Jump to content

User talk:Johnbod

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kasaxu (talk | contribs) at 15:10, 17 April 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

memo to self - arty student project pages to check through

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

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

Congratulations on one of the Top Hooks of 2020

Out of several thousand DYK hooks featured on the Main Page during 2020, your hook for "the lowly, needy, insignificant Daulat" ranked as the No. 20 hook of the year with 1,618 DYK views per hour. A list of the 25 most viewed hooks of the year can be viewed at "Top hooks of 2020". Congratulations on your hook's remarkable showing, and keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Holy Family
added a link pointing to James Snyder
Joos van Cleve
added a link pointing to James Snyder

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Master of the Lille Adoration

On 6 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Master of the Lille Adoration, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the existence of the painter known as the Master of the Lille Adoration (painting detail pictured), active in 16th-century Antwerp, was only proposed in 1995? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Master of the Lille Adoration. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Master of the Lille Adoration), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Hey! I am sorry for originally reverting your edit on Assumption of the Virgin Mary in art, I am quite new to recent changes patrolling and made this mistake, sorry! BrownFerret (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Btw, do you know how I can watch edits done by a specific person or IP?[reply]

No worries! Afaik you just have to check their contributions every now & then. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Membership renewal of Wiki Project Med Foundation

Membership renewal

You have been a member of Wiki Project Med Foundation (WPMEDF) in the past. Your membership, however, appears to have expired. As such this is a friendly reminder encouraging you to officially rejoin WPMEDF. There are no associated costs. Membership gives you the right to vote in elections for the board. The current membership round ends in 2022.

ReJoin Wiki Project Med Foundation


Thanks again :-) The team at Wiki Project Med Foundation---Avicenno (talk), 2021.01

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Confectionery in the English Renaissance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Violet.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP 20

Thank you for good wishes! - Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Kohl was on the Main page today, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New page: your input would be gratefully received

Hello Johnbod. Admirer of your work on Wikipedia here. I have just made a brief page on a Renaissance sculpture in the V&A and was wondering if you could cast an eye over it? I am sure I have missed much and probably misunderstood more. The page is Meleager (L'Antico sculpture). Thanks Stronach (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good - I've touched up. Do you want it to go to WP:DYK? Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Minoan art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intaglio.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Peter

Hello I saw how you interestingly corrected edit in the article of Saint Pater. This user Elizium23 is so called professional vandalizer here. He is doing dissurptive reverting of true and right information and then even threatens users. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "circle of"

Do we have an article on the term or idea of "the circle of" e.g. "the circle of Rembrandt"? Is that something that would even make sense to have? BTW, re watchlist, I would think that being an "highly irregular" person is a lot more interesting than being "highly regular" :) Aza24 (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was pleased at the comment, taking me back to the films of my youth (or rather the old films that were on tv in my youth). I never thought I would have it used to me! We have lots of articles on Attribution, but not one on it in the art sense. That would be the obvious place for it I think. There's the ho-hum Authenticity in art, but not there I think. Johnbod (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Authentic art" ugh. I will never understand how the van Meegeren's The Supper at Emmaus fooled people (though I suppose it is far easy to say such a thing after the fact); and oh my, a link from that page brought me to Smiling Girl... I will definitely have nightmares now. But yes a new page seem most appropriate. I will probably consider making it now, not do so, and come back a few months later to do so... as is the way of Wikipedia (for me at least!). Aza24 (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let me know when you do. Christie's used to have useful explanations of the terms it used in catalogues. I used it here but the link doesn't seem to work just now. Johnbod (talk) 05:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your edits to the Galloway Hoard page, it's looking much better. Adamcoulson (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for James Snyder (art historian)

On 26 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article James Snyder (art historian), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that despite James Snyder having taught at a women's college for over 20 years, his Northern Renaissance Art of 1985 was criticized for using gender stereotypes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/James Snyder (art historian). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, James Snyder (art historian)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 00:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Shamsa

On 26 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Shamsa, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in Islamic art, the shamsa is found in places as diverse as on carpets, inside domes (example pictured), and forming the frontispiece of books? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shamsa. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Shamsa), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Minoan art
added a link pointing to Akrotiri
Minoan civilization
added a link pointing to Akrotiri

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Master of Delft

On 29 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Master of Delft, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that art historians disagree as to whether two figures in a painting (detail pictured) by the Master of Delft are saints or sibyls? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Master of Delft. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Master of Delft), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 00:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Triptych with Virgin and Child, saints and donors by the Master of Delft

On 29 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Triptych with Virgin and Child, saints and donors by the Master of Delft, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that art historians disagree as to whether two figures in a painting (detail pictured) by the Master of Delft are saints or sibyls? You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Triptych with Virgin and Child, saints and donors by the Master of Delft), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 00:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gross breach of WP:CITEVAR

Hi Johnbod, I am sorry I excited you in thinking I was breaching WP:CITEVAR. Not at all. The pages I put my hands on, in particular Pope Julius II, have not an "established citation style", but more than one style. I was only trying to put some order and, in particular, to add the missing links from shortened footnotes to the full citation, which may imply, necessarily, the change of the citation style. So you jeopardized my job of reducing the list in Category:Wikipedia articles containing unlinked shortened footnotes. Please tell me which are the pages I am not allowed to touch because of your misplaced pretension of being in the right. I'll try to stay away from them. And, of course, the two pages you reverted, must be reverted again. Such a waste of time. Carlotm (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just read WP:CITEVAR dude - this applies to ALL pages. There is no problem with the so-called "missing links" that needs fixing, and minor inconsistencies in styles are NOT an excuse for imposing a new style you prefer without discussion. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, you're being discussed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, thanks for that! Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:GOD

I'm testing our hypothesis about MOS:GOD so we'll see if it holds up to scrutiny. Elizium23 (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Rundkvist

Hey there Johnbod, how's it going. Hope you're getting a kick out of The Dig. Any chance you might be interested in giving a quick read to an article with a somewhat similar theme, on the archaeologist Martin Rundkvist (currently at User:Usernameunique/Martin Rundkvist)? Chiswick Chap and I have been working on it, and are planning on taking it live shortly, with a concurrent good-article nomination. It's 0 and 2 at AfD, however, so having your eyes on it beforehand would help to ensure it's in the best shape it can be. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me! I'll watchlist. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for giving it a read! --Usernameunique (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A new page

Thought you may like this new art page by a red-link seldom editing user. Well done. I'll add italics to it at some point to names of artworks, which most readers won't notice but improves (at least to me) the professional look of Wikipedia (one of my priorities when editing, which is why I make so many minor edits like italics, those category listings, and upper-casing which other language Wikipedia's don't have). Thanks for catching me out on the consecutive years edit, I've seldom added full consecutive years, maybe as little as a handful (if a handful is five). Haven't written as much as I'm capable of, and of major articles I think my best example of editing is on Guernica, and in some film plots. I tend to "write" on topics I like or have made an impression on my life. Thanks for checking my edits, at least this time. And that page linked to above is an example of someones good work, and just now gave them a talk page "thanks" too (maybe I'll toss an encouragement barnstar their way). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion on Armistice Day medal

Could I ask your advice on where best to find out more on the 1928 Armistice Day medal by Charles Doman? See here and image. I came across this a while ago (June 2018) and popped it in the Cenotaph article, see here. What I'm particularly interested in is whether anyone has written about the imagery on the other side of the medal (Britannia, broken chains, laurel wreath, sheathed sword, supporting a Christ-like(?) figure, sunrise, etc.)? And also why it was decided to use this design at the Shrine of Remembrance, see here from 2017 (actually, that blog post seems to answer the question adequately).

What is a bit of a mystery is that there is a reference to that blog orginally appearing on 'The Perth Mint Coin Collector', but I have been unable to find that. What I did find was this blog post at 'The Perth Mint Coin Collector', which I find a bit strange. It dates from 2012 and claims "No amount of research could reveal information on the designer. Yet, given the quality of the work, it seemed improbable that there were no records. Further searches on the internet revealed no matching images and no further information." Surely it is unlikely that in 2012 there were no records out there on the internet about this medal/medallion? What do you think? It was being mentioned in The Medal in 1990 and The British Numismatic Journal in 1986, and obviously had lots of press coverage at the time in 1928. I think it was also exhibited at the Royal Academy of Arts Bicentenary Exhibition in 1968. And probably exhibited at the time there by Doman as well.

From here there is: "Took part in War Office Competition, 1921. Winner of the commission." (more on this here, but I have been unable to find that medal from 1921). I see the Wikipedia article on Doman has a reference about the 1928 medal to an article in The Sphere, so I should look at that as well (maybe just an illustrated feature). Anyway, can all this really have been that obscure in 2012? (Having said that, the RCT erronerously date the medal to 1918!) Going back to the 1921 "War Office medal" stated 'to be presented to certain foreign subjects', I wonder if this was the Allied Subjects' Medal? As from here: "The Allied Subjects Medal was instituted in 1922 [...] The roll for this award (WO 329/2957) contains the names of French and Belgian men and women, and also of Danish, Dutch and other nationals [...]"

There might be more here (The Obscure Heroes of Liberty) from 2019, and searching just on Doman (i.e. C.L.J. Doman) found this on page 374 of British Battles and Medals (1950): "ALLIED SUBJECTS MEDALS . ... The medals , which are circular , were designed by Mr. C. L. J. Doman , R.B.S. The head of the King is on the obverse , whilst the reverse depicts a very fine figure of Humanity standing over a steel-helmeted and seated British soldier in the act of offering him a cup of water. In the background are shown the ruins of war". I think that is definite then. Carcharoth (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find "[Book] Pickup, David. 2006. The Medals of Charles Leighfield Doman., "The Medal" No. 48/2006, 33-38 Pages" - per your first link? Might just be a catalogue without much comment. Otherwise I think contemporary press might have stuff. You could try asking curators at the Imperial War Museum or BM - the BM had an exhibition of WWI commemorative medals, I suppose in 2018 . Oddly, neither V&A nor the BM seem to have this in their online collections. Otherwise medal collector web groups. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. Should have spotted that the Pickup one might have more details! Will try and acquire that. Carcharoth (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Minoan civilization
added a link pointing to Agia Triada
Minoan seals
added a link pointing to Tholos

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly

Only briefly, as I don't want to go into too much detail here, but in regards to the above I was ferreting around and came across this at the V&A (and ended up reading about the donors, see Anne Hull Grundy), but the question I have here relates to the (annoyingly undescribed) item at the bottom of the photo - you can see both sides by clicking through the photo displays - that item is something I have never seen before, and I suspect it is a one-off artwork of some sort, but what is the 'hook'(?) meant to be? I will probably have to contact the V&A to find out more, but was wondering if you recognised that in any way (I thought it maybe vaguely resembles a tank with a human figure inside it)? Carcharoth (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, don't know. It looks like a brooch or something - the photo doesn't enlarge very much. There's "1918" & something else on the first photo, perhaps with a clip, and a crouching human with legs drawn up on the other - the front I suppose. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I was almost certainly overthinking it. A clip-on brooch probably. It is 1914-1918 on one side. Carcharoth (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you comment

Is it possible for you to check this problem out [1]?...Modernist (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

You seem to be in breach of this - watch out! Johnbod (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Johnbold you may want to point this out to the third party and not be one sided.

P.S. Do not appreciate the exclamation point gives an impression of a pore education.

DYK for Assumption of Mary in art

On 11 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Assumption of Mary in art, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that medieval depictions of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary (example pictured) often show her dropping her belt to Thomas the Apostle as she rises? You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Assumption of Mary in art), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 12:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Your DYK hook about the Assumption of Mary in art drew 8,188 page views (682 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is the one of most viewed hooks so far during the month of February and has earned a place near the top of the Best of February list. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait

Hello, Johnbod! Why is the portrait of Alberti that you published better than the one I published? Sergeiprivet (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably done by someone who knew him, not a very untalented artist from 200+ years later, copying prints. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was possible to publish two portraits without replacing the first one. These portraits are quite different. Sergeiprivet (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be possible to have more, but there are better choices on Commons than the one you added, I feel. I shoulsd add that the one I added showed him when very young, which was appropriate for that section. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeroboam Sacrificing to Idols

Please will you tidy away the AFC artefacts when you move a draft which has them to main space? Fiddle Faddle 21:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can just remove them, but I think something else is supposed to be done, & I have no idea what. I left the last editor a message. Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Treat it as any other move made by a competent editor such as yourself. Removing them is sufficient. You could consider adding wikiprojects to the talk page, but that is optional. AFC is not at all special, simply a way to try to assist those who would otherwise be discouraged by early deletion of less than useful material Fiddle Faddle 22:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, in faCT IT WAS CREATED NORMALLY IN 2012, THEN DRAFTIFIED AFTER A COPYVIO (oops). Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The caps lock key is not my friend either! 🤪 Fiddle Faddle 22:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

client

I’m not really here anymore, in fact, I’m probably a mirage. However, I was looking for something today and stumbled across this [2], now I accept without my kindly, fatherly, guiding hand disinformation boxes are here to stay, but were the mighty Gonzaga really “clients?” I believe clients are men picked up by call girls and others who ply dubious trades. The Gonzaga were patrons of the arts and murderers, but to call them clients is rather demeaning. I know this is not your doing, but I noticed you edited the page recently, so who else is there to call upon who understands these small nuances and niceties of life. Do hope you’re well in these dangerous times, I note our American friends have binned poor Donald, so I suppose the sun must be shining somewhere. Roll on Liberation Day! Giano (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose to Giulio Romano he was a client - I suspect architects think they have them rather than "patrons". I used to be a client to lots of people (lawyers etc) so I'm doubtful of your characterization of clients as a class. Don't think I've been anyone's patron though. I'm fine thanks (even half-vaccinated) & hope you are the same. Currently deep in Minoan art and related topics, about which I knew very little. Now I find the specialists don't know much either, but it's lovely stuff. All the best! Johnbod (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I’m not vaccinated on account of my extreme youth and being stuck in the wrong country at the wrong time. Any right thinking Government would be selling the vaccine at a premium to deserving people such as myself and making a good profit. The money I’ve paid on UK private health care over the years, I should think I own the Portland outright. I’m more than a little degruntled about it, but that seems to be a status quo for me these days. Of course the Gonzaga weren’t clients, you’ll be saying the Medici and the Krays were connoisseurs of the arts next. Stay well! Giano (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mysteries of Isis

Mysteries of Isis is now at FAC. I don't know if you feel like doing an FAC review at the moment, but since you commented on the article talk page when it was created, a few years back, I thought I'd let you know. A. Parrot (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I've received one support for this article, but after three weeks, Gog the Mild notified me that it's in danger of being archived. I hate asking for reviewers, but could you spare the time? A. Parrot (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Random user

Merry Christmas! Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

help needed

I am so glad to see that you are still here, Johnbod. I have tentatively returned to Wikipedia editing after more than 5 (rather sad and difficult) years, and have forgotten everything I knew, which wasn't much anyway. This is because I really need to update the page I created on the Catalan singer/writer Gerard Quintana. My immediate query is this: I can find my own user page as AgTigress, but in other WP sources (e.g. images I uploaded to Commons long ago), the name appears in red, and says the page does not exist. Should I try to do something about this, and if so, what? I hope I am not bothering you with trivial requests, but you have been so kind and helpful to me in the past. I very much hope you are well in these strange times. AgTigress (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely to hear from you, & glad to hear you are still tending the Catalan Mick Jagger. I'm well enough, thanks - Minoan stuff has been the main thing for a month of so. Let me root around. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you don't have a Commons user page, but are you sure you ever did? Your contributions there are here, and your talk page here, with an exchange from 2010. I think most likely you never had a commons user page (many don't), but you can set one up by clicking on the redlink. Many people just link to their WP user page. Do you want me to do it? All the best, Johnbod (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could do it for me? I am so clueless. I did upload quite a few photos to Commons. I am trying to do quite a bit of updating on my page for Gerard Quintana; in addition to catching up with the 'musical career' section, Gerard is now establishing himself as a novelist (first novel 2019, second just published, and has won a major Catalan literary award), so there is also a lot to put there. Some editing protocols seem to have got a bit easier, but I am as baffled as ever by references: many of them are web references now, and although the templates do help, I am still muddled. And I am so keen to replace the main photo on that page with a more recent one, but I simply don't have a clue about how to deal with the copyright issue. Thank you so much for answering my query, when you are obviously madly busy! AgTigress (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done that - just with a link back to your user page here for now (that's all many people do on commons), and the list of your uploads. I have Gerard Quintana watchlisted, & have put a 2020 pic in the lead. Give me a link to the pic you want to use. Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are a star! That picture will do for now, but the one I would really like to use, a very recent one, is this, one of the pics taken at the Press event for the literary prize a few weeks ago: https://www.eltemps.cat/article/12658/el-music-gerard-quintana-guanya-el-premi-ramon-llull It was published in the newspaper El Temps (which is one of the refs. I'll have to put in the text), but as far as I can see, copyright is 'Agència Catalana de Notícies' -- 'Catalan News Agency'. Though it needs to be cropped to a portrait format. Anyway, that may all be impossible — I don't know. In the meantime, the one you have inserted will do fine, because it is at least recent, even though he looks much more groomed than usual (he was presenting awards at some Catalan film industry event, and had clearly been ruthlessly brushed and combed...) I'll take the old 2007 pic out. I really am so grateful for your expertise, Johnbod. AgTigress (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would probably be difficult - you'd have to get the copyright owner(s) release, which might well not be forthcoming. There are a number of other more recent ones on Commons. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll leave that for now, and have another search amongst my own photos. At least I can manage to upload those. I don't like any of the other recent ones on Commons. I have tinkered quite a bit with the page, but there's more to do, e.g. I don't have the ISBN number of the new novel yet. I might have a go at the Sopa de Cabra page eventually, because it, too, needs a lot of work: I uploaded a better pic for the infobox just now. As always, thank you!! AgTigress (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just let me know if I can do anything else. Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I'll be back with another request for help in the not too distant future... AgTigress (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green for hope

Lenten Rose

Today, we have a DYK about Wilhelm Knabe, who stood up for future with the striking school children when he was in his 90s, - a model, - see here. - Thank you for your position in the arb case request, - I feel I have to stay away, but there are conversations further down on the page, in case of interest, - in a nutshell: "... will not improve kindness, nor any article". - Yesterday, I made sure on a hike that the flowers are actually blooming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Basher" Dowsing

Dear Johnbod, on or about the 19 February 2007, of famous memory, you added to the article about William Dowsing (the iconoclast) the interesting factoid that he was "also known as Smasher Dowsing". (I must say if he was a smasher his portrait doesn't do him justice.) Your observation was not supported by an inline citation. Since you posted it, the soubriquet has been amended to "Basher Dowsing", again without any supporting reference. As I think the word "Basher" (like "Masher", with another meaning) smacks of a sort of sub-Dickensian, Lyttonian or Ainsworthian or even Arnoldian early 19th century slang, I doubt if Dowsing was referred to as "Basher" during the Interregnum, when there were so many beastly bashers around to choose from. "Smasher", apart from meaning something quite different, is marginally more possible but still seems a bit dubious to me. Dear friend, if (pardon me for suggesting it) this was a light-hearted jeu d'esprit, perhaps after 14 years the moment has come to own up honourably. Alternatively, if this is real history, would you be so kind as to direct the reader to the source? I have been putting in the inline references so as to de-tag the article, and have moved this informal name to the lead paragraph, where name variants usually go - so it is right up front. I'd like to justify it or scrap it now, one way or the other. With cordial good wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's "smasher". References are not exactly hard to find! I've added one that's online; no doubt others are better. Odd the old DNB doesn't mention it, unless it's recent. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for that. I know that "Smasher" is what you meant, and "Basher" is a diversion. However, all those 'easy to find' references you point to, pretty much, post-date your addition of February 2007, and certainly some of the wordings in those references suggest that they took the idea from the Wikipedia article. In fact it proliferated so much, that the 2018 reference you have given can't be taken as a precedent for putting that fact in Wikipedia, as that may where be where they got it from. What I'm trying to get at, is whether there is any authority at all for the idea that he was called "Smasher" either during or soon after his own lifetime. Do you have any information on that point? Best wishes Eebahgum (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They certainly do not all post-date it! Look more carefully. Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, true, but then mostly those authors are calling him "a smasher" for themselves - it is their own expression. But there are others as you say. Please allow me to substitute two earlier refs which do at least state that he was so named in the past. Just trying to get at the reality of it. Thanks. Eebahgum (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Arbitration Case Opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQLQuery me! 04:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Baetylus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tyre.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for some help

Greetings,

I have worked on a biography stub of a female visual artist of Pakistani origin namely, Draft:Misha Japanwala and I wish to bring the same to main space as a stub only.

Requesting your help in preliminary reviewing of notability at your own level, some copy edit and bringing in to main space if you deem the same correct course of action.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done some - not sure if she would pass Afd really. I see it's already in mainspace. Johnbod (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified my potential COI - better?

Based on your comment about a potential COI, I have edited my user page to clarify things. Thanks for pointing out that it was unclear. Please let me know if you think this is good like this?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EMsmile#Disclosure If you feel that anything is still unclear please let me know on my talk page (or here). Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better (probably is necessary) to clarify exactly which of the various roles are paid, which remains unclear to me. When work is paid, there will always be a potential conflict of interest, & it is better to say how these are treated/avoided rather than just saying they don't exist. Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the first sentence now to include the word "paid": "Between August 2020 and July 2022 I am paid to work on a communication project regarding SDGs 6, 13 and 14.". For my other roles (last year), I think it's already sufficiently clear as I wrote e.g. under a consultancy contract. With regards to how I am dealing with a potential conflict of interest, I feel that the bullets points under disclosure say as much as I can. What else can I say how I would deal/avoid a conflict of interest? Note that I have also asked other Wikimedians in Residence about this. One of them shared his user page with me which I modelled my sentences on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic. Or this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CFCF&direction=prev&oldid=975767998 . I don't know how else to describe my case. If you can point me to other people's user pages, in particular Wikimedians in Residence, who have explained it better, I would appreciate this. EMsmile (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Azurehorizons21

I'm assuming the grammar comment was directed at that user, and not at myself. Canterbury Tail talk 17:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course - sorry if that wasn't clear. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could have been read either way. Mind you originally I thought it was the user in question who had responded to me, not you, so was really confused. Canterbury Tail talk 17:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually at his point thinking of doing something about their user page, they seem to be using it as a resume and webhost at this point. I've mentioned it on their talk page, not enough time for a response yet. Canterbury Tail talk 16:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Margaritone d'Arezzo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint Margaret.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rood of Grace

Thank you for your edit on the above article. Much appreciated. The content is a bit of a mess, isn't it. I hastily gave it a bit of structure with subheadings and so on because I only came in to add an image, but didn't really touch the content - and that meant that the header isn't really the header - it's the original first paragraph. It's an interesting subject, though - automatons so long ago! Anyway, I just dropped by to say thanks. Storye book (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeses

Thank you for your improvements on "Swiss cheese" articles, great contributions from someone who visibly knows what he is talking about! Sophos II (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I learnt a lot doing Swiss-type cheese. Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ajanta.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tudor art

I've been meaning to drop you a note for ages. Did you see that Edward Town has re-attributed a slew of important portraits to George Gower, including the Hampden portrait of Elizabeth? [3] Also, he has pretty much established that Steven van der Meulen isn't Steven van Herwijk, here. I really must make some updates to the affected articles, but I am awfully busy with other things and never get around to it. Perhaps you can shame me into getting to work. - PKM (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you. Hope all is well - are you locked down at all? I haven't been keeping up with this area at all I'm afraid, & had missed these. Updates would be great, but shame isn't involved. Johnbod (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, yes we’ve been locked down for a year - just starting to open up. I got my 2nd jab yesterday, so not long now. Hope you are well. - PKM (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine thanks - now getting busy again with the garden, which finally (almost) stopped being badly neglected last year. Just one jab so far - the UK is using a 12 week interval so I'm nearly due the 2nd. Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Las Meninas

Sorry John, I didn't mean to overrule your citation style. I had begun cleaning up the refs, but the ones in the sources section were using a variety of styles, and I was getting a headache trying to figure out how the clean/standardize it up—switching to templates seemed like the quickest solution, so that was really the only reason I did so. If it's any comfort, I also added some missing page numbers along the way and adopted/standardized your suggestion of sources used more than once "in Sources with a short-form back in References" and sources used once just as a short form. Best - Aza24 (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as you've probably realized, I'm very sensitive to changes to cite formulae. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fayum mummy portraits

Hi there,

Go back to Greek and Roman history books, the Romans named Greeks in Egypt, Egyptiotes or Egyptians and named ancient people of Egypt, barbaros or barbarian, that's well known history. People represented in Fayyum portraits are those Egyptiotes (who first existed in the land from 7th century BC or even before as mercenaries and merchants, and other related ethnicities like Armenians). The arguments and estimates stated in the page is inaccurate. Fayyum portraits are represented as culturally Greek and that the first and correct impressions of early historians. I believe if you're historian, you already know the naming of different ethnicities in ancient land by the Greeks, I assume you already know Greek and Latin. Then why you attribute Egyptians to the ancients (referring here historically to Egyptiotes "attributing to Aegyptus" not the whole current population of Egypt as people from Qena to Aswan are still the same). Provide a good argument, not modern book by modern researcher because there is a lot of mess in naming happens when people of different language translate other books to their language (English, German, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.192.173.95 (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So get some references saying this. Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look up those sources I found online, read as much as you are satisfied. Greek called the ancient people of what you call Egypt, barbarians and they learnt philosophy from them. It didn't mean barbaric at that time, it just meant non Greek and was used, not only for ancient people of Egypt, but for Persians and all non Greeks, even today especially in 20th century locals of the North (and in the movies) in Egypt stereotypically refer to dark or black skinned Upper Egyptians as برابرة or بربري in Arabic. In addition, Romans named Cleopatra and Ptolomies, Egyptiotes. You may search up that by yourself in texts commemorating or recording the victory of Augustus on Cleopatra and her allies (Cleopatra is Ptolemaic, she isn't related to ancient people and that's well known historical fact). Always search up for the original texts in original language. I am not indicating that all North Egyptians aren't related at all, but culturally and ethnically they are different especially in the cities. And there is like 3100 years of foreign rule since the fall of Ancient rule by natives to the Amazigh.

Finally, people are by culture and traditions, first and foremost. Different people with same DNA would have different features, traditions, colors, and self-appointment. In addition, all DNA haplogroups are from very early times and prehistoric, it can't be traced to any modern ethnicity except for it's more spread in certain regions than others. Another problems in DNA is that communities are either patrilineal and matrilineal and there is no proof that any community adopts the same system throughout its history. History and culture can't be measured by very abstract measures as dental morphology or DNA and that's well known fact. It doesn't also indicate that they're entirely useless. Now you give a proof that there was 7-10 million natives at the Roman or Greco-Roman period. I want good references following historical texts and analysis, not a random guess work number with no support at all. Anyone can guess a number and write it between the lines in a book. Even if a reference as a whole is good concerning certain general topics, doesn't mean all its information is correct especially with respect to info. made by guesses, not comprehensive analysis.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1584152?seq=1 http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2305-445X2015000100016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks_in_Egypt http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2319347&redirect=true https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.192.173.95 (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When you finish reading the references notify me, if you don't know Greek, the references has good translations. I remind you that you're an editor (your profile shows you made many contribution). Don't get history matters personal, integrity should be the criteria of you editors and I think providing correct information is your top priority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.192.173.95 (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't provide good argument of 7-10 million figure, I think you should remove it as it's incorrect or give a notice it inaccurate or random guess. With respect to the part in the article saying Romans viewed Egyptiotes as Egyptians, you now already should have known that's Egyptians or Egyptiotes is actually the name of the Greeks in Egypt, that's misunderstanding based on mistranslation of barbarian to Egyptian and Egyptiotes to Greek. Such translation are made so that it's easier for the English reader to understand, but it's not the original naming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.192.173.95 (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's also in Greek methodology (when they tried to mix their religion to ancient natives religion) a quote with its source “Aegyptos conquered the country of the black footed ones and called it Egypt” Lucian of Samosata, Navigations

Hence, the name Aegyptos is pure name made by the Hellenes. Egyptians or Egyptiotes referring to Aegyptos (who's deity actually portraying Alexander III of Macedon with respect to attributes and accomplishments). [unsigned]

I'm copying this to the article talk, where it belongs. You've removed referenced material without providing relevant references for that. Johnbod (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


A reference here, the population suggested by this reference is 3-5 million at most and that's including all ethnicities, not just the natives.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44696684?seq=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dod Phir (talk • contribs) 21:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject India's Collaborations of the month invites you

You're specially invited to join the WikiProject India's Collaboration of the month program.

The collaboration will help promote many articles to the good and featured article status, but to do so, we need your help! For further information, see the main page of the collaboration.

Sign up for this collaboration by listing your username under the participants section and regularly participating in the collaboration. If you have already signed, please ignore this message.

You can discuss this newsletter here.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Sent by Hulged ⟨talk⟩ on behalf of WikiProject India. Thank you!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Italo-Byzantine

On 29 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Italo-Byzantine, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Vasari disliked the "clumsy Greek style" of Italo-Byzantine painting that preceded the Renaissance? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Italo-Byzantine. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Italo-Byzantine), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modest flowers

Thank you for what you said on Yoninah's talk, - see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-03-28/Obituary! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... and also for missing RexxS --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much less important: some article's name. "Plenty didn't" (change their mind), you say, but they could now, no? In the former discussion, I count a few serious opposes, yours and 2 others. Not taking an IP too seriously, nor the sock, nor an editor who wasn't concerned about the opera but the character. Define "plenty" ;) - Seven solid supports back then, including the author of Richard Wagner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobins (Politics)

Your addition is fine to Jacobin_(politics)#In_the_French_Revolution, but please include a citation for the statement so it isn't removed. This page already has a problem with not enough citations. Thanks! Skingski (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What happened ...

to our cordial relationship of ten or more years? I always thought of you as a kindred spirit, but lately, we seem to be working at cross purposes. I suspect it has to do with the editor whose edits—unreliable, undue, and subtly exalting the culture of the Gangetic plain and in the process Hindu nationalist reconstructions—I'm determined to keep off the major India-related pages. What you do with him is your issue, but I'm saddened it has begun to color our relationship. Anyway, not complaining or here to argue, just lamenting a little. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jeroboam Sacrificing to Idols

On 8 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jeroboam Sacrificing to Idols, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Fragonard won the Prix de Rome for painting Jeroboam Sacrificing to Idols (detail pictured) in 1752, when he was 20 years old? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jeroboam Sacrificing to Idols. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jeroboam Sacrificing to Idols), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 12:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cathedral of the Incarnation (Garden City, New York), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pantokrator.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Head articles

What's the "head article" you mention here? I haven't met the term before, and can't find a definition in WP:OCAT or anywhere else. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CATMAIN, in the main cat policy in fact. They use "main" article. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrews Diptych

Hi, I created the article for the art historian and V&A curator John Beckwith earlier today and noticed that he wrote a book on the Andrews Diptych, a 9th-century, probably North Italian ivory carving at the V&A (see here). I know very little about this sort of thing, but I wondered whether you thought it deserved an article of its own (or a mention somewhere)? —Noswall59 (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I expect it is a rather short book, but even so that alone makes the diptych notable. Thanks for doing the article - now you need to add him at John Beckwith (what a lot of them there are!) and link the bio at the many places he is mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, I'll see what I can do about the Diptych. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Early middle ages

I wrote the name of the dynasties such as the Umayyads and deleted the meaningless word "moors". This word was an insult to the Arabs after their entry into christianity. The names of the dynasties should also be written down, such as the aghlabid who ruled southern Italy and others. As for the word Muslims, it is a religion. Kasaxu (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to talk there - Moors is not "meaningles". Johnbod (talk)

The word Moor was an insult issued after the Arabs entered Christianity, and then it was applied to the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and various peoples who entered Christianity. This makes the article distracting and distorting the reader. Likewise, the “Umayyads” must be spelled out and written. They did not call themselves the "Moors". and the "muslim conquest" of Italy. The name the "aghlabid" must be clarified, as the word Muslims or Islam is his religion Kasaxu (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnbod&oldid=1018339759"