Johnbod, we are preparing to take the Louvre to FAC and I hoped that you might stop by and comment on the article's breadth--are any subjects too detailed or not detailed enough? Is the attention paid each subject the correct amount? Regards, Lazulilasher ( talk) 19:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Cirt ( talk) 21:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to that straw poll at User talk:Jimbo Wales, I was unaware it had been going on. Was an announcement about this discussion/poll posted anywhere at the start of it? Cheers, Cirt ( talk) 11:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The Purple Barnstar | ||
Because like this barnstar, you stand out with exceptional vibrancy! Ecoleetage ( talk) 20:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
I included a defnition of naval gunfire support in the ariticle. Does this address your concern regarding a definition? TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Would you please review this comment with reference to WP:NFCC and WP:CIVIL, thanks Fasach Nua ( talk) 12:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Good work on the DYK lead hook. Cbl62 ( talk) 22:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Cbl62 ( talk) 22:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Please read my new comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 8. -- Carlaude ( talk) 03:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for removing most of the interwiki links in the article, since once I viewed Polish edition, and the article contains a Wikipedia logo, and I thought the article is about graphics, not printmaking. It looks like a pure bitmal image rather than a printmaking image, and the name "Grafika" looks pretty like "Graphics", and Polish and English languages belong to the Indo-European family. Many of the words in the two languages are cognates, and there're many wrong interwiki links in different Wikipedia editions, so I thought it was a mistake (Of this language family I'm only familiar with English). Next time I'll be more careful while doing interwiki jobs. -- RekishiEJ ( talk) 12:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 07:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the improvements you have made to the article on John Romney. As you will have realised, I am ignorant about the techniques of printmaking, so you have added value to the article; my intention was to have an article about an interesting Cestrian, especially as an excellent article about him has recently been published in Cheshire History. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 10:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod, the discussion at FACR has had another choice added -- I wanted to let you know in case you wanted to change your comment. Mike Christie (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my recent RfA, which passed at 61/0/0. I especially appreciated the support because we have worked together in the past, and likely will in the future. Kind Regards, Lazulilasher ( talk) 23:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Hee-hee! Jesus College seemed to go through a spell under John Rhys of dishing out Hon. Fellowships to anyone vaguely famous with a Welsh accent, but seems to have calmed down recently... A lovely OTT quote, isn't it? Regards, Bencherlite Talk 19:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
If Infoart put the info in, then he would know... However, I think it was a little premature and they were possibly destined for The Triumph of Painting Part VI (new young artists). After Part II the Saatchi Gallery vacated County Hall in a hurry and the rest of the series was postponed. They were not listed in parts I to V, [1] though the gallery does change some things at short notice. Infoart is back and I've just had to have an extensive look at his large edit on the Saatchi Gallery. A lot of promotional editing going on. Ty 03:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Pardon? I don't recall assigning anything to that category. -- User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 01:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Your many DYK articles and time spent reviewing other hooks are appreciated! Royal broil 03:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for appreciating my efforts but for two reasons I will not transfer this award to my award page:
But thanks anyway. Str1977 (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The Minor Barnstar | ||
It wasn't a huge deal, but you were a pleasure to interact with. Cheers. — [ roux ] [ x 15:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks. I'd seen the post and noticed its absence, but didn't know who'd removed it. Have you seen the latest edits on the article - check out the history. This is bizarre. Ty 09:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
There's no point letting trifles like that get in the way! Ty 10:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I see your point. Thanks for explaining it to me. — BQZip01 — talk 14:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I have started a skeleton of Portraiture of Elizabeth I. - PKM ( talk) 18:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I missed all that - just got back from a week offline in NY. I'm not quite sure what should be done there... digging. - PKM ( talk) 19:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Please, by all means, insert anything you think fitting on the architecture and/or missal. I do not have the specialised sources for that sort of thing, and frankly don't have the training either. Help yourself! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I see you've placed categories like Drawing, Photography, and Painting in Category:Art media and out of Category:Visual arts. It seems like these are major types of visual art. Also, Category:Art media is more for the actual physical object required for a work. It makes those big topics hard to find. What am I missing? Was there an arts categorization discussion I missed? -- Clubmarx ( talk) 01:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happier if they could tell left from right. Another variant of this one (or maybe a cut-down original?). - PKM ( talk) 03:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Since you took some interest in this article at PR, I thought you'd like to know that it's now at FAC. Brianboulton ( talk) 23:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for the V0.7 nominations, which just made it in before the deadline! I'm more or less having to review everything myself, and now we are past our deadline I'm having to cut procedural corners to get through the backlog. Therefore instead of posting comments on individual talk pages, I've just given feedback on the (new) page at Wikipedia:Version_0.7_Nominations#Everyday_Life. I've also given my general thoughts there on the selection you nominated, some of which I loved and others which I didn't like. Many thanks for a great nomination, Walkerma ( talk) 08:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I've suggested to Ling.Nut that he takes this to FAC - and with good reason - but he wants a co-nominator to brave the storm. If you do the honours, I'm sure the resulting input (outside of passive voice, forced image soze, dash and comma related demands) would improve the page and give a wider readership. No worries either way. Ceoil sláinte 01:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
hey I'm on the run so just a quick note.. can you look at the respective threads on my talk and User talk:Ceoil for the Funerary art threads, and weigh in? Thanks? Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 01:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I am in so deep on Portraiture of Elizabeth I I can't see it objectively - any help or comments would be appreciated!
Also, I notice User:Qp10qp hasn't posted in over a month - should I be worried? Any idea what's up? - PKM ( talk) 18:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod, thanks for the excellent feedback. I have long galleries etc on my mental list, and I do need to add prints and medals - scanning a replica medal today. Any help you can give on the paintings context would be appreciated, as my references are hyperfocused - I have nothing useful to cite on Bronzino, for example.
The Doran book which I stumbled across yesterday looks very intriguing; her theory is that the portraits commissioned by the courtiers play up the Virgin Queen whereas those commissioned by the crown play up the Protestant ruler, disagreeing in emphasis with what she calls the "Warburg school" meaning Yates and Strong. There are multiple sample chapters online (at the Maritime Museum and also at her publisher). Strong's Gloriana has good stuff on the prints; the William Rogers (if I recall) are thought to be based on the unfinished Oliver miniature, which I also have stacked by the scanner. And Doran has good info about the frontispiece to the Bishops' Bible and the use of Personifications (which tend to be female) with images of Elizabeth as something new in the 1560s. Ties in nicely with the Tudor Succession.
This is going to be one long article. As QP said, the problem isn't the dearth of material, it's the abundance. - PKM ( talk) 17:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Royal broil 05:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. You've participated in the debate about deleting of category:Former Towns of RSK 1991-95 [2]. Now, there's a similar voting on deletion on the article (created, although the results of discussion was delete, not listify). The links to the voting is here merger suggestion?. Since you've participated previously in the discussion, you're invited to participate again. Please, give your opinion. Kubura ( talk) 14:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Please come give us your opinion by voting here [3], Thanks! NancyHeise talk 17:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I have give the article a MAJOR overhaul since your commented at the AfD. It was a total pain-in-my-butt to weed out the fluff and find proper sources. I think he might now been seen as having a minor notability... once I pulled his own HUGE ego out of the article. I can do no more, and my fingers are tired. I will accept your opinion, as I now have to get to work. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey John, could you please indicate what it is you don't like. Currently your second vote is placed somewhere in nomansland. Str1977 (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi John, thanks for leaving an encouraging comment on my talk page on Sept. 9. Unfortunately, User:Fram, an admin, removed overnight almost the entire content (over 20,000 characters). I have started eight Lists, e.g. List of cultural icons of England, Scotland, Germany, France, Italy, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Netherlands. Do you have an opinion on any of this? Thanks, Renata ( talk) 02:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
What??? G.-M. Cupertino ( talk) 16:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Just because many people doesn't do it it doesn't mean we must do it or that there is any rule!... Just because some scum writes Titles or people's Nationalities with minor letters I won't do it. It's the same principle in every case!... And don't trust the Brazilians for good Portuguese!... G.-M. Cupertino ( talk) 17:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
It's an unknown or perhaps new rule, and of course it had to be a wikipedia one, we all know how they are with rules!... I'll still write Poet with a capital P - and I don't even like Poets!... G.-M. Cupertino ( talk) 17:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Too bad!... G.-M. Cupertino ( talk) 17:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I dont suppose I'd get away with two Ingres nom's in one week; but I'd appreciate a sharp eye on Jupiter and Thetis as I am most reliant on the same source as before; and well. Ceoil sláinte 01:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod, any comments that you can make here: [5] and/or here: [6] would be greatly appreciated by me. Thanks.. Modernist ( talk) 03:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod, I've retracted and rethought my previous edit, made in haste this AM, I hope you aren't offended by my change of heart..Thanks... Modernist ( talk) 20:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Xandar conducted a new discussion on the use of "official" our original sentence going into FAC that survived Peer Review and several months of mutliple editors. I have agreed not to vote on this one but to agree to whatever consensus of editors decides. Can you please come back for one more vote here: [7]. Thanks for you help in deciding the matter once and for all. NancyHeise talk 15:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Would you be interested in teaming up (at some point) on an article on the painting The Family of Sir Thomas More in all its incarnations? You know more about Holbein than I ever will. I have tracked down all 3 variants by Rowland Lockey for the commons now, which was a prerequisite in my mind. - PKM ( talk) 19:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Please be specific. These articles seem to belong there. Indeed there is a SHORTAGE of relevant articles in this category. Why don't you write some?-- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 20:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I asked you to be specific. WHICH article does not belong there in your view -- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 21:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize you had deliberately move the Beth Hamedrash Hagadol image up. I'm usually the only person who edits the article, and I was editing it at the time, so I thought I had just made an error in placement. I moved the image downwards because I thought the lower section was more relevant to the turn of the 20th century. The section you put it in is mostly about the 1820s to the 1890s, whereas the picture was taken a few years after that. I can move it back, if you really think it should go higher. Jayjg (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
By the way, there is now a considerable amount of material in the article specifically related to the building, its construction, architecture, materials, modifications, etc. Is it enough to remove your objection to FA status? Jayjg (talk) 06:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Royal broil 06:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks so far for your comments on Frederick III, German Emperor's FA review. I'm asking here because I don't want to clutter the review with this as its a matter of taste I believe. Do you think the image of William I being crowned emperor of Germany should be included with the article? I think it leaves the article just a bit cluttered and isn't entirely needed, especially since the subject of the painting is mostly William I, and Bismarck. Since you put it up though I'd like to hear what you think and if you think the article isn't too cluttered with the image. Thanks! -- Banime ( talk) 16:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey again. The article went through another large copyedit and slight expansion, if you want to look at it again. Thanks for all of your time. -- Banime ( talk) 22:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 20:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I was going to add a section on the development of the figure over time, and perhaps split the Celtic literature material into that.-- Cúchullain t/ c 23:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
for constantly helping me through peer review and FAC and the pages and pages of discussion on Roman Catholic Church. I hope you will be there with me when we go for it again next time (after a few weeks). Thank you for your constant help and kindness. It has really been a joy to work with you on this most interesting project! NancyHeise talk 00:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I am ashamed to admit that I really did have to click on Sisyphus to discover its meaning. Rolling a boulder up a hill I am sure is not more fun than getting RCC through FAC! NancyHeise talk 01:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I too looked, but decided not to revert. I see you did [8] I'm not so sure he was not correct, I'd like to see a reference for that fact, and a good one too. Regards. Giano ( talk) 18:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod. I think the comparison I am making is very valid. The Catholic Church article has been refused FA for a fifth time, due to claims the article is POV by being too positive and not carrying enough criticisms. However the Islam article not only got FA, but got that FA confirmed at FAR this year despite being extremely positive, and not carrying ANY significant criticism. With heavy critics of RCC like Marskell being key determinants in the FAR of Islam, the double-standard is too strong to ignore. It needs correcting, otherwise "being back in the New Year" serves little purpose. On the evidence of Islam, the RCC article needs only to remove ALL negative criticism and mention of Inquisitions, abuse-scandal etc, and it will be FA ready. The issue is also important since anyone using Wikipedia for comparative religion purposes will see A) A Catholic article full of criticisms of the Church on dozens of issues and a highlighting of major negative aspects, and B) An Islam article which glosses over all negative aspects and presents a wholly "clean" and positive image. This is utterly misleading and provides a dangerously false impression. There has to be consistent between articles as well as within them. Xan dar 20:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Fashions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Please can you explain the following ad hominem comment. "all art objects are works of art, by your own definition in the other article." Research Method ( talk) 03:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, sometimes I forgot to use the "+pt", I apologise. -- 89.101.93.81 ( talk) 17:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:KleeSP.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've added a few sentences about Ho Chi Minh using the legacy of Phan Dinh Phung and so forth. YellowMonkey ( click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 05:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi - were you planning to do the split here? The admins & bots don't seem to be planning to. Johnbod ( talk) 02:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting the FAC. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 16:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
While we're at it, Johnbod, do you know anything about the bust on this page? It looks school of the Leoni, but I don't know. I don't think this sort of page is satisfactory (what's a cultural depiction? One can't just have all the portraits), but it serves as a useful deposit for the listy excrescences that amass at the bottom of some articles. I tried to include a range of portrayals, using only decent reproductions (on the whole, but couldn't find a really nice one of the essential Pantoja de la Cruz). A sculpture is needed, but 3D images are in short supply, owing to the copyright issues, which is why I used that one. Just need to fill the caption up. Cheers. qp10qp ( talk) 21:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I can assist as needed on a main-type spinoff of Portraiture of Philip II - I am thinking about Portraiture of Mary I of England (and toying with Portraiture of Mary, Queen of Scots in my masochistic moments - that one's fraught with passion and good-faith misinformation, right up there with Lady Jane Grey.) - PKM ( talk) 17:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey Johnbod, we are about a week away from noming Caspar David Friedrich if you are interested, and your input would certainly be appreciated. There are gaps yet in the bio coverage, and the landscape section is under construction, but these are realitevly easy jobs. As a side note, I was surprised Titian's portrait of Philip II wasn't featured in qp's article there above. I could add a section on that if needed. Ceoil sláinte 04:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi John, I notice that you don't have an "E-mail this user" button. Would you be so kind as to e-mail me instead? It's relatively important. My address is on my user page, or you can use my "E-mail this user" button. Thanks! Proteins ( talk) 18:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
On the category renaming point, I made a new suggestion and would welcome your thoughts. Regards. Redking7 ( talk) 22:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Art Deco's editors are looking for advice. I was wondering if you could offer a more detailed peer review than the one I just posted to the talk page. Art Deco is a little late for me. Awadewit ( talk) 00:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I know that it didn't work with the reward for the core contest and I'm willing to sponsor it by sending a package of quality lebkuchen. All I need is an adress. My email is kurt.scholz[at]gmx.de. In case you have reservations, sending me your adress User:Proteins has agreed to handle the distribution. Greetings Wandalstouring ( talk) 20:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Bravo, Johnbod: top of your form. I'd write "Orléans Collection" in the text throughout, leaving the accent out of the title. (Without the accent I always hear "Or-leens".) When I have a chance to settle down with it, I hope I may add a minor factoid or two, just to say "...and I helped!"... -- Wetman ( talk) 23:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod, would you be able to identify this? I think it's a fresco from the Sistine Chapel, and if so, I need to know from which passage and if it has an individual title. Thanks either way. Ceoil ( talk) 11:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
"I agree WP:OWN is relevant here, the attitude of some members of WP:BIO is reminiscent of the Maasai attitude to cattle - wherever they are in the world, they all belong to them." Brilliant! Execept the Maasai aren't crazy enough to try and brand all the world's cattle as theirs by launching a "drive-by assessment drive". Cheers. -- Folantin ( talk) 13:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
[9] I agree with its removal here and with the edit summary in the context of this article, but not as a general point. The text only mentions it briefly. If the text expanded on this as a significant aspect of the article, then I would see it differently. However, there are far more imporant aspects of the Spanish Civil War to be enlarged in the article, before the painting. Ty 19:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, Guernica per #4 "has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war", but see #5 for other non-iconic images. Ty 00:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes - it's amusing - the real case for fair use can only be made at the article about the image here: Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Funny how people can think fair use is a blanket that allows them to use any image anywhere. Megapixie ( talk) 00:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 20:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, There are a couple of images that refer to a Nicola Porta but he has no page and a simple Google search shows nothing.
Is that name right? Any ideas who he is? A different name? If so, I can do a better search and make a stub-page for him.
Thanks History2007 ( talk) 21:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I guess he is obscure then. I wonder if a notice can be added to the Wikimedia forms to ask people to double check an artist's name against the Getty list before they add an image. That way a lot of those multi-spelling issues can be reduced. Anway, I think I will just let the Porta thing rest then. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 10:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Ottava Rima is creating a huge batch of Milton articles for DYK on December 9th, the 400th anniversary of his birth (Milton's, of course). I am currently working on two articles for William Blake's Illustrations to Milton, [10] [11] and it would be nice if you could write something on John Baptist Medina ( see here). There isn't even an article on him yet, much less his illustrations to Milton. Either that, or you could write something on Dore's illustrations to Milton, on which I'm sure more has been written.
This may not be your era exactly, but I didn't know who else to ask regarding prints.. You could always just help out with my articles once I launch them... I'm hoping that my direct contact with OR will be minimal- right now he's going off on Ceoil at Talk:The Lucy poems.
By the way, I'd like to translate the German wiki article on Ritter, Tod, und Teufel in the next week or two, and I'm sure you will be able to help with that. Maybe some other works by Dürer too, I'll have to see. Thanks, Litho derm 00:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. "thoughtful contributions" was generous and appreciated. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 03:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod, Marskell left some comments on my talk page regarding RCC. Sandy, Karanacs and Malleus also commented. I responded to them but I was wondering what you thought about all this since you have been in on a lot of the conversations throughout the many months we have worked on this. Please let me know if you are in agreement with them - I disagreed. See [12] - Sandy's post is just below it. NancyHeise talk 03:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to this article which appeared in the DYK section today. Rjm at sleepers ( talk) 10:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
These categories should only be used for works written, or at least compiled, in the century concerned. They are categories for texts, not manuscripts. There is no point in adding perfectly standard Gospel etc manuscripts. If you want to add by-century cats, Category:Biblical manuscripts would be the parent to use. Johnbod ( talk) 03:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that was quick... I have been ill and making up late work this weekend, or I would have done more on Blake. There seems to be decent info here (or at least decent images), and here it gives the engraver's name as Michael Burgesse. There's another good- quality illustration here, too... I'll probably go ahead and upload all of them to WMCommons. Litho derm 00:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
"Palma Vecchio" is misleading, as "Vecchio" (or "Giovane") is not the surname, but a nickname (the true surname being another, as I've pointed out in the Palma il Giovane article). Don't you call Lucas Cranach "the Elder" or Bruegel "the Younger"? The fact it is used on most English textbooks, is not relevant, as many are full of errors when dealing with Italian names (Carravagio, Carraci, Bartolommeo... the list is endless). Ciao and good work. -- '''Attilios''' ( talk) 15:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh my gosh, the pressure is killing me :-) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rolando Gomez. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cerejota ( talk) 06:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing in your block log, [14] so I have no idea what's going on. You weren't blocked when you posted to my page, or you wouldn't have been able to. Even if an IP had been blocked, your user name shouldn't have been. It could have been a range block, I suppose, or a bug in the system. Anyway, you have a clean record. Maybe your IP doesn't though - you could look at the block log of your IP to see if there's anything in it. Ty 04:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Vous n’avez pas la permission de modifier cette page, pour la raison suivante :
Votre compte utilisateur ou votre adresse IP « 89.167.221.3 » a été bloqué(e) par Phe pour la raison suivante : proxy ouvert. Ceci signifie que vous pouvez toujours lire l’encyclopédie, mais pas la modifier. Consultez votre page de discussion pour plus de détails. Vous pouvez contacter Phe ou un des autres administrateurs pour en discuter.
Expiration du blocage : 18 décembre 2008 à 20:45
Boff!!! Johnbod ( talk) 04:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Say, if you can spare a few minutes, would you have a look at the CFD for renaming Category:Solidarity & Category:Solidarity activists? For some reason the discussion seems to have stalled out after just a handful of comments, but maybe it will revive if a new editor puts his 2 cents in. Best, Cgingold ( talk) 14:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 18:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Have you any views on whether the Holbein portrait inscribed as above at Windsor should go in the Anne Boleyn article? I've proposed it in the bottom part of this thread. The scholarship is conflicted, but I think there's enough on its side to justify its inclusion, with reservations noted, of course. I'd also like to do a little article on images of Anne (or perhaps one of those "cultural depictions of" thingies), which is a fascinating subject, but I'm put off by the fact that two key items, the medal and the ring, might count as 3D. I'll ask what PKM thinks, as well. qp10qp ( talk) 01:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
A pearl I have just found in the Gregory VII article, cleary taken from an Anglosaxon source of old times: Robert Guiscard defined as DUKE OF NORMANDY!!!!!!! I think the dusty editor who compiled the article confused his "Norman" ethnicity with " Normandy": he clearly did not know at all that existed a powerful Norman state in southern Italy at the time, which, by the way, was far richer and more powerful than England itself at the time. Not to be polemic, but I just wanted to stress how unreliable are some of the sources regarding Italy you could occur to use (consider many continue to propagate as it's renowned that most writers just limit themselves to copy from previous books)... Ciao and good work. -- '''Attilios''' ( talk) 09:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Another nice, recent pearl: Fontana Maggiora in Perugia, from Giovanni Pisano. Eh eh (pardon me for boring you, I promise I'll stop soon but I confess it's a really funny game to find such ridiculous errors... ;-) -- '''Attilios''' ( talk) 10:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I've still got an awful long way to go with Holbein (I'm working on a couple of paragraphs about the religious stuff in a sandbox at the moment, and it will include something on Noli Me Tangere). I haven't really worked on the gallery yet and have loads more scans to upload to Commons. I daresay the images are jostling on some screens, and I'll try looking at the article on small fonts sometime.
A couple of technical questions you may be able to help with. Are centre-positioned images at all the done thing? I think the Christ in his Tomb (which can't be omitted) would fit best across the page, but I've a feeling that's deprecated. Also, do you know a way of making image descriptions (not captions) appear by mouse hovering? I've noticed this, but it seems designed for the visually impaired, so that you are limited to a straight visual description. But I like the idea of readers of the Holbein article being able to hover and see image descriptions, which I will endeavour to make into a referenced paragraph or two. It is going to be impossible to say much about many individual pictures in the actual text, which is frustrating (too many masterpieces). I like what you did with Raphael, but if I eventually went to FA with Holbein, I fear some people would object to the necessary degree of gallerification. qp10qp ( talk) 14:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
When deleting (before restoring) this, you should really have noticed that it was originally a redirect to medal, which should have been left. Hatnote now added. Johnbod ( talk) 01:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Ciao! It's again me... I've recently made many additions for stuff regarding Pistoia, including churches and Giovanni Pisano's St. Andrew Pulpit. If you've time, maybe you can help improving my mediocre English. Ciao and thanks by -- '''Attilios''' ( talk) 10:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
File:Well of Moses at CMArt.JPG. Have you checked categories at Commons? I tagged it with the museum it was taken in ( Carnegie Museum of Art in Pittsburgh).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your five-word contribution to William Buchan, 3rd Baron Tweedsmuir, which I appreciate after having spent hours creating it with four sources, but perhaps the next time you donate your knowledge to the rest of humanity you could keep your bile to yourself rather than upchucking it into the edit summary [15], since the encyclopedia is better off when editors are encouraged rather than spat on. Reconsideration ( talk) 16:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Seems to be OK now. [16] Ty 01:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
[17]. Ty 03:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Good article, but where does the information about the leaf in the Getty originate from? Muttley0702 ( talk) 13:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to get another opinion on this. I'm coming to you because you have extensive experience with CfD and Christianity. What is your take on Category:Christian genre types? It seems like a really odd and arbitrary grouping as is. Does it make sense to you? Does it need clean up, or is it even salvageable? Thanks for your input.- Andrew c [talk] 18:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Ciao John! I've just added a Holy Conversation (Piero della Francesca). Maybe you could be interested. I seem I wrote better than usual... hope there aren't too many errors. Ciao and good work. -- '''Attilios''' ( talk) 09:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod, I'm having difficulty selecting a lead image for Lucy poems, the temptaion is to just go with a Wordsworth portrait, but I'D prefer to use something along the lines of this, if I could find anything that was inspired, even in part, by the series, or even by Lyrical Ballads. Any ideas? Thanks. Ceoil ( talk) 17:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for removing me from the category! LOL. However, as things stand it is a highly misleading category, as it doesn't contain any of the notable works one would expect in such a category, only as you say unclassifiable ones. "Contemporary" is dodgy as it's likely to be sabotaged by time. I'd urge a rethink here. Painstation for example could be classified as interactive art. Better to construct a durable system. Ty 00:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod. Please explain your removal of [[Category:Painting]] from Haiga here. Thanks. -- Yumegusa ( talk) 17:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear John. The two-paragraph China section you added to the wiki on Genocides in history was clear and well-written, and was obviously made in good faith. I reverted it because there has been controversy in the talk page that you were probably not aware of. Because of this controversy, I think it would be better to go through the talk page and reach a consensus there before we decide to re-open a China section. I hope this is all right with you. This would also be fairer to those whose text has been deleted for lack of two reliable sources making an explicit claim of genocide. If you're interested, I just finished a long post on the talk page with many suggestions on how to re-open a China section. After consulting your user page, I also see that you've done truly amazing work on art and art history! Congratulations, and keep up the good work. Cheers, Madalibi ( talk) 02:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 12:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Ecoleetage (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
History2007 ( talk) 14:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Likewise. Many thanks for all the wonderful articles you've added this year. I have read a good few of them and have learned a lot. They are among the most enjoyable and interesting articles on Wikipedia for me. qp10qp ( talk) 14:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Johnbod. Do you have any interest in Korean art, especially Goryeo celadon (also spelled as Koryo celadon)? I've noticed that you've created valuable articles regarding visual arts. The subject would be top or high rating to Korean project, but Wikipedia does not have the article yet. Ive always wanted to create the article, but my English and knowledge are limited to the sophisticated topic. Therefore, if you're interested in Asian subject, could you create it? This is a mere suggestion, so if you can freely turn down it. Thanks, and merry Christmas!-- Caspian blue 19:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; at some point, our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!
In several articles I have found wrong categories. For instance in manuscripts of New Testament from the 10th century. They were categorised as Christian texts from the 10th century. They are only copies of text from the first century. I found also wrong categories in artiecles Biblical criticism, Textual criticism, Eusebian Canons. Why do we need Category:Christian genre types. Carlaude is not only one person, who edit in my articles, but he is one who does not understand subject of this articles. This problem is old - about six months - several users explained to him many times, but he do the same again and again. I really have enough. All we need editors, who support our work, but this kind of editions do not help for us. As you said: "I wish you would consult with local editors before setting up all these categories!" Merry Christmas. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 03:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
A Merry Christmas to you and yours! - PKM ( talk) 04:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, not sure what happened here, when you restored a lot of his old deleted conversations. Since users can remove anything they wish from the active user talk page, and he'd previously removed all that, I undid that. rootology ( C)( T) 23:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Self-awarded, as I wrote most of the version featured, after it was nomed. Johnbod ( talk) 17:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I'm close to taking The Raft of the Medusa to FAC, but would appreciate if you could cast your usual weary eye over the text before the final push. If you are taken with other projects, no worries. Ceoil ( talk) 02:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Jean Malouel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Sandstein 14:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I noticed your contributions and invite you to weigh in on the subject. Nativity of Jesus in art and Nativity of Jesus in later culture have a potentially unclear area between them: where is visual art of the 20th century to go? I have started a discussion here and would welcome your comments there. BrainyBabe ( talk) 18:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, do you have anything you can add from JSTOR about this painter? If you do, perhaps we can DYK it. Thanks, Litho derm 00:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Litho derm 02:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the message. I do not understand your reasoning for your sudden and unilateral changes to long standing categories, my argument for restoration is based on maintaining the status quo until consensus is reached. I would be happy with slimmed down categories but this needs to be by agreement with the community. Therefore I will revert pending discussion and agreement. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.22.238 ( talk) 06:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Sandstein 20:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you look at [ CFD] again? Unfortunately I made the error of typing 1696 when I meant 1596. This makes a great difference! I repeat that an ambassador is an envoy from the monarch, not from his ministers. Unless some one will provide evidence of separate embassies from the Stuart kings after 1603 as king of Scotland, distinct from those as king of England, I say that the mereger should go ahead. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, sorry. I understand how it works now.
By the way, thank you for your help with the Church of the Transfiguration. -- Fipplet ( talk) 14:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Category:Francis Bacon works, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. (I'm sure you probably would have seen this nomination in the course of your consistent CfD participations but I usually notify creators ...) Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am Arilang1234. There is now discussion between me and user Madalibi regarding the naming of Chinese Holocaust on my user talk page, would you come to the discussion and give us your opinions? Thanks. Arilang talk 22:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Medallist, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Victor Lopes ( talk) 17:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
As I suggested, I was offended by your comment: ""Country equates a political division" is neither true, nor if I may say so, very grammatical for someone sporting a "native speaker of English" userbox." I hope you can see why, if you were in my shoes. 86.149.49.231 ( talk) 00:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I thankyou every much for your contributions to Country as I believe these are the kinds of contributions the article needs most. Because I am trying to get Country to GA (and then, hopefully FA) standards, I would appreciate knowing where you got the information you added to the article so that I can reference it, thus improving the quality of the article and bringing it that bit closer to FA. Thanks. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Please be a little less patronizing, especially with "Gulp....you're joking, right?". BlueVine ( talk) 21:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I have decided to withdraw my nom, based on your highlight of Princeton 5, which I had misread earlier. I want to thank you from a professional stand-point for improving my understanding of the definition of a country. From a personal stand-point, though, I found you to very rude and patronizing, as has been noted by another user. Based on your lack of response to a previous statement by me to that effect, I presume you acknowledge as well those attitudes were yours. However, as I said again, from a professional stand-point, thank you. 217.44.215.61 ( talk) 21:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Would greatly appreciate if you have a chance to glance at this article and see if there are any art/architecture angles I've missed? It's not yet quite ready for copyediting and taking to FAC (I still need to expand the lead somewhat, and I have a couple of books still making their way towards me) but it's getting pretty close. Your help would be greatly appreciated! Better to find out now than at FAC! Ealdgyth - Talk 05:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Johnbod. I don't think we've crossed paths much, but User:Lazulilasher mentioned your name on IRC in a discussion about possible RfA candidates, and when I started looking, I have to say I was very impressed with what I saw. You're probably aware that we're having a chronic shortage of good RfA candidates lately, and I'd like to nominate you for adminship, if you're willing. Your work with articles appears excellent; Lazu tells me that you're more than willing to work with people (he mentioned the Louvre FAC where you opposed him, specifically); your reasonings at CFD and DRV appear to be very well informed; and I've found nothing to indicate that you shouldn't be trusted with the tools. I think you'd be a valuable asset to the project with the extra buttons. Please let me know if you're willing to run, as well as if you have any questions or concerns. Happy editing! Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 17:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the kind words, both of you! I have been asked before, and I'm still sure I don't want to be an admin. I'm useless at the techical (templates etc) side, don't know much about some of the necessary areas of policy, and generally think my time here is best spent on article-writing. I probably spend too much time on talking pages as it is. I notice on my intermittent visits to Rfa there has been a shortage of candidates lately, & maybe an increase in expectations of them. So good luck with the search! Thanks again. Johnbod ( talk) 20:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I've expanded the titular article, but have exhausted my one source-- if you can expand this further it can go up for DYK. And, yes, I know it isn't the right artist. Thanks, Litho derm 21:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
One more thing... I'm not sure if I can accurately refer to his engravings as incunabula, as I have in Ferdinand Columbus. In Incunabulum I read "In printing, an incunabulum is a book, single sheet, or image that was printed — not handwritten — before the year 1501 in Europe." -----yet----- "There are two types of incunabula in printing: the block-book... and the typographic... Many authors reserve the term incunabula for the typographic ones only." Could you help clear this up for me? Litho derm 01:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your note. There's clearly a need to work this out as my expertise doesn't go that far; I've dropped some ideas/rationales on Talk:ceramics in hope that we can come up with some system of categories. Is there somewhere else we can go to attract more decorative arts eyes to look into this? Mangoe ( talk) 16:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I've restored the article. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 02:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 04:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I think I fixed the Royal Academy thing. How was Christmas? We had the nine lessons and carols, with a choir and all, in a tiny weatherboard church that seats about 100 people at a squeeze, in a village on the side of a mountain. Christmas dinner on the verandah was cold spread, but with the traditional blazing plum pudding of course! Happy New Year! Amandajm ( talk) 11:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Long live Breaker Morant and the thousands of other Australians who volunteered for the Boer War! Ty 14:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I hope you're feeling better! 45,000 edits! Wow. Do you save after every word, or what?
Seriously, I been having a little go at St Chad's Cathedral and St Philip's Cathedral, Birmingham. Do you know anything about them? I've been to St Philip's but never to St Chad's. Can you please check out what I've written, for glaring errors? Amandajm ( talk) 13:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I've done it the wrong way. I'll put it back and leave a note. Marshall46 ( talk) 00:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I think people would be shocked to see its length! Lol. Alright, then, I'm game. Can't wait to see the responses (if there will be any).-- Pericles of Athens Talk 17:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Ciao John... how are you? I've just finished Madonna del Bordone by [Coppo di Marcovaldo]]. As usual, if you can you can help me with tweaks about English and art languge. Thanks very much and have fun! -- '''Attilios''' ( talk) 09:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm following up on your comments here, particularly about Medeshamstede. The article seemed to imply that Medehamstede was destroyed in the 9th century and a monastery was established later nearly 100 years later, ie, not continuous, which grew into the current city. ("Nothing is known of Medeshamstede's history from the later 9th century, when it is traditionally believed to have been destroyed by Vikings, until the later 10th century, when it was restored as a Benedictine abbey...") On that basis, I tagged the article as a "lost/former settlement". I'd like to consider your reservations and resolve the problems - which other examples are "dodgy"? Regards. Folks at 137 ( talk) 22:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I began a Request for Mediation here [21] and listed you as a party. Please sign your name here [22] to agree to participate. Thanks. NancyHeise talk 06:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm starting to read my sources on Duerer's Knight, Death, and the Devil, and have not found so far any indication of how many copies are known to exist. Can you find anything? By the way, you have a belated DYK [23].... Litho derm 04:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 07:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Student7 ( talk) 12:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Ciao! Maybe you'd be gently interested in little tweaks in my new masterwork (?), Carrara Cathedral... ciao and thanks. -- '''Attilios''' ( talk) 09:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. It was a rather stupid error on my part. My apologies. Cheers, Pigman ☿ 17:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod, Thanks to your excellent work the raft has become a FA....thanks.. Modernist ( talk) 00:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstar of High Culture | ||
Congratulations Johnbod for bringing The Raft of the Medusa to FA and for adding so much historical insight ... Modernist ( talk) 01:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC) |
Johnbod, we are preparing to take the Louvre to FAC and I hoped that you might stop by and comment on the article's breadth--are any subjects too detailed or not detailed enough? Is the attention paid each subject the correct amount? Regards, Lazulilasher ( talk) 19:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Cirt ( talk) 21:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to that straw poll at User talk:Jimbo Wales, I was unaware it had been going on. Was an announcement about this discussion/poll posted anywhere at the start of it? Cheers, Cirt ( talk) 11:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The Purple Barnstar | ||
Because like this barnstar, you stand out with exceptional vibrancy! Ecoleetage ( talk) 20:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
I included a defnition of naval gunfire support in the ariticle. Does this address your concern regarding a definition? TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Would you please review this comment with reference to WP:NFCC and WP:CIVIL, thanks Fasach Nua ( talk) 12:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Good work on the DYK lead hook. Cbl62 ( talk) 22:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Cbl62 ( talk) 22:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Please read my new comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 8. -- Carlaude ( talk) 03:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for removing most of the interwiki links in the article, since once I viewed Polish edition, and the article contains a Wikipedia logo, and I thought the article is about graphics, not printmaking. It looks like a pure bitmal image rather than a printmaking image, and the name "Grafika" looks pretty like "Graphics", and Polish and English languages belong to the Indo-European family. Many of the words in the two languages are cognates, and there're many wrong interwiki links in different Wikipedia editions, so I thought it was a mistake (Of this language family I'm only familiar with English). Next time I'll be more careful while doing interwiki jobs. -- RekishiEJ ( talk) 12:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 07:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the improvements you have made to the article on John Romney. As you will have realised, I am ignorant about the techniques of printmaking, so you have added value to the article; my intention was to have an article about an interesting Cestrian, especially as an excellent article about him has recently been published in Cheshire History. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 10:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod, the discussion at FACR has had another choice added -- I wanted to let you know in case you wanted to change your comment. Mike Christie (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my recent RfA, which passed at 61/0/0. I especially appreciated the support because we have worked together in the past, and likely will in the future. Kind Regards, Lazulilasher ( talk) 23:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Hee-hee! Jesus College seemed to go through a spell under John Rhys of dishing out Hon. Fellowships to anyone vaguely famous with a Welsh accent, but seems to have calmed down recently... A lovely OTT quote, isn't it? Regards, Bencherlite Talk 19:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
If Infoart put the info in, then he would know... However, I think it was a little premature and they were possibly destined for The Triumph of Painting Part VI (new young artists). After Part II the Saatchi Gallery vacated County Hall in a hurry and the rest of the series was postponed. They were not listed in parts I to V, [1] though the gallery does change some things at short notice. Infoart is back and I've just had to have an extensive look at his large edit on the Saatchi Gallery. A lot of promotional editing going on. Ty 03:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Pardon? I don't recall assigning anything to that category. -- User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 01:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Your many DYK articles and time spent reviewing other hooks are appreciated! Royal broil 03:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for appreciating my efforts but for two reasons I will not transfer this award to my award page:
But thanks anyway. Str1977 (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The Minor Barnstar | ||
It wasn't a huge deal, but you were a pleasure to interact with. Cheers. — [ roux ] [ x 15:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks. I'd seen the post and noticed its absence, but didn't know who'd removed it. Have you seen the latest edits on the article - check out the history. This is bizarre. Ty 09:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
There's no point letting trifles like that get in the way! Ty 10:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I see your point. Thanks for explaining it to me. — BQZip01 — talk 14:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I have started a skeleton of Portraiture of Elizabeth I. - PKM ( talk) 18:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I missed all that - just got back from a week offline in NY. I'm not quite sure what should be done there... digging. - PKM ( talk) 19:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Please, by all means, insert anything you think fitting on the architecture and/or missal. I do not have the specialised sources for that sort of thing, and frankly don't have the training either. Help yourself! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I see you've placed categories like Drawing, Photography, and Painting in Category:Art media and out of Category:Visual arts. It seems like these are major types of visual art. Also, Category:Art media is more for the actual physical object required for a work. It makes those big topics hard to find. What am I missing? Was there an arts categorization discussion I missed? -- Clubmarx ( talk) 01:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happier if they could tell left from right. Another variant of this one (or maybe a cut-down original?). - PKM ( talk) 03:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Since you took some interest in this article at PR, I thought you'd like to know that it's now at FAC. Brianboulton ( talk) 23:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for the V0.7 nominations, which just made it in before the deadline! I'm more or less having to review everything myself, and now we are past our deadline I'm having to cut procedural corners to get through the backlog. Therefore instead of posting comments on individual talk pages, I've just given feedback on the (new) page at Wikipedia:Version_0.7_Nominations#Everyday_Life. I've also given my general thoughts there on the selection you nominated, some of which I loved and others which I didn't like. Many thanks for a great nomination, Walkerma ( talk) 08:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I've suggested to Ling.Nut that he takes this to FAC - and with good reason - but he wants a co-nominator to brave the storm. If you do the honours, I'm sure the resulting input (outside of passive voice, forced image soze, dash and comma related demands) would improve the page and give a wider readership. No worries either way. Ceoil sláinte 01:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
hey I'm on the run so just a quick note.. can you look at the respective threads on my talk and User talk:Ceoil for the Funerary art threads, and weigh in? Thanks? Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 01:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I am in so deep on Portraiture of Elizabeth I I can't see it objectively - any help or comments would be appreciated!
Also, I notice User:Qp10qp hasn't posted in over a month - should I be worried? Any idea what's up? - PKM ( talk) 18:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod, thanks for the excellent feedback. I have long galleries etc on my mental list, and I do need to add prints and medals - scanning a replica medal today. Any help you can give on the paintings context would be appreciated, as my references are hyperfocused - I have nothing useful to cite on Bronzino, for example.
The Doran book which I stumbled across yesterday looks very intriguing; her theory is that the portraits commissioned by the courtiers play up the Virgin Queen whereas those commissioned by the crown play up the Protestant ruler, disagreeing in emphasis with what she calls the "Warburg school" meaning Yates and Strong. There are multiple sample chapters online (at the Maritime Museum and also at her publisher). Strong's Gloriana has good stuff on the prints; the William Rogers (if I recall) are thought to be based on the unfinished Oliver miniature, which I also have stacked by the scanner. And Doran has good info about the frontispiece to the Bishops' Bible and the use of Personifications (which tend to be female) with images of Elizabeth as something new in the 1560s. Ties in nicely with the Tudor Succession.
This is going to be one long article. As QP said, the problem isn't the dearth of material, it's the abundance. - PKM ( talk) 17:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Royal broil 05:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. You've participated in the debate about deleting of category:Former Towns of RSK 1991-95 [2]. Now, there's a similar voting on deletion on the article (created, although the results of discussion was delete, not listify). The links to the voting is here merger suggestion?. Since you've participated previously in the discussion, you're invited to participate again. Please, give your opinion. Kubura ( talk) 14:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Please come give us your opinion by voting here [3], Thanks! NancyHeise talk 17:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I have give the article a MAJOR overhaul since your commented at the AfD. It was a total pain-in-my-butt to weed out the fluff and find proper sources. I think he might now been seen as having a minor notability... once I pulled his own HUGE ego out of the article. I can do no more, and my fingers are tired. I will accept your opinion, as I now have to get to work. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey John, could you please indicate what it is you don't like. Currently your second vote is placed somewhere in nomansland. Str1977 (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi John, thanks for leaving an encouraging comment on my talk page on Sept. 9. Unfortunately, User:Fram, an admin, removed overnight almost the entire content (over 20,000 characters). I have started eight Lists, e.g. List of cultural icons of England, Scotland, Germany, France, Italy, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Netherlands. Do you have an opinion on any of this? Thanks, Renata ( talk) 02:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
What??? G.-M. Cupertino ( talk) 16:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Just because many people doesn't do it it doesn't mean we must do it or that there is any rule!... Just because some scum writes Titles or people's Nationalities with minor letters I won't do it. It's the same principle in every case!... And don't trust the Brazilians for good Portuguese!... G.-M. Cupertino ( talk) 17:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
It's an unknown or perhaps new rule, and of course it had to be a wikipedia one, we all know how they are with rules!... I'll still write Poet with a capital P - and I don't even like Poets!... G.-M. Cupertino ( talk) 17:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Too bad!... G.-M. Cupertino ( talk) 17:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I dont suppose I'd get away with two Ingres nom's in one week; but I'd appreciate a sharp eye on Jupiter and Thetis as I am most reliant on the same source as before; and well. Ceoil sláinte 01:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod, any comments that you can make here: [5] and/or here: [6] would be greatly appreciated by me. Thanks.. Modernist ( talk) 03:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod, I've retracted and rethought my previous edit, made in haste this AM, I hope you aren't offended by my change of heart..Thanks... Modernist ( talk) 20:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Xandar conducted a new discussion on the use of "official" our original sentence going into FAC that survived Peer Review and several months of mutliple editors. I have agreed not to vote on this one but to agree to whatever consensus of editors decides. Can you please come back for one more vote here: [7]. Thanks for you help in deciding the matter once and for all. NancyHeise talk 15:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Would you be interested in teaming up (at some point) on an article on the painting The Family of Sir Thomas More in all its incarnations? You know more about Holbein than I ever will. I have tracked down all 3 variants by Rowland Lockey for the commons now, which was a prerequisite in my mind. - PKM ( talk) 19:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Please be specific. These articles seem to belong there. Indeed there is a SHORTAGE of relevant articles in this category. Why don't you write some?-- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 20:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I asked you to be specific. WHICH article does not belong there in your view -- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 21:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize you had deliberately move the Beth Hamedrash Hagadol image up. I'm usually the only person who edits the article, and I was editing it at the time, so I thought I had just made an error in placement. I moved the image downwards because I thought the lower section was more relevant to the turn of the 20th century. The section you put it in is mostly about the 1820s to the 1890s, whereas the picture was taken a few years after that. I can move it back, if you really think it should go higher. Jayjg (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
By the way, there is now a considerable amount of material in the article specifically related to the building, its construction, architecture, materials, modifications, etc. Is it enough to remove your objection to FA status? Jayjg (talk) 06:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Royal broil 06:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks so far for your comments on Frederick III, German Emperor's FA review. I'm asking here because I don't want to clutter the review with this as its a matter of taste I believe. Do you think the image of William I being crowned emperor of Germany should be included with the article? I think it leaves the article just a bit cluttered and isn't entirely needed, especially since the subject of the painting is mostly William I, and Bismarck. Since you put it up though I'd like to hear what you think and if you think the article isn't too cluttered with the image. Thanks! -- Banime ( talk) 16:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey again. The article went through another large copyedit and slight expansion, if you want to look at it again. Thanks for all of your time. -- Banime ( talk) 22:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 20:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I was going to add a section on the development of the figure over time, and perhaps split the Celtic literature material into that.-- Cúchullain t/ c 23:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
for constantly helping me through peer review and FAC and the pages and pages of discussion on Roman Catholic Church. I hope you will be there with me when we go for it again next time (after a few weeks). Thank you for your constant help and kindness. It has really been a joy to work with you on this most interesting project! NancyHeise talk 00:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I am ashamed to admit that I really did have to click on Sisyphus to discover its meaning. Rolling a boulder up a hill I am sure is not more fun than getting RCC through FAC! NancyHeise talk 01:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I too looked, but decided not to revert. I see you did [8] I'm not so sure he was not correct, I'd like to see a reference for that fact, and a good one too. Regards. Giano ( talk) 18:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod. I think the comparison I am making is very valid. The Catholic Church article has been refused FA for a fifth time, due to claims the article is POV by being too positive and not carrying enough criticisms. However the Islam article not only got FA, but got that FA confirmed at FAR this year despite being extremely positive, and not carrying ANY significant criticism. With heavy critics of RCC like Marskell being key determinants in the FAR of Islam, the double-standard is too strong to ignore. It needs correcting, otherwise "being back in the New Year" serves little purpose. On the evidence of Islam, the RCC article needs only to remove ALL negative criticism and mention of Inquisitions, abuse-scandal etc, and it will be FA ready. The issue is also important since anyone using Wikipedia for comparative religion purposes will see A) A Catholic article full of criticisms of the Church on dozens of issues and a highlighting of major negative aspects, and B) An Islam article which glosses over all negative aspects and presents a wholly "clean" and positive image. This is utterly misleading and provides a dangerously false impression. There has to be consistent between articles as well as within them. Xan dar 20:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Fashions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Please can you explain the following ad hominem comment. "all art objects are works of art, by your own definition in the other article." Research Method ( talk) 03:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, sometimes I forgot to use the "+pt", I apologise. -- 89.101.93.81 ( talk) 17:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:KleeSP.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've added a few sentences about Ho Chi Minh using the legacy of Phan Dinh Phung and so forth. YellowMonkey ( click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 05:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi - were you planning to do the split here? The admins & bots don't seem to be planning to. Johnbod ( talk) 02:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting the FAC. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 16:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
While we're at it, Johnbod, do you know anything about the bust on this page? It looks school of the Leoni, but I don't know. I don't think this sort of page is satisfactory (what's a cultural depiction? One can't just have all the portraits), but it serves as a useful deposit for the listy excrescences that amass at the bottom of some articles. I tried to include a range of portrayals, using only decent reproductions (on the whole, but couldn't find a really nice one of the essential Pantoja de la Cruz). A sculpture is needed, but 3D images are in short supply, owing to the copyright issues, which is why I used that one. Just need to fill the caption up. Cheers. qp10qp ( talk) 21:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I can assist as needed on a main-type spinoff of Portraiture of Philip II - I am thinking about Portraiture of Mary I of England (and toying with Portraiture of Mary, Queen of Scots in my masochistic moments - that one's fraught with passion and good-faith misinformation, right up there with Lady Jane Grey.) - PKM ( talk) 17:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey Johnbod, we are about a week away from noming Caspar David Friedrich if you are interested, and your input would certainly be appreciated. There are gaps yet in the bio coverage, and the landscape section is under construction, but these are realitevly easy jobs. As a side note, I was surprised Titian's portrait of Philip II wasn't featured in qp's article there above. I could add a section on that if needed. Ceoil sláinte 04:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi John, I notice that you don't have an "E-mail this user" button. Would you be so kind as to e-mail me instead? It's relatively important. My address is on my user page, or you can use my "E-mail this user" button. Thanks! Proteins ( talk) 18:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
On the category renaming point, I made a new suggestion and would welcome your thoughts. Regards. Redking7 ( talk) 22:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Art Deco's editors are looking for advice. I was wondering if you could offer a more detailed peer review than the one I just posted to the talk page. Art Deco is a little late for me. Awadewit ( talk) 00:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I know that it didn't work with the reward for the core contest and I'm willing to sponsor it by sending a package of quality lebkuchen. All I need is an adress. My email is kurt.scholz[at]gmx.de. In case you have reservations, sending me your adress User:Proteins has agreed to handle the distribution. Greetings Wandalstouring ( talk) 20:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Bravo, Johnbod: top of your form. I'd write "Orléans Collection" in the text throughout, leaving the accent out of the title. (Without the accent I always hear "Or-leens".) When I have a chance to settle down with it, I hope I may add a minor factoid or two, just to say "...and I helped!"... -- Wetman ( talk) 23:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod, would you be able to identify this? I think it's a fresco from the Sistine Chapel, and if so, I need to know from which passage and if it has an individual title. Thanks either way. Ceoil ( talk) 11:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
"I agree WP:OWN is relevant here, the attitude of some members of WP:BIO is reminiscent of the Maasai attitude to cattle - wherever they are in the world, they all belong to them." Brilliant! Execept the Maasai aren't crazy enough to try and brand all the world's cattle as theirs by launching a "drive-by assessment drive". Cheers. -- Folantin ( talk) 13:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
[9] I agree with its removal here and with the edit summary in the context of this article, but not as a general point. The text only mentions it briefly. If the text expanded on this as a significant aspect of the article, then I would see it differently. However, there are far more imporant aspects of the Spanish Civil War to be enlarged in the article, before the painting. Ty 19:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, Guernica per #4 "has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war", but see #5 for other non-iconic images. Ty 00:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes - it's amusing - the real case for fair use can only be made at the article about the image here: Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Funny how people can think fair use is a blanket that allows them to use any image anywhere. Megapixie ( talk) 00:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 20:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, There are a couple of images that refer to a Nicola Porta but he has no page and a simple Google search shows nothing.
Is that name right? Any ideas who he is? A different name? If so, I can do a better search and make a stub-page for him.
Thanks History2007 ( talk) 21:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I guess he is obscure then. I wonder if a notice can be added to the Wikimedia forms to ask people to double check an artist's name against the Getty list before they add an image. That way a lot of those multi-spelling issues can be reduced. Anway, I think I will just let the Porta thing rest then. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 10:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Ottava Rima is creating a huge batch of Milton articles for DYK on December 9th, the 400th anniversary of his birth (Milton's, of course). I am currently working on two articles for William Blake's Illustrations to Milton, [10] [11] and it would be nice if you could write something on John Baptist Medina ( see here). There isn't even an article on him yet, much less his illustrations to Milton. Either that, or you could write something on Dore's illustrations to Milton, on which I'm sure more has been written.
This may not be your era exactly, but I didn't know who else to ask regarding prints.. You could always just help out with my articles once I launch them... I'm hoping that my direct contact with OR will be minimal- right now he's going off on Ceoil at Talk:The Lucy poems.
By the way, I'd like to translate the German wiki article on Ritter, Tod, und Teufel in the next week or two, and I'm sure you will be able to help with that. Maybe some other works by Dürer too, I'll have to see. Thanks, Litho derm 00:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. "thoughtful contributions" was generous and appreciated. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 03:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod, Marskell left some comments on my talk page regarding RCC. Sandy, Karanacs and Malleus also commented. I responded to them but I was wondering what you thought about all this since you have been in on a lot of the conversations throughout the many months we have worked on this. Please let me know if you are in agreement with them - I disagreed. See [12] - Sandy's post is just below it. NancyHeise talk 03:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to this article which appeared in the DYK section today. Rjm at sleepers ( talk) 10:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
These categories should only be used for works written, or at least compiled, in the century concerned. They are categories for texts, not manuscripts. There is no point in adding perfectly standard Gospel etc manuscripts. If you want to add by-century cats, Category:Biblical manuscripts would be the parent to use. Johnbod ( talk) 03:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that was quick... I have been ill and making up late work this weekend, or I would have done more on Blake. There seems to be decent info here (or at least decent images), and here it gives the engraver's name as Michael Burgesse. There's another good- quality illustration here, too... I'll probably go ahead and upload all of them to WMCommons. Litho derm 00:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
"Palma Vecchio" is misleading, as "Vecchio" (or "Giovane") is not the surname, but a nickname (the true surname being another, as I've pointed out in the Palma il Giovane article). Don't you call Lucas Cranach "the Elder" or Bruegel "the Younger"? The fact it is used on most English textbooks, is not relevant, as many are full of errors when dealing with Italian names (Carravagio, Carraci, Bartolommeo... the list is endless). Ciao and good work. -- '''Attilios''' ( talk) 15:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh my gosh, the pressure is killing me :-) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rolando Gomez. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cerejota ( talk) 06:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing in your block log, [14] so I have no idea what's going on. You weren't blocked when you posted to my page, or you wouldn't have been able to. Even if an IP had been blocked, your user name shouldn't have been. It could have been a range block, I suppose, or a bug in the system. Anyway, you have a clean record. Maybe your IP doesn't though - you could look at the block log of your IP to see if there's anything in it. Ty 04:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Vous n’avez pas la permission de modifier cette page, pour la raison suivante :
Votre compte utilisateur ou votre adresse IP « 89.167.221.3 » a été bloqué(e) par Phe pour la raison suivante : proxy ouvert. Ceci signifie que vous pouvez toujours lire l’encyclopédie, mais pas la modifier. Consultez votre page de discussion pour plus de détails. Vous pouvez contacter Phe ou un des autres administrateurs pour en discuter.
Expiration du blocage : 18 décembre 2008 à 20:45
Boff!!! Johnbod ( talk) 04:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Say, if you can spare a few minutes, would you have a look at the CFD for renaming Category:Solidarity & Category:Solidarity activists? For some reason the discussion seems to have stalled out after just a handful of comments, but maybe it will revive if a new editor puts his 2 cents in. Best, Cgingold ( talk) 14:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 18:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Have you any views on whether the Holbein portrait inscribed as above at Windsor should go in the Anne Boleyn article? I've proposed it in the bottom part of this thread. The scholarship is conflicted, but I think there's enough on its side to justify its inclusion, with reservations noted, of course. I'd also like to do a little article on images of Anne (or perhaps one of those "cultural depictions of" thingies), which is a fascinating subject, but I'm put off by the fact that two key items, the medal and the ring, might count as 3D. I'll ask what PKM thinks, as well. qp10qp ( talk) 01:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
A pearl I have just found in the Gregory VII article, cleary taken from an Anglosaxon source of old times: Robert Guiscard defined as DUKE OF NORMANDY!!!!!!! I think the dusty editor who compiled the article confused his "Norman" ethnicity with " Normandy": he clearly did not know at all that existed a powerful Norman state in southern Italy at the time, which, by the way, was far richer and more powerful than England itself at the time. Not to be polemic, but I just wanted to stress how unreliable are some of the sources regarding Italy you could occur to use (consider many continue to propagate as it's renowned that most writers just limit themselves to copy from previous books)... Ciao and good work. -- '''Attilios''' ( talk) 09:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Another nice, recent pearl: Fontana Maggiora in Perugia, from Giovanni Pisano. Eh eh (pardon me for boring you, I promise I'll stop soon but I confess it's a really funny game to find such ridiculous errors... ;-) -- '''Attilios''' ( talk) 10:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I've still got an awful long way to go with Holbein (I'm working on a couple of paragraphs about the religious stuff in a sandbox at the moment, and it will include something on Noli Me Tangere). I haven't really worked on the gallery yet and have loads more scans to upload to Commons. I daresay the images are jostling on some screens, and I'll try looking at the article on small fonts sometime.
A couple of technical questions you may be able to help with. Are centre-positioned images at all the done thing? I think the Christ in his Tomb (which can't be omitted) would fit best across the page, but I've a feeling that's deprecated. Also, do you know a way of making image descriptions (not captions) appear by mouse hovering? I've noticed this, but it seems designed for the visually impaired, so that you are limited to a straight visual description. But I like the idea of readers of the Holbein article being able to hover and see image descriptions, which I will endeavour to make into a referenced paragraph or two. It is going to be impossible to say much about many individual pictures in the actual text, which is frustrating (too many masterpieces). I like what you did with Raphael, but if I eventually went to FA with Holbein, I fear some people would object to the necessary degree of gallerification. qp10qp ( talk) 14:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
When deleting (before restoring) this, you should really have noticed that it was originally a redirect to medal, which should have been left. Hatnote now added. Johnbod ( talk) 01:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Ciao! It's again me... I've recently made many additions for stuff regarding Pistoia, including churches and Giovanni Pisano's St. Andrew Pulpit. If you've time, maybe you can help improving my mediocre English. Ciao and thanks by -- '''Attilios''' ( talk) 10:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
File:Well of Moses at CMArt.JPG. Have you checked categories at Commons? I tagged it with the museum it was taken in ( Carnegie Museum of Art in Pittsburgh).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your five-word contribution to William Buchan, 3rd Baron Tweedsmuir, which I appreciate after having spent hours creating it with four sources, but perhaps the next time you donate your knowledge to the rest of humanity you could keep your bile to yourself rather than upchucking it into the edit summary [15], since the encyclopedia is better off when editors are encouraged rather than spat on. Reconsideration ( talk) 16:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Seems to be OK now. [16] Ty 01:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
[17]. Ty 03:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Good article, but where does the information about the leaf in the Getty originate from? Muttley0702 ( talk) 13:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to get another opinion on this. I'm coming to you because you have extensive experience with CfD and Christianity. What is your take on Category:Christian genre types? It seems like a really odd and arbitrary grouping as is. Does it make sense to you? Does it need clean up, or is it even salvageable? Thanks for your input.- Andrew c [talk] 18:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Ciao John! I've just added a Holy Conversation (Piero della Francesca). Maybe you could be interested. I seem I wrote better than usual... hope there aren't too many errors. Ciao and good work. -- '''Attilios''' ( talk) 09:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod, I'm having difficulty selecting a lead image for Lucy poems, the temptaion is to just go with a Wordsworth portrait, but I'D prefer to use something along the lines of this, if I could find anything that was inspired, even in part, by the series, or even by Lyrical Ballads. Any ideas? Thanks. Ceoil ( talk) 17:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for removing me from the category! LOL. However, as things stand it is a highly misleading category, as it doesn't contain any of the notable works one would expect in such a category, only as you say unclassifiable ones. "Contemporary" is dodgy as it's likely to be sabotaged by time. I'd urge a rethink here. Painstation for example could be classified as interactive art. Better to construct a durable system. Ty 00:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod. Please explain your removal of [[Category:Painting]] from Haiga here. Thanks. -- Yumegusa ( talk) 17:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear John. The two-paragraph China section you added to the wiki on Genocides in history was clear and well-written, and was obviously made in good faith. I reverted it because there has been controversy in the talk page that you were probably not aware of. Because of this controversy, I think it would be better to go through the talk page and reach a consensus there before we decide to re-open a China section. I hope this is all right with you. This would also be fairer to those whose text has been deleted for lack of two reliable sources making an explicit claim of genocide. If you're interested, I just finished a long post on the talk page with many suggestions on how to re-open a China section. After consulting your user page, I also see that you've done truly amazing work on art and art history! Congratulations, and keep up the good work. Cheers, Madalibi ( talk) 02:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 12:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Ecoleetage (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
History2007 ( talk) 14:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Likewise. Many thanks for all the wonderful articles you've added this year. I have read a good few of them and have learned a lot. They are among the most enjoyable and interesting articles on Wikipedia for me. qp10qp ( talk) 14:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Johnbod. Do you have any interest in Korean art, especially Goryeo celadon (also spelled as Koryo celadon)? I've noticed that you've created valuable articles regarding visual arts. The subject would be top or high rating to Korean project, but Wikipedia does not have the article yet. Ive always wanted to create the article, but my English and knowledge are limited to the sophisticated topic. Therefore, if you're interested in Asian subject, could you create it? This is a mere suggestion, so if you can freely turn down it. Thanks, and merry Christmas!-- Caspian blue 19:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; at some point, our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!
In several articles I have found wrong categories. For instance in manuscripts of New Testament from the 10th century. They were categorised as Christian texts from the 10th century. They are only copies of text from the first century. I found also wrong categories in artiecles Biblical criticism, Textual criticism, Eusebian Canons. Why do we need Category:Christian genre types. Carlaude is not only one person, who edit in my articles, but he is one who does not understand subject of this articles. This problem is old - about six months - several users explained to him many times, but he do the same again and again. I really have enough. All we need editors, who support our work, but this kind of editions do not help for us. As you said: "I wish you would consult with local editors before setting up all these categories!" Merry Christmas. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 03:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
A Merry Christmas to you and yours! - PKM ( talk) 04:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, not sure what happened here, when you restored a lot of his old deleted conversations. Since users can remove anything they wish from the active user talk page, and he'd previously removed all that, I undid that. rootology ( C)( T) 23:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Self-awarded, as I wrote most of the version featured, after it was nomed. Johnbod ( talk) 17:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I'm close to taking The Raft of the Medusa to FAC, but would appreciate if you could cast your usual weary eye over the text before the final push. If you are taken with other projects, no worries. Ceoil ( talk) 02:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Jean Malouel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Sandstein 14:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I noticed your contributions and invite you to weigh in on the subject. Nativity of Jesus in art and Nativity of Jesus in later culture have a potentially unclear area between them: where is visual art of the 20th century to go? I have started a discussion here and would welcome your comments there. BrainyBabe ( talk) 18:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, do you have anything you can add from JSTOR about this painter? If you do, perhaps we can DYK it. Thanks, Litho derm 00:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Litho derm 02:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the message. I do not understand your reasoning for your sudden and unilateral changes to long standing categories, my argument for restoration is based on maintaining the status quo until consensus is reached. I would be happy with slimmed down categories but this needs to be by agreement with the community. Therefore I will revert pending discussion and agreement. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.22.238 ( talk) 06:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Sandstein 20:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you look at [ CFD] again? Unfortunately I made the error of typing 1696 when I meant 1596. This makes a great difference! I repeat that an ambassador is an envoy from the monarch, not from his ministers. Unless some one will provide evidence of separate embassies from the Stuart kings after 1603 as king of Scotland, distinct from those as king of England, I say that the mereger should go ahead. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, sorry. I understand how it works now.
By the way, thank you for your help with the Church of the Transfiguration. -- Fipplet ( talk) 14:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Category:Francis Bacon works, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. (I'm sure you probably would have seen this nomination in the course of your consistent CfD participations but I usually notify creators ...) Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am Arilang1234. There is now discussion between me and user Madalibi regarding the naming of Chinese Holocaust on my user talk page, would you come to the discussion and give us your opinions? Thanks. Arilang talk 22:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Medallist, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Victor Lopes ( talk) 17:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
As I suggested, I was offended by your comment: ""Country equates a political division" is neither true, nor if I may say so, very grammatical for someone sporting a "native speaker of English" userbox." I hope you can see why, if you were in my shoes. 86.149.49.231 ( talk) 00:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I thankyou every much for your contributions to Country as I believe these are the kinds of contributions the article needs most. Because I am trying to get Country to GA (and then, hopefully FA) standards, I would appreciate knowing where you got the information you added to the article so that I can reference it, thus improving the quality of the article and bringing it that bit closer to FA. Thanks. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Please be a little less patronizing, especially with "Gulp....you're joking, right?". BlueVine ( talk) 21:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I have decided to withdraw my nom, based on your highlight of Princeton 5, which I had misread earlier. I want to thank you from a professional stand-point for improving my understanding of the definition of a country. From a personal stand-point, though, I found you to very rude and patronizing, as has been noted by another user. Based on your lack of response to a previous statement by me to that effect, I presume you acknowledge as well those attitudes were yours. However, as I said again, from a professional stand-point, thank you. 217.44.215.61 ( talk) 21:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Would greatly appreciate if you have a chance to glance at this article and see if there are any art/architecture angles I've missed? It's not yet quite ready for copyediting and taking to FAC (I still need to expand the lead somewhat, and I have a couple of books still making their way towards me) but it's getting pretty close. Your help would be greatly appreciated! Better to find out now than at FAC! Ealdgyth - Talk 05:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Johnbod. I don't think we've crossed paths much, but User:Lazulilasher mentioned your name on IRC in a discussion about possible RfA candidates, and when I started looking, I have to say I was very impressed with what I saw. You're probably aware that we're having a chronic shortage of good RfA candidates lately, and I'd like to nominate you for adminship, if you're willing. Your work with articles appears excellent; Lazu tells me that you're more than willing to work with people (he mentioned the Louvre FAC where you opposed him, specifically); your reasonings at CFD and DRV appear to be very well informed; and I've found nothing to indicate that you shouldn't be trusted with the tools. I think you'd be a valuable asset to the project with the extra buttons. Please let me know if you're willing to run, as well as if you have any questions or concerns. Happy editing! Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 17:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the kind words, both of you! I have been asked before, and I'm still sure I don't want to be an admin. I'm useless at the techical (templates etc) side, don't know much about some of the necessary areas of policy, and generally think my time here is best spent on article-writing. I probably spend too much time on talking pages as it is. I notice on my intermittent visits to Rfa there has been a shortage of candidates lately, & maybe an increase in expectations of them. So good luck with the search! Thanks again. Johnbod ( talk) 20:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I've expanded the titular article, but have exhausted my one source-- if you can expand this further it can go up for DYK. And, yes, I know it isn't the right artist. Thanks, Litho derm 21:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
One more thing... I'm not sure if I can accurately refer to his engravings as incunabula, as I have in Ferdinand Columbus. In Incunabulum I read "In printing, an incunabulum is a book, single sheet, or image that was printed — not handwritten — before the year 1501 in Europe." -----yet----- "There are two types of incunabula in printing: the block-book... and the typographic... Many authors reserve the term incunabula for the typographic ones only." Could you help clear this up for me? Litho derm 01:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your note. There's clearly a need to work this out as my expertise doesn't go that far; I've dropped some ideas/rationales on Talk:ceramics in hope that we can come up with some system of categories. Is there somewhere else we can go to attract more decorative arts eyes to look into this? Mangoe ( talk) 16:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I've restored the article. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 02:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 04:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I think I fixed the Royal Academy thing. How was Christmas? We had the nine lessons and carols, with a choir and all, in a tiny weatherboard church that seats about 100 people at a squeeze, in a village on the side of a mountain. Christmas dinner on the verandah was cold spread, but with the traditional blazing plum pudding of course! Happy New Year! Amandajm ( talk) 11:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Long live Breaker Morant and the thousands of other Australians who volunteered for the Boer War! Ty 14:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I hope you're feeling better! 45,000 edits! Wow. Do you save after every word, or what?
Seriously, I been having a little go at St Chad's Cathedral and St Philip's Cathedral, Birmingham. Do you know anything about them? I've been to St Philip's but never to St Chad's. Can you please check out what I've written, for glaring errors? Amandajm ( talk) 13:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I've done it the wrong way. I'll put it back and leave a note. Marshall46 ( talk) 00:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I think people would be shocked to see its length! Lol. Alright, then, I'm game. Can't wait to see the responses (if there will be any).-- Pericles of Athens Talk 17:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Ciao John... how are you? I've just finished Madonna del Bordone by [Coppo di Marcovaldo]]. As usual, if you can you can help me with tweaks about English and art languge. Thanks very much and have fun! -- '''Attilios''' ( talk) 09:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm following up on your comments here, particularly about Medeshamstede. The article seemed to imply that Medehamstede was destroyed in the 9th century and a monastery was established later nearly 100 years later, ie, not continuous, which grew into the current city. ("Nothing is known of Medeshamstede's history from the later 9th century, when it is traditionally believed to have been destroyed by Vikings, until the later 10th century, when it was restored as a Benedictine abbey...") On that basis, I tagged the article as a "lost/former settlement". I'd like to consider your reservations and resolve the problems - which other examples are "dodgy"? Regards. Folks at 137 ( talk) 22:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I began a Request for Mediation here [21] and listed you as a party. Please sign your name here [22] to agree to participate. Thanks. NancyHeise talk 06:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm starting to read my sources on Duerer's Knight, Death, and the Devil, and have not found so far any indication of how many copies are known to exist. Can you find anything? By the way, you have a belated DYK [23].... Litho derm 04:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 07:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Student7 ( talk) 12:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Ciao! Maybe you'd be gently interested in little tweaks in my new masterwork (?), Carrara Cathedral... ciao and thanks. -- '''Attilios''' ( talk) 09:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. It was a rather stupid error on my part. My apologies. Cheers, Pigman ☿ 17:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod, Thanks to your excellent work the raft has become a FA....thanks.. Modernist ( talk) 00:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstar of High Culture | ||
Congratulations Johnbod for bringing The Raft of the Medusa to FA and for adding so much historical insight ... Modernist ( talk) 01:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC) |