Archive
Hi Johnbod. I see you are busy dealing with grammatical and other sloppy issues in my additions to the Mummy Portrait page. I never seem to spot my own typos... I was a bit nervous to do anything on that page, as I could see that heated discussions had taken place there not so long ago. It's nice to see such swift, positive, and cooperative reaction. Thanks!
By the way, I'd like to start a short page on the Pitsa panels, but find it very difficult to get information. Any ideas? athinaios 15:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, that reminds me. Would you mind having a look at the Severan Tondo article at some point? I've extended it from half a paragraph to about three (still a bit pitiful, but what can you do), mainly based on German wikipedia, but if anything were to be added in terms of style or, most importantly, provenance, that would be excellent... athinaios 15:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Stumbled across Freculphus and thought he might be of interest to you. -- SECisek 04:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome to claim the reward yourself (or donate it to Wikimedia if you refer), if you help to write a good furry article! So far one furry and one non-furry have received $50 each. I look forward to the time when RainRat has to give away his $150. :-) GreenReaper 15:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the comments on the Flemish Baroque painting article. Vlieghe has a short chapter on late 16th and 17th century cabinet paintings, and a good bibliography, none of which is general. I looked over the cabinet painting article and it reflects the type of sources where I have read a lot about this genre: mannerist studioli, cabinets of curiosities, Kunst- and Wunderkamers, and the fijnschilders, etc. I think I have an exhibition catalogue somewhere here that is helpful, but it might take me a bit to find. I'll let you know if I find good source that gives a general overview, and can easily provide lots of bits and pieces if needed.-- Stomme 18:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems that English sources use interchangeably Michel and Michael Sittow. In books - at least according to Google Books search - Michel seems to be prevalent, same is true for Google Scholar. Also, Michel was the name he used himself (Estonian name Mihkel... and you really don't want to know what his last name means). See Atlas of World Art, for example. Also, Getty seems to be wrong about several other things (ie, "nationality: Netherlandish (preferred), Flemish"), so I don't think we should trust it in this case. I think Michel Sittow would be best, with redirect from Michael Sittow and both names prominently mentioned in the lead. -- Sander Säde 19:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod. If you take, as I suspect, an aethetic interest in this type of thing, I should draw your attention to the other, more famous, Archaic chryselephantine piece, found in the same context at Delphi as the one I illustrated the article with. Unfortunately its only image on wiki commons (Image:008MAD Jewelry.jpg) is a bit wonky (or do you think I should cut it to shape and replace the other one with it?), which is why I didn't use it, a better image is here. Note the inlaid eyes and the gold eyelashes. Isn't it astonishing? The same deposit (no on display in a small room in Delphi museum, also contained an incredible assemblage of tiny, inbcredibly fine, ivory carvings, perhaps furniture inlays, tantalisingly giving us a hint of so many lost wonders... athinaios 17:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Given your participation in this October 30 discussion, you may be interested to know that the involved categories have been renominated. The new discussion can be found here. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 07:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I am asking myself a difficult question: shall one leave your caption for Ezekiel, who, as painted on the ceiling, is described by you as very high culture, because it just made my day (rotfl, in short), or one shall try to be serious and remove the picture with its caption altogether? I feel perplexed. Cheers. ziel & 09:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
-- PFHLai 08:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Cheers, Daniel 15:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
— Wknight94 ( talk) 16:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I have started Artists of the Tudor court and left myself a bunch of to-do's on its talk page. Care to play? - PKM 19:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it's long enough for DYK now. :-) Taking a break; need sunlight. - PKM 20:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
-- Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Could I ask you the favor of properly indenting your comments in xFD discussions? You have a tendency to pop in what appear to be random numbers of colons before your comment and then don't include the asterisk. If you would put in the same number of colons as the comment you're replying to, plus one, followed by an asterisk it would improve the flow of the discussion. Otto4711 16:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thanks! for the good work on the awards cats. -- Lquilter 21:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations.
Dear Johnbod, I think there is no need to argue about that - we both are authors, you in this place and I am in the german WP, so I think we can solve it together. As you said, for e.g. Lovis Corinth the link was fine to you (I have written the german article de:Lovis Corinth) and for Franz Marc it is good too – so how can we lead the users of the english articles to that pages? Seems I started it the wrong way in using the same way I should do in the German WP; any ideas from you to do it a better way? Zeno.org has pictures from about 4500 artists and text works from more than 700 autors, most of those Germans like Annette von Droste-Hülshoff and I think it is worth to be linked as a service to the reader of the articles here.
Other thing: You have written "He looks to be a genuine editor on de.wp" - right, I'm there since 2003 and I am main author of a high number of articles, about 100 awarded articles are listed now on my userpage in en too. There is a simple reason why I am working in de: my english writing is that bad that it really is better for me not to try it here; nevertheless I normally work here with IP accounts to set Interwikis and external links to different articles and make small edits too. There is no idea of spamming when I think that links to external sources would help to expand WP as a service for the readers. I recently translated "my" Charlotte Berend-Corinth so you can see that 1) it really is better I should not work in en and 2) as a gift to you as an author of articles around art to get somewhat like virtually shake-hands – right? Greetings from Berlin -- Achim Raschka 07:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for filling in some info on European speech scrolls. It was needed. Madman 23:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for alerting me! Would you believe that I didn't have a "watch" on that article?! There have been more than 50 vandalistic or inappropriate edits, some of them quite well meaning but simply non-wiki, like linking one of the bold words in the first line.
I'm glad you picked up on the date problem. It was actually even worse than it appeared because it said 1520-1560 and some well-meaning person amended it. The vandal had also changed a date in a refence, which was harder to spot, but someone did. I'll locate the dates of the tapestries, and add them as well.
Amandajm 07:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 ( talk) 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
As long as we're talking about scholars on the CFD, there's an issue at WP:CATGRS that really bugs me. The profession/identity intersection category includes the example of LGBT literature. But this is a perfect example of confusion of people and genre. Not all LGBT writers write LGBT literature; not all LGBT literature is written by LGBT people (although a preponderance is). I've pointed this out on Wikipedia_talk:Categorization/Gender,_race_and_sexuality but gotten zero traction. Would you care to comment? -- Lquilter ( talk) 12:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
As a CFD regular, have you any thoughts on my proposal at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Not_a_structured_database? (Note: I am sending this message to a few editors who I notice are experienced particpants). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I cc'd your comments from the journalism academics CFD to Category talk:Scholars by subject. -- Lquilter ( talk) 13:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You have been volunteered! [2] -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You're probably right. Do you like my article? Which is your cathedral? Amandajm ( talk) 14:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone got it at the time, either. But, no. I haven't got a television.
Funnily enough, I was thinking about you a moment ago. I've just removed the attribution to William Scrots on the young Bess portrait at the Elizabeth I of England article, which I'm trying to rescue from a FAR. I have five books with it in, and all say "artist unknown". I notice you do the same on the Tudor artists page. My only worry is that I may be missing some recent scholarship; but the attribution wasn't reffed, so I plunged.
By the way, while I'm pestering you...I intend to get hold of one of the Strong books on Elizabeth's portraits; do you know of any other good books on that fascinating subject? qp10qp ( talk) 16:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the mention on Qp10qp's talk page. I hope you got the questions right! :-) Carcharoth ( talk) 23:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
My thinking on the categories in question is (I hope) pretty straightforward. The categories "English Renaissance plays" and "17th century plays" are not synonymous; some plays (Romeo and Juliet is an obvious example) belong in the first but not the second, while others (those of John Dryden, say) belong in the second but not the first. And yes, plays and masques that date from 1600 to 1642 logically belong in both categories. Ugajin ( talk) 00:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Johnbod! I made a change to the Book of Kells section, realised after a while that I was wrong and went back to fix it... and discovered that you had deleted the whole section. Good move! It seems inappropriate to have a section on the nativity in art, which only deals with one (to most people, rather obscure) aspect of the subject. A nice Christmassy article might be warranted. How about I do one? It probably won't be very scholarly, but it will be pretty! Amandajm ( talk) 06:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod, just wondered in you might consider clarifying your !vote in CfD November 22#Category:Rider_legislation. I !voted "delete" on a nomination to delete, and you said "oppose per BHG", which doesn't seem to make sense to me. (That may of course just be my misunderstanding!) -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I've got a good start on Armada Portrait and I've put in a DYK nom for it. Need to add dimensions and maybe more on technique and the clothes. - PKM ( talk) 19:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at Category talk:Surnames about Category:Surnames which I hope will be able to address the issues in common to the surnames category tree, without implicating issues particular to any one group of surnames. I'm posting this notice to all participants of the 11/11 CFD. -- Lquilter ( talk) 20:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd welcome your thoughts on my suggestion on how to assess these categories. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I will try not to forget. Have a nice day ?/night ?
Eras-mus ( talk) 01:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you clarify that for me? Just what are you trying to hint at? Speak plainly so that I can understand. :) -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 19:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
-- WjB scribe 09:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Your next-to-last response troubled me; you seemed to think I was being intentionally obtuse or argumentative. I hope my response clarified that I'm not invested in the topic at all, and was merely trying to point out a possible flaw in the logic used in reasoning for the proposed change. I certainly wasn't trying to vociferously argue a technicality; I apologize without reservation if it came across that way. Maralia ( talk) 17:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
-- Spebi 08:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Another long-brewing project: I have started Accession Day tilt, which I suspect you may want to play with. - PKM ( talk) 20:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Cheers, Daniel 23:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your comment on my talk page asking me not to change VA tags. Please see the VA project stating 'It's not necessary to list your name here to edit this page or edit related articles.' Thanks Tom 15:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you signed up for Raphael at the the Core Contest. I took a few Italian Renaissance art classes as an undergraduate with an excellent professor who included bibliographies in his syllabi. If you want me to dig those up and locate the Raphael material, I would be happy to do so. I see you already have quite a list of sources, but just in case... Awadewit | talk 15:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey johnbod, I really don't want to see a whole new page of accusations getting thrown about. We've had this on multiple pages when Gryffindor, Rarelibra, and PhJ show up. The German perspective is that it should be South Tyrol, and only South Tyrol. The issue people forget is that we are not here to back the German perspective, or the Italian perspective (Alto Adige) for that matter. If you look at the page now, it is about as neutral as it can get, and now has a lot of information for the reader to understand the different names used. Anyway, getting back to the reason I wanted to message you. You stated correctly that things are still unstable. Maybe you can just press pause on that vote once again? It can be discussed sometime early next year, and I would suggest having some Admins help decide the best name for the categories rather than these constant votes. That or have someone like Lar babysit the discussions. :-) take care, Icsunonove 18:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Well done, Johnbo! Hey, are you doing something to Raphael? Do you want me to stick my nose in and make suggestions or not? Amandajm 12:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
See WP:RM#Moving several pages at once for moving multiple pages. I do think they should be discussed on one page since they are related to each other. TJ Spyke 23:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
As you participated in the discussion on Female writers (10th century), I thought you may be interested in the proposal I have made in which that category is subsumed.-- Matthew Proctor 06:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Bowing to your superior knowledge and experience (I'm serious); I'd like to ask your advice. Do you think that the recently updated article Golden hats and the specimens it links to should be tagged as visual-arts-related? athinaios ( talk) 12:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Started William Segar (found 2 images of him while digging for heraldic banners. Everything is related.) Will cleanup the stuff in Commons soon. - PKM ( talk) 17:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Grand! Must be a nice diversion from the fine work on Raphael. JNW ( talk) 09:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
... I just found a really horrid little bit of vandalism in Giotto easy to overlook.
Category:Former Students of Easington Community Science College, was decided to be kept. Whether or not you voted for this, your contribution to the CFD was valued.Thanks.-- Sunderland 06 17:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have Removed the above from articles having Prophets of the Hebrew Bible Cat. I was using List of Prophets of Christianity as a reference where Joseph, father of Jesus is listed as a Prophet of Christianity in the Secondary List. Kathleen.wright5 20:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The subject of the painting has indeed been re-interpreted since I was a student. I let the changed title go, since a google search (!?) confirmed the Batholomew credit, and I figured the editor was a different person or a contributor gone good. Either way, the painting is indeed now known as St Philip. Thanks for the correction. JNW ( talk) 20:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
John, FYI, In restoring a couple of comments on the talk page of this article, you inadvertantly deleted a number of others. I think the talk page has been fully restored. Pastordavid ( talk) 17:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Category:Charismatic religious leaders was previously nominated for deletion by User:The Wild West guy who said "Isn't this POV?". However that CFD was incomplete because the nominator didn't tag the category itself. You participated in the previous discussion so I'm notifying you that I've renominated (and tagged) the category; discussion is here. -- Lquilter ( talk) 19:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure I have a preferred way of subdiving the ~500 Italian Renaissance painters. Since there already exist geographic subdivisions for Italian painters, a temporal one seemed preferable. I was not completely satisfied with syntax of Category:Italian Renaissance XV century painters. Suggestions welcome. Baroque1700 ( talk) 04:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Ahhh! I just got a CD of the three tenors singing Christmas Carols for Christmas! They must be really missing Luci! I know I am....
OK... I'll get it going.... I've been having a bit of drama on this side of the planet and haven't got a lot of energy left, after I've been round the traps and fixed vandalism etc.
The other thing that I want for Christmas is a white Mercedez convertible. I've been asking Santa for one for the last 48 years. Oh, well, I'll have to settle for Yardleys lavender water, and a jar of Major Grey Chutney. Amandajm ( talk) 10:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
See also: Nativity of Jesus in art
I've made a start. Amandajm ( talk) 14:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, John! I've got the three tenors on, full blast, because I'm at the other end of the house. Luckily it's lunchtime, not midnight. Amandajm ( talk) 01:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi - We recently had a CFD on Category:Journalism academics that closed with no consensus ( [3]). You commented on that discussion, so I thought you might be interested in continuing the discussion at Category talk:Journalism academics to try to arrive at a consensus-based decision. -- Lquilter ( talk) 17:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! You participated in the CfD of Category:Articles needing an infobox. You may be interested in the DRV I opened at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 12#Category:Articles needing an infobox. Thank you! Cheers, Rkitko ( talk) 01:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
dear Oddbod, here's the plan
Have fun! Amandajm ( talk) 13:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod, sorry for the random canvass, but I've seen you around a fair bit and have a request. <A hem>I've put Las Meninas up for peer review here, and would greatly appreciate any though or comments you might have. Thanks either way. Ceoil ( talk) 14:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
A question of style: I've been changing references to deceased authors to past tense ('Janson suggested' rather than' 'Janson suggests')--is that a legitimate copy edit, or just silly? Thanks, JNW ( talk) 21:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Setting new lows in thank-you spam:
Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will
new mop act?
Ooops, .com
blocked
New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well
Main Page
New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault
A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out
DRV
A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye
Qatar is
blocked
Shucks those
range blocks are tricky!
Will get it straight soon.
Colbert's elephants
stampede Wikipedia
Must
protect, protect
Wiki
fortress not.
Open gates, knowledge wings
free
But
fiends are about
Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ...
A. B.
John, thanks so much for your support in my RfA.
Have you thought of becoming an admin yourself? We need "content-oriented" admins as much if not more than the more numerous "behaviour-oriented" admins and you are an editor's editor.
Think about it and in the meantime, enjoy your haiku. -- A. B. (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Well done Johnbod! I really like the headings under which you have grouped the pics. With regards to that window from Canterbury, it has been pieced together from a number of windows. Luckily most of the Magi are intact, but a couple of the scenes, eg Lot's wife don't seem to bee typologically related. There is another one on the other side for which I haven't identified a subject. Further down the content gets still messier.
I didn't like the OTT Rubens which seems to be quite huge, reproduced smaller then the de la Tour, so I've swapped it (after a bit of trial and error) with one of the same shape as the de la Tour. I hope you approve.
I like the Magi set and the folk art set. it works well. Amandajm ( talk) 12:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Amandajm ( talk) 00:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support, my
request for adminship passed 62/0/0 yesterday!
I want to thank Snowolf and Dincher for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and since you are reading this, I haven't yet deleted your talk page by accident!). Please let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance, and keep an eye out for a little green fish with a mop on the road to an even better encyclopedia. Thanks again and take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC) |
---|
Hi Johnbod,
Thanks for the GA review again. In the review you mentioned we should mention about Martin & his other work. Also, you mentioned some of the language is clunky, & it is underlinked. Would you please elaborate a little bit on that. Thanks very much in advance, -- Be happy!! ( talk) 05:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Cheers, Daniel 11:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The Barnstar of High Culture | ||
Congratulations on being the inspiration for the
Nativity of Jesus in art article and doing such excellent work on it!
Amandajm (
talk) 11:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Yes this is really beautiful work. Excellent!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 13:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC) |
Hey: I don't care if you revert the changes but don't send me a message about it as if were an idiot. I know they aren't spelling mistakes. I just don't like most Commonwealth spellings, aesthetically speaking. The article wasn't related to the British or places that prefer Commonwealth spellings so I felt it was irrelevant (and it is). My edit was unrelated to spelling; I moved a paragraph that seemed as if it were injected inappropriately in the middle of a section, towards the end of a section. Why don't you focus on that edit, and trying to make it a better article in lieu of nitpicking over superficialities like my preference for Center over Centre. It's my preference, I was the last one to make the change, changed things in that section. You can do the same. Get over it and stop preaching. Or better yet undo my edits and keep it to yourself. Also, proofread your posts. Arthurian Legend ( talk) 18:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Johnbod. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and " no personal attack" policies. Thank you. VanTucky talk 05:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You tweaked the caption of the monk drinking wine in medieval cuisine with the motivation that it's POV. I don't actually know the context of the illumination since the source dodesn't specify the origin, but the furtive look on his face is what made me write that caption. Do you by any chance know what kind of document it's from?
Peter Isotalo 08:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits. I have changed some. The problem is the images are now better and more profuse than the text. I am trying to expand the text to incorporate the images so that there is not an incongruous gallery at the bottom. I have also tried to link to some of the spare images in the text, I'm not sure this allowed but I can't see the harm - it seems a shame to wast any. The problem is trying to expand and keep the page stable at the same time. Personally, I think it is looking pretty good, certainly one of Wikipedia's best illustrated architectural pages. Giano ( talk) 23:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, how come you call one of the best History of Art sites - all-art.org - a spam ? Why do you keep deleteing it ? Try google "history of art" - this site comes at 6th place. Pretty good for a spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.44.36.154 ( talk) 02:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure; next day or two: I'll look forward to it—that painting fascinates me. Annoyingly, I used to have some good books on Velásquez but was in the habit of giving my books away. Quite the opposite now Wikipedia has come along...more and more shelves! qp10qp ( talk) 00:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Johnbod, I just wanted to thank you for all you expertise and help over the last week. The article is now much stonger and tighter than I could have hoped for. Ceoil ( talk) 12:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh and I'm talking with JNW about working together on the Rokeby Venus. Any interest. Ceoil ( talk) 12:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Great, there is a full essay on the venus in the Carr book, which I highly recommend. Ceoil ( talk) 13:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod, I've been catching up on CFDs that came up while I was taking a "rest-break" of sorts. I came back just in time to discover that one of my own, Category:People who emigrated to escape Nazism, is up for renaming. Would you be good enough to have a look at my comment -- I'm pretty sure you'll want to change your position on that particular CFD. I think you'll also be interested in my suggestion re Category:Worker's NGOs -- not sure if you'll agree, but give it some thought, eh? And lastly, I've made a significant alternative proposal re Category:Natural sciences, which is starting to gain support. I'm sure whatever you have to say there will be of value. Hope you'll find the time to respond! Regards, Cgingold ( talk) 14:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Is is significant to mention that the Mazo portrait of Margarita depicts her and her attendants in mourning for her father? (It's significant from a clothing perspective, not so sure in this context, so I didn't add it.) - PKM ( talk) 18:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Now is fine, I have a few sources on intrepation I need to read through. Ceoil ( talk) 17:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod, I cannot find an article in wikipedia on Modernist drama -- there's a category, Category:Modernist drama, theatre and performance -- but no article. Can this be so? Can you think of something I've missed? -- Lquilter ( talk) 21:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an administrator. I paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better admin. I am going to take things slowly for now -- I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, though I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. -- El on ka 02:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
supparluca emptied and redirected Category:South Tyrol despite consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 28#Category:South Tyrol to leave it alone. Chris ( talk) 05:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Copied CfD talk Johnbod ( talk) 09:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
You are right its not a good block, any day of the year. take it to AN/I. i will be there to support you. DGG ( talk) 12:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your good work and for your help, much appreciated. Modernist ( talk) 00:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all your hhelp and encouragement! Amandajm ( talk) 06:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
One likes to check, but is there a reason you've deleted out my edit? Twospoonfuls ( talk) 19:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed as I was putting on the template that there are a number of meagre articles, not even sufficient stubs. I suggest a decision as to which ones are worth adding to and which are not. I kept them so that other editors could have a look. Tyrenius ( talk) 04:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
You stated "Delete per nom" there, but I nominated the cat for renaming, not deletion. You may wish to clarify your response. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I've started expanding History of clothing and textiles - I would appreciate your thoughts. PKM ( talk) 21:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
This is very clearly a far worse image than the one you have replaced it with - a typical washed-out Yorck project scan from a 50-year-old book. Please reverse this imediately! I am very concerned that you could possibly think this the better image and would be grateful if you could explain your reasoning, preferably at on en WP. diff on en Johnbod 23:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
In your edit summary for Las Meninas, changing "1656 painting" back to "painting of 1656" and deleting "now held by...", you cited the VA MOS, but I can't find these recommendations at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style. Could you point me to the correct page? Thanks. Awadewit | talk 03:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, notwithstanding my intent to carry on a normal life, I'm unable to exit. And a very happy new year to you, too! My concern was that Las Meninas would collapse under the weight of so many well-meaning edits of the last two weeks, but quite the contrary has occurred. Congratulations for all the fine work, and for the crusade to make sure that 1656 does not become an adjective...here's hoping that 2008 will be modified by positive adjectives. Cheers, JNW ( talk) 16:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I have begun the merest stub of Quentin Metsys the Younger. - PKM ( talk) 20:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod. Please note this from Grove Art Online:
Pentiment [pentimento; It.: ‘repentance’].
Visible evidence of an alteration to a painting or drawing that suggests a change of mind on the part of the artist. In particular, it refers to previous workings (see also Underdrawing) revealed by the change in the refractive index of oil paint that occurs as it ages: thin layers of paint that were originally opaque may become semi-transparent. In Titian’s group portrait of the Vendramin Family (c. 1543–7; London, N.G.), for example, the figure of a young, bearded man on the far left was moved inwards. The head of the figure in the original position is now evident as a ghostly image on a patch of sky. The term is also used to refer to such effects where they do not necessarily imply a deviation from the original intention. In Pieter de Hooch’s Interior (London, N.G.), for example, the chequered floor is visible beneath a maid’s dress, confirming that the figure was added after the floor was painted. This may have been necessary given the precise geometric pattern of the floor and the perspective involved. Pentimenti suggest that painters refined and altered compositions as they worked, and, for this reason, they are often cited as evidence of authenticity; similarly, they are less likely to appear in copies. The term is also used to describe the hesitant preliminary workings that show beneath some drawings.
And this from OED online:
A sign or trace of an alteration in a literary or artistic work; (spec. in Painting) a visible trace of a mistake or an earlier composition seen through later layers of paint on a canvas.
Pentimenti are seen particularly in oil painting (see quot. 1951).
'1823' Edinb. Rev. '38' 430 This seems to be a pentimento of the author. '1850' Edinb. Rev. Oct. 566 The pentimentos in Ariosto's manuscript are numberless. 1903 R. FRY Let. 6 Mar. (1972) I. 204 What looks like a retouch above the man's left shoulder turns out on closer inspection to be an original pentimento. 1951 R. MAYER Artist's Handbk. ii. 100 The refractive index of the oil film has changed and a thin coat of paint..has become sufficiently transparent to allow under-painting or drawing to show through. The effect is called pentimento. '1991' Apollo Mar. 164/1 X-radiographs..indicate a pentimento to the outline of the rock.
The article Pentimento is therefore faulty, and should be fixed.
Best wishes! I'll back off now, while you edit. But more needs to be done.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 22:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your note at my page, Johnbod. Let's conduct our conversation here though, for convenience. You ask how Pentimento and the definitions above differ. Let me set that aside for a moment and compare the earlier wording in Las Meninas with Grove Art and OED:
Examination under infrared light has shown that Velázquez made minor pentimenti (alterations) to the figures as he worked;...
According to this, a pentimento is an alteration; according to the sources I cite, a pentimento is a trace of or evidence of an alteration. So by their lights it is incorrect to say that the artist "made minor pentimenti". OED's citations give no precedent for this usage. Turning now to the article Pentimento, I should say that it looks pretty good! But it does begin like this:
A pentimento (plural pentimenti) is an alteration in a painting...
That initial statement itself is not directly supported by any source; it is contradicted by respected and notable sources; and therefore it is in need of alteration to show the distinction I draw attention to, and at least to recognise the Grove–OED definition as well. I see that a couple of the external links support the initial statement, but this all needs to be made explicit and clear. Some might think this is hair-splitting. As far as I'm concerned it is not. Not for an article that is to become a featured article – as Las Meninas surely will, very soon. – Noetica♬♩ Talk 23:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Johnbod, I came across your post here and just wanted to say that I am not, in fact, a puppet of Aramgar's but another editor with a genuine interest in Medieval iconography, among other subjects. I was very pleased that you liked the article I started, so I wanted to correct any impression that I might not be an actual person. Thanks, Kafka Liz ( talk) 20:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
here
Hi John!! How are you? Wish you a merry new year!! Finally I've been able to add a new article here: it's Monastero di Santa Giulia, Brescia. Maybe it'd need your help, as (for example) I don't know how it's the English equivalent of tiburio... ?!?! Ciao and thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Attilios ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
This article, to which you contributed, will be featured on the Main Page on January 5, 2008. [6] Risker ( talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, John. The article looks great. I think there should be no impediment to its promotion now.
You recover, OK? :)
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 01:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Great to see that Las Meninas has now been promoted, John. It really is a gem.
All the best to you.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 23:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I'd like to see a caption that explains why this image is considered to be such a very exceptional example of high culture. Show, don't tell! And yes, the troll is quite impressive. Cheers, -- KFP ( talk | contribs) 20:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, sorry, back briefly - up to my eyebrows in the Real World. This is great. - PKM ( talk) 03:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I've stuck this up now, and wonder if you'd be kind enough to cast an eye over it. I can't believe there's much more info to go in, because I've pretty well rinsed my sources dry; but I've put some queries on the talk page that you might be able to help with. Cheers. qp10qp ( talk) 04:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
David Norman, suggesting that it be deleted according to the
proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if
consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{
db-author}}
to the top of
David Norman.
LeyteWolfer (
talk) 01:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support | ||
Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.-- Jayron32| talk| contribs 06:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks for contributing to the discussion on the Saint Joseph talk page. We definitely needed the help. When I first came across the article, it said: "Joseph [...] was, according to the canonical Christian Gospel accounts and tradition, the husband of Mary and the father of Jesus of Nazareth." I thought it was a simple error and tried to correct it, but that met with fierce oposition, as you can see on the talk page. Anyway, I was getting extremely frustrated, so I hope you'll stick around until it gets resolved. Again, thank you. Fratprez ( talk) 16:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you supply the book and page number? Unfortunately <ref>Waterhouse</ref> isn't likely to satisfy as an authoritative reference?-- Docg 08:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I was surprised by your tone and puzzled by your comments at this category's discussion. In my opinion removing the category from the articles improved the articles, otherwise I wouldn't have removed it from them. There was nothing improper in that, surely? I then noticed the category was effectively empty, and since I couldn't think of any "Italian musical instruments" I nominated it for discussion to see whether there might be consensus that it should be deleted. Was that improper?
Nowhere in any procedure can I find that a category once nominated for deletion must have articles that were removed from it restored. Neither can I see any policy that bars a Wikipedian who removes a category from articles from nominating that category for deletion. Even if there is a procedure, as you appear to suggest, that I must restore what I think is an inappropriate category to articles that I don't believe need it, and if necessary work against all comers to keep it there, I shall respectfully decline.
In what way does the absence of the articles from the category "clearly make comment […] very difficult"? The relevant articles are listed in the nomination.
I suspect there may be some long-standing Wikipedians who know CFD who would find your assertion that the procedure is new to me quite funny.
Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 10:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Roundhouse0 has brought it to my attention that I wasn't clear in this CfD nomination. I meant for Category:Senior wranglers and Category:Second wranglers to be discussed together, but didn't make it clear that I was including Category:Second wranglers in the same discussion. If this makes you want to change anything you have said or add anything new, please do so. Sorry for the confusion. LeSnail ( talk) 03:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it was the only off-Wiki site - not that it was a brilliant one anyway. But all I have (well, prints anyway) is now on Commons. Did you see my latest J Hopfer acquisition: Charles V, a wonderful example of the 'Hopfer style', also ill. in Landau? See you have been under anaesthetics for the New Year - presume non-alcoholic ones? Anyway I hope all's well now... Nick Michael ( talk) 13:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm fine now, thanks. I know the print but hadn't seen yours - in fact I'm sure this has grown considerably since I last looked - lovely stuff. You might, or might well not, be interested in Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of erotic depictions - whether the review or (apparently less contentious) adding something to the article. Johnbod ( talk) 16:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you help identify this portrait? - PKM ( talk) 20:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
John, I wonder if this portrait rings a bell. It is a C19 copy, but I am certain there is an original as I have seen it elsewhere. Any clue? Nick Michael ( talk) 21:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey. To make things clear: I know one image isn't enough for an artist, but there's a commons link to a whole gallery of his works... I don't see why they need to be duplicated. The Wikipedia article loses its layout and overview by adding images. Key ( talk) 13:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
You're wrong, I'm afraid. I presume you don't work on visual arts articles much? Johnbod ( talk) 13:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
If an article has many images, so many, in fact, that they lengthen the page beyond the length of the text itself (...), you can try to use a gallery, but the ideal solution might be to create a page or category combining all of them at Wikimedia Commons and use a relevant template (...) and link to it instead, so that further images are readily found and available when the article is expanded.
Went to my local bookstore yesterday and by freakish conicdence (its a very small family run operation, more concerned with mil-hist and self-help books than art) found a copy of this. And its great. By the way, do you know of a copy of the picture featured in the times of the canvass post richardsons cleaver attack, pre repair. Ceoil ( talk) 12:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean "It is an admirable light for....whilst raising the said..."? Ceoil ( talk) 00:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I've spent some months on this, so I'm probably guilty of a bit of WP:OWN - sorry about that. However, that's best remedied by discussing things, and your problems with my edits, not by personal attacks in edit summaries [7]. I'm very happy to discuss any changes on the talk page.-- Docg 13:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The Velázquez Barnstar of Cultural Transcendence | ||
I Ceoil award this for past and future work on the great master. Its been an honour to work with you, sir. Ceoil ( talk) 21:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
I started Cornelis Ketel but it's not really a coherent narrative. Would love your input if you have time. - PKM ( talk) 07:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Most Phallic Building contest, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most Phallic Building contest. Thank you. faithless (speak) 08:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, how are you? Can you review the entry I've created for Timoteo Viti. It was difficult to translate and reword from the original source, if you can look it over for me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. - RiverHockey ( talk) 22:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 20:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
My apologies! I am so sorry to have caused you offense, or problems with the display on your monitor, by using the Murillo under the heading "art". But a painting of Jesus clutching a bird is misplaced under the heading "canonical Gospel accounts". The incident is an invention of Murillo, no matter how credible. However, the addition of a picture in the context of this article is not worth arguing about; and I have therefore happily withdrawn the picture from the article altogether. Since I originally introduced the Murillo painting into this article (which I did not in order to turn this article into an art gallery but to demonstrate the point I was making, namely that there was a discernible shift of the portrayal of Joseph from a doddery old man to a youthful looking man), I trust no one is going to feel offended by my having withdrawn the picture now in response to your objection. must insist though that, contrary to your assertion, my edit summary was entirely true. 22:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod, the comments by Grayling that I removed ("the judgment of time seems to be running against him", etc) weren't a specific criticism of Freud. They were just a vague, rhetorical observation, and I see no reason why this sort of thing should be in the Freud article at all, whether written by Grayling or anyone else. Skoojal ( talk) 22:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_January_30#Image:Copper_snuffbox.jpg FYI Tyrenius ( talk) 03:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This user helped promote Lisa del Giocondo to featured article status. |
There are many determined Freud supporters who revert edits pointing out how widely and severely he is criticized. Any help you can give is appreciated. NuclearWinner ( talk) 01:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about edit conflicts; I will leave alone at this time. – Outriggr § 03:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No hard feelings, I hope, on the gallery issue. Overall, I think the article is excellently written. I am shocked that there wasn't an article about Peake before (I have actually heard of him and seen his work before), and I'm grateful that you guys took the time to create it and get it ready for FA. We were getting a little spirited, and I wanted to make it clear that I do think it's a good article. Karanacs ( talk) 18:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the Spanish and French articles are only really copies of this one (or the other way round) – I only speak French. The German article is a little more lengthy, but still doesn't cite any references for the person. Not being notable is a criteria for deletion, and as far as I can tell, there's no notability asserted in the article through WP:BIO. Please let me know if I'm wrong — alex.muller ( talk • edits) 18:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I see Las Meninas will be FA on 5 February - congratulations! - PKM ( talk) 18:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
-- Archtransit ( talk) 20:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
No worries, and no skulking. The game's afoot. I've started improving our image store for Isaac Oliver. I also just ordered Karen Hearn's Tate exhibit catalogue on Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger; it's been remaindered. - PKM ( talk) 04:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
News to me but its on the main page today. Its attracting quality edits like this, actually lots of them. I have a few disused grenades, a pellet gun, mines, and a sub to hand. Still, help needed. Ceoil ( talk) 00:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Johnbod, I have granted rollback rights to your account. The reason for this is that, after a review of some of your contributions, I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended use of reverting vandalism: I do not believe you will abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck.
Just the right time for this. Well spotted on the vandalism. I normally check back, but I wanted to block the IP asap to stop more of the same.
Tyrenius ( talk) 01:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Which is why I removed them. Did I miss something? Yomangani talk 01:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I commented on the talk page there, but figured I'd add a bit here also.
The bot removed your report because it thought it was a comment attached to the previous report.
I'm not sure what other formats the bot recognizes, but reports should generally follow one of these formats.
If the report follows one of those formats, it's my understanding that the bots will leave them alone unless the account has been blocked. Hope that helps. -- Onorem♠ Dil 16:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Johnbot,
Thanks for your response to my query to that totally incomprehensible quote in Las Meninas.
But the main point: For one reason or another, I followed a Wiki-ref for folio--as in that thing with verso and recto--and it wound up on bookbinding. A further wikiref to codicology was hardly worth mentioning. Of anyone I've seen here, you seem the most hip to these issues. Would you consider helping pumping codicology up? Or at least keep an eye on it while I mess around? (I took a graduate class in codicology--mostly medieval mss.--about 20 years ago, sad to say, and lost all my solid notes....) Best,--- Shlishke ( talk) 19:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
We appear to be failing to communicate - All I was trying to do was find out the nature of your confusion. i.e. which direction were you missing the point. Missing why these categories "should" exist or missing why these categories "should not" exist. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 12:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It appears our boy has his star! Many thanks for all your help, particularly on fielding the points at FAC: it is much appreciated. I have found working with you, PKM and Amandajm one of the most enjoyable experiences I have had on Wikipedia. I am learning fast about art articles, which are a curiously different beast to straight history subjects. Of course, hardly anyone will read Peake, but at least that will preserve it (I cannot keep up with the endless changes to articles like James I of England and Elizabeth I of England that I've worked on: it becomes quite dismaying). qp10qp ( talk) 14:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 18:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
John, I'm surprised that you weren't told, or didn't learn, before being given rollback, that you're only to use it on genuine vandalism. This is not an acceptable use of rollback, particularly given that you also completely failed to check what the problem was that motivated the edit. Samsara ( talk • contribs) 15:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I've made a start off the top of my head. You'll be interested in the subject, I think.-- Wetman ( talk) 12:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for your speedy assessment! Xn4 05:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
John, I'm sure you realise yourself that this edit summary was out of place. Can you please not do it again? Thanks. Samsara ( talk • contribs) 23:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
John, you are becoming increasingly incoherent. What happened was that a Commons user ignored an overwrite warning and overwrote an earlier image called Pan.jpg, which showed the newsreader. The correct thing to do was to revert this user's mistake, and re-upload the image under a new name. Commons does not check for namespace collisions with Wikipedia. This has been known as a bug for years, it's number 889 if you want to look it up. Nobody has taken the time to implement a solution, nor can images be moved (the number for that bug is referenced in the aforementioned). So after re-uploading the image under a new name, I discovered that this bug existed, and that the new name collided with an existing image on en-wp. The only solution was to re-upload the image under yet another name that would not collide. As stated, I did not have time to execute this, leaving the only sane option as the deletion of the (now incorrect) image from the article, in the hope that someone else would take the time to fix the problem, which I felt was clearly described in appropriate language for someone else to understand. I note that you did not seek to (a) understand the problem, or even (b) fix the it. Instead, you assumed bad faith and used rollback on the edit, which I have already told you was against protocol. You then edit-warred with another editor who had a better insight into the problem. At some point, one might have expected that the fact you were warring with a sysop would give you pause to consider the possibility that they were not out to destroy everything holy. Instead, you chose to make a reference to their mental health, which I cannot, and I'm looking at you very seriously here, cannot condone. Marvelling at the fact that apparently, nobody cared to restore the image correctly, I eventually got around to re-uploading under a name that at least does not collide with the English Wikipedia, although it may collide with any number of local wikipedias, wiktionaries, wikibooks, etc.
I worry that because of your demonstrated lack of technical knowledge, much of this will sound like gobbledy-gook to you, but that leads me to question whether you should really be editing Wikipedia in the judgmental manner you are doing, asserting that you understand who made what mistake when. I should mention to you that an administrator would be expected to be able to conduct the kind of forensic research necessary to understand the nature of such problems.
Overall, Wikipedia suggest that you be bold in making changes, and we have a {{ sofixit}} template that I would strongly recommend to you as a mantra before you run around the wiki again, accusing others of various perceived crimes.
Yours firmly,
Samsara ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if you could point me to the Ghit that showed he "painted stuff in a palace in Brescia". Thanks. Tyrenius ( talk) 14:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC) here Johnbod ( talk) 14:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 17:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
-- Victuallers ( talk) 20:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
see here Victuallers ( talk) 21:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC) oops ... fixed now Victuallers ( talk) 22:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I stole your suggestion for the lead. I hope you don't mind!!!! Can you tell me where you found that image? I was looking for it. BTW, I was shocked, just shocked, that Tower Green wasn't an article. I saw a bunch of red links here and there, while reading up on Anne Boleyn. I haven't created that many articles, certainly none in English history, considering how many years I spent in London as an expat. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted for turning whole page below green!
Hi and thank you for your input on Vadukul. Are we friends now? Oh dear, how boring. Wonderful!
I noted your comment that A quick look around Category:Fashion photographers, Category:Commercial photographers and Category:American photographers shows a majority of individuals with less impressive records that Vadukul, not to mention heaps of equally peacocky prose. You didn't surprise me. I'd pretty much given up on looking through any of those three; doing so brought dark thoughts about humanity. Actually I've got my hands full with Category:Japanese photographers, which is stunningly well populated -- mostly by utterly uninteresting substubs (not created by me), whose preservation and development I sporadically work on. Looking at "recent changes" to this category tends to show learned contributions by Pinkville to the earliest people, ho-hum contributions by others to the half-dozen or so photographers who have (often I think undeservedly) become stars in the anglosphere, and the addition of this or that softcore pornographer. Pinkville's work aside, this is depressing. Anyway, I'm in no mood to go through any of your three named-and-shamed categories, but if you want to create some AfDs do please mention these here. Then I'm likely to pitch in, and you might also attract other people from this somnolent Project. Or, if you can't be bothered to do AfD, at least mention it here.
Probably no need to reply, but if you'd like to do so please do so here. Thanks. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Not being interested in frocks, I tend not to be interested in photos of frocks. And I suppose that people who are interested in frocks are more interested in the frocks than in the photos of them. Ditto for celebs. I think the reason why the better commercial photographers aren't as much written about as the better art photographers is simply that the former just aren't usually very interesting, at least as long as they are commercial photographers. (Honorable exceptions include Avedon's elephant photo, and miscellaneous work by Jūmonji.) But then I go to bookstores in the hope of seeing some interesting new photobooks, and there are instead piles of books showing beautiful (I suppose) people in beautiful (I suppose) frocks. (A little devil tells me just to say that such books are directed at people too gullible and thick to say anything intelligible and interesting about the photographs or photographers, but I mustn't say that, must I?) As I look at Vogue covers, I can't see anything significant about the name of the person who pressed the button of one or even twenty of them: it is I suppose be the art director who has most of the job of presenting yet another frock in a way that will make readers fear that without buying a copy they won't know what's what and may appear slightly dowdy to their more dutifully consuming friends.
There's nothing much wrong with commercial photography. A good friend of mine (without an article at en:WP) is a commercial photographer. But, like many commercial photographers I can think of, he does unrelated work in his spare time, and it's this that gets into Asahi Camera and/or Nippon Camera and into the occasional book, and that might eventually be written up.
As for the an "'included in major collections' notability criterion", art and photo galleries do have collections of photos, and these do include fashion/celeb photography. (Far too high a percentage of it, I'd say.) That could be a criterion for photographic notability.
Having knocked commercial photography, I should end by saying that I find some good but not outstanding commercial photography a lot more interesting than a fair amount of "art" photography; and by the latter I don't only mean what unrecognized geniuses (or not) claim is their own "art", but also some of what Nazraeli and respected critics trumpet as "art". Bah humbug.
Back to my obligations in the real world, and later perhaps I should try to knock Teikō Shiotani into something that starts to resemble a decent article on this dreamy and gloriously uncommercial artist. -- Hoary ( talk) 03:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This would be a great example of a retro use of rubrics if the quality wasn't so poor. I'll see if I can't track down a better image of rubrics in Kelmscott Press work (the 1972 Dover edition has the rubrics, if I recall). - PKM ( talk) 18:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Royal progress, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Royal progress is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (
CSD R3).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Royal progress, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click
here
CSDWarnBot (
talk) 04:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I added a "to do" box. Lampman ( talk) 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi John - you wrote: WTF are you playing at deleting this redirect? It is a very closely related topic, and the nearest article we have. I shall set it up again, please do not delete. The rationale you used, according to the bot, must be the wrong one - makes no sense at all. PS I see you have been hit by the curse of Doczilla too!
Oy.
Like I told Grutness after I noticed the exchange above, I have no dadgum idea why that greening effect happens to some people but not others, and certainly not why it comes and go. With a couple of people, it's obviously interacting with the formatting of their talk pages. With others, I just can't see what the deal is. I had tested that thing repeatly and even had somebody help me test so I could know how it looks on other computers it before I inflicted it on people. The greening effect had never happened during testing. It's some consequence of the effect which makes it collapsible, the purpose of which was to be less intrusive on other people's pages rather than more. *sigh* Ah, well. Sorry about that, chief. Doczilla RAWR! 06:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I just read your recent comments on IZAK's talk page. I also responded to your own clear failure to verify your own claims on the talk page of the Judaism project. I have actually acknowledged the mistake, and, if you bothered to check the recent edit history, removed the banner from several articles. I have taken responsibility for my actions. You, on the other hand, have consistently shown an unwillingness to verify your own presumptions and regularly rushed to judgement. Presumably, I'm responsible for your failures to verify the claims you make as well. :) John Carter ( talk) 15:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod, I was wondering if you had a source you could recommend for St. Anne in the Orthodox tradition. I have some good materials for the west but am having a hard time finding eastern sources. I know she was not a major figure there but was wondering if you had any information. Thanks, Kafka Liz ( talk) 02:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I've done some tweaking and removed some random code. It looks OK on my low res screen now. You can play around with it if you want. Change "float: right" to "float: left" to move horizontally. Tyrenius ( talk) 21:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Here you go! Image:Burchett sandown trimmed.jpg - PKM ( talk) 18:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe you would be well advised to become aware of the following guidelines, if you are not in fact already aware of them: WP:TE and WP:DE. Neither of your recent comments on the above page even remotely deals with the subject under discussion. Please try to confine your comments to the subject, as opposed to off-topic comments about the author. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 19:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
O master of woodcuts, can you advise me if the Henry Lyte who "published" A Niewe Herball (1578) was himself an herbalist or just the publisher? I assume the former but I can't seem to find confirmation. (The link is needed for slip (needlework).) Thanks! - PKM ( talk) 20:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Just ease up. Keep yourself in the clear. Comment on edits, not editors, which you have done. WP:DENY was a bit out of line, but ignore it. Tyrenius ( talk) 02:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Just thought you'd like to know that someone was enquiring about something you'd done at this section of the Help desk today. Bencherlite Talk 23:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I may have stepped on one of your changes when I submitted the new draft of this article. I'm the one who listed it in the Visual Arts-related deletions, so I'm happy that more people have shown up at the AfD. If you have other ideas for what to do with this, go ahead. I just thought the original version was full of potential copyright problems due to the lengthy quotes. The external links could be mined for useful info (they are probably excessive at present). EdJohnston ( talk) 02:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 02:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words!! Yes it really does annoy me that despite what I've put into the project I still get messages like that on a daily basis, I think editors should be encouraging each other rather than focusing on the negative. If there is anything less than perfect, my god you are made to be aware of it aren't you!!! Best regards and congrats on the DYK ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Because of your edits on talk page of this article I am informing you that talk page will be deleted. Reason for deleting is that all discussions are started by banned user:Velebit puppet which has not been allowed to edit in time of his writing. His edits has not been allowed so all will be deleted. This deleting is in line with wiki rules but is used rarely, but in case of this user edits must be deleted, because he is coming again and again with only intention to write POV articles. After helping to block his 3 puppets this year I have started to delete all his edits. this is done with hope that he will stop writing after seeing that all his edits are deleted. Again I am sorry for deleting you comments on talk page but .....-- Rjecina ( talk) 20:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Edits by banned users can be removed. I think common sense should prevail, as to whether the material on the talk page is worth keeping, if it addresses arguments that will otherwise need to be gone over again. And again, the removal doesn't apply to other editors' posts. There should be consensus over what to do. Tyrenius ( talk) 04:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
...for the work you did on St. Anne. The article is much improved and looks better too. My apologies for not mentioning it sooner. :) Kafka Liz ( talk) 13:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to take a monent to thank you for the time your spent on the History of erotic depictions FAR. I know that it wasn't particularly pleasant, but it was work that needed to be done. Your input was very helpful indeed. -- Zantastik talk 23:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Good work! Can I have a fiddle with it? Amandajm ( talk) 01:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
One of the things I love about St Peter's is the way people visiting for the first time walk in the door and fall on their knees. It's hard to convey that sort of stuff on wikipedia. Oh, I had another little treat. The year that the Orthodox church turned up in full force, I just happened to be at Santa Maria Maggiore when the Patriach of Antioch arrived and was borne down the aisle in a huge procession with about a dozen cardinals and enough bishops to sink a ship. What is Benedict doing, renouncing his title as Patriarch of Rome?
By the way, I have rewritten San Pedro in a simpler for and it's up on Simple English Wiki as well. [8] Amandajm ( talk) 03:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Johnbod. I'm at a point with the Book of Kells -- the Decoration section -- where Calkins may be the better source. Would you like to take a look? I don't want to be "hogging" the article. Kafka Liz ( talk) 12:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I wrote a few words on this museum because many years ago I chanced on what is left of Esprit Calvet's cabinet of curiosities while looking for an insect collection in the Musée Calvet in Avignon. This museum,important for early entomology, is maintained by the Fondation Calvet.I put a few words together to stave off deletion on the proposed deletion page where the art spoke for more than I thought.You may be interested in my comment on Vitrelli Many thanks Robert Notafly ( talk) 21:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
No evidence of deletion. Those category pages do not seem to have ever been created. Click on red link to create them. Yes, template should be deleted! Ty 01:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod, finally I'm pushing on the Venus so any contribution from you would be great. I'm working, slowly on Friedrich with Outriggr, so please feel free to intergect there if the mood takes you. Best Ceoil ( talk) 21:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I finally found and scanned a good de Heere in color, but it needs context. We really must clean up his article, one of these days. So much to do... PKM ( talk) 08:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-- PFHLai ( talk) 08:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Johnboddie, I have created a new account and I plan to be active in ACLU issues. I was asked if I was you - obviously not, so I'll send people your way if other people seem to be confused. I like your user page. Johnboddie ( talk) 16:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding our apparent disagreement at The Bathers (Cézanne): the Museum of Modern Art (in New York) is certainly the most well known museum by that name, and is nearly always what is meant when one says the Museum of Modern Art. Therefore, I feel it unnecessary to state that it is in New York; besides, if there is any question, one need only follow the link to the article. More importantly, the name of the other museum is the National Gallery, and not the National Gallery, London. That is the title of the article only to differentiate it between the other National Galleries. Therefore, it is much more logical to refer the museum by its correct name and then give the location, i.e. the National Gallery in London. Making condescending remarks while not explaining or defending the changes you're making after I've put in the work writing in the article in insulting and counter-productive. faithless (speak) 14:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll thank you not to edit my userpage without first consulting me. Maybe upon consideration it wasn't an appropriate category but it was not your place to remove it. It was mine. Feel free to bask in my glow, who knows, you might get a tan! 15:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I apologise. In my defence tell that to User:Wikiburger. Feel free to bask in my glow, who knows, you might get a tan! 16:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
That was an inappropriate edit. Selected galleries with informative captions should not be "moved" to Commons (where they probably came from in the first place), least of all without raising the matter first. Johnbod ( talk) 16:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
fyi, [9] Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Gatoclass ( talk) 13:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Nomed the fucker, in light of a deafening silence. Please join in. Ceoil ( talk) 16:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Did you ever reach a conclusion as to your opinion on the renaming? I ask because the discussion has now been closed as "no consensus." You never responded to my last comment, and I really do not feel that the discussion was finished. I think the discussion should be reopened. Do you have any opinion on the matter? --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 15:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The 50 DYK Medal | ||
Fifty is nifty! Thank you for all of your work contributing to 50 DYK articles. People all around the world have benefited from all of your effort. Keep up the great work! Royalbroil 15:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC) |
I just got the Lightbown book and think that I have rememdied the remainder of your comments (it's a little hard to tell with the formatting...). Could you take another look and, if you have any remaining issues, just start a new section so its more readable. Thanks for your help so far! Savidan 18:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Before I bring this up on CfD, I wonder what your opinion of the matter is. I'm talking about this stuff ( 1& 2, 3& 4, etc). It seems like excessive over-categorization. The premise is that (eg) not all Serbian Orthodox belong to the Serbian Orthodox Church - that a handful may belong to the Greek or Russian churches, for instance. While that's not impossible, it happens so rarely, and so often lends itself to mere duplication (see Kostunica or Basescu) that one category seems sufficient to me. Thoughts? Biruitorul ( talk) 18:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I just posted the re-write for my bio based on what I read from comments today. Please comment on edits -- some are trying to coach me to keep this article even though its auto, etc. we're trying to use the AfD sys to improve the article, so comments and suggestions for edits are appreciated. Thanks the Hitochi Princess ( talk) 17:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia
Hi. Thanks for your insights regarding the intended differences between the articles on Iconography and Icon. I guess I was concentrating more on the first two definitions given in the introductory paragraph: "Iconography is the branch of art history which studies the identification, description, and the interpretation of the content of images ... A secondary meaning is the painting of icons in the Byzantine and Orthodox Christian tradition." About semiotics, I really have no knowledge at all. I had hoped my most recent edits would draw the Eastern Christianity section more towards the final definition in the intro: "Iconography, a set of specified or traditional symbolic forms associated with the subject or theme of a stylized work of art". I will continue working on it. Honestly, I haven't wanted to tackle the sprawling "Icon" article yet. I need to get my courage up first. But I certainly welcome any further recommendations you have on "Iconography". MishaPan ( talk) 17:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Copied from qp's talk:
Hummmph! Amandajm ( talk) 09:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been writing on the Simple English page. Just rewrote H.M.the Queen. Sorry I haven't got around to Rokeby Venus. As for Italian Renaissance, some of it reads as if it's been lifted straight from Britannica and other sources, uncited. And the opening sentence is clumsy.
As for the translations, I almost always prefer a "Something of Somewhere" form. But not always. "The Manchester Madonnna" is fine.It has a nice alliteration. But "The Madonna of Bruges" is much better than "The Bruges Madonna". Partly because it is an object of veneration that carries some of the significance beyond any museum classification. Were the Pieta of V-A still above the altar in a church, rather than hanging on a rather sterile wall (grey, I seem to remember. We were exhausted by the time we found it), then it would be THE PIETA of of V-A, and a devotional object surrounded by petitions and candles. I don't think anybody in Manchester ever hung silver hearts and bronze baby's boots in front of the Manchester Madonna. I'm very tempted to hang votive thimgummies around the Virgin of the Rocks. She was invoked at times of plague. I hate seeing them just as collector's objects, often with the sacred and profane all jumbled up together.
Oh well, have a lovely Easter! I'm off to my dear little church on the side of the mountain, where we will be carolled by songbirds and have the Prayer of Humble Access interrupted by the roar of forty big motorbike engines. Amandajm ( talk) 01:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod. I don't quite follow your recent edit summary to Caspar David Friedrich. The article is referring only to the German Romantic painters in that assertion. – Outriggr § 04:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod, I think this presents an excellent summary. I might want to add a clearer description of Panofsky's "three levels of analysis" as laid out in his "Iconography and iconology, an introduction to the study of Renaissance art," in the collection of his essays called Meaning in the visual arts. Some reference to Krautheimer's idea of an iconography of architecture might also be useful ("Introduction to an 'iconography of medieval architecture'," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 5 (1942), 1-33), as this continues to be used by architectural historians as a very productive approach. Maybe add a brief summary of a specific iconographic interpretation? A classic is Panofsky on the Merode Altarpiece (in his Early Netherlandish Painting); the critique of this reading by Michael Ann Holly (in Past Looking, Ch. 6) gives some idea of how iconography became passe. I'm afraid I do not have the time to do this at present, nor will I until probably May. In general though I think it's an exceptionally lucid introduction, makes all the most important points, and I think it was a very good idea to introduce the institutional aspect, thus the Index of Christian Art and the various databases. Best, -- Javits2000 ( talk) 13:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Johnbod,
Funerary art is currently a redirect to Church monument. I'm working on a more global version at User:Ling.Nut/Funerary art. Ceoil (whose name I got from SandyGeorgia) suggested that you might be interested in helping... Ling.Nut ( talk) 05:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
... to kill the supernovae on your user page... Ling.Nut ( talk) 15:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Are the Fayum mummy portraits supposed to be in the Greek setion? Ling.Nut ( talk) 10:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I'd be happy to work on cinerary urn and ancestor portrait sometime in the next couple of months. Ling.Nut ( talk) 01:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
You'll be interested in the man behind those "Campana Collection" labels at the Musée du Louvre, the eponym of "Campana" molded terracotta reliefs.-- Wetman ( talk) 10:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind going on by yourself on our project? I kinda started it and kinda wrote... at least some of it. :-) But you're the better contributor. I have things in real life I need to do.. I'm thinking of moving the Africa section right out of the article & shelving it on Talk, slapping a band-aid on China and moving it into mainspace immediately... Ling.Nut ( talk) 18:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
But Sarkozy looks a bit like he's wearing a caftan here doesn't he? [11] Apostolos Margaritis ( talk) 18:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I used to live not far from Stamford_Hill and I remember there were many -relic like- characters roaming in that part of London (who were dresses quite similarly in those sort of robes etc.) I must check the area and kindly ask the inhabitants if they recognise Holbein's character as one of their kin honestly! I really have! I'll get then back to you! Apostolos Margaritis ( talk) 18:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated a new higher res scan of the Steven van der Meulen Elizabeth I for featured picture status - I'd appreciate your support if you agree. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Elizabeth I by Steven van der Meulen - PKM ( talk) 18:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I changed it per this diff at WP:ANI. The reasoning of Gatoclass seemed, well, reasonable, so I changed it. The best place to bring up your issue would be on the Talk:Hofkirche, Innsbruck page as it states in the article that it was a memorial. Regards. Woody ( talk) 15:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
"frequently depicted in medieval devotional literature and art, arising from a trope of medieval devotional literature and art" to Seven Joys of the Virgin.
You may want to elaborate on the distinction between "frequent depiction" and "trope" for my benefit and the benefit of the reader of the Wikipedia. patsw ( talk) 18:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice on WP:MOVE on The Seven Joys of Mary to The Seven Joys of Mary (carol). The article is now in WP:RM. patsw ( talk) 17:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to assume removing this was a mistake since it has nothing to do with our discussion on the project. If I'm missing something, please let me know but I have no idea why you'd remove my comment to another user that has nothing to do with you. Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)