User talk:Johnbod

Miseries

Certainly! Hopefully we don't get both the Goya and the Callot on DYK at the same time, lest we be seen as morbid. Two idle thoughts while I'm here. Does "first anti-war statement" in western art seem a reasonable claim to you? I assume so, as you left it there. Second, I like the article under the French name. I was wondering when someone would suggest it be moved. I am going to add the artist link to the DYK statement. Outriggr (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I thought it was a bit OTT, & should be given a "said to be". Becker disagrees with it - he talks of (not a quote from him, but a paraphrase I've added to the Goya) "a wider European tradition of art about war and its effect on civilian life ... especially of Dutch artists depicting the Eighty Years War with Spain, and German 16th century artists such as Hans Baldung." and also says (this too rather extreme imo) "Callot's rather dispassionate view of war" & says the lack of identification "argues against attaching an anti-French or antiwar interpretation to the series"! A prima facie reading of the caption verses for example, gives an alls well that ends well absolutist story, but I think there's more to it than that. I think both sides need to be put. I think the current name is right - 2nd choice would be Les Ms & Malheurs .... Has the Goya been put up? I'll check - yes, but they are 3 days apart. Cheers Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Re Dutch. I figured you probably had an informed reason for excluding some (and of course how much on Commons can be taken for granted...). Anyway, I think having the artists first in the captions is a useful approach in an overview article, which was my main reason for digging in. That is a very nice article. Here, it is late summer (early autumn?) light and the fields look like Golden Age paintings to me. Outriggr (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's hardly an original name for a Dutch painting around. It was Ms Trip's sister (according to a family tree on the web) who was married to Balthazar Coynmans, not her, but who knows. He was until recently thought to be the subject of a famous Hals (very different in style [1]) but it is now established it was a distant & equally rich cousin of the same name. Landscape titles are totally random. I'm very pleased with it, but I'm going to try to avoid any other big ones for a while. Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for the kind words. Bye! Ling.Nut (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Johnbod, thank you for taking the time to review the Quiriguá FA nom. Many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Really

Robert Hughes is good enough for me, though I had to take leave of my smelling salts after reading the passage. I'm working off only the Hughes anthology and Connell for the moment, but heading into a good book store in the morning. Less of the sarky edit summaries though about spelling, like; I'm very sensitive;. Thanks though, Its great to watch you work. Ceoil (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Les Grandes Misères de la guerre

On September 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Les Grandes Misères de la guerre, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 05:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Judith and Holofernes

Hi Johnbod, thanks for your edit--I'm working on this article and need all the help I can get: I know literature better than I know the visual arts. Please keep an eye out (if you can) and correct me if I embarass myself or anyone else. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it - I'm intending to do Power of Women one day - I don't know what a google search with Judith might throw up. Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Jesus College buildings FAC

Digging around on JSTOR, I've found this, after listing various Gothic 1630s Oxford buildings including the Jesus chapel window: "It has been questioned whether this was the result of Gothic Survival-that is Gothic was the only style known to the fellows and their craftsmen-or Revival-that is the fellows deliberately chose Gothic rather than Classical. It seems clear that the latter is the case." Now to read the rest of the article, understand it and cite it! I'll get there gradually. Bencherlite^Talk 22:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Was there supposed to be a link there? I have stuff I can add on that. Eg in 1624 the fellows of St John's Cantab explained their choice of Gothic to the bishop who had donated the money for a new library:"men of judgement liked best the old fashion of church windows, holding it the most meet for such a building". Until the Sheldonian, there were only a few neo-classical doorways in Oxford, and less at Cambridge. Famously, the ChCh hall stairs (1640) are wholly Baroque in form, but wholly Perpendicular in decoration. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Here it is. It's now been added to the article. When you get a chance, can you take another look at it and the FAC, to see how things are coming along? Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 15:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Disasters of War

On September 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Disasters of War, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

You were co-nom on this, but for some reason the bot forgot to deliver. Ceoil (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks Ceoil! Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Dutch Golden Age painting

On September 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dutch Golden Age painting, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 00:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, bravo! Well done. - PKM (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Its a visual feist, but where is that gallery of bits and pieces you promised. Ceoil (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've got 2 pics in the main text, so i think I need to collect more puns. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see some of the paintings with bird puns... Möchtest du mit mir vögeln? is still current slang in Germany today. Lithoderm 18:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Hunter's Gift is my favourite - last in the genre painting section. There are also a number set in markets, somewhat alone the lines of the time years ago when the woman in front of me, buying mangos in Rupert Street market, told the stallholder she only liked "the big African ones", which he repeated to me with a solemn face. I'd better add a note.Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You dog. In other news, I've taken the Goya to PR; in the unlikely event that it recieves attention, could you keep an eye. I think we are near there for FAC at this stage, the famine and Inquisition sections need to be grown yet, but I have the Huges bio now, and that is relatively easy work. However, the process is not something I could take on on my own, would you give a hand. Ceoil (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure Johnbod (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod, as always your work on the page has been exemplarily. Ceoil (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A small correction (and a murky affair)

Re your last comment in the deletion discussion, the categories Bevagna and Trevi existed long before Francesco Betti Sorbelli came on the scene: they were created by Bill Thayer, one of the best writers we have had on Italian subjects ancient and modern, back in October 2004.[2]

My suspicion is that the anonymous nomination for deletion was somehow related to the anonymous user who, through various IPs (including this one), previously conducted a ‘bizarre vendetta’ against him (see this edit for an example) and on more than one occasion depopulated the categories (see these edits for example) in order that they should be deleted.

Of course the putative motives of the nominator—and the matter of who created the categories—were entirely irrelevant to the question of whether the categories should exist and no doubt the decision that was made was perfectly defensible. Ian Spackman (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks - I was of course unaware of all this. I think the others were created by Sorbelli though? I still think it was right to delete them - they seem to be the only categories for such small Italian places. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Inventors of categories seem not to understand that a category's actual use is as an index. A volume with a couple of indices is more usable than one with fourteen. Proliferated categories are just inflations of lists. If, for a start, they were all entered discreetly at the bottom of the page, then competitions for smallest possible category might be toned down. --Wetman (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Move of Seal (emblem)

Pursuant to WP:CONSENSUS, this is a cordial request that you please undo your recent move of Seal (emblem), which was made without regard to the recent discussion and consensus, and without any prior discussion on the article's talk page. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 10:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I was unaware of that discussion, and as my move summary said, based my move on the recent Cfd discussion. I still remain of the view that "emblem" is an unacceptably poor disambiguator - seals often show emblems, but are not emblems themselves, and very many seals do not show emblems at all. I think it might be better to take it back to WP:MOVE. Now I read the discussion on the talk page, I was interested to see that you also came up with what I think is my preferred name: Seal (authentification), which was later supported by Timurite. This is the only term I can see that covers adequately all seals, and both the impression and the device. Modern company and legal seals, Chinese "chop" seals and historical Jewish and Egyptian seals are among the many types of seals that normally just use inscriptions (ie text). I think the discussion concentrated way too much on heraldry, a very localized aspect of the matter in my view. Somewhat by coincidence, I have just been working on Engraved gem, the major expression of the seal as an art form in the Western tradition, from the 14th century BC to the 19th century AD. Few of their very varied designs can really be called emblems. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You have a message at User talk:Wilhelm meis14:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Question about notaries and seals

Since you seem to have an interest in notaries and seals, perhaps you can help me. I am interested in figuring out whether an American notary public (excluding American civil notaries such as Louisiana notaries) have the authority (if asked to do so by the document signer) to apply their seals to every page in a multi-page document. The aim would be to make it more difficult to substitute a page with different contents after the notarization ocurrs, and to satisfy the foreign governments that require this security measure.

This all supposes that the document is otherwise eligible for notarization, and with the understanding that any such answer will only apply to most states, since each state writes its own laws concerning notarization. This is a topic of discussion on various US notary forums, such as the one at http://www.notaryrotary.com (select the notary talk tab and search with the orange button for message no. 303594). --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, way too detailed for me! Try the talk page. In Europe, this is never normally done. Their seal goes over & fixes cord etc which binds the document together through a punch hole, and they only normally actually mark (other than the punch hole) only their notarization, which is a separate page (pages if a translation is included) at the front of the document. I have no experience of what happens in the US. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Jesus College buildings FAC (2)

I've now returned from my travels back to my workplace, to find JJN's book waiting for me (on his 80th birthday, by chance) along with a 1930s Betjeman number. I've added some material from them, and some further architectural detail from the Royal Commission description, as well as a few more photographs where Flickr users have relicensed on request - I've been able to get some shots of architectural details, such as the chapel doorway and the shell-hood of the lodgings. Would you mind returning to the FAC when you get a chance, and updating your views? Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 17:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic. Bencherlite^Talk 23:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

For all you do...

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		Especially when you have to deal with me, the non-art historian and my bishops. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

60K today!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

You get one for every 10K edits. Congratulations on the bus pass! Ty 01:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

WOW...Modernist (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Whee, now I am indeed a twirly (do you know the joke?). Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Do tell... Ty 11:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Supposedly (for non-Brits - you get a free bus pass at 60, or is it 65?, for use after 9.30 am) bus drivers/conductors call senior cits "twirlies", because they keep saying "Am I twirly, am I twirly?" (too early). A favourite of my father. Johnbod (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't heard it, but I like it. LOL. Ty 05:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, Johnbod! Although 60,000 is the new 30,000, or something. Cheers, JNW (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Engraved gem

Hello! Your submission of Engraved gem at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification

Hi Johnbod. I'm posting to let you know that your name has been mentioned on a list of potential candidates for adminship on the talk page for RfA's here. If you are interested in running, or if you would like to make any comments, feel free to join the discussion. decltype (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Marlborough gem

Essentially a footnoted footnote to Engraved gem. I hope you'll look it over.--Wetman (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

O excellent!--Wetman (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Likewise! There must be a pic somewhere, did you see it is currently "on loan"? Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No I missed that; I think it isn't in Monaco any more. I added a ftnote on the Marlborough Antinous, and, further revolving about the sun of your Engraved gems: Antonio Maria Zanetti.--Wetman (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Engraved gem

On September 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Engraved gem, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I've also received this gratifying notification, which I didn't deserve: you are quick to share credit, John. I've just now come up this, through JSTOR, which I think you can access too: David Jaffé, "Aspects of Gem Collecting in the Early Seventeenth Century, Nicolas-Claude Peiresc and Lelio Pasqualini", The Burlington Magazine 135 No. 1079 (February 1993:103-120). Great detail add up to an atmospheric view.--Wetman (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I can only read (sometimes) the first pages on JSTOR, which often gives tantalizing glimpses, but no more. Until the last couple of years there were only 2 UK subscribers to JSTOR, although I can get (with some messing about) Grove at home through the local library. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Dutch Golden Age painting

Hi John, I came across the above for the first time today, after someone linked to it in a discussion, and I just wanted to say that it's superb, a real pleasure to read. It has almost restored my faith in Wikipedia. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed! I rashly promised User:Ceoil & Outriggr a mini-galley of visual sex puns, which I suppose will be the crowning glory.... Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Tp, tap, tap. Ceoil (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Marlborough gem

On September 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marlborough gem, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article...

Anglo-Saxon hoard found Ealdgyth - Talk 22:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the Staffordshire hoard Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Vatican in fiction etc

Hello, Johnbod. You have new messages at Jafeluv's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Venaria

Hi John! How are you? I've just consistently expanded Reggia of Venaria, and perhaps it would need some copyediting of my mediocre English! Thanks and good works. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 08:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I also added Amedeo di Castellamonte and Carlo di Castellamonte (upcoming as I'm writing) which could need your precious help. Grazie ancora. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Minnesota Meetup

---

2009

Details under discussion.

Please share this with anyone who may be interested.

---

Jonathunder (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Desco da parto

What? No Wikipedia article on deschi da parto?--Wetman (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Cameo glass

On September 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cameo glass, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

{{User0|Cmadler 20:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

List of most expensive paintings

You changed "This is a list of the highest known prices paid for paintings." to "This is a list of the highest known prices paid for paintings since 1987." I deleted "from 1987" since it gave the wrong impression that we're only listing paintings that have been sold since 1987. Back in 2006/7 I worked on a (n unfinished) progressive list of most expensive paintings at any time, and, if my memory serves me well, Yasuo Goto's purchase of some sunflowers tripled the existing record. So, that interpretation would be wrong. You say "that's not the point", but I can't see another way to interpret the sentence as you've written it. Afasmit (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

We have both edited it since, & I hope are both happy with the result. I am contemplating what I think should be a separate article - not I think a list - on the earlier history of record prices, going back to the 18th century. It's a pity the article doesn't have more references. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Hardstone carving

On September 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hardstone carving, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

{{User0|LargoLarry 04:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Academics by subject & Category:Scholars by subject

there is a discussion of merging these rather complicated categories Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 29 You made a suggestion back in 2007 that is now being discussed. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Your feedback needed ...

... at Talk:History_of_Mysore_and_Coorg_(1565–1760)#A_social.2C_economic.2C_cultural.2C_administrative.2C_....3F_history. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC to increase the default thumbnail size of images

Johnbod, you've been active there; a new section for supports and opposes has been started. You may wish to voice your opinion. Tony (talk) 08:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced material

You recently added unsourced material to the article Van Morrison: No Surrender. Please do not add unsourced material to articles, instead please provide a cite to a secondary WP:RS/WP:V source when adding material. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I added a cite. Please be more careful in the future not to add unsourced info to articles. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit! Please don't write articles on topics you don't really understand. Johnbod (talk) 04:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Johnbod, I understand that you feel you have some knowledge on the subject matter, and that perhaps you feel that allows you to add in information that you think is obvious and does not require a source. But all information in an article should be cited to verifiable sources, and those sources should exist as references in the article itself. I apologize if I came off short to you in my initial comment, I just think that all information in the article should be appropriately sourced in the article itself, even if it is explained adequately in another article. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 06:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, you took this too far, and effectively baited and rubbed it in. Please be more careful in the future not to add unsourced info to articles. How smug. What kind of a reaction did you expect (I think I know the answear). Ceoil (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's all over - I was a bit snappy. Let's leave it at that. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

@Ceoil (talk · contribs), yes, please see my apology above. @Johnbod (talk · contribs), thank you very much and I value your contributions, again I apologize and I hope we can both work constructively together in the future. Cirt (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: I have struck out the above comments, as a show of good faith. See [3] and [4]. :) Cirt (talk)

Peace dove

Cirt (talk) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

---

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

To reiterate, sorry about the above conflict. Here is hoping we can interact positively, constructively, politely and hopefully even kindly towards one another in the future. I will strive to do my part in this endeavor. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the last of these with later posts. I agree absolutely. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Cirt (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

London Transport brand DYK

I've suggested a second DYK alt for this. Simply south (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Adriaen Coorte

On October 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adriaen Coorte, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. 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) 06:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Beauty and Ugliness

Cross posting link - On the history of ugliness. Ceoil (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to push the Goya series. I would appreciate it very much if you kept a watch over the FAC. Ceoil (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure! Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Muiredach's High Cross

When you revert edits that have an edit summary that says ref fix(Tag: section blanking), make sure that your reversion does not simply recreate a problem that has been fixed. SmackBot has a habit of adding {{Reflist}} to some pages that have {{reflist|2|refs=}}. This causes every reference to immediately report a cite error. The only way to repair the error is to remove the {{Reflist}}. I did, then had to redo it after you undid my repair. 75.69.0.58 (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I can see this now. Have you raised this with the bot? They should be able to remove this bug. Especially from an ISP, the edit diff looked like straightforward vandalism, I'm afraid. They often use misleading summaries. Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I did that here. 75.69.0.58 (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Just in case....

Urse d'Abetot is my next FAC. Nothing I've turned up shows that he did anything remotely like artistic patronage, except building Worcester Castle, which doesn't exist any more. Just checking in case you know of something that I've missed, artistic or otherwise. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Political history of Mysore and Coorg FAC

All the issues (except additional alt-text that I will be adding in bits and pieces during the day) have now been dealt with. I welcome further comments from you at the FAC review or on the article talk page. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've being seeing stuff happen, so haven't reviewed the changes. I'll do so in the next few days. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Allegory of Painting edits

One reason I had a separate (admittedly, really small) section on the "Similarity with the Art of Painting" was because I wanted to leave space for other illustrations in the iconography section. Wheelock's book has pictures from the two emblem books I mention in the text which show very strongly how Vermeer took elements from them and put them in the painting. If I can find those images online, I'll copy them that way, otherwise I'll try to use my scanner to get the images right off my copy of Wheelock's book. Also, there's more information to put in that iconography section from other works (I just haven't had the time until this weekend).

One fun thing I've noticed is that Walter Liedtke of the Metropolitan Museum of Art is pretty blunt in criticizing Wheelock's judgments about this painting and The Milkmaid, so I may include some of that in a "Critical reception" section. Both experts are supposed to appear at a panel discussion at the museum in early November, and I think I might show up to see the fireworks. CountryDoctor (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved & replied to at article talk. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

G'Day!

Owyagoinmate? You're up late tonight! It's middayish here and time I got off the computer and went shopping. There's nothing left to eat except Weetbix, Vegemite, Rosella tomato sauce and Golden Gircle Pineapple juice, all icons of the Australian cuisine. Seeya!

Amandajm (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Re changing a quote, the translator obviously got it wrong. We're planning on being in England in the not-so-distant future. If you're anywhere near London we could possibly meet up. Amandajm (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

a) I don't see why - use of H is very variable. b) That would be great. I'll look for your e-mail. Johnbod (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is that e-mail button? Do you have an address set up here? Johnbod (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

French articles on Dutch painters

For your information: Watch this Wikipedian [5] , he translates from Dutch into French, and adds a lot information too. Taksen (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, interesting, though his Hercules Seghers shows borrowing from English WP too. Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hallo Johnbod, may be you like this drawing too. It was added yesterday to Gerard de Lairesse on the French Wikipedia. The other ones are a bit weird, but very, very precise.

http://web2.bium.univ-paris5.fr/livanc/?cote=ms00026&p=1&do=page

May be you can add something to Lorenzo Magalotti? You might find something interesting his trip to the Netherlands and England. Regards Taksen (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Quick request

If you have time to have a look at Buildings of Nuffield College, Oxford, I'd be grateful for any thoughts you have. Obviously it's not as long as the Jesus College article, as there's rather less history. It's not mentioned, surprisingly, in the JJN book you made me buy for my last FAC... No rush. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 23:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I "made you buy"!! Merely a thought! Anyway, done, & unexpectedly interesting. Remove my additions if you don't like - finding a skyline picture was unexpectedly difficult, & I'm afraid there seems to be nothing better on Commons - I couldn't trace it in any of the panoramas from Boar's Hill. Johnbod (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, and sorry not to say so earlier. With your improvements and a couple of tweaks from Malleus, I think it's worth a shot at FAC now. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 11:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I quoted you in my nomination statement at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buildings of Nuffield College, Oxford/archive1, incidentally! Bencherlite^Talk 11:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:MLA

Can I add a link to our special exhibition on an artist or subject, or mention it in the text? shouldn't be under "Article subjects". This seems more link a new topic on External links. Article subjects should be only for determining if an article should exist under a certain title. I'll take a break and let you edit for awhile so we stop conflicting with each other. --UncleDouggie (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the more detailed breakdown. If you keep rolling up, you can make the whole page go away and just reference other things. These are newbies we're talking to. Let them tell us that it's too detailed. You seem to coming at this from the point of what is done today while my take is to cover how we want things to be done in the future, including having far more MLA contributions than we do today. Just because a few people navigated the minefields in the past doesn't mean we can take it as a given that everyone will be so fortunate. If that was the case, the page wouldn't even be needed. --UncleDouggie (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I claim that an MLA institution can be a third-party source, which you seem to have supported by discussing a work published in an exhibition catalogue. Do you agree? If so, what's unclear about the words? --UncleDouggie (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I see the problem now. I rewrote the section. Please check it. --UncleDouggie (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it again and added an additional question to the end of the "editing" section. --UncleDouggie (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ciao

Ciao! Ive just finished expanding abd ar-Rahman III to a decent status. As usual, it'd need some cleanup as my English is not that good. Can you help? Thanks much in advance and have fun.... --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Question and possibly useful images for your work

Hi, Johnbod. Since you're working on fine art related articles, and sometime obtained permissions for images from Victoria and Albert Museum, I wonder whether these image set[6] taken from VAM could be useful for any existent articles or possibly new articles. Except two, the images from Flickr have not been uploaded yet, but I've got the permission to upload any of them from the photographer. However, I don't know what their name of the objects would be, but your experties are lied in fine art, so if you pick any useful ones among them, that would be great. Do you know what this is? Thanks.--Caspian blue 14:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you'd describe the last thing! The great problem with museum/art photos is knowing what the objects are in sufficient detail. I only recognise a few of these. Commons is full of photos that are hard to use because the details of descriptions/dates/materials/place of origin are not there. Perhaps you should repeat this message at the V&A page. If you upload the following to Commons, putting them in [7] or the relevant sub-cat (sculptures etc), they will probably be useful - or you could upload the lot. My picks would be:02-07, 22,13,10,45,44,31,27,29,24. Let me know here if you upload & I can add what info & other categories I know. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will leave a message to the VAM page for inquiry. However, I don't know how to name the images, so I wanted to identify them. I'm gonna just name them 1, 2, 3....like that. After done on uploading, I will let you know.--Caspian blue 17:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Make sure you have the photographer change the license to allow commercial use, so that they don't fail Flickr review on Commons. Lithoderm 19:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, Johnbod. I finished uploading with commonist[8], so would you add descriptions to images? Thanks!--Caspian blue 13:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Steven van Herwijck

Medallists and gem engravers seem to be up your alley; can you add anything to Steven van Herwijck? (There are some rather incoherent notes on the theory that the works of Steven van der Meulen should rather be attributed to van Herwijck in my talk.) - PKM (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know too much about individuals I'm afraid, & I couldn't add to this, except for a comment, I'll make at talk. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Vote Re CC origins and historians differing POV's

Hello Johnbod, sorry to bother you but we are having a vote on the Catholic Church page regarding whether or not to include the dispute among historians regarding the Church origins. Can you please come an give us your vote so we can come to consensus? Vote is taking place here [9] Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 01:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to oppose on this, for the reasons I gave there. I'm afraid I've given up following the endless wrangles at RCC on a regular basis. Hope you're well! Don't let it get you down. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleting Damien Hirst

I do not understand why you deleted my image of Damien Hirst's sculpture on the Wallace Collection page just because it is a temporary exhibit there.PeterClarke 19:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It would have had to have gone in a few weeks anyway, as misleading, & had no indication it was only temporary. I have added it to Damien Hirst. Why does it not appear in his Commons category, despite having the cat on the file? Very odd. Johnbod (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

invitation

Can you please come here [10] and discuss. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 06:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Halo pic

what was wrong with it? or did you just want to keep the old pic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DinoClutch (talk • contribs) 13:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's less interesting, & not a very good picture, I thought. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The current picture is just not that beautiful, imo. What about a pic of child Jesus?DinoClutch (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone knows what a basic halo looks like, & its more interesting to have a less typical example. The Masaccio illustrates its type beautifully, & is an important work in art history. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. The old pic isn't too bad, keeping it is fine with me.DinoClutch (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

FA review, thanks

Greetings Johnbod, just thought you might like to know, the Boeing 777 article has been edited to reflect the suggestions you made on the article's FA review page. Any further comments on those changes, or suggestions in general, are most welcome. Thanks again for your assistance. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

just commented there. Thxs. Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hummmph!

I'm cross about the picture size thing! I was told that this was the way to fix the problems. I'm sorry it doesn't work! Unfortunately I've been through a couple of other articles and made the same sort of changes, under the impression it was the right thing to do! OK, I'll fix it, (if you haven't already) but not tonight (YAWN!) as it's the wee small hours already and I've only just got around to this page. Toodle-oo!Amandajm (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 20#Rulers in Europe by century

This CfD has genarated a lot of talk but only one vote. Nor has anyone proposed an alternative to my proposal. Please read and consider voting. Thanks. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 15:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There's been a few improvements...

I invite you to revisit Aaron Krach to see how THIS has been much improved. It has gone though a complete rewrite and numerous sources have been added. Might you offer any suggestions for further cleanup? Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ouch!

Are those editors really dead ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hope not of course - User:Irishguy is retired. Johnbod (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Just checking :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

advice for the cultural sector

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For your assistance in creating WP:GLAM, thank you Witty Lama 15:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! I'm very interested to see what becomes of the initiative & you can be sure I'll stay around on the page (in fact I'm afraid I just raised a number of queries on the glossary bit....). Well done for pushing this! Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Teamwork

I would love you to archive my talk page! Amandajm (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnbod! I think I'll talk to Charles about the BOt thing.

Trip- not till the end of March. We'll only be in the UK for three weeks, taking in the Easter, because my younger son can't be away from school too long at this stage. My elder son is in London. Amandajm (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let me know if you have time for a meet Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Re that finger painting, if it's going to be in the article, because it's an artwork and not a photo of John the B, it needs to be dated and creditted to Leo. It does kinda fit on that side, but not very well. It's possibly more relevant than the pic of Cosimo Medici. Amandajm (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Castle

Hi Johnbod, I've made some additions to the article per your comments here and was wondering if you could follow up on whether it the changes (which are linked in the discussion) are what you had in mind. Cheers, Nev1 (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Nuffield buildings

Thanks for your help pre-FAC and your kind words of support; the article will get its bronze star when the bot next runs. After writing about a college that I've been inside once, my next challenge I think will be to write about the architecture of a college I've never even been inside, Wolfson College, Oxford, so I might be asking for some comments on that in due course. Please let me know if there's anything you'd like me to look over for you, in return. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 22:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Art of Denmark

Thanks for all your efforts on this. It certainly looks much more complete now. Do you think it would be worthwhile including something on Queen Margrethe's tapestries which though designed by Bjørn Nørgaard were actually executed in France? They certainly made quite a splash in Denmark a few years ago. I was also wondering whether we should say something about Danish Design, architecture, etc., if you think they come under the general heading of art. (See Culture of Denmark and Danish design.)-Ipigott (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh certainly; the more the merrier. There is no article on the architecture to link to unfortunately. I think they are best treated separately, if only for the categories etc. But something should be said. Photography? I wouldn't know. Johnbod (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you are "watching" this page but you might be interested to know that I've now added sections on Margrethe's tapestries and on contemporary Danish architects. In connection with the tapestries, I discovered that the English Wikipedia had nothing on Bjørn Nørgaard, probably the most prominent living Danish sculptor - so I have spent some time on a page for him. I did not add anything on photography as I could not find sufficient evidence for real expertise in this field. I think perhaps we should start with an article on Danish photography before going any further.

My problem now is to decide whether the Art of Denmark page should also contain sections on music, theatre, cinema, etc., or whether these should form the basis of a new article on Performing arts of Denmark. I see there are already a number of articles along these lines. See Category:Performing arts by country. What do you think?Ipigott (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw those edits. Normally visual art is treated separately. I see from Culture of Denmark, the usual overall article, that most of these already have their own articles, except for achitecture. Johnbod (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I've now written an article on Architecture of Denmark and look forward to any suggestions you may have for corrections or improvements.Ipigott (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Bird, air pump, yadda yadda

Whom do you suggest that knows a lot about visual arts and might be able to check the books? I posted on the talk page, but yeah, I don't think anyone's ever gonna answer since the article's gathered dust for so long and all its major editors went poof. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied at the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The Battle of Alexander at Issus

Hello. I've been fleshing this article out over the past few weeks. I've synthesised all the major sources I could find online to create what's there now, and I'm quite sure it's reasonably comprehensive. What's lacking, though, is a Reception section – and there's not a terrible lot of material available on the Internet. What is there is disjointed, and while critical praise/commentary is not sparse, a cogent history of the painting and its travels has proven difficult to piece together. Your prior edits to the article indicate you're in possession of C.S. Wood's Albrecht Altdorfer and the Origins of Landscape, which I assume has a fair bit on Issus. In particular, most of the material you added to the Reception section was sourced to Wood, so I was wondering if you could look further into the book and dig out some more history. I appreciate any help. Best, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of the reason for this may be a sentence from Wood someone, probably you, has now cut "As late as 1740, a German critic had considered it to be by Albrecht Dürer, despite the presence of Altdorfer's signature." Johnbod (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

So you don't have access to the book? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I do, but I think I took everything relevant last time. I'm not sure what to suggest; nearly all the literature is in German. Munich was rather off the beaten track for a long time, & it became much more widely known when taken to Paris. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Does Wood give at least enough information to construct a timeline? It was painted in 1529. What happened between then and Napoleon's taking it to Paris in 1800 I don't know. The Prussians took it from his palace in 1814. At some point, it was passed from the Bavarian royal collection (how did they obtain it and when?) to the Alte Pinakothek. At another point, it was at the Louvre, where Schedel saw it. It's all a confusing mess to me. Thanks for taking the time. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I can add most of that. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that. It certainly clarifies things in my own head. Best, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I don't think it is ready for FA yet, FWIW. It would need less bitty sourcing, though I don't know where that is to be found in English. Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not yet. "Bitty"? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• One other thing – is there anything Wood says that could be used for the second paragraph of the Reception section? Thanks. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, nothing after the Schlegel quote. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Could you explain what you think is yet to be done / what coverage you think is missing? I'm not really sure what you mean by "bitty" referencing. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Too many internet sources giving little bits of info, & not enough books with sustained coverage. But, as I said, I'm not sure where to get that in English. Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see where you're coming from. My own assessment is that the article neglects no major facts, but I guess there's no harm in looking for some hardcovers and perhaps trying to find translations of German material. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Cloisonne Enameling

Hello. I took a look at the cloisonne enamel article and noticed what looked to me to be a couple of inaccuracies, possibly resulting from your edits. I would be interested in knowing where the term gemstone cloisonne came from. I have always considered gemstone inlay to be a very different technique from cloisonne, having done both. There were a few other areas where the article needed some cleaning up. I think a nice photo of Byzantine or other early cloisonne should be added near the beginning of this article. You have done a lot of good work with fine arts pages so I thought you might have something that is suitable. Zen-in (talk) 04:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the title of the article is Cloisonné & its the only one we have, so should cover the gemstone technique to, or be moved to Cloisonné enamel. Are you saying you are unaware that Cloisonné is used for the stones? Well it is - see here for example. Obviously it is a very different technique, but they share the plain term. Johnbod (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The subject of stone inlay is already covered under the topic of that name. Some artisans use the term cloisonné stone so maybe something needs to be added to the stone inlay page stating that. cloisonné enameling and stone inlay are very different techniques. You can't create a cloisonné and then either fill it with stones or enamel. If you try to describe the two techniques as one, it just creates confusion. If you look hard enough you will find cloisonné used to describe a lot of different things. That doesn't mean they should all be lumped into this article or that forks should be made. Zen-in (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

continued at the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Duby book on castle article

I'm assuming that Dominique Barthélemy wrote a chapter in the Duby edited volume. If that's the case, if you tell me what the chapter/section/article title is, I can format it like the Aurell citation to make things look a bit neater. Thanks for the edits, Nev1 (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Dominique Barthélemy's section is titled "Civilizing the fortress: eleventh to fourteenth century" pp 397-423.--Wetman (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Nev1 (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

AEOABITAP

Thanks for the additions and the correction of Nicholson. (years I've been spelling that wrong...still, he's dead so he won't take umbrage). Yomangani^talk 16:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Johnbod, I just wanted to say thanks for the work on the Bird in the Pump-- a truly fine article made even better! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both! I haven't quite finished yet, & have found a better pic. Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Boeing 777 FA review

Greetings, Johnbod! Thanks for your comments thus far on the Boeing 777 FA review; if you have time, any further comments, suggestions, etc. are welcome at the article's FA review page. If you're not too busy, any contribution, however small, would be appreciated. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Micromosaic

DEAR JOHNBOD. I SEE YOU DELETED MY ETRY FOR MICROMOSAIC. I KNOW DIANA SCARISBRICK AND THINK SHE WOULD AGREE THAT THIS IS MY AREA OF EXPERTISE. I WROTE THE BOOK "MICROMOSAICS" AND OWN THE US COPYRIGHT FOR THE TERM. THERE WAS OUTDATED INFORMTION IN YOUR ENTRY. I WOULD LIKE VERY MUCH TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE WITH YOU AND WOULD APPRECIATE IT IS YOU WOULD EMAIL ME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. jeanettegabriel@aol.comJeanettegabriel (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was someone else who removed it - see the edit history, & [11]. but it was:

A) not at all in wikipedia style

B) a copyright violation of your own site

C) Promotional of your business; you have a conflict of interest

I suggest you first read WP:GLAM, which is designed to help curators editing WP for the first time, to understand where we are coming from. Then we should probably continue on the talk page of the article. I have in fact incorporated some information, and added a link to your site [12] and I'm sure we can add & correct anything that needs it. Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For your patience and valuable help in crafting the origins paragraph for CC article (and for kindly sticking up for me : ) NancyHeise ^talk 01:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't mention it Nancy. I hope you are feeling ok now - I can understand it is a nasty experience to go through. We seem to be inching forward a bit at the article anyway. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing Micromosaic

Dear Johnbod, Who was the person who removed my information - is he an official Wikipedia editor?

I appreciate you making changes and adding the link to my website. (I do very little business on it and mostly give free advice.) I am retired and have had lung cancer surgery twice in the past year. I do not have the psychic energy to learn the process of writing in the Wikipedia format. I would be very grateful if you would add my book to the footnotes. Do you know Diana Scarisbrick? I was thinking of contacting her if you do, as she and I have communicated in the past and I am sure she would be embarassed to be cited as the authority on this subject. I would be happy to send you a copy of my book if you think it would help you enhance the Micromosaic entry. I get no profit from the book as it was published by the English Heritage. Please do not hesitate to contacct me by regular email. Thanks. Jeanette Gabriel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanettegabriel (talk • contribs) 20:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There are no "official" editors as such - I presume he saw your edits as promotional, which is not allowed, and not in the appropriate style. Also it removed all the stuff on Byzantine works etc. I have added your book as "Further reading" for now, & bumped you ahead of DS (who I don't know) as "the leading authorities". If there are specific additions or removals you think the article needs, please let me know, here or on the talk page. Sorry to hear about your health. All the best Johnbod (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

R. K. Narayan

I would like to nominate R. K. Narayan for Featured Article status and would like your opinion on the article, and how it can be improved to meet the FA criteria. You had commented earlier, on the article talk page, and I believe I have addressed that specific comment. The article has now been assessed as GA. Can you provide feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/R. K. Narayan/archive1? cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 04:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Micromosaic

Dear John The illustration on the top right is not STONE, it is enamel set in black glass. It depicts the Pantheon. Cheers Jenette —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanettegabriel (talk • contribs) 19:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks< I hadn't spotted that, which was added before I came along. Johnbod (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't check with you before hand...

But pretty sure I've caught any art angles for William Longchamp. Next up is Mellitus (due to the annoying decision to up the Featured Topic reqs) and while the article mentions the St. Augustine Gospels, do we need more there? After Mellitus will be Justus, as a heads up. That should take me through the end of the year, probably. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

related to that File:AugustineGospelsFolio125rPassionScenes.jpg is goign to need a source, etc. to pass FAC. I'll need a website or page from a book that it COULD have been scanned from, not that it necessarily was scanned from. I know you didn't put it up, but I'm hoping you have a book with the page in it? Or if not that specific image, some image from the gospels that can be sourced? Ealdgyth - Talk 03:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It has the whole of page 113 (11 inches high) in Weitzmann, Kurt. Late Antique and Early Christian Book Illumination. Chatto & Windus, London (New York: George Braziller) 1977. There are only the 2 miniatures left in the MS. Personally I think this is all a considerable nonsense for illuminated MS, which obviously can only be photographed by the owning institution, & are only done every 20 years or so, if that. All other photos are derived from these. Johnbod (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is too, but... heck, poor William Longchamp's FAC had a request for "please clarify that the uploader really did mean to release the picture" or something like that ... Thanks for the look up. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Wenceslaus Hollar

Aside from the fact that the name was already spelled this way in the text, it had been requested at WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

please don't delete POV tags

John, you deleted the tags again. Please take a moment to read the POV tag, and then don't delete it until the dispute is resolved. Thanks in advance for following the rules. Leadwind (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

See my edit summary, and please don't call me John. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Goya

Its my habit to thank with tunes: [13]. Thanks for all your hard work and insight and for correcting me along the way. I think we can have a strong article but its not near there yet. Ceoil (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Author's Farce

I have rewritten The Author's Farce#Background. Please check to see if that clarifies any concerns. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have some time, could you go through the rest if you haven't already? Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping Tony1 would do the lot, but I think he won't. I don't really have the time in the next 10 days, & it's hard when you don't have the sources. I'll try to give a light run-through, but it really needs more. I'll query bits I'm not sure about at article talk. Johnbod (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

By "needs more" what do you mean? More content? There isn't anymore. That is the extent of the discussions on the work. 30k is quite a lot for a play of this kind. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

More than a light run-through, I mean. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I need to perform a thorough check myself as there have been quite a few alterations that I have missed. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote quite a bit for tense consistency. The main verbs in the Source and Critical reponse section should now all be in the present tense. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well! I would support now. Let me know if you put it up again. Johnbod (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)