User talk:Johnbod/34

VvG
This stalled for a few reasons, but has been intensively worked on by all parties, much for the better, imo; the feedback thus far has been great and highly informed. We are now asking for initial reviewers to revisit. There is no rush, but just to let you know re progress. Ceoil (talk) 11:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Centuripe ware
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Devonshire House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Veronese. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

A heads-up, not a request
The Crusades article is at PR at Peer review/Crusades/archive2. I know this at least touches on some areas of interest, so if you're interested, please do have at it. But if it doesn't seem interesting, then just let it pass by. :-) Cheers! Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Blaise Castle
 * added a link pointing to River Avon


 * The Conspiracy of Claudius Civilis
 * added a link pointing to The Nightwatch

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
North America1000 21:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Your ongoing FAC review
Hi, I've read your comments at the FAC2 of heavy metal (science and technology). Personally, I like writing articles oriented at maximally large audiences, trying to make them as accessible as possible, with my personal standards at this being possibly higher than normally required at FAC. I believe Sandbh can handle your comments; he's an experienced writer and a professional outside Wiki. What I'd want to ask you for is, could you perform a similarly styled review of an article I'm currently working on, lead, once your current review is over and your comments have been addressed? It's mostly ready for an FAC, I assume, with me currently only wanting to make big or small improvements of only three sections, a number that should go down to one in a week.--R8R (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure - let me know when you're ready. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll ping you in a week or so.--R8R (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it's been a long week. Anyway, could you please make a review for lead now?--R8R (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Persian Art (thanks)
Johnbod, the article on Persian art is truly fantastic. Just wanted to thank you for this excellent contribution. --HajjiBaba (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks - much appreciated! Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Relief
Some archaeological texts write about "haut-relief", which isn't even mentioned in Relief. Any idea how to fix this (and we need a redirect). The French article doesn't help a lot. I presume it's the same as "high relief" but can't find anything to confirm this. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. The distinction between these sub-terms were never very well-defined & they tend to be avoided nowadays, or characterised in normal prose. Many reliefs vary the level considerably across and within a piece anyway. Using French or Italian is pretty precious; I presume these are very old texts? "Bas-relief" lasted much longer, & is in the article. I'll add "haut", although I don't know I've ever seen it in English. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. No, there are modern texts. Doug Weller  talk 10:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Pah! All under-translated from the French. Very bad. Unless there is some special cave art sense to the term, which I very much doubt. No general art historian needing the term has used the French since about 1810, I'd think. But they obviously all copy each other. Johnbod (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Opinion sought...
What do you think of this book by Kenneth Alford]? I'm not familiar with the publisher - McFarland and Company. I've gotten side-tracked into reading about the Nazi art thefts .. and am open to other suggestions besides The Rape of Europa, which I found interesting but not as indepth as I normally like to deal with... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, don't know this area. This, mainly a catalogue, is expensive & probably dry, but probably better if from a library. Alford is pretty popularist I suspect. Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Film/Golden Hollywood Contest
Doc's just started up this contest about topics and articles covering Classical Hollywood cinema. Do express if you are interested or not by signing up under the "Editors Interested" section. Thanks. — Ssven2  Speak 2 me 06:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Queen Anne style architecture into Queen Anne style architecture in the United States. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Case filed
A case has been filed concerning you and the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. This case is being re-filed. You are being notified since you are an editor of this article. Please give a summary of dispute here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain.23Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain_Wikipedia_Article_Revision_discussion

Thank you. Gordon410 (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge
Hi, if you can flesh out a few stubs or something towards this and add entries at the bottom they'd be very welcome!♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

FAC voluntary mentoring scheme
During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.

Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The 10,000 Challenge
Hi there. I've started a new initiative, the The 10,000 Challenge. It's a long term goal to bring about 10,000 article improvements to the UK and Ireland. Through two contests involving just six or seven weeks of editing so far we've produced over 1500 improvements. Long term if we have more people chipping it and adding articles they've edited independently as well from all areas of the UK then reaching that target is all possible. I think it would be an amazing achievement to see 10,000 article improvements by editors chipping in. If you support this and think you might want to contribute towards this long term please sign up in the Contributors section. No obligations, just post work on anything you feel like whenever you want, though try to avoid basic stubs if possible as we're trying to reduce the overall stub count and improve general comprehension and quality. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Capitoline Brutus
Thanks for your contributions to my latest article, the Capitoline Brutus! It seems you are quite prolific here in editing and raising the standards of articles about ancient art. I thought you might be interested in these other Roman sculptures from the era of the Republic:

Isn't she amazing? Pericles of Athens Talk 20:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Great Mongol Shahnameh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turkic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

ygm
ygm Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Liber Veritatis
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Do not use Asian ethnic slur
Hi Johnbod,

Your contributions to Japanese ceramics are greatly appreciated. However do not use an ethnic slur as you did here, and for further clarification here. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 06:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I never knew - American sensitivities have no bounds. What is an acceptable abbreviation? I wish I could reciprocate re your edits, but someone of your experience should really learn how to format external links, you use far too many one-sentence sections, and poor-quality references, and these 7 word stubs are no use to anyone. There's no point in starting such stubs unless you have discovered, for example whether the ware is stoneware or porcelain, and are able to characterize it in some meaningful way. You will notice it was reverting one of your dubious edits that caused the fatal edit summary. Thank you. Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Johnbod. Try to assume WP:GOODFAITH and keep WP:EQ by not calling my edits "dubious". Arita ware just does not have enough body yet to have a longer introduction. I am fine with your edit here for example, because there is enough body in the rest of the article. So let's try to get more content in first. Concerning the lead image, the censer is more representative and a finer object than some export ware that was of little value domestically. I am actually in favour of removing it completely. Maybe an article analogous to Chinese export porcelain would make more sense? Gryffindor (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You have some nerve citing WP:GOODFAITH after your initial edit here, and WP:EQ after reverting without any attempt at explanation!! Your edits show a consistent taste for over-short leads, and too many short sections. I know you've been editing a long time (indeed, there is much "style-of-2006" about your edits), so perhaps a refresher of the MOS etc would be useful - WP:LEAD for example. Arita ware is mainly important as export ware. The censer is perhaps more attractive than the tankard, but I bet the tankard is a good deal more valuable.  Yes, "an article analogous to Chinese export porcelain" would be a good idea, but one of your usual 7 word stubs is no use to anybody. At the moment it would probably be better to redirect that term here or to Imari ware. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Liber Veritatis
Well, then, something should be done with the "his" because it's not well placed.

The Liber Veritatis, meaning "Book of Truth" in Latin, is a book of drawings recording his completed paintings made by Claude Lorrain, known in English as "Claude".

Taking out the "his" doesn't work because that leaves open whether the book was done by Claude, or whether it was done of Claude's paintings. Leaving the "his" in is awkward because prior to this sentence there is no definition of "him". My version

The Liber Veritatis, meaning "Book of Truth" in Latin, is a book of drawings made by Claude Lorrain, known in English as "Claude", recording his completed paintings.

makes it clear who the book was done by and what the drawings were done of.

Morfusmax (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ascanius Shooting the Stag of Sylvia
Hello! Your submission of Ascanius Shooting the Stag of Sylvia at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Miyagawa (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Nabeshima ware
 * added a link pointing to Arita


 * Romanticism
 * added a link pointing to Emotionalism


 * Vincent van Gogh
 * added a link pointing to Iris

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

China painting
I seem to be communicating poorly. I objected to addition of information to the lead that did not correspond to any sourced information in the body. The lead should be simply a summary of key points given in the body. The statement that a combination of underglaze and overglaze painting is rare seemed very plausible. The statement that pieces with overglaze painting are often called "enamelled" seemed less plausible, although technically they are of course enamelled, and I would accept what a source said. If both bits of information were added to the appropriate place in the body, with sources, I would have no objection to putting them in the lead also... What you did was restore both bits of information to the lead, this time with a citation (in a different format from all the other citations), but still did not add the information to the body of the article.

To tidy this up I assumed good faith on the offline source, added the two bits of information to the body, with the citation, and removed the citation from the lead, where it was now redundant. In my view there should be no citations in the lead, since it just summarises statements in the body. The citations go in the body. See the last sentences of the first paragraphs in the Underglaze painting and Overglaze painting sections:
 * ... Most pieces use only one of underglaze or overglaze painting.[15]
 * ... Pieces with overglaze painting are often referred to as "enamelled".[15]

Does this clarify what happened? Aymatth2 (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry - I got a notification, initially misread the history, then realized this & removed my comment. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Slip (ceramics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moulding. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Great Mongol Shahnameh
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Churches name
Ok as in "San Luis Obispo, Salamanca" I get it. Thank you for gift your time, almost among the most valuable thing in life, the time. to improve this side of the wikipedia. --Vvven (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks =D, do the real life things, how many awesome things you can realize--Vvven (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Church of England border polls 1915–1916
Since you have a preference for 3 and it did not matter to me, I have updated the DYK prep.  MPJ  -DK 10:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Arnolfini
Hello John- I would like to know why you think my wording changes to the Arnolfini portrait article were not an improvement. I think my version reads better and is more clear. The sentence as you restored it is a bit long and awkward, and has a couple vocabulary issues. "Given" is not employed correctly, "uses" is not the best word to convey the fact that the mirror is part of the painted scene, and "considered" is appears twice. Eric talk 12:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hope
As the original creator has left, asking you as the next-most-prolific contributor; do you have any objections if I do a scorched-earth rewrite from scratch on Hope (obviously, reincorporating material from the existing article as necessary)? The existing article is decent quality but has clearly been cobbled together from websites and passing mentions and has gaping holes in it, and I think it will be easier to build from scratch rather than try to rework within the existing structure. I was planning to finish Etty and at least make a start on Moore and Dadd before moving on to Watts, but it occurs to me that 19th Jan 2017 (Obama's last day in office) is probably going to be the only occasion when this painting gets serious mainstream attention, so I plan to bump it up the queue. &#8209; Iridescent 18:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course not, though I haven't given up hope of User:Theramin returning, as he was always a bit intermittent. I'm sure he won't mind. Try to keep the bit refed to User:Paul Barlow, who sadly is past caring. Scary tastes, or anti-tastes, you have! You don't fancy some Victorian narrative favourites? Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll certainly keep the first of the two references—After Egypt was defeated by Israel during the Six-Day War the Egyptian government issued copies of it to its troops may need to be rewritten as it was much more a symbol of Jordan than of Egypt (she even used to be on their postage stamps) so it seems a bit odd to single out Egypt. Didn't realise Paul Barlow was no longer with us—sad times. &#8209; Iridescent 19:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (adding) I can't stand this painting—some Watts works are wonderful but Hope decidedly is not—but I still have a stack of bios from when I was doing Postman's Park, and given Obama's obsession with this particular painting it seems an apt time to get it over with. Moore, I have something of a soft spot for; as with Etty, he's acquired something of an unfair reputation as a smut-peddler as the tacky nudes he painted to pay the bills tend to be the ones the galleries put front-and-centre. &#8209; Iridescent 19:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed my visit to the Watts Gallery, also the amazing Celtic Art Nouveau Watts Cemetery Chapel a few 100 yds away. But no doubt you've been. Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, that took about three times longer than planned (and at 5000 words is about 4000 words longer than planned, but if anything is still too terse). I want to try to hothouse it through FAC in time for Obama's last day in office, so any comments welcome. Ceoil, Victoriaearle that goes for you, too. &#8209; Iridescent 22:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Have read through, and is of the usual quality. Some edits I made you may disagree with, and revert, no worries. I didnt see any logical inconsistencies, vagueness, or gaps in coverage. As the process can be slow, I recommend a sooner rather than later nom, but from time spent reading, not anticipating any issues, above matters of style. I can do a source review when needed; from a few spot checks the authors are all of the first rank of the existing literature. Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The nice delegates have given me a pass to have two open at once, so now open at Featured article candidates/Hope (painting)/archive1. Because of recent—erm—events, FAC has four fewer reviewers than usual, so things are likely to move quite slowly, but hopefully this one should run quite smoothly—the writing is a little terse but it's already longer than Mona Lisa, so I really don't want to bloat it any further if it can be avoided. Provided it goes through before early January it should be fine squeezing it in for 19 Jan—under the circumstances I assume Brian and Chris would be amenable to slotting it in. &#8209; Iridescent 18:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Right. I started looking at it, but have been distracted by various things. I'll be along. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

No, not left completely, just resting, with a few offline projects half finished.

Of course I don't mind - indeed, congratulations on the very impressive and much more comprehensive rewrite, and good luck at FAC. Like almost all of my articles, it was indeed cobbled together from a variety of sources, and I freely admit I may have been led up the garden path about Mandela (the "reportedly" was there for a reason) and the Six Day War (but I would still wholeheartedly believe a piece written by the much-missed Paul Barlow and published by the Tate).

My only comment of substance would be to suggest that it might be possible to add back some of the material omitted in the rewrite - for example, a reference to Watts's idea of a "House of Life" (mentioned in several sources); the apposite quotation "Hope need not mean expectancy. It suggests here rather the music which can come from the remaining chord" (which seems to come from Windsor Magazine, v.14, p.4, in 1901, and was quoted as early as 1904); and a bit more from Chesterton - imagining the unprepared gallery visitor finding the painting, "His first thought, of course, would be that the picture was called Despair; his second (when he discovered his error in the catalogue), that it has been entered under the wrong number; his third, that the painter was mad." Theramin (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Theramin I do apologise, I've only just noticed this. I intentionally omitted the "His first thought, of course, would be that the picture was called Despair" quote, as it's too easy to misunderstand when taken out of context. It makes it sound like Chesterton was either sneering at the painting for not representing hope at all, or sneering at audiences for being too unsophisticated to understand it, while if you read the full quote* he was actually making a point about Watts intentionally using ambiguous symbolism to draw the viewer into contemplating abstract concepts. The full quote is too long to include in the body text, and I didn't really want to put it in the footnotes as those already include a very long quote from Chesterton which I'm loath to lose as it does a better job than I could at summarising how the peculiar morality of Watts's circle was perceived at the time. (Regarding Paul Barlow's piece, per my comments on the article talkpage ordinarily I'd take him as gospel, but in this particular case I think that either the Tate website are inserting deliberate errors to trap plagiarists, or there's some very cack-handed subbing going on, and in either case it unfortunately means the Tate website can't be considered a reliable source. Comments like "this version omitted the star" when the star is very obviously still there, make the whole thing unfortunately suspect. In the rewrite I tried to use Watts Gallery publications as much as possible, on the grounds that they have the most to lose if they turn out to be wrong and they're written by the people with the best access to the archives.) &#8209; Iridescent 12:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC) * If the ordinary spectator at the art galleries finds himself, let us say, opposite a picture of a dancing flower-crowned figure in a rose-coloured robe, he feels a definite curiosity to know the title, looks it up in the catalogue, and finds that it is called, let us say, "Hope." He is immediately satisfied, as he would have been if the title had run "Portrait of Lady Warwick," a "View of Kilchurn Castle." It represents a certain definite thing, the word "hope." But what does the word "hope" represent? It represents only a broken instantaneous glimpse of something that is immeasurably older and wilder than language, that is immeasurably older and wilder than man; a mystery to saints and a reality to wolves. To suppose that such a thing is dealt with by the word "hope," any more than America is represented by a distant view of Cape Horn, would indeed be ridiculous. It is not merely true that the word itself is, like any other word, arbitrary; that it might as well be "pig" or "parasol"; but it is true that the philosophical meaning of the word, in the conscious mind of man, is merely a part of something immensely larger in the unconscious mind, that the gusty light of language only falls for a moment on a fragment, and that obviously a semi-detached, unfinished fragment of a certain definite pattern on the dark tapestries of reality. It is vain and worse than vain to declaim against the allegoric, for the very word "hope" is an allegory, and the very word "allegory" is an allegory. Now let us suppose that instead of coming before that hypothetical picture of Hope in conventional flowers and conventional pink robes, the spectator came before another picture. Suppose that he found himself in the presence of a dim canvas with a bowed and stricken and secretive figure cowering over a broken lyre in the twilight. What would he think? His first thought, of course, would be that the picture was called Despair; his second (when he discovered his error in the catalogue), that it has been entered under the wrong number; his third, that the painter was mad. But if we imagine that he overcame these preliminary feelings and that as he stared at that queer twilight picture a dim and powerful sense of meaning began to grow upon him—what would he see? He would see something for which there is neither speech nor language, which has been too vast for any eye to see and too secret for any religion to utter, even as an esoteric doctrine. Standing before that picture, he finds himself in the presence of a great truth. He perceives that there is something in man which is always apparently on the eve of disappearing, but never disappears, an assurance which is always apparently saying farewell and yet illimitably lingers, a string which is always stretched to snapping and yet never snaps. He perceives that the queerest and most delicate thing in us, the most fragile, the most fantastic, is in truth the backbone and indestructible. He knows a great moral fact: that there never was an age of assurance, that there never was an age of faith.


 * No need to apologise! I see the Chesterton quote is problematic, but part of the reason to suggest including it, in some manner, would be to address the widely-reported idea that he thought a better name for the painting would be Despair (which I admit, I originally included, following the sources I had to hand then; I didn't look up the original, and now appreciate the nuances). I still think the quote from Watts would be good to include, and the "House of Life" could be mentioned... but look, it is more your article now than mine so please just do whatever you think fit.  Personally, I find it best to bash something out when inspiration strikes, and then let nature take its course.  Congratulations on the newly minted FA. Theramin (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

VvG

 * Many thanks - a great article! Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Burghley House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Veronese. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Interlude: Hindsight is a wonderful thing
HI, remember this exchange from exactly 8 years ago? You were right all along :) Amazing that he kept that sock farm undiscovered for at least 8 years. Keri (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Mind you, Julie Umerle, the original cause, looks rather like a keep now. It seems to have been recreated 2 years later. Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Ding ware
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there
You may have done yourself in responding to me on Pericles's talk page. Thanks for shedding light on Laocoön. Impressive work on e. g. the Dutch Golden Age. If there is anything below you in need of some help on the Ancient Greek art front, let me know. Will try to help with the Hellenistic page. Not a period of history I would bet my knowledge on, but then this will better beat it into my skull. Cake (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason there is, say, Samian vase painting but no Attic vase painting? Found that queer. Cake (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not, except that no one has written it. But scholarship also tends to treat Attic VP as the default, and only cover the regional variations seperately. So Red-figure pottery and Black-figure pottery are very largely about Attic stuff, especially the former, and a special article would largely repeat these, I'd think. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's how I understood it. In a sense there really should be an article for it. Starting to think it is where I could help the most. Then again, even the South Italian stuff was supposedly mimicking Attic forms. It seems like a good compromise for now is to tease out vase painting from pottery, and then to redirect Attic vase painting to that page. Cake (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Rather than prod...
Is Ranunzio Prata notable? I figure you're the best judge... also. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably not - he doesn't appear in any source after 1900 that I can see. Not in the Getty/Union database, or Wittkower. Maybe he now trades under another name. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've not heard of him (but I wouldn't necessarily have); the fact that he doesn't have an article on Italian Wikipedia is an enormous red flag to me. He's mentioned in this 1840 book but other than that doesn't seem to be mentioned in anything other than Wikipedia mirrors, and the Italians aren't generally shy about publicising local artists; he's also not mentioned on San Francesco, Brescia where he allegedly painted the altarpiece, despite the article listing the artworks in the church. &#8209; Iridescent 16:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone else wanna do the honors or shall I? I've already prodded a small-town mayor today... if I do two articles in one day people might start to worry that aliens snatched me or something (my last prod was in 2012...) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * He's certainly in with a brief mention in Luigi Lanzi's big book for the region, pretty standard in its day I think, and translated into English by Thomas Roscoe. Personally I don't think absence on Italian WP means much, but someone should have done a thesis on him by now, & he should pop up in other books. The name seems to rest on one signature, which makes me wonder if he has a different name. The last time I supported the deletion of a local 18th-century Italian painter of decorative schemes on walls, probably charging by the yard, he was kept. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm doing a "random article" spree and it's certainly illuminating (if not in a manuscript sort of way)... I just don't have the sources to see about Prata... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Dahuting Tomb Murals
I just uploaded all of these to Wikimedia! And have used them in several articles thus far.

The Dahuting Tomb (Chinese: 打虎亭汉墓, Pinyin: Dahuting Han mu) of the late Eastern Han Dynasty (25-220 AD), located in Zhengzhou, Henan province, China, was excavated in 1960-1961 and contains vault-arched burial chambers decorated with murals showing scenes of daily life, with banquet scenes, dancers with musicians playing, court women flaunting their hairstyles, war chariots and cavalry riding to battle, mythological scenes with creatures such as dragons, etc. Pericles of Athens  Talk 14:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

In regards to one of the woman in the first row, is that a glass cup she's holding? That's interesting, considering how prized Roman glass was in Han China at the time, considered a foreign luxury item. Pericles of Athens Talk 14:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't really tell, can you. Silver, or possibly jade, I suspect. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I hadn't considered silver! That's very possible, considering how ambiguous it looks (certainly not very detailed, although it seems to have shiny streaks running vertically down the surface). In either case it seems like the artist is making a point about this object, with the woman almost seeming to show it off (her smug facial expression seems to match, lol). Pericles of Athens  Talk 15:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

These images are absolutely stunning! Great to see you again Pericles, I know you were very busy in RL for a long time.♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly, sir. I'm glad to be home again, Dr. Blofeld. Are you still Number 1 and heading that international crime syndicate of yours? I was always a fan of your work! Even if James wasn't. Pericles of Athens  Talk 17:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Haha! Still living in a volcano yup ;-) ♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Dr. Blofeld: I knew it! I'm assuming you no longer have the same Persian cat (even with nine lives, they don't last very long, sadly). And I should have known that your WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge was merely a facade for a new insidious program hosted by SPECTRE. It's brilliant! Pericles of Athens  Talk 08:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Mwoahahaha! Well I'm currently running WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, 330 articles in jsut 5-6 days. Same can be done for Asia and China at some point, and make reaching the 10,000 goal within reach. Long term we should make it a global 1 million challenge of course, as everything for His Evilness is in Millions ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Jizhou ware
Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge could certainly do with quality articles like that one!!♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hellenistic art
Regarding your comment on improving the text. Do you mean a better translation, or better quality writing? Apparently the article started out as a translation from the French in 2006. But at present it looks like the English article is better than the French. Can you see specific items that need improvement? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's all pretty poor, as "a translation from the French in 2006" is very likely to be. The (my) section on Hellenistic sculpture in Ancient Greek art, and other bits could probably be copied with little adaptation. It does not explain the overlap/boundary with Greco-Roman art well. And very random referencing. Many statements seem very dubious to me. It reads like what it is, and needs a complete rewrite using a couple of comprehensive sources. But then so do most of our art articles on big topics.  Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The article had a list of sources, so I tried to mostly keep the text as it was and just source the statements. The hope is that it is now deserving of the "C" rating. The biggest problem I found was the Havelock source isn't open access, but search engines suggest it may have been used as a source. Cake (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Matthew Paris
Greetings, Iridescent did recommend me to ask you about whether Matthew Paris is a reliable source for events in the 1250s. The question I have is specifically about the quotes on User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/1257 Samalas eruption and some of the sources on weather mishaps at that time, since they partially depend on his records. Dou you have an idea on this? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say he's a primary source and you'd need secondary sources that link the famines to the eruption. We leave the interpreting of primary sources to historians, who write the secondary sources we rely on. When historians or other researchers rely on Paris, they are able to judge things. If you're concerned about the secondary sources perhaps going off on a wild hair - you can always look up review articles on the secondary sources you're using, which should give you a good idea of whether fellow historians/researchers find their arguments convincing. And quoting him in the article is probably undue weight - since he didn't have any clue about an eruption on the other side of the globe, he wouldn't have connected the famine to the eruption. I can't put my hands on a list of famines in England ... but famine was not particularly uncommon. You could probably find similar descriptions of famines in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle - it was a favorite trope of chroniclers to describe famines in apocalyptic terms. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Technically speaking I am just wondering about the reliability of his statements about the events then (although the undue weight point you make is well taken). The reason why he's cited in the article is because some sources are linking the events he describes and his narrative to the volcanic events, and it's on these secondary sources that the article relies on. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * He tends to play things up, but i think is regarded as reasonably reliable for things he experienced himself. You can see his text here. Book pages: 265-6, 280, 283, 291. Note that at p.280 he is talking about a "pestilence" presumably disease, though no doubt linked to famine. That is where the 15K dead in London come from. I hope your sources make this clear. You are not really relying on him but on your modern sources. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Socratic Barnstar award

 * Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Ascanius Shooting the Stag of Sylvia
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

High cross revisions
"It's inaccurate, that's what." What is?
 * Changing "Celtic" to "Irish" in every context. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please cite 'every' context - no, just pick a few examples, and I can explain why. Fergananim (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with it now, after another editor has edited it. Please note what Great Britain means. Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I'm back taking them out again. Great Britain was a state between 1707 and 1801. Britain is a geographic entity. Fergananim (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As is Great Bruitain. Numerous editors have now asked you to stop making these edits, but you persist. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Great Bruitain'? Nevertheless; the political term Great Britain cannot be applied before 1707 or after 1800 - it was replaced by the UK (first version) and like that infamous ex-parrot, it ceased to be. Geography and politics don't alway align. And you still have not given good reason why Celtic should so often be used instead of Irish, et al. So I see no reason to stop. Fergananim (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Because you keep introducing mistakes (and careless grammatical errors). Your replacements of Celtic with Insular in Insular art just show you didn't understand what was being said, to give one example. Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Then do as I ask, and explain yourself. Fergananim (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If I may,, the problem is that a lot of what you change doesn't need to be changed. In some cases, you actually introduce errors - for instance at Celtic cross, the terms is not interchangeable with high cross, which is a specific type of monument. As I've said to you before, the term "Celtic" is problematic, but even if it's not strictly accurate, in this case "Celtic cross" is the conventional term for this form of cross. You really need to be more careful in what you change. Others can't be expected to explain the problem with every one of your very many changes.
 * There's also no issue using the term "Great Britain" for the island. The term predates the formation of the Kingdom of Great Britain by hundreds of years. If you're going to change it to Britain, make sure you pipe the link as Britain, as Britain is a dab page and not an acceptable link.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. Britain/Great Britain will be so linked - even though it is wrong even in that context. Allowing parity because its 'conventional' is baffling. The term Celtic is only problematic when used incorrectly, so the revisions replaced incorrect popular uses with correct ones - Irish, Gaelic, ringed, high cross, etc, depending on context. Too many use Celtic too freely and think necessary revisions unnecessary. So incorrect conventional uses - generally Anglocentric - are held to be correct! It seems no amount of discussion or revision changes this. Fergananim (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We follow the sources. If the sources use "Celtic" then we must too. We aren't here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or other such problems. If the sources for an article use "Celtic" then the usage in our article isn't problematic. You need to take up your campaign with the sources using the term. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and per WP:ERA - AD can go before or after the year. There isn't a rule that it must go before. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , again, nothing "wrong" in using "Great Britain" for the island. I usually use "Britain" in these contexts as it's what the sources typically use, but of course proper linking is necessary. Otherwise, not a big deal.
 * Please do heed what says re the conventions on the term "Celtic". Where sources use "Celtic" in such terms as Celtic cross, we do too. Full stop. In this case there's not even another term to substitute; as we've already said, Celtic cross and high cross are related but not interchangeable. High crosses are specific monuments that usually, but not always, take the shape of the Celtic cross. Additionally, there are many uses of the Celtic cross shape outside the context of high crosses. You can't just swap the terms.
 * And yeah, per WP:ERA, we usually don't even need to include "AD" at all, but when we do it doesn't matter if it's before or after the year.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The implications of all this make me wonder if there is any point to Wikipedia, or continuing on it. Even if good scholarly sources are used, are they going to be trumped by conventional ones? One external link for the Celtic cross article is a craftsman and jewelry designer - is his article to be given parity with a scholar? Sources or links are either American or English so their knowledge  of anything Irish is at best Anglocentric (hence free use of the term Celtic in the first place). Even when Irish, American, or English scholars are used, they are decades or more out of date. Why should bad sources/links have primacy and good ones so little? 20:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fergananim (talk • contribs)
 * Not to keep using Jon's talk page for this, but I think I see where the misunderstanding lies. When we say that the word "Celtic" is the convention used in the sources, we're not talking about pop history sources, we're talking about the high caliber sources most relevant to the topic. These are not "Anglocentric" or out of date. "Celtic" in the sense of Celtic Christianity, Celtic Easter dating, etc., is still used by the best available sources for the topic. That was part of the trouble with your edits to Celtic Christianity, Wilfrid, and some others - the best, most up-to-date sources for those articles do use the word "Celtic". It's simply a case where no better alternative has emerged for these elements of Christianity in Britain and Ireland. Similarly, I've now added better sourcing to Celtic cross, and those use "Celtic" as well. Again, it's not something that can easily be replaced, least of all by the term high cross, which is a related but distinct subject. The edits you've made that have been reverted rarely if ever include sources, and in some cases contradict what the existing sources say. Moving forward, it will probably be more productive to explain what you'd like to change up front.--Cúchullain t/ c  04:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Likewise apologies to Jon I'll try and keep this as short as possible: Up to the 1960s, romantic and political uses of the terms Celts and Celtic infected even scholarly work - people said Celt when they really meant Gael, or Briton; Celtic when they really meant Manx, Gàidhlig, or Cymraeg. All this implied that they were all 'one people' directly descended from the actual Celts of Gaul, Italia, and Iberia; that the various languages only in modern times classified as Celtic were really one (baffling to anyone who has tried to make themselves understood to each other in them). This unhistoric belief - not shared by any of the medieval or early modern peoples concerned - was an English concept directly related to their political rule of Britain and Ireland, and the creation of Great Britain and its subsequent successor states, the two United Kingdoms. All such uses were based in a racial stereotype of the 'Celt' as a subordinate human; passionate, uncivil, fit only to be ruled (by the English of course). You only have to look at 19th century cartoons and caricatures of the Irish, Scots, Welsh (and in France, the Bretons) to see this. The opposite of the 'Celt' was the 'Teuton', or 'Anglo-Saxon', a rational Protestant creature bred by God to rule. Well, two world wars put paid to that idea among the English but by that stage the Anglo-Irish (Davis, Hyde, Pearse, et al) had all adopted the stereotypes so it became embedded into popular English-language Irish ideas which, after independence, became embedded into the Irish educational system where the 'Celt' became the Catholic counter-point to the Protestant 'Anglo-Saxon'. Thankfully, from the 1960s all these daft ideas have been understood on their own terms, and dismissed, so much so that most Irish and British scholars use the terms rarely (TV presenters of popular history are another story). But they linger in common use - and as neither the Irish nor the British majorities use Goidelic or Brittonic languages, all that is left to describe these heritages are inaccurate English concepts and terms.


 * In short, the only correct application of the term Celtic today is as a linguistic classification, which has no modern application to ethnicity, nationality, art, genes, religion, medieval high crosses, et al - quite a limited one even for Iron Age groups and none at all for medieval ones. Any use other than linguistic is just pop-nonsence, a commerical fad ('Celtic music', 'Celtic brooches'), and Anglocentric as it does not use the terms or senses of the cultures concerned. The terms never appear in any of their languages or literatures (except during the 19th and 20th centuries as English imports); their own terms should be applied. Thank you for your patience, Fergananim (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a very simplistic summary - in some ways the situation is worse than you think, because your easy assumption that there were "actual Celts of Gaul, Italia, and Iberia" is wrong - if anything the application of the term to continental "Celts" is more problemmatic than to the "Insular Celts". Every academic work on ancient Celts begins with a hand-wringing introduction pointing out the unsatisfactory nature of the term, but academics continue to use it, properly qualified, for lack of any adequate alternative, and because it has a high degree of public recognition. The British Museum & National Museum of Scotland had a major exhibition in 2015/16 called "Celts, art and identity" starting with the Hallstatt culture and ending with Glasgow Celtic and Belfast painted walls. The large catalogue, by specialists, is full of qualifications over the use of the term, but they still use it.  You obviously don't like this, but your personal opinion will not prevail over the sources. The relevant WP articles address the difficulties with the term adequately, but still use it, just like academia.  Your summary of the beginning of the modern use of Celts is complete rubbish - the term was first used by the Welsh Celticist Edward Lhuyd, and for example promoted in France by Jacques Le Brigant (1720-1804) and Théophile Corret de la Tour d'Auvergne, passionate advocates of their native Brittany. Contrary to your nonsense, it was Lhuyd who first set out the P and Q language groups as still recognised by linguists, though the ethnic conclusions he drew from that were certainly over the top.  Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm copying this all to Talk:High cross. Please continue there, if we must. Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Pottery
Thanks for being much kinder than you could be about it. If Pericles had not added some sources himself, I would undo what I've done and start over, for the intention was not to gum up your work, but make it I suppose navigable from all angles, as - if I am allowed another tortured analogy, if one were to come at the terracotta figurines as both pottery and sculpture. Perhaps I missed it, but no mention of the spots on the clothes to detect a work by the Brygos Painter? Cake (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Botswanan art
Any chance you or could rewrite that one? Might be interesting and offbeat!♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks better than most African art articles already, & I've no idea where to get sources. Johnbod (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It certainly looks a lot better now!♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Removing maintenance tags
Hi Johnbod, please follow WP:MTR policy when removing maintenance tags, as you have done here and discuss first. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I must say I'd never seen that page before. No wonder we have so many 10-year old templates. But note (my bold): "Removal: Okay? You have carefully read the help pages and have thoroughly fixed the problem? Alternatively, you have made a considered determination that the template is not, or is no longer, applicable? Good. Thank you! Now, to remove the maintenance template:..." Johnbod (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason you've never seen that page before is that it's not a policy of any kind, it's something that was unilaterally written a few months ago following this discussion, in which it's clear from the comments that the support voters clearly thought they were endorsing encouraging editors to remove templates which they felt weren't relevant, not voting to create another layer of bureaucracy in which permission has to be sought to make any change. I think you can safely ignore this threat; if anyone's stupid enough to try to sanction you for removing inappropriate templates, I'll draft the Arbcom case myself. &#8209; Iridescent 15:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Invitation from Wikipedia Asian Month 2016
 Wikipedia Asian Month  Thanks for partipating Wikipedia Asian Month last year, and I hope you enjoy it. Last year, more than 7,000 articles contribute to Wikipedia in 43 languages in Wikipedia Asian Month, making us one of the largest event on Wikipedia. We will organize this event again in upcoming November, and would like to invite you join us again.

This year, we are lowering down the standards that you only need to create 4 (Four) articles to receive a postcard (new design), and articles only need to be more than 3,000 bytes and 300 words. We are also improving our postcard sending process, e.g. making the postcards right now, and collecting the address after the event ends without waiting other languges.

Wikipedians who create the most articles on each Wikipedia will be honored as "Wikipedia Asian Ambassadors". We will send you both digital copy, and a paper copy of the Ambassador certificate.

Thank you for considering! --AddisWang (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Without putting too fine a point on it
I was born in Europe and have been there a fair amount. In any case I am not messing with what the Australian residential architectural styles has to say about Europe but rather, as so often seems to be the case, trying to correct your misguided attempts to describe what the United States is about. What does "more common in the UK than in the US" have to do with Australian architecture anyway? What is your reference for such an absurd statement? Carptrash (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well you were happy to leave the statement that garden fences, were "unique" to Australia! You didn't seem to feel the need for a reference for your amending statement that they were not common in "Europe". In fact, as I'm sure you know, the frequent and often byelaw or contract-mandated absence of front garden fences is a distinctive feature of US suburbia.  Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you check the history you should discover that I was not the editor who made the comment about Europe. Or Austraila for that matter. I don't consider myself particularly  knowledgable about picket fences in either place. All I did was change what I took to be your edit about the US.  The wikipedia article on picket fences  - an article I have never visited before - states "Picket fences are particularly popular in the United States," - that is all I am concerned about. Carptrash (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you check the history you should discover that I was not the editor who made the comment about Europe, or Australia. All I was doing was modifying the nonsense about Australian uniqueness. A picket fence I take to to be the type with spaced slats - the UK fences are normally continuous with overlapping slats. Of course, we don't have garden fence. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * so check out the final version. Or at least current version. Carptrash (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Ru Ware
I don't know if you've come across this site, in which someone develops a conspiracy theory around the auction houses' refusal to take his collection of "Ju ware" seriously! The "Qianlong marked and period Mirror Black Glazed Bowl (WORLD CLASS)" here is pretty bad. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I had, through this somewhat comic video - he's the owner. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Just realised I've put "Ju" instead of "Ru"- corrected it. Congrats on the DYK! If I find a piece of Ru ware at the local charity shop, I'll bung you a commission Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I found this quote from the man- "I'm the foremost expert in Northern Song Dynasty Ru Ware right now in the world". Hmm… uses internet, has massively-inflated opinion of himself, his favourite subject has just appeared on the WP front page... Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Does he ever sell anything, that's what I wonder? The website listed prices are pretty serious. Johnbod (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Ru ware
— Maile (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting topic – well done. Following some discussion about the details at WP:ERROR, I was thinking of visiting the BM at lunchtime to admire the twin of the brush washing bowl but, according to their website, it's not on display.  It's odd that they don't show off such a treasure but maybe they prefer to lend it out.  Anyway, perhaps we should alert them when such items are going to be featured so that they can consider dusting them off and putting them out?  I may still go as I have worked on several similar topics like brush pot, chinaman (porcelain) and The Great Pottery Throw Down and so it will be good to see what else they have.  I'll also make a start on Alfred Clark who used to own both these bowls.  He was quite notable in several ways and so should make another good DYK...  Andrew D. (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The whole main Chinese gallery is closed for about a year for refurbishment/redisplay. But most of the BM's collection is from the Percival David Foundation loan, & most of that is on display in Room 95 upstairs (as in several of the photos here). Good to see Clark with an article. Very few of the top scholars of Chinese ceramics have bios either. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

West Africa Ebola virus epidemic
hi Johnbod, I know your always busy but since you have so much experience with GA/FA (you have so many)...I recently nominated the above article for GA and would appreciate if you took a look at it(review) I appreciate any help, thanks --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Ozzie10aaaa. By the time I got to this it had been deservedly promoted GA. Congratulations! If you are thinking about FAC, I think the length (now 267,900 bytes on the crude count) is likely to be a problem, and the considerable chunks relating to the disease in general (I suspect mainly repeating other articles) should probably be rewritten more briefly. That was my main thought; I admit I haven't given it a full scrutiny under the circumstances.  Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you Johnbod--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Cimabue
Thanks for sending through the Grove source. Gives me a lot to mull and work with. Ceoil (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Asian Month!
Hi there! Wikipedia Asian Month is about to start. Here is some information about participating in the event: Best Wishes, Addis Wang Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Please submit your articles via this tool. Click 'log in' at the top-right and OAuth will take care the rest. You can also change the interface language at the top-right.
 * 2) Once you submit an article, the tool will add a template to the article and mark it as needing review by an organizer. You can check your progress using the tool, which includes how many accepted articles you have.
 * 3) Participants who achieve 4 accepted articles will receive a Wikipedia Asian Month postcard. You will receive another special postcard if you achieve 15 accepted articles. The Wikipedian with the highest number of accepted articles on the English Wikipedia will be honored as a "Wikipedia Asian Ambassador", and will receive a signed certificate and additional postcard.
 * 4) If you have any problems accessing or using the tool, you can submit your articles at this page next to your username.
 * 5) If you have any question, you can take a look at our Q&A or post on the WAM talk page.

Ru ware at ERRORS
Hi Johnbod, here is a link to the completed discussion after Fram acted on the report, as requested. EdChem (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I hadn't seen all that till just now! Thank heavens for User:Andrew Davidson who actually read the online sources very carefully. He dealt with your points very well, so I think there's no need to add. But if he hadn't been there, with Fram & TRM around, I think we can see what would have happened. User:Fram's first very ill-informed & OR venture into Chinese ceramics matters, now transferred to Talk:Jingdezhen ware, is still causing repercussions at Template:Did you know nominations/Jingdezhen ware, where TRM also stuck his oar in. I don't know what it is about Chinese pottery that makes everybody an expert. The point is that these extensive discussions should not take place without either of the 2 editors actually writing the article, mainly from offline sources, being at all aware. It is not as if I'm not around most of the time. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, I still don't see what was inaccurate in my suggestion. This particular type of Ru ware is rare - as Andrew D. noted it is the guan yao type and maybe that would be a useful addition - but I seriously doubt anyone would think US$25M+ for a single piece is common. "Six-petalled flower-shaped" is the exact description from the section titled "Mr. and Mrs. Alfred Clark's Ru Guanyao Brush Washer" by Regina Krahl (British Museum biography).  "Song dynasty" was in the original hook, and the "around 1100 AD" date is consistent with the descriptions I read.  My suggested additions / changes may have been bad ideas, and I stress I would not have added them unilateraly without a discussion, but I don't see how they are incorrect.  The only thing I would have done unilaterally was change from "US$26.7 million" to "HK$207.86 million (US$26.7 million)" because the sale was in HKD. I am unaware of the pottery issue you mention, and I admit that everyone is wrong at times - including me! - but I thought the change in currency which TRM proposed at WT:DYK was appropriate, and it went unactioned.  On the notification issue, if I started a discussion at WT:DYK, I would ping the relevant editors, and I believe that a discussion is needed for a significant change to be made.  The rules allow changes in the prep areas and queues and tweaks are needed and appropriate at times, but wholesale changes should not be unilateral, IMO - and yes, Fram has done that at times, as has TRM when he was an admin, and that is not an approach I favour.  Some of the issues they have raised are trivial, but some were important and those need to be addressed.  I do regret that there were no pings given to the WT:DYK discussions, though I didn't start it.  I certainly could have added them at the ERRORS discussion I started, and I do apologise for not doing that and undertake I will ping at future ERRORS discussions.  EdChem (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I'll just say, that although correct as a description for a relatively expert audience, when accompanied by many photos, "Six-petalled flower-shaped" is misleading for a general audience with no photo to look at, as only experts looking at the actual piece would ever describe it so. Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Johnbod. I am emphatically not any sort of expert on Ru ware, so I accept that the descriptor might be a poor choice for a hook - which is an excellent reason for including pings, I admit.  I'm glad we've had this chat.  :)  EdChem (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

War Edition؟!!!
Hi. Why do all the editing you undo me? This Template is being edited and is not over yet.Your photo is irrelevant. Hold on. Tanks  Derakhshan  / ◄ 13:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus is against you. I wouldn't persist. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I placed two large Image. See Template:Antique Kings of Italy.  Derakhshan  / ◄ 13:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Section names
I don't believe it is better like that at all. These are not a good or featured article that I have edited so I don't see why I should be warned to not make undiscussed changes to them when they are so minor. It makes much more sense to call something above the "reflist" References since there is also a "notelist" which makes sense to use for a Notes section.&#42;Trekker (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, but it's not especially widely shared. If they are "minor", why bother wasting your time on them & getting reverted? Your argument makes little sense since the reader can't see the template names. Don't start edit-warring over this. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You know what. Screw it, sorry I did this. Let's just leave it be. I'm not in the mood for discussion wikipedia guidelines right now.&#42;Trekker (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

RCC
Given your awareness of the recent consensus about the use of "Catholic Church" as opposed to "RCC", I'm curious as to why you're adding that category to articles. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There should only be one category, but while there are two, with apparently different content, they should connect. I didn't see the recent not-very-well-attended debate, but I think I would have opposed; the matter has been much more comprehensively discussed before. Johnbod (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Jun ware
— Maile (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

it:Ru (ceramica)
Thank you for writing the article!--R5b43 (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Migration of the Serbs for TFA

 * Hi John. This is just a friendly note to let you know that the Migration of the Serbs article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 2, 2016. Dank will be along shortly to massage the lead into a main page blurb, but if you're interested in doing this, or in subsequently editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/December 2, 2016. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Random thanks
Given that I just left effusive messages for Brianboulton and Tim riley, I should thank you for all the reviewing you've done. You've showed up on my every FAC so far, so in the back of my head when thinking about articles I want to send through FAC, it's mainly you I envision doing the reviewing. (You may not remember, but I was probably a bit annoying during the Egyptian temple FAC. Sorry about that, but because I'd never gone through FAC before, I was in a bit of a slow-motion panic. And I've added lots of links to that article over the years!)

I'm not able to devote much time or energy to Wikipedia these days, and I don't know whether that will change. So a heartfelt thanks to you and all the highly active editors out there who keep the encyclopedia going. A. Parrot (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Alfred Clark (director)
Great article, and the video is indeed fun. Thanks to you and Andrew Davidson. Edwardx (talk) 13:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Johnbod and Edwardx may be interested in this item too. Pottery pays!  Andrew D. (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow. So does Nazi memorabilia, even if it's mostly fake. Edwardx (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Alfred Clark (director)
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Resist
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Ge ware
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Yaozhou ware
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Berbers
--Aṭlas (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You're not interested in Berber-related things ? I apologise for the inconvenience. Regards--Aṭlas (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)