Hi John,
Thanks for your query on the Goal List - because we're doing prizes for the people who take the most photographs off the goal list, it's been decided that the lists will only be published on 1st February, the start date of the competition. There will be different lists for the different museums, and they will be based on "themes" to stimulate people to get involved, rather than specific articles. If you or the wikiproject are able to get involved in identifying gaps on wikipedia that this project can fill, this would be most appreciated! AndrewRT( Talk) 15:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know whether you ever check the number of hits, but Nativity of Jesus in Art got 19,934 hits in December, including 1200 on Christmas Eve. What a nice way to spread the blessings around! Well done! Amandajm ( talk) 00:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 14:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Niice! Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Nice work with the death tolls section. I've been monitoring this article for two and a half years and it seems most people who turn up there are only interested in a bit of sectarian conflict and try to turn the page into a soapbox for their views, Protestant, Catholic or atheist. It's a refreshing change to see somebody go to specialist historians of the period for information instead. Congratulations. -- Folantin ( talk) 12:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you recognise this cathedral? I'm sure you ought to, but there is something odd about it? Amandajm ( talk) 15:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Amandajm ( talk) 04:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Right of course! I used Microsoft Picture it. I haven't got anything more sophisticated. It's very basic. I can achieve quite good cut'npastes if I fiddle around more, but I just went for the basic effect. The pinnacles on either side of the spire are cut from the central gable and enlarged a little bit. There is a strong vertical line down each face of the spire at Chartres, which I painted out. I just can't get over how stunning the building looks with spires, even spires that were never designed for it. Amandajm ( talk) 10:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
My grandmother was an absolute wizards at Cryptic crosswords. She used to get the Sydney Morning Herald every day, just for the crossword puzzle. She suffered from dreadful arthritis, and spent most of her latter years sitting in a big armchair with a crossword puzzle or a "Who Dunnit" I'm not bad at solving whodunnits, but I have never excelled at cryptic crosswords, and I'm very glad that some clever person thought of sudoku. I love them! Amandajm ( talk) 11:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, time for a new FAC pre-check. What artistic and architectural things have I missed about him? As always, I greatly appreciate any help you can give. I have managed to acquire one of Dodwell's books, finally, but it's only The Pictoral Arts of the West 800-1200, so it's not very detailed. At least it's a start. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The lead actually says in some cases it refers only to states, and in some cases to states and other entities. A dependent territory can be a country of origin too. Montemonte ( talk) 19:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to trouble you, but I have written an article about the Kahn Lectures, a short-lived series of lectures at Department of Art and Archaeology of Princeton (a university highly-regarded by the inhabitants of the former English colonies in North America, or so I've heard). There are quite a few red links in there that may tempt someone to add new articles. It is embarrassingly heavily dependent on one author, but that was pretty much all I could find. The Kahn Lectures could probably do with some copy-editing from a native English-speaker before they appear on the front page. I'm not sure if the article should be expanded with more F. L. Wright-related content, but I suspect that there is enough to say for an article of its own.
The article was a spin-off from Johnny Roosval, a short bio which greatly understates his importance and influence on Swedish art history. I need to be able to link to it in a couple of articles I have in the pipeline, but still want to leave something for a future 5x expansion for DYK along with a few articles on topics Roosval wrote about. (Don't bother copy-editing that, as it will probably be completely rewritten in a while.) -- Hegvald ( talk) 21:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you haven't put in your two cents, oops, I mean shillings, regarding
this CFD. If nothing else, I think you'll rather enjoy my comment!
Cgingold (
talk) 21:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Why don't you just google for "Historism" if you don't know the meaning of this word ? A short look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Historism_architecture might broaden your horizon. To be frank, your knowledge about architecture is so poor that you should avoid to comment on these categories. Gogafax
Mediation has begun for the case Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church. Please place Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church on your watchlist and make a brief statement there (on the talk page) to acknowledge this. If you wish to make a very brief statement about the case itself, you may do so at the same time. Thanks much! KillerChihuahua ?!? 13:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 21:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Gatoclass 03:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you please check sources more thourorly before deleting "unsourced" content. The information you deleted was clearly sourced in the video contained on the sourced page. -- Prophesy ( talk) 01:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Things have cooled off a bit here, thank God! NSW has had some good rain in the more populated regions, but there are still blazes down south. We are all in a state of shock. They ought to send the arsonists in to recover the bodies. They caught two people yesterday, but they turned out to be merely looters. (The opportunistic mentality of some bastards really makes you wonder.) Seeya. Amandajm ( talk) 03:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you have interest as a project? Also I'm helping in a push for The Lucy poems, if you have anything to say, that would very much be appreciated. The Arnolfini Portrait will be after these, but I'm playing a slow game to get qp and you involved.
Nice work on Titian bty, I'm following from an exaperated but comfortably numb distance, thinking it must be fustrating when non art people decend on an article, full of half formed googled openions. Amanda puts it well: Bastards. Ceoil ( talk) 03:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
At the Category:Humanists page the heading says somewhat intriguingly "This list is for humanists. It is not for Renaissance humanists". When you follow the link to humanists, you'll arrive at the humanism page, which has a section on its history. This section starts with "Contemporary humanism can be traced back through the Renaissance to its ancient Greek roots." and discusses the evolution of humanism from its classical origin via Renaissance humanism to it modern interpretations.
Your reversions of my restoration of the category Renaissance humanists/humanism etc. among the humanist/humanism categories with the summary "lets keep them sperate - essentially a coincidence of name" and "rev category error" does not make sense in that light (or any light really). Not finding any humanist I was familiar with under the humanists category, brought me to ask at the humanism site about its inclusiveness. The endless discussions there get constantly moved to the question if humanities should be included, but, as expected, no-one seems to doubt the relatedness of historical and modern humanism. This is also supported by the fact that the {{Humanism}} portal includes "Renaissance humanism" .
Even if the humanists of the past would have no relation with the present humanists, which is false, they should be included in the general category. They are called humanists after all, and if a word takes on an additional, unrelated meaning, this meaning doesn't hijack or usurp the entire term and make the traditional and still widely used meaning of the term verboten. It's also impractical: someone looking for, say, the Prince of the Humanists would be surprised (and either annoyed or amused, depending on mood) not to find him in the humanists category or any of its subcategories.
Since the relationship is there, all this is moot anyway and I don't see any reason to break these links; are present-day humanists embarrassed about their generally highly regarded predecessors? From the description, I could consider myself a humanist and I would certainly not be embarrassed about that.
The common and appropriate thing to do in these situations would be to have the category "humanists" encompass all, with hardly any people directly listed there, and subcategories by period (classic, renaissance, there-were-also-humanists-in-between (Voltaire, say), modern) and country. However, this undoubtedly is too much to ask at the time, so I settle for just letting Renaissance humanists take their rightful place among their like-minded human beings.
This got a bit long. I'll copy it to the Renaissance humanists category discussion site and you can answer there and delete it here, if you wish, Afasmit ( talk) 05:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I was just doing new page patrol, and came across your article. (It's about to roll off the end of the patrol window, so I dared assess something out of my historical area!) As I suspected, when examining the images, the original photos are much higher resolution. Is there any rule against making some, say 50 pixels wider, so that the images on the pottery can be discerned without the need for clicking to magnify them? Congradulations on your article! Piano non troppo ( talk) 19:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Johnbod, I don't know if you were pinged but the mediation has begun for the RCC name issue and is progressing here [1]. I am open to whatever consensus decides but I did happen to find another yet another source to support "official" see [2]. let me know what you think. Thanks! NancyHeise talk 16:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure that it was my paragraph. I do not know all the literary references, but several that i have come across do not in fact provide a scenario that would produce the result they say. The entails that produce the hero's difficulty of providing for his daughters would almost certainly be ones created by the will of a great uncle. It is unlikely not be from the father's marriage settlement, as few fathers would entail their property so that their own daughters could not inherit it if there was no son. However adding that would be WP:OR! Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I am afraid I am not an expert on icons, or Orthodox issues in general, for that matter. Byzantine history is one of my interests, but when you've been bored to death at school by inept history teachers droning on about what sort of churches there are in Mystras, and staunchly Orthodox theologians on the minutiae of liturgy, it tends to leave a negative reaction on these subjects... :P However, for what it's worth, "Riza" does not appear to me to be of Greek origin. As the article states, "Riza" is a Russian word. In Greek, AFAIK, there is no specific term, and such icons are simply referred to as επάργυρες or επίχρυσες (silver-covered and gold-covered, respectively), with the cover simply called επένδυση ("coating"). Cheers, Constantine ✍ 10:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought categories were always supposed to match the parent. The parent is Washington, has been for quite some time, and I see no reason why the categories shouldn't match. It just doesn't make sense to have a qualifier in the categories but not the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
(Cross posted here and to Modernist's talk page) I just created The Concert Singer. I'd appreciate any help you can give me in expanding it. Raul654 ( talk) 03:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Per your observation in an edit summary, I created this. I'd be grateful if you care to give it a look over, as I don't do much with categories. I've put it on the main articles listed at {{ Stuckism}}, but not anything else as yet. However, feel free... Ty 11:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I've added the original group members. Ty. Ty 13:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I just took a look at this page and found myself wondering. I presumed you had been associated with it, but couldn't understand how such a garbled intro had passed your notice. Then I traced the history and discovered that the "improvements" had been made by user PeterKidd in January, resulting in a considerable loss of clarity, and also loss of material of considerable interest including the cited passage about women receiving books of hours as wedding presents.
I reverted all his edits, apart from the list, which seemed fuller. I have no doubt that some of his minor edits are pertinent. Would you mind taking a look and putting back those small changes that are warranted. Could you also look at the message that I wrote on the discussion page, before I discovered that the intro had only recently taken that form. It will explain to you why I bothered to buy into this.
Knowing a historic subject, and knowing how to write about it so that others will comprehend are two different things. Amandajm ( talk) 00:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Last Judgement (sculpture) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 05:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod, I have made a motion to close the mediation for reasons described here [3]. Please come and post either your agreement or disagreement at the same link. Thanks. NancyHeise talk 17:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I want to nominate St. Bartholomew's Day massacre for featured article. How do you think?-- Grimlock Askelon ( talk) 19:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Yes it has some museums - the page is undergoing work to try and bring it up-to-date, but feel free to add any you can think of :¬) -- Chaosdruid ( talk) 23:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Seeya!
Amandajm ( talk) 10:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Cleves one still looks small at 300px. Johnbod ( talk) 12:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
You removed the Category:Miniature painting from the Spanish Forger. It seems to me that's an appropriate and useful category for the article. Ecphora ( talk) 13:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Whoo-hoo! Thanks for the heads-up. - PKM ( talk) 04:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Johnbod, I know you help with the V&A liaison. It's nice to have this image with the frame. But it's not centred, and I wonder if it would be all right to upload a cropped version with an equal distance of black all around? qp10qp ( talk) 20:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Tim Cotterill, an article that you have contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Esasus ( talk) 00:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Johnbod, since you are not Catholic, I was wondering if you could comment on which version of the RCC ten commandments page you prefer as per this discussion here [4]. Thanks in advance for your insights. PS, my daughter won six awards for her art at the state level, two of her pieces won the highest award, a gold key, and are in New York for a national art competition! Sorry, I just had to share that with someone :) NancyHeise talk 05:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod! Nice work! I answered you on my talk page. Antandrus (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
My apologies. My edit appears to have wiped yours out. I'm sorry about that. TheRetroGuy ( talk) 00:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
For your careful analysis and helpful comments over at the Ten Commandments in RCC theology. I am going to incorporate your, Brian and Xandars new comments. NancyHeise talk 02:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I've provided an alternative hook at Template talk:Did you know#Land Rover engines, where the first linked article is the main link. It may be better, it may not. :-| Regards, Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 17:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
re: Engraving
I'm afraid I reverted your changes to this as they were almost entirely inaccurate, as you would have found out (in several respects) by reading the rest of the article. Engraving on metal predates woodcut by several thousand years, & until steel-facing was introduced in the C19, engraved printing plates were only usable for some hundreds of impressions in most cases, whereas woodcut blocks could print into the thousands (as they only need low-pressure presses). And so on. Please try to restrict major edits to subjects you know something about. Thanks. Johnbod ( talk) 21:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
It originated from the technology and practices needed to make the woodcuts for printmaking, but was extended to be purely artistic in decorative designs in metal. In printmaking the process came full circle and was developed in Germany in the 1430s from the engraving used by goldsmiths to decorate metalwork to make printing plates for illustrations—for woodcuts were good for at best a few hundred pressed pages, while metal engraved printing plates were essentially indestructible by comparison.
(It might amuse you to find out as it did me that in getting back to answering you today indirectly required an edit on the Indonesian wikipedia... so loosing the edit buffer with the earlier incomplete answer is a "Shit Happens" condition as usual in wikiland. Biz as usual! Wish I knew how to increase the edit que history in firefox... any ideas?)
George Stewart, 9th Seigneur d'Aubigny was the 3rd cousin of Charles I, see details at talk. May I have my DYK now please? [grin]
I have no idea what the 16th century word for "G-string" is, alas... - PKM ( talk) 03:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Gatoclass ( talk) 14:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Gatoclass ( talk) 14:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm up to my ears this evening, even before your edits, in books (and jazz and good port, thankfully), trying to hunt down the exact details. The sources are so confusing, even on the sizes. Rumelin in Muller is saying "41 woodcuts by Hans Lutzelburger and Veit Specklin". Peter Parshall in Roskill says: "Holbein designed the Pictures of Death while still resident in Basel, and the earliest known impressions were printed from forty-one of the fifty-one blocks. This printing was probably done around 1525–26 once the majority had been cut. It also seems certain that the blocks were cut according to their intended sequence, save for the culminating images, which must have been made in advance in order to issue the first edition. I conclude this from the fact that the remaining ten blocks portray tradesmen and other figures from the lower classes, following a logical division of the estates". My problems in nailing this at the moment are: where are these ten images? I can't find them anywhere. They weren't published in the 1538 Les Simulacres & historiees faces de la mort, so can they rightly be counted as part of this work? I will be able to get a grip if I can find where/when they were published. We need a ref for the bit in the notes somewhere that the series was left incomplete by Lutzelburger's death and for the bit in the image description that Specklin completed them. Work in progress. (By the way, I am coming round to the idea of not primarily calling them Dance of Death anymore: recent scholars seem to be calling them "images" or "pictures" of Death, which is certainly justified by what they were called when published. What do you think?) qp10qp ( talk)
Hello! Your submission of Jost de Negker 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! ∗ \ / ( ⁂) 00:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Hans Lützelburger 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! ∗ \ / ( ⁂) 00:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
2008 Core Contest Winner Award | ||
Let it be known that Johnbod was awarded Fourth Place in the first Wikipedia Core Contest. This award is based on his outstanding work in improving Raphael. Thanks for your hard work in making Wikipedia's core articles better. - Earthdirt ( talk) 03:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC) |
Hi, would you take a look at my comments in this CFD? I'm hoping you can help sort things out. Cgingold ( talk) 21:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page become a disambig now? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC) We don't normally do that when only 1 has an article. Hondius, which i added a link to, has them all. Johnbod ( talk) 23:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for adding alt. hook to my DYK nomination!-- mbz1 ( talk) 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Victuallers ( talk) 09:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
-- Dravecky ( talk) 21:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Shubinator ( talk) 03:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but it seems like adding dendrochronology to cat:Art history is a bit of a stretch. Isn't it just one of many tools used in dating things like that? Wouldn't it be something like adding the microscope to cat:Dendrochronology (or cat:Art history, for that matter)? Guettarda ( talk) 14:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC) No, it is an important tool, and covered in the article. Johnbod ( talk) 14:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Your comments at the Category:Type designers CFD are bang on the nail and I'd typo'd the nomination. As I've now corrected it, you might want to look at your vote again. Sorry for the confusion; I even previewed ever page I edited several times first, because I always worry about screwing up deletion/discussion nominations. Sorry! — OwenBlacker ( Talk) 00:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
∗ \ / ( ⁂) 01:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
One of the most beautiful articles on Wikipedia. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! ( talk) 03:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod - thanks for the kind wishes. My health's back to about 90% normal - I've just got to watch my diet for a while and wait for the antibiotics to do their work. I've cut back my wiki work, though (it was taking too much time anyway), just editing and steering clear of the bureaucracy as much as possible. Grutness... wha? 22:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The 100 DYK Medal | ||
For reaching the 100 DYK mark, I award you this medal. wear it with pride. Chris ( talk) 15:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC) |
You are welcome. I also hit the 50 DYK award, but have not received mine yet. I did this last Thursday.
Chris (
talk) 21:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod..Congratulations, Very impressive!
I'm wondering if you might be able to locate an image of Laurence of Canterbury from before the 11th century? Per discussion here: [5] Thanks... Modernist ( talk) 13:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Johnbod, we are voting at mediation on the name of the Church here [6]. Are you OK with changing the article name to Catholic Church and having a lead sentence that states "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church"? Please cast your vote so we can either find consensus or not for this suggestion. Thanks.
Gatoclass ( talk) 14:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 03:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I fail to understand how my editing is categorized as vandalism. King Rene's tournament book should be part of the main article about King Rene, as it was commissined by him!!!! And i have left a mention in its discussion page. And instead of leaving vague statements like "you don't know what damage your editing is doing...." etc etc, please explain the sort of "damage" my editing seems to be doing to Wikipedia. "An Idle mind is the Devil's workshop" and what not...
Regards,
Nirvaan 21:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
If anything of this discussion has got into your stubborn head, please kindly check out these two artcles...
Descendants of Philippe I of Orleans and Descendants of Henry IV of France. Then you may be as rude to me as the rest of them have been, Ok with you??
Regards,
Nirvaan ( talk)2:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
You're right, of course - but I don't think I know the history or historiography well enough to be any help there. Sorry! Adam Bishop ( talk) 12:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I have opened a DRV on the wrangler categories, on which you opined (and in which Otto was not his usual logical self). Occuli ( talk) 02:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Shubinator ( talk) 05:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
Congratulations for your great article on the St. Augustine Gospels! Amandajm ( talk) 06:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC) |
Cf. James G. Watt and comments about his staff. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi -- I readded it to Category:Memoirs since it is not a formal autobiography -- it leaves out or covers but briefly large chunks of Feith's life to focus on a particular period, just like our article on memoirs says. That said, the categories are something of a mess on that end. Ray Talk 02:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Ooh, thanks for the Hollar heads-up. - PKM ( talk) 23:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Johnbod. Can you please explain to me more in detail what you meant about people categories being separate from other categories, or direct me to the WP policy on this matter? I am not familiar with that policy. Feel free to post on my talk page. Thanks. ( LMBM2012 ( talk) 07:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC))
Hey Johnbod, The Raft of the Medusa is main page on the 10th. Thanks again for all your help with it, I'm sure it will be drastically improved after its day up front. Ceoil ( talk) 23:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
That's fine, all browsers are a bit different, they look about half the size to me. Change it if you think it's better. PurpleA ( talk) 01:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, how are things? I don't remember if the idea of Category:Biblical manuscripts by century was discussed in the past or not. It seems like the idea is familiar, but I don't remember if there were any discussions on the topic, and where those discussions led. Is your memory any better than mine? heh. Thanks!- Andrew c [talk] 14:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
If I could direct your attention to WP:PHILO. Please note the navigation bar organizes the task forces such that we could reasonably expect that every "philosophy" article in WP would be covered by at least one task force. Ideally, each article should be within at least one task force for subject area, one for major tradition, one for period. This set up had been discussed at WT:PHIL a long time ago. Since it was set up, it has proven to be a good system of organization.
The article space categories do not mirror this organizational system perfectly. In fact, articles in the philosophy department need a lot of help generally. I am now doing my part by looking at the categories. Obviously, my goal has been to put them into a category structure similar to the task force structure.
I think there has already been an enormous amount of planning, thought, and consideration by many people to make the task force structure possible. I think we can reasonably conclude that it can serve as a model for organizing the article space categories. Furthermore, the proposal was posted at WT:PHILO explicitly for half a month. If anyone had objected we would have heard something by now already either in response to the task force set up or the latest proposal consistent with it.
Please cooperate with the proposal in consideration of the project. Pontiff Greg Bard ( talk) 17:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Asking your advice. I'm compiling items on Commons in preparation for a Wikipedia list of Holbein's drawings and an article on his drawings. I'm pretty clear in my mind about what a drawing is, but I'm going by my long-held assumptions rather than by any definitions I can find (the Wikipedia article Drawing ties itself in knots). I asssume that watercolour washes can be used in drawings, certainly in the way Holbein used them. For me, therefore, this is a drawing (even with bodycolour), as are these. Miniatures I would class as paintings, though I'd be hard put to say why–perhaps because they seek painterly solid form. (The only picture I am confused about is this, which is a Holbein drawing covered by someone else's daubs. But it raises different questions, and I'll probably list it as both a drawing and a painting.) I just thought I'd consult you before I carry on. Cheers. qp10qp ( talk) 14:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
One of several possibly lame ideas that have been put forward lately is the creation of various navigation templates for major subjects within Christianity, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum#Navigation boxes. I don't think they should necessarily be limited to just churches, however. Christian art strikes me as being an important theme within Christianity as well. As one of the editors with the greatest experience in that field, I was wondering whether you might be interested in helping set up such a template. I know that the differences between Eastern and Western Christianity may make it difficult, but it is probably at least worth a try. Worst comes to worst, we could create "child" templates for East/West, paint, etc./sculpture, and other fields as well. John Carter ( talk) 15:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
See this? - PKM ( talk) 03:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod, there is some agreement on the note for the name but it I was wondering what you thought about it here [7]. I tried to make some adjustments but my efforts are quite unappreciated and I am not sure why. I was just trying to make the note agree with the sources. Please let us know what you think, it might be better if I just watch from the sidelines for a little bit here. NancyHeise talk 00:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Johnbod, would you vet my start? And input from any of the knowledgable types who lurk at this page would be welcome, too! -- Wetman ( talk) 10:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Gatoclass ( talk) 13:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I had a question from your Catholicism revert. Are we then required to use British spellings in words on Wiki? MephYazata ( talk) 02:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay I understand ENGVAR, but I am not sure how it is being applied. Is the version with "s" used elsewhere so consistency is hurt? I'm not nitpicking, just learning. MephYazata ( talk) 02:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually that is the question I am asking you. I did not change it. I had noticed you had changed it from the "z" to the "s" and per my above question I was wondering if you saw that elsewhere it was using the "s". I was wondering where the British style was established that you saw the need to change to "s". That's all. BTW thanks for answering back :) MephYazata ( talk) 17:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay cool. That was what I was wondering because it seemed that the "z" would have been fine since I did not see an earlier "all UK" spelling throughout the article and I know that we can't consider Catholicism as only "UK". I may have missed something in some earlier history of the article though. That was all. No biggey. I just wanted to make sure I pay attention these in my own future edits. BTW I am using "UK" because some Americans use "british" with a sneer in their voice and I don't subscribe to that stuff MephYazata ( talk) 17:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Reference your comment "Normally only the 1st occurence of a term should be linked." :I don't understand. Where are these overlinks at porcelain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 ( talk) 03:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 08:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Please could you not add comments such as your recent one:- [ [9]] A review of my edits can easily show that I have added to articles with information that is correct, accurate and supported with citations. I am at a loss to understand why you have challenged these changes. It seems that anything I do you revert out of hand. Now you appear to be attacking me. As I noted to you some days ago this is the type of reason why I have not previously joined the 'club' that is Wikipedia:- there appears interest in using it for winning arguments simply for personal satisfaction than disseminating correct information. Another recent example from yourself is over the use of 'fine ceramics'. I have demonstrated that is is applied, amongst many others, by a highly respected authority to a wholly different group of materials to that is being described. After I changed to a better description, which is actually used in Wikipedia itself, your response was to simply revert. You have not given any defintion for your interpretation of 'fine ceramics' yet you insist yours is correct. Again, again, again I note I am trying to improve Wikipedia nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 ( talk) 02:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Happy Easter, thanks for helping to celebrate the day. -- Royal broil 16:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Shubinator ( talk) 23:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod... my, that was a long scroll-down! I'm doing a fair bit off-line as intro, based on Gradel and Brent for the most part, but I'm sure it'll all fit together somehow with what you're doing. Citation might be a problem with many of the statements in the article as it stands, mostly because many are good-faith re-interpretations many times removed, which amount in some cases to mis-interpretation by "primary" sources. Gradel in particular takes a very interesting and refreshing approach to what is essentially (or rather, historically) a standard Judaeo-Christian interpretation of material pretty well incomprehensible to a Judaeo-Christian mindset. It's a stripped down but less contentious approach now than it would have been even ten years back, but still quite difficult to grasp. It would be great to work with someone else on the article. I assume the article's on your watch-list. I'll discuss any issues on its talk-page. Regards - Haploidavey ( talk) 00:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Shubinator ( talk) 03:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Great article! I'm glad to see our interests are converging... Savidan 04:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Just want to make sure I haven't missed any architectural or artistic bits with Gilbert Foliot before I throw it up to FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, the Martin Bucer FAC was archived. In my opinion, this was closed too early. I have renominated it; would you please vote or leave a comment on the new FAC? See Talk:Martin Bucer and click on "leave comments". Thanks. -- RelHistBuff ( talk) 21:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
It was ridiculous because you didn't look at the article at all for any indication as to what it was about. It was ridiculous because the name Midtown was entirely suitable for Wikipedia because there are no other articles with that name currently. It was ridiculous because standardization of Wikipedia by randomly targeting articles for renaming is done only to prove a point, not for the benefit of the project. It was purely ridiculous because I took this much time to answer your comment. • Freechild 'sup? 12:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for all your contributions to Oriental carpets in Renaissance painting! Phg ( talk) 20:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
You do pop up on my watchlist in some odd places - you're not turning into a boatie now, are you?! Thanks for the improvements you made me make for JCBC, and for the support. Regards, Bencherlite Talk 16:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello Johnbod. I encountered your name on Talk: Hagia Sophia and I saw on your user page that you are interested in Byzantine art. I wonder if you would see fit to leave a comment on this RfC on the Justinian talk page. It is somewhat of a minor issue, with one user (me) believing that a particular reproduction is more true to the original, and another user ( user:Kurt Leyman, plus the unanimous consensus of those that have commented) believing otherwise. Either way, I think it would be good to have a more informed opinion in addition to the brief comments of casual passers-by. Especially, if the "color balanced" picture turns out to be more authentic, I would appreciate it if you could briefly point out why you think this is the case, since that has been obscure to me until now. Regards, Iblardi ( talk) 18:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes I'm fine with Somerset House as well, but isn't 1604 starting to be beyond Renaissance? Where would you put the boundary? Phg ( talk) 20:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi John! Could you do me a favour and take a look at User:Shakko's recent additions to Portrait of a Lady known as Smeralda Bandinelli? She asked me to fix her broken English, but I don't think mine is much better. I have not written anything but stubs here since I was forced to move to the Russian Wikipedia two years ago.
As an aside, Shakko is a professional art historian who has made a bunch of beautiful articles in the Russian Wikipedia such as ru:Троица (икона Рублёва), ru:Камея Гонзага, ru:Часослов Фарнезе, ru:Часослов Этьена Шевалье, ru:Портрет Минамото но Ёритомо, ru:Преображенская серия, ru:Лесбия, and many many others. It's a shame nobody would translate these. -- Ghirla -трёп- 17:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
This is to notify you that Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_21#Victims_of_political_repression, which you participated in, reached no consensus to delete, but has been relisted to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_30#Victims_of_political_repression in order to determine if consensus can be reached on other alternatives. Your further input would be appreciated.-- Aervanath ( talk) 06:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to Marco Marziale! It was quite exciting to unearth this author, and to find his painting at the Louvre Museum, but I couldn't find much about him on Internet... Phg ( talk) 15:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Are there any other museums with this name? Or is your point that people might be looking for museums about ceramics in general, not just this one? Nyttend ( talk) 18:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
That's much better! There are a whole lot more in Category:Decorative arts museums. Let me know when you are done, & I will add some. I think myself it is better treated as a listy article than a disam page, but whatever. Cheers. Johnbod ( talk) 21:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC) (copied from Doncram's talk page.)
Dravecky ( talk) 03:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 07:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Nice article, thank you. Paxse ( talk) 14:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Johnbod, sorry I am a bit late to the conversation but I want to know what you think of my response to the discussion your participated in here [11]. NancyHeise talk 20:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Favourite is the primary topic of "favourite", but it does not appear to be the primary topic of "favorite". Please take it up on the talk pages if you would like. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 12:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Both your and Awadewit's ALTs seem good to me, tbh. I think Maria Dostoyevsky was being a little dramatic in her description of the the occassion, so maybe I could aim the hook towards the dimensions of the painting...30.5cm x 200cm. Not sure how to make that come accross yet, though. Thanks for the look anyway. Ceoil ( talk) 20:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
(Cross-posted to a half-dozen people's talk pages)
After a couple of days of methodical typing, I've created List of works by Thomas Eakins. It's gotten to the point where other people can step in and add to it - titles need to be linked, dates need to be added, pictures need to be found/uploaded/added to the list, notes need to be added, etc. I'd appreciate your help building it up. Raul654 ( talk) 00:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Johnbod, would you be interested in bringing this forward to FAC next time? I can assist you if you need me to do so. There are some very minor additions to text made by Richard in response to the last FAC that need citations. I think there are three. Otherwise the article should be good to go. I do not feel welcome at FAC and I find the process very upsetting and NOT FUN. If you feel the need for a Sisyphus experience, please feel free to nom. I will be happy to help with sources or in other ways. Thanks, NancyHeise talk 22:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod! And thank you for your message. The substance of the edit seems to me entirely consistent with what I've gleaned thus far. There's a rather long sentence midway - it might benefit from judicious splitting - but that's a minor issue. You seem to be doing admirably well. The interpretation of the tondo as cultic/iconic seems very sound - I don't doubt for a moment that it is an aspect of Imperial cult and will check my sources for statements in support - or possibly to the contrary, though that's very unlikely.
Unfortunately, I'm away for at least a week and won't have my sources to hand, but will be very happy to help where I can on my return. Best regards. Haploidavey ( talk) 11:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok! Ok! Now that that is out......
I'll jam a reference in for every blinking sentence..... well, maybe not......
I stumbled on one article that is so over-referenced that it goes something like this:
John Bloggs was born on 1 April 1066[1] at Puddleby-on-Marsh[2] the son of Tom Bloggs[3] and Mary Bloggs[4] (nee Jones[5]), a baker[6] and pastrycook.[7] Every reference was to the same paragraph of the same book. The entire article was referenced like that. No-one who had been involved in raising it to FA status had commented on this foolishness or apparently saw it as a problem.
Part and parcel of the amateur nature of wikipedia is that the guidlines are often applied as rules, and often by people with little accademic experience, and sometimes (often, I suspect) by people on the Autistic Spectrum for whom rules can be so important that it can be inconceivable that flexibility is also desirable, because there are many instances where a situation hasn't been foreseen.
As for the pics, formatting for wide screen won't effect the mobile phone situation, and might actually improve it. I'll drop a not for the other editor. Can't do anything time consuming at the minute. Just going round the traps. Thanks, John! Amandajm ( talk) 00:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
A draft of the note under mediation is up for comments here [12]. Thanks, NancyHeise talk 11:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 13:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I've made a few changes based upon your comment for the FAC entry for this article. I wonder if, when you have time, you could have a look and comment upon the changes. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 12:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Acquisition in US military circles has nothing to do with "Target Acquisition" is a term related to how systems are procured in the military. The subcategories of the Acquisition page are all related to how US DoD buys its systems. Modeling and Simulation in US DoD is used in the Acquisition Cycle. I am surprised that no one sent me a talk/email to include me in the discussion be for making a decission to delete the Acquisition category.
By the way, I did see the discussion but not the details and though the Military Acquisition would be an appropriate change. I did not imagine that the category would be deleted. User:sidna ( User_talk:sidna)
Thanks..i will, best of wishes.-- Elmondo21st ( talk) 21:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible you could add a little more to this? Quoting the relevant passages from Vasari and Condivi would be a start. It would be a nice DYK, having been in the news recently. Thanks, Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) ( talk) 15:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
John, I forgot to thank you for the Tondo suggestion. I thought this link might be of further general interest - though perhaps you already know the work - [13]. Regards. Haploidavey ( talk) 10:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC) PS: if you scroll down to the next page, the Tondo is mentioned, but the preceding pages are also very interesting.
I'd like to nominate The Torment of Saint Anthony (Michelangelo) for Did You Know. Is that okay with you?
On another topic: Given that there are not yet any other subjects by this name, I'm wondering if the (Michaelangelo) DAB is needed. Are you planning on creating articles about similar subjects soon? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 20:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You recently reverted an edit I made on the Albrecht Dürer wikipedia page. The reason I made that edit was because I was trying to follow the wikipedia policy on weasel words. Is there a reason why that phrase wouldn't be a series of weasel words? It looks a lot like that to me. However, considering how much experience you have on wikipedia, you probably have a pretty good reason for leaving it on that page. Backtable Speak to Me about what I have done 02:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Jamie ☆ S93 18:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits. I have re-checked the Reardon book, and she indeed spells it "Pisani", but I wouldn't rule a type out at this point. I don't have to tell you how non-Italians can be with Italian names... Savidan 06:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey. By any chance do you know of the top of your head which Vermeer was stolen by the INLA over here in the mid-1980's. I assume it was Lady writing a Letter with her Maid as it is now in the Nat Gallery in Dublin, but am unable to find a source of confirmation. Thanks. Ceoil ( talk) 21:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The ODNB has biographies of both John Letts and his son Thomas. The former references F. Vivian, ed., Letts keep a diary: an exhibition of the history of diary keeping in Great Britain from 16th–20th century in commemoration of 175 years of diary publishing by Letts (1987) [exhibition catalogue, Mall Galleries, London, 28 Sept – 25 Oct 1987], and W. H. Beable, "Charles Letts's diaries", Romance of great businesses, 2 (1926), 211–20. The latter has a reference to Charles Letts & Co., The romance of the business of a diary publisher (1949). -- Hegvald ( talk) 18:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I finally decided to resume to Wikipedia - and as a first thing I expanded Michael Sittow from stub you created to somewhat bigger article (as you probably don't remember, we discussed it here a bit). I managed to dig up some quite interesting sources. However, I don't have access to Grove Art Online article about Sittow and don't know if there is anything else that could be added or changed - so, if possible, could you check the Grove Art and compare it to the wiki-article?
I hope to get some more material about Sittow in the near future (namely Michel Sittow 1469-1525, The Artist connecting Estonia with the Southern Netherlands, Eesti Kunstimuuseum 2002, ISBN 9985-78-255-0) and maybe get a photo of his house, too. Interestingly, Richardson, E. P. (1958). "Portrait of a Man in a Red Hat by Master Michiel". Bulletin of Detroit Institute of Arts speculates that the said picture is an auto-portrait of Sittow. That is probably not true, but it would be nice to get a color image of Portrait of a Man in a Red Hat for the article - but alas, at least my Googlemancer skills did not turn up any other results for that image. -- Sander Säde 13:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I've updated the licence permission for this image but the large image is broken. I don't know how to replace it could you do that? Apologies for late response, am not really in Wikipedia much these days. VAwebteam ( talk) 18:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
-- PFHLai ( talk) 05:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
As part of GA Sweeps, I reviewed Sistine Chapel ceiling. I have placed it on hold in hopes that editors might bring it up to current standards. It had a flurry of activity for more than a week, but has now gone unedited for a full week. My most glaring concern is that it continues to have 16 paragraphs without any citations. Based on your editorial history with the article, I am notifying you that if no one makes it clear that very near term continued improvement can be expected it will be delisted in the next few days. See discussion at Talk:Sistine Chapel ceiling/GA1.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 07:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:Jewish film ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Jewish cinema ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been trying to find out about the origions of the oval idealised faces of 16th and 17th C. paintings, but it does not seem to be widely discussed as far as I can find. I remember as a child thinking that that was just how people looked in the old days - odd; and its interesting how ideals of beauty change. Anyway, mentioning it only as I'm thinking you might have the knowledge to knock up a very interesting article here, at some stage. Maybe one for the long finger. Ceoil ( talk) 22:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Your input is needed here [14] to decide on one of three options. Thanks, NancyHeise talk 03:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Johnbod,
The DYK hook has landed in controversy, inspite of your supporting it. Is there anything to be done by to see it through?-- Nvvchar ( talk) 06:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, we now have an option 4 to consider since no one could agree on 1,2 or 3. Can you please come vote again? [15] Thanks, NancyHeise talk 18:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for finding the change in and repairing the link to his Air Force Biography. I have used that info to repair links on several other general officer pages.
ed
Ecragg ( talk) 13:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I don't know anything about the specifics, but regarding adding Category:Tamil writers to Pico Iyer, you should see this edit, which seems to be confirmed by the guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage, which says "Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors." You might want to ask that editor, or at that guideline's talkpage, for further details, if needed. That's all :) -- Quiddity ( talk) 19:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I have a list I am working through which I am only starting. I have a question at Category_talk:Spiritual_theories. Pontiff Greg Bard ( talk) 22:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - answered on my talk page. HeartofaDog ( talk) 23:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I have responded with a formulation of the "theory of mannerism" at Category talk:Spiritual theories. Pontiff Greg Bard ( talk) 20:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Come on now! You have to admit, this is tightening things up! I'll find a bunch more recommendations as I go too. I posted this to the c&t page too. (No not coffee and tea).
Proposed recommendations:
Pontiff Greg Bard ( talk) 23:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you are receiving this message because you were an original party to the mediation process regarding the Catholic Church name issue. The mediation outcome has been summarized and moved to the Catholic Church talk page here [16]. Please feel free to come join our discussion of the outcome taking place now before making the actual changes in the article. Thanks for your help and kind cooperation toward a mutually agreeable solution. NancyHeise talk 14:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.
If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here
Discussion is here. Peter Damian ( talk) 17:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod. Would you like to have a go at disambiguating the incoming links to Weymouth, here? -- Una Smith ( talk) 04:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I've raised the issue of Gregbard ( talk · contribs)'s edits here [17] as he seems to be making some major changes at high speed which I'm not convinced have consensus. Dougweller ( talk) 07:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Discussion of objectives here. Peter Damian ( talk) 20:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod, thanks for your help on Bible translations in the Middle Ages. This is a little outside my usual interests. Adam Bishop ( talk) 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This edit summary made me laugh. Of course, you shouldn't really be making jokes during such a serious and important debate. Some of them are admins, you know. Ceoil ( talk) 18:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I think Kbdank has resolved the problem of me not knowing what you were talking about. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
You previously have commented on the RfC at Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment on whether or not the lead image should be left-aligned. A straw poll is under way to determine what, if any consensus have been developed towards resolving the debate. Go to Talk:Joseph_Priestley#Major_options and indicate your relative levels of support for each option. Thank you. Madcoverboy ( talk) 17:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I hope you'll be able to offer some guidance on the Byzantine influence on Roman art, architecture, and culture during this period. It's really all Greek to me... Savidan 07:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The discussion for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 6#Category:Surnames by country in which you participated was closed as delete and is now under review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 25#Category:Surnames by country. Your participation and input is invited. Alansohn ( talk) 05:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Giants 27 20:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
After a very short visit on the talkpage for Humanism I have come to believe that the best way to proceed would be some kind of content dispute resolution process. Those two editors do not seem interested in cooperating at all. I don't know exactly what kinds of processes would be possible but I think we should investigate it. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
[18]. Maybe a slow second cousin? Ceoil ( talk) 07:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 08:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I've added a remark on the central detail in the illustration at Finding in the Temple: "The gesture usually made by Jesus, pointing to his upraised thumb (illustration), is the conventional rhetorical gesture expressing the act of expounding text." I'm pretty sure of this, but it's just the kind of statement that our confident editors like to challenge and delete. I don't have a reference here: Erwin Panofsky? Can you give it a supportive citation, without troubling much?-- Wetman ( talk) 02:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Johnbod ( talk) 20:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Victuallers has started Crispijn van de Passe, but I think has conflated father and son a bit. This is more your area of expertise than mine, compadre. - PKM ( talk) 03:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
So now youve sorted it out .... are you happy that I propose it to DYK? Good work! Victuallers ( talk) 14:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed your link to the plan of St Gell, reread what the article said and fixed it, after about four tries. Its getting late here and we spent all night last night working on my son's wretched history assignment on the rights of Australian women..... I'm finding it hard to focus. Seeya! Amandajm ( talk) 13:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a review of this article which has a large number of issues which need attention. I have delisted it. The reassessment is at Talk:Canaletto/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 13:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Leaving aside the question of whether or not Cornwall should be described as part of England, it is certainly entirely possible and even probable that a café on Fistral Beach would serve such tea [20]. Best wishes, DuncanHill ( talk) 15:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I undid your edit as, whilst one list has been merged in, the second hasn't. You may wish to comment on the proposal at Talk:Organ scholar - it's been a while since anyone did! Bencherlite Talk 16:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Your statement is being read for the removal of the Hirst image. I read it as for the retention of the image. You might like to clarify. Ty 00:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
A relevant question. I think I was going on the basis of Baked beans. The singular term does exist, but I've never yet seen a structure that has just one putlog hole. I suppose that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but nonetheless... -- Dweller ( talk) 10:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I took the name from a the original placement of the article and from the first line in the article itself. I don't object to changing it but isn't cathedral just as good in modern parlance? Philly jawn ( talk) 15:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Ciao! As usual I write long and intricate stuff, but ain't sure of the result as English is not my motherlanguage. Let me know if for you (and of course if have time to check) Chiaravalle Abbey, San Bernardino (Verona) and Valvisciolo Abbey are OK. Thanks for help and good work. -- '''Attilios''' ( talk) 10:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
{{User0|Candlewicke 11:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Jamie S93 Only You Can Prevent Drama 18:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi John,
Thanks for your query on the Goal List - because we're doing prizes for the people who take the most photographs off the goal list, it's been decided that the lists will only be published on 1st February, the start date of the competition. There will be different lists for the different museums, and they will be based on "themes" to stimulate people to get involved, rather than specific articles. If you or the wikiproject are able to get involved in identifying gaps on wikipedia that this project can fill, this would be most appreciated! AndrewRT( Talk) 15:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know whether you ever check the number of hits, but Nativity of Jesus in Art got 19,934 hits in December, including 1200 on Christmas Eve. What a nice way to spread the blessings around! Well done! Amandajm ( talk) 00:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 14:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Niice! Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Nice work with the death tolls section. I've been monitoring this article for two and a half years and it seems most people who turn up there are only interested in a bit of sectarian conflict and try to turn the page into a soapbox for their views, Protestant, Catholic or atheist. It's a refreshing change to see somebody go to specialist historians of the period for information instead. Congratulations. -- Folantin ( talk) 12:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you recognise this cathedral? I'm sure you ought to, but there is something odd about it? Amandajm ( talk) 15:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Amandajm ( talk) 04:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Right of course! I used Microsoft Picture it. I haven't got anything more sophisticated. It's very basic. I can achieve quite good cut'npastes if I fiddle around more, but I just went for the basic effect. The pinnacles on either side of the spire are cut from the central gable and enlarged a little bit. There is a strong vertical line down each face of the spire at Chartres, which I painted out. I just can't get over how stunning the building looks with spires, even spires that were never designed for it. Amandajm ( talk) 10:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
My grandmother was an absolute wizards at Cryptic crosswords. She used to get the Sydney Morning Herald every day, just for the crossword puzzle. She suffered from dreadful arthritis, and spent most of her latter years sitting in a big armchair with a crossword puzzle or a "Who Dunnit" I'm not bad at solving whodunnits, but I have never excelled at cryptic crosswords, and I'm very glad that some clever person thought of sudoku. I love them! Amandajm ( talk) 11:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, time for a new FAC pre-check. What artistic and architectural things have I missed about him? As always, I greatly appreciate any help you can give. I have managed to acquire one of Dodwell's books, finally, but it's only The Pictoral Arts of the West 800-1200, so it's not very detailed. At least it's a start. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The lead actually says in some cases it refers only to states, and in some cases to states and other entities. A dependent territory can be a country of origin too. Montemonte ( talk) 19:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to trouble you, but I have written an article about the Kahn Lectures, a short-lived series of lectures at Department of Art and Archaeology of Princeton (a university highly-regarded by the inhabitants of the former English colonies in North America, or so I've heard). There are quite a few red links in there that may tempt someone to add new articles. It is embarrassingly heavily dependent on one author, but that was pretty much all I could find. The Kahn Lectures could probably do with some copy-editing from a native English-speaker before they appear on the front page. I'm not sure if the article should be expanded with more F. L. Wright-related content, but I suspect that there is enough to say for an article of its own.
The article was a spin-off from Johnny Roosval, a short bio which greatly understates his importance and influence on Swedish art history. I need to be able to link to it in a couple of articles I have in the pipeline, but still want to leave something for a future 5x expansion for DYK along with a few articles on topics Roosval wrote about. (Don't bother copy-editing that, as it will probably be completely rewritten in a while.) -- Hegvald ( talk) 21:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you haven't put in your two cents, oops, I mean shillings, regarding
this CFD. If nothing else, I think you'll rather enjoy my comment!
Cgingold (
talk) 21:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Why don't you just google for "Historism" if you don't know the meaning of this word ? A short look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Historism_architecture might broaden your horizon. To be frank, your knowledge about architecture is so poor that you should avoid to comment on these categories. Gogafax
Mediation has begun for the case Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church. Please place Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church on your watchlist and make a brief statement there (on the talk page) to acknowledge this. If you wish to make a very brief statement about the case itself, you may do so at the same time. Thanks much! KillerChihuahua ?!? 13:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 21:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Gatoclass 03:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you please check sources more thourorly before deleting "unsourced" content. The information you deleted was clearly sourced in the video contained on the sourced page. -- Prophesy ( talk) 01:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Things have cooled off a bit here, thank God! NSW has had some good rain in the more populated regions, but there are still blazes down south. We are all in a state of shock. They ought to send the arsonists in to recover the bodies. They caught two people yesterday, but they turned out to be merely looters. (The opportunistic mentality of some bastards really makes you wonder.) Seeya. Amandajm ( talk) 03:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you have interest as a project? Also I'm helping in a push for The Lucy poems, if you have anything to say, that would very much be appreciated. The Arnolfini Portrait will be after these, but I'm playing a slow game to get qp and you involved.
Nice work on Titian bty, I'm following from an exaperated but comfortably numb distance, thinking it must be fustrating when non art people decend on an article, full of half formed googled openions. Amanda puts it well: Bastards. Ceoil ( talk) 03:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
At the Category:Humanists page the heading says somewhat intriguingly "This list is for humanists. It is not for Renaissance humanists". When you follow the link to humanists, you'll arrive at the humanism page, which has a section on its history. This section starts with "Contemporary humanism can be traced back through the Renaissance to its ancient Greek roots." and discusses the evolution of humanism from its classical origin via Renaissance humanism to it modern interpretations.
Your reversions of my restoration of the category Renaissance humanists/humanism etc. among the humanist/humanism categories with the summary "lets keep them sperate - essentially a coincidence of name" and "rev category error" does not make sense in that light (or any light really). Not finding any humanist I was familiar with under the humanists category, brought me to ask at the humanism site about its inclusiveness. The endless discussions there get constantly moved to the question if humanities should be included, but, as expected, no-one seems to doubt the relatedness of historical and modern humanism. This is also supported by the fact that the {{Humanism}} portal includes "Renaissance humanism" .
Even if the humanists of the past would have no relation with the present humanists, which is false, they should be included in the general category. They are called humanists after all, and if a word takes on an additional, unrelated meaning, this meaning doesn't hijack or usurp the entire term and make the traditional and still widely used meaning of the term verboten. It's also impractical: someone looking for, say, the Prince of the Humanists would be surprised (and either annoyed or amused, depending on mood) not to find him in the humanists category or any of its subcategories.
Since the relationship is there, all this is moot anyway and I don't see any reason to break these links; are present-day humanists embarrassed about their generally highly regarded predecessors? From the description, I could consider myself a humanist and I would certainly not be embarrassed about that.
The common and appropriate thing to do in these situations would be to have the category "humanists" encompass all, with hardly any people directly listed there, and subcategories by period (classic, renaissance, there-were-also-humanists-in-between (Voltaire, say), modern) and country. However, this undoubtedly is too much to ask at the time, so I settle for just letting Renaissance humanists take their rightful place among their like-minded human beings.
This got a bit long. I'll copy it to the Renaissance humanists category discussion site and you can answer there and delete it here, if you wish, Afasmit ( talk) 05:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I was just doing new page patrol, and came across your article. (It's about to roll off the end of the patrol window, so I dared assess something out of my historical area!) As I suspected, when examining the images, the original photos are much higher resolution. Is there any rule against making some, say 50 pixels wider, so that the images on the pottery can be discerned without the need for clicking to magnify them? Congradulations on your article! Piano non troppo ( talk) 19:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Johnbod, I don't know if you were pinged but the mediation has begun for the RCC name issue and is progressing here [1]. I am open to whatever consensus decides but I did happen to find another yet another source to support "official" see [2]. let me know what you think. Thanks! NancyHeise talk 16:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure that it was my paragraph. I do not know all the literary references, but several that i have come across do not in fact provide a scenario that would produce the result they say. The entails that produce the hero's difficulty of providing for his daughters would almost certainly be ones created by the will of a great uncle. It is unlikely not be from the father's marriage settlement, as few fathers would entail their property so that their own daughters could not inherit it if there was no son. However adding that would be WP:OR! Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I am afraid I am not an expert on icons, or Orthodox issues in general, for that matter. Byzantine history is one of my interests, but when you've been bored to death at school by inept history teachers droning on about what sort of churches there are in Mystras, and staunchly Orthodox theologians on the minutiae of liturgy, it tends to leave a negative reaction on these subjects... :P However, for what it's worth, "Riza" does not appear to me to be of Greek origin. As the article states, "Riza" is a Russian word. In Greek, AFAIK, there is no specific term, and such icons are simply referred to as επάργυρες or επίχρυσες (silver-covered and gold-covered, respectively), with the cover simply called επένδυση ("coating"). Cheers, Constantine ✍ 10:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought categories were always supposed to match the parent. The parent is Washington, has been for quite some time, and I see no reason why the categories shouldn't match. It just doesn't make sense to have a qualifier in the categories but not the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
(Cross posted here and to Modernist's talk page) I just created The Concert Singer. I'd appreciate any help you can give me in expanding it. Raul654 ( talk) 03:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Per your observation in an edit summary, I created this. I'd be grateful if you care to give it a look over, as I don't do much with categories. I've put it on the main articles listed at {{ Stuckism}}, but not anything else as yet. However, feel free... Ty 11:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I've added the original group members. Ty. Ty 13:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I just took a look at this page and found myself wondering. I presumed you had been associated with it, but couldn't understand how such a garbled intro had passed your notice. Then I traced the history and discovered that the "improvements" had been made by user PeterKidd in January, resulting in a considerable loss of clarity, and also loss of material of considerable interest including the cited passage about women receiving books of hours as wedding presents.
I reverted all his edits, apart from the list, which seemed fuller. I have no doubt that some of his minor edits are pertinent. Would you mind taking a look and putting back those small changes that are warranted. Could you also look at the message that I wrote on the discussion page, before I discovered that the intro had only recently taken that form. It will explain to you why I bothered to buy into this.
Knowing a historic subject, and knowing how to write about it so that others will comprehend are two different things. Amandajm ( talk) 00:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Last Judgement (sculpture) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 05:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod, I have made a motion to close the mediation for reasons described here [3]. Please come and post either your agreement or disagreement at the same link. Thanks. NancyHeise talk 17:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I want to nominate St. Bartholomew's Day massacre for featured article. How do you think?-- Grimlock Askelon ( talk) 19:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Yes it has some museums - the page is undergoing work to try and bring it up-to-date, but feel free to add any you can think of :¬) -- Chaosdruid ( talk) 23:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Seeya!
Amandajm ( talk) 10:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Cleves one still looks small at 300px. Johnbod ( talk) 12:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
You removed the Category:Miniature painting from the Spanish Forger. It seems to me that's an appropriate and useful category for the article. Ecphora ( talk) 13:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Whoo-hoo! Thanks for the heads-up. - PKM ( talk) 04:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Johnbod, I know you help with the V&A liaison. It's nice to have this image with the frame. But it's not centred, and I wonder if it would be all right to upload a cropped version with an equal distance of black all around? qp10qp ( talk) 20:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Tim Cotterill, an article that you have contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Esasus ( talk) 00:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Johnbod, since you are not Catholic, I was wondering if you could comment on which version of the RCC ten commandments page you prefer as per this discussion here [4]. Thanks in advance for your insights. PS, my daughter won six awards for her art at the state level, two of her pieces won the highest award, a gold key, and are in New York for a national art competition! Sorry, I just had to share that with someone :) NancyHeise talk 05:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod! Nice work! I answered you on my talk page. Antandrus (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
My apologies. My edit appears to have wiped yours out. I'm sorry about that. TheRetroGuy ( talk) 00:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
For your careful analysis and helpful comments over at the Ten Commandments in RCC theology. I am going to incorporate your, Brian and Xandars new comments. NancyHeise talk 02:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I've provided an alternative hook at Template talk:Did you know#Land Rover engines, where the first linked article is the main link. It may be better, it may not. :-| Regards, Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 17:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
re: Engraving
I'm afraid I reverted your changes to this as they were almost entirely inaccurate, as you would have found out (in several respects) by reading the rest of the article. Engraving on metal predates woodcut by several thousand years, & until steel-facing was introduced in the C19, engraved printing plates were only usable for some hundreds of impressions in most cases, whereas woodcut blocks could print into the thousands (as they only need low-pressure presses). And so on. Please try to restrict major edits to subjects you know something about. Thanks. Johnbod ( talk) 21:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
It originated from the technology and practices needed to make the woodcuts for printmaking, but was extended to be purely artistic in decorative designs in metal. In printmaking the process came full circle and was developed in Germany in the 1430s from the engraving used by goldsmiths to decorate metalwork to make printing plates for illustrations—for woodcuts were good for at best a few hundred pressed pages, while metal engraved printing plates were essentially indestructible by comparison.
(It might amuse you to find out as it did me that in getting back to answering you today indirectly required an edit on the Indonesian wikipedia... so loosing the edit buffer with the earlier incomplete answer is a "Shit Happens" condition as usual in wikiland. Biz as usual! Wish I knew how to increase the edit que history in firefox... any ideas?)
George Stewart, 9th Seigneur d'Aubigny was the 3rd cousin of Charles I, see details at talk. May I have my DYK now please? [grin]
I have no idea what the 16th century word for "G-string" is, alas... - PKM ( talk) 03:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Gatoclass ( talk) 14:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Gatoclass ( talk) 14:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm up to my ears this evening, even before your edits, in books (and jazz and good port, thankfully), trying to hunt down the exact details. The sources are so confusing, even on the sizes. Rumelin in Muller is saying "41 woodcuts by Hans Lutzelburger and Veit Specklin". Peter Parshall in Roskill says: "Holbein designed the Pictures of Death while still resident in Basel, and the earliest known impressions were printed from forty-one of the fifty-one blocks. This printing was probably done around 1525–26 once the majority had been cut. It also seems certain that the blocks were cut according to their intended sequence, save for the culminating images, which must have been made in advance in order to issue the first edition. I conclude this from the fact that the remaining ten blocks portray tradesmen and other figures from the lower classes, following a logical division of the estates". My problems in nailing this at the moment are: where are these ten images? I can't find them anywhere. They weren't published in the 1538 Les Simulacres & historiees faces de la mort, so can they rightly be counted as part of this work? I will be able to get a grip if I can find where/when they were published. We need a ref for the bit in the notes somewhere that the series was left incomplete by Lutzelburger's death and for the bit in the image description that Specklin completed them. Work in progress. (By the way, I am coming round to the idea of not primarily calling them Dance of Death anymore: recent scholars seem to be calling them "images" or "pictures" of Death, which is certainly justified by what they were called when published. What do you think?) qp10qp ( talk)
Hello! Your submission of Jost de Negker 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! ∗ \ / ( ⁂) 00:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Hans Lützelburger 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! ∗ \ / ( ⁂) 00:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
2008 Core Contest Winner Award | ||
Let it be known that Johnbod was awarded Fourth Place in the first Wikipedia Core Contest. This award is based on his outstanding work in improving Raphael. Thanks for your hard work in making Wikipedia's core articles better. - Earthdirt ( talk) 03:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC) |
Hi, would you take a look at my comments in this CFD? I'm hoping you can help sort things out. Cgingold ( talk) 21:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page become a disambig now? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC) We don't normally do that when only 1 has an article. Hondius, which i added a link to, has them all. Johnbod ( talk) 23:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for adding alt. hook to my DYK nomination!-- mbz1 ( talk) 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Victuallers ( talk) 09:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
-- Dravecky ( talk) 21:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Shubinator ( talk) 03:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but it seems like adding dendrochronology to cat:Art history is a bit of a stretch. Isn't it just one of many tools used in dating things like that? Wouldn't it be something like adding the microscope to cat:Dendrochronology (or cat:Art history, for that matter)? Guettarda ( talk) 14:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC) No, it is an important tool, and covered in the article. Johnbod ( talk) 14:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Your comments at the Category:Type designers CFD are bang on the nail and I'd typo'd the nomination. As I've now corrected it, you might want to look at your vote again. Sorry for the confusion; I even previewed ever page I edited several times first, because I always worry about screwing up deletion/discussion nominations. Sorry! — OwenBlacker ( Talk) 00:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
∗ \ / ( ⁂) 01:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
One of the most beautiful articles on Wikipedia. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! ( talk) 03:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod - thanks for the kind wishes. My health's back to about 90% normal - I've just got to watch my diet for a while and wait for the antibiotics to do their work. I've cut back my wiki work, though (it was taking too much time anyway), just editing and steering clear of the bureaucracy as much as possible. Grutness... wha? 22:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The 100 DYK Medal | ||
For reaching the 100 DYK mark, I award you this medal. wear it with pride. Chris ( talk) 15:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC) |
You are welcome. I also hit the 50 DYK award, but have not received mine yet. I did this last Thursday.
Chris (
talk) 21:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod..Congratulations, Very impressive!
I'm wondering if you might be able to locate an image of Laurence of Canterbury from before the 11th century? Per discussion here: [5] Thanks... Modernist ( talk) 13:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Johnbod, we are voting at mediation on the name of the Church here [6]. Are you OK with changing the article name to Catholic Church and having a lead sentence that states "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church"? Please cast your vote so we can either find consensus or not for this suggestion. Thanks.
Gatoclass ( talk) 14:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 03:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I fail to understand how my editing is categorized as vandalism. King Rene's tournament book should be part of the main article about King Rene, as it was commissined by him!!!! And i have left a mention in its discussion page. And instead of leaving vague statements like "you don't know what damage your editing is doing...." etc etc, please explain the sort of "damage" my editing seems to be doing to Wikipedia. "An Idle mind is the Devil's workshop" and what not...
Regards,
Nirvaan 21:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
If anything of this discussion has got into your stubborn head, please kindly check out these two artcles...
Descendants of Philippe I of Orleans and Descendants of Henry IV of France. Then you may be as rude to me as the rest of them have been, Ok with you??
Regards,
Nirvaan ( talk)2:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
You're right, of course - but I don't think I know the history or historiography well enough to be any help there. Sorry! Adam Bishop ( talk) 12:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I have opened a DRV on the wrangler categories, on which you opined (and in which Otto was not his usual logical self). Occuli ( talk) 02:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Shubinator ( talk) 05:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
Congratulations for your great article on the St. Augustine Gospels! Amandajm ( talk) 06:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC) |
Cf. James G. Watt and comments about his staff. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi -- I readded it to Category:Memoirs since it is not a formal autobiography -- it leaves out or covers but briefly large chunks of Feith's life to focus on a particular period, just like our article on memoirs says. That said, the categories are something of a mess on that end. Ray Talk 02:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Ooh, thanks for the Hollar heads-up. - PKM ( talk) 23:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Johnbod. Can you please explain to me more in detail what you meant about people categories being separate from other categories, or direct me to the WP policy on this matter? I am not familiar with that policy. Feel free to post on my talk page. Thanks. ( LMBM2012 ( talk) 07:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC))
Hey Johnbod, The Raft of the Medusa is main page on the 10th. Thanks again for all your help with it, I'm sure it will be drastically improved after its day up front. Ceoil ( talk) 23:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
That's fine, all browsers are a bit different, they look about half the size to me. Change it if you think it's better. PurpleA ( talk) 01:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, how are things? I don't remember if the idea of Category:Biblical manuscripts by century was discussed in the past or not. It seems like the idea is familiar, but I don't remember if there were any discussions on the topic, and where those discussions led. Is your memory any better than mine? heh. Thanks!- Andrew c [talk] 14:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
If I could direct your attention to WP:PHILO. Please note the navigation bar organizes the task forces such that we could reasonably expect that every "philosophy" article in WP would be covered by at least one task force. Ideally, each article should be within at least one task force for subject area, one for major tradition, one for period. This set up had been discussed at WT:PHIL a long time ago. Since it was set up, it has proven to be a good system of organization.
The article space categories do not mirror this organizational system perfectly. In fact, articles in the philosophy department need a lot of help generally. I am now doing my part by looking at the categories. Obviously, my goal has been to put them into a category structure similar to the task force structure.
I think there has already been an enormous amount of planning, thought, and consideration by many people to make the task force structure possible. I think we can reasonably conclude that it can serve as a model for organizing the article space categories. Furthermore, the proposal was posted at WT:PHILO explicitly for half a month. If anyone had objected we would have heard something by now already either in response to the task force set up or the latest proposal consistent with it.
Please cooperate with the proposal in consideration of the project. Pontiff Greg Bard ( talk) 17:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Asking your advice. I'm compiling items on Commons in preparation for a Wikipedia list of Holbein's drawings and an article on his drawings. I'm pretty clear in my mind about what a drawing is, but I'm going by my long-held assumptions rather than by any definitions I can find (the Wikipedia article Drawing ties itself in knots). I asssume that watercolour washes can be used in drawings, certainly in the way Holbein used them. For me, therefore, this is a drawing (even with bodycolour), as are these. Miniatures I would class as paintings, though I'd be hard put to say why–perhaps because they seek painterly solid form. (The only picture I am confused about is this, which is a Holbein drawing covered by someone else's daubs. But it raises different questions, and I'll probably list it as both a drawing and a painting.) I just thought I'd consult you before I carry on. Cheers. qp10qp ( talk) 14:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
One of several possibly lame ideas that have been put forward lately is the creation of various navigation templates for major subjects within Christianity, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum#Navigation boxes. I don't think they should necessarily be limited to just churches, however. Christian art strikes me as being an important theme within Christianity as well. As one of the editors with the greatest experience in that field, I was wondering whether you might be interested in helping set up such a template. I know that the differences between Eastern and Western Christianity may make it difficult, but it is probably at least worth a try. Worst comes to worst, we could create "child" templates for East/West, paint, etc./sculpture, and other fields as well. John Carter ( talk) 15:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
See this? - PKM ( talk) 03:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod, there is some agreement on the note for the name but it I was wondering what you thought about it here [7]. I tried to make some adjustments but my efforts are quite unappreciated and I am not sure why. I was just trying to make the note agree with the sources. Please let us know what you think, it might be better if I just watch from the sidelines for a little bit here. NancyHeise talk 00:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Johnbod, would you vet my start? And input from any of the knowledgable types who lurk at this page would be welcome, too! -- Wetman ( talk) 10:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Gatoclass ( talk) 13:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I had a question from your Catholicism revert. Are we then required to use British spellings in words on Wiki? MephYazata ( talk) 02:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay I understand ENGVAR, but I am not sure how it is being applied. Is the version with "s" used elsewhere so consistency is hurt? I'm not nitpicking, just learning. MephYazata ( talk) 02:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually that is the question I am asking you. I did not change it. I had noticed you had changed it from the "z" to the "s" and per my above question I was wondering if you saw that elsewhere it was using the "s". I was wondering where the British style was established that you saw the need to change to "s". That's all. BTW thanks for answering back :) MephYazata ( talk) 17:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay cool. That was what I was wondering because it seemed that the "z" would have been fine since I did not see an earlier "all UK" spelling throughout the article and I know that we can't consider Catholicism as only "UK". I may have missed something in some earlier history of the article though. That was all. No biggey. I just wanted to make sure I pay attention these in my own future edits. BTW I am using "UK" because some Americans use "british" with a sneer in their voice and I don't subscribe to that stuff MephYazata ( talk) 17:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Reference your comment "Normally only the 1st occurence of a term should be linked." :I don't understand. Where are these overlinks at porcelain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 ( talk) 03:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 08:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Please could you not add comments such as your recent one:- [ [9]] A review of my edits can easily show that I have added to articles with information that is correct, accurate and supported with citations. I am at a loss to understand why you have challenged these changes. It seems that anything I do you revert out of hand. Now you appear to be attacking me. As I noted to you some days ago this is the type of reason why I have not previously joined the 'club' that is Wikipedia:- there appears interest in using it for winning arguments simply for personal satisfaction than disseminating correct information. Another recent example from yourself is over the use of 'fine ceramics'. I have demonstrated that is is applied, amongst many others, by a highly respected authority to a wholly different group of materials to that is being described. After I changed to a better description, which is actually used in Wikipedia itself, your response was to simply revert. You have not given any defintion for your interpretation of 'fine ceramics' yet you insist yours is correct. Again, again, again I note I am trying to improve Wikipedia nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 ( talk) 02:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Happy Easter, thanks for helping to celebrate the day. -- Royal broil 16:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Shubinator ( talk) 23:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod... my, that was a long scroll-down! I'm doing a fair bit off-line as intro, based on Gradel and Brent for the most part, but I'm sure it'll all fit together somehow with what you're doing. Citation might be a problem with many of the statements in the article as it stands, mostly because many are good-faith re-interpretations many times removed, which amount in some cases to mis-interpretation by "primary" sources. Gradel in particular takes a very interesting and refreshing approach to what is essentially (or rather, historically) a standard Judaeo-Christian interpretation of material pretty well incomprehensible to a Judaeo-Christian mindset. It's a stripped down but less contentious approach now than it would have been even ten years back, but still quite difficult to grasp. It would be great to work with someone else on the article. I assume the article's on your watch-list. I'll discuss any issues on its talk-page. Regards - Haploidavey ( talk) 00:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Shubinator ( talk) 03:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Great article! I'm glad to see our interests are converging... Savidan 04:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Just want to make sure I haven't missed any architectural or artistic bits with Gilbert Foliot before I throw it up to FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, the Martin Bucer FAC was archived. In my opinion, this was closed too early. I have renominated it; would you please vote or leave a comment on the new FAC? See Talk:Martin Bucer and click on "leave comments". Thanks. -- RelHistBuff ( talk) 21:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
It was ridiculous because you didn't look at the article at all for any indication as to what it was about. It was ridiculous because the name Midtown was entirely suitable for Wikipedia because there are no other articles with that name currently. It was ridiculous because standardization of Wikipedia by randomly targeting articles for renaming is done only to prove a point, not for the benefit of the project. It was purely ridiculous because I took this much time to answer your comment. • Freechild 'sup? 12:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for all your contributions to Oriental carpets in Renaissance painting! Phg ( talk) 20:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
You do pop up on my watchlist in some odd places - you're not turning into a boatie now, are you?! Thanks for the improvements you made me make for JCBC, and for the support. Regards, Bencherlite Talk 16:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello Johnbod. I encountered your name on Talk: Hagia Sophia and I saw on your user page that you are interested in Byzantine art. I wonder if you would see fit to leave a comment on this RfC on the Justinian talk page. It is somewhat of a minor issue, with one user (me) believing that a particular reproduction is more true to the original, and another user ( user:Kurt Leyman, plus the unanimous consensus of those that have commented) believing otherwise. Either way, I think it would be good to have a more informed opinion in addition to the brief comments of casual passers-by. Especially, if the "color balanced" picture turns out to be more authentic, I would appreciate it if you could briefly point out why you think this is the case, since that has been obscure to me until now. Regards, Iblardi ( talk) 18:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes I'm fine with Somerset House as well, but isn't 1604 starting to be beyond Renaissance? Where would you put the boundary? Phg ( talk) 20:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi John! Could you do me a favour and take a look at User:Shakko's recent additions to Portrait of a Lady known as Smeralda Bandinelli? She asked me to fix her broken English, but I don't think mine is much better. I have not written anything but stubs here since I was forced to move to the Russian Wikipedia two years ago.
As an aside, Shakko is a professional art historian who has made a bunch of beautiful articles in the Russian Wikipedia such as ru:Троица (икона Рублёва), ru:Камея Гонзага, ru:Часослов Фарнезе, ru:Часослов Этьена Шевалье, ru:Портрет Минамото но Ёритомо, ru:Преображенская серия, ru:Лесбия, and many many others. It's a shame nobody would translate these. -- Ghirla -трёп- 17:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
This is to notify you that Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_21#Victims_of_political_repression, which you participated in, reached no consensus to delete, but has been relisted to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_30#Victims_of_political_repression in order to determine if consensus can be reached on other alternatives. Your further input would be appreciated.-- Aervanath ( talk) 06:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to Marco Marziale! It was quite exciting to unearth this author, and to find his painting at the Louvre Museum, but I couldn't find much about him on Internet... Phg ( talk) 15:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Are there any other museums with this name? Or is your point that people might be looking for museums about ceramics in general, not just this one? Nyttend ( talk) 18:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
That's much better! There are a whole lot more in Category:Decorative arts museums. Let me know when you are done, & I will add some. I think myself it is better treated as a listy article than a disam page, but whatever. Cheers. Johnbod ( talk) 21:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC) (copied from Doncram's talk page.)
Dravecky ( talk) 03:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 07:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Nice article, thank you. Paxse ( talk) 14:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Johnbod, sorry I am a bit late to the conversation but I want to know what you think of my response to the discussion your participated in here [11]. NancyHeise talk 20:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Favourite is the primary topic of "favourite", but it does not appear to be the primary topic of "favorite". Please take it up on the talk pages if you would like. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 12:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Both your and Awadewit's ALTs seem good to me, tbh. I think Maria Dostoyevsky was being a little dramatic in her description of the the occassion, so maybe I could aim the hook towards the dimensions of the painting...30.5cm x 200cm. Not sure how to make that come accross yet, though. Thanks for the look anyway. Ceoil ( talk) 20:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
(Cross-posted to a half-dozen people's talk pages)
After a couple of days of methodical typing, I've created List of works by Thomas Eakins. It's gotten to the point where other people can step in and add to it - titles need to be linked, dates need to be added, pictures need to be found/uploaded/added to the list, notes need to be added, etc. I'd appreciate your help building it up. Raul654 ( talk) 00:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Johnbod, would you be interested in bringing this forward to FAC next time? I can assist you if you need me to do so. There are some very minor additions to text made by Richard in response to the last FAC that need citations. I think there are three. Otherwise the article should be good to go. I do not feel welcome at FAC and I find the process very upsetting and NOT FUN. If you feel the need for a Sisyphus experience, please feel free to nom. I will be happy to help with sources or in other ways. Thanks, NancyHeise talk 22:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod! And thank you for your message. The substance of the edit seems to me entirely consistent with what I've gleaned thus far. There's a rather long sentence midway - it might benefit from judicious splitting - but that's a minor issue. You seem to be doing admirably well. The interpretation of the tondo as cultic/iconic seems very sound - I don't doubt for a moment that it is an aspect of Imperial cult and will check my sources for statements in support - or possibly to the contrary, though that's very unlikely.
Unfortunately, I'm away for at least a week and won't have my sources to hand, but will be very happy to help where I can on my return. Best regards. Haploidavey ( talk) 11:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok! Ok! Now that that is out......
I'll jam a reference in for every blinking sentence..... well, maybe not......
I stumbled on one article that is so over-referenced that it goes something like this:
John Bloggs was born on 1 April 1066[1] at Puddleby-on-Marsh[2] the son of Tom Bloggs[3] and Mary Bloggs[4] (nee Jones[5]), a baker[6] and pastrycook.[7] Every reference was to the same paragraph of the same book. The entire article was referenced like that. No-one who had been involved in raising it to FA status had commented on this foolishness or apparently saw it as a problem.
Part and parcel of the amateur nature of wikipedia is that the guidlines are often applied as rules, and often by people with little accademic experience, and sometimes (often, I suspect) by people on the Autistic Spectrum for whom rules can be so important that it can be inconceivable that flexibility is also desirable, because there are many instances where a situation hasn't been foreseen.
As for the pics, formatting for wide screen won't effect the mobile phone situation, and might actually improve it. I'll drop a not for the other editor. Can't do anything time consuming at the minute. Just going round the traps. Thanks, John! Amandajm ( talk) 00:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
A draft of the note under mediation is up for comments here [12]. Thanks, NancyHeise talk 11:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 13:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I've made a few changes based upon your comment for the FAC entry for this article. I wonder if, when you have time, you could have a look and comment upon the changes. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 12:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Acquisition in US military circles has nothing to do with "Target Acquisition" is a term related to how systems are procured in the military. The subcategories of the Acquisition page are all related to how US DoD buys its systems. Modeling and Simulation in US DoD is used in the Acquisition Cycle. I am surprised that no one sent me a talk/email to include me in the discussion be for making a decission to delete the Acquisition category.
By the way, I did see the discussion but not the details and though the Military Acquisition would be an appropriate change. I did not imagine that the category would be deleted. User:sidna ( User_talk:sidna)
Thanks..i will, best of wishes.-- Elmondo21st ( talk) 21:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible you could add a little more to this? Quoting the relevant passages from Vasari and Condivi would be a start. It would be a nice DYK, having been in the news recently. Thanks, Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) ( talk) 15:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
John, I forgot to thank you for the Tondo suggestion. I thought this link might be of further general interest - though perhaps you already know the work - [13]. Regards. Haploidavey ( talk) 10:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC) PS: if you scroll down to the next page, the Tondo is mentioned, but the preceding pages are also very interesting.
I'd like to nominate The Torment of Saint Anthony (Michelangelo) for Did You Know. Is that okay with you?
On another topic: Given that there are not yet any other subjects by this name, I'm wondering if the (Michaelangelo) DAB is needed. Are you planning on creating articles about similar subjects soon? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 20:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You recently reverted an edit I made on the Albrecht Dürer wikipedia page. The reason I made that edit was because I was trying to follow the wikipedia policy on weasel words. Is there a reason why that phrase wouldn't be a series of weasel words? It looks a lot like that to me. However, considering how much experience you have on wikipedia, you probably have a pretty good reason for leaving it on that page. Backtable Speak to Me about what I have done 02:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Jamie ☆ S93 18:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits. I have re-checked the Reardon book, and she indeed spells it "Pisani", but I wouldn't rule a type out at this point. I don't have to tell you how non-Italians can be with Italian names... Savidan 06:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey. By any chance do you know of the top of your head which Vermeer was stolen by the INLA over here in the mid-1980's. I assume it was Lady writing a Letter with her Maid as it is now in the Nat Gallery in Dublin, but am unable to find a source of confirmation. Thanks. Ceoil ( talk) 21:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The ODNB has biographies of both John Letts and his son Thomas. The former references F. Vivian, ed., Letts keep a diary: an exhibition of the history of diary keeping in Great Britain from 16th–20th century in commemoration of 175 years of diary publishing by Letts (1987) [exhibition catalogue, Mall Galleries, London, 28 Sept – 25 Oct 1987], and W. H. Beable, "Charles Letts's diaries", Romance of great businesses, 2 (1926), 211–20. The latter has a reference to Charles Letts & Co., The romance of the business of a diary publisher (1949). -- Hegvald ( talk) 18:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I finally decided to resume to Wikipedia - and as a first thing I expanded Michael Sittow from stub you created to somewhat bigger article (as you probably don't remember, we discussed it here a bit). I managed to dig up some quite interesting sources. However, I don't have access to Grove Art Online article about Sittow and don't know if there is anything else that could be added or changed - so, if possible, could you check the Grove Art and compare it to the wiki-article?
I hope to get some more material about Sittow in the near future (namely Michel Sittow 1469-1525, The Artist connecting Estonia with the Southern Netherlands, Eesti Kunstimuuseum 2002, ISBN 9985-78-255-0) and maybe get a photo of his house, too. Interestingly, Richardson, E. P. (1958). "Portrait of a Man in a Red Hat by Master Michiel". Bulletin of Detroit Institute of Arts speculates that the said picture is an auto-portrait of Sittow. That is probably not true, but it would be nice to get a color image of Portrait of a Man in a Red Hat for the article - but alas, at least my Googlemancer skills did not turn up any other results for that image. -- Sander Säde 13:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I've updated the licence permission for this image but the large image is broken. I don't know how to replace it could you do that? Apologies for late response, am not really in Wikipedia much these days. VAwebteam ( talk) 18:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
-- PFHLai ( talk) 05:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
As part of GA Sweeps, I reviewed Sistine Chapel ceiling. I have placed it on hold in hopes that editors might bring it up to current standards. It had a flurry of activity for more than a week, but has now gone unedited for a full week. My most glaring concern is that it continues to have 16 paragraphs without any citations. Based on your editorial history with the article, I am notifying you that if no one makes it clear that very near term continued improvement can be expected it will be delisted in the next few days. See discussion at Talk:Sistine Chapel ceiling/GA1.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 07:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:Jewish film ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Jewish cinema ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been trying to find out about the origions of the oval idealised faces of 16th and 17th C. paintings, but it does not seem to be widely discussed as far as I can find. I remember as a child thinking that that was just how people looked in the old days - odd; and its interesting how ideals of beauty change. Anyway, mentioning it only as I'm thinking you might have the knowledge to knock up a very interesting article here, at some stage. Maybe one for the long finger. Ceoil ( talk) 22:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Your input is needed here [14] to decide on one of three options. Thanks, NancyHeise talk 03:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Johnbod,
The DYK hook has landed in controversy, inspite of your supporting it. Is there anything to be done by to see it through?-- Nvvchar ( talk) 06:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, we now have an option 4 to consider since no one could agree on 1,2 or 3. Can you please come vote again? [15] Thanks, NancyHeise talk 18:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for finding the change in and repairing the link to his Air Force Biography. I have used that info to repair links on several other general officer pages.
ed
Ecragg ( talk) 13:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I don't know anything about the specifics, but regarding adding Category:Tamil writers to Pico Iyer, you should see this edit, which seems to be confirmed by the guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage, which says "Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors." You might want to ask that editor, or at that guideline's talkpage, for further details, if needed. That's all :) -- Quiddity ( talk) 19:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I have a list I am working through which I am only starting. I have a question at Category_talk:Spiritual_theories. Pontiff Greg Bard ( talk) 22:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - answered on my talk page. HeartofaDog ( talk) 23:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I have responded with a formulation of the "theory of mannerism" at Category talk:Spiritual theories. Pontiff Greg Bard ( talk) 20:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Come on now! You have to admit, this is tightening things up! I'll find a bunch more recommendations as I go too. I posted this to the c&t page too. (No not coffee and tea).
Proposed recommendations:
Pontiff Greg Bard ( talk) 23:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you are receiving this message because you were an original party to the mediation process regarding the Catholic Church name issue. The mediation outcome has been summarized and moved to the Catholic Church talk page here [16]. Please feel free to come join our discussion of the outcome taking place now before making the actual changes in the article. Thanks for your help and kind cooperation toward a mutually agreeable solution. NancyHeise talk 14:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.
If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here
Discussion is here. Peter Damian ( talk) 17:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod. Would you like to have a go at disambiguating the incoming links to Weymouth, here? -- Una Smith ( talk) 04:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I've raised the issue of Gregbard ( talk · contribs)'s edits here [17] as he seems to be making some major changes at high speed which I'm not convinced have consensus. Dougweller ( talk) 07:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Discussion of objectives here. Peter Damian ( talk) 20:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod, thanks for your help on Bible translations in the Middle Ages. This is a little outside my usual interests. Adam Bishop ( talk) 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This edit summary made me laugh. Of course, you shouldn't really be making jokes during such a serious and important debate. Some of them are admins, you know. Ceoil ( talk) 18:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I think Kbdank has resolved the problem of me not knowing what you were talking about. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
You previously have commented on the RfC at Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment on whether or not the lead image should be left-aligned. A straw poll is under way to determine what, if any consensus have been developed towards resolving the debate. Go to Talk:Joseph_Priestley#Major_options and indicate your relative levels of support for each option. Thank you. Madcoverboy ( talk) 17:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I hope you'll be able to offer some guidance on the Byzantine influence on Roman art, architecture, and culture during this period. It's really all Greek to me... Savidan 07:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The discussion for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 6#Category:Surnames by country in which you participated was closed as delete and is now under review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 25#Category:Surnames by country. Your participation and input is invited. Alansohn ( talk) 05:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Giants 27 20:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
After a very short visit on the talkpage for Humanism I have come to believe that the best way to proceed would be some kind of content dispute resolution process. Those two editors do not seem interested in cooperating at all. I don't know exactly what kinds of processes would be possible but I think we should investigate it. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
[18]. Maybe a slow second cousin? Ceoil ( talk) 07:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 08:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I've added a remark on the central detail in the illustration at Finding in the Temple: "The gesture usually made by Jesus, pointing to his upraised thumb (illustration), is the conventional rhetorical gesture expressing the act of expounding text." I'm pretty sure of this, but it's just the kind of statement that our confident editors like to challenge and delete. I don't have a reference here: Erwin Panofsky? Can you give it a supportive citation, without troubling much?-- Wetman ( talk) 02:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Johnbod ( talk) 20:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Victuallers has started Crispijn van de Passe, but I think has conflated father and son a bit. This is more your area of expertise than mine, compadre. - PKM ( talk) 03:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
So now youve sorted it out .... are you happy that I propose it to DYK? Good work! Victuallers ( talk) 14:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed your link to the plan of St Gell, reread what the article said and fixed it, after about four tries. Its getting late here and we spent all night last night working on my son's wretched history assignment on the rights of Australian women..... I'm finding it hard to focus. Seeya! Amandajm ( talk) 13:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a review of this article which has a large number of issues which need attention. I have delisted it. The reassessment is at Talk:Canaletto/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 13:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Leaving aside the question of whether or not Cornwall should be described as part of England, it is certainly entirely possible and even probable that a café on Fistral Beach would serve such tea [20]. Best wishes, DuncanHill ( talk) 15:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I undid your edit as, whilst one list has been merged in, the second hasn't. You may wish to comment on the proposal at Talk:Organ scholar - it's been a while since anyone did! Bencherlite Talk 16:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Your statement is being read for the removal of the Hirst image. I read it as for the retention of the image. You might like to clarify. Ty 00:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
A relevant question. I think I was going on the basis of Baked beans. The singular term does exist, but I've never yet seen a structure that has just one putlog hole. I suppose that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but nonetheless... -- Dweller ( talk) 10:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I took the name from a the original placement of the article and from the first line in the article itself. I don't object to changing it but isn't cathedral just as good in modern parlance? Philly jawn ( talk) 15:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Ciao! As usual I write long and intricate stuff, but ain't sure of the result as English is not my motherlanguage. Let me know if for you (and of course if have time to check) Chiaravalle Abbey, San Bernardino (Verona) and Valvisciolo Abbey are OK. Thanks for help and good work. -- '''Attilios''' ( talk) 10:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
{{User0|Candlewicke 11:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Jamie S93 Only You Can Prevent Drama 18:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)