceoil (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cornelis Ketel

I started Cornelis Ketel but it's not really a coherent narrative. Would love your input if you have time. - PKM (talk) 07:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Most Phallic Building contest

An article that you have been involved in editing, Most Phallic Building contest, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most Phallic Building contest. Thank you. faithless (^speak) 08:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Timoteo Viti

Hey, how are you? Can you review the entry I've created for Timoteo Viti. It was difficult to translate and reword from the original source, if you can look it over for me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was getting at, I'm usually good at rewording and combining sources. Thanks a lot, looks a lot better. -RiverHockey (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, thats why I asked you to do it. He needed an entry but I didn't have any other resources, and you seem like an expert. -RiverHockey (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 30 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cornelis Ketel, 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.

--Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Tabloid always wins; thanks for the great hook. - PKM (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Murillo

My apologies! I am so sorry to have caused you offense, or problems with the display on your monitor, by using the Murillo under the heading "art". But a painting of Jesus clutching a bird is misplaced under the heading "canonical Gospel accounts". The incident is an invention of Murillo, no matter how credible. However, the addition of a picture in the context of this article is not worth arguing about; and I have therefore happily withdrawn the picture from the article altogether. Since I originally introduced the Murillo painting into this article (which I did not in order to turn this article into an art gallery but to demonstrate the point I was making, namely that there was a discernible shift of the portrayal of Joseph from a doddery old man to a youthful looking man), I trust no one is going to feel offended by my having withdrawn the picture now in response to your objection. must insist though that, contrary to your assertion, my edit summary was entirely true. 22:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks yr message. You have a point concerning the pic, as do I. But in the context of this article, the purpose of which is not an art gallery, let's not expend any further time on this point. – As regards the subject matter, I cast my bread on the water. After all, it is not a purely scholarly matter, since there are also strong opinions about it; and the better the article manages to disentangle the one from the other, the closer it moves towards encyclopedia standard. 23:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.190.28 (talk)

Freud

Johnbod, the comments by Grayling that I removed ("the judgment of time seems to be running against him", etc) weren't a specific criticism of Freud. They were just a vague, rhetorical observation, and I see no reason why this sort of thing should be in the Freud article at all, whether written by Grayling or anyone else.Skoojal (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

VAwebteam

Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_January_30#Image:Copper_snuffbox.jpg FYI Tyrenius (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I never thought you'd ask. ;) Tyrenius (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

• This user helped promote Lisa del Giocondo to featured article status.
• Just a doodad and a thank you. -Susanlesch (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  

Thanks for your help on Sigmund Freud

There are many determined Freud supporters who revert edits pointing out how widely and severely he is criticized. Any help you can give is appreciated. NuclearWinner (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Peake

Sorry about edit conflicts; I will leave alone at this time. –Outriggr § 03:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No hard feelings, I hope, on the gallery issue. Overall, I think the article is excellently written. I am shocked that there wasn't an article about Peake before (I have actually heard of him and seen his work before), and I'm grateful that you guys took the time to create it and get it ready for FA. We were getting a little spirited, and I wanted to make it clear that I do think it's a good article. Karanacs (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

PROD of Cornelis de Heem

As far as I can tell, the Spanish and French articles are only really copies of this one (or the other way round) – I only speak French. The German article is a little more lengthy, but still doesn't cite any references for the person. Not being notable is a criteria for deletion, and as far as I can tell, there's no notability asserted in the article through WP:BIO. Please let me know if I'm wrong — alex.muller (talk • edits) 18:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Las Meninas

I see Las Meninas will be FA on 5 February - congratulations! - PKM (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

On 2 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Timoteo Viti, 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.

--Archtransit (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

FAC

No worries, and no skulking. The game's afoot. I've started improving our image store for Isaac Oliver. I also just ordered Karen Hearn's Tate exhibit catalogue on Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger; it's been remaindered. - PKM (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Las Meninas

News to me but its on the main page today. Its attracting quality edits like this, actually lots of them. I have a few disused grenades, a pellet gun, mines, and a sub to hand. Still, help needed. Ceoil (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see if the article improves in anyway in the next 23 hours. I doubt it. I hesitate to use my flame-thrower, but jesus christ I'm not being presented with a wide bunch of options, so far. Ceoil (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If I may join the conversation...

Looks great on page one, doesn't it? I have added something on etymology to stop Portuguese irregulars from attacking the flank. Handy to have this information here, I think. It is not easy to get hold of elsewhere, and people DO wonder about the meaning and origin. "Menina" does not mean "girl" in Spanish: depend on it!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note at my page, J. Simply discuss with me here if you like. I'll watch here. Yes, the quote is from that dictionary (a very large and respected Spanish reference work), as is the information that menina is feminine of menino, and that menino is from Portuguese and means boy. Clear enough, in the note? A check in a large Portuguese dictionary confirms the Portuguese angle.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello Johnbod, I have granted rollback rights to your account. The reason for this is that, after a review of some of your contributions, I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended use of reverting vandalism: I do not believe you will abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck.

Just the right time for this. Well spotted on the vandalism. I normally check back, but I wanted to block the IP asap to stop more of the same.

Tyrenius (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not that drastic! But it's handy - as long as you check the preceding edit(s) also, of course. :) It just rolls back all the edits of the last editor. Tyrenius (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Never normally in these?

Which is why I removed them. Did I miss something? Yomangani^talk 01:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I misread the diff completely, sorry! Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Easily done during Mainpage Madness. Yomangani^talk 01:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

AIV Report

I commented on the talk page there, but figured I'd add a bit here also.
The bot removed your report because it thought it was a comment attached to the previous report.
I'm not sure what other formats the bot recognizes, but reports should generally follow one of these formats.

• {{IPvandal|IP address}} brief reason for listing (keep it short) ~~~~
• {{Vandal|Username}} brief reason for listing (keep it short) ~~~~
  

If the report follows one of those formats, it's my understanding that the bots will leave them alone unless the account has been blocked. Hope that helps. --Onorem♠Dil 16:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The formats are listed in the comments of the "User-reported" section where you added the report. --Onorem♠Dil 16:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

They aren't visible on the page itself. You should be able to see the comments when you are editing within the section. --Onorem♠Dil 16:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Develop a proper codicology page?

Hi Johnbot,

Thanks for your response to my query to that totally incomprehensible quote in Las Meninas.

But the main point: For one reason or another, I followed a Wiki-ref for folio--as in that thing with verso and recto--and it wound up on bookbinding. A further wikiref to codicology was hardly worth mentioning. Of anyone I've seen here, you seem the most hip to these issues. Would you consider helping pumping codicology up? Or at least keep an eye on it while I mess around? (I took a graduate class in codicology--mostly medieval mss.--about 20 years ago, sad to say, and lost all my solid notes....) Best,---Shlishke (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

'Missing something' "for" or "against" these categories

We appear to be failing to communicate - All I was trying to do was find out the nature of your confusion. i.e. which direction were you missing the point. Missing why these categories "should" exist or missing why these categories "should not" exist. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I kind of assumed that direction. Isn't English a wonderful language; we all use and abuse it in different ways. It's why it is so important to keep talking and assume "good faith". Cheers :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheers

File:Party.gif

Have a glass of Elderberry wine on me! qp10qp (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears our boy has his star! Many thanks for all your help, particularly on fielding the points at FAC: it is much appreciated. I have found working with you, PKM and Amandajm one of the most enjoyable experiences I have had on Wikipedia. I am learning fast about art articles, which are a curiously different beast to straight history subjects. Of course, hardly anyone will read Peake, but at least that will preserve it (I cannot keep up with the endless changes to articles like James I of England and Elizabeth I of England that I've worked on: it becomes quite dismaying). qp10qp (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Battle of the Nudes (engraving)

On 8 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of the Nudes (engraving), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

John, I'm surprised that you weren't told, or didn't learn, before being given rollback, that you're only to use it on genuine vandalism. This is not an acceptable use of rollback, particularly given that you also completely failed to check what the problem was that motivated the edit. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Cabinet (architecture)

I've made a start off the top of my head. You'll be interested in the subject, I think.--Wetman (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Dang! couldn't find Cabinet painting. Well done!--Wetman (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Alexis Simon Belle

Many thanks for your speedy assessment! Xn4 05:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

About getting along

John, I'm sure you realise yourself that this edit summary was out of place. Can you please not do it again? Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Advice

John, you are becoming increasingly incoherent. What happened was that a Commons user ignored an overwrite warning and overwrote an earlier image called Pan.jpg, which showed the newsreader. The correct thing to do was to revert this user's mistake, and re-upload the image under a new name. Commons does not check for namespace collisions with Wikipedia. This has been known as a bug for years, it's number 889 if you want to look it up. Nobody has taken the time to implement a solution, nor can images be moved (the number for that bug is referenced in the aforementioned). So after re-uploading the image under a new name, I discovered that this bug existed, and that the new name collided with an existing image on en-wp. The only solution was to re-upload the image under yet another name that would not collide. As stated, I did not have time to execute this, leaving the only sane option as the deletion of the (now incorrect) image from the article, in the hope that someone else would take the time to fix the problem, which I felt was clearly described in appropriate language for someone else to understand. I note that you did not seek to (a) understand the problem, or even (b) fix the it. Instead, you assumed bad faith and used rollback on the edit, which I have already told you was against protocol. You then edit-warred with another editor who had a better insight into the problem. At some point, one might have expected that the fact you were warring with a sysop would give you pause to consider the possibility that they were not out to destroy everything holy. Instead, you chose to make a reference to their mental health, which I cannot, and I'm looking at you very seriously here, cannot condone. Marvelling at the fact that apparently, nobody cared to restore the image correctly, I eventually got around to re-uploading under a name that at least does not collide with the English Wikipedia, although it may collide with any number of local wikipedias, wiktionaries, wikibooks, etc.

I worry that because of your demonstrated lack of technical knowledge, much of this will sound like gobbledy-gook to you, but that leads me to question whether you should really be editing Wikipedia in the judgmental manner you are doing, asserting that you understand who made what mistake when. I should mention to you that an administrator would be expected to be able to conduct the kind of forensic research necessary to understand the nature of such problems.

Overall, Wikipedia suggest that you be bold in making changes, and we have a {{sofixit}} template that I would strongly recommend to you as a mantra before you run around the wiki again, accusing others of various perceived crimes.

Yours firmly,

Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Carlo Frigerio

I wonder if you could point me to the Ghit that showed he "painted stuff in a palace in Brescia". Thanks. Tyrenius (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC) here Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Good find. Tyrenius (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Rubric (typography)

On 13 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rubric (typography), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Note the nod (should be written in red?)

On 14 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cabinet (room), 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.

--Victuallers (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

see here Victuallers (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC) oops ... fixed now Victuallers (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Tower Green

I stole your suggestion for the lead. I hope you don't mind!!!! Can you tell me where you found that image? I was looking for it. BTW, I was shocked, just shocked, that Tower Green wasn't an article. I saw a bunch of red links here and there, while reading up on Anne Boleyn. I haven't created that many articles, certainly none in English history, considering how many years I spent in London as an expat. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Doczilla's RfA

deleted for turning whole page below green!

Crap articles on ho-hum photographers

Hi and thank you for your input on Vadukul. Are we friends now? Oh dear, how boring. Wonderful!

I noted your comment that A quick look around Category:Fashion photographers, Category:Commercial photographers and Category:American photographers shows a majority of individuals with less impressive records that Vadukul, not to mention heaps of equally peacocky prose. You didn't surprise me. I'd pretty much given up on looking through any of those three; doing so brought dark thoughts about humanity. Actually I've got my hands full with Category:Japanese photographers, which is stunningly well populated -- mostly by utterly uninteresting substubs (not created by me), whose preservation and development I sporadically work on. Looking at "recent changes" to this category tends to show learned contributions by Pinkville to the earliest people, ho-hum contributions by others to the half-dozen or so photographers who have (often I think undeservedly) become stars in the anglosphere, and the addition of this or that softcore pornographer. Pinkville's work aside, this is depressing. Anyway, I'm in no mood to go through any of your three named-and-shamed categories, but if you want to create some AfDs do please mention these here. Then I'm likely to pitch in, and you might also attract other people from this somnolent Project. Or, if you can't be bothered to do AfD, at least mention it here.

Probably no need to reply, but if you'd like to do so please do so here. Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I was making a resolution to myself never to look at another photographer article again! There is a problem, touched on in the NYT article I added, that commercial photographers don't get written about as much as "art" photographers - the pictures do the talking, at least until they are dead, which I personally greatly prefer. It's the same with journalists - how many of them really get written about, as opposed to being argued with? Don't lets even think about authors! Artists have an "included in major collections" notability criterion; personally I would support an "x Vogue covers" (or even "earns y $M") one for photographers on the same principle. I usually look at anything on the VA-related list, but otherwise their agents' creations are safe from me. Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not being interested in frocks, I tend not to be interested in photos of frocks. And I suppose that people who are interested in frocks are more interested in the frocks than in the photos of them. Ditto for celebs. I think the reason why the better commercial photographers aren't as much written about as the better art photographers is simply that the former just aren't usually very interesting, at least as long as they are commercial photographers. (Honorable exceptions include Avedon's elephant photo, and miscellaneous work by Jūmonji.) But then I go to bookstores in the hope of seeing some interesting new photobooks, and there are instead piles of books showing beautiful (I suppose) people in beautiful (I suppose) frocks. (A little devil tells me just to say that such books are directed at people too gullible and thick to say anything intelligible and interesting about the photographs or photographers, but I mustn't say that, must I?) As I look at Vogue covers, I can't see anything significant about the name of the person who pressed the button of one or even twenty of them: it is I suppose be the art director who has most of the job of presenting yet another frock in a way that will make readers fear that without buying a copy they won't know what's what and may appear slightly dowdy to their more dutifully consuming friends.

There's nothing much wrong with commercial photography. A good friend of mine (without an article at en:WP) is a commercial photographer. But, like many commercial photographers I can think of, he does unrelated work in his spare time, and it's this that gets into Asahi Camera and/or Nippon Camera and into the occasional book, and that might eventually be written up.

As for the an "'included in major collections' notability criterion", art and photo galleries do have collections of photos, and these do include fashion/celeb photography. (Far too high a percentage of it, I'd say.) That could be a criterion for photographic notability.

Having knocked commercial photography, I should end by saying that I find some good but not outstanding commercial photography a lot more interesting than a fair amount of "art" photography; and by the latter I don't only mean what unrecognized geniuses (or not) claim is their own "art", but also some of what Nazraeli and respected critics trumpet as "art". Bah humbug.

Back to my obligations in the real world, and later perhaps I should try to knock Teikō Shiotani into something that starts to resemble a decent article on this dreamy and gloriously uncommercial artist. -- Hoary (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Rubric

This would be a great example of a retro use of rubrics if the quality wasn't so poor. I'll see if I can't track down a better image of rubrics in Kelmscott Press work (the 1972 Dover edition has the rubrics, if I recall). - PKM (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Got one. Image:Kelmscott Press Laudes.png. Adding... - PKM (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect Royal progress

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Royal progress, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Royal progress is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Royal progress, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Note sure why my previous attempt to comment turned your page green. Maybe I should just shut up. - PKM (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Naw. What in world did someone think it was a typo for????? - PKM (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Medieval household

Thanks, I added a "to do" box. Lampman (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Royal progress

Hi John - you wrote: WTF are you playing at deleting this redirect? It is a very closely related topic, and the nearest article we have. I shall set it up again, please do not delete. The rationale you used, according to the bot, must be the wrong one - makes no sense at all. PS I see you have been hit by the curse of Doczilla too!

I saw a closed AFD with a bluelink, which made no mention of turning the page into a redirect. The result of that AFD was speedy delete, as the article had been transwikied. As far as I was aware it's not common practice to make redirects from articles that are AFD'd unless it is clearly stated in the AFD that it's a good idea. There was also a [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Royal_progress|template request to speedy-delete the redirect]. Under the circumstances, it made perfect sense to me to do so. And yes, Doczilla's been stomping around a bit lately! Grutness...wha? 22:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - should've checked the summary, you're right - sorry. Thanks for fixing the Doczilla "greening". Grutness...wha? 22:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The green curse

Oy.

Like I told Grutness after I noticed the exchange above, I have no dadgum idea why that greening effect happens to some people but not others, and certainly not why it comes and go. With a couple of people, it's obviously interacting with the formatting of their talk pages. With others, I just can't see what the deal is. I had tested that thing repeatly and even had somebody help me test so I could know how it looks on other computers it before I inflicted it on people. The greening effect had never happened during testing. It's some consequence of the effect which makes it collapsible, the purpose of which was to be less intrusive on other people's pages rather than more. *sigh* Ah, well. Sorry about that, chief. Doczilla _RAWR! 06:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

AGF

I just read your recent comments on IZAK's talk page. I also responded to your own clear failure to verify your own claims on the talk page of the Judaism project. I have actually acknowledged the mistake, and, if you bothered to check the recent edit history, removed the banner from several articles. I have taken responsibility for my actions. You, on the other hand, have consistently shown an unwillingness to verify your own presumptions and regularly rushed to judgement. Presumably, I'm responsible for your failures to verify the claims you make as well. :) John Carter (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? I haven't edited the Judaism project talk page for months. Yet another case of mistaken identity? This is getting beyond a joke. Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, for once, you're right. I hit the wrong link when referring to Steven Anderson. Unfortunately, your writing styles, if that's the word which applies, are remarkably similar. Blaming others. My apologies for lumping you in with all the others who are make as irresponsible statements. John Carter (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No, this is the third time in less than twenty-four hours you have confused me with other editors. Do you find you are becoming increasingly forgetful? Johnbod (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comments elsewhere are common very, very close to violating WP:NPA, if they haven't already done so, potentially making you liable for blocking. You also have once again shown that you have little if any understanding of even the most basic facts of the case. You indicated elsewhere that the project had to be "discussed" before it was created. There is absolutely no basis in fact for that claim, and, if you check the history of the List of notable converts to Christianity, you will see that it was discussed there, and that the parties involved in that discussion were in fact the ones who signed aboard. Does it concern you that you seemingly rarely, if ever, bother to find out if your allegations are accurate? Also, as has already been indicated, consensus with other projects regarding banner placement is not required. In fact, given the rather pronounced ownership tendencies that some groups have, requiring such would even be counterproductive. Does it bother you that you have now repeatedly sought recourse in what are potentially irrelevant and off-topic defenses of your own conduct? And you call me "pugnacious"? John Carter (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A reply is hardly necessary under the circumstances! Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Largely because, unfortunately, the facts indicate that you are being at least as "pugnacious" as anyone else. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please cease attempting to misrepresent things. I was referring to the attempt to block me, and I thought that was clear from the context. Yes, I acknowledge you had notified me of the earlier discussion, but that is an entirely separate thing than an at best, dare I say, incompetent request to have me blocked. Such continued attempts to try to paint yourself and others in the best possible light while attempting to place the blame for their actions on others, in this case me, can be seen as giving people a clear indication of your character. Unfortunately, in this case. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying I should have notified you of a new section started by someone else, which I made clear early on I did not agree with? What is this about Project Judaism? You are beginning to parody yourself! Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And you are proving even more your own inability to cease taking the defensive. I was indicating there, as I have indicated elsewhere, that IZAK should have notified me of an attempt to block. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that you are incapable of trying to speak to the facts, despite your insisting that others do so. You are not, at this point, beginning to parody yourself; seemingly, you have been doing so for some time. John Carter (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is pointless to continue this, as you have stopped recognising that you keep mixing me up with other people (3 times so far), so I can't tell if you are actually complaining about me or someone else. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I regret I have to agree. At no point did I say that I was confusing you with IZAK, or that I was actually blaming you for IZAK's actions. You lept to that completely inaccurate assumption completely on your own, and then, once again, tried to turn the blame for your own incapacity of understanding on to others, by accusing me of a misunderstanding which happened entirely within your own head. If you review the material, I never specifically mentioned you. I was referring to the circumstances, not the individuals involved. Unfortunately, that seems to be a differentiation you are either incapable of making or unwilling to make. John Carter (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I'll have to look at the Judaism project myself to see WTF you are going on about, if anything. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Saint Anne in the Eastern tradition

Hi Johnbod, I was wondering if you had a source you could recommend for St. Anne in the Orthodox tradition. I have some good materials for the west but am having a hard time finding eastern sources. I know she was not a major figure there but was wondering if you had any information. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I know Justinian dedicated a church to her, but I haven't yet found much else. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Printmaking

I've done some tweaking and removed some random code. It looks OK on my low res screen now. You can play around with it if you want. Change "float: right" to "float: left" to move horizontally. Tyrenius (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Trim

Here you go! Image:Burchett sandown trimmed.jpg‎ - PKM (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Problem with Projects

I believe you would be well advised to become aware of the following guidelines, if you are not in fact already aware of them: WP:TE and WP:DE. Neither of your recent comments on the above page even remotely deals with the subject under discussion. Please try to confine your comments to the subject, as opposed to off-topic comments about the author. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Your commentary to date on the talk page above has clearly yet to even remotely address, even peripherally, the actual content of the page, which, so far as can be told by your comments, you have yet to even read. I think you can reasonably understand that, should you continue in like manner, any future similar comments you might make could, and possibly should, be removed from the page as completely off-topic. I realize that, for whatever reason, you have taken it upon yourself to be a critic of me, and my recent actions regarding the creation of new national and subnational projects. I actually went through rather a great deal of effort explaining why I had done so to another editor, which can be found at User talk:Otebig/archive 1#Additional comment. You might be interested in knowing the motivations for my recent actions, rather than simply coming to your own conclusions regarding them. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for indicating by your previous edit summary that rational discussion or even consideration of subjects about which you have already jumped to conclusions is something you have absolutely no interest in. On that basis, I guess I am obligated to say that, if you continue to disrupt the essay in question with your entirely off-topic remarks, I will have reasonable cause to remove them, and, possibly, to request that you be perhaps blocked for repeatedly violating WP:DE. John Carter (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Reported here. The recommended link to User talk:Otebig/archive 1#Additional comment is indeed a remarkable read. Johnbod (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Henry Lyte

O master of woodcuts, can you advise me if the Henry Lyte who "published" A Niewe Herball (1578) was himself an herbalist or just the publisher? I assume the former but I can't seem to find confirmation. (The link is needed for slip (needlework).) Thanks! - PKM (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

New to you or not, that was exactly what I needed. I think I prefer "horticulturalist" to "herbalist". Thanks much. He's mentioned in passing a number of places, but does not have his own page. - PKM (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that; "botantist" per DNB. - PKM (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Massively expanded and discusses woodcuts in his first edition, which might interest you in passing. - PKM (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Still at it

Just ease up. Keep yourself in the clear. Comment on edits, not editors, which you have done. WP:DENY was a bit out of line, but ignore it. Tyrenius (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

Just thought you'd like to know that someone was enquiring about something you'd done at this section of the Help desk today. Bencherlite^Talk 23:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Art in Ruins

Sorry I may have stepped on one of your changes when I submitted the new draft of this article. I'm the one who listed it in the Visual Arts-related deletions, so I'm happy that more people have shown up at the AfD. If you have other ideas for what to do with this, go ahead. I just thought the original version was full of potential copyright problems due to the lengthy quotes. The external links could be mined for useful info (they are probably excessive at present). EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On February 29, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Burchett, 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.

Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words!! Yes it really does annoy me that despite what I've put into the project I still get messages like that on a daily basis, I think editors should be encouraging each other rather than focusing on the negative. If there is anything less than perfect, my god you are made to be aware of it aren't you!!! Best regards and congrats on the DYK ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Giulio Clovio

Because of your edits on talk page of this article I am informing you that talk page will be deleted. Reason for deleting is that all discussions are started by banned user:Velebit puppet which has not been allowed to edit in time of his writing. His edits has not been allowed so all will be deleted. This deleting is in line with wiki rules but is used rarely, but in case of this user edits must be deleted, because he is coming again and again with only intention to write POV articles. After helping to block his 3 puppets this year I have started to delete all his edits. this is done with hope that he will stop writing after seeing that all his edits are deleted. Again I am sorry for deleting you comments on talk page but .....--Rjecina (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look. From what I can see, the talk page(s) should be restored. If there is a user that is a sock of a banned user, then Rjecina should prove it and get the sock indef blocked. Even so, that's no reason to delete posts by other users, unless they agree to it. Tyrenius (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits by banned users can be removed. I think common sense should prevail, as to whether the material on the talk page is worth keeping, if it addresses arguments that will otherwise need to be gone over again. And again, the removal doesn't apply to other editors' posts. There should be consensus over what to do. Tyrenius (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We must be talking about the edits of User:GiorgioOrsini. In a quick look, when I viewed the 16 December version of Talk:Giulio Clovio, I saw a lot of nationalistic enthusiasm but I did not notice anything that seems dangerous to the encyclopedia. As Tyrenius says, there is no case for removing comments by anyone other than the banned editor. There is also an entire vote there on a successful WP:RM proposal for renaming the article, started by Orsini, which would be lost if the page is deleted. If there is too much invective on the Talk page, I suggest archiving it. EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Banned editors on this talk page are:user:GiorgioOrsini , user:BarryMar, user:NovaNova, 4.249.3.225 , 4.249.6.191 All 5 users are puppets of banned user:Velebit. In my personal thinking user:Velebit is having mental problems (if you look all his edits on wikipedia)

After his puppets has been blocked again during last month few wikipedia editors has started to rewrite "his" articles. Sorry but edits on talk page will stay deleted. Even this article need to be rewrited because of changes which are made by this editor but it is low priority so I do not believe that anybody will do that. My english is not good enough so other editors are rewriting articles. --Rjecina (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If you know how te edit talk page without comments of banned user you can do that, but for me this has been problem. This is only talk page which I have deleted because in my thinking it has not been possible to leave comments of other user after deleting of Velebit comments. If you can do that please revert part of talk page.--Rjecina (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Belated thanks

...for the work you did on St. Anne. The article is much improved and looks better too. My apologies for not mentioning it sooner. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The FAR

I'd like to take a monent to thank you for the time your spent on the History of erotic depictions FAR. I know that it wasn't particularly pleasant, but it was work that needed to be done. Your input was very helpful indeed. --Zantastik talk 23:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Life of the Virgin

Good work! Can I have a fiddle with it? Amandajm (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks John! I'm glad you approve of the efforts of this Protestant. I once walked into St. Peter's while mass was taking place. A chorister was singing a solo during the Communion, a simple repetitive modern melody. Evangelical stuff. He had a big voice, not quite in the same league as young Aled but hauntingly beautiful in a gutsy, Italian sort of way. The combination of time, place, music was absolutely magical. People were drifting about as if they were being born along on a voice.

One of the things I love about St Peter's is the way people visiting for the first time walk in the door and fall on their knees. It's hard to convey that sort of stuff on wikipedia. Oh, I had another little treat. The year that the Orthodox church turned up in full force, I just happened to be at Santa Maria Maggiore when the Patriach of Antioch arrived and was borne down the aisle in a huge procession with about a dozen cardinals and enough bishops to sink a ship. What is Benedict doing, renouncing his title as Patriarch of Rome?

By the way, I have rewritten San Pedro in a simpler for and it's up on Simple English Wiki as well. [3] Amandajm (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Book of Kells

Hi, Johnbod. I'm at a point with the Book of Kells -- the Decoration section -- where Calkins may be the better source. Would you like to take a look? I don't want to be "hogging" the article. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Fondation Calvet

I wrote a few words on this museum because many years ago I chanced on what is left ofEsprit Calvet's cabinet of curiosities while looking for an insect collection in the Musée Calvet in Avignon. This museum,important for early entomology, is maintained by the Fondation Calvet.I put a few words together to stave off deletion on the proposed deletion page where the art spoke for more than I thought.You may be interested in my comment on Vitrelli Many thanks Robert Notafly (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Cats

No evidence of deletion. Those category pages do not seem to have ever been created. Click on red link to create them. Yes, template should be deleted! Ty 01:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed the template to Visual arts where it was in use and then deleted it. Ty 04:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My talkpage

I got it, I don't need to be carped at on my talk page, your message was understood and removed. It's my talkpage, not an article or a public forum. You both need to learn what is your business and what is not. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I get that it is incorrect, on my talkpage I have done it for expediency. I appreciate your invitation to join the Kells discussion, but it is not my particular area of expertise, so there is nothing I could add. Please, do we really need to drag this on? I am getting ready to go live in Japan, and if I hit one button rather than another, on my own talk page, I am a 2 1/2 year editor, not some vandal, and really don't need to be roasted. Good luck with Kells, and good night. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have posted your Book of Kells FAC at our Project, so if there are others interested, they can participate. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Today was a pretty stressful day for me, in real life. Otherwise, things have been "keeping" well. How about you? It was nice to see the notes you dropped by on my talk page. I was scared that you hated me ever since that Saint Joseph business :Þ Hope you have a great weekend.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Caspar David Friedrich

Hi Johnbod, finally I'm pushing on the Venus so any contribution from you would be great. I'm working, slowly on Friedrich with Outriggr, so please feel free to intergect there if the mood takes you. Best Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Lucas de Heere

I finally found and scanned a good de Heere in color, but it needs context. We really must clean up his article, one of these days. So much to do... PKM (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK: Giovanni Faber, Life of the Virgin

On 9 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Life of the Virgin, 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.

On 9 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Giovanni Faber, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

New account

Hi, I'm Johnboddie, I have created a new account and I plan to be active in ACLU issues. I was asked if I was you - obviously not, so I'll send people your way if other people seem to be confused. I like your user page. Johnboddie (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon?

Regarding our apparent disagreement at The Bathers (Cézanne): the Museum of Modern Art (in New York) is certainly the most well known museum by that name, and is nearly always what is meant when one says the Museum of Modern Art. Therefore, I feel it unnecessary to state that it is in New York; besides, if there is any question, one need only follow the link to the article. More importantly, the name of the other museum is the National Gallery, and not the National Gallery, London. That is the title of the article only to differentiate it between the other National Galleries. Therefore, it is much more logical to refer the museum by its correct name and then give the location, i.e. the National Gallery in London. Making condescending remarks while not explaining or defending the changes you're making after I've put in the work writing in the article in insulting and counter-productive. faithless (^speak) 14:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"in New York" most certainly needs adding. The comma form with the NG is entirely ok (as would be MoMA", New York"). Neither London nor New York need linking here per MoS (though you could add NY City if you feel it necessary). Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, clearly you feel that way, but would you care to explain why? If you feel "in New York" should be included, fine, that's not a big deal (though it should obviously be New York City instead of just New York). But as far as the second point is concerned, it is both more accurate and useful to say "the National Gallery in London. More accurate as the actual name of the museum is the National Gallery, more useful because the reader could follow the link to London and just plain more aesthetically pleasing. Can we agree on the compromise of "the Museum of Modern Art in New York City" and "the National Gallery in London?" faithless (^speak) 14:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said in my last, neither London not New York City should be linked per the MoS, as the cities themselves are rather well known and not relevant to the articles. Otherwise ok, though if you knew the subject area better you would know that "National Gallery, London" is a very standard way to refer to the museum (which is why the article title is set up that way, to avoid the need for disamming. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's sort of my point, though. No doubt you do know more about art than do I, but I believe that we should strive towards writing for the layperson; nor do I doubt that it is common to refer to it as the 'National Gallery, London' but who refers to it that way? People that are familiar with the subject. As far as not linking the cities, you might technically be right, but in practice cities are always linked in these cases; for instance, everyone knows that the Louvre is in Paris and the Smithsonian is in D.C., but we still link these because it's realistic to think that the reader might want to click the link, and that doing so would increase their understanding of the subject. faithless (^speak) 15:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a little strange you began by claiming MoMA did not need to have New York added, and are now trying to claim that 'National Gallery, London' is some sort of art-insiders code! A few google searches would dispel that notion. Actually many editors do follow the MoS, including me. How would clicking on London increase anyone's understanding of this subject? It wouldn't. Actually large numbers of people outside the US don't know where the Smithsonian, or MoMA are, but they have heard of Washington and New York. They need the name, they don't need the link. If you put articles up for DYK that is exactly the sort of changes people make; if you don't like it I suggest you don't nominate your articles. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me

I'll thank you not to edit my userpage without first consulting me. Maybe upon consideration it wasn't an appropriate category but it was not your place to remove it. It was mine. Feel free to bask in my glow, who knows, you might get a tan! 15:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologise. In my defence tell that to User:Wikiburger. Feel free to bask in my glow, who knows, you might get a tan! 16:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Depiction of Jesus

That was an inappropriate edit. Selected galleries with informative captions should not be "moved" to Commons (where they probably came from in the first place), least of all without raising the matter first. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is common practice. This is why commons exists. It was not moved from commons because I created the commons page. I do not have to extensively discuss weather or not I can make edits. I'd find the suggestion of such a thing very disturbing. -- Cat ^chi? 16:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Divine Mercy (Adolf Hyla painting)2007-08-16.jpg

fyi, [4] Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)