User talk:Johnbod

IF YOU MENTION AN ARTICLE HERE - PLEASE LINK IT!!!

This user is one of the 200 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

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

memo to self - arty student project pages to check through

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

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

• Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Boston_University/Venetian_Renaissance_Art_and_Architecture_(Fall)

Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

An enamelled-glass star

Thank you for greatly expanding Enamelled glass. I left a tiny stub, and suddenly it's an extensive, detailed article. Thank you also for finding some excellent additional sources I'd entirely overlooked. I added another source from the Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History (a nicely eclectic set of curator essays!). Ancient glass trade also has some interesting content and sources. HLHJ (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Altar crucifix page

Re your revert on page Altar crucifix: I tried to change the page to 'Altar cross' but this was not allowed by Wikipedia. Not sure why.

The page has a lot of issues:

1. It's largely original research with a focus on Roman Catholicism, although even that aspect is poorly resourced.
2. The images have little to do with the title of the page. The page is called 'altar crucifix' when the two illustrations are altar crosses (with no corpus) from a United Methodist chapel and Armenian Apostolic cathedral.
3. The denominational information is inaccurate.
4. The focus of the article is entirely American.

I'm not interested enough to rewrite it and source it (and I'm a real live theologian). Maybe someone else will. --IACOBVS (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with a move to Altar cross, but this should be done the proper way, especially as others may object. Not sure I can be bothered to do anything about this or the other issues either. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for À la poupée

On 2 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article À la poupée, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that it sometimes took Mary Cassatt and a printer eight hours to make eight or ten coloured prints using à la poupée inking (example pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/À la poupée. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, À la poupée), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Surface tone

On 3 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Surface tone, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Rembrandt's later prints make great use of surface tone, by leaving a thin film of ink on parts of the printing plate? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Surface tone. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Surface tone), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Enamels on porcelain

Do you have sources that say enamels must be painted on the glaze? I have other sources that say that Chinese enamels may be painted on unglazed biscuit or on the glaze - [1], while some pieces may be painted both on the biscuit and on the glaze. This is mentioned for famille verte [2], and I have seen another source that say that famille rose enamel technique changed in Jingdezhen, although it is vague on the detail but seems to imply that some were painted on the biscuit, so I need to find other sources. Hzh (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, ok, but I think those painted on the biscuit are a minority variant from particular periods - it would be good to find one to illustrate, by the way, or mention if any of the current pics are of one. The phrasing should be modified, but the overglaze link needs to be very prominent. I'll copy this to the article talk, where any continuation should go. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of cliché verre

Hi Johnbod. Thank you for rewriting the article for cliché verre. I've reviewed your DYK nomination. It only needs a couple small issues resolved and it will be good to go. gobonobo ^{+ c} 04:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Company style

Hi, I don't know why you reverted my edits. There's no consistency about citation style in the article (currently there are some citations are without a template but at least one is with {{cite book}}). Besides you deleted also ISBN codes, my archival research to find the correct author/editors/publishers of a book (there were some wrong/dubious cases), {{use dmy dates}} and {{convert}} templates. These have nothing to do with citation style/templates. Maybe I should have done separate edits. Thanks in advance.--Carnby (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes you should have done. Just because some editor comes in & adds a deviant style doesn't mean someone else can come in re do it the way they like. Feel free to re-add the ISBNs, but these are very trivial. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited L’Estampe originale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rue de Rome.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/L’Estampe originale at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Polykleitos

I didn't notice that you are editing Polykleitos at the same time. I had an internet glitch and reapplied a change that may have undone something of yours? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

No - different sections, so no edit conflict. I'll leave it with you now. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I wondered about using this but the writer might be you!

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KaOcAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=%22The+proportions+of+the+Doryphoros%22+harmony&source=bl&ots=z6ecOWnLEU&sig=ACfU3U1Qst2NKNegX0EFTWGPUxvdRJa2Qw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwip07GMmezrAhWOa8AKHdD6DD0Q6AEwEnoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22The%20proportions%20of%20the%20Doryphoros%22%20harmony&f=false

A New History of the Humanities: The Search for Principles and Patterns from ...

By Rens Bod

:-)

--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Heavens, no! But this is an excellent source for you. I thought there were Indian "canons" but not really any equally precise Chinese ones, partly because they have little early (pre-Buddhist) sculpture of human figures, apart from their tomb figures, which are relatively low status. Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Aesthetic canon

You read my mind! I came to the same conclusion: Aesthetic canon as it stand is essentially a dictionary definition and the only example given seems highly dubious. It is not a standalone article and I can't see how it could be without massive cfork.

So I suggest we redirect it to body proportions but right now there isn't really an obvious target section, so it would need one writing (or copy existing across?). I'm not clear where it would fit, any ideas? (Assuming you agree!) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I notice that fr:Canon esthétique is a great deal longer, so let me translate that first and see what transpires.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

... which repeats the Botticelli canard, again without citation. It also gets bogged down in attractiveness. But it did lead me to the Egyptian Canon (where, as I've noted at BP, you had arrived before me). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I do think there is room for an article on the general history of attractiveness, where stuff like the white skin might go. Maybe it can be squeezed into Female body shape. Maybe not. Anyway we don't seem to have such an article yet. Johnbod (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I've started to look at Indian as well as Egyptian practice and am beginning to think that this article might well be expansible. Certainly, it is going to be easier to park the details of the Egyptian "Canon of Proportions" there and cover the "profile head, shoulders and chest square on, hips and legs in profile" style. It is only incidentally related to 'body proportions' (except maybe skull distortion). Material about hair, makeup, fashion etc would take us down a rabbit-hole that I would rather leave to others. So let's allow 'Aesthetic canon' to live a while longer to see if it can develop into something that can stand in its merits. But I will continue to remove the OR. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Aesthetic canon or artistic canon

Apart from sites that copy Wikipedia, I have found only one use of the phrase "aesthetic canon" (at https://www.jstor.org/stable/687754mBjrLL). There are many many more instances of "artistic canon". See for ex Western canon. If this article is to persist, I suggest a change of name. Agree? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but you should do a WP:RM - that may show if anyone else is interested in the topic. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that I would be laughed at if I raised it as a controversial move. I could just be bold but may I suggest it would address your concern if I put a note at the talk page of Canon (disambiguation), Canon (basic principle), Aesthetic canon, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arts, to say that I plan to do it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

All moves are by default potentially "controversial", unless claimed to be "uncontroversial", which people often get badly wrong. I don't see why anyone would laugh. Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I suspect the risk of going badly wrong is to do a backroom deal among the usual suspects at an RtM page, having failed to notify the people who might have a real interest. So let me try my way first: if anyone asks for a formal RTM, I will of course acceded. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I thought I just had! Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

But you are family :-) Ok, accepted. But as I have asked, let's collect any opinions that can be summarised in the RTM. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Can we wrap up this RM before an admin declares 'no consensus' and 'status quo', which neither of us wants? I am willing to accept your initial proposal "artistic canon of body proportions". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, well say so there - but it needs the plural "canons", doesn't it? Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

William Dobson

Is Talk:William Dobson#Who Is Really In This Painting? in your area? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Sort of - thanks, I commented. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Art world

I happened to visit Art world for some reason, perhaps just to wikilink. Sent the last two days doing a rewrite, easy since I have the physical books by Becker, Thornton, Crane, and Wolfe on my shelf. You last visited in 2016, to comment out an entire section on "Theory". I would welcome some comment before I dig myself deeper.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll reply on talk there. Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Etching revival

On 19 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Etching revival, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the etching revival that began in the 1850s (work pictured) ended when prices collapsed after the 1929 Wall Street crash? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Etching revival. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Etching revival), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Bangs

AMM Pittsburgh has kindly done some expansion of Fred and Betsy Bang so we may be able to get them up at DYK. I have made a start on a nomination and given you some credit for your work on Betsy. As you have an interest, you may like to watch or assist the progress of the topics through the mill... Andrew🐉(talk) 17:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Lesbian

You need to l-o-o-k at an article first before making erroneous claims about an edit. The Lesbian article uses both Harvard style and citation templates to cite sources.Your "WP:CITEVAR breach" summary shows that you jumped to conclusions before actually looking at the references section. I conducted a search of your user contribution history with https://sigma.toolforge.org/ and today is the first time that your name appears in the article's history, so you are definitely unfamiliar with the article. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Certainly I am, but I am very familiar with WP:CITEVAR. I didn't jump to any conclusions, I just saw your edit summary, and checked the talk page to see if this change of citation style was discussed - of course it wasn't. You should just propose your changes there, per policy. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I am also familiar with WP:CITEVAR: "it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page" -- since the article was created almost 20 years ago, and since that time many editors have edited the article with non-Harvard style referencing ... the preference for non-Harvard referencing suggests the existence of a consensus. "If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it" -- the article contains both Harvard referencing and citation template referencing, so at this point in the article's existence both styles have been acceptable.
I added <ref> tags to the Harvard references in the footnotes, which retained them in the exact same referencing format as before, and also matched all the other Harvard-style references in the article that used <ref> tags. I did not convert Harvard-style references into citation template referencing. If you had bothered to compare the Notes section before-and-after you would have seen that the Harvard references where not changed -- so your claim in the summary that I breached WP:CITEVAR is false.
I did change "<ref group=note>" to the Efn template so that non-Harvard referenced footnotes could appear in the Notes section. Using the template did not change the Harvard-style references. The {{notelist|group=note|33em}} template was changed to {{notelist}} so that all footnotes could appear in the section. There is no policy/guidance that I know of that prevents the <ref group=note> wiki markup from being substituted with an Efn template. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

JOSTOR

Hi John, when you get a copy can you email a copy of this. Lost password ....thanks, and hope all is well. Ceoil (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think my library is running it. You can read 100 articles free pcm at the moment, which is what I do now. Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Missing cite in Ratnagiri, Odisha

You have added a short reference to "Hoiberg & Ramchandani 2000" but no such source is listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, I fixed that, & reverted your totally shameless cite-banditry - you need to read and follow WP:CITEVAR. Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Contemporary art gallery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Art fair.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for L'Estampe originale

On 28 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article L'Estampe originale, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 74 artists who created the 95 original prints for the subscription portfolio L'Estampe originale included Toulouse-Lautrec, Gaugin, Renoir, Rodin, Pissarro, Whistler, Redon, and Bonnard? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, L'Estampe originale), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Cliché verre

On 29 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cliché verre, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Eugène Delacroix's only work in the semiphotographic cliché verre printmaking technique depicts a tiger at bay (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cliché verre. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cliché verre), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: Cliché verre

1. I found this which explained the apparent Engvar difference, which is what I applied. I later realised that it's a noun anyway (I think?), so 'practiced' would be the correct spelling in Commonwealth English as well (according to that article).

2. 'Cliché verre' passed the rule of thumb used to apply MOS:FOREIGNITALIC—it doesn't show up on Merriam-Webster Online, so it might not yet be assimilated into common use in English. I'm not sure what you meant by "sources treat it as an English word", was this explicit? Or more implicit like with the formatting...? I dunno. —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The sources used for the page, several online, treat it as English. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Went through the three that were online, and I'm still not sure what you mean precisely by "treating it as" an English word; they use it as another photographic term, and don't italicise it. At the end of the day, even if the sources were explicit in saying that Cliché verre is an English loanword and that it has become assimilated from French (which they do not), the fact that it doesn't show up in English dictionaries is a clear indication that it has not assimilated into common use in English from French—and must be in italics per MOS:FOREIGNITALICS. —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. It's an obscure term whichever way you look at it, & there's never likely to be "common use in English" in any form. So one should look at how the specialized sources that do use treat it; "it doesn't show up on Merriam-Webster Online" is a poor indication. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The scope of MOS:FOREIGNITALIC is italicising foreign terms and phrases that "do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English"—so looking at how specialised sources treat them is not useful. Merriam-Webster Online is simply a convenient starting point and not an arbitrary rule; the criteria for whether something has assimilated into everyday use in English is dictionaries in general, I believe, and can perhaps be extended to demonstrable instances of non-specialised usage: such as in the general media. Also, let's not pretend that dictionaries don't get more technical and specialised than the average English speaker—they're good indicators of whether words are reasonably common in non-specialised parlance. At the end of the day, the spirit of italicising technical, non-assimilated words derived from a foreign language is to make the encyclopedia more accessible and readable for the larger global masses—and it lives up to that. —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The sources suggest that every day English writers us the term they treat it as an English word, but that is not very often. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Portrait of a Musician

Hey John, I'm working on getting Portrait of a Musician ready for FAC and had a question I hoped you might be able to help with. The Ambrosiana website and a publication by Frank Zöllner (2019) says the painting is in oils and tempera but Marani (2003) and Syson/National Gallery (2011) scholars say its just in oils. None of these entries discuss any discontinuity in scholarly conesnsus about oils vs oils and tempera or anything (so it doesn't seem to be anything controversial), in fact I wonder if Marani and Syson/NG just forgot? Originally I just had oils in the article but I'm leaning towards including both, with an explanatory note, since I trust the musuem that has had the painting for 300 years more... any thoughts? Even though Zöllner's publication is newer, it's a reprint from 2011 (or somewhere around then) and I'm fairly certain the only reason it was reprinted was because of Leonardo's 500th anniversary last year, not for making corrections. Aza24 (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I think all you can do is lay out both views. The Ambrosiana will obviously be the closest to any technical examinations & analyses, if there have been any. They actually say "Tempera and oil on panel" (not oil and tempera"). Without analysis I'm not sure how easy it is to tell the difference. Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes there doesn't really seem like an easy way out... I'll see what I can do. Btw, if you'll excuse my ignorance, what is the significance of "tempera and oil" vs "oil and tempera"? Aza24 (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

One would think the first-placed indicates the main medium. The second might just be touching up in places. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah that's what I assumed you meant. I suppose that makes sense, although it adds another layer (no pun intended...) to the puzzle. Aza24 (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

shome medshtak?

Hi John. re medrs talk [3], you got me there, I think (unless I'm missing something of course :) ...had me checking whether I really was on the talk page I thought I was... oh, never mind? Cheers my friend, 86.190.128.121 (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Yup, forgot about the rename - removed. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thamks for the fun. 86.190.128.121 (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jakob Seisenegger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Court artist.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thanks for maintaining the integrity of the Wikipedia. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Tapestries

I feel like I bring up minor issues with you too often, lol, but here we are. I've seen your recent work with tapestries, any thoughts on if their names should be italicized? Seems like a grey area in my mind, at the moment there's a lot of inconsistency (Amnesty-Sís-Pinton Tapestries and Great Tapestry of Scotland are not while Christ in Glory in the Tetramorph and Magna Carta (An Embroidery) are for example) Aza24 (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Amnesty-Sís-Pinton Tapestries not I think - the individual ones have titles, but this seems a bit of a made series title. Great Tapestry of Scotland yes, & most sets - really they should be treated like paintings - Triumph of Foo, Life of Foo etc. The odd Magna Carta (An Embroidery) seems clearly the official title. I'm deep in the Commons swamps on these at the moment. Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21

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

Byrhtnoth

added a link pointing to Maldon

Tapestry

added a link pointing to Koln

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Elms^super 03:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits, such as those to Swiss cheese, appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you. oknazevad (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Watch out for a boomerang here, oknazevad! For some reason you are now determined, with your usual tenacity, to disrupt a page that has been quiet for 6 months. I'm fine with taking this to ANI, & if you carry on like this, that is where it will end up. But this is not the place to discuss it - I will respond at the SC talk. Meanwhile, please stop edit-warring! Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Helena (mother of Constantine)

You shouldn't revert other people's edits if you don't have a specific grievance against it. It was exceedingly unlikely anybody would ever object to it. Avis11 (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I should. The reception of many of your other edits shows "It was exceedingly unlikely anybody would ever object to it" to be a triumph of hope over experience. Do a proper WP:RM procedure & we'll find out. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Now at Talk:Helena_(empress)#Requested_move_25_October_2020 and, yes, the first response is an oppose! Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

He did not provide further reasoning when questioned, and invalidated his own argument by an unrelated reply he made down below (without, of course, bothering to cross out his earlier comment, making it look like there's still significant opposition to the move). No one else expressed opposition to the move. 3 counting myself supported it. The arguments provided for a move are quite reasonable, and none really have been properly addressed. Since you're the one that started this and you're uninvolved, you might want to do me the favor of closing it. Avis11 (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? There is at least one move-to-something-else, one leave-it-where-it-is; these are opposes, even if they don't bold it. Plus other complicated comments. And you seem to have changed your mind on the precise new title. So much for "It was exceedingly unlikely anybody would ever object to it"! I'll let an experienced closer close it. Johnbod (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

As I already said and you ignored, the leave-it-where-it-is went against his own position by his comment further below. The move-to-something-else provided no reasoning, therefore his argument is worthless. A mere sentence without any justification cannot obstruct a well elaborated argument. It's been demonstrated that 'mother of Constantine' is in accordance w/ the sources and a better disambiguation that 'empress Helena'. All comments, far from complicating the process, are okay with the move. So yes, it remains "exceedingly unlikely" that a defense of the current title will be elaborated. Since you went out of your way to obstruct this, I again ask that you close it. Avis11 (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Nope. It isn't really the done thing to ask a specific editor to close something, especially as I probably am involved, and never do closes. Someone will come along. Johnbod (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

October harvest

October

Some apples left for you, with thanks for all the art and music. See my talk today for an expressive image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks Gerda, and thanks for all your work too! Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Brown Swiss / Swiss Brown

Thanks for making me aware of mixing up these two breeds ! Of course my photo shows the Swiss Brown (Braunvieh) Regards --Olga Ernst (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

No worries - aren't they both cute though! Johnbod (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

They are ... definitely ! I removed my photos from Category:Brown Swiss ! As soon as I have clear information from the farmer to whom the cattle belong, I also want to have my files renamed ! Regards --Olga Ernst (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

That can be a hassle on Commons - a note on the file might be enough. Johnbod (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

A request on the file works perfectly ! I have done it a couple of times already ;-) --Olga Ernst (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

All files renamed and thanks again ! Regards --Olga Ernst (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	A belated recognition of your superb additions of images to the Weller Pottery article! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Bayezid I

On the Bayazid I article did you mean "Bajazet", instead of "Bazajet"? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, I meant "Bazajet", but I see "Bajazet" is more commonly found, and enshrined in the opera titles etc. There is a case for having both, but I will settle for "Bajazet" only. That linked search, for things using two different ways of saying the same thing, is a poor way of demonstrating anything. Johnbod (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I was not sure if you had simply mis-spelled it. Was not trying to demonstrate anything. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure - no worries. It is in fact used - they can't all be misspellings. Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Beshogur (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Irish Slaves Myth

Maybe this was an oversight, but.... Please do not removed sourced information. There is obviously no issue with you adding more sourced information, but removing existing cited information is just looking for an unprincipled edit war. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I can't see that I did - I removed an unreferenced very POV spin & replaced it with better stuff. You then chose to repeat a ref, placing it very oddly, so I've now added something more relevant that ref actually says. You also changed the WP:ENGVAR, with no discussion or justification I could see. Johnbod (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, well maybe we're having an edit mixup or miscommunication. I most recently left your sourced addition and re-added an additional relevant sourced bit. I apologise for the changes in English, that's just habit. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing

Hey there! I wanted to respond to your vote for Gog at WT:FAC and your concern about losing a reviewer. I intend to return to active reviewing, so maybe we'll balance each other out. I'd like to reinvigorate the PR process for articles that often struggle to get attention, like pop culture and sports. It would be great if by time things get to GAN or FAC they are practically no-brainers. I also have a bunch of pet projects I've been neglecting and I'd really like to get re-engaged in content development. Have a good week! --Laser brain (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, good to know. I'm trying to do more reviewing myself. Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi Johnbod. I would like to apologize to you for being short tempered with you in recent days. Some of your comments rubbed me the wrong way and I lashed out at you a few times. I try not to participate in incivility or attacks on Wikipedia. I am sorry that I fell short a few times. Thanks for your understanding. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

No worries. We have slightly different attitudes to handling some aspects of categories, but I know you do great work, which is much appreciated. Johnbod (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Paul Joseph Watson

Hi, Johnbod. It looks like you reverted three edits rather than two here when you edited Paul Joseph Watson. You reverted to this version. Was it your intention to change "far-right" to "right-wing" in the first sentence? Compare for instance the footnotes currently numbered 6 to 12, and, well, the content of the article altogether. Bishonen | tålk 20:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC).

Yes it was - sentence 3 still reads "Despite the change, he is still understood to be a far-right individual by multiple sources.." Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

If you have a minute

If you're interested, you might want to see if there's anything you can do to rescue Draft:Sara Radstone from the slush pile. I've moved it from mainspace to draftspace as a precaution against over-eager deleters (it's already been tagged for speedy deletion once), and it looks more salvageable than the usual standard of new artist biographies. I know that Radstone is going to be notable in Wikipedia terms (I saw a retrospective of hers at York Art Gallery a couple of years ago, and when it comes to contemporary ceramics YORAG is A Big Deal, even though I have to concede she isn't to my taste at all), but have little interest in ceramics myself and don't know where one would go about finding WP-compliant sources, since it's likely all going to be in specialist periodicals in locked-down (lockdowned?) libraries. ‑ Iridescent 15:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I've done a bit, there's enough on google (see talk) & I'd guess the creator has a whole lot more. I've started Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Draft:Sara_Radstone, which I hope will produce a helper. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)