User talk:Johnbod/38

Re:Lutherans and images

Dear User:Johnbod, thanks for your message on my talk page and thanks for improving art-related articles on Wikipedia. It is important to differentiate between Protestant sects as they are not a monolithic group of people, but rather, hold a diverse array of theological opinions. As you can see from the reliable sources I introduced into articles, there was a stark contrast in the way that Lutherans treated sacred art contrasted with the Calvinist iconoclasts, which the source you provided makes reference to (even note the title of the article)! I will take your point about attributing theological opinions to large groups, although calling someone a Calvinist is akin to referring to someone as a Catholic (one's religion). Those participating in the Iconoclastic Fury were indeed Calvinists. I do concur with your research that forms of sacred art that were suggestive of veneration were removed among Lutherans in an orderly fashion, but this is contrasted with the iconoclasm of the Calvinists. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I think I have read rather more than you have on this, and am well aware of the differences between Protestant denominations (as they are more politely called), thank you very much. While non-specialized sources are prone to lazily bundle large groups of people under convenient theological labels, the specialists tend to dissolve this simple picture. Lutheran attitudes towards images have always been rather variable and complex, not to say confused, going back to Luther himself; in practice they remain so today, with a very wide range of attitudes, although most of the heat has gone from the issue. Regarding the Beeldenstorm, the specialist histories make it clear that a wide variety of motivations were likely to have been involved, and since the participants were not clergy who recorded their motivations, these remain ultimately uncertain. As well as religious motivations, there was clearly some involvement of men paid by others (wealthy Calvinists) for whom it was just a job of work, a good deal of financially motivated looting, and much simple "carnival" enjoyment of a moment in a very tightly-reglated society when anarchistic destruction became possible. Modern riots typically have some political or religious trigger, but it would be foolish to believe that those involved are always those who feel most strongly about these issues. You don't seem to understand the situation in the Low Countries at the time, or what it might mean for an uneducated person to be a "Calvinist". Your edits are tending to give a misleading impression of Lutheran support for images. Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello again User:Johnbod, thanks for your reply. My comment was not to imply that you did not have knowledge on the differences between Christian denominations, but was to serve as a gentle reminder that it is important to reflect those differences rather than painting diverse groups of people with a broad brush. By the way, I have taken advanced art history courses from a prominent university so I am well aware of art during this period. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Well it is equally if not more important to remember, when talking about the 16th century, that unlike today Protestantism was still greatly in flux, and especially among the lay population, and most especially the majority of them with very limited access to books (if they could even read), people generally had not attached these labels to themselves. The Dutch Reformed Church, for example, usually dates its establishment as an organization only to the Synod of Emden in 1571, six years after the Beeldenstorm. It is important not to project modern assumptions on a very different period. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit here. That was a nice addition to the article. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 21:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

50+ images in one article?

I think if you ask anyone 50+ images in one article is it outrageous amount and an accessibility nightmare for those with mobile view. An encyclopedia or kids picture book is our goal? I'll help the article out this weekend...move images to pros text.--Moxy (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you raise it at talk first. The number doesn't seem unusual for a very long article on a very visual subject. I think I might have envcountered your attitude to this somewhere before - I think you might be surprised at the views of others. Johnbod (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I will fix it this weekend . And you know the community feeling on this you were at the RfC about just this.--Moxy (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Which was that??? Undiscussed changes may well be reverted (on Monday, as I'm going away). Johnbod (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry wrong wording....you started the last talk at the MOS. Let me show you the accessibility concerns in a minute.... will take a screen capture shot of the unreadable/see able photos. Always assume the old-timers will get it right.--Moxy (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

As so often, you are very cryptic here. What are you trying to say? What talk at MOS? If you mean the text rather than galleries one that has little to do with things here. I'm as old-time as you dude, bar a few months. I know what galleries look like on mobiles. Johnbod (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

You do remember the example at the MOS image talk right (as seen below)...same problem at the page we are now talking about. Got to remember 50%+ of our readers use mobile view and we have no clue how many have gallery viewing problems lIke below. Basically photos in the gallery don't work as intended alot....so to help I will move them throughout the article.--Moxy (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Example of a gallery that is basically non readable when there is 4 images or more.....note below how 2 images are normal size.

I think that is a particular setting "perrow" perhaps - was that on the mobile site? The galleries are lower down the article, & frankly I doubt many mobile readers get that far down. Indeed, we have little clue how many mobile users have gallery viewing problems, but there certainly are very few complaints. I must admit I never use it myself. What article was that on? Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Vidame de Chartres

On 2 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vidame de Chartres, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Vidames de Chartres included a song-writing crusader, a glamorous Renaissance courtier, a writer of famous memoirs, and a banker who was guillotined? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vidame de Chartres. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Vidame de Chartres), 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) 12:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

What the hell?

What is this? bd2412 T 00:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry - travelling & using a strange lap-top with over-excitable touch pad thing. I was unaware I had done this. Indeed although he's on my watchlist, I hadn't looked at the diff & must have fat-fingered a rollback. Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Good. I was hoping it was something like that, given the lack of explanation. bd2412 T 01:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for taking the time to review Buckton Castle at FAC. It passed the other day and the feedback from everyone involved helped improve the article. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Persian column

On 9 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Persian column, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the ancient Persian columns of the Achaemenid Empire (example at Persepolis pictured) were revived by 19th-century Parsis in India, and in Iran in the 20th century? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Persian column. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Persian column), 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) 12:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Gresford disaster

Thank you for reverting my edit on the Gresford disaster with the summary "misunderstanding of sinking for one thing". I think you will find that I have pretty good understanding of coal mining terminology and collieries in general. The pit is the colliery but can be a shaft, but only after they've been sunk. This is a poorly expressed article but you obviously know better, seams don't deliver or produce coal and shafts are sunk. "The explosion occurred within the Main seam of Dennis" makes no sense at all. J3Mrs (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Well do what you like - the intransitive use of "sinking" in "The Westminster and United Collieries Group began sinking at Gresford in 1908" may perhaps be a term of art, but should be avoided for a general readership, likewise pit/mine. Most other things were trivial. Perhaps you in fact know too much? Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Persian-Sassanid art patterns

Is it an unreliable article? Because I saw you have removed it from navbox and you said it has nothing to do with Sasanians. Then why its name is Persian-Sassanid art patterns? I see there is an essay tag since 2013. If it was a common art pattern among several groups, then I think the current name is misleading. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's a complete load of crap, from which some stuff, if completely rewritten, could be used in Animal style or Scythian art. You'll note all the dates mentioned are centuries before the Sasanians, and none of the locations mentioned were ever in Persia! Try googling the title! But we shouldn't lead innocent readers to it. Fortunately it gets almost no views. Johnbod (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. I created the navbox yesterday and then added the entries based on the main article and categories. This one seemed odd and I just added it per the article title. Cheers! --Wario-Man (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Church cats

We have a few churches buildings that serve(d) more than denomination at the same time, - are there any categories for them? If I just take Lutheran and Reformed, that could be one after the other, and United is true for today, but is historically wrong for an 18th-century organization. A church is not only a building, - something is wrong with all these cats. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Gerda! I'd put them in both denominations, and there are various national ones. This is not a rare situation in Germany, I believe. Frankly I don't much care - but it absolutely should not be in this top-level international category, as the category page note says. There is a vast history of discussions at Cfd on this topic, reading which may or may not produce enlightenment! Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, but sigh. Today, most Protestant churches in Germany are United. So is this Luisenkirche today. But when it was built, it was a great exception that the 2 denominations shared one building. I guess there's no cat for it? Category:Simultaneous churches, former such thing? If I add Lutheran and Reformed separately, wouldn't that be completely confusing without any years attached? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

A typical church cat, sleeping through yet another sermon.

Well, what do other churches do? I think many continental countries have similar cases, though in the UK there were rare/non-existent until recently. I can't remember any unfortunately. The article might make this history clearer, btw. Presumably the services were originally separate? Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the services were separate. There was not much tolerance for the others' beliefs, but the King only financed under the condition that they worked it out ;) - not my main issue, church cats I mean, back to music, - thanks for enlightenment! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

For England at any rate there are quite a few multi-denomination church buildings since the Sharing of Church Buildings Act 1969 legalised the practice (before the SCBA, it was deemed a breach of charity law as funds donated to one faith would end up benefitting another). I'd be willing to bet large sums that regardless of legality, multi-denominational church buildings were relatively common in all the European colonial empires, at least between Protestant denominations; ditto for the North American frontier settlements of the 19th century. (The same goes the other way for minority religions in Europe, where it's not in the least unusual for a town to have a single mosque, Hindu temple, synagogue etc which is shared between the various denominations.)

If you think categorising religious buildings is confusing now, wait until the House of One opens. ‑ Iridescent 2 16:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

MS 493

John, would you mind taking another look at this. I think I've gone now as far as I can with the available scholarship. Ceoil (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Turkeywork

You might find this of interest (or be able to add something...): Turkeywork. - PKM (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - done what I can. Do you want a dyk? Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits - and the offer. I'm burnt out on DYK, so please don't bother on my account. I'm mostly working in Wikidata these days, but I'll be around. - PKM (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Please do not attack other editors as you did with this edit at the John Bolton talk page. Personal attacks are inappropriate and unproductive as well as disruptive. Comment and focus on content, not other editors. See WP:NPA and WP:FOC for more. -- ψぷさいλらむだ ● ✉ ✓ 13:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:SCUM

So, you are an expert on archaeology now, too? It's really fascinating how you can spend days referencing scholarly literature and improving coverage on entire fields of knowledge, only to be reverted without explanation by editors with the self-awareness of a shell-script.

Even if you don't know about the content, at least I am sure you know about procedure, i.e. don't copy-paste move material without linking the edit history, it violates the CC licence.

I am expecting to either be presented with a coherent argument based on content, showing awareness of the topic of Stone Age archaeology, or to be left in peace. I could overlook procedural errors if you show expertise and interest in the topic. Since your focus appears to be "cleanup", with the implication of "experts are scum", I would expect to be presented with an excellent reason for you to mess up the edit history. --dab (𒁳) 12:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The history of the attribution was in the edit summary, which you should be aware is all that is required. All I did was RESTORE the article and title that was there before your undiscussed move. I don't object to having an article on the E in the Levant, but you did not discuss it (never your strong point where your own edits are concerned, I know, though you are happy enough blasting articles you haven't edited). Just renaming the Epipaleolithic article was a lazy and unacceptable solution, as is your proposed disam page, which shows your ignorance of the subject. Just treating EW as a synonym for Mesolithic does not work, as they are very often treated as different things in Europe, as you'd know if you'd done much reading on the subject. You are obviously having some sort of temper tantrum, as these wild accusations show. When did I revert you on Epipaleolithic (Levant)? Never. So far from spending "days referencing scholarly literature and improving coverage", your very first edit to the article (or any closely related one) was the undiscussed move. I had been editing the article for a while, and had tried to lure Joe Roe (actually doing a doctorate on the Levantine EpiP, as you probably don't know) to look at the article, hitherto without success. Anyway, you're a linguist, aren't you? Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 25

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

Claude Martin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to New York

Company style (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to New York

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

Portrait of Madame Cézanne (disambiguation)

Thanks for your hard work on this. We don't link to Google results on dabs, so I deleted that, but apart from that there is one main problem: most readers will access this from Portrait of Madame Cézanne (the primary title) but it no longer has a link to the dab. I think you're asserting the dab should be moved to that page? If so, it needs an WP:RM and the incoming links sent to the right places. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Not really. There is no way the obscure Lichenstein is primary, & I have already moved it, also the plain title now redirects to the disam page. It is of course stupid in cases like this to object to a link to the 27 or apparently even 48 portraits of her, but I long ago gave up arguing with the disam police on such matters. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I am taking your advice concerning a move request. Thank you.

I am taking your advice concerning a move request. Thank you.

As I've just said at Legacypac's: "... the "Yale" article was apparently created as a bio in 2008, then deleted at AFD and somehow re-created as Yale student abortion art controversy (not sure of the precise hiostory here, but presumably this was agreed), which people seemed happy with until just recently). Since we have a draft bio of decent quality created, despite a number of editors having objected to that at "Yale" talk, possibly the best way forward is to set that up as an article and start an AfD to test the current feeling." The issues of whether have a bio and whether to overwrite "Yale" with it are rather different. We could easily have both. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Look at the reasons given: "Delete per WP:BLP1E. We all get our 15 minutes, but that doesn't entitle us to Wikipedia articles."[1] She has an extensive history as an artist. It is ten years later. Bus stop (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, maybe, although many of the recent sources are still mainly looking at 2008. Personally, I rather think "Yale" should stay, but perhaps with the bio up as well. I note that Meghan Markle was deleted in 2006 as non-notable! Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

That is amazing. The Meghan Markle article was the re-created in May of 2007 after being deleted in November of 2006. She is non-notable. Bus stop (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Peter Wilby

You might be interested to read this and this before deciding to restore Philip Cross's edits. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Been there, done that. I still see no excuse for your edits. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Camera di San Paolo

Hello John! All OK? After a lot of time I've returned to writing some art articles: here is Camera di San Paolo, I think needing some copyedit from experts like you... Thanks!! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Done that. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC wording

You commented on an RfC recently, and you were the first of three people to query the wording, so I obviously did a poor job of that. On the other hand, I'm having difficulty improving it. I wind up with hideous statements like:

• If marketing claims are described in RS, and the accuracy of the statements made in the claims is described in other RS (or MEDRS, as appropriate), would it necessarily be off-topic or undesirable to use the other sources to describe the accuracy of the claims (even if the other sources do not mention that the statements are marketing claims), assuming that other policies, such as neutrality and due weight, are followed?

• Under what conditions is it off-topic to discuss the accuracy of on-topic marketing claims? Is it necessary to use sources that mention that the statements are marketing claims and evaluate their truth, or may separate sources be used for each task, especially if the claims are medical?

Do you have any advice? HLHJ (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

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

Bust (sculpture) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Atrium

Orpheus mosaic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Merida

Roman art (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Boardman

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Minimum wage reverse

I was writing in the talk page while you made your comment and did the undo. The two references supported the idea that minimum wage and job growth are correlated, but not causal relationships. Check this link while you're at it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agreed1179 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Are they among: "the arguments made by those for and against minimum wage laws"? - yes. The article doesn't say that the arguments are right. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The statement was that minimum wage "increases job growth" cannot be supported by correlation studies. It is like saying "ice cream sales causes an increase in murder rate". Perhaps this article can explain it better than I. http://www.dummies.com/education/math/statistics/how-statistical-correlation-and-causation-are-different/

• The claim was prefaced by: "The following table summarizes the arguments made by those for and against minimum wage laws: Arguments in favor of minimum wage laws ...Supporters of the minimum wage claim it has these effects:". ALL that needs referencing is that supporters do claim this - not that they are RIGHT. Stop edit-warrinmg and learn how to sign your posts. And don't start a new double-spaced line every sentence. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

OK I understand what you say, I think the main issue is with the pro and con list itself. I will think of a way to re-organize the arguments and see how that would work. Agreed1179 (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested moves

here you managed to remove a request. Probably an edit conflict. Please could you restore it? DuncanHill (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Done, sorry. Johnbod (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks DuncanHill (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Poppy Goddess

Saw you worked on Poppy Goddess, wouldn't that title be better used at Poppy? ticheek, Randy Kryn (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Both are new to me - not many pics of the singer, maybe one of the goddess would help? Cheers Johnbod (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey

Can I ring you? Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Anytime - do you need the number? Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep. I'm 8 hours ahead of you. What time, your time, suits you? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

emailed. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Swiss

What do you think about Marie Dentière? That person may be correctly described as Genevan. It's a case of a bit of land that was at different times part of two different large countries (France vs. Switzerland). In my personal opinion the lead of Gregor Mendel is the best way to handle a mixed person -- he is not called either Austrian or Czech in the lead. His passport (if he had one) would have been issued in Vienna by the Austrian Empire. And fortunately, in the article, nobody tried to make him a national of Silesia. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The point is that sources do not recognise "Genevan" as a nationality, and nor should we - any more than we recognise "Florentine" rather than Italian. I've no problem with "was a Swiss foo, born in what was then the Republic of Geneva", but that doesn't mean removing all mentions of "Swiss" as these "two" have done. I don't see your point about Marie Dentière. What "bit of land that was at different times part of two different large countries (France vs. Switzerland)"? She doesn't seem to have gone anywhere near Switzerland until in her mid-30s. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I meant the land which is now the Canton of Geneva. Would it be worth opening an RfC on the question of 'Genevan' as a nationality? It is sometimes hard to get consensus on questions of nationality, but 'Genevan' probably sounds more strange to most people than the others that are discussed from time to time. EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't see that the canton has ever been part of France, except for 15 years after Napoleon occupied it, but that isn't really the issue. I see no need for an RFC. This is just a stray city-nationalist nutter. The French WP does not do this (except where he has been trolling it) and RS are clear. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

That entire article needs radical revision. The present abortion is not worth arguing about.

1. It needs proper referencing, especially the opinionated final section. Surely there are French-language sources?
2. Dentière should be described as being "of Walloon origin" (not a Walloon); where Geneva is mentioned there should be a link to History of Geneva#Reformation. It's silly assigning 16th-century people to inappropriate polities.
3. One does not "convert to the Reformation", the Reformation is not a religion. Sweetpool50 (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, go ahead. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• In fact I now see he has been trolling the French and German WPs for some time - [2]. But this is a one-man war. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Schubert

Schubert composed 6 Latin masses and the Deutsche Messe, all frequently performed in services, especially the latter and the short ones. Not significant? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Well not so frequently over here I think, either in services or the concert-hall. I can't say i'm familiar with any of them. But by all means put him back if you like. Johnbod (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I heard the "Heilig" from his Deutsche Messe sung by the congregation even in a normal Sunday service in Montreal (surprised enough to remember). I reverted it once today, and try to stick to 1RR. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Another one I remember is the Mass in G, performed in St Martin-in-the-Fields for the BBC broadcast on Ascension Dayj. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course the article is pretty iffy, but where are Monteverdi, Palestrina, Tallis, etc? Pachelbel one could do without. Johnbod (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I wonder why the article was on my watchlist at all, but noticed the changes today. Wrote If Ye Love Me, with help ;) - couldn't believe it had no article until a certain wedding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Isis gallery

Thank you for your comments and support on the Isis FAC. I took a stab at a gallery for the iconography section, in this revision of the Sandbox. I don't think I've ever created a gallery before, so I wanted to ask if I should change anything about the formatting or the image choice.

Note that I have an image of Isis and Nephthys as kites now, but it's too wide to fit comfortably in the gallery, unless there's some way to format the gallery that I'm not aware of. I'm thinking about putting it down in the Funerary section and either moving the current image from that section into the gallery (as seen in the sandbox revision), or just eliminating it. Thoughts? A. Parrot (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks fine, though I've fiddled the embalming caption at the article. Very wide pics in galleries work best with the "packed mode" I think, though generally I dislike this, & I'm not so familiar with the formatting. Examples here. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I've put it in the article. Thank you very much for this suggestion. I'm usually not enthusiastic about Wikipedia's galleries, so the idea never occurred to me, but it does make sense to have them in articles on major deities. One of my frustrations with my offline rewrite of Hathor was that there are too many good images to choose from; an iconography gallery will solve that problem. And Ra, Osiris, and Amun probably have more varied iconographies than any other Egyptian deities, so they would certainly benefit from one. A. Parrot (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Altar frontal

I ran across Altar frontal from La Seu d'Urgell or of The Apostles which is called an 'altar frontal'. Would this be considered one for the category 'Altarpieces' you were populating or another type of design? I leave it in your capable typing-hands. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Frontals are the front piece, & not usually regarded as altarpieces, I think. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

So close and yet so far, separated by the things laying on the altar. But a possible solution, what do you think of a "category:Altar frontal" as a subcategory of Altarpieces? Even if there is only this one notable one, although I haven't checked to see if the search term draws up more. That way it covers all bases (except the religious objects which lay upon the altars, which, along with the altars themselves, are also considered artwork. But where do crucifixes and the like make their last stand?). I digress, just came to run the Altar frontal subcategory by you to see if it fits your mental picture of the category or is it too tangential? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

There is also Altar frontal from Avià in the same museum - Catalonia has much the best collection of survivals. In fact if you search "Altar frontal from" there are others (not all paintings). There might be one or two textile ones, but we don't have an article of the Parement of Narbonne, unfortunately. We have Category:Individual crosses and crucifixes, with several sub-cats. Johnbod (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

No - start a discussion. The fact that some editor "reviewed" the page, whose origin was not properly disclosed, means very little.)

I´m not sure how to "start a talk" but I did what I could. Ic that is not what you meant I´m going to need more directions (or a hand, which would be nice). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cateyed (talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:French paintings

Hi Johnbod, I notice that you are removing Category:French paintings from many articles (e.g. The Swing (painting), which is a French painting), yet I don't see a discussion or explanation of such a move at Category talk:French paintings. Perhaps you could add one there. Presumably it would point to a project discussion page. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

No, doh. All were in sub-cats of Category:French paintings, in that case Category:Paintings by Jean-Honoré Fragonard. If, like the idiots who added the excess cats, you haven't read and understood WP:OCAT, I suggest you leave categories alone. Cheers. Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, in that case the problem seems to be that when Category:Paintings by Jean-Honoré Fragonard was set up, the items were not removed from the parent as they should have been. Other ones were grossly over-categorized in various stupid ways, like being in Category:Paintings by movement or period. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. However, it wasn't nice to refer to other editors as "idiots" and to talk about their "stupid ways" (I appreciate that they—and I—are not as skilled or knowledgeable as you), nor to imply that I'm one as well. I don't feel that comports with Wikipedia:Civility. As to avoiding questions like mine, a fuller edit comment than "removed Category:French paintings using HotCat" might be in order; e.g. "removed Category:French paintings using HotCat per WP:OCAT". WP:NOBAN suggests that it would have been better to provide the link that you felt that I should be aware of at my talk page. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I did mention ocat in several edit summaries. Having spent some considerable time cleaning up the category, you will understand a testy reaction to a (somewhat patronizingly phrased) complaint suggesting one or both of a) not having looked at the edits at all, b) not understanding how categories work at all. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the mirror being held up to my entry here. I did not realize that my post would be viewed as patronizing; it was certainly not my intent. I do understand how categories work and I appreciate that I should have thought a little harder before I posted here—I was a bit groggy from having gotten up too early. I further appreciate your diligence in cleaning up the errors of others and your consequent annoyance with my somewhat patronizing post. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

No worries, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

So...Now what?

Well, I saw your answer,a dn the editor´s, and I tried to answer in the Black Legend page, but I´m nto sure I did it right -I don´t handle the interface of wikipedia all that well yet, age issues- and I´m not sure I used the correct procedure to answer- I used the eddit option. Now What shall be done? Just wait? not do anything? Add information to "blakc legend" as it is right now in the meantime? I´m not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cateyed (talk • contribs) 14:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I was hoping for more comments - with Spain playing now in the WC it is not the best time! We should leave it a while. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Black Legend, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Elizabeth and Patricia Shaw (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Neither anything to do with me, silly bot! Fixed one. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Revert

That image is God damn awful Linguisticgeek (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

To me, it's almost the only part of the article that isn't. Johnbod (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you are trying to be stubborn just for the heck of it but the image appears to be a sacred grove where vermillion is showered. A proper Hindu cult image would be that inside a temple.

Or maybe you're a prat! Don't you think it is murti? Johnbod (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

From what I understand a murti has to be formally consecrated to make it come alive with the deity's presence and this isn't one. Any stone abandoned under a sacred tree is not a murti. The elephant headed god ganesh's image in the article is a murti.

That doesn't agree with what I understand (or what murti says). Do you really think the stone is "abandoned"? How do you know it hasn't been consecrated? It is clearly more "folk religion" than formal Brahmin-led, but that is why it is a useful image imo. User:Shivashree, who took the photo, is still active sometimes, so I'll ping him. Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The word murti is associated more with the brahmin led religion and not the folk one. The object of veneration here is likely the sacred tree as is common in folk religion across India.There is also a possibility that the stone is more of a platform to smear vermillion as a offering either to the sacred tree or to the resident spirit of the tree. The trident besides the tree points to the fact that it might be a spirit from the retinue of the great god shiva.There is also a tradition among Hindus to leave a murti that has been damaged or desecrated under a tree or to sink it in a water body. However this kind of murti is no longer worshipped as it loses the deity's sacred presence. There are many other photos of cult image from folk Hinduism on commons that can be used on the article.I just find this particular image misleading in it's description apart from it being badly phrased.

Sorry, I am late to conversation. I hope the issue is resolved by now. aintgd (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Rolandfealty.jpg

Hi JB - was wondering if you had an idea on where this image might be from, it's currently nominated for deletion as a possible copyvio (unlikely as that may be the nom may prevail without a source). -- GreenC 03:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, no - I've commented. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I-box tenor

If my tone in any of that thread over at WT:INFOBOX has come across as testy, sorry about that. It's more a matter of time pressure (I'm way behind on watchlist) and some off-WP irritations making me curt . I just realized on a re-read that some of it seemed a bit "short". That wasn't intentional, but could easily seem that way given the nature of i-box threads in general. E.g. "Avoiding infoboxes when there is little important information to summarize that is well-suited to tabular format" was drafted as way to get at the central concern in your "Prohibit usage in underdeveloped articles" idea (and hit a second bird with the same stone) while avoiding the objection that some stubs of certain kinds need particular i-boxes. But it kind of looks like "no, your idea is bad and mine is better, ha ha ha". I didn't mean it in that WP:JERKy way, just as a way to get at the problem you'd identified from a different and harder-to-undermine angle. As a long-time MoS shepherd (read "cross-fire survivor of interminable wikilawyering wars"), I always approach WP policy in terms of existing legit exceptions and demands for bogus exceptions as well as the intended outcome, and try to arrive at wording that permits the legit exceptions without calling them exceptions, so the demands for bogus ones have no toehold. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry - having been pretty sceptical about the idea at the start, I am finding the discussion good now, although I'm still doubtful it will lead anywhere. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

For taking care of that "musicians in the AFD category" issue.96.127.242.226 (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope I have! Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Special Barnstar
		Thank you very much, Johnbod, for this comment which I think best sums up where infoboxes are/aren't needed and was put much more clearly than I have ever seen before. Well done and cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Jean-Pierre Saint-Ours

On 17 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jean-Pierre Saint-Ours, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the five versions of Jean-Pierre Saint-Ours' painting Earthquake (one version pictured) show his growing disillusion with politics after the French Revolution? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jean-Pierre Saint-Ours. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jean-Pierre Saint-Ours), 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) 01:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Altar frontal redux

Wanting to let you know that after running into a tiny swarm of Altar frontal paintings I finally did create the category:Altar frontal, as a subcategory of 'Altars'. I think I found most of them, but please take a look when you have time to see if you can improve on the list or the category page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't see any, cheers, Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Civility - Traditional African Religions

Please do not refer to anyone as a "jerk" on an edit summary, especially one you revert without any thought of discussion on the article's talk page. Please read WP:CIVIL. Thank you, Hesnotblack (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Interfaith Work Group

I see you are listed as one of the members of Wikipedia: WikiProject Religion: Interfaith Work Group. This group is currently believed to be inactive, but I believe that if I call upon enough members, I may be able to get it active again. Vorbee (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'd forgotten I was, but I'm still here. Johnbod (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Sandringham House

Hi Johnbod, I hope you are keeping well. I've a favour to ask, if you have time and inclination. The above is at FAC here, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sandringham House/archive1. Although by no means a great piece of Victorian architecture, it has some interest as a full-functioning Victorian estate surviving into the 21st century. It could do with a reviewer or two and if you were able to comment, I'd greatly appreciate it. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, just off on holiday, so will have to wait a while. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Enjoys the hols! KJP1 (talk) 05:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

CRUK Wikipedia study paper

Did you get my email re: paper? Bondegezou (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Not yet, but I'm travelling. But if sent before Sunday (when I last looked), then you may be using the wrong email. Should check 'em tonight. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Peer review newsletter #1

Introduction

Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in (here), I'll talk about this below - but first:

• THANK YOU! I want to thank you for your contributions and for volunteering on the list to help out at peer review. Thank you!
• Peer review is useful! It's good to have an active peer review process. This is often the way that we help new or developing editors understand our ways, and improve the quality of their editing - so it fills an important and necessary gap between the teahouse (kindly introduction to our Wikiways) and GA and FA reviews (specific standards uphelp according to a set of quality criteria). And we should try and improve this process where possible (automate, simplify) so it can be used and maintained easily.

Updates

It can get quite lonely tinkering with peer review...

With a bit of effort we can renovate the place to look like this!

Update #1: the peer review volunteers list is changing

The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:

• {{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}} - if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.
• {{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}} - if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.

We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.

Update #2: a (lean) WikiProject Peer review

I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.

So, I've decided to create "WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.

Update #3: advertising

We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!

And... that's it!

I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Capodimonte porcelain

On 18 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Capodimonte porcelain, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the factory producing Capodimonte porcelain (snuffbox pictured), including forty workers and nearly five tons of material, was moved from Naples to Madrid in 1759? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Capodimonte porcelain. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Capodimonte 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Paintings by John Peter Russell

Hi. I thought so as well, but another user created the cat. - HappyWaldo (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, sorry! Johnbod (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict, and you may be the notice I just got) Tis me. I thought there'd be more than one painting article, and was hoping to find a few more to start a navbox/template. I've only recently, with his van Gogh portrait, focused attention on Russell, and am quite impressed by his work. Feel free to revert the category. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough - it's certainly not worth doing a cfd for (as the creator you can empty and delete more easily, but I'm not that fussed). Johnbod (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

On Ludwigsburg porcelain

I am contacting you to list my grievances with your activities on Ludwigsburg Palace and Ludwigsburg porcelain. I will first state, however, my faults in this matter. I did abandon the article for months with a single reference, I did change the citation format on Ludwigsburg porcelain without consensus for an article I initially wrote, and I did goof up the spelling of the surname "Battie" on Ludwigsburg porcelain.

You're a seasoned veteran and the author of a respectable number of Featured Articles. I am not trying to start a conflict with you. In fact, I would relish working with an editor as experienced you. But I want you to know that you were very rude to me and in no uncertain terms that I feel disrespected by you. Please read and consider my complaints. –Vami_IV† 21:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

1. First, on Ludwigsburg Palace, you removed the Main article link to Ludwigsburg porcelain. In the edit summary, you wrote "clearly not, since this is 4 times longer!" I had no problem with this as such; I could have expanded Ludwigsburg Porclain Manufactory more. But ultimately, it was a hasty and disruptive edit.
2. I initially translated a portion of Ludwigsburg Porcelain Manufactory from the German Wikipedia, including the name. The German article is poorly cited, and I for whatever reason didn't have the energy or desire to do a more complete and cited translation.
3. You began making constructive edits to Ludwigsburg palace on 23 August 2018, making copy edits and adding pictures, then a reference and text. Every citation of that text was "Battie 100," but each citation was a separate instance.
4. At this point, I noticed your edit to Ludwigsburg Palace along with Ludwigsburg Porcelain Manufactory and decided to pitch in. I expanded on exisintg prose, added a new section on institutions housing collections of Ludwigsburg porcelain, and changed the citation format to Sfnref. The section was not as complete as it should have been (it did not list the 2000-piece collection of the Landesmuseum Württemberg, then uncited, immediately above the section), and I maybe shouldn't have changed the citation format for an article that had six citations at that time, as you raised on my talk page. It is also to be noted, as you point out later, that I misspelled Battie's name as "Beattie."
5. Nine hours later, you liquidated that section to "External Links" under the edit summary "better" without repairing the external links, leaving an extra bracket. Again, not immediately objectionable, and I fixed the external links while retaining the wikilinks already present with the next edit. I apologized, then went back to contributing by applying Cite web syntax to and separating the two citations for the Landesmuseum Württemberg's collection of Ludwigsburg porcelain.
6. Here is where I begin to hold you in contempt of WP:FAITH and due diligence. I added European Porcelain in The Metropolitan Museum of Art, found on Google Books, and immediately put it to use expanding the prose. In the next edit, I again expanded the prose by writing a new paragraph, finally using Campbell as well, and kept in a piece of the uncited text translated from German because it was relevant to the text. As a sort of "to do," I inserted and manually dated a Citation Needed (CN) tag. Then, I linked both books I acquired from Google Books for verifiability, as I do with every Google Books book I cite. After I continued with a few minor edits, you returned and removed the CN tag, writing in the edit summary, "in source reffed, doh." Then you realized your error and reverted the edit, albeit with the comment "well it was somewhere." In hindsight, I should have probably tracked down the original German-language source and adding it to the article.
7. On 27 August 2018, you moved Ludwigsburg Porcelain Manufactory, the translated name of the German Wikipedia article, to Ludwigsburg porcelain. There is precedent for either, far more so the latter, but this was not raised on the talk page.
8. And here is where I hold you in contempt of WP:CIVIL. After the move, you corrected the error I made on Battie's name, but in the edit summary write "yes, if you must change the refs illegally, please don't make stupid spelling mistakes!" After a large expansion of the prose, you then assume bad faith and again insult me and blast away the translated text that I marked with the CN tag and cited text (even if it was two words), forgetting to turn the comma after 1724 into a period to end the sentence.

I don't hate you, and I don't want you to hate me, because I assume good faith in you. I think you're just being very passionate, but I want you to know that I am not a new editor and I do not appreciate being belittled, spoken down to, or mocked. I'm a fellow editor whose merits I ask you to respect. I want to work with you. You're very experienced and have very useful references I don't have access to, and I think I could learn a lot from you. If you so bid, let us be civil and work to a common goal in swanky 18th and 19th-century pottery. –Vami_IV† 21:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

References

I'm sorry you feel like this, but I think you are over-reacting. The bit you added in December or whenever & then cite tagged today is contradicted (in terms of who asked who) by Marshall, so seems to be wrong. I should have raised the move on talk, but the title Ludwigsburg Porcelain Manufactory was (in German) never at any point the actual name of the original factory that I can see. I have recently moved Capodimonte porcelain and Vienna porcelain in just the same way after full RM discussions. I notice you are (mostly) mispelling my username too. I have barely touched most of both your original text, and your recent additions, which were generally helpful. I'm doubtful anything will be gained by going through your list, but I have my side of the story too. I plan to nom this for DYK, with you as co-author, if that's ok with you. Johnbod (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Having slept on it, I think I did overreact and apologize for it. It is worth noting that I have Aspergers so I tend to miss certain cues. Also, sorry for misspelling your name - I did not notice or intend that. Tunnel vision? –Vami_IV† 04:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, no worries! Where would WP be without its AS editors! Btw, Template:Did you know nominations/Ludwigsburg porcelain is up. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your work with me on Ludwigsburg porcelain and for civilly handling my outburst. Vami_IV† 17:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Vienna porcelain

On 2 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vienna porcelain, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that exports of Vienna porcelain (example pictured) to the Ottoman Empire reached 120,000 pieces a year in the 18th century? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vienna porcelain. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Vienna 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, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

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

Ice hockey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Scandinavian

North Germanic peoples (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nordic people

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Precision of a summation in exercision of the aggregation...

	Precision of a summation in exercision of the aggregation...
	Johnbod's Law—nailed it!!! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Revision to "Pre-historic Ireland"

You reverted my request for a citation for the information that "On the eastern side of the Irish Sea, a site dated to 11,000 BC was discovered that indicated people were in the area eating a marine diet including shellfish."

References (1) and (7, both published in 2016, describe the discovery of evidence that humans were in Ireland 12,500 thousand years ago. The first then says "A remarkable archaeological discovery in a Co. Clare cave has pushed back the date of human existence in Ireland by 2,500 years. This discovery re-writes Irish archaeology and adds an entirely new chapter to human colonisation of the island – moving Ireland’s story into a new era. Since the 1970s, the oldest evidence of human occupation on the island of Ireland has been at Mount Sandel in Co. Derry. This site has been dated at 8,000 BC, which is in the Mesolithic period, indicating that humans had occupied the island for some 10,000 years

If prior to the publication of this paper, someone found evidence of human habitation on the eastern side of the Irish Sea dated to 11,000 BC - 1500 year before the dating of the find desribed in the paper - it is rather surprising that an article contradicting this should be published on the "Archaelology.ie" website.

If the discovery of human habitation in Ireland 13000 years ago has been made since 2016, this cannot be described in any of the references (2) to (6) since they all pre-date 2016.

Can you please tell me where I can find the evidence for this. I am trying to learn about the topic. Thanks Epzcaw (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I hope it is clearer now - it was all very muddled. Of course, "the eastern side of the Irish Sea" is Britain, not Ireland. Johnbod (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That is much clearer now. Epzcaw (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

No problem! Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The Mesolithic section now needs amending, as it says that "the earliest evidence of human occupation after the retreat of the ice has been dated to around 8000 BC.". I don't want to make changes as I am a beginner. Epzcaw (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, will do - that's the old date. Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Hirado ware

On 12 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hirado ware, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that pieces of Hirado ware decorated with seven boys chasing butterflies were once made only for the shōgun and emperors of Japan? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hirado ware. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hirado ware), 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) 00:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Gothic boxwood miniature

"Prayer Bead with the Adoration of the Magi and the Crucifixion", South Netherlandish. H (open): 11.2cm, 1500–1510. The Cloisters, New York

John, I appreciate the defixing[3] sentiment, but these things are so small that to convey their scale properly needs img fixing. Anyway, late here. Talk later. zzzz Ceoil (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Update; you may have been right afterall; images in general now far bigger on the page than they were. Ceoil (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I can see the case for keeping some at "actual size" (if that actually works technically) but explaining this. At least the Met files give the measurements. For example the lead image (11.2 cm high) was fixed at 200, but at least on this machine life-size is at about 330px, as here. The "Letter P" (7.1 cm) needs nearly 400 px, but was at 180. How much does this vary on other devices? I never know. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I find consistency (with this article) on my desktop, iphone and ipad, but not on my work desktop which has a landscape screen. Either way, the unfixed images were randomly huge when I looked. I take your point about relative sizes, and will incorporate that. I don't know what the solution is otherwise. Ceoil (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you (like me, but unlike almost everyone else) have a different default setting on the desktop? I have 400px, which does make things look big. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I have 400px also - I think Outriggr told me how to set up all that stuff in around 2009 and havnt looked back since. But often log out to view when making choices. Ceoil (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed - I think there are very few people with custom default settings. I tried to get the default increased a while back (I was involved with the increase from 180 to 220 years ago) but it sank like a stone, which seems crazy to me. It should be at least 250. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I have noticed differences in taste over the years; yourself, Giano, Iridescent and Bishonen tend towards larger sizes images, while the likes of myself, Vic and Modernist tend towards smaller scales. Although it comes down to both text to image ratio and overall article size; with smaller articles with few images you can get away with larger sizes (have a large Grünewald here. I notice also that with larger articles you tend to go with galleries, while I go with interspersed images. Dunno what that indicates, though an article on a Hogarth of sleepy Judges that I forget, created by I think ALone always struck me as the best I've seen on wiki. Anyway, hope all is well. Ceoil (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Ludwigsburg porcelain

On 16 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ludwigsburg porcelain, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some Ludwigsburg porcelain figures from the 1760s (example pictured) show the lighter dance costumes pioneered by the ballet master Jean-Georges Noverre? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ludwigsburg porcelain. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ludwigsburg 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Japanese export porcelain

On 18 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Japanese export porcelain, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that from 1660 to 1700, the majority of Japanese porcelain was made to be exported? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Japanese export porcelain. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Japanese export 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, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Undid

I undid your undo because you didnt tell me whats wrong with what l put on it. Everything l wrote is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemrud91 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

It's unrefererenced, indeed removing references, & I notice most of you contributions have been deleted. Also the English is not great. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Real Fábrica del Buen Retiro, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ceres and Endymion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Results from global Wikimedia survey 2018 are published

Hello! A few months ago the Wikimedia Foundation invited you to take a survey about your experiences on Wikipedia. You signed up to receive the results. The report is now published on Meta-Wiki! We asked contributors 170 questions across many different topics like diversity, harassment, paid editing, Wikimedia events and many others.

Read the report or watch the presentation, which is available only in English. Add your thoughts and comments to the report talk page. Feel free to share the report on Wikipedia/Wikimedia or on your favorite social media. Thanks!
--EGalvez (WMF)

19:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Nonfree Postgate pic in Microbes and Man

Hi Johnbod, I see you've added the pic of Postgate to the book article. It's nonfree so will need a carefully-crafted NFUR to give it much chance of surviving there; it is relatively secure on Postgate's page since it's about him and he's dead. For the book's use of the pic, I guess you'll need to say summat pretty convincing about illustrating the controversy between mild-mannered microbiological man and wild bra-burning Penguin women. Or near offer. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Surviving memoirs of Louis de Rouvroy, duc de Saint-Simon

Hi, do you remember where you came upon "only parts of them having survived" earlier this year? Might there be some confusion from reading an abridged edition? My memory of their editorial history is vague but I had the impression that most or all survived and am not finding any source that says otherwise. Emelkaji (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

From the detailed intoduction to the Lucy Norton 3 vol translation, and the dates covered by the memoirs it is clear that vast stretches are missing, possibly the majority. As you probably know all his papers were seized by the govt after his death. Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Could you give more details from that introduction if you still have it on hand? While he provides dates inconsistently his memoirs do cover the years from 1691 to 1723. The 1879 edition for instance mentions the author's complete manuscript, which as far as I know is the one all integral editions were based on, with pages numbered from the first of 173 notebooks to the last. It seems we have conflicting sources at least. Emelkaji (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, it's in storage at the moment. Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

All right, a 3 vol edition would be heavily abridged and a misunderstanding is looking more likely. On the web I see his memoirs missing come up in English exclusively, always directly copied from the WP article in its various forms; the relevant sentence lost its 2012 citation request through rewrites but had otherwise gone unchallenged since its 2006 origin, from... ultimately a familiar name! I'll still look for a modern reference to the manuscript first and then clarify on the article. Emelkaji (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Her edition (in effect 4 vols really) was of course very heavily abridged, but she was writing about the original MS. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Chelsea porcelain factory

On 14 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chelsea porcelain factory, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the mid-18th century, small "Toys" inscribed with "amorous suggestions" (example pictured) were made in Chelsea? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chelsea porcelain factory. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Chelsea porcelain factory), 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire

φふぁいSo that I may learn something, would you please explain to me what you found inaccurate about my edit? I would specifically like to know why you changed Empire to empire. Thank you. This is aside from the point that it’s undocumented.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holy_Roman_Empire&diff=863941693&oldid=863940348 deisenbe (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, take the first major bit "(At the time the Pope was perceived differently; he was not just a religious leader, carrying out God's will, but ruler over several small papal states, governed from the royal palace, what today (2018) is the Vatican City.)" Firstly, it's a sentence all in parenthesis, the expression is generally rather sloppy - is "carrying out God's will" the best way to describe the pope's religious function? The Papal States are normally treated as a unit in English. The main papal (how "royal"???) hq through the period was the Lateran Palace (when the pope wasn't in Avignon etc etc). And so on. The military bit was downright misleading: the HRE typically had a decent-sized army from his own territories, and was able to summon a good deal more from the princes - Imperial armies were massively important at several periods. So generally these changes weren't imo an improvement. Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

FAC Request

Dropping you a line again to ask for comment on Ludwigsburg Palace's 2nd FAC, since you commented last time. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hope to do this, but I'm just about to go away for a week or so. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Bump. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Lucas van Leyden

Hello, just wondering if you objected to the content of my edit in its entirety, or just the infobox? If the former, how so? I also note the use of 'art' in the 'known for' section is simplistic but I modelled it on da Vinci's Wikipedia page which seemed reasonable as it had good article status. I'm happy to be corrected of course. User:Otsima (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I put that bit back, corrected a bit. Only a Durer drawing seems to survive - was there ever a painting? Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Johnbod, apologies, accidental rollback there. Sorry about that! ——SerialNumber54129 17:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Just a drawing yes, my mistake. Why do you consider the infobox incompetent? As I said, I based it on an existing artist's good article. Perhaps you thought the notable works were arbitrary or not representative of his engravings? In addition to the 'known for' section. Also, is there any reason to exclude The Worship of the Golden Calf? Otsima (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

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

High Renaissance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Fleming

Jasperware (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William Hamilton

Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jue

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)