User talk:Johnbod/30

FA congratulations again

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Portrait of a Young Girl (Christus) to FA status recently. I know you know all about WP:TFAR (specific and non-specific date slots) and the "pending" list, so this is just a reminder to use them as and when suits you. Many thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 14:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

WMUK Science Conference

Hi John. I'd be interested in your feedback on this proposal, which would hope to build on the work you are doing now in your two residencies. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Belated thank you

Hi Johnbod. Thank you again for whipping The Banquet of Cleopatra up from a tiny stub to a proper encyclopedia article. I generally hang out at the shite pipe Wikipedia:New pages patrol and don't write much much content, so being involved with a DYK means a lot to me. Thank you again! Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Evaluation interview

Hello John, I hope this message finds you well. I reach out to you as community liason of Wikimedia Program Evaluation initiative. I have sent you a couple emails before, but with no success. I was wondering if we could schedule an interview next week. I am going through a list of participants to the Evaluation Workshop that took place in Budapest in 2013, to learn how participants find themselves with regard to evaluation a year after the workshop took place. Please let me know what time works best for you. Best wishes, MCruz (WMF) (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Egyptian faience may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• It was the most common material for [[Scarab (artifact)|scarabs]] and other forms of amulet]] and [[shabti]] figures, and used in most forms of [[Ancient Egyptian jewellery]], as the glaze

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Egyptian faience, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lotus and Middle Kingdom. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Women writers

Hello Johnbod/30! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women writers. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women writers, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women writers page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Star Chamber, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wirral. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Policy regarding colourisation of images

FYI: Wikipedia talk:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop#Policy regarding colourisation of images. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Andy - no time today, or perhaps tomorrow, but I will weight in. Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Nativity (Christus)

Hi Johnbod, I've put Christus's Nativity up for peer review here, hoping to have a go at FAC and a xmas TFA. I'd like your input, when you have time. It's a more complicated painting than I expected and some of the sections would definitely benefit from another set of eyes. Just as an fyi, because I'm stacked up with work between now and Dec. progress will be slow, so I thought I should get it going sooner rather than later. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 00:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to drop a note here to thank you for comments to the PR and for your edits to the page (particularly the bit about Seth - very interesting). And an FYI that I'll be moving it to FAC fairly soon. Victoria (tk) 13:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Early 20th Century French Art

Hi John, I'm working on September Morn and will likely push for GA and FA. I was wondering if you are sufficiently familiar with 20th century French art, or know someone who is, so that I can better provide comprehensive coverage and avoid making errors. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I've commented a bit, but its not my area. User:JNW is mostly retired, but looks in now & then - he would be ideal. Certainly seems GA standard already, & not far from FA. You might add some background on the very complex issue of attitudes to female nudes in art at the period, and why this attracted especial ire - or was it just because it was so popular? Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot. I'll respond at the talk page, and see if JNW is around. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• I am indeed mostly retired, but thanks for thinking of me. JNW (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback. I've added a little bit of background, but I'm not too sure about the nuances of it; I mean, there are books about the subject, and to avoid overwhelming this article we need to have a fairly compact overview. I'd ping JNW, but the talk page has a big "retired" bar over it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• No, I'm pretty much done with content and copy editing. And for good measure I can't stand that painting. Sorry. JNW (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks anyway. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Medical Translation Newsletter Aug./Sept. 2014

Medical Translation Newsletter
Issue 2, Aug./Sept. 2014
by CFCF

sign up for monthly delivery

Feature – Ebola articles

Electron micrograph of an Ebola virus virion

During August we have translated Disease and it is now live in more than 60 different languages! To help us focus on African languages Rubric has donated a large number of articles in languages we haven't previously reached–so a shout out them, and Ian Henderson from Rubric who's joined us here at Wikipedia. We're very happy for our continued collaboration with both Rubric and Translators without Borders!

Just some of our over 60 translations:

• Xhosa
• Northern Sotho
• Zulu
• Tsonga
• Venda
• Hausa
• Igbo
• Yoruba
• Kinyarwanda
• Swahili
• Tigrinya

New roles and guides!

At Wikimania there were so many enthusiastic people jumping at the chance to help out the Medical Translation Project, but unfortunately not all of them knew how to get started. That is why we've been spending considerable time writing and improving guides! They are finally live, and you can find them at our home-page!

New sign up page!

We're proud to announce a new sign up page at WP:MTSIGNUP! The old page was getting cluttered and didn't allow you to speficy a role. The new page should be easier to sign up to, and easier to navigate so that we can reach you when you're needed!

Style guides for translations

Translations are of both full articles and shorter articles continues. The process where short articles are chosen for translation hasn't been fully transparent. In the coming months we hope to have a first guide, so that anyone who writes medical or health articles knows how to get their articles to a standard where they can be translated! That's why we're currently working on medical good lede criteria! The idea is to have a similar peer review process to good article nominations, but only for ledes.

Some more stats

• In July, 18 full article translations went live (WP:RTT), and an additional 6 simplified versions went live (WP:RTTS)!
• We have a number of new lead integrators into Dutch, Polish, Arabic and Bulgarian, with more to come in smaller languages! (Find them here old sign up page)
• We were mentioned in a Global Voices Online report by Subhashish Panigrahi at Doctors and translators are working together to bridge Wikipedia's medical language gap
• New medical professionals have started, dedicated to working in Odiya and Kinyarwanda!

Further reading

• Translators Without Borders
• Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign

-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Those pesky Tudor artists

I'm going to be doing some editing on the various Tudor artists and portraits - there have been some reassessments of attributions that need attention (the Armada portraits are no longer firmly attributed to Gower and seem to be from three different workshops, and the attribution of the Darnley portrait of Elizabeth to Zuccaro has been rejected). I have the NPG companion volume to the Real Tudors exhibit which gives good sources on some of these, and there's info on the NPG website about the work from their research project Making Art in Tudor Britain.

Have you seen the video on the conservation and cleaning of the Phoenix Portrait? Great stuff. Link here. http://www.arthistorynews.com/articles/2999_Cleaning_Elizabeth_I - PKM (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Media Viewer RfC

You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Melancholy

Nicholas Hilliard, Henry Percy, 9th Earl of Northumberland

I've added a bit on melancholy in 16th and 17th century visual arts to Melancholia - I suppose this could use an entire article of its own at some point, but at least the visual arts get a mention now. [Oh and by the way I've added what Strong describes as the earliest known melancholic portrait in England to Commons. Elizabeth Goldring's work makes a very convincing case for this being Robert Sidney in mourning for his brother Sir Philip Sidney, which begs the question of whether this is fashionable melancholy at all or something else entirely. File:Melancholy Young Man.jpg] - PKM (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Added a bit, mainly literary. I always think Percy above the classic English depiction, but I suppose this is subjective. The C17 Italians gave the theme a good go, but it doesn't come naturally to them perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This (skimmed) is interesting but fiddly: "Mio malinchonico, o vero... mio pazzo": Michelangelo, Vasari, and the Problem of Artists' Melancholy in Sixteenth-Century Italy, Piers Britton, The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Fall, 2003), pp. 653-675, Published by: The Sixteenth Century Journal, Article DOI: 10.2307/20061528

Article Stable URL: JSTOR Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Neglected to thank you for these edits and the link. Good stuff. - PKM (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ding (vessel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the Gospel Book edits

Hello, I just wanted to say thank you for the edits on the Gospel Book article and say I think it looks a lot better! I'm sorry I called the article "a bit of a mess"; I'm the first to admit it was unfairly harsh. It did have a few issues, but thanks to you it now both looks nice and is an interesting read. I'll try to add a few things later, if I can. Ciao, Yakikaki (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

thanks. Things can always be expanded, but I think it gives a good basic account. I tried to find EO refs online, without much success. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Johnbod, you asked me about my "but" in the afd. While gospel books seems to be OK in English, a vast array of significant literature is found with the German expression Evangeliar. That said, youre stilll better off refwise on gospel books, if you look for "evangeliar(y)". I fully agree with Yakikaki. Serten (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have added to this and Evangeliary on this. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Gospels of Tsar Ivan Alexander

added links pointing to Gryphon and Colophon

Lectionary

added a link pointing to Epistolary

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

French Royal Family

Hi John,

Due to this recent deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Members of the French Royal Families the link to Members of the French Royal Families#John_II_of_France_.281319.E2.80.931364.2C_r.1350.E2.80.931364.29 (piped to display as "French royal family") in the second section of Royal Gold Cup became red. Someone has now removed the link altogether. Perhaps you know of a better place to link it to now. I don't know what that complicated link was referring to so I don't want to just change it to the biography of John II of France lest you had a more specific think you meant. Wittylama 09:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Thanks - sorted. Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If you feel inspired, there's a dozen other articles that used to link in to that now deleted article which need altering... [1]. Wittylama 07:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic HERE. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Partial reversions on Islamic art and Islamic architecture

Hey, I noticed partial reversions of a couple edits of mine that you made on Islamic art (relevant edit) and Islamic architecture (relevant edit), making reference to WP:CITEVAR with regards to reference style consistency. When I made those edits, I considered that rule, but judged that it did not apply because the citation style doesn't appear to be consistent on either page—each page contains other {{cite book}} templates and others in the same family (i.e. {{cite journal}}), so I was not disrupting an established style. I'm not going to undo your reversion—the difference means little to me—but in future, please don't misapply that rule to (partially) revert good-faith changes like mine. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 18:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There is an established style, but on these popular articles others have introduced variants. That doesn't mean the style has become disestablished; your judgement was wrong. If you are not sure you should ask on the talk page first - see WP:CITEVAR. I shall certainly continue to do the same in similar circumstances. Johnbod (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

English South Coast Meetup

Hi John, you are hereby invited to the South Coast Meetup.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 15:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hope it goes well, but I doubt I will make it. Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John. It would have been rude not to invite you :-) -- Marek.69 ^talk 18:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Merger of Triumphal cross into Rood

Hi John. I've closed the discussion and merged the articles. Normally closure would be done by a third party, but as we both agree and have had no objections in over a year, I thought it was reasonable to do it myself. Please read through the merged article if you have time and check if it makes sense. I've introduced additional sections to try and clarify the structure. Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks Johnbod (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Bois Protat

Hey, if you can find the time, do you think you could give me some feedback on Bois Protat? I've got access to a book in French that I plan to use to expand the description (though not any time soon), so I guess I'm asking more for advice on the "Background" section, although any other advice would of course be appreciated. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Byzantine silk

I added images to Byzantine silk. Let me know what you think. Thanks. - PKM (talk) 05:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Martin Van Cleve

Martin Van Cleve is a bit of a mess - mostly 1913 PD text. I'm going to fix the dates per ULAN and RKD, but it could use your expertise . - PKM (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

"died of gout", eh! All these 2nd division Old Masters are the same. I'm pretty busy for the next month but will see what I can do. The online Metropolitan MA catalogues in PDF must have something on him somewhere, as they have on everything else. Ask User:WilliamDigiCol - have you seen our project there? Shame about the elections - no US govt for 2 years now. I blame the voters, All the best, Johnbod/Wiki CRUK John (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• • Well, he's mentioned in a big Vermeer catalog we have (on p. 54), but there is hardly anything there. A catalogues raisonnes came out this year (in German), so if you have access to that it would obviously be useful (we have a copy if you are in the NYC area). Sorry I'm not able to find more - feel free to take a look yourself here. WilliamDigiCol (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I've moved it to Marten van Cleve, and I'll clean up the worst of it. It's been this way a long time, so I suppose there's no rush. Working on brother Hendrick as well, in between looking for a Real Job. - PKM (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Diet as Risk factor

What are you referring to in:

on 2nd thoughts it's ok, though it's 2012 citing 2007. Another ref might be added"

--Zaurus (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Look at the source (in the old version) and see what it says. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Quoit brooch

Hello! Your submission of Quoit brooch 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) 23:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Erna Auerbach

I've done a stub for Erna Auerbach. It could use some assessment of her contributions if you or anyone reading here has a good source. (And something on her paintings, for which I have little.) - PKM (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Plaquette

added links pointing to Lorraine and Concave

Muscadin

added a link pointing to Bludgeon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Quoit brooch

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Requesting Women in Science Editathon Info for Program Learning

Hello John, I'm with the Program Evaluation & Design team at WMF. We would love to include the WikiProject Royal Society/Women in Science Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Royal Society, but we need to fill in the missing info before Nov 26th. I've posted a list over on the event talk page, could you please respond with any data you have, or "Don't know" for the answers you do not have, within the next week? If you have any questions, please do contact me through my talk page or at abittaker at wikimedia dot org. Thanks so much, this really helps our program learning and capacity building for future editathons! --Abittaker (WMF) (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Plaquette, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plague. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Science Museum Late

Hi Johnbod and thank you for signing up for the Science Museum Late - it's going to be a great night! Mary Langsdale (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	John, many thanks for your help at the "Your Voice on Wikipedia" event at the Science Museum on Wednesday. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

William Tudor Wilkinson

Gibson girl

I wonder if you can add anything here? Supposedly had important collections of various things but I find very little. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Nothing on JSTOR. Middle-man dealers often stay below the radar. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I wouldn't have done him if it hadn't been for his wife who invented the "blank hauteur" of the modern fashion model -she never smiled. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, she is more interesting. Of course Wimbledon girls are famous for never smiling .... The houses in Russell Road, Wimbledon, where she grew up in "poverty", now touch £1M for 3 beds of course. The "blank hauteur" seems to me a return to business as usual for beauties after a brief period of grinning Gibson girls. Rubens' Genoese trophy wives represent something of a summit there. I'm interested in the power of the female blank stare through medieval Madonnas, Garbo, Carmela Soprano, The Good Wife etc. Then there's Japan .... Actually most of our GG images aren't smiling either, but this one is. Sensible of her to wrap up warm. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You have obviously researched Wimbledon girls more thoroughly than me. This out recently: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=L_k5BAAAQBAJ&dq=smile+in+portraiture&source=gbs_navlinks_s It's an interesting area. I don't think you could say the typical Ziegfeld girl wrapped up warm (picture redacted) though it depended whether she was a Show Girl or a Chorus Girl, a distinction I had not appreciated before I wrote that article. Dolores was the former and kept her clothes on, because the clothes were what it was all about. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes Louise Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun usually gets the credit, I don't know how accurately. Artists generally were pretty poor at facial expressions until printmakers & book illustrators developed conventions for them, I think. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I am sure she always painted dressed like that. One reason they couldn't open their mouths, apart from it being vulgar, was because they all had bad teeth. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Plaquette

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Chartered Financial Analyst

Hi! I see you had an argument in the talkpage of article Chartered Financial Analyst with user ThoseArentMuskets. There he said that "I guess your edits that call it "an international designation offered by American-based organization" are fine. It's unnecessarily complicated, but I think I'm OK with it as a compromise. I'll revert it to that.". However, half-year later he once again removed that edit in this edit with a 'honest' mention of "rm complicated language". I thought you might want to ask him why he did that.

Template:Did you know nominations/Popular image of Native Americans in German speaking countries

Johnbod, this is awaiting your response; Serten II has made some edits, but I don't know whether they cover everything you said was needed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adoration of the Magi (Fra Angelico and Filippo Lippi), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tondo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec14c}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks, and seasonal greetings to all. My card this year is Adoration of the Magi (Fra Angelico and Filippo Lippi) Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Something beautiful for the holidays

• [2]
• [3]...Modernist (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Old WP:TFLS nom

Hi Johnbod. You opposed the TFLS nomination of List of Church of England dioceses a while back, and some more work has apparently been done on the article since then. I need to make a final decision soon on whether or not to run the page at TFL; if you find some free time, would you mind clarifying whether you still consider your opposition active? Thanks. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Link please! Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The review is at WP:TFLS#List of Church of England dioceses. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Nollaig

	Nollaig shona duit
	Best christmas and new year. Another year down, and so much more to write. Thanks for all your contribuitions and being part of the community. Hope January is at least resonabally tolerable for you. Ceoil (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Adoration of the Magi (Fra Angelico and Filippo Lippi)

Harrias ^talk 00:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

This is my Christmas card to everyone - Adoration of the Magi (Fra Angelico and Filippo Lippi). Season's greetings!

Happy Holidays

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. - Ealdgyth - Talk 15:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Yuletide greetings

	Merry Christmas!
	I ran out of lumps of coal, so I'm distributing leftover children. Happy holidays! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Adoration of the Magi (Fra Angelico and Filippo Lippi)

added a link pointing to Constantine

Neue Wache

added a link pointing to DDR

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

About Matthew

Hallo Johnbod, I have to inform you that I undid this edit of yours in Saint Joseph. I must admit that I can't understand why you removed my correction of early this morning. And I don't know what prompts you to make the statement "Joseph stays in Bethlehem for an unspecified period (perhaps two years) until after the visit of the Three Magi". I hope you realize that this is about the gospel of Matthew (the only one who tells the story of the magi). And Matthew wrote: "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem." So the visit by the magi is right after the birth of Jesus, as the flight to Egypt is right after this visit. Regards, Paul K. (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Try Biblical_Magi#Biblical_account. To attempt WP:OR on such matters is unwise, and no clear information as to the interval can be got from Matthew. You were yourself incorrect to claim that the Flight came "immediately" after the birth of Jesus - no such categorical statement can be found in Matthew. So I will revert you again. I will copy this to the Joseph talk page. Please continue it there if you must. Johnbod (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Johnbod!

Happy New Year!

Johnbod,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Edwardx (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

House of Vendramin

Sorry did not ck if anyone active. Aristocracy by nature is pompous, I found most other entries use "house of" as you point out, and I would continue to use that format, even though I agree it is somewhat over the top, but family has too low-brow a denomination. The Gambino mob family is a family, and not a house. Becuase many of the aristocratic names live on in structures, "house" is not a inappropriate apellation, it has more connotations. If you wish we can bring this up for debate.

Rococo1700 (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be good to agree a standard convention. I don't see the problem with family - it is standard for Category:Noble families of the United Kingdom (not to mention American families), and should be for all non-royalty (Princes of the HRE and up) imo. The category names should be in sync, but these will follow the main articles. Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not survey all other aristocratic categories: the Category:German noble families is definitely tilted to using the term "House of". The other point, and again, I am not defending aristocratic humbug, but titles of aristocratic lines (houses) have rules of inheritance that are not required by families. I was interested in translating the article on the serrata and aristocracy of Venice as an elucidation of how that oligarchic republic was run. I suspect that less than 30% of the names (over the five or so centuries, less than 500 families) merit a category, typically families with Doges. Ultimately, I still favor the term "House of", but not dead set. Maybe we should look at see what the Italian Wikipedia chose.Rococo1700 (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the German favour it, but large numbers of those are princes of the HRE (as are a number of Italian families, but generally not the Venetian patricians). I doubt English historians use "House of" much - John Julius Norwich for example. He's an viscount himself, so arguably a good guide. Johnbod (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Italian Wikipedia categories use some "family" type category, thus I will try to match "when in Rome....", that is from now on, I will try to move or add new entries in that format using family, although I still not 100% convinced. Rococo1700 (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Savile Row

I withdrew from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Savile Row/archive1 when Savile Row became unstable. The article has now been stable since August so I am considering nominating it again. You made a pertinent comment in the FAC; do you feel your concern has been addressed, or should I be paying more attention to the bespoke issue before re-nominating? Regards SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I think perhaps you should. That is certainly what most people will look for in the article. It seems rather patchy now, and that bit does not use book sources much. Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll add some more detail. Do you think there should be more assistance given to readers to help them find Savile Row tailoring and Bespoke tailoring? I think that for many people, as you suggest, Savile Row means bespoke tailoring. It is what it is most famous for. I think I'll put a hatnote on the page. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

How about this: Savile Row's reputation is built on bespoke tailoring, where each suit is made to individually fit. The term "bespoke", which has an etymology developing from "to exclaim" through "discussed in advance" and is generally understood to mean "made to order", became associated with fine tailoring, with tailors claiming that the term has been in common use for tailoring since the 17th century. Savile Row tailors argue that "bespoke", in relation to tailoring, is understood to mean a suit cut and made by hand; however, after a ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority in 2008, the term may now also be applied to machine sewed garments, provided they are made-to-measure. The book sources, unfortunately, are no different to the web or newspaper sources in that they all come from the same main source, the Savile Row tailors themselves. The books are those written by the tailors. I have, though, been able to make that clearer as I found and used two sources which explicitly state that the claims are made by the tailors themselves. What do you think? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Elsevier access

Hello, Johnbod. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Chris Troutman (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Romanticism

Why are you deleting my contribution? What is wrong with them? Uspzor (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Because I don't think they are an improvement overall, apart from problems with the English - see my edit summary the first time: "rvt - not an improvement, if only because of the poor English, but some useful quotes might be salvaged". There are 4 quotes: the Hugo seems much too vague to be useful right at the start of an introduction, the Nodier is interesting and might be useful somewhere. The Novalis & Hegel seem questionable translations, one not very clear or idiomatic, the other downright ungrammatical. The Hegel is also not very clear in its meaning as a stand-alone thought. There are various other problems - Romanticism doesn't take a "the" in English, you haven't bothered to translate "Londres" etc. If you want to argue the case for the inclusion of some or all of this you should use the article talk page. This is a very large subject and one might add an infinite number of quotes. Obviosly I don't think the current choices are perfect, but they are short, clear, and useful for an introduction that is hugely read, one imagines mostly by students of one sort or another. Johnbod (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sleeping illness, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sleeping sickness. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Morphology (archaeology)

I wonder if you could take a look at Morphology (archaeology). It was a redirect you created but the target was removed from Formalism (art). I've copied the material over but I may have the categories wrong or something. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Harpal Kumar

Already existed. It had wrongly been redirected to the charity in 2012. I have updated it. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow! What an idiot! thanks, Johnbod (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

And he's done it again, just when he's in the news. Johnbod (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

There's plenty of red links there for you John. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Waddesdon Bequest

The DYK project (nominate) 13:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Pancreatic cancer

Huge congrats for the effort there! I was really pleased to see it close and am impressed with the amount of work you put into it. Like a few others we've seen recently, I think it's an important article and good to see it achieve FA status. Victoria (tk) 22:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Stylization of the "common name"

In January 2013 there was a "RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name" -- PBS-AWB (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Please help

Please watch and protect Shahnameh. Attacked by a Pan-Turkist with typical Turkifying the WP behavior: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]--188.158.72.218 (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

sorted - protected, and user blocked, by User:RegentsPark. I'm not an admin. btw. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Gilbert Stuart

Have a question about the changes you made to some text which I had written on the Gilbert Stuart page, noting the current location of The Athenaeum portrait of George Washington as the National Portrait Gallery, which you edited to say that it was on display at the NPG as of late 2014. Is this a standard practice to fix hanging locations in time rather than note that a work's current location? Is it something specific to multi-owner works like The Anthenaeum? The Stuart page had for several years included text that the work "now hangs in Boston's Museum of Fine Arts," which was for at least 18 months (to my knowledge) an incorrect statement, as it had been on display in DC for at least that time frame. Would like to be clear if I encounter this type of text elsewhere. AFox83 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It's far better to avoid "currently" or "now" for precisely the reason you saw re Boston. It might be better to avoid giving a current status at all, but at least if you date it people may know to mistrust it if it's 10 years old. Johnbod (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

UNESCO Wikimedian in Residence Questions

Hi John

Thanks for your questions on my funding application for working with UNESCO, I've answered on the talk page.

Cheers

Mrjohncummings (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I Modi

Hello Johnbod, please see my little message on I Modi... Hope this is helpfull. Best, -- Spiessens 21:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiessens (talk • contribs)

Thanks. I haven't actually ever edited the article much. It would be best if you added these points, as you have seen the references, which I haven't. I can tidy up after if need be. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Helper Script access

\ An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

St. Francis

I took my eye off the ball on this one. Sorry. The Prado issue is not resolved. Ceoil (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding and helping. Ceoil (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crown of Saint Wenceslas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crown. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Majorat

An article that you have been involved in editing, Majorat, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC) --MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Wimbledon Common

Johnbod,

The Wimbledon Common page is in need of a name change and since you were so helpful with the MSPB page I thought I'd ask for help again with it. Really this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wimbledon_Common is a page for Wimbledon Common and Putney Heath. The commons are managed in conjunction by the same body and are in every respect to be treated as one.

There is no Putney Heath page (and there should not be). Despite the common being locally known as "Wimbledon Common" this is not the name of the site. I have posted on the talk page indicating such.

Can you be of help?

Jgdb500 (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Categories

I'm afraid I don't know how to put a link to a category in a comment without it appearing - as a category - at the bottom of the page.Rathfelder (talk) 11:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Aah! You put a colon after the 2 square brackets, like: Category:Nomadic groups in Eurasia. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Theodor Fischer (auctioneer)

Plenty of scope for expansion here if you have anything. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Texas Revolution peer review

Hi Johnbod. I've just opened a peer review for Texas Revolution as the final step before we try for FA status. I'd very much appreciate your opinion and/or your copyediting skills. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to take a look, but it will be next week. Remind me if nothing by say next Weds. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hausmalerei

Do Hausmalerei interest you, Johnbod? The article is still a pitiable stub.--Wetman (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Better than it was, thanks to you! And still enough to increase my knowledge of the subject considerably. I suppose pics are tricky to identify? I think Limoges Renaissance enamel will be my next effort in that direction, plus expanding Waddesdon Bequest for their reopening in June. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal attack warning

• Do not make personal attacks against other editors, as you made against me in your edit summary at Table of nations. Remember to comment on content but not the contributor. In fact, what you changed it to has misconstrued me; if you would comprehend what I had written on the talkpage, there is NO evidence that the term 'table' was ever used for this in English BEFORE the 1830s. 03:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Lunt (talk • contribs)

Well please find a way of saying that in comprehensible English, and learn to sign your talk page posts. What you now say is in fact in my version, but not in yours. Johnbod (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright - if you continue with childish name-calling editors or refer to me as "idiot" you will receive a warning from someone able to handle the situation. Did you catch my meaning that time? Mr. Lunt (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're just proving my point. Johnbod (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead. Call me "idiot" - one... more... time. 04:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC) Mr. Lunt (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Cornwall Domesday Book tenants-in-chief

Hello, I see you have objected to the PROD of Devon Domesday Book tenants-in-chief; do you think the same notability exists in the case of Cornwall Domesday Book tenants-in-chief which has also been given a PROD?--Johnsoniensis (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Tirgil34 SPI

This message has been sent to you to inform you that a case involving Tirgil34 has been filed at SPI, and it has come to my knowledge that you may have prior history with this user. As such, your input may assist with the case. That case can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34. Krakkos (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Mano Blanca

Johnbod, I wasn't sure whether you'd gotten the ping: you wanted to know when the nomination was ready for further reviewing, and the nominator seems to be indicating that it is. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Mano Blanca

Greetings, Johnbod. I've made some of the changes you suggested to Mano Blanca, and I'd be grateful if you'd take a look at the nomination again. I actually did it a few days ago and pinged you, but I've heard of several instances of pings not working, so I thought I'd drop you a message as well. If you've simply been busy, then apologies. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This will interest you

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Til Eulenspiegel. Dougweller (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks

I was just following POV republican edits from a new editor, when I found POV unionist edits. Just taught I would keep it neutral. Thanks for the appreciation. Murry1975 (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

For information

I was actually explaining to Iñaki LL that you and Carlstak were not socks.

Regards,

--Omar-toons (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting case open

As pointed above by Omar-toons. Of course you are not a sockpuppet, that is clear. I made my point on your inclusion in the relevant post. I have posted this notification on the rest of editors mentioned. You are on your right to make your point in the ongoing sockpuppeting investigation, feel free to use it. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hebe (mythology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gavin Hamilton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Victorian painting

Do your worst. – iridescent 18:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Culture

I am not following your concerns, and I would ask you to be a little more explicit in what perspective it is that you want the article to include. To me the common usage of "culture" to refer to the artistic expressions particularly of elite groups or exotic ethnic groups is simply a common superficial and analytically pedestrian use of the word in the same way that most people use the word "grammar" to refer to punctuation and spelling. I think that concept belongs in the article the arts. But I am of course willing to educate myself and include other views in so far as they can be shown to be relevant through sources that are about specifically culture. If you can point me to some sources that you think are representatives of the view of culture that you mean to include that would be very helpful.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like it frankly! I will return to this when I have more time. Johnbod (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Well you haven't exactly been clear in what your concern actually is, except that you think anthropology shouldn't dominate. I think that it definitely should be the main since no other disciplines (pace cultural studies in recent decades) have developed the concept theoretically and analytically or used it as a central axis in the discipline. I simply doubt very much that there are any works that are explicitly about "culture" that are not centered around the anthropological perspective.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Despite the fact I just mentioned a very famous one to you, which you'd never heard of! Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

No, in all the material I have read about culture - which is not a little, I have never once come across a reference to T.S. Elliot's book on the subject. So if it is famous an influential then that would be in a field that I am not familiar with. That is why I am asking you to actually point me to what field this is? Where are the works that consider Elliot an important theorist of culture? As far as I know Elliot is known as a poet, not a scholar of culture. You say "if you look the right places", that is not good enough, you need to tell me where those places are. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Anywhere outside the anthropology section of the library? Johnbod (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

You are not giving me a lot of good reasons to continue this conversation I must say.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I found one such place[9]. Here Eliot's essay is described basically as a defense of the elitist idea of culture, that sees the culture of the higher classes as more sophisticated than folk culture. That idea definitely will appear in the article and it is good to have a prominent proponent of the idea. It was of course an idea that had been rejected by anthropology for 50 years, in favor of cultural relativism, when he wrote it - but Eliot's conception of course is more prevalent in general society even today. So yes, definitely a good perspective to include.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

No that isn't what Elliot says at all, nor what the source says about his work! If you read on there you will get more books btw. Johnbod (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That is actually what the source says about his work yes. It also says that he argued that "folk culture" was in danger of being washed away by "mass culture", another common but simplistic view of culture today. Do you mean the other books by Leavis and Leavis mentioned in the next paragraph?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Elliot wrote: " By “culture,” then, I mean first of all what the anthropologists mean..."(T.S. Eliot, Christianity and Culture, p. 198) ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

and then what? "first of all" implies a list. Johnbod (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• This book seems to get a little closer to the debate that we are looking at - the humanistic concept of culture as selfcultivation and sophistication vs. a social science concept of culture as all learned habits. And on page 253 it does give a different idea of Eliot's thinking than the Sociology Encyclopedia I linked to above - noting that he in fact was trying to expand the concept of culture to include both high culture and folk culture (to an anthropologist that comes across as reinventing anthropology 50years later, but Ok). I will make sure to read more of this body of literature and include it in the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Once again I'm afraid I reject your conception of "the debate" as complete and partisan nonsense. It really is. But I'm afraid I don't have anything like enough time at present to point you to better sources - cultural theory is actually something I try to avoid, normally with considerable success. The trouble, it seems to me, is partly that anthropology lays claim to vast areas of the humanities, but actually concentrates on a far narrower range. So it actually knows very little about much of its supposed subject area, and is not taken all that much notice of by local specialists working in other disciplines. Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You are free to reject anything you like, but your objections are useless and impossible to even consider as long as you remain recalcitrant to even attempt to explain them, and offer nothing but objections and rejections. I actually think your understanding of anthropology and how it uses the concept of culture is a lot more limited than my insight into the way it is used in the humanities. If you have constructive input to offer at some future point I will be happy to listen, but at this point I see no further use to trying to pry anything meaningful out of you.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

My issues are not with how anthroplogy "uses the concept of culture" but what other disciplines have to say about the matter. So far your comments passim have shown a very incorrect understanding of this. But I really don't have time at present. Johnbod (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

fyi

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (2nd nomination) EEng (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Weekly Top 5000 Report counts mobile page views

Hi, Johnbod,

It looks like Romanticism is alive and well in terms of page views, as it shows up in the most recent weekly top 5000 report with a very respectable ranking. So it looks like in this era of mobile devices, we should not trust the grok.se page count, but rather the weekly top 5000 page count as our guide to which pages are most viewed. Thanks for the interesting discussion of that issue on the Core contest page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You think? The wild swings in "mobile %" don't inspire confidence. The link to where the figures come from doesn't go there. Johnbod (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Saints categories

The other day you left me a note about saints categories. Is there actually some consensus about the appropriate way of categorizing saints? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure there a bunch of historical concensuses on parts of the scheme. Whether they all tie up I'm not sure. For example, I recall a CFD decision to have a unified Category:Ante-Nicene Christian saints - Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_2#Category:Ancient_Christian_saints (and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_27#Category:Ante-Nicene_Christian_female_saints) but I doubt they all "join up". There is ridiculous duplication between by location/by tradition categories, but changes towards over-precise categories that leave some people stranded with no category aren't a solution. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

In theory it shouldn't be that difficult. If we would completely diffuse by contemporary location and period, and if we would only diffuse by denomination if there is a split between RC and EO we're almost there - without any duplication. Then for Eastern Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran saints, listifying would be a better solution than categorization because of the huge overlap between saints of these denominations and saints of either RC or EO. Or do I oversee something? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally I doubt that would work, and I'm certainly not going to get involved in such a massive overhaul. Sorry. Johnbod (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Gypsy Girl - Malle Babbe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gypsy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Abuse?

You called the peer review nomination that I filed on Talk:Vladimir Lenin "abuse". Why? --Mr. Guye (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC) You commented on the peer review page.

Yes, "abuse" was too strong - apologies. Johnbod (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Allegory of Fortune

added a link pointing to Pantheon

Celts

added a link pointing to Coptic Christianity

Penitent Magdalene (Titian, 1533)

added a link pointing to Religious drama

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Science Conference

Hello John, You're receiving this update because you asked to be informed about the Wikipedia Science Conference taking place in London on 2nd and 3rd of September. Thanks for your interest.

The call for proposals is now public and session proposals are coming in. The two keynotes, and some other invited speakers, have graciously accepted. In mid-May we will bring together a programme, a publicity poster, and an online booking form. Then we'll begin the main publicity and will need your help getting the word out.

Please put in a session proposal if you've been thinking of doing so: the deadline is the 8th May. This is far from the only way to be involved. The conference will need session moderators, a programme review group, and other volunteers: if there is a specific role you are interested in, or if you have any other questions, please email me at m.l.poulterbristol.ac.uk.

There will be a large "unconference" session in the programme and - fingers crossed - a "hackathon" event two days later on the Saturday, so even if you do not have a proposal accepted, you will have a chance to shape the conference activities.

Please pass on the word to any colleagues who might want to put in a proposal or help the conference in any way. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Nimrud

You can't be serious. We're talking about the lead—you're saying that nearly a quarter of the lead of this 3000-year-old city should be taken up with news in progress? Those details should be in the body, not the lead. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. And you left a one-line, one sentence para, which is never good. Why do you think the article has had 260K views in the last 30 days? The lead is generally too short anyway - it's crazy to make it shorter by cutting the immensely topical element. In the long run there will be clearer details & less interest & it can be revisited. Johnbod (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Etty

To be honest, I don't know anything more about restoration than I put in the transfer of panel paintings article. It's just something I researched because it seemed to demand an explanation. But my general feeling is that there needs to be a quite explicit description of the procedure. Unfortuately I have't been able to watch the videos and a lot of the the Manchester Art Gallery links are coming up as 404 not found. If the old canvas was entirely removed the article should say something along the lines of "the paint layer was removed from the original canvas and attached to a new one" or "the original canvas was removed from the back of the paint layer and a new one attached". However is this actually what was done? The quotes here from a restorer implies that it was a less drastic relining with the original canvas left in place, and only what is described, rather obscurely as "a 1930s glue lining" removed. http://issuu.com/potion/docs/mga_mag_p1-36/32

The videos might make ths clearer.Ruskinmonkey (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC) 13:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking more of a new article for old canvas to replacement canvas transfers, for this to link to. Or could one adapt your panel one to cover both original supports, & rename it "Transfer of oil paintings"? I don't know much about it but many stages of the technique seem essentially the same. I've felt the lack of such an article before, & there would be tons of potential incoming links. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best covered as one aspect in an article about the lining of canvases generally. I'll what I can do in the next few days.Ruskinmonkey (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Superb, many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Now an article, I hope not too prematurely. Hope the title Lining of paintings is OKRuskinmonkey (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Great, many thanks! I think the title is ok, but may not be clear to those outside the field. I might add an alternative (or 2) as redirects. I think canvas paintings are also often transferred to a solid support these days. If this version gets added later one might move it to "Transfer of oil paintings" or similar. Will you do a DYK? I will look for images when I have a moment, and there must be videos for ELs. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Etty, I've expanded the restoration section slightly to make it clearer what was done (and also to mention the half-hearted earlier restoration attempt). I've tried to keep it very brief, on the assumption that the overwhelming majority of readers will be people interested in the subject rather than the restoration who won't care about silicone putty and retouching techniques. Much as it pains me, this has meant citing a YouTube video, but I think in this case it's justified. Annoyingly, the MAG has now taken about 2/3 of their website down pending a redesign, but the video is hosted externally so should be safe. – iridescent 17:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Landscape with the Fall of Icarus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Man Who Fell to Earth. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed

Re this edit - mind adding a citation? I believe it, but it's a GA and I'd like to keep it well-referenced. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thangka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Himalayan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Power of Women

added links pointing to Spinning, Samson and Delilah and James Snyder

Bocca della Verità

added a link pointing to James Snyder

Yael

added a link pointing to Samson and Delilah

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

General Sanctions: Electronic Cigarettes.

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to electronic cigarettes.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

SPACKlick (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Herodias, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Feast of Herod. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

casing of art
Thank you for casing in your articles the treasures of art, books and knowledge, like some medieval manuscripts were luxuriously bound in gold, silver and jewels, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (17 December 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Three years ago, you were the 97th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! and thanks for all your work too! Johnbod (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Conditional Election

Hi mate, I see you reverted my change to propose Conditional Election for deletion. However, you didn't explain why. Did you want me to open up a full deletion process, have I inadvertently proposed for deletion something that's already been proposed before? SourAcidHoldout (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

No, you've proposed for deletion a concept that is totally notable, and easily verifiable (even if unreferenced) - see my comment at your ANI section, and [10]. You are making edits that are clearly out of your depth at present, and should find a less drastic way of editing until you are more experienced. Is ussgest you only add things, since you have little idea what to delete. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joachim Wtewael, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ceres, Lazarus and Goltzius. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Power of Women

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Archducal hat

added a link pointing to Margaret of Austria

Muqarnas

added a link pointing to Vaulting

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Conrad Meit

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

A CFD discussion you may be interested in - Churches/Church buildings

As a participent in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 17#Category:Churches, you may be interested in knowing that I've just initiated a new CFR discussion to fix the whole tree - Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 1#Churches/Church buildings. Feel free to participate there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

funerary art fa

Hello Johnbod, I used to be Ling.Nut. Hope everything is going well for you! Sandy is apparently reviewing all old FAs or something. Do yo feel up to looking at Funerary art to see if it's still up to snuff? I haven't even glanced at the page in years. • Arch♦Reader 09:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I have, a few times. Little has changed. It is, and always will be, incomplete, but I think otherwise ok. I'm not sure Sandy's review covers stuff that recent. Maybe. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually it does (2010 - wow), but I have done a 5,000 mile service. Johnbod (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

How come I don't remember you two working together on that? Sheeeeesh, I'm getting old in here. In the "olden days", FAR ran about two to three years behind on generating a WP:URFA list, but in 2010, FAR fell off the map, so now we are ... well ... probably too many years behind to catch up. Time flies ... 2010 FAs have had four or five years to deteriorate! But there are so so many missing nominators, that I'm not seeing how we can pretend to review all old FAs, so we need to focus on the abandoned ones. If we can at least prune out those that are being watched, we may have a chance to identify the worst of the lot. It was sure nice of NuttyLing to show up in the midst of this effort! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Quite a lot of them won't have changed much - like mine & Iri's. One advantage of obscure subjects, and declining editing .... Others do a lot of watching of mine. Are you finding many really deteriorated ones? Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

More than I'm comfortable with ... a good number of the unwatched FAs are in pop culture topics, and are probably hard hit. A concern right now is to figure out how we will approach the matter of so many missing nominators, but we should have a better sense of the scope of the problem after a couple more weeks of slowly pinging in the most active nominators, and carefully pruning based on their responses. It's frightful how many big fat RETIRED messages I'm finding among FA writers. In those cases, I'm not even trying (yet) to glance at their articles, because it will be too depressing, I fear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the attrition among article writers has been awful, and is ongoing, though some do come back, often on a more limited scale. Actually I think WP is a more comfortable & easier atmosphere for experienced editors than 5 years ago, if only because there are fewer other editors and actually the mechanisms for suppressing troublemakers of various kinds work better than they did. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

While that is perhaps broadly true, for me, student editing is killing it ... and there aren't enough other editors to contain and deal with all the damage. If you consider that I resigned as FAC delegate to deal with medical content and student editing, one wonders if I have accomplished ... anything at all. Student editing issues got dramatically worse, FA writing and reviewing declined broadly, and FAR fell off the map ... and Chavez/Venezuela are still a POV wreck. So, what am I doing in here anyway? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Lots of good stuff! really. At least there will be a break on the student editing for a while. It's odd how bad it mostly is. Keep on keeping on! Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Baby!, the first on the list doesn't seem too bad. Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Wars of the Roses Archiver

Just to clarify, was it set to archive after a month, and you reset it to two? If so, good catch. Cheers! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I hope that's what I did! Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Bull (painting), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page United Provinces. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Arty stuff in York

Hi John, Long time no speak! Hope all's well with you! I've just wanted to point you to a couple of things that art history related things that are going on in York at the moment. Firstly, I've managed to start an Art History WikiClub with the student art history society at the University. We've only met once so far but I thought you might want to keep an eye on it and possibly partner with keener editors (should they emerge!?). Hopefully, they'll get keen and they're access to resources will lead to great things! Also, we're getting more and more of York Art Gallery's collection up (CommonsCat here) and there are potentially some useful images. I'm getting my head around the GWToolset but in the meantime you can download and reuse images from the online collection as you wish: YMT Online collections. Let me know if you have any thoughts! Unfortunately other art collections in the region have been a little sluggish responding but fingers crossed. Cheers, PatHadley (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Cheers! See you're already on it! PatHadley (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is AusLondonder's battleground conduct. Thank you. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hullo

Hello old friend...I was pleased to see that you edited Delacroix's Women of Algiers, I created an article on Picasso's series inspired by the painting ahead of Version O's New York City One Night Only Mega Sale tonight. Any help would be much loved. I expect it shall be bought tonight by a secretive billionaire collector (or not), so we could DYK it in time. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Just been watching it on the news. but it's not my period at all! I'll take a look. Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Medical FA edit notice

I just noticed I never put one of these:

User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#Medical_FA_editnotice

at Pancreatic cancer. If you look through them (for example coeliac and ketogenic), you'll see we can also deal with ENGVAR. Do you want me to install one? If so, which variety? I try to keep track of them in my sandbox should we ever need to change them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes please - we are talking about tumors there. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

OK ... I forget ... British English? That is, can I just copy this one? Template:Editnotices/Page/Coeliac disease SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

No, American. We use "tumour". Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Geeez, archive your talk page ... all this scrolling down is giving me arthritis (and anxiety, since it's taking me so long to respond)!!! LOL.

OK, then I think that means I have to craft new wording, because I am confused. It uses American English except for the word tumour? I am not up on different varieties of English ... isn't tumour British ? See samples: Template:Editnotices/Page/Chagas disease doesn't mention any language issues, while Template:Editnotices/Page/Coeliac disease does. Which do you want? Or do I need to customize it? Anyway, I guess you know then that it will come up on every edit, and only sysops or template editors can change it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the archive :) OK, I get it now. By "we" above, you were referring to the British, not the article! SO, I'll install the generic version then. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Template:Editnotices/Page/Pancreatic cancer SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Beverley

Hi, I noticed that you have been reverting edits changing Viking → Norsemen, can you have a look at this edit to Beverley and see if it should also be reverted. Many thanks. Keith D (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, done. Johnbod (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Keith D (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr.

Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr. and feel free to comment there. Thanks! —sroc 💬 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Matisse/Picasso/Seurat

Not sure if you're the right person to ask, but thought I'd check, since I know you're knowledgeable on art topics. I'm getting rid of thousands of books, and among them are some collections single-artist coffee table books. In many cases these books are worth essentially nothing; I can sell them on eBay for maybe a dollar or two. Am I right in thinking that if I slice out the pages and scan the pictures I can upload them to commons? The books are published in the 60s to 80s, generally, but of course I'm only talking about paintings that were painted before 1923. Is this worth doing? Or are most well-known artists now well represented on commons? It's not zero effort, so I'd rather not unless it has value. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure on either score I'm afraid. Scans from books, especially ones printed pre- the 80s are generally low quality. I think the US law refers to works published before 1923, and perhaps only if in the US, which might mean publicly exhibited, or not. Seurat & Matisse at least are out of EU copyright (life + 70) so should be ok. Picasso certainly not on that basis. More obscure artists might be more useful. With Old Masters you know there are no copyright issues. I'd just pick a few examples & try to find them on Commons. Generally Commons coverage of the top 2 divisions (as it were) is pretty good, below that not. Hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look on commons, and may ask at the image copyright page before doing anything. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Generations of Noah

In regard to Elamites being 'the' ancestors of the Persians.

I appreciate that you acknowledge the page's lack of credibility, however I do not recall the theory claiming that Persians were descended from Elamites, let alone that Elamites were 'the' ancestor of the Persians. I only recall it claiming that perhaps Elamites were descended from Elam-- an entirely separate topic of controversy I do not currently care to discuss-- as opposed to simply being an individual people of Haltamti.

Would you please either revert it to my previous edit, or at least include a citation which states that the theory refers to Elamites as the sole ancestor of the Persians?

No, this is talking about what some people believed 2,000 or so years ago. If you have problems with the text use the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand that, but I am asking for proof that they even believed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 15:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The Flavius Josephus section is all referenced (and can easily be checked online I think), as is most of the article. If you are concerned about a bit that isn't, add a cite tag, or ask on talk. Or both. It's not an article I edit, but I will protect it from unjustified deletions. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I will add a cite tag. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 15:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted. The Josephus text is quoted, and linked to at the ref above. It is very clear. "6. 4. Shem, the third son of Noah, had five sons, who inhabited the land that began at Euphrates, and reached to the Indian Ocean. For Elam left behind him the Elamites, the ancestors of the Persians." All the article says is that Josephus wrote this. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you add that Josephus believed it. Because it appears as though Josephus only believed Elamites came from Elam, and that the person who added this to the Wikipedia page believed Persians came from Elamites. Please add the citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 16:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

There are a string of direct quotations from Josephus, all covered by the reference at the top (currently # 25), with a link to the online text. That seems fine to me. A search on "Elam" there takes you straight to the passage. The quotation above is very clear. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I suppose if it is regarding itself as merely a quotation and not an absolute historic fact, I will let that specific topic go for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 17:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

WP: don't be lazy. Actually no: CS (common sense): don't be lazy

Hi. You did EXACTLY what I predicted on the article's talk page: instead of fixing the problem (art. IS A MESS, USELESS for the user who needs the basic info), you quoted some WP guideline that is NOT meant as a crutch for lazy editing, and removed... whatever I did to make the art. OF SOME PRACTICAL USE. WP is not meant as a playground for players of logic games, i.e. "how can I respect all guidelines", but as a WORK OF REFERENCE put out there TO OFFER GOOD, CONCISE INFO. For those who cannot grasp it, editing WP is a disservice to the users. Arminden (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden

You could try actually reading it maybe. Johnbod (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Unlike you? Because I'll repeat here what I have written already: I DID and it took me AGES, and still w/o a clear answer. That's the difference between a WORK OF REFERENCE and a MANUAL. The latter u need to study from first to last page to pass the exam; the former is supposed to give a CONCISE, INTELLIGIBLE answer to a common answer like: what, where, when...? But if this still needs to be explained, it's a useless exercise.Arminden (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden

I think you considerably overstate how concise Wikipedia is trying to be in longer articles. Adding shouty bolding for key points is just not our style. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Parliamentarians on fire

Thanks for the compliment earlier today regarding the 1836 map. I'm good at finding maps, but I have yet to find the treasure map that we all would like to get our hands on.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I don't know where we are heading with that one. The natives seem most unfriendly. Johnbod (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

:-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Palmyra

You deleted a source about the sentence of Palmyrene art being more influenced by Parthia. A sentence you wrote and I sourced ! I think its rude to tell me that it is "better". Im planning on taking this to FA and I put a source to every sentence while you are adding a lot of stuffs without adding a source. Dont you think that it is better to explain about the Palmyrene art before explain it connection to Rome ? You made the section about Rome !--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

What's rude is to start editing a section someone else is working on, causing edit conflicts. Trust me, the article is a long way off FA quality, and adding vast numbers of low-quality sources won't help much. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Considering that I took it from a very low quality article into a GA and that an expert editor in FA told me that it is an FA quality then I beg to differ. The sources are not low quality. You should open them.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, lets not be childish, the article have a reference style and it would be nice to stick to it. The reference you are adding are in a different style, maybe you can make them consistent with the rest of the references. I have explained what is a Palmyrene art then I put the influence on Rome in its own paragraph. I hope its logical and not rude.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec-again)Take it from another "expert editor in FA" that it isn't. Non-specialized would be more accurate. For art history art historians are what you need. You are welcome to reformat the refs, but I'm afraid I avoid cite templates. For FAC, I recommend getting the works used into a "references" section, with shorter citations for the text. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, that is one opinion I can respect. I prefer that a reader be able to read the sentences in the source. Now, can you explain about the Roman connection in their own paragraph ? its weird to talk about frontality and its influence on Rome without first explaining that Palmyrene art had frontality ! This article is about Palmyra, the focus in the beginning of the section should be first on its art before moving to show that it had no effect on Roman one !--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

CRUK review

Hi John. I'm writing up some notes on expert review efforts at en.Wikipedia. Can you tell me which cancer articles went through the CRUK review process, please? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for John Frederick Lewis

Thanks from me and the project Victuallers (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Chape 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! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Johnbod. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Chape.
Message added 17:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Giorgione may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *''[[Castelfranco Madonna]]'' (''Madonna and Child Enthroned between St. Francis and St. Nicasius''; c. 1505 <small>- Oil on wood,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Joachim Wtewael

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)