Open main menu

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

Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svgThis user is one of the 200 most active English Wikipedians of all time.
Dirty angel from the Monumental Cemetery of Staglieno in Genoa, c.1910

memo to self - arty student project pages to check throughEdit

Disambiguation link notification for August 4Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Etruscan art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Olpe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

BBC use of eraEdit

I don't subscribe to the Telegraph. Are you saying that the citation for NT usage also includes the BBC's usage? Because if it does, then both statements should be individually cited using a named reference. Right now what you have done is to disconnect the NT policy sentence from the citation that supports it,

By the way, I wp:assume good faith towards you. I expect you to do likewise. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

More spurious excuses. The link is online if you are in the UK, which I assume you are. So you did make assumptions about what a ref says without actually looking at it. There is no need for both statements to be individually cited using a named reference, but if you want to do that, go ahead. Before you start slinging any more policies about, you should first stop to consider how each of them applies to you. Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Rather than edit warring, why not just get it right first time. It is the responsibility of an editor who adds material to ensure that it is properly cited: it is not reasonable to expect readers to infer that a citation for the BBC has anything to do with the NT or vice versa. Chalk/cheese.
So after much sound, fury and time wasting, the material is now in the state it could have been first time round. Nobody is perfect but most of us are willing to accept our errors being pointed out rather than do blanket reversions and grudging repairs accompanied by personal attacks. (Tell me why you think my edit was "pointy"?). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Unbelievable! Don't post here again, and I suggest you take on board the comments made at ANI. Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Personal attackEdit

Arising from your edit to Talk:Common Era#British Museums and BC/BCE (diff=909437446&oldid=909428172), I am inviting administrator intervention.

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

KellsEdit

Hello! I hope you don't mind this – whilst I absolutely don't have the skills or knowledge to diagnose who/what they are, and they've obviously got your goat, I did feel that they were right about the "unfortunately". I know it clearly was unfortunate (duh, as they say!) but I also feel we shouldn't say it, along with all those ironicallys and obviouslys and all the rest. Sorry and have a nice day, cheers DBaK (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Ivory Tower editsEdit

Hello. With regard to the recent revisions on that page, please see my latest comments on the "talk page." Thanks! Jcejhay (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

FeedbackEdit

Hey there. Is it too much to ask for to not have fellow editors call you a spammer? I see you have made significant contributions to Wikipedia. I am thankful for that. I trust you, like I, don't expect people fuzzing about giving you positive feedback about that all the time. However, if and when I see something you're doing that I oppose, is it fair I don't assume you're spamming but simply may have another perspective of what's benificial in that particular case? Excuse, just saw some opportunity for if not a more positive atmosphere, then at least a less negative one, if you don't mind awfully. PPEMES (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, I'm busy cleaning up another of your little piles of poo! Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry one of my contributions was a mistake. Thanks for helping. Let me know if there is anything I could do better. Have a nice day! PPEMES (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
The trouble is that many of them are! You are highly prolific, but fewer, better, edits would be good. Best wishes! Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Anything else you could exemplify, please? PPEMES (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Following discouraging feedback on Talk:St. Peter's Baldachin and Talk:Cappella Paolina ("Do you keep statistics on the proportion of your many RM noms that succeed"). Actually for the latter question, do you know how to retrieve that? For the rest, are you really assuming WP:BADFAITH? I was contemplating adding one RM to Cortile del Belvedere inter alia in accordance with the lead phrase, but discouraged by your tone. Would you mind if we apply some civility? I appreciate your efforts around here. If I have wronged in any way, then please let me know. PPEMES (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

But smile when you say thatEdit

Had to smile when it became apparent there was no edit war to intervene in here. Sparafucil (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you kindly. Odd echoes of Private Eye in the LRB letters column. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Venetian school (art), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capriccio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Vezzi porcelainEdit

 On 13 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vezzi porcelain, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the third European factory to make "true" hard-paste porcelain (examples pictured) was the Vezzi porcelain factory of Venice, founded in 1720? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vezzi porcelain. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Vezzi porcelain), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019Edit

Please review WP:ESDONTS - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't mind if someone is uncivil on talk pages once in a while. Nor do I mind if someone is both uncivil and vague on talk pages once in a while. But when I politely reach out to that person on own talk page to try to work out at least the vagueness, but the person passive aggressively doesn't reply, that's when I mind and would have a hard time describing such behaviour without breeching civility myself. PPEMES (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I've engaged with you several times (under both your user names) explaining that you need to do fewer, better, edits to stop annoying other editors and wasting their time on ill-judged move requests, renames (ok not much of that recently that I've seen, which is good), and so on. Now I'm expected to reply within a few hours to your comments, or you complain about that! There is a vast amount of easily-found work needed improving text on old, neglected, articles, but you never seem to do any of that, instead distracting those who are. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
There's certainly lots to be improved across Wikipedia. I thank you for your contributions. While I have noticed that there has been a few requests in which you have opposed, in the largy majority of requests I have not seen your participation - support or oppose. Would you mind to more specific with what your problem actually is? PPEMES (talk) 12:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Companion statues: Kashyapa and Ananda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Socle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

James Sillett GANEdit

Hello. Any chance of letting me know what else needs to be done on this article, which you agreed to review? I notice that nothing has happened to the review since the end of last month. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I was waiting for you to say you'd done my points of 28 July (as you took your time after the previous comments). You shouldn't expect me to follow every change to the article, but I'll take another look. Johnbod (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Curzon Street BaroqueEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Curzon Street Baroque at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Yoninah (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Cozzi porcelainEdit

 On 21 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cozzi porcelain, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Cozzi porcelain factory of Venice had a stock of 118,000 pieces by 1784, mostly old and out of fashion? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cozzi porcelain. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cozzi porcelain), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nominationEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Curzon Street Baroque at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 10:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Help requestEdit

Hello John! Do you remember me? A few years ago, I was used to call your help to my numerous translations of Italian articles on art and architecture... Now, after a very nice trip to Apulia, I made again a couple of these attemps at Trani Cathedral and Otranto Cathedral (which I didn't vist; I went to Castel del Monte, Trani, Barletta, Andria and Matera). Let me know if you have time to make some copyedit. Thanks a lot! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course I do - I'll take a look - not immediately maybe. Hope you're well! Best, Johnbod (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Tanks a lot! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Curzon Street BaroqueEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Curzon Street Baroque at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see my note re referencing at the bottom of this nomination discussion. I'm also alerting Giano. Cheers, RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Meissen porcelain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Osier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:SilverEdit

You readded Category:Silver to Surtout de table after I removed it as unrelated. Explain the relation. Before doing so, kindly take a look at the category page and quickly scan through the articles in it. Wouldn't you say that at least one of them stands out from the rest like a sore thumb at the moment? I've no intention of removing it again by the way; if you insist on having that article miscategorized, let it be miscategorized but make no mistake: you miscategorized it, twice. Also, why just silver and not also, at minimum, gold and porcelain? 78.28.45.169 (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I've moved it to Silversmithing, which I hope works for you. Johnbod (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Curzon Street BaroqueEdit

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible assist availableEdit

You have asked for a non-editor to help on the art page for "Virgin and Child", which appears to be undeveloped. The same nominator has also apparently nominated The Immaculate Conception of Los Venerables for GAN, which appears undeveloped as well. Let me know if I can be of assistance on one of these article reviews or both of them, since I am not an editor of either one. CodexJustin (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Where did I ask that? Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
It appears to be on this user's Talk page here: User talk:JeBonSer, edit link here [1]. Let me know your current thoughts, the review page for the article is seemingly neglected. CodexJustin (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok, the Murillo appears much better (not much thanks to him, I think) & within hailing distance of GA, but the Sirani should be quick failed or withdrawn. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
'Done' on the Sirani. You might want to check with one or two of the recent editors on the Murillo 'Immaculate' edit history page, who might take on improvements if you can find time to do the Murillo GAN. CodexJustin (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks - I've got another Virgin GAR on the go, which I think is enough! Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
That sounds good. I'm not sure what to do about these noms coming from JeBon, who is nominating articles and then not participating in their improvement. Separately, I have been thinking about moving the GA art house film for The Favourite in the direction of an FA nomination and was wondering if you might have any interest in it after you complete your current "Virgin" review. No rush on this; whenever you might have the time. CodexJustin (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I think just quick fails where appropriate are the way to go - saving people's time. Films aren't really my thing (and I haven't seen this yet). It's looks ready for a WP:Peer review - sometimes productive, somertimes not. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

It has just come to my attention that another assessment has started without the nominator here. The same person. Could you look at this here Talk:The Immaculate Conception of Los Venerables/GA1 ‎. CodexJustin (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!Edit

  Thanks for supporting my unsuccessful RfA. Normally when the voting goes bad people become afraid to support. Your courage and support is appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Missed pingEdit

Greetings! I pinged you from Talk:Sandro Botticelli over two days ago and I see you've been very active since then, so I assume you didn't receive the notification. Could you respond there? Thanks! ―Mandruss  08:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not me being "very active", but me being very busy on other things. You'll have to be patient. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Your unjustified changes to ArchEdit

Please cease and desist from making your unjustified removals of images from the gallery in Arch without first notifying the user that uploaded the images (see Wikipedia:Image use policy#Deleting images and Wikipedia:Files for discussion) and/or engaging in a discussion on Talk:Arch.

Galleries often contain multiple images. The images that you wantonly removed because you unilaterally considered their number to be excessive has seriously diminished the information that the article conveyed.

WikiProject Architecture has rated Arch as top—importance. The images that you removed illustrated the diversity of arches throughout the world, including the similarities and differences among them. These are important features of articles involving architecture.

If a discussion on Talk:Arch or another Wikipedia forum does not resolve this issue, a third party opinion may be needed. Corker1 (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not deleting anything, I'm just trimming the use of images here, so these policies aren't relevant here at all. There are still FAR too many images used, many extremely similar. By all means launch an Rfc; I think you'll be in for a shock if you do though! I'm generally a great supporter of galleries, but there are limits. Many other editors would be far more drastic. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
More arches! 112 images is not enough for a quality gallery, but it's a good start and does cover the subject. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Not sure if you're joking Randy, but we both know that is not the typical view. Ok, seen the link. Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Joking. Although the gallery and other pictures certainly do provide an encyclopedic overview of types of arches (if I was an arch fan I'd love the page) except...there are no images of arches in art! Category:Bridges in art should have some appropriate examples. Maybe the page can be an exception for amount of images, and building up another gallery for artworks could be a way of adding even more data. Crashing the Wikipedia servers should be the goal here (joking), but maybe covering the topic from artistic angles (and images) might be fun. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

WedgwoodEdit

Wow, some of these things are just gorgeous. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Khalili Collections, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rashid al-Din (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Sang de boeuf glazeEdit

 On 13 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sang de boeuf glaze, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that American potter Hugh C. Robertson was left "nearly penniless" in 1889 by his years of attempts to recreate the Chinese porcelain sang de boeuf glaze (example pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sang de boeuf glaze. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sang de boeuf glaze), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

NPOVEdit

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussionEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

ANIEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with agressive editing with which you may have been involved. SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Just a tipEdit

Now that you have settled everything on the Machiavellianism article, you should also sign your name at the end of the page, would make it a lot better :)

Ciao! SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

That is not helpful. El_C 23:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
But it is true. Look at the page history. He feels like he owns the page, then fine. I should actually give this guy a barnstar for pulling off breaking WP rules. (or are they his rules? He seems to be doing whatever the hell he feels like, and good for him honestly). SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
There are dispute resolution resources available for you to get further outside input into this content dispute. El_C 00:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Your ongoing assistance very humbly requested (reftools essay)Edit

Yes I know my reputation at FAC is shit, and I genuinely don't give a flip (because I know I am in the right, even though I express myself in a rather direct way). So.. my reputation and associated manner of expression are why I am here.. I'm requesting your ongoing (for a finite period, however) help as a Reverse Anger Interpreter or Politeness Filter of sorts to help me write an essay that is polite and impersonal enough so that it won't melt even the gentlest flake of snow... I want to embark on a push for reference reform, but my manner of expression is again rather too direct. The essay... I personally would title it something like "Why reftools really must be scrapped, pretty much immediately, if not sooner" or "Why reftools sucks" or "Why reftools is a malignant tyrant that is stepping on the tender throats of new editors, choking our stream of supply" or similar, but I am sure my title (and all the text that would follow) would be expressed in a manner less than palatable to our sensitive crew of editors. You have known me for years; I hope you will overlook my direct manner of speaking and look at the problem that has bothered me for years. I think dropping cite templates, bare URLs, etc. directly into the actual article text is the main reason why new editors become intimidated. It creates a monstrous thicket.. I think these should be replaced with {{{sfn}}} and other templates, as I did in the Bengal famine article... Here is an example from Johann Sebastian Bach:

Visible text/What readers see: Throughout this period, Bach also continued to adopt music of contemporaries such as Handel (BNB I/K/2)[76] and Stölzel (BWV 200),[77] and gave many of his own earlier compositions, such as the St Matthew and St John Passions and the Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes,[78] their final revisions. He also programmed and adapted music by composers of a younger generation, including Pergolesi (BWV 1083)[79] and his own students such as Goldberg (BNB I/G/2).[80]

Wikitext/ What editors see: Throughout this period, Bach also continued to adopt music of contemporaries such as [[George Frideric Handel|Handel]] (<!--°1685-->[[BNB I/K/2]]<!--1747–1748-->)<ref>[https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00000763 {{nowrap|D-B N. Mus. ms. 468}}] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170911162223/https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00000763 |date=11 September 2017 }} and [https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00004039 {{nowrap|Privatbesitz C. Thiele, BWV deest (NBA Serie II:5)}}] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170911204514/https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00004039 |date=11 September 2017 }} at [[Bach Digital]] website</ref> and [[Gottfried Heinrich Stölzel|Stölzel]] (<!--°1690-->[[BWV 200]]<!--circa 1742–1743-->),<ref>[http://www.bachdigital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00000756 {{nowrap|D-B N. Mus. ms. 307}}] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208134212/http://www.bachdigital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00000756 |date=8 December 2015 }} at [[Bach Digital]] website</ref> and gave many of his own earlier compositions, such as the ''St Matthew'' and ''St John'' Passions and the ''[[Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes]]'',<ref>[https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00001203 {{nowrap|D-B Mus. ms. Bach P 271,}} Fascicle 2] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170911162108/https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00001203 |date=11 September 2017 }} at [[Bach Digital]] website</ref> their final revisions. He also programmed and adapted music by composers of a younger generation, including [[Giovanni Battista Pergolesi|Pergolesi]] (<!--°1710-->[[BWV 1083]]<!--circa 1746-->)<ref>[https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00000690 {{nowrap|D-B Mus. ms. 30199,}} Fascicle 14] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170911162140/https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00000690 |date=11 September 2017 }} and [https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00000661 {{nowrap|D-B Mus. ms. 17155/16}}] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170911162134/https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00000661 |date=11 September 2017 }} at [[Bach Digital]] website</ref> and his own students such as [[Johann Gottlieb Goldberg|Goldberg]] (<!--°1727-->[[BNB I/G/2]]<!--circa 1745–1746-->).<ref>[https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00019289 {{nowrap|D-B Mus. ms. 7918}}] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170911204444/https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00019289 |date=11 September 2017 }} at [[Bach Digital]] website</ref>

I was pondering how to reply, but I'm glad to see the repost at Iri's page has produced a very good discussion, much more coherent & well-informed than anything I could have said. What they say on the prospects for change seems very sensible. Apart from my period as a medical editor, when I used a ref tool that now seems to have vanished (put in the pubmed # & it did the rest), I never use any type of citation template, just "< ref>Smith, 34</ref >" with Smith's details in the reference section. This suits my style & subjects - I tend to use 3 sources where I can, generally all saying essentially the same thing, but maybe one online & two not etc, so I bundle these ("< ref>Smith, 34; Brown, 224-228; Jones, 99</ref >"), because I hate taxi-ranks of refs. I get the ref details from my user page, as I use the same sources in lots of articles, or adapt from google books or JSTOR. I don't use newspapers very often, those have to be done manually. Of course you can't see the full source details by hovering in the text, but I can live with that, and think the readers can, though I was slightly surprised by recent research showing how many say they look at the refs - more than I would have expected. I hate the "ref=0" type that now seems common, and in which Wiki-ed students seem to trained, but at least the vertical stack type seems to be falling from use. I'll certainly look at anything you produce, in draft form or whatever, but I'm much too ignorant of "normal" referencing to be any help creating the meat of it. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I am quite discouraged by the replies at Iridescent's talk. It's all just... no one cares what is difficult for editors in the long run. [Reftools as it currently and apparently forever works is easy in the short run but craps up articles in the long run by dropping {{cite book}} etc. directly into body text .] They have their plan and their reasons for their plans, and that's that. Meanwhile, you might wanna look at Talk:Early Netherlandish painting. Thanks anyhow. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
(watching:) I believe we have different topics, one is using ref tools (which I don't know anything about, I write them myself), the other to get the them out of the body by naming them, which I always do, but have been reverted (though not recently) calling "citevar". I believe that even if an article was started with ref following fact, we should be able to convert to refs in their own section, which wouldn't change the style of ref, just where to find them. - I often deal with recent deaths, want to edit a ref, look the ref section where there's nothing but "reflist", search within the article, - not helpful, imho. But, repeating, I was reverted when I tried to help new editors by not interrupting body text by lengthy refs of what ever style (template, sfn or simple). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

() Completely reverting – with the accompanying loss of content – and shouting "CITEVAR" is an excessive an inelegant response. So says an excessive and inelegant editor. If you ever have probs with refs etc drop me a line. I am weird. I enjoy them. I have been meaning to see a psychologist about this mild aberration of mine. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019Edit

  Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of a page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Because you thanked meEdit

  Johnbod, you thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt...
 YOU'RE WELCOME!
It's a pleasure, and I hope you have a lot of fun while you edit this inspiring encyclopedia phenomenon! DoebLoggs (talk)

13:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorting Names RFCEdit

Hello, you once provided your opinion on how to sort names on a discussion located here. I wanted to to let you know that another RFC discussion has began since others failed to reach a consensus. If you would like to offer your opinion on this new discussion it's located here. Thanks! AnAudLife (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

PenannularEdit

While circle was not the correct target, ring certainly is. Penannular form is used in different articles, and is defined as such, "having the form of a ring with a small break in the circumference." I'm not sure why you insist on reverting me, and insulting me. Please stop. --evrik (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Because you're blundering around making all sorts of inappropriate and ill-considered edits! We don't need a Penannular form that, as you had it, went first to the wholly inappropriate Circle. Once you realized how wrong that was, you redirected it to a specific type of ring, hidden in the middle of large table/list, that is what is meant in NONE of the the articles you have been busily double-redirecting there (via Penannular form Junction). What a mess. The not very good merriam-webster definition is using "ring" in a geometrical sense, not a jewellery one. Better to have a disam page that actually defines the term. Johnbod (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18Edit

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

Apahida necropolis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Penannular
Picts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Penannular
Tongwancheng (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Jurchen
Worlebury Camp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Penannular

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Altamura_CathedralEdit

Hello John. All OK? Since you were so kind to help at Otranto and Trani Cathedral, could you also check what I tried to copyedit and add at Altamura_Cathedral? The previous article was a (sometimes silly) translation of the Italian version, by someone writing in English even worse than me. (PS: this summer I passed near Altamura but unfortunately didn't stop there - also 'cause my wife get soon bored of visiting churches and we were just out from a full day at Matera. Anyway it was a pity since the church looks spectacular.) Thanks a lot!! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 09:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The Sacrifice of PolyxenaEdit

Just saw this was turned into a redirect, but I think it was for the wrong reason. Looks like a legit series with multiple refs available via a google search. Also, see c:Category:Sacrifice of Polyxena by Giovanni Battista Pittoni for more notable versions on Commons. Not a Pittoni fan, but maybe you know someone interested in 18th century mythological art? Best, Jane (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Happened to to see this. Jane023, I redirected it because it was poorly sourced and virtually without content, with no indication that the topic is notable independently of Pittoni (for whom, admittedly, I share your lack of enthusiasm). If someone wants to write a proper article about it/them I would of course be delighted. Hi, Johnbod! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
The Italian wiki seems to have a relevant article. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Lingzhi2, that article was created by a sock of longterm hoax/nuisance editor Alec Smithson – not one single word that editor wrote may be trusted, please use the utmost caution! The more recent edits appear fine, though. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • FFS Jane ADD LINKS!! Johnbod (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I changed the redirect to Polyxena#Sacrifice_of_Polyxena which has a decent section, whhich I've added to. It's not a rare subject in this period, but is especially associated with Pittoni - there are 9 versions on Commons. The article was relatively long by the creator's standards, but I agree these (usually) one-line stubs need to be discouraged. Note that we already have The Sacrifice of Polyxena (Giovanni Francesco Romanelli) and The Sacrifice of Polyxena (Charles Le Brun) (both in the MMA, Sam Holt stubby jobs). I don't think a disam page would be useful at this stage. Johnbod (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Thx. Who knows why he painted so many versions? Must have been demand for them, possibly because of a popular play or opera at the time. Jane (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Possibly - I've added and "on the stage" section, but most come well before, or after, his time. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Johnbod".