Open main menu

User talk:Johnbod


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


John, Re your latest revisions

  1. English spellings fine. I will not use American alternatives again.
  2. Revised start to the article. This now seems to confuse the essential first step to understanding the majolica/maiolica muddle which is to understand there are two distinct processes producing products that are called by many names including 'majolica' and 'maiolica'. So, can we have a sequence that goes Confusion -> different processes a) coloured glazes on biscuit b) tin-glaze with brush painted enamels. May I revise your latest sequence along these lines? Then you re-revise if you don't agree? Is this the correct way to proceed?

Davidmadelena (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, give that a try - but (per WP:LEAD) we need a lead of a decent length that concisely covers the key points of the subject. The subject is obviously inherently fiddly and confusing, as I'm sure we agree, but I think it's easier to start with the words rather than the techniques. This is partly because I'm sure the great majority of our readers simply glaze over (see what I did there) at any talk of pottery techniques, especially if chemistry is at all involved. They are far happier with talk about words, countries and periods. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try. Appreciate your help. Intro lead of decent length understood. Totally agree with everything you say above about glazing over (haha very good) etc. but the use of both words and other words for both products is the root cause of almost universal misunderstanding (exceptions Paul Atterbury and V & A). I feel somehow in this case we have to coax the reader over the facts hurdle first.
Davidmadelena (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
John, nearly done. I propose deleting the Section Victorian Majolica, and using anything useful in the article text.

Davidmadelena (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Dunstable Swan Jewel editsEdit

My apologies for not reading the "no citation templates" notice at the top of the page when editing. I let my zeal for citations get the better of me, and no citebanditry was intended.—A garbage person (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zecca of Venice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand Canal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Today's TFAEdit

I didn't know which comment to press the "thank button" for on today's ERRORS, so I'll say thanks for all of them, instead. CassiantoTalk 16:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Basket case article?Edit

Hi Johnbod, I've looked at the history of this article and seen that you have never come across it. Which is a solid shame, but it may not be to late! I think that this article is most definitely encyclopaedic, but also very peculiar, to say the least. What do you think? Regards, --Edelseider (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Very wierd formatting, which I've tidied up in the upper part. Johnbod (talk) 11:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
And the tone! I love formulations like "In his thesis Arnhold addresses the possibility of these two life-size statues being by the Maître de Chaource, dates them between 1518 and 1520 and states that there is archival evidence that they were brought to Saint Pouange in 1861, and had previously stood on the west facade of Troyes Cathedral." Totally acceptable, but somehow very different from how Wikipedia sentences should look and sound. At least I discovered an important Northern Renaissance sculptor. Did you know him? --Edelseider (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I'd heard of him, but not much more. It's a neglected area. The article is not by a native speaker I think. Johnbod (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Neglected, yes, apart from some household names (Michael Pacher, Tilman Riemenschneider, Veit Stoss). --Edelseider (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


Thank you for your notes on the FAR for this article. When the dust settles I think I may revise and resubmit. If I copied your notes to date to the article's talk page would you consider reviewing the article to the end so that I can address your concerns enmass before it comes back? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sure. I was not likely to not support, as you may have guessed. You can't expect perfection with a subject like that. Sorry I seem to have struck the death-blow, along with Borsorka. Is it my memory, or did I do something like that before? Johnbod (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Not your memory, yes you did, probably quite rightly on the grounds (I think) that there was not enough analysis and too much narrative. This one is better but I guessed you were unlikely to support. Bazorka seems intent on reworking it to match his middle European Catholic view of history, I think that was the death blow Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
No, I was almost certain to support this time (double negative above). Quite where it's heading now, I don't know. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Norfolkbigfish:, just for clarification: I am central European, but I am not Catholic. It is so funny that we can so easily misunderstand each other's objectives. When reading the article and experiencing your unwillingness to modify highly biased sentences relating to Turkish history, I was convinced that you are on the payroll of the Turkish government or of a chauvinistic Turkish NGO. We could read unverified sentences, for instance, about the Seljuks' peaceful immigration to Anatolia and about their peaceful rule over local Arabs and Christians. Now I am sure you do not receive salary for this article. Borsoka (talk) 07:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Well that is good to know, I consider that an achievement in itself. Hopefully, the article won't have gone backwards when this current spate of editing ends. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


If you wikihound me again, I will have you sanctioned. I don't know what gripe you have with me, but either you stop, or I will have someone make you stop. This is the last time I will address your ownership behavior, and out of magnanimity I will let your ill advised edit pass. KingofGangsters (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussionEdit

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Johnbod reported by User:KingofGangsters (Result: ). Thank you. KingofGangsters (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Portable altar (WB.232)Edit

Hi John. Given the new image supplied by WereSpielChequers, I wonder if it could eventually be taken to DYK. I have a bunch of Art Gallery of Ontario (who have a significant collection of Gothic boxwood miniatures) sources somewhere in my mounds of books and pdfs; there are loads of others sources out there. Yet it seems as if the so named Adam Dircksz has fallen though the cracks of history. I know you are knowledgeable on the Waddesdon Bequest objects, so suggesting. Ceoil (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for doing that. Yes, it would be good to take that to DYK. I may even try for some close up photos of the details referred to. Not sure however if I can get to the BM soon enough for the DYK schedule. As with other items in the Waddesdon bequest, I see far more detail when I look at a blown up photograph than I can in real life. ϢereSpielChequers 15:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I think it's ready for DYK as is (& should be nominated in the next few days). I doubt there's much more on this specifically. If you look at the BM bibliography: Read & Dalton (the latter compact) are online, Tait is given in full in the BM online - these pieces were never covered by the partial full catalogues - & you have Thornton. I don't know the rest but it doesn't look as if they'd add much on the piece - Adam Dircksz I think you've covered in the main article. For DYK the nom should go in soon, but it might easily be a month or more before it is actually used, so that gives more time for photos. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok, you can do a double with Adam Dircksz. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Frankly John, I dont know how with all the new rules; can you do the hounours. I can add an extra bit about Gothic vs Italian influences. Ceoil (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok have a hook that will tie them together, will do, prob on Sunday. Ceoil (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok, give me a link to it, & I'll watchlist & keep an eye out. Johnbod (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Articles now at [1]. Will work a bit more on Dircksz. Have cropped versions of SpielChequers's pic. Ceoil (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


Hi Johnbod. Do you reckon there's consensus for adding the proposal about multiples and sets to VAMOS? Cheers, Ham II (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Yup - done that. Thanks for the reminder! Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Gupta artEdit

Hi John! I am trying to start a Gupta art article. Your expertise is welcome!! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Great idea! Next stop Kushan art! Are you planning to add lots more? I can certainly add, but it may be best if we don't have two people on it at the same time. Best, Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
My ressources on Gupta Art are already nearly exhausted at this point. Please do take up the task if you have knowledge on the subject!! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok, will do, though I have several irons in the fire at the moment. Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Castleford PotteryEdit

 On 29 October 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Castleford Pottery, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that many Castleford-type ceramic teapots have either hinged or sliding lids (examples pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Castleford Pottery. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Castleford Pottery), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Our friendsEdit

Hello. I am hoping that maybe someone somehow can do an intervention on our friends that will somehow make things better and even maybe smooth. I remember yo and Srnec (sp.?) seemed to have a good grasp on things. I have no idea how any sort of mediation process works. Do you have any suggestions about how to peacefully head off a (potential) storm? Tks ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Jan van EyckEdit

Re Talk:Jan van Eyck[2]: no, that's not her business actually. These pages are to discuss the article, not for random course instructors to put totally irrelevant tags on them. Obviously it is her business what article she assigns to which student, but that doesn't mean that we should accept any tag put on an article talk page. It is not her page, nor is it the page for that course. If there is a reasonable link between a course and an article, and the student(s) have actually contributed to the article or the talk page, then it might be a good idea to have such a tag. Here, not so much. Fram (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Many of these courses let the students choose off-topic subjects, & always have done. I don't see it is our business to interfere in this way (telling them how to run their courses). There is a general issue with these tags, which are often placed on articles the students are only meant to review. Either way, these tags are piling up on art articles, & very often the students leave no trace in the edit history of either article or talk. You should pick your battles more sensibly. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I am not telling them how they run their courses. I am telling them to not span irrelevant tags to article talk pages. If it is an off-topic subject, then there is no link between the course and the article anyway. Your addition, that many of these assigments lead to nothing at all and that these tags are piling up, is only more reason not to have this tag. If most are useless, then a discussion should be had to get rid of the others as well; readding this one solves nothing though. Fram (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
No more does removing it - beyond buggering up the project's statistics, the main reason they are there. It would be a good idea to initiate a general discussion that old ones should be removed (and indeed that all talk page stuff over say 3 years old should be auto-archived, which I tried a while back). That would be a useful thing to do. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Die Einführung der Künste in Deutschland durch das ChristentumEdit

I made a real quick stub, but I'm a bit stuck--the book sources I was looking at don't show me a lot of content, I don't understand how a fresco is put on fabric, and I am not so well-acquainted with the formatting as you are. If you could help, that would be great. There is no rush. I was thinking of this painting as a cover for a Boniface book, but it's a bit too 19th century, too Romantic, too nationalistic, haha. Thanks for any help you can provide! Drmies (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

  The Indian Culture Award
Thank you for your erudite and expansive contributions on Gupta art, as well as many other articles related to Indian culture (who else could so brillantly write about Māru-Gurjara architecture)!! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Māru-Gurjara ArchitectureEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Māru-Gurjara Architecture 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) 01:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Was it you who were working on this?Edit

Can't remember who was working on this once: you, Ceoil, Modernist..? But saw your name atop talk page:

Years ago, yes. The article seems to have rather deteriorated since. I'll add the link. Johnbod (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
Just amazed by your work in Gupta art! Thank You for your valuable contribution to the Indian and other arts. Nizil (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Kushan artEdit

...One more piece in the puzzle: Kushan art. Help welcome! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a great start. I'll get on to it in a bit. Johnbod (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:Lists of artists by biographerEdit

I have proposed renaming Category:Lists of artists by biographer. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_6#Category:Lists_of_artists_by_biographer. – Fayenatic London 08:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks - commented there. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

UTRS updateEdit

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Johnbod (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))

UTRS appeal #27556 was submitted on Nov 11, 2019 15:02:10. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod, following up from WP:BOTN, the notice above seems to be related to UTRS ticket 27556 that was resolved by Ohnoitsjamie. This is an automated notification that your ticket was closed. Did you not actually create that ticket? — xaosflux Talk 16:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
No, why would I, since I've not been blocked? Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Did you submit a ticket to UTRS about your account being autoblocked? OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
NO!! Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
This may be relevant. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
In that case, I reversed the rights management action I performed earlier, since you didn't request it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach processEdit


The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Venus figurinesEdit

Hi - you made this edit[3] but a student has changed it recently to say ", so it is assumed this color had a very significant meaning in their culture even though we do not know what." I find nothing on p.28[4] so I'm confused. Doug Weller talk 11:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Eek - great spelling! You are unlikely to find anything anywhere with that sort of search! Note that I gave the source as Sandar's 1st edition, not online; unfortunately my copy is boxed up just now - perhaps not for long. Google preview of the 2nd edn, as later rearranged with the pics in the text, shows coverage of the VFs between pages 40 & 50, not all of which I can see, the bits I can not mentioning that point. That bit may have been rewritten. I'll look when I've unpacked. This and this cover the "ochre as symbol of life" bit, which also shows up in many book snippets.

Btw, this is a useful general paper on prehistoric oche use]. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks interesting but I have no time. I'll add it to the Ochre talk page. Doug Weller talk 12:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Royal Society portraitsEdit

Hi @Johnbod:, unfortunately the Royal Society have decided not to publish portrait of Fellows of the Royal Society anymore, I'm trying to get more information from them about why (and I've emailed you some details) Duncan.Hull (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Duncan - how silly of them, frankly! As you know, all my contacts have left, but if there's anything I can do (including a meeting) please let me know. Should I write anyway? It would be useful to know at what level the decision was made. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Byzantine illuminated manuscripts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syriac Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


Hi Johnbod, thanks for your additions to this article. If these had been made by a newly-registered account or an IP, I would of course have deleted them as uncited and out of place in the lead section, and while welcoming their efforts to improve the encyclopedia on their talk page, I would have explained to them about the importance of reliable sources and the vital need for verifiability, linking to the relevant policies. In the unlikely event that they responded, I would point out further that a link to another Wikipedia article did not in any way substitute for a link to a reliable source, as Wikipedia itself did not constitute a reliable source and in any case many articles were inadequately cited; nor would it make sense to follow links from one article to another in a potentially endless chain, finding few or no suitable sources as one progressed.

I'll move the art paragraph out of the lead and find a source for it, since I assume such exists. However .... Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

[PLEASE SEE THE NOTE AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE!] shall almost certainly move them back, with more material below. The article as it stood, and presumably now stands, is grossly misleading, and there needs to be non-yoga stuff in the lead, more than I added, if Asana as a title is to be viable. Otherwise, a disam page will be inevitable, and Asana (yoga) etc. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Māru-Gurjara architectureEdit

 On 21 November 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Māru-Gurjara architecture, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Māru-Gurjara architecture (example pictured) originated in Gujarat and Rajasthan from the 11th to 13th centuries, but can now be found in Antwerp and Potters Bar? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Māru-Gurjara architecture), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!Edit


Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Uncited additions to Nelumbo nuciferaEdit

Johnbod, I do not intend to create sorrow by removing your helpful and accurate introduction to the use of the sacred lotus in Asian art, but you must be aware that it is not only a personal feeling on my part that additions to Wikipedia must be cited: WP:V is a critically important policy, as without it, anyone can add anything and the encyclopedia descends into nonsense. It is not acceptable for highly experienced editors to use their sense of unassailability to add uncited claims to articles, nor to expect other editors to go around cleaning up after them. I would be grateful if you could provide a suitable citation for the newly-added material. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  • No, it is not our policy that all additions must be cited. What WP:V actually says is "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation". In this case, the content in question is not a quotation and it doesn't appear that Chiswick Chap is challenging it as they say that it is helpful and accurate.
Demanding pro-forma citations for everything is vexatious busy work which disrupts Wikipedia's development by annoying good faith editors and filling our articles with unnecessary clutter which intimidates new editors. Perfectionism is commonly understood to be counter-productive and so should be resisted. For more on this, see perfect is the enemy of good which I started specifically to ensure that this is understood. That article gets a high readership and it's interesting to note that its pattern of readership follows the working week – people seem to consult it when they have to get real work done. See also teaching grandmother to suck eggs.
Andrew D. (talk) 10:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 3Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Johnbod".