User talk:Walnut77

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Raphael
You are completely wrong about this - you obviously haven't read any of the sources. The only universally agreed self-portrait, and the only one confirmed by Vasari, is the one in the School of Athens, whatever the Louvre choose to call their work. I don't know what an "official" self-portrait is supposed to be. See note 1 to the article, Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, It is the title of the work. The italian page also says this, and it says that the work is proven to be Raphael's. I did not change it to what I wanted. The one in the School of Athens is presumed to be Raphael based on an analysis by Vasari, but nowhere did Raphael caption the people in that work. The School of Athens article says this as well. Besides, you removed the portrait altogether initially. You also added something completely false on self-portrait with a friend, you did not provide any evidence to what you stated there. Walnut77 (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * All wrong! Go away and read some books. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please tell me which one! Walnut77 (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Jones & Penny is good or see "Further reading" for other recent biographies. Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have any digital sources I can quickly access? I read the School of Athens and it clearly states that Vasari presumes this is him. So I do not agree it should say self portrait, when it is presumed. Walnut77 (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, and you shouldn't use wikipedia articles as references: Jones and Penny, p. 171. The "one likeness which all agree on" is that in The School of Athens. Please stop edit-warring. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not using wikipedia articles as reference, that article is cited! Besides you are providing a source that is more than 30 years old!, and if you have ever done any good research you should know good sources are no more than 5 years old. Clearly you are the one who is wrong. The italian article does not say what you are saying and it also has good sources. I am improving the accuracy of the article, you are not. Walnut77 (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop this. Just because you don't happen to have a particular standard work, you can't ask for a better reference. What the Italian WP has is beside the point (most of its paintings articles were written by the same guy who started the English ones anyway). Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am not going to stop asking for accurate information. Your source can't even be confirmed. The italian page has more data than you. Stop providing information you can't even back up. You are not entitled to make arguments without evidence. Walnut77 (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Brescia Medallion of the Desiderius Cross
Instead of trying to threaten me with moderator action for the assumed act of vandalism, why don't YOU do the most cursory amount of research into the topic, where you will find that academic consensus is that the Brescia Medallion on the Desiderius Cross depicts a family from Roman Egypt, not Galla Placidia or her children. That is a hilariously debunked 18th-century theory that you're touting here. It's been debunked since at least the 1920s. See: Joseph Breck (1927). "The Ficoroni Medallion and Some Other Gilded Glasses in the Metropolitan Museum of Art". The Art Bulletin. 9 (4): 352–356. doi:10.2307/3046553. JSTOR 3046553.

See also the following articles explaining this:
 * Gold glass
 * List of gold-glass portraits

I rest my case. Don't revert my edits again, especially since they will be fully cited this time, or ironically, it is I who will have to report YOU for vandalism. Pericles of Athens Talk 22:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

What a farse you wikipedia editors are. You are a liar. I can't even see what the book says. everything I read on the internet regarding this matter shows that it has been brought into doubt whether it is Galla Placidia, just like everything in antiquity, And I wonder by who. If you add that as evidence, I will add all the articles I have read on the matter that clearly state the inscription is in GREEK and it has simply been doubted not proved it isnt. Walnut77 (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL! Thank you for proving my point by citing that Brescia Museum page! It specfically says that it is a "legendary" interpretation, and says nothing about scholarly consensus. Meanwhile, I have sources such as Beckwith (1979), Boardman (1993), Grig (2004), and others who all support the theory that it simply represents an Egyptian family in Roman Egypt. Even the Greek inscription "ΒΟΥΝΝΕΡΙ ΚΕΡΑΜΙ" proves that it is from Egypt since it uses a Greek dialect of Egypt (see Breck 1927: 353). You have no legs to stand on in this argument. You also have no familiarity with the Fayum mummy portraits of Egypt, I see. Pericles of Athens  Talk 22:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with the portraits, they do not look alike, maybe you have a different point of view, I clearly see a difference, I doubt you are an art critic. The brescia museum says nothing about egyptians in this case, so you should remove the caption. The only known fact is that it has been considred a depiction of Galla Placidia, and the other mabe even queen Ansa. I trust people who actually study this more than you. So delete it Walnut77 (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, this has absolutely nothing to do with me being some sort of art critic, or a "liar" using your terminology (which by the way breaks Wikipedia rules about assuming good faith and making direct personal attacks on other users). Why don't you bring sources to the table that refute this argument? You basically won't, because scholarly consensus is that they're a family from Roman Egypt. For instance, Lucy Grig (2004) points out the Egyptian religious symbolism of the portrait. What matters is whatt he SOURCES say, not our personal opinions. So please, quit offering your own opinions and bring sources to the table. Otherwise, this conversation is over. Pericles of Athens  Talk 23:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure "LOL" using All caps like you did is also considered bad wikipedia etiquete. I think I have given you a very clear source about this. You only give me books I can't even access, and they are surely opinions, or this consensus you talk about could have been found easily on the internet, I have not. The museum that houses the cross, professionals who study this, don't say what you say. End of story, so correct the caption like you have to, or I will Walnut77 (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not my fault that you cannot access those sources. I have included your source, the Brescia Museum one, clarifying in the ref that it specifically calls this a "legendary" claim. Do you not understand what the word legendary means? You also cannot remove cited material just because you feel like it. THAT is vandalism. Make no mistake, I will report you the next time you do that. Pericles of Athens  Talk 23:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

If you have trouble locating sources, why don't you look elsewhere than the ones I've posted? You could have EASILY found this one from the British Museum Catalogue (PDF), 2015, by Daniel Thomas Howells (refer to page 7):

"Other important contributions to scholarship included the publication of an extensive summary of gold glass scholarship under the entry ‘Fonds de coupes’ in Fernand Cabrol and Henri Leclercq’s comprehensive Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie in 1923. Leclercq updated Vopel’s catalogue, recording 512 gold glasses considered to be genuine, and developed a typological series consisting of eleven iconographic subjects: biblical subjects; Christ and the saints; various legends; inscriptions; pagan deities; secular subjects; male portraits; female portraits; portraits of couples and families; animals; and Jewish symbols. In a 1926 article devoted to the brushed technique gold glass known as the Brescia medallion (Pl. 1), Fernand de Mély challenged the deeply ingrained opinion of Garrucci and Vopel that all examples of brushed technique gold glass were in fact forgeries. The following year, de Mély’s hypothesis was supported and further elaborated upon in two articles by different scholars. A case for the Brescia medallion’s authenticity was argued for, not on the basis of its iconographic and orthographic similarity with pieces from Rome (a key reason for Garrucci’s dismissal), but instead for its close similarity to the Fayoum mummy portraits from Egypt. Indeed, this comparison was given further credence by Walter Crum’s assertion that the Greek inscription on the medallion was written in the Alexandrian dialect of Egypt. De Mély noted that the medallion and its inscription had been reported as early as 1725, far too early for the idiosyncrasies of Graeco-Egyptian word endings to have been understood by forgers.

Comparing the iconography of the Brescia medallion with other more closely dated objects from Egypt, Hayford Peirce then proposed that brushed technique medallions were produced in the early 3rd century, whilst de Mély himself advocated a more general 3rd-century date. With the authenticity of the medallion more firmly established, Joseph Breck was prepared to propose a late 3rd to early 4th century date for all of the brushed technique cobalt blue-backed portrait medallions, some of which also had Greek inscriptions in the Alexandrian dialect. Although considered genuine by the majority of scholars by this point, the unequivocal authenticity of these glasses was not fully established until 1941 when Gerhart Ladner discovered and published a photograph of one such medallion still in situ, where it remains to this day, impressed into the plaster sealing in an individual loculus in the Catacomb of Panfilo in Rome (Pl. 2). Shortly after in 1942, Morey used the phrase ‘brushed technique’ to categorize this gold glass type, the iconography being produced through a series of small incisions undertaken with a gem cutter’s precision and lending themselves to a chiaroscuro-like effect similar to that of a fine steel engraving simulating brush strokes."

So if you're quite done with this ridiculous back and forth, I'd rather not report you for vandalism, because it is a waste of my time. But give the evidence I have provided above, generously I might add, and you CONTINUE to revert my edits with cited reliable sources with no justification other than your erroneous interpretation of the Brescia Museum page that clearly describes the Galla Placidia thing as a legend, then I will be FORCED to report your activities for moderation and review. Pericles of Athens Talk 23:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, let me explain to you what the italian article says, it uses legendary in the sense of "traditional"! not mythological. You do not understand or want to understand whatever you want. I gave you evidence you can see and ready immediately. What you have given me is a suggestion by someone that it resembles the fayum portraits. Again a suggestion! not a proof. Put this in the caption, or remove it altogether. your caption reads proof! you are an ignorant and mischievous person. Walnut77 (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * How do you prove your sources if you cant even read them?? We are supposed to believe the "good" person you are. You have given me one opinion I can read, I have give you the official information of the Museum of Brescia. This is relevant, either add everything exactly as it says it or I will. you have proven you have absolutely no good-will in this. Walnut77 (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * How is that an appropriate response to the British Museum's (2015) description of the Brescia Medallion that I have just posted above? Did you not even read it at all? Howell doesn't even bother mentioning the whole Galla Placidia myth, because it's not worth mentioning in light of research that has been conducted over the past century (literally) on this particular artefact. Pericles of Athens  Talk 00:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you should ask Howell to discuss it with the Brescia Museum. Or you should ask yourself. How is anything you say relevant after I have shown you what the museum that houses the work of art say. You have given me an opinion by a historian, thats very nice, that can go in the caption as an opinion by him. This is not a consensus, especially when it is not even mentioned as an option in the official work! The italian article mentions Ansa, Queen of the Lombards as another person it can be, it does not talk about egyptians. If you put that it has been PROVEN, you are vandilizing! Walnut77 (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's just be perfectly clear, Howell (2015) from the British Museum is not offering his own fringe theory or "opinion" as you oddly assert. He basically summarizes the painstaking research that went into studying this piece of art and lists about a dozen different other academics who have come to the same conclusion. I've also decided, given your inappropriate langauge above directly calling me "ignorant" and "mischievous" to finally report you to an arbitration committee. Pericles of Athens  Talk 00:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I stand by my position. If you are going to add a caption to this image, add exactly what the sources say. You misquoted the sources provided and you continue to say this is proven. Clearly it is NOT when the Museum does not say so. It really isn't complicated. Walnut77 (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And yet I've already amended the article to reflect that this is the view of the majority of academics, which I see you've now reverted. This despite the fact that Howell provides a summary of the research of De Mély 1926, Peirce 1927, Breck 1927, Ladner 1941, Morey 1959, Harden 1987, which doesn't even touch upon the other works cited: Beckwith 1979, Boardman 1993, Grig 2004, and Vickers 2009-2011. Your recent edit changing it to "by academics" makes it appear as if this is not the scholarly consensus, when it clearly is. Your singular interpretation of the Brescia Museum page (the only source you've provided, I might add, and one that specifically calls the claim a legend) stands against numerous scholarly sources. Pericles of Athens  Talk 02:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

As stated above, I have formally lodged this dispute with the WP arbitration committee (i.e. Arbitration) here, which you can partake in. You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Pericles of Athens  Talk 02:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I have changed it to reflect what the Brescia Museum page says, and what your articles say. YOU have removed the actual facts! Walnut77 (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

"YOU have removed the actual facts!" That is an amusing accusation considering how you've just cited Eva R. Hoffman (2007) in the arbitration page as supporting your argument. Did you even read the book that you just cited?! Here, I'll quote it for your convenience, p. 17 (actually from the book chapter by Jas Elsner, Hoffman was simply the editor):

"There are also profound continuities between the visual productions of the pagan and Christian empires. Take, for example, the beautiful gold-glass medallion from Brescia, which could have been made at any point in our period - its transfixing naturalism gestures towards the second century, while its technique is more typical of objects from the fourth (Figure 1.3). Perhaps from Alexandria, since its inscription is in the Alexandrian dialect of Greek, it probably found its way early to Italy - at any rate, it was incorporated there in the seventh century in a ceremonial, jewelled cross. Whenever it was made, and for the duration of its use in antiquity, the imagery of this gem speaks of the continuity and values of family life, of the wealth and patronage of aristocratic elites, of the high value placed on exquisite workmanship from the second century to the fifth."

And again, another quote from Figure 1.3 on page 18:

"Figure 1.3. Cross of Galla Placidia (called "Desiderio"); detail showing gold-glass medallion of a family group, perhaps from Alexandria, dated anywhere between the early third and the mid-fifth centuries AD. This family group of a mother, in a richly embroidered robe and jewels, with her son and daughter, bears the inscription BOUNNERI KERAMI. This may be an artist's signature or the name of the family represented."

How on earth you thought this supports your claim I do not know, when Elsner clearly says the exact same thing affirmed by Howells (2015) and many others. Elsner also clearly indicates the ambiguity of when it was even made, suggesting dates as late as the 5th century. How exactlty did you miss that? Did you just look at the name "Galla Placidia" for the name of that particular medieval cross (based on the old 18th-century assumption that it was Galla Placidia), and assumed the author (Elsner) agreed with you somehow? You claim that I've "removed" facts when clearly you just brazenly omitted the entire context around Elsner's explanation that this is a "family group, perhaps from Alexandria" based on the evidence. Pericles of Athens Talk 03:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It appears that the arbitration might soon be closed, because apparently disputes about content need to go in the dispute resolution boards, not the arbitration committee (which handles disputes about conduct, not article content per se, at least not until a lengthy process of dispute resolution has been attempted). In either case, should we continue this argument in a dispute resolution board? It seems with your last statement that you're at least willing to cooperate or concede the cited material I've brought to the table (instead of reverting it like you did before). And I was not the last one to revert you, by the way. That was Johnbod, who seems to agree with me. I merely added another source, Elsner (2007), to the list of authors claiming this is most likely an Alexandrian Greek family given the inscription on the medallion. Elsner didn't say anything about the Fayum mummy portraits, but I didn't use Elsner for that statement; I used Breck and Howells, who name the Fayum mummy portraits specifically. Pericles of Athens  Talk 06:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the last edit I made was fair in this argument since it explained both views. I stated the entire suggestion of the Brescia Museum as well as the claims you brought up.Walnut77 (talk) 08:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined
The Arbitration Committee has declined the Editor dispute over the "Brescia Medallion" image in the WP article on "Ancient Rome" case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 03:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Special measures apply to cryptocurrency related pages
MER-C 19:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Lisk for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lisk is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Lisk (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)