In my early months here, I was truly ignorant of the system and made several overcategorizations, some of which I caught on and corrected. There seems to be a general problem in theology and Cheistianity categories, to the effect that all RC articles are tugged away somewhere under RC, which leaves only non RC articles under the titles. In the last few weeks, this got worse. Catholic = RC and everything else Christian? -:)) We need to look at this at some point. On the encyclicals of Pius XII I was right: They definitely are a subcategory of the Category: Pope Pius XII. Thank's for pointing this out and for helping. -- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 19:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree, except in case of Pius XII only subcategory and topic. with four important exceptions, I left them out from Category: Pope Pius XII because of overcrowding there -- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 12:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you reverted and kept the point on Hortus conclusus. I linked miraculously to Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ, but that won't do? The sentence still seems very clunky to me, and much better stated here. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts please? Bye for now. ∞☼ Geaugagrrl (T)/ (C) 05:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I am a bit disappionted with this comment. The assumption of bad faith from the nominator and the implications of condoning child sexual abuse by supporting deletion are out of order. Discussion on controversial topics is difficult enough without personalising matters. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 08:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
For your much needed help and good sense. I appreciate your help and opinions very much. I will be away until maybe mid-August. Im sorry I wont be touching a computer until after then. I hope the article doesnt wash away while Im gone. I will attend to it futher when I return and hopefully try to put it back on FAC after some issues are ironed out. NancyHeise ( talk) 04:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod, it is great to see that you expanded the above. Oddly, I looked for articles on Malraux and Wildenstein and came up blank, so I left their names out. And yet the articles existed all along (maybe my searches were typo'd). I chose to create an article on this work as the facial expressions are so interesting, and the frozen moment so mysterious. I saw this on computer display before seeing a higher resolution version, and was not even aware of the theft. I figured the two central characters must be siblings (they look similar) and didn't know what was 'happening'. The implied dominance and centrality of the rich young man was then subverted. Isolation booth ( talk) 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 19:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh well done. - PKM ( talk) 19:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
You cfreated this page as a redirect but it targets itself. I am not sure where you intended to redirect it to. Rmhermen ( talk) 19:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I see you've been doing a lot of work on Art in Roman Catholicism. I've been thinking that this is an important area underrepresented in the main RCC article. Especially if we're trimming the History section of the main article, I think we need to have a small section or paragraph about Catholic art and architecture in the RCC article, linking to the ARC article and maybe others.
On Karanacs proposals, I am very skeptical, since the History section needs to be very finely balanced. We'll have to see the proposal, but cutting out events or sources or overly simplifying them could cause far more problems than it would solve. This is apart from the matter of making big changes with Nancy absent... Anyway, we'll see. Xandar ( talk) 23:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Just because the article now is a stub, doesn't mean that there shouldn't be an article on the former state of the Holy Roman Empire. I encourage you to take the stub that is there and build it up. Roman Catholic Diocese of Metz has been under the Diocese of Metz for a year now, without complaint, and was the diocese of Metz when you made previous edits to it. The two do not mean the same. The bishopric of Metz could not contain the history of the diocese since Napoleon, or prior to the formation of the HRE. The bishopric is solely concerned with the middle period. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 04:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Johnbod - Would you be good enough to have a look at the discussion since you left your comment? I'm doubtful about switching over to commas. Best, Cgingold ( talk) 20:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
-- Bedford Pray 05:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 03:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank's for your great input and effort to go through it all. I forgot the art item yesterday, belongs there of course. -- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 15:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been puzzling about what is said here. I can't work out which one it is/was. I've cut the page rim off the Culhwch one, though I suspect the containing book was out of copyright. Certainly the Waterhouse would fail at Commons if the Scrots goes (the licence is the wrong one, at least), but that doesn't matter for the moment, since Wikipedia accepts English photos of art by American law. Can you work out what is meant? Was the stained glass window counting as three-dimensional, I wonder? I don't want to bring this up with elc, because obviously he/she is fed up with meeting resistance (though I think the people working on this article are only too keen to get things right). I've been driving myself mad with the Wyeth picture: it seems to me that since it has a safe publication date, it should be all right: but a part of me wonders if Wyeth's death was too recent (1940s) for his work to have gone out of copyright. qp10qp ( talk) 19:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
There's a brand-new project starting up on Typography if you're interested... - PKM ( talk) 00:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello there,
I find your proposal totally unnecessary, because museums themselves exist as category, see Category:Louvre, which is also not called Category:Paintings of the Louvre for obvious reasons. Secondly you are proposing a "KUNThistorisches Museum". Therefore I am going to remove your proposal again. As to the Secular and Ecclesiastical Treasury, it is custom on the English Wikipedia to use English, please check the here [1]. If you want to have paintings listed in a separate sub-category, then just do it, no need for a rename. Gryffindor 07:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you've done a wonderful job with the Lamentation article. Thanks for all the great work you've done. Raul654 ( talk) 17:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Life of Christ, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that
administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{
hangon}}
to the article and state your intention on the article's
talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
Ecoleetage (
talk)
21:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
PS Not to wear out my welcome, but what do you think of calling the article Life of Christ in Art? As it stands, the title doesn't fully explain what the article will be about. You may also want to not use the expression "Christian art" in the article -- obviously, no other faith is offering paintings of Jesus. Also, I added a WikiProject Christianity template to the Talk Page. Oh...I am not going for RfA (as per your comment on my Editor Review page) -- I don't know where you got that from, since I never said that was my plan. Thanks. Ecoleetage ( talk) 21:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I think the two Madonna pages are ready for a merger now, whenever you feel like it. Cheers History2007 ( talk) 14:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Ha; well I'm not sure if your commet was intended to be a sarcastic one or a genuine question, but I'll answer it anyway. The contrast was intended to be between the "harmonious ideals and restrained naturalism associated associated with artists such as Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, and early Michelangelo" and the "intellectual sophistication as well as its artificial (as opposed to naturalistic) qualities" etc, etc. That was quick; glad to see someone's keeping an eye out. Cheers, Isocephaly ( talk) 03:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Some months ago I moved Spread of printing to Spread of the printing press as per the discussion on the talk page (that you contributed to). But in this last week the user Gun Powder Ma has twice reverted this move. I've asked him to justify his revert on the talk page, but so far no response. I wonder if you could give your opinion on the talk page before I undo his revert. Thanks lk ( talk) 07:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
-- Gatoclass ( talk) 10:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
You beat me to it! We had an Edit Conflict while I was reformatting your refs from the Lorillard article to add to Millionaire! Thanks. PamD ( talk) 15:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
-- Wizardman 00:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, Johnbod. And btw, any time you change your mind about adminship you'll (of course) have my support! Cgingold ( talk) 23:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Primacy of Simon Peter is about a particular "special position among the apostles" -- but I have put the link back in as " primacy of Simon Peter" -- Carlaude ( talk) 15:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
--Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi again, I have been beefing up various Armenian geographic entries, and found that many towns have been named after figures in the Armenian and Soviet literary arts (not exactly your bag, I know), but that led me to check in further and there seems to be few articles on Armenians in the visual arts (perhaps your bag) and was wondering whether you had a few articles brewing awaiting to pop out onto the stage. Probably some notable icons, tombs, etc. may be in Armenia on top of the artists. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 06:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that these are important topics, but they open the pandora box to so many other equally relevant topics, which in the confines of this already large article cannot be described on their own.-- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 14:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I hope you fully benefit from your plans. Enjoy -- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 20:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
your user page and related links. if you ever want to do any American sculpture, I'm your person. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 21:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod: I noticed a question on the Raphael talk page today, regarding the painting stolen from Poland in 1939. Do you know whether the literature has firmly identified it as a self-portrait? I have not been able to find a solid confirmation. Cheers, JNW ( talk) 22:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there is an answer to this but, is it possible to tell how many people have visited articles you have created? VAwebteam ( talk) 13:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I see you've returned -- hopefully from a vacation, and not something untoward! I trust we will be seeing your sage comments again at CFD in the very near future. :) Cgingold ( talk) 22:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I was planning to write something on a couple of early churches in Sweden, but discussions in the Swedish literature on influences from Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman (or just plain old Norman-Norman) architecture caused me to slip out on a tangent and create a couple of articles on British art historians: Gerard Baldwin Brown and Harold McCarter Taylor. The first is short but I am not planning to do more work on it right now. I nominated the latter for the "did you know..." column on the main page, perhaps a bit prematurely. It still needs more work and could benefit from your attention, if you have the time (anyone with similar interests who happens to watch this page is invited to take a look as well). -- Hegvald ( talk) 13:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod, hope all is well. Way back in May you reviewed the Louvre article for FAC, noting specifically the lack of detail regarding "art". I've been working on ameliorating that section, and was wondering if you'd be able to take a look and provide suggestions? I'm concerned that the information might not be organized thematically and that there may be significant points which were missed. Detail/length is an issue, as well. Anyway, if you'd be able to take a look, I would greatly appreciate it. Regards, Lazulilasher ( talk) 12:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
now has two full series of the images, could you please complete the english titles, especially the "rescue"-ones (Weigel) and perhaps give the latin banderoles? Thanks! -- Cherubino ( talk) 21:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your participation in the Cloud Gate GA reassessment. Currently another feature of the park is at WP:PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/BP Pedestrian Bridge/archive1. We are having an issue with the controversies sections of these features. In particular, there is an issue over the payment of $1.5 million dollars by corporations to rent the park for two days. Can you possibly take a moment to comment with your thoughts on the controversies of the park on this Peer review since it may set the policy for Cloud Gate. Do a search for "Controversies" and comment at your leisure.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 23:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I too, find large templates annoying. I've shrunk it somewhat, but its still obtrusive. Do you think it would look better as a horizontal box across the bottom? I would change it and make it such, but I'm not a templates person. lk ( talk) 10:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I am impressed by the work you are doing on the Depiction of Jesus article. Thanks. Do you think it would be worth adding Graham Sutherland's Coventry Cathedral tapestry to the examples gallery? Feline Hymnic ( talk) 00:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Modern interpretation In Jonah 2:1 (1:17 in English translation), the Hebrew text reads dag gadol (דג גדול), which literally means "great fish." The LXX translates this phrase into Greek as ketos megas (κητος μεγας). The term ketos alone means "huge fish," and in Greek mythology the term was closely associated with sea monsters. (See http://www.theoi.com/Ther/Ketea.html for more information regarding Greek mythology and the Ketos.) Jerome later translated this phrase as piscis granda in his Latin Vulgate. However, he translated ketos as cetus in Matthew 12:40.
At some point, cetus became synonymous with whale (c.f. cetyl alcohol, which is alcohol derived from whales). In his 1534 translation, William Tyndale translated the phrase in Jonah 2:1 as "greate fyshe," and he translated the word ketos (Greek) or cetus (Latin) in Matthew 12:40 as "whale." Tyndale's translation was, of course, later incorporated into the Authorized Version of 1611. Since, the "great fish" in Jonah 2 has been most often interpreted as a whale.
The throats of many large whales (as well as that of a large whale shark specimen, which could be found in the Mediterranean) can accommodate passage of an adult human. There are some 19th century accounts of whalers being swallowed by sperm whales and living to tell about it, but these stories remain unverified.
In the line 3:1, the book refers to the fish as Dag Gadol, meaning "great fish", in the masculine. However, in the 3:2, it says "ha'daga" meaning female fish (the ha at the beginning means the). Given the rest of these selected verses "And the lord provided a great fish (dag gadol) for Jonah, and it swallowed him, and Jonah sat in the belly of the fish (still male) for three days and nights.) Then, from the belly of the (female) fish, Jonah began to pray." It has been interpreted that this means Jonah was comfortable in the roomy male fish, so he didn't pray. However, then, God transferred him to a smaller, female fish, in which Jonah was uncomfortable, so he prayed.
In early Christian art I have seen it sculptured as a sea monster not a whale. Kazuba ( talk) 01:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
What does the Jonah art depict? Have you seen it? The NT was originally written in Greek not Latin. Kazuba ( talk) 15:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I have seen the early Christian art we are discussing. The creature is certainly a sea monster not a whale. If you look hard enough you may find a photo. I found it very interesting. Kazuba ( talk) 19:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Would you be good enough to have a look at these CFDs? I'm feeling rather beleagered by the withering tone of the response, and I suspect the onslaught will continue as ohter members of WikiProject Robotics join the fray. I honestly have no idea what you might want to say about any of my proposals -- and obviously you are welcome to say whatever you like -- but I would appreciate having your calm and common-sensical voice in the discussion. Thanks. Cgingold ( talk) 00:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
--Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This has been nominated again despite a clear keep only a very short time ago. As such I am informing those who last voted for it to get this AfD kicked off. The reasons all seem to consist of invalid arguments like "silly smut" and "don't like it". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Most_Phallic_Building_contest_(2nd_nomination)#Most_Phallic_Building_contest JJJ999 ( talk) 02:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see what you are trying to achieve with your reorgainisation of the photos on this page. They are now all over the place. The lead picture os of a painting executed by an artist who will never even have seen the item exhibted as the Veronica during the Middle Ages and bears only the most tangental relevance to the story. The resized pictures are out of line with the text which describes them, titles are floating loose, the photo of the Veronica chapel is out of place and the whole thing looks a mess. I know others have contibuted to this state of affairs but even so ... what ae you trying to achieve?
-- John Price ( talk) 14:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Please take note that a deletion review has been requested for the category Category:Mononymous persons which was recently decided to be deleted. You receive this notification because you took part in the preceding discussion. __ meco ( talk) 16:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
-- PFHLai ( talk) 21:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Turin-Milan Hours is a wonderful article! Nice work! -- Polylerus ( talk) 22:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I don't know the policy on wp:en. On wp:fr, the policy is to use as few often as possible the titles because it opens the door the a type of
Straw man rhetoric.
Both these information may be considered relevant according to different point of views. So, giving them biased the whole discourse given we already have an a-priori idea of if what will follow is "good" or "bad". We should be as neutral as possible and just report facts and who does so.
If somebody doesn't know Noam Chomsky, he can get all the information at
Noam Chomsky's entry.
We should not say, a way or the other, if Chomsky is worth listening or not.
This can apply to numerous cases.
I am used to write articles about the I/P conflit and I can tell you it is very easy to check articles for Pov-issues in reading the comments that follow or the titles that preceed the names of the people whose analysis are reported.
Think about that : where is it relevant to stop when we describe a guy ? It is extremelly difficult and therefore, it should be done with care.
Ceedjee (
talk)
07:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
In my expansion of the article William Morris, I am looking for a Wikipedia article to link to from the phrase "hierarchy of artistic mediums". Can you point me at a useful treatment? Thanks - PKM ( talk) 17:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
comments taken from User talk:Kevin hipwell-->
Please be sure to use Category:Coins of the Eurozone not the head category if you are doing any more articles. Johnbod ( talk) 18:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
<--comments taken from User talk:Kevin hipwell
sorry to place this here, can you explain what you mean by "head category". Kevin hipwell ( talk) 21:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I have introduced a less-aggressive infobox at Cellini Salt Cellar. Check it out! I'm expecting you to whoop with joy! Remove any image within the infobox if you wish, and display it as usual. A mouseclick on the discreet strip displays the Disnfobox, in all its Disinformative glory. No need to reason endlessly with the unspeakably rude Box People ever again.-- Wetman ( talk) 22:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I've started Merton Abbey Mills (it was just a redirect to Merton (historic parish) before), and added the Pocock watercolour. Your perspective would be welcome. PKM ( talk) 00:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Well done! Amandajm ( talk) 10:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Son of Nick. -- Gwib ( talk) 23:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I did miss the change, but Qp10qp ( talk) let me know - while you were travelling, I think. Terrific news - I would have given this all up as hopelessly frustrating if it had gone the other way. - PKM ( talk) 18:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Good job beefing up the illustration info on Hunterian Psalter. I was working from home, and my ISP is acting a damn fool. I felt I'd left the article in kind of half-assed shape, but I was tired of waiting five minutes for each article preview to load. Glad to see someone else picked up on it so fast. Ford MF ( talk) 15:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that some people reject infoboxes altogether, and so if an infobox is rejected, then an image of the artist's work is perhaps preferable at the top of the article. However, an image in the infobox just isn't appropriate, as per the non-free content criteria- it could be replaced by a free image of the artist. I think having a picture of the artist's work in an infobox isn't particularly appropriate from an editorial standpoint, but that's my opinion, and I don't really know much about art. WikiProject guidelines are useful for helping to build an article, but that does not mean that they supersede any of our other policies. Style guidelines, yes, maybe, but policies concerning legal matters (BLP, copyright) or our primary goals (NPOV, IAR) cannot be overwritten by WikiProject consensus. J Milburn ( talk) 12:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
It is current practice that if a non-free image is valid in an article, then it can be used in an infobox. The exact placing of the non-free image is not the critical point. The critical point is whether it is or is not valid in that article. A non-free image of an artwork cannot be replaced by a free image of the artist. The latter image could only replace a non-free image of the artist. You can't replace an image of an artwork with an image of a person: they are entirely different entities. What you are saying is that if a non-free image of the artist were available, then the images on the page would have to be adjusted differently. That might well apply wherever the non-free artwork image was. There are arguments (though I disagree) that it is preferable to have an image of the artwork in the infobox to having an image of the artist, on the basis that the artwork is the unique identifier for most artists, whereas, for example, one bearded Victorian man looks much like another. In the absence of a suitable image of the artist, then an artwork is fitting - provided of course its general inclusion in the article meets content criteria beyond its place in the infobox. Ty 01:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi John, I looked back through the edit history to see if I could see the evidence of the comment that was removed. Who put the comment there and when?.. as I see you only made two recent changes. Can you supply some evidence of who, when etc? Victuallers ( talk) 19:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
"A4: If some of the text was copied from another Wikipedia article, then the copied text doesn't count toward the 1500 total. Compare G7." Incase you didn't miss is, this is from the citation that you provided. This demonstrates that it does not have to be 5x. It only says, and clearly says, that the imported information does not count towards the 1.5k. Having 2.5k and 5k worth of new text makes it clearly above the threshold. Ottava Rima ( talk) 20:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
If you noticed, the difference was split. The article that was a split (early life) was not included, but the article that was new and contained duplicate information (health) was included in the DYK. Since the early life still has a few more days, it could be resubmitted, but I wont do so until I hear back about how other people feel about the topic. How does that sound? Ottava Rima ( talk) 01:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I restored because your edits were a violation of procedure. However, if you want to put forth an alt nom for your suggestion, please do. Just mark "alt-nom" and put it behind. Ottava Rima ( talk) 19:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help with the Collegiate church in Wislica article. I am not a native speaker, so forgive me all these mistakes. Greetings. Tymek ( talk) 17:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Bit confused regarding your comment...the edit on the Article page prior to mine was clearly a IP user who deleted a block of text from the article with no EDIT summary.. this is detected by VandalFighter as an act of vandalism, I elected to assume good faith and revert it. What did I miss? benjicharlton ( talk) 01:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see what use it is frankly, and it might be better to close it down. The only people who seem to watch the discussion page are you & I & we never agree on anything. Johnbod ( talk) 11:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
If you can find it then I'll add it to this load. Thx for keeping cool! Victuallers ( talk) 14:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Nice one John. I see I changed Bartel to Barthel before you even told me about this article. Not sure now, but I've always seen him (I think) as Barthel. Leave it to you to revert or change the rest. A few more images by different masters would be nice - but I suppose articles shouldn't be overcrowded with pics. N. Nick Michael ( talk) 21:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
-- Wafulz ( talk) 22:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
New DYK you might be interested in here about The Dublin Virginal Manuscript. I hope I've followed all necessary layout and presentation rules, could you cast a critical eye over the article/DYK nomination to see if it meets critera? Thanks, -- Gwib ( talk) 11:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting the inconsistency. I have changed the relevant sentences. Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 11:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod, your comments on the RCC peer review are excellent. I want to thank you for taking the time and effort to give me some seriously intelligent comments that will definitely make the article better. I have been a bit busy getting my house and family ready for hurricane Ike but will begin to address these in the coming week. Thanks again! NancyHeise talk 23:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
--Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, but some had p. and pp., and some didn't. Just standardizing. Regards, Ericoides ( talk) 08:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod, I have addressed all of your comments except for maybe two of them. I will continue to hit those others hopefully in the next day or two. I was wondering if you were satisfied with my responses and actions taken per your comments. NancyHeise talk 02:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey Johnbod, hope all is well. Um, do you have JSTOR access by any chance...trying to get a copy of this Henry Moore article. Liz had been my source, but she seems to be on a break. I think the FAR is going ok so far; Modenist is doing good work and thanks for sorting out the FU business...don't speak image copyright myself and am generally bombared by bots! :( Ceoil sláinte 11:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
You might be able to help here; somebody is trying to identify a 18xx sculpture. [2]. Ceoil sláinte 14:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod, you are a very intelligent and learned person. I would like to know if you are also an artist (I was perusing your user page before coming here to post a legitimate comment about RCC). Legitimate comment: I have finished all comments at the RCC peer review except the one discussed by you and Xandar over the spread of Christianity to northern Europe. I have been busy this weekend but wanted you to know that I intend to answer that last comment after I do a bit of research and will try to come up with an acceptable rewording that includes your recommended wikilinks. NancyHeise talk 01:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod, I have been thinking about your suggested rewrites of the two areas proposed on the peer review but I have some reservations. First, I think that the article has really been maxed out in terms of length and these rewordings are too long. Because they are not a critical or sensitive part of RCC history, I disagree that it would be better to include more information here. I think that the information is important information that can be left to the History of the Roman Catholic Church article and leave the RCC article as more of a summary with less detail. Right now, the history article is pretty detailed and fairly referenced. It is listed as a see also at the top of the history section in the main RCC article. Do you feel differently? Do you think the article will not be FA quality without these longer and more detailed rewordings? Please let me know. I am not opposed to using your rewrites, I am just trying to keep the article length down a bit. NancyHeise talk 01:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
(actually, it turned into more of a rewording with an improvement in the references used - I replaced some of the refs with Bokenkotter's "Concise History of the Catholic Church" which is one of the most oft cited refs on Google scholar) Sorry to mark up your talk page so much! NancyHeise talk 05:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 06:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Your contribution here to my rename category, I suggest changing your "Keep" to "Oppose", "Keep" is used mostly for deletion, so "oppose" is a better word to oppose my renaming suggestion. It's not a big deal if you don't change. Thanks! Ctjf83 Talk 03:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod, I think I am finished with all your peer review comments. I have spent the past hour or so on the references and wording for the spread of Chrisitianity to northern Europe - I used your wording tweaked a bit to comply with the references used. Let me know if you have any problems with the new paragraph and thanks for all your tremendous help on the article, especially the superb peer review you offered. NancyHeise talk 17:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC) To Johnbod, for saving me in a time of difficulty! NancyHeise talk 01:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Pssst hey Johnbod, why don't you see if you can get WikiProject Archaeology or WikiProject Visual arts to add Funerary art to their list of articles for the version 0.7 CD? Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 04:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
ff m 20:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you think a WP:RCU is in order? ff m 12:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 04:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi John,
The only person I have ever heard use the term "gob-smacked" is Simon Lee. I completely agree with your switch to make The Flagellation redirect to Flagellation of Christ. I had been under the false impression that the proper title of this painting was "The Flagellation"; I hadn't realized that it was a generic descriptor. Thanks for making the appropriate hatnote changes as well!
Neelix ( talk) 10:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 16:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I am always happy to receive a pat on the back John, but I can't see why I merit one this time? I had a sudden nasty feeling that I had been named an admin by mistake, but happily that is not the case. I asked Florian if he could understand your message (which funnily enough was sandwiched in my watchlist between Toilet and Cunt - I'm glad watchlists aren't public...), but he's at a loss too.
I haven't been promoted at work, I haven't got divorced and I'm not a pensioner yet. I can only assume that your felicitations were misdirected. All the best, Nick Nick Michael ( talk) 13:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here [4]. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA. NancyHeise talk 23:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand your objections, which I am attempting to work on, but I do find it uncalled for to make fun of my nomination on other FACs... See your comments on Manu Sharma -- Admrboltz ( talk) 19:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Daniel Case ( talk) 02:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
In my early months here, I was truly ignorant of the system and made several overcategorizations, some of which I caught on and corrected. There seems to be a general problem in theology and Cheistianity categories, to the effect that all RC articles are tugged away somewhere under RC, which leaves only non RC articles under the titles. In the last few weeks, this got worse. Catholic = RC and everything else Christian? -:)) We need to look at this at some point. On the encyclicals of Pius XII I was right: They definitely are a subcategory of the Category: Pope Pius XII. Thank's for pointing this out and for helping. -- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 19:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree, except in case of Pius XII only subcategory and topic. with four important exceptions, I left them out from Category: Pope Pius XII because of overcrowding there -- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 12:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you reverted and kept the point on Hortus conclusus. I linked miraculously to Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ, but that won't do? The sentence still seems very clunky to me, and much better stated here. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts please? Bye for now. ∞☼ Geaugagrrl (T)/ (C) 05:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I am a bit disappionted with this comment. The assumption of bad faith from the nominator and the implications of condoning child sexual abuse by supporting deletion are out of order. Discussion on controversial topics is difficult enough without personalising matters. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 08:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
For your much needed help and good sense. I appreciate your help and opinions very much. I will be away until maybe mid-August. Im sorry I wont be touching a computer until after then. I hope the article doesnt wash away while Im gone. I will attend to it futher when I return and hopefully try to put it back on FAC after some issues are ironed out. NancyHeise ( talk) 04:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod, it is great to see that you expanded the above. Oddly, I looked for articles on Malraux and Wildenstein and came up blank, so I left their names out. And yet the articles existed all along (maybe my searches were typo'd). I chose to create an article on this work as the facial expressions are so interesting, and the frozen moment so mysterious. I saw this on computer display before seeing a higher resolution version, and was not even aware of the theft. I figured the two central characters must be siblings (they look similar) and didn't know what was 'happening'. The implied dominance and centrality of the rich young man was then subverted. Isolation booth ( talk) 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 19:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh well done. - PKM ( talk) 19:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
You cfreated this page as a redirect but it targets itself. I am not sure where you intended to redirect it to. Rmhermen ( talk) 19:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I see you've been doing a lot of work on Art in Roman Catholicism. I've been thinking that this is an important area underrepresented in the main RCC article. Especially if we're trimming the History section of the main article, I think we need to have a small section or paragraph about Catholic art and architecture in the RCC article, linking to the ARC article and maybe others.
On Karanacs proposals, I am very skeptical, since the History section needs to be very finely balanced. We'll have to see the proposal, but cutting out events or sources or overly simplifying them could cause far more problems than it would solve. This is apart from the matter of making big changes with Nancy absent... Anyway, we'll see. Xandar ( talk) 23:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Just because the article now is a stub, doesn't mean that there shouldn't be an article on the former state of the Holy Roman Empire. I encourage you to take the stub that is there and build it up. Roman Catholic Diocese of Metz has been under the Diocese of Metz for a year now, without complaint, and was the diocese of Metz when you made previous edits to it. The two do not mean the same. The bishopric of Metz could not contain the history of the diocese since Napoleon, or prior to the formation of the HRE. The bishopric is solely concerned with the middle period. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 04:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Johnbod - Would you be good enough to have a look at the discussion since you left your comment? I'm doubtful about switching over to commas. Best, Cgingold ( talk) 20:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
-- Bedford Pray 05:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 03:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank's for your great input and effort to go through it all. I forgot the art item yesterday, belongs there of course. -- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 15:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been puzzling about what is said here. I can't work out which one it is/was. I've cut the page rim off the Culhwch one, though I suspect the containing book was out of copyright. Certainly the Waterhouse would fail at Commons if the Scrots goes (the licence is the wrong one, at least), but that doesn't matter for the moment, since Wikipedia accepts English photos of art by American law. Can you work out what is meant? Was the stained glass window counting as three-dimensional, I wonder? I don't want to bring this up with elc, because obviously he/she is fed up with meeting resistance (though I think the people working on this article are only too keen to get things right). I've been driving myself mad with the Wyeth picture: it seems to me that since it has a safe publication date, it should be all right: but a part of me wonders if Wyeth's death was too recent (1940s) for his work to have gone out of copyright. qp10qp ( talk) 19:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
There's a brand-new project starting up on Typography if you're interested... - PKM ( talk) 00:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello there,
I find your proposal totally unnecessary, because museums themselves exist as category, see Category:Louvre, which is also not called Category:Paintings of the Louvre for obvious reasons. Secondly you are proposing a "KUNThistorisches Museum". Therefore I am going to remove your proposal again. As to the Secular and Ecclesiastical Treasury, it is custom on the English Wikipedia to use English, please check the here [1]. If you want to have paintings listed in a separate sub-category, then just do it, no need for a rename. Gryffindor 07:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you've done a wonderful job with the Lamentation article. Thanks for all the great work you've done. Raul654 ( talk) 17:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Life of Christ, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that
administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{
hangon}}
to the article and state your intention on the article's
talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
Ecoleetage (
talk)
21:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
PS Not to wear out my welcome, but what do you think of calling the article Life of Christ in Art? As it stands, the title doesn't fully explain what the article will be about. You may also want to not use the expression "Christian art" in the article -- obviously, no other faith is offering paintings of Jesus. Also, I added a WikiProject Christianity template to the Talk Page. Oh...I am not going for RfA (as per your comment on my Editor Review page) -- I don't know where you got that from, since I never said that was my plan. Thanks. Ecoleetage ( talk) 21:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I think the two Madonna pages are ready for a merger now, whenever you feel like it. Cheers History2007 ( talk) 14:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Ha; well I'm not sure if your commet was intended to be a sarcastic one or a genuine question, but I'll answer it anyway. The contrast was intended to be between the "harmonious ideals and restrained naturalism associated associated with artists such as Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, and early Michelangelo" and the "intellectual sophistication as well as its artificial (as opposed to naturalistic) qualities" etc, etc. That was quick; glad to see someone's keeping an eye out. Cheers, Isocephaly ( talk) 03:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Some months ago I moved Spread of printing to Spread of the printing press as per the discussion on the talk page (that you contributed to). But in this last week the user Gun Powder Ma has twice reverted this move. I've asked him to justify his revert on the talk page, but so far no response. I wonder if you could give your opinion on the talk page before I undo his revert. Thanks lk ( talk) 07:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
-- Gatoclass ( talk) 10:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
You beat me to it! We had an Edit Conflict while I was reformatting your refs from the Lorillard article to add to Millionaire! Thanks. PamD ( talk) 15:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
-- Wizardman 00:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, Johnbod. And btw, any time you change your mind about adminship you'll (of course) have my support! Cgingold ( talk) 23:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Primacy of Simon Peter is about a particular "special position among the apostles" -- but I have put the link back in as " primacy of Simon Peter" -- Carlaude ( talk) 15:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
--Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi again, I have been beefing up various Armenian geographic entries, and found that many towns have been named after figures in the Armenian and Soviet literary arts (not exactly your bag, I know), but that led me to check in further and there seems to be few articles on Armenians in the visual arts (perhaps your bag) and was wondering whether you had a few articles brewing awaiting to pop out onto the stage. Probably some notable icons, tombs, etc. may be in Armenia on top of the artists. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 06:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that these are important topics, but they open the pandora box to so many other equally relevant topics, which in the confines of this already large article cannot be described on their own.-- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 14:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I hope you fully benefit from your plans. Enjoy -- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 20:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
your user page and related links. if you ever want to do any American sculpture, I'm your person. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 21:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod: I noticed a question on the Raphael talk page today, regarding the painting stolen from Poland in 1939. Do you know whether the literature has firmly identified it as a self-portrait? I have not been able to find a solid confirmation. Cheers, JNW ( talk) 22:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there is an answer to this but, is it possible to tell how many people have visited articles you have created? VAwebteam ( talk) 13:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I see you've returned -- hopefully from a vacation, and not something untoward! I trust we will be seeing your sage comments again at CFD in the very near future. :) Cgingold ( talk) 22:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I was planning to write something on a couple of early churches in Sweden, but discussions in the Swedish literature on influences from Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman (or just plain old Norman-Norman) architecture caused me to slip out on a tangent and create a couple of articles on British art historians: Gerard Baldwin Brown and Harold McCarter Taylor. The first is short but I am not planning to do more work on it right now. I nominated the latter for the "did you know..." column on the main page, perhaps a bit prematurely. It still needs more work and could benefit from your attention, if you have the time (anyone with similar interests who happens to watch this page is invited to take a look as well). -- Hegvald ( talk) 13:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod, hope all is well. Way back in May you reviewed the Louvre article for FAC, noting specifically the lack of detail regarding "art". I've been working on ameliorating that section, and was wondering if you'd be able to take a look and provide suggestions? I'm concerned that the information might not be organized thematically and that there may be significant points which were missed. Detail/length is an issue, as well. Anyway, if you'd be able to take a look, I would greatly appreciate it. Regards, Lazulilasher ( talk) 12:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
now has two full series of the images, could you please complete the english titles, especially the "rescue"-ones (Weigel) and perhaps give the latin banderoles? Thanks! -- Cherubino ( talk) 21:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your participation in the Cloud Gate GA reassessment. Currently another feature of the park is at WP:PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/BP Pedestrian Bridge/archive1. We are having an issue with the controversies sections of these features. In particular, there is an issue over the payment of $1.5 million dollars by corporations to rent the park for two days. Can you possibly take a moment to comment with your thoughts on the controversies of the park on this Peer review since it may set the policy for Cloud Gate. Do a search for "Controversies" and comment at your leisure.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 23:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I too, find large templates annoying. I've shrunk it somewhat, but its still obtrusive. Do you think it would look better as a horizontal box across the bottom? I would change it and make it such, but I'm not a templates person. lk ( talk) 10:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I am impressed by the work you are doing on the Depiction of Jesus article. Thanks. Do you think it would be worth adding Graham Sutherland's Coventry Cathedral tapestry to the examples gallery? Feline Hymnic ( talk) 00:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Modern interpretation In Jonah 2:1 (1:17 in English translation), the Hebrew text reads dag gadol (דג גדול), which literally means "great fish." The LXX translates this phrase into Greek as ketos megas (κητος μεγας). The term ketos alone means "huge fish," and in Greek mythology the term was closely associated with sea monsters. (See http://www.theoi.com/Ther/Ketea.html for more information regarding Greek mythology and the Ketos.) Jerome later translated this phrase as piscis granda in his Latin Vulgate. However, he translated ketos as cetus in Matthew 12:40.
At some point, cetus became synonymous with whale (c.f. cetyl alcohol, which is alcohol derived from whales). In his 1534 translation, William Tyndale translated the phrase in Jonah 2:1 as "greate fyshe," and he translated the word ketos (Greek) or cetus (Latin) in Matthew 12:40 as "whale." Tyndale's translation was, of course, later incorporated into the Authorized Version of 1611. Since, the "great fish" in Jonah 2 has been most often interpreted as a whale.
The throats of many large whales (as well as that of a large whale shark specimen, which could be found in the Mediterranean) can accommodate passage of an adult human. There are some 19th century accounts of whalers being swallowed by sperm whales and living to tell about it, but these stories remain unverified.
In the line 3:1, the book refers to the fish as Dag Gadol, meaning "great fish", in the masculine. However, in the 3:2, it says "ha'daga" meaning female fish (the ha at the beginning means the). Given the rest of these selected verses "And the lord provided a great fish (dag gadol) for Jonah, and it swallowed him, and Jonah sat in the belly of the fish (still male) for three days and nights.) Then, from the belly of the (female) fish, Jonah began to pray." It has been interpreted that this means Jonah was comfortable in the roomy male fish, so he didn't pray. However, then, God transferred him to a smaller, female fish, in which Jonah was uncomfortable, so he prayed.
In early Christian art I have seen it sculptured as a sea monster not a whale. Kazuba ( talk) 01:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
What does the Jonah art depict? Have you seen it? The NT was originally written in Greek not Latin. Kazuba ( talk) 15:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I have seen the early Christian art we are discussing. The creature is certainly a sea monster not a whale. If you look hard enough you may find a photo. I found it very interesting. Kazuba ( talk) 19:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Would you be good enough to have a look at these CFDs? I'm feeling rather beleagered by the withering tone of the response, and I suspect the onslaught will continue as ohter members of WikiProject Robotics join the fray. I honestly have no idea what you might want to say about any of my proposals -- and obviously you are welcome to say whatever you like -- but I would appreciate having your calm and common-sensical voice in the discussion. Thanks. Cgingold ( talk) 00:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
--Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This has been nominated again despite a clear keep only a very short time ago. As such I am informing those who last voted for it to get this AfD kicked off. The reasons all seem to consist of invalid arguments like "silly smut" and "don't like it". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Most_Phallic_Building_contest_(2nd_nomination)#Most_Phallic_Building_contest JJJ999 ( talk) 02:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see what you are trying to achieve with your reorgainisation of the photos on this page. They are now all over the place. The lead picture os of a painting executed by an artist who will never even have seen the item exhibted as the Veronica during the Middle Ages and bears only the most tangental relevance to the story. The resized pictures are out of line with the text which describes them, titles are floating loose, the photo of the Veronica chapel is out of place and the whole thing looks a mess. I know others have contibuted to this state of affairs but even so ... what ae you trying to achieve?
-- John Price ( talk) 14:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Please take note that a deletion review has been requested for the category Category:Mononymous persons which was recently decided to be deleted. You receive this notification because you took part in the preceding discussion. __ meco ( talk) 16:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
-- PFHLai ( talk) 21:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Turin-Milan Hours is a wonderful article! Nice work! -- Polylerus ( talk) 22:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I don't know the policy on wp:en. On wp:fr, the policy is to use as few often as possible the titles because it opens the door the a type of
Straw man rhetoric.
Both these information may be considered relevant according to different point of views. So, giving them biased the whole discourse given we already have an a-priori idea of if what will follow is "good" or "bad". We should be as neutral as possible and just report facts and who does so.
If somebody doesn't know Noam Chomsky, he can get all the information at
Noam Chomsky's entry.
We should not say, a way or the other, if Chomsky is worth listening or not.
This can apply to numerous cases.
I am used to write articles about the I/P conflit and I can tell you it is very easy to check articles for Pov-issues in reading the comments that follow or the titles that preceed the names of the people whose analysis are reported.
Think about that : where is it relevant to stop when we describe a guy ? It is extremelly difficult and therefore, it should be done with care.
Ceedjee (
talk)
07:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
In my expansion of the article William Morris, I am looking for a Wikipedia article to link to from the phrase "hierarchy of artistic mediums". Can you point me at a useful treatment? Thanks - PKM ( talk) 17:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
comments taken from User talk:Kevin hipwell-->
Please be sure to use Category:Coins of the Eurozone not the head category if you are doing any more articles. Johnbod ( talk) 18:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
<--comments taken from User talk:Kevin hipwell
sorry to place this here, can you explain what you mean by "head category". Kevin hipwell ( talk) 21:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I have introduced a less-aggressive infobox at Cellini Salt Cellar. Check it out! I'm expecting you to whoop with joy! Remove any image within the infobox if you wish, and display it as usual. A mouseclick on the discreet strip displays the Disnfobox, in all its Disinformative glory. No need to reason endlessly with the unspeakably rude Box People ever again.-- Wetman ( talk) 22:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I've started Merton Abbey Mills (it was just a redirect to Merton (historic parish) before), and added the Pocock watercolour. Your perspective would be welcome. PKM ( talk) 00:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Well done! Amandajm ( talk) 10:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Son of Nick. -- Gwib ( talk) 23:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I did miss the change, but Qp10qp ( talk) let me know - while you were travelling, I think. Terrific news - I would have given this all up as hopelessly frustrating if it had gone the other way. - PKM ( talk) 18:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Good job beefing up the illustration info on Hunterian Psalter. I was working from home, and my ISP is acting a damn fool. I felt I'd left the article in kind of half-assed shape, but I was tired of waiting five minutes for each article preview to load. Glad to see someone else picked up on it so fast. Ford MF ( talk) 15:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that some people reject infoboxes altogether, and so if an infobox is rejected, then an image of the artist's work is perhaps preferable at the top of the article. However, an image in the infobox just isn't appropriate, as per the non-free content criteria- it could be replaced by a free image of the artist. I think having a picture of the artist's work in an infobox isn't particularly appropriate from an editorial standpoint, but that's my opinion, and I don't really know much about art. WikiProject guidelines are useful for helping to build an article, but that does not mean that they supersede any of our other policies. Style guidelines, yes, maybe, but policies concerning legal matters (BLP, copyright) or our primary goals (NPOV, IAR) cannot be overwritten by WikiProject consensus. J Milburn ( talk) 12:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
It is current practice that if a non-free image is valid in an article, then it can be used in an infobox. The exact placing of the non-free image is not the critical point. The critical point is whether it is or is not valid in that article. A non-free image of an artwork cannot be replaced by a free image of the artist. The latter image could only replace a non-free image of the artist. You can't replace an image of an artwork with an image of a person: they are entirely different entities. What you are saying is that if a non-free image of the artist were available, then the images on the page would have to be adjusted differently. That might well apply wherever the non-free artwork image was. There are arguments (though I disagree) that it is preferable to have an image of the artwork in the infobox to having an image of the artist, on the basis that the artwork is the unique identifier for most artists, whereas, for example, one bearded Victorian man looks much like another. In the absence of a suitable image of the artist, then an artwork is fitting - provided of course its general inclusion in the article meets content criteria beyond its place in the infobox. Ty 01:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi John, I looked back through the edit history to see if I could see the evidence of the comment that was removed. Who put the comment there and when?.. as I see you only made two recent changes. Can you supply some evidence of who, when etc? Victuallers ( talk) 19:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
"A4: If some of the text was copied from another Wikipedia article, then the copied text doesn't count toward the 1500 total. Compare G7." Incase you didn't miss is, this is from the citation that you provided. This demonstrates that it does not have to be 5x. It only says, and clearly says, that the imported information does not count towards the 1.5k. Having 2.5k and 5k worth of new text makes it clearly above the threshold. Ottava Rima ( talk) 20:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
If you noticed, the difference was split. The article that was a split (early life) was not included, but the article that was new and contained duplicate information (health) was included in the DYK. Since the early life still has a few more days, it could be resubmitted, but I wont do so until I hear back about how other people feel about the topic. How does that sound? Ottava Rima ( talk) 01:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I restored because your edits were a violation of procedure. However, if you want to put forth an alt nom for your suggestion, please do. Just mark "alt-nom" and put it behind. Ottava Rima ( talk) 19:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help with the Collegiate church in Wislica article. I am not a native speaker, so forgive me all these mistakes. Greetings. Tymek ( talk) 17:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Bit confused regarding your comment...the edit on the Article page prior to mine was clearly a IP user who deleted a block of text from the article with no EDIT summary.. this is detected by VandalFighter as an act of vandalism, I elected to assume good faith and revert it. What did I miss? benjicharlton ( talk) 01:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see what use it is frankly, and it might be better to close it down. The only people who seem to watch the discussion page are you & I & we never agree on anything. Johnbod ( talk) 11:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
If you can find it then I'll add it to this load. Thx for keeping cool! Victuallers ( talk) 14:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Nice one John. I see I changed Bartel to Barthel before you even told me about this article. Not sure now, but I've always seen him (I think) as Barthel. Leave it to you to revert or change the rest. A few more images by different masters would be nice - but I suppose articles shouldn't be overcrowded with pics. N. Nick Michael ( talk) 21:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
-- Wafulz ( talk) 22:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
New DYK you might be interested in here about The Dublin Virginal Manuscript. I hope I've followed all necessary layout and presentation rules, could you cast a critical eye over the article/DYK nomination to see if it meets critera? Thanks, -- Gwib ( talk) 11:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting the inconsistency. I have changed the relevant sentences. Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 11:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod, your comments on the RCC peer review are excellent. I want to thank you for taking the time and effort to give me some seriously intelligent comments that will definitely make the article better. I have been a bit busy getting my house and family ready for hurricane Ike but will begin to address these in the coming week. Thanks again! NancyHeise talk 23:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
--Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, but some had p. and pp., and some didn't. Just standardizing. Regards, Ericoides ( talk) 08:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod, I have addressed all of your comments except for maybe two of them. I will continue to hit those others hopefully in the next day or two. I was wondering if you were satisfied with my responses and actions taken per your comments. NancyHeise talk 02:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey Johnbod, hope all is well. Um, do you have JSTOR access by any chance...trying to get a copy of this Henry Moore article. Liz had been my source, but she seems to be on a break. I think the FAR is going ok so far; Modenist is doing good work and thanks for sorting out the FU business...don't speak image copyright myself and am generally bombared by bots! :( Ceoil sláinte 11:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
You might be able to help here; somebody is trying to identify a 18xx sculpture. [2]. Ceoil sláinte 14:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod, you are a very intelligent and learned person. I would like to know if you are also an artist (I was perusing your user page before coming here to post a legitimate comment about RCC). Legitimate comment: I have finished all comments at the RCC peer review except the one discussed by you and Xandar over the spread of Christianity to northern Europe. I have been busy this weekend but wanted you to know that I intend to answer that last comment after I do a bit of research and will try to come up with an acceptable rewording that includes your recommended wikilinks. NancyHeise talk 01:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod, I have been thinking about your suggested rewrites of the two areas proposed on the peer review but I have some reservations. First, I think that the article has really been maxed out in terms of length and these rewordings are too long. Because they are not a critical or sensitive part of RCC history, I disagree that it would be better to include more information here. I think that the information is important information that can be left to the History of the Roman Catholic Church article and leave the RCC article as more of a summary with less detail. Right now, the history article is pretty detailed and fairly referenced. It is listed as a see also at the top of the history section in the main RCC article. Do you feel differently? Do you think the article will not be FA quality without these longer and more detailed rewordings? Please let me know. I am not opposed to using your rewrites, I am just trying to keep the article length down a bit. NancyHeise talk 01:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
(actually, it turned into more of a rewording with an improvement in the references used - I replaced some of the refs with Bokenkotter's "Concise History of the Catholic Church" which is one of the most oft cited refs on Google scholar) Sorry to mark up your talk page so much! NancyHeise talk 05:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 06:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Your contribution here to my rename category, I suggest changing your "Keep" to "Oppose", "Keep" is used mostly for deletion, so "oppose" is a better word to oppose my renaming suggestion. It's not a big deal if you don't change. Thanks! Ctjf83 Talk 03:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod, I think I am finished with all your peer review comments. I have spent the past hour or so on the references and wording for the spread of Chrisitianity to northern Europe - I used your wording tweaked a bit to comply with the references used. Let me know if you have any problems with the new paragraph and thanks for all your tremendous help on the article, especially the superb peer review you offered. NancyHeise talk 17:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC) To Johnbod, for saving me in a time of difficulty! NancyHeise talk 01:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Pssst hey Johnbod, why don't you see if you can get WikiProject Archaeology or WikiProject Visual arts to add Funerary art to their list of articles for the version 0.7 CD? Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 04:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
ff m 20:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you think a WP:RCU is in order? ff m 12:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 04:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi John,
The only person I have ever heard use the term "gob-smacked" is Simon Lee. I completely agree with your switch to make The Flagellation redirect to Flagellation of Christ. I had been under the false impression that the proper title of this painting was "The Flagellation"; I hadn't realized that it was a generic descriptor. Thanks for making the appropriate hatnote changes as well!
Neelix ( talk) 10:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 16:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I am always happy to receive a pat on the back John, but I can't see why I merit one this time? I had a sudden nasty feeling that I had been named an admin by mistake, but happily that is not the case. I asked Florian if he could understand your message (which funnily enough was sandwiched in my watchlist between Toilet and Cunt - I'm glad watchlists aren't public...), but he's at a loss too.
I haven't been promoted at work, I haven't got divorced and I'm not a pensioner yet. I can only assume that your felicitations were misdirected. All the best, Nick Nick Michael ( talk) 13:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here [4]. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA. NancyHeise talk 23:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand your objections, which I am attempting to work on, but I do find it uncalled for to make fun of my nomination on other FACs... See your comments on Manu Sharma -- Admrboltz ( talk) 19:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Daniel Case ( talk) 02:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)