User talk:Johnbod/40

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Photo problem

Hi, I've seen you discussing something about images on a policy/guideline/help page recently, so I'm wondering if you could advise - I'll go to the helpdesk if not.

I was sent a photo by an old university friend some years ago. He died in March and, alas, I never had got round to uploading the thing to complement Michael Axworthy. It isn't a great photo but he knew why I wanted it and I still have his original email discussing it.

What hoops will I have to jump through regarding licensing etc? (I'm ok with uploading). - Sitush (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that unless it was a selfie, the copyright belongs to whoever took it, & they should really be the one to upload it, doing the standard rights declaration as they do it. If it was a family photo & you are in touch with them, that might be a route. Otherwise it is strictly doubtful, & if the WP copyright police catch it, might well get deleted. I've had similar photos deleted at John Postgate (microbiologist), though eventually someone else got one up. You could study the fair use rationale on that one. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It does actually look like a selfie but I don't have a declaration to that effect. It's definitely not professional, and he said as much. His wife is UK Ambassador to the Holy See and seems to be back at work if her Twitter feed is anything to go by, so perhaps I should try sending her an email. - Sitush (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Sarre Brooch

Hi

I was trying to create an article for Sarre Brooch (similar to Fuller Brooch, Strickland Brooch). I wanted to add a few individual Anglo-Saxon brooch articles that don't currently exist to to be included in an article on Anglo-Saxon brooches. Teahouse recommended I delete the redirect. Is there a reason why you reversed it? thx MauraWen (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, you haven't got very far. The edit summary mentioned a move. You should just overwrite the redirect with your new article, not delete it & then recreate it! I wouldn't believe much the teahouse say. I can think of more deserving brooches though. Be sure to integrate your article with the existing one please, if you do it. Looking at User:MauraWen/sandbox Sarre brooch it doesn't add much to what's already at Quoit brooch (in fact it has less in some respects). Please read WP:VAMOS - no "residing"! Johnbod (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't find what you mean by no "residing" and I looked thru WP:VAMOS. Can you explain? I am leaving things as they are. MauraWen (talk) 04:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

"The brooch currently resides in the British Museum." Just say "The brooch is now in the British Museum". Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I get it. thx. MauraWen (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

you completly right! sorry! but...

you completely absolutly 100% right! sorry! but... according to your logic the article slavs should also be like the way you wanted, thank you for your help! i was merely trying make all these article use the correct term, but now i know thanks to you, so i will go ahead and redirect my efforts at slavs Johansweden27 (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying either is right or wrong - both are in the main article. I suggest you leave them all, especially as you have again messed up the sentence at Slavs. Johnbod (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

BTW why did you revert me on germanic peoples article i used your correct terminology and if you do not agree to me or krakkos you said "see talk" but no respons, can you please in this case write a counter argument to us, thanks Johansweden27 (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

There are long discussions on the talk - I agree with Andrew Lancaster. Johnbod (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh now i get you dont care about terminology but you want the germanic people article be distinct from other modern ethnolinguistic groups, you say to me dont refer to wp:common, propose a move etc there but the you suddenly do the same mistake! Johansweden27 (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Whaat? I don't think you do get it. Johnbod (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

oops, sorry again! but please answer my response at Talk:Germanic peoples#Do modern "germanic people" exist? or what i wrote there Johansweden27 (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite suggestions

You indicate that this page Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation) will confuse a “vast majority of readers” in Talk:Catholic_Church#Change_redirects_containing_“Roman”_to_Roman_Catholic_Church_(disambiguation). Would you like to suggest what is confusing?Manabimasu (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Pew group

On 26 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pew group, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the "rigidly posed" figures in English pottery pew groups of the 1740s (example pictured) may play musical instruments, or take snuff? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pew group. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pew group), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 30

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Tithe reversion

Well obviously they spoke King James English. ; ) Editor2020 (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tableware, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Flatware and Ladle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

MK Hoard

News to me. I anticipated a challenge that I didn't know how to defend. Thank you. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Just in case you wondered where I (over)anticipated a defence being needed, see Template:Did you know nominations/Milton Keynes --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hours of Louis XII

Hello! Your submission of Hours of Louis XII 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! Constantine ✍ 07:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Membership renewal

You have been a member of Wiki Project Med Foundation (WPMEDF) in the past. Your membership, however, appears to have expired. As such this is a friendly reminder encouraging you to officially rejoin WPMEDF. There are no associated costs. Membership gives you the right to vote in elections for the board. The current membership round ends in 2020.

ReJoin Wiki Project Med Foundation

Thanks again :-) The team at Wiki Project Med Foundation---Avicenno (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 13

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

Bathsheba (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ecclesia

Vezzi porcelain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Silverware

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Lion of Menecrates DYK

Hi John. Since you are the reviewer of the DYK, I'm just letting you know that I changed the pic of the lion with a more recent one. It is at Template:Did you know nominations/Tomb of Menecrates. If you prefer the old one, you can chnage it. Thank you. Dr. K. 08:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Joanne Berger-Sweeney

Hi -- just wanted to drop a line letting you know that I made changes to the Joanne Berger-Sweeney article that I hope address your DYK concerns. Thanks. QuakerSquirrel (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Letting you know that I think I've addressed your additional concerns. Can you let me know if there are other issues or if it's ready to go? Thanks. QuakerSquirrel (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your revert on Machiavellianism

Thanks for reverting my edit on the page. It was very capricious, and made without further consensus. SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

No worries - I think we are mainly in accord, & I hope to propose a split (Psych/politics) when I get round to it. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Phyllis and Aristotle

Hi saw yr change to lead img .... don't agree it's better wd like old lead back pse rm dup from later in article if thats the matter but the weak circular img seems v poor for first/only impression. Wd fix it all now but not possible w teeny mobile window ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The Baldung would be fine if we had an image of acceptable quality, but we don't (especially at 1.35 upright). We just don't use images of that dire quality, where there are plenty of good alternatives. Not these days anyway. I suggest you upload a better quality image - the BM or Met should have one. Or there are loads of alternatives - the van Leyden for example. Not that I agree at all about the Housebook image ....Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

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

Albinia Hobart (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ham Common

Cozzi porcelain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Grand Canal

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Cozzi porcelain

Hello! Your submission of Cozzi porcelain 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! Kingsif (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Bhaje caves

Official sign of 2009

Mr Johnbod, this is regarding the reversal of the page to Bhaja caves. I am the resident of that area and from childhood I know that the name of the cave is Bhaje caves. Just because Google and your limited resource does not give much information does not mean that your action is correct. I do not want to land up into edit war so I am putting my views on your page. The name of the village is BHAJE and the caves nearby are called BHAJE caves. I have been there thousand times. The Bhaja name is incorrectly pronounced by people because it is resembles with the other caves Karla. i.e. Karla-Bhaja. This does not mean what ever is shwon on internet is always correct.

Here are some notable newspaper links for your reference:

https://www.hindustantimes.com/pune-news/pune-based-organisation-to-conduct-heritage-walk-covering-karla-bhaje-on-nov-25/story-QW4ztT1iGDl1ZtL9hzk3nJ.html https://punemirror.indiatimes.com/entertainment/unwind/a-heritage-hike/articleshow/68943353.cms https://www.deccanherald.com/national/unesco-tag-sought-caves-forts-701521.html https://www.business-standard.com/article/beyond-business/a-walk-in-the-clouds-115071001486_1.html https://www.livemint.com/Opinion/lagS3W7VRAYMLnJ79NUGeK/An-incredible-path-to-employment-and-growth.html

I can share hundreds of links which tells the right name.

Request to change the name to Bhaje caves every where. 09:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The article gives both versions right at the start, but the ASI and most WP:RS use Bhaja, rightly or wrongly. So should we. Do you have sources about the village? Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I feel, the Bhaja name was used in old days similar to Poona used in place of Pune. But if you see last 20-30 years communication, everywhere Bhaje only used.

Pls. see the Mharashtra Govt website link www.mrsac.gov.in/sites/default/files/TH_PCT_Mawal.pdf, here also you would find Bhaje only. (Most reliable source)

Even Wikipedia also uses Bhaje name for the year 2016... :) In Marathi language, it is named as Bhaje (Marathi: भाजे) only. Considering all, this we should conclude that we should use BHAJE village and BHAJE caves only.... Kautuk1 (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Different languages may be the issue, & I'm ok with Bhaje for the village. But google has 16,200 hits for "Bhaje Caves" and 132,000 hits for "Bhaja Caves", plus the ASI, so no. Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Unless we correct it, the nomenclature would not improve. Wikipeida is the top 5 website across globe !!! Google also shows what people use but that may be wrong or not reliable. Similar case is for Ajanta caves, the name of place is Ajintha and the same is used in local language but due to British rule Ajatha is used today also.

I found below link of Maharashtra Govt. which also says Bhaje caves.... https://marathibhasha.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/pdf/english/APPENDIX_14_1.pdf. If 'Bhaje' is correct for village name, BHAJE Caves should be used across and remove the impurity/inaccuracy of Bhaja going forward. If you are in agreement, I would again rename the article name. Thank you for your understanding. Kautuk1 (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. WP does not lead, it follows WP:RS. Approach the ASI instead! Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

:( Can you help me what is ASI and how to approach? Kautuk1 (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

See the picture! Archaeological Survey of India, who control the site. If you're local I'd ask the attendant there, assuming there is one. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Nice to see you

Nice to see you around, John. Why is it we only see each other at infobox discussions? Best regards -- Cassianto^Talk 19:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed! Johnbod (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christ Blessing (Bellini, 1500), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malibu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

JesseRafe

Before I get blocked, I wanted to share an observation. Jesse keeps up a stream of "rule-enforcing" edits, although they enforce a few rules incorrectly. But, mixed in with this flood of noise, it turns out that they have an ax to grind: they have shown a pattern of making edits in support of DSA politicians. That's their not-so-hidden bias, and likely their primary goal. Now you know. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Personification

On 2 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Personification, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a new personification was developed for the Americas (example pictured) after their discovery by Europeans? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Personification. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Personification), 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, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Personification of the Americas

On 2 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Personification of the Americas, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a new personification was developed for the Americas (example pictured) after their discovery by Europeans? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Personification of the Americas), 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, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hever Castle

Moths indeed! KJP1 (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Altarpieces

Catching up on this topic, and thought of you when adding five El Greco paintings used as high altarpieces to it. The category has evolved into quite a collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed - and I bet there are plenty more out there. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The search continues... Randy Kryn (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Trewhiddle style

I am going to begin working on the "Trewhiddle style" draft. I believe I have enough information. Do you think the Trewhiddle hoard needs its own article or is the information in the Trewhiddle article sufficient? MauraWen (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd do Trewiddle style first & maybe see then. But it could support its own article, I think. Johnbod (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Le Nove porcelain

On 14 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Le Nove porcelain, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the samples of Le Nove porcelain (example pictured), sent to the Venetian government in 1762 to support a licence application, may actually have been made by another factory? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Le Nove porcelain. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Le Nove porcelain), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Michael Angelo

Hello. Do you remember the Frieze of Parnassus? One of the redirects I created back then while working on that has been put up for discussion, and I commented here. Would you know how common the (presumably older?) form of the name 'Michael Angelo' is for Michelangelo, and why people ever used that form at all? Was it something to do with how names were 'translated' at certain periods in the history of art? Carcharoth (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources for art featuring Pontius Pilate

Hi John,

As I think you know, I'm currently completely rewriting the article on Pontius Pilate (draft here). Given your expertise in art history, I was wondering if you might know where I could find sources for post-medieval depictions of Pilate - the medieval section is already quite extensive and might even need to be trimmed down a bit. Is there some sort of dictionary of art you would consult under these circumstances? Motifs in Christian art? I'd be particularly interested in anything that could tell me more about nineteenth, twentieth and possible twenty-first-century depictions, though obviously the info on Mannerism, Baroque, is fairly slim right now and I have nothing on the time between 1617 and the 1830s.

Thanks for any help you can provide!--Ermenrich (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't got round to this yet. I suspect the mid-19th century upsurge is more to do with a new artistic interest in historically accurate depictions of decor, and an interest in depicting psychologically intense situations, than an upsurge in religiousity. That and interest in tensions between the state & the spirit, especially in Russia. Earlier depictions were almost all in large cycles of the Passion or Life of Christ in art, and far fewer of these were produced after c. 1600, except as prints. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks John. The "upsurge in religiosity" comes from Ann Wroe, who obviously isn't an expert. What you're saying makes a lot of sense. I'm looking for some better sources on the subject at the moment, I've ordered some books on 19th and 20th century religious painting in Russia and the West, so hopefully I can still improve that part of the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a few 17th-century ones here. The Britiah Museum prints should turn up many of those. Academia tends to lose interest in biblical iconography after 1600. For example, Schiller, Gertrud, Iconography of Christian Art, Vol. II, 1972 (English trans from German), Lund Humphries, London, ISBN 0853313245, a standard work, has little on the later period, except for the Rembrandt Ecce Homo etching. She does have stuff on the rise of the Ecce Homo, after about 1400, and it largely replacing the washing his hands. I can add this if you like. She mentions a Lovis Corinth Ecce homo of 1925 in Basel. Looking at the 19th-century artists you have, they tended to go "biblical" later in their careers, & I wonder if this was in part to do with taking an established reputation to a much wider public, through exhibitions & print reproductions - to English Victorian painters like Edwin Landseer these often brought in more money than the actual paintings, and the engraving rights were often sold separately. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd be very happy for any improvements you would like to make!--Ermenrich (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, give me a while. This one is rather eccentric - carefully set in about 1450. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to change any images too (not that I own the article. Feel like I should emphasize that given recent events). The only one I'd absolutely like to keep is the Bible moralisee, since I uploaded that myself.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

New message from StudiesWorld

Hello, Johnbod. You have new messages at StudiesWorld's talk page.
Message added 17:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

StudiesWorld (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Finished the Trewhiddle style draft. Redirect issue

You advised earlier that I should contact the editor of the redirect if I created a new article and there was a redirect. My draft of Trewhiddle style is completed and you are the editor of the redirect. I would like to create the article. What should happen next? Do you do something with the redirect, or do I? thx MauraWen (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, looks good - go ahead. Or would you like me to do it? Johnbod (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I moved the draft. I will look for "Trewhiddle style" in other articles and create links. Glad this one is over. I found it challenging to put together and write. If you have other ideas for articles, please let me know. I will be working on American roses and clematis, notable women for the next few months. I like to research and learn about the following subjects: art, archaeology, hoards, historical artifacts, anything related to Anglo-Saxon or medieval Britain or Ireland MauraWen (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Maura! Off the top of my head the Irish "Celtic" Petrie Crown is a key piece with no article, if that's not too early. I think no decent pics we can use though. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I will put Petrie Crown on my list. Please feel free to send me a note if you think of other article ideas. I don't know where the Petrie Crown currently resides. Is it possible to ask the museum for an appropriately licensed image? I like having images for the articles I work on, I think it makes it more interesting for the reader. MauraWen (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

National Museum of Ireland. You can always ask, but I doubt they will release one. There's a stamp, & probably old images from books. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Royal Society

Hi John, was wondering if you might know a way of freeing (at least watermark-free as it should be PD by most accounts) a version of https://pictures.royalsociety.org/image-rs-9556 for use at Thomas_Ignatius_Maria_Forster. Shyamal (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop can probably help. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Art Nouveau

Sorry to bother you, but there are some pretty strange claims going on the Talk page of said article. Particularly worrying is that they are made by editor who made a lot of edits recently (SiefkinDR). I don't know what is appropriate venue to raise my concerns so I thought to notify you. I am also sad to inform you that I have stolen your "Johnbod's Law" and it now appears at my User page, with attribution of course. I was most impressed by 10 references on short line in one political article. Aocdnw (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, well there are now two editors talking at length, having been adding loads to the article. It makes it hard to keep up, & this is not a subject that is central to my knowledge or interest. Based on previous experience there will be lots of talk, but few changes, unless someone persistent takes the lead. Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Hours of Louis XII

On 27 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hours of Louis XII, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the process of connecting the scattered fragments surviving from the Hours of Louis XII (begun c. 1498) only started in 1973? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hours of Louis XII. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hours of Louis XII), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Which psalm?

I found a crop from this image in Psalm 10, with the caption saying Psalm 10 (11). How do we know which one it is? Following the caption, Psalm 11, therefore I moved it there, but I'm not sure. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Gerda, this isp seems to have messed up things badly with these hatnotes. The image from Utrecht is above the text beginning "Salvam me fac", which is Vulgate Psalm 11, but Psalm 12 in the Masoric numbering, which the hatnote says we are using - I think wrongly (see the history, where the text is quoted - "how can you say to me,

“Flee like a bird to the mountains"" etc). Psalm 10 (11) is the opposite notation from the infobox, which uses eg "Psalm 11 (10)".

The layout of the Psalter is confusing, with the images I think relating to the preceding text. I don't have access to my books at the moment, but I think this is actually the illustration to Psalm Vulgate 11, so I thyink the image you used relates to Psalm 10 in Vulgate numbering, though I can't match the images to the text at all well. I suggest you ask at the project about the numbers - it seems a proper mess. Hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bible#Psalm_numbering raised it at the project. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 4

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

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

BBC use of era

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

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

More spurious excuses. The link is online if you are in the UK, which I assume you are. So you did make assumptions about what a ref says without actually looking at it. There is no need for both statements to be individually cited using a named reference, but if you want to do that, go ahead. Before you start slinging any more policies about, you should first stop to consider how each of them applies to you. Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Rather than edit warring, why not just get it right first time. It is the responsibility of an editor who adds material to ensure that it is properly cited: it is not reasonable to expect readers to infer that a citation for the BBC has anything to do with the NT or vice versa. Chalk/cheese.

So after much sound, fury and time wasting, the material is now in the state it could have been first time round. Nobody is perfect but most of us are willing to accept our errors being pointed out rather than do blanket reversions and grudging repairs accompanied by personal attacks. (Tell me why you think my edit was "pointy"?). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Unbelievable! Don't post here again, and I suggest you take on board the comments made at ANI. Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Personal attack

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

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

Kells

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

Ivory Tower edits

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

Feedback

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

Excuse me, I'm busy cleaning up another of your little piles of poo! Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry one of my contributions was a mistake. Thanks for helping. Let me know if there is anything I could do better. Have a nice day! PPEMES (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The trouble is that many of them are! You are highly prolific, but fewer, better, edits would be good. Best wishes! Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Anything else you could exemplify, please? PPEMES (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Following discouraging feedback on Talk:St. Peter's Baldachin and Talk:Cappella Paolina ("Do you keep statistics on the proportion of your many RM noms that succeed"). Actually for the latter question, do you know how to retrieve that? For the rest, are you really assuming WP:BADFAITH? I was contemplating adding one RM to Cortile del Belvedere inter alia in accordance with the lead phrase, but discouraged by your tone. Would you mind if we apply some civility? I appreciate your efforts around here. If I have wronged in any way, then please let me know. PPEMES (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

But smile when you say that

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

A barnstar for you!

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

• Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11

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

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

DYK for Vezzi porcelain

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

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

August 2019

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

I don't mind if someone is uncivil on talk pages once in a while. Nor do I mind if someone is both uncivil and vague on talk pages once in a while. But when I politely reach out to that person on own talk page to try to work out at least the vagueness, but the person passive aggressively doesn't reply, that's when I mind and would have a hard time describing such behaviour without breeching civility myself. PPEMES (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I've engaged with you several times (under both your user names) explaining that you need to do fewer, better, edits to stop annoying other editors and wasting their time on ill-judged move requests, renames (ok not much of that recently that I've seen, which is good), and so on. Now I'm expected to reply within a few hours to your comments, or you complain about that! There is a vast amount of easily-found work needed improving text on old, neglected, articles, but you never seem to do any of that, instead distracting those who are. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

There's certainly lots to be improved across Wikipedia. I thank you for your contributions. While I have noticed that there has been a few requests in which you have opposed, in the largy majority of requests I have not seen your participation - support or oppose. Would you mind to more specific with what your problem actually is? PPEMES (talk) 12:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

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

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

James Sillett GAN

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

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

Thanks. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Curzon Street Baroque

Hello! Your submission of Curzon Street Baroque at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

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

DYK for Cozzi porcelain

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

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

Incomplete DYK nomination

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

Help request

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

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

Tanks a lot! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Curzon Street Baroque

Hello! Your submission of Curzon Street Baroque at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

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

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

Category:Silver

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

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

DYK for Curzon Street Baroque

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

Possible assist available

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

Where did I ask that? Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

It appears to be on this user's Talk page here: User talk:JeBonSer, edit link here [1]. Let me know your current thoughts, the review page for the article is seemingly neglected. CodexJustin (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, the Murillo appears much better (not much thanks to him, I think) & within hailing distance of GA, but the Sirani should be quick failed or withdrawn. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

'Done' on the Sirani. You might want to check with one or two of the recent editors on the Murillo 'Immaculate' edit history page, who might take on improvements if you can find time to do the Murillo GAN. CodexJustin (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - I've got another Virgin GAR on the go, which I think is enough! Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

That sounds good. I'm not sure what to do about these noms coming from JeBon, who is nominating articles and then not participating in their improvement. Separately, I have been thinking about moving the GA art house film for The Favourite in the direction of an FA nomination and was wondering if you might have any interest in it after you complete your current "Virgin" review. No rush on this; whenever you might have the time. CodexJustin (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I think just quick fails where appropriate are the way to go - saving people's time. Films aren't really my thing (and I haven't seen this yet). It's looks ready for a WP:Peer review - sometimes productive, somertimes not. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

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

A cup of tea for you!

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

Missed ping

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

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

Your unjustified changes to Arch

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

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

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

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

I'm not deleting anything, I'm just trimming the use of images here, so these policies aren't relevant here at all. There are still FAR too many images used, many extremely similar. By all means launch an Rfc; I think you'll be in for a shock if you do though! I'm generally a great supporter of galleries, but there are limits. Many other editors would be far more drastic. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

More arches! 112 images is not enough for a quality gallery, but it's a good start and does cover the subject. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if you're joking Randy, but we both know that is not the typical view. Ok, seen the link. Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Joking. Although the gallery and other pictures certainly do provide an encyclopedic overview of types of arches (if I was an arch fan I'd love the page) except...there are no images of arches in art! Category:Bridges in art should have some appropriate examples. Maybe the page can be an exception for amount of images, and building up another gallery for artworks could be a way of adding even more data. Crashing the Wikipedia servers should be the goal here (joking), but maybe covering the topic from artistic angles (and images) might be fun. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Wedgwood

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

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

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

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

DYK for Sang de boeuf glaze

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

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

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

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

ANI

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

Just a tip

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

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

That is not helpful. El_C 23:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

But it is true. Look at the page history. He feels like he owns the page, then fine. I should actually give this guy a barnstar for pulling off breaking WP rules. (or are they his rules? He seems to be doing whatever the hell he feels like, and good for him honestly). SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

There are dispute resolution resources available for you to get further outside input into this content dispute. El_C 00:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Your ongoing assistance very humbly requested (reftools essay)

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

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

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

•  ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I was pondering how to reply, but I'm glad to see the repost at Iri's page has produced a very good discussion, much more coherent & well-informed than anything I could have said. What they say on the prospects for change seems very sensible. Apart from my period as a medical editor, when I used a ref tool that now seems to have vanished (put in the pubmed # & it did the rest), I never use any type of citation template, just "< ref>Smith, 34</ref >" with Smith's details in the reference section. This suits my style & subjects - I tend to use 3 sources where I can, generally all saying essentially the same thing, but maybe one online & two not etc, so I bundle these ("< ref>Smith, 34; Brown, 224-228; Jones, 99</ref >"), because I hate taxi-ranks of refs. I get the ref details from my user page, as I use the same sources in lots of articles, or adapt from google books or JSTOR. I don't use newspapers very often, those have to be done manually. Of course you can't see the full source details by hovering in the text, but I can live with that, and think the readers can, though I was slightly surprised by recent research showing how many say they look at the refs - more than I would have expected. I hate the "ref=0" type that now seems common, and in which Wiki-ed students seem to trained, but at least the vertical stack type seems to be falling from use. I'll certainly look at anything you produce, in draft form or whatever, but I'm much too ignorant of "normal" referencing to be any help creating the meat of it. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I am quite discouraged by the replies at Iridescent's talk. It's all just... no one cares what is difficult for editors in the long run. [Reftools as it currently and apparently forever works is easy in the short run but craps up articles in the long run by dropping {{cite book}} etc. directly into body text .] They have their plan and their reasons for their plans, and that's that. Meanwhile, you might wanna look at Talk:Early Netherlandish painting. Thanks anyhow. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

(watching:) I believe we have different topics, one is using ref tools (which I don't know anything about, I write them myself), the other to get the them out of the body by naming them, which I always do, but have been reverted (though not recently) calling "citevar". I believe that even if an article was started with ref following fact, we should be able to convert to refs in their own section, which wouldn't change the style of ref, just where to find them. - I often deal with recent deaths, want to edit a ref, look the ref section where there's nothing but "reflist", search within the article, - not helpful, imho. But, repeating, I was reverted when I tried to help new editors by not interrupting body text by lengthy refs of what ever style (template, sfn or simple). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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

September 2019

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

Because you thanked me

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

13:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorting Names RFC

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

Penannular

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

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

Apahida necropolis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Penannular

Picts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Penannular

Tongwancheng (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jurchen

Worlebury Camp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Penannular

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

Altamura_Cathedral

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

The Sacrifice of Polyxena

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

(talk page watcher) Happened to to see this. Jane023, I redirected it because it was poorly sourced and virtually without content, with no indication that the topic is notable independently of Pittoni (for whom, admittedly, I share your lack of enthusiasm). If someone wants to write a proper article about it/them I would of course be delighted. Hi, Johnbod! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The Italian wiki seems to have a relevant article. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Lingzhi2, that article was created by a sock of longterm hoax/nuisance editor Alec Smithson – not one single word that editor wrote may be trusted, please use the utmost caution! The more recent edits appear fine, though. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• FFS Jane ADD LINKS!! Johnbod (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• I changed the redirect to Polyxena#Sacrifice_of_Polyxena which has a decent section, whhich I've added to. It's not a rare subject in this period, but is especially associated with Pittoni - there are 9 versions on Commons. The article was relatively long by the creator's standards, but I agree these (usually) one-line stubs need to be discouraged. Note that we already have The Sacrifice of Polyxena (Giovanni Francesco Romanelli) and The Sacrifice of Polyxena (Charles Le Brun) (both in the MMA, Sam Holt stubby jobs). I don't think a disam page would be useful at this stage. Johnbod (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thx. Who knows why he painted so many versions? Must have been demand for them, possibly because of a popular play or opera at the time. Jane (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Possibly - I've added and "on the stage" section, but most come well before, or after, his time. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Machiavellianism

Seems worth mentioning that your efforts seem to have gone in a good direction so far.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much! It's been a much more bumpy road than I anticipated - I don't know if you noticed, but the psychology article was briefly deleted as a copyvio. Our now departed colleague had not marked it as old split material when he moved it over, and in 2015 someone used it (and several other WP articles including NM himself) for a copy paste essay. At least he'd dated that, and actually given the old page here as a ref. At some point I want to add something on Shakespeare, and on the Machiavellianism panic receding over the 17th century, which seems to be the case, and on Richelieu, as a statesman who actually did study NM. Then I think that will be it. Both this & the psychology article get excellent views, without apparently cutting into NM's own. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Biblioteca Marciana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santi Giovanni e Paolo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)