User talk:Johnbod/21

Johnbod. I got your name from the volunteers list for arts related peer reviews. Out of all the editors listed under arts your description was the closest to the topic of my article. I have been working on the biographical article Tabitha and Napoleon D'umo for a while. They are choreographers and you were interested in visual arts related articles. Most of the other arts peer review volunteers were interested in music related articles. There was one that was interested in film, another in theater, and a couple in actors. I was going to contact the one other editor interested in visual arts but they haven't contributed to Wikipedia since March 2011 so now I'm here on your talkpage. I know that visual arts more or less means painting/photography but choreography in my opinion is closer to visual arts than music is. Painters paint with color. Choreographers paint with movement. I guess if you think of it that way, the article may be more appealing to you. Now about my dilemma:

I posted a peer review request at WikiProject Biography but my request has sat dormant for about three months now because that project is dead. I didn't know that when I posted a request. Could you please review my article? I am most concerned about the tone because I have been criticized in the past about this article lacking NPOV. I also read an essay on another editor's userpage that single topic editors don't know how to have NPOV. Well... I'm a single topic editor. So since I only edit dance related articles and since I've been accused of lacking NPOV I could really use another set of eyes. If you have the time, please help. I would appreciate it. If you don't, let me know anyway so that I can ask another editor. //Gbern3 (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Made a slow start. My area it is not. Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a little stub... let me know when ou've finished, perhaps (time permitting) I'll also add something. Ciao a buon divertimento! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 09:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh! I wish I had noticed that[1] before potentially opening another can of worms (with one already open). Sorry about that. Best, R ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry - it's a wormfest all round. The argument that the figures are too small to distinguish without clicking might have some legs in fact .... Johnbod (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the British Museum in August, having in mind a couple of artifacts I wanted to photograph and put on Commons (Egyptian, of course). I photographed one artifact but couldn't get a good shot of the other, because it was in the King's Library on a high shelf. I was irked at being defeated by something so basic. My question, assuming you're fairly familiar with the museum, is: are those shelves perpetually out of reach for non-staff, or is there some way to get a better look? Not that I could take advantage of it now, but it would just seem kind of stupid if no visitors could ever properly see or photograph those things. A. Parrot (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you've had it with those. They don't normally make special arrangements for photography, in galleries or in the "student's rooms" (they probably have similar items in store), not even tripods. In the depts I know you can't normally photo in the students rooms at all, except on special "behind the scenes" days. You could wait for a basketball player to pass by I suppose.... Johnbod (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Just to clarify my position, I haven't read or commented on the discussion about cultural or historical origins of the images because I don't think it's relevant until the article actually discusses such notions. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you say say so - I thought I had seen some comments on how "representative" they were or similar. Johnbod (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. The removed material related to a series of edits in December 2005 which were made by User:Rksingh1970. He is by his own admission an art historian actively documenting the caves. His analysis (while something of worth) was technical, rarely contextualised, and (most importantly) not reflected in any other literature (besides one sentence discussing the opinion of his fellow historian Walter Spink).

As brutal as it maybe doing this kind of "article surgery", I think it was a necessary decision to start building a more generalised article that is better for readers and complies with Wikipedia's policy and style. That said, if you have a reasonable counter-argument, then feel free to revert me! SFB 14:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing with the changes you are making. I'm just saying that you need to add some sources because that page is so hotly contested. The calligraphy statement could be sourced and have a photo. Alatari (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, early days. Actually I don't see the kilywe/calligraphy stuff as at all controversial but who knows. We don't have an ideal photo in the Commons category other than the one I've used - because of unclear sources - but I suspect there are others not categorized there somewhere. I can't actually read Arabic, which of course doesn't help. Johnbod (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMTranslator add-on for Firefox/Chrome translates Arabic surprisingly well but it has to be in ASCII text. Those are probably pics and archaic at that so guess it would n;t help. But if your research takes you to modern speaking arabic web pages, maybe you'll find it of some use? TinEye add-on searches the web for pictures. You are doing a great job. Alatari (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you? I haven't heard from you for ages. Don't you know I want to discuss Romanesque secular and domestic architecture with you? I think that it would be a good idea to split it and start an article on Monastic architecture. It would be relatively easy to do an article of monastic architecture of the catholic tradition, but there would be yells and howls that it was not inclusive. So what do I call it.

Also, there I want little something I want to know more about. The depiction of the Deposition. Ceoil is hard at work on The Entombment (Bouts). Some of the referenced material seems dubious to me- the suggestion that Bouts based this picture on a little sculptural group included in a work by van der Weyden seems most unlikely, but several people have stated it so its well-referenced. In fact, the RvdW detail is quite generic. Both he and Bouts would have seen sculptured altarpieces with bits just like it. Can you throw any light on this? Amandajm (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on hilya. Great to see the article growing. --JN466 05:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll try to get to DYK for the end of Eid, which starts today/tomorrow. Johnbod (talk) 05:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to nominate it; any idea for a hook? --JN466 05:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think go with the body thing .... a hilye in Islamic calligraphy is a physical description of M laid out to approximate a body" maybe. Put a note on the talk asking for a rush job. It lasts 3 days pretty much. I have to go to bed now I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 05:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See [3], [4], [5]. I was getting a little worried that Gruber appears to mistranslate koltuk (it does not mean "sleeve", and neither Osborn nor Derman translate it as such, cf. [6], [7], [8]), so I slightly de-emphasised the aspect of visual approximation of a body in the layout itself which the other sources don't remark upon. We should probably standardise the ref format -- but tomorrow, time for me to turn in as well now. Best, --JN466 09:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johnbod. During my search for sources for this article I found out by accident (your username popped out when I searched on Google the book 'Monuments of Medieval Art') that you are an active editor interested in medieval illuminated manuscripts. Today I created an article about two illuminators who were active in the 12th century in my country. They even depicted themselves (including signatures) in two manuscripts. I guess it was an unusual act for an 'artist' living in 12th century. I'm no expert and during my work I used news reports rather than scholarly sources. I find the story very interesting and funny [sic], as it says something (very little, I admit) about an artist living in the era when the term 'artist' in our sense of the word didn't exist. Would you mind to take a look at the article and maybe check the terminology and grammar? I don't want to bother you, so fell free to ignore my request if you are not interested. Best regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John, do you know the name for the red head-dress in this pic. I'm tempted to call it a cap. Tks. Ceoil (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should think that would do. It looks like a Florentine cap, but does one want to use whatever the Italian word for those was? Johnbod (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian word? Looks blankly. I'll be in London early in December, can you let me know if there will be any meet-ups or whatever. I'm very impressed by the GLAM project, would like to get involved. I have an interest in archaeology, a lot of my early pages on wiki were on standing stones etc. Problem is, given my track record a lot of the people there would probably want to choke me on sight. I'm not joking. Ceoil (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's an Italian word for the Florentine ones, but is there much point in using that for the Netherlands, if one remembered the name? The London meetup is pretty well always 2nd Sunday of the month, so should be the 11th. It would be great to see you, & also to get something going with NMI etc. Email with dates. Johnbod (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, after these now years of working together it would be nice to talk face to face. Ceoil (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. There seems to be consensus for a small section covering depictions of Muhammad at Muhammad. You seem to be across the topic. If you favour such a section, do you feel like composing something? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed consensus on anything there! Including that edit of yours just now, though I do happen to feel that was probably the most dispensible image - now we have the same number as the "fringe" Iranians. I'll take a look - of course we had such a section until recently, if I can ever find it. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just read through the whole talk page. Ugh. I mooted such a section and over the last week or so several editors from both sides of the great divide have commented positively. None has opposed. Seems both appropriate and non-controversial. Feel free to differ. Wrt the stone image, I'm not following the argument about the various dates and traditions, I removed it because it's a minor anecdote in his story and isn't mentioned in the article, and a couple of editors on the "keep" side have commented on its redundancy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hilya, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a hilya (example pictured) in Islamic calligraphy contains a description of the prophet Muhammad? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hilya.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

On 8 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Baker's Hole, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Baker's Hole, near Dartford, Kent, England, contains a site at which Neanderthals made blades? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Baker's Hole.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm done enough for government work. It's not totally pretty, but you're not aiming at FA level here, it's good enough. Sorry if I stepped on your toes, but the squabbling was driving me batty... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not at all. The whole thing is getting wierd ... Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THat you asked here... yes, breeds can go extinct, although not everyone uses that exact terminology. Check out List of horse breeds at the bottom, where we list some. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the article and approved it. I also took the liberty of making a few changes so that you wouldn't have external links in the middle of your article. I retitled the "Notes" section as "References" (to be more in keeping with most of the WP articles I've seen). Then I created a second refs section called "Notes" and put the comments in there, especially comments that had had external links, which are now created as embedded refs. Then, in order to make the coding work, I moved the bibliography up above the "Notes" and "Refs" sections. You had refs in there, so the section had to appear above the "reflist" template in order to function properly. Also, I removed the "external links" section because it was empty. Also, I added "p." and "pp." where appropriate, since they appeared in all the refs where you had used a citation template. This way, there's uniformity, otherwise, it's a bit odd looking, especially to the non-anglophone reader, perhaps. I added non-breaking spaces in with some page numbers, where the line length was likely to be a possible issue. It's a drag to read, but all you have to do is type the code before the number WITH NO SPACE and then that's it. The coding has a beginning and an end tag to inform the servers that something other than text is coming and ending. It begins with an ampersand and ends with a semicolon. Then, the code is nbsp for nONbREAKINGspACE, so the total thing you need is   and you insert this where you want that space to not break — leaving no spaces between the coded command, which would be read as additional spaces. I hope that explains it! Marrante (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, but I've just cross-posted to your talk explaining why I reverted it. I have no problem with nbsp's which i'm just too lazy to do. "Notes" then "References" is in fact a good deal more common than what you've done. Putting the "bibliography" (not a good heading for various reasons) above the actual citations is against WP:FNNR. And so on. Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only explained the non-breaking space after reading your note about it on your user page. Thank you for your explanations. The coding for embedded refs is apparently new and requires a second refs section. I found it on some article some months ago and thought it very useful. I had already been making use of the option to have more than one refs section, but was frustrated by wanting to cite things I was putting in a footnote (comment) and not being able to embed a ref. In printed material, it's nice to have footnotes all in one place, but I see very few footnotes on WP with comments and my gut feeling is that separating them makes them easier to find and more likely to get read. You're welcome for the review. Marrante (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's true you don't see that many "footnotes", but, at least in the humanities, the higher up the quality scale you go (GA, FA etc), the more you are likely to see, although some prefer to separate them from citations. I wish they were more used. I suppose I should change my user page, as I am a bit better informed these days - they also come of the "wiki markup" list at the bottom of the edit page, no? I'll look at the refs, which do need tidying I accept. Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just started this, which explains my views on "bibliography" Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a handy link for that non-breaking space. I only recently stopped using it. I like footnotes as well. I'll have a look at your bibliography views. Marrante (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have frequently provided expertise to complement my enthusiasm for WP:WPVA-related issues. I left a note on the talk page that has gone ignored for a couple of days regarding the propriety of the nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/List of most expensive sculptures. If you get a chance please comment and/or encourage some of your Art colleagues to do so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cumdach, which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cumdach.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Allen3 ^talk 00:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Template:Did you know nominations/Marine isotope stage; the current page is too short for the DYK requirements. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I finally got around to the Leonardo thing, as discussed, and having nothing else to do with it, turned it into a lengthy blog. Leonardo da Vinci and the Virgin of the Rocks Cheers!

Amandajm (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look - will comment later, when I've read the lot. Impressive! Johnbod (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Royal manuscripts, British Library, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Old Royal Library dating back to the Middle Ages (manuscript detail right) was given to the British Museum by George II in 1757, and is now in the British Library? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Royal manuscripts, British Library.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For a most excellent article on the Royal manuscripts, British Library. Top stuff! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes use my info for this page GerixAu (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will create a basic page for Nick Danziger around Christmas unless you get there first GerixAu (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I was also inclined to start a page, seeing him as red link in Great Lives... might just go ahead and slam in a couple of good notability refs. Then leave it to you to flesh it out. PamD 08:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided I simply don't understand DYK but have been watching your page in awe as the DYKs stack up. You're doing wonderful work - I wish I could be as prolific. I expanded Bal des Ardents tonight & only now realised you created it. Was hoping to nominate to DYK, but whenever I try a QPQ review I make a mistake, so I've truly given up. Anyway, the Stowe Missal is fine - I hadn't realised what existed there before wasn't prose. Sorry about that. Truthkeeper (talk) 04:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well you've got one now! LH had clearly given up & I'd rather forgotten about it. I only did a redirect at the Bal & I think added a bit at charles bio. Some time you should add missing links to this lot. They are spells - "charms" more discreet scholars call them - probably for warts or sick cows, that's the usual sort of thing. Johnbod (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add the links. I've had to give up because I'm tired and it's more of a topic than I realized. I'm trying to find a description for the Gruuthus image but either my French isn't good enough or it's not listed on the Biblioteque website. I'll finish it tomorrow. Spells and masses are in a single book is fascinating to me. Someday I'd like to see some of these books, but that day will be long in coming. I missed an exhibit on illuminated manuscripts at the Getty by one day last spring - that was disappointing. Truthkeeper (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"three spells "against injury to the eye, thorns, and disease of the urine"" - now added Johnbod (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted a "hookier" hook that would be good to use. I've decided against submitting to DYK - I seem to have a DYK blind-spot and I don't think half a review counts for QPQ. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does I'm pretty sure, but up to you. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do it, for kicks. Ceoil (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, looking at the recent changes I think it might be over egging to have the lead text defining the cup as "Ancient Roman" when a significant part of the article includes the ongoing dispute on origins. It may be more accurate to leave this out or qualify the statement in some way. The dispute over origins may well be interesting enough to keep a mention of in the lead but I do not feel that strongly about the emphasis. By the way, I thought this article previously mentioned the private cupboard of erotica in the BM, though I must have been mistaken; surely worth a mention somewhere? Cheers --Fæ (talk) 11:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else took the dispute out of the lead - I agree a mention would be ok. The BM page hasn't changed, & unless we see the fake idea getting more traction we should stick with the official view I think. Johnbod (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recall taking a look into this ages ago. Bit busy with chapter stuff, but taking an academic search now shows rather weak evidence and I will seek out some expert advice on whether this is worth expanding on or, in fact, worth reducing the emphasis for. Either way, considering the unusual nature of the artefact, what it has to say about the role of slaves in society (not mentioned) and the level of public interest in it, the article seems far too brief. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eek, Mary Beard, groan. I really will have to put some time aside to dig out some authoritative sources. --Fæ (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I changed the sentence, "the subject does, in fact, sport an enigmatic smile" to, "to some, the subject does, in fact, appear to sport an enigmatic smile." on the Laughing Cavalier article because on looking closely at the painting I could see no actual smile - though I, like many other did get the impression that the subject was smiling when I first looked at it. However if you look at the parts of the face you will not find what appears to exist when a more general view is taken. The reason he appears to be smiling is that the moustache and its shadow make it appear that the left side of his mouth and cheek (his left) are raised as if smiling. If you remove the moustache the smile disappears with it. In any case I for one can see no actual smile - even if it is "generally agreed" as you commented when you reversed my change. I felt that my change was not controversial since it still acknowledged that many do see a smile while at the same time allowing for the view of others, such as myself, who see no actual smile. Surely that's a reasonable change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever seen the original? It's not the sort of thing you can judge from a small, rather poor quality photo. Your view that no smile can be seen is, without a reference from a WP:RS, just WP:OR that shouldn't go in. I agree the moustache creates much of the effect, but none the less ... Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No matter, you appear to have edited the article and I have no strong objection to the current wording. For what it is worth I searched the internet to find out whether others might hold my view and to my surprise found this site http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/laughing+cavalier where the author has made the effort to remove the moustache so that the facial expression, unadorned, can be appreciated. I would concede that there is some hint of a smirk in his countenance. I had intended to also deal with the claim that the eyes follow the viewer around the room but see that you got there first and made other improvements besides. Keep up the good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit more now, including linking to the "shaved" version - thanks for that. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Feather tights, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that medieval angels wore feather tights (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Feather tights.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done quickly. A few comments: the reference I found to M. R. James at the end leads off in another direction (Lambeth Palace), suggesting the Llanthony story is quite a lot more complicated. Theyer's one published book is probably for Milton scholars only. The bookseller Robert Scott is in the ODNB but not the DNB, so would take more work. But I noticed also that David Casley who catalogued the library is in the same position (ODNB but not DNB). I would guess that to support the Royal manuscripts article Casley is more important. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In danger of confusion now, but I think when Casley in 1743 talks of the "King's Library" the meaning is clearly "Old Royal Library" as the manuscripts article puts it, given that the King's Library was George III. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit more on Theyer's collection, but in the case of the Regius manuscript (aka Royal MS 17 A.1, Regius poem, Halliwell manuscript), I'm struggling a bit on sources. It is certainly significant for Masonic history, but that's a morass of unreliable sources; I've just seen some references to Euclid tied to that MS. I don't think I should put it in the Theyer article quite yet, until I have something better to go on. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stowe Missal, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that that the Stowe Missal was written circa 750 and given its cumdach or case circa 1030 (pictured), with one new face added circa 1375? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stowe Missal.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--v/r - TP 01:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC) 08:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marine isotope stage, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that there have been only 22 marine isotope stages in the last million years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marine isotope stage.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Banderole#Art and architecture -- PBS (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look carefully you will see that I did not add those citations to Cyclopaedia they were already there. All I have done is replace the old citation style {{ref label|1728|2|^}}, roughly equivalent to {{ref name=whatever>{{1728}}</ref> and {{note label|1728|2|^}}{{1728}} roughly equivalent to {{reflist}}.

My primary interest at the moment is to make sure that about 1000 articles that include text from EB1911 include citations and attribution to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Plagiarism. My first pass on the list is to convert those that have {{1911}} in them, and a another template called {{Wikisource1911Enc Citation}} but no citations. In the case of this article I have gone back to an early version (7 November 2005) which as far as I can see is a cut and past from multiple sources on EB1911. For those entries if they still exist in the most recent version of the article the I am going to add a citation. --PBS (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough, but it would be far more useful to remove altogether, by improving, at least the Cyclopedia references, which are normally fairly easily replaced. And calling EB Chisholm is just wrong. Johnbod (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I think it is better to have an out of date reliable citation than no citation at all. Those citations to Cyclopaedia have been there for over a year in the confused state I found them. Given that the exercise I am imposing on myself involves edition hundreds of articles, if I see something that contradicts the sources I am introducing then I will look in more detail. For example there is another set of problem pages I have put aside for the last week to work through this list (see this link) one of which was William Duesbury which had sentences which contradicted the source I was introducing so I spent time and fixed it.

The template links from the short citations work using the pair author/editor and date. If the article in EB has a named author (which a few do (10%?)) eg see the article s:Perles, Joseph then the author's name should be used (eg "Joseph Perles). Otherwise one is faced with two choices. Either using "Anonymous" for the author, or the name of the volume's editor. I think using the volume's editor is appropriate in such cases and is the better choice. -- PBS (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should just call the author Encyclopædia Britannica, but it's just one more problem caused by templates. Johnbod (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite possible to add "Encyclopædia Britannica staff" to the short citation (and as author to the long), but as the information is available in the long citation, and as the short citation links to the long citation, I see no point in adding it, so I guess we will have to agree to differ on this. Here is another alternative "Sequestration (law)" which you might prefer.

There are currently 10,000+ articles with the {{1911}} template. Without further information (like author, article name, volume, page number, Wikipeidia is saying "somewhere in the 29 volumes of EB you will find some information somewhere but I am not going to tell you where"! So there is more than enough to go around. -- PBS (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done just now (well, see the talk page for a loose end). I saw the manuscripts exhibition at the BL this afternoon. The catalogue looks about three years work ahead ... Charles Matthews (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse the interruption, I wondered if you wouldn't mind having a look at this discussion? I'm after feedback for an article I'm writing. Parrot of Doom 23:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Made some edits, & comments here. Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I'm only part of the way through my third source so there's still plenty of changes to make. Right now the early section weighs very heavily on the ODNB, and may even be too closely paraphrased, so I still have a lot of work to do. Parrot of Doom 10:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will reread your work. Has been a while since I looked at it, but I know it is thoughtful.69.255.27.249 (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might find the expanded version of interest: the business of the Schools of Design seems confusing but fruitful (the Great Exhibition and its consequences at least). I have a concrete problem, in that the photos taken of the National Gallery collection are attributed in places to it:Lodovico Caldesi, but that seems a clear mistake and they should be Leonida Caldesi, as far as I can see. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know a bit about them from Wornum's ? colleague Richard Burchett, but it is not just modern governments that re-organize things every 3 years. I will look in Christopher Frayling's History of the RCA. Don't know about the photos. Johnbod (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We tend to have very poor images of celebrities and sports. Has been written about for years. Talk to our best image peeps and FP and they admit it. (I have talked to them at FP.)

Here is a story on it, and if you Google, you will find more. Sorry, I'm not going to do a study on it!

There are some other aspects to the issue (like bloggers often taking great pictures...yes they steal a lot, but they also cover more events with humans...look at FP...it is bird central.) But it's not about fixing everything. Just about making a step change. I totally know how to solve this problem. Or at least make a step chang improvement. (That is "solve" in my world.)

TCO (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A start: Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#Plain language. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, I'm writing an opinion piece for the Signpost, and would like to use this diff of yours to quote "in my area of the visual arts ... most articles on major topics are crap (Indian art, Italian Renaissance sculpture, in fact anything to do with sculpture, Baroque, Rococo, Romantic art etc etc)". Is that OK? If you would prefer to see the op ed piece before agreeing, let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sure that's fine. Johnbod (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Actually, I've temporarily cut the quote because I had characterized it as saying that "art history is poorly covered". Sandy pointed out that in fact there have been quite a few people working on art history articles at FAC, so I think I need a better way to summarize your comment. Would it be fair to say: "You can also get an idea of what doesn't particularly interest Wikipedians by looking to see what areas are poorly covered: psychology, for example, or major topics in art"? The draft article is here, if you'd like to look, and this is the diff where I removed your quote; I'd add it back as given above if you think that's an accurate summary description. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the FAC articles, mine included, are on individual works or artists with relatively few surviving works (Robert Peake the Elder) - the major topics are indeed crap. Which was exactly my point. Where is this SG diff? Johnbod (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page of the op ed draft. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note there and have re-added it to the draft with the description of "major topics in art". Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johnbod--you have been busy, I see. Thanks: this article has been getting better and better, and I hope I'm not making it worse. (Boy, File:Judith beheading Holofernes.jpg is ugly.) I am trying to resist the temptation to put too many images in that gallery; for now I'm trying to work on the sourcing a bit. Now, between you and me, and this conversation is totally and completely private, in the vault, I have a secondary objective with this article: I have used it in class quite often when I'm teaching the Old English Judith. So I have a vested interest in this article being a gallery...and I might add a few more images in the next couple of decades; I guess I'm telling you this as fair warning, so you can keep an eye on me and rein me in if need be. And I have another secondary objective: I am working on an article on teaching Judith and want to make reference to our article (as a teaching aid, if you will), so it is in my best interest to have it look as good as possible.

Anyway, thanks for your work on the article, and feel free to let me know if I get carried away. I think there's more to be done here--perhaps a division into different art forms. We'll see. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I removed some guy who added his own works "after" Caravaggio (a very long way after). I have Power of Woman (women?) as a Renaissance theme on my to do list. Johnbod (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, did you see this (justified) edit? It's actually an interesting book, I've looked at a couple of the essays. I'll look at it again: I am tempted to stick it back in the main Judith article. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, or both. I have this: H Diane Russell;Eva/Ave; Women in Renaissance and Baroque Prints, National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1990; isbn 155861 0391, which has a good deal on the Power of Women. The Exhibition included at least 9 Judith prints. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Did you see the exhibition? And did you feel unmanned afterward? ;) Drmies (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No! But what with Jael, Tomyris, and others there are a lot of naked women with detached male body parts, as well as the usual victims and virgins. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know we've only scratched the surface. Here's a fascinating note on Giorgone's. I'm about to walk over to the library and pick up Judith: sexual warrior, women and power in Western culture by Margarita Stocker. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff! Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we bring this article up to higher status (there is a ton of work to do, of course), do you think we'll get laughed at by the Foundation, that it would be considered yet another unimportant little article only relevant to the specialists? It is a huge theme, of course--emasculation and the plethora of feminist and other critical readings of the topic in the various literary versions aren't even touched upon in the article yet. A way around that (at least to make it smaller and thus more manageable) would be to limit the article to depictions in the visual arts, but these literary versions are just as important. Then there's music; did you put the Vivaldi reference in? I'm sure there are lots more, and I've never even looked at that (if you couldn't tell, literature is my field). Do you have any thoughts on this? Is limiting to visual arts fair to the topic? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Literature and music are covered in Book of Judith; if relevant one could mention works here, but at the moment it seems to me to function ok as "art" only; there are probably special issues for art, like nudity, and that is where it was most popular. But if the article was expanded that might change. I don't think there would be an issue at FAC, if all the literature were covered, least of all from the foundation. It would be the first iconography FA I think. A lot of work though - you'll notice the HTR and also Royal Gold Cup have pretty tiny literatures, as does my next FAC. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just had another look at Holy Thorn Reliquary--what a marvelous piece of work, both of them. You do the references the way MF does them as well. I usually use slightly different formatting, but I won't insist on my idiosyncrasies given your track record. In other words, any time you want to change this to your style is fine with me; if the article increases such change is probably necessary. What always bothers me a bit is that the journal template does not seem to allow "pages of the article" simultaneously with "page number of the quote." (The same applies to the book template if a chapter title is inserted, the format for all edited collections.) Since the article isn't that huge yet this is not insurmountable; if journal articles and essays/book chapters are moved to a bibliography section (what you usually call "References") then the page numbers for the quotes can still easily be retrieved. I'll gladly follow any suggestion you may have. In the meantime, thanks for your work on the article and your assistance. I'm going to work on my own Judith article a bit. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed you change the citation method, without discussion tut tut - well it is an improvement to the previous lot, though I like to keep things as simple as possible, if only not to add to the daunting aspects of WP for those disappearing new editors. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, yes, well, eh, I moved one or two things into templates. I like templates--I grew up within spitting distance of Germany, and Ordnung muss sein. Feel free to trout me--I think that agrees with my dietary restrictions. As for disappearing new editors, since I made admin I have more effective means of making them go away, and I am sure you know we get ten bucks a head, two for an IP. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tee hee! That's ok. I'm just back from several very nice days in Amsterdam btw. Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnbod. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Charles Matthews (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to nominate for GA?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to, as I never do GA. I am about to expand the article from the exhibition catalogue, which the BL have kindly sent WMUK. Johnbod (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The absence of this article came up at Talk:Early Netherlandish painting. Would you be interested in collaboratively putting together an overview in the next week or so? I know it's a tall order but... Thanks, Lithoderm 18:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very busy time for me, on and off-wiki. You'd better start without me! Certainly a major gap. When will you put your beginning & end dates? I did Northern Mannerism, as you may know. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's on my watchlist! As for start and end dates...(shrugs)... I'm really more up on the 19th and early 20th centuries, art historically. I know artist's names and work, but Kerner on the moment of self portraiture is really the only non- coffee table or text book I've read cover to cover on the subject of the period.

By the way, I just stubbed out Girolamo Mocetto and plan to expand it in the next few days with info from Spangenberg and the Grove- maybe for DYK if it gets large enough. If you have anything to add it would be a big help.

No pressure, I've got work to do myself- and reading if I'm going to be anything approaching informed on Northern Renaissance art. Thanks, Lithoderm 14:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll have stuff there. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've finished with Mocetto for now. More on my talk.. Cheers, Lithoderm 05:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Muhammad Images and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod,

A new WikiProject to create Offline Wikipedias for Indian Schools has been started under aegis of WikiProject India. Our first project is to develop, convert and expand the SOS Children's Village compilation into one suitable for India. Acknowledging your work done on Indian art, may I request you to kindly help us develop the list on "Art" located over here? AshLin (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, comments tomorrow. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated. AshLin (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gentle reminder. AshLin (talk)

On 12 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Scottish National Portrait Gallery, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, opened in 1889, is the oldest purpose-built museum of portraits in the world? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Scottish National Portrait Gallery.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a draft on this, which is coming along; it is the tie-in for what Fæ is running up to with Glamox, as far as I'm concerned anyway. I have tried to give general context, which you might want to comment on. The paper by Bullard has a dozen sources from which the heads were copied (or restored), which I shall add next, and will make it more interesting for the art history, I think. (I only got this far because Jacobus Verheiden was one of my Dutch targets.)

The actual layout of the frieze is troublesome with the sources I have, since it is presumably around a six-sided L-shaped room per the map; I have some idea what is happening by looking at who is on the list and what you would naturally do with the walls you had. Free images are a definite problem. I'd like to have the content respectable before I get back to my contact at the Bodleian. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additions. I have made pages now for the redlinks from the list of heads, so it is quite close to being ready to create as an article. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a point arising, illustrations for canon lawyers like Johannes de Imola are a blessing with a rather dry subject. I have found an illuminated manuscript page for him; there are others that would tie in with the BL GLAM thing. (I have added a bit on Wikipedia:GLAM/BL/Royal just now.) Charles Matthews (talk) 07:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is now created as painted frieze of the Bodleian Library. I have also made Category:Friezes for our small collection, and dropped a line to the Bodleian about it. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Westminster Psalter, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Scorpio and Visitation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History2007 (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very interested in this one, and I signed up [9]. I have done some work on texts from this collection, notably by Walter Burley. Unfortunately I'm still banned here - is it possible that the form could be moved to the WMUK site? Best Edward. We met at the November London meetup, if you remember. 31.52.4.78 (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do. The emphasis of the exhibition is mainly on illumination of course. The sign-up is ok, ISP or not. Johnbod (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes understand. However the signup will be deleted as soon as an administrator spots it. In fact, looking at Walter Burley, I see that most of it was deleted by admins. Let me know. 31.52.4.78 (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS I just see you wrote most of Royal manuscripts, British Library. Excellent piece of work! 31.52.4.78 (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and nominated the article... oh and here. Lithoderm 02:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... have a look at the FAC. Thanks for posting. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied. I cannot understand why we are having a discussion over a line which is not even in the article. I swear on all the love I have for Beyonce that I was not trying to be rude. Sincerely, Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick question: the Grove claims that Master LCz used aquatint in his prints, but this seems very dubious. I thought aquatint was a later invention...? Lithoderm 00:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still digging on this, but it does seem odd, but not an isolated reference. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolicited opinion: It must be an "aquatint-like effect" as he's at least 150-odd years too early (don't see it myself though - there's heavy cross-hatching in the Temptation) Yomangani^talk 14:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy & continue this at Talk:Master L. Cz.. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 11, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★* Merry Christmas And Happy New Year 2012 *★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★
		I Wish You And Your Family A Merry Christmas And A Happy New Year 2012. May The New Year Bring Much Happiness, Prosperity, Peace, And Success In Your Life. I Am Very Happy To be Part of Wikipedia And To Have Great Friends Like You. Cheers. - From A Big Fan of ----> Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your Christmas card (Le Nain), with mine: Es ist ein Ros entsprungen (Sandström), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Adoration of the Shepherds (Le Nain) is my Christmas card to everyone! Best wishes for Christmas and the New Year to all! Johnbod (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I salute you. There is nothing I can give you which you have not, but there is much that while I cannot give, you can take. No heaven can come to us unless our hearts find rest in it today. Take heaven. No peace lies in the future which is not hidden in this present instant. Take peace. The gloom of the world is but a shadow. Behind it, yet within our reach, is joy. Take joy. And so at this Christmastime, I greet you, with the prayer that for you, now and forever, the day breaks and the shadows flee away. — Fra Giovanni Giocondo, 1513 Peace and joy this holiday season. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite as good as your card, of course. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

from Amandajm (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnbod!

It was really helpful of you to you to upload File:Cuthbert covercropped.jpg. However, we need to properly format the image license information in order to keep and use new images.

If you can edit the description and add one of these templates, that would be great. If you're not sure how or would like some help, please ask us at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you.

Thanks again! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, we disagree with ourself a lot; but it's nice to know that the joys of Wikipedia exist even in articles I left months ago. Obviously, only one evil editor could disagree with the Croatian Truth! Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec11}} to your friends' talk pages.

Hi Johnbod, nice to see all that money pouring in as a result of your work in getting charitable status in the UK. ϢereSpielChequers 23:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Adoration of the Shepherds (Le Nain) is my Christmas card to everyone! Best wishes for Christmas and the New Year to all! Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charming painting. It always somewhat amazes me that everyone is focused on that quite unremarkable baby, and no-one seems at all phased by the two children with large wings jutting from their shoulders. Amandajm (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that here one of the boys, & one of the angels, are coolly looking away from the Child. Approaching Magi or not, it seems very French - I can't imagine that in a 17th century Spanish or Italian work. Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice read, I expect they are just being polite about the wings. Otherwise the stonework looks a little massive for a stables, especially the columns and is that by any chance a stirrup on that donkey? ϢereSpielChequers 00:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Westminster Psalter, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Westminster Psalter contains what may be the earliest representation of Saint Christopher in English art, from about 1250? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Westminster Psalter.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Merry Christmas Victuallers (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Girolamo Mocetto, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Italian Renaissance artist Girolamo Mocetto was long thought to have been born a generation before he actually was? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Girolamo Mocetto.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

EncycloPetey (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 08:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding to the article. There are so many Rembrandt prints deserving of articles, and someday I'll add another. The Three Trees is on my shortlist.... Very happy holidays, JNW (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, & good to see you active! Adoration of the Shepherds (Le Nain) is my card, with best wishes to all. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the best for the holidays!..Modernist (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I express you my heartfelt thanks. ""Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" has passed. I am very happy. Your feedback and kind words helped me considerably. Thanks again. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adoration of the Shepherds (Le Nain), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that it is not known which of the three Le Nain brothers painted the Adoration of the Shepherds (detail pictured), now in London's National Gallery? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Adoration of the Shepherds (Le Nain).You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas! Hope it's a peaceful holiday for you. Also, I've gone ahead and nominated Master L. Cz. at DYK. If you'd like to add anything to it, please do, and I'll add you to the nom'. Thanks, Lithoderm 04:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know this must be frustrating to you, but please propose a corrected version of that finding. [10] Thanks. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnbod. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop.
Message added 05:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I made a list. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I got myself a copy of [11] after seeing your link to Gruber's paper on ANI. Wikipedia is cultural experience in the most surprising places. Happy holidays. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've discovered something interesting. Although it's generally true that manuscripts were only available to the elite, the popular ones were mass printed as litographs in the 19th century Iran, as described for example in [12]. Do you have access to that book by any chance (other than via google)? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it is interesting. I've seen a 19th century carpet somewhere (for the wall rather than floor no doubt). Christiane Gruber, who is the main art historian of the subject working today is publishing a new book on the whole matter of images of Muhammad which is due out in 2013 (recently put back I think). It's a pity that will be too late. "She is currently writing her next book, The Praiseworthy One: The Prophet Muhammad in Islamic Texts and Images, due to be published in 2013". Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you identify (even roughly) what's on the cover of this book [13]?

I'm assembling a list of mainstream English academic biographies of Muhammad. User:ASCIIn2Bme/Mill.

JN466's favorite book is in fact not a biography of Muhammad, but a work on his reception in some Sufi literature. That's why it's amply illustrated with photos of manuscripts (incl. calligraphy). I have yet to find an actual biography of Muhammad in English that has calligraphy pictures inside (or Persian miniatures for that matter). The only thing I found inside so far are maps.

Although authors hardly ever decide what cover art is going to be on their books, which is decided by the publisher, I'm adding that info too whenever possible.

Thanks, ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like stucco architectural decoration, certainly with inscriptions, which may be Quranic. Possibly from Spain. That's as far as I can go I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I’m leaning more towards Egypt, and the words "The mihrab of al-Afdal, the Fatmid vizir, dated 1193, in The Mosque of Ibn-Tulun" somehow spring to mind. There’s a nice colour image here on Flickr with a link to some MIT OpenCourseWare which might give some more detailed info. Ian Spackman (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very good! Looks like there's been some serious restoration work. Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod - can you give us some input regarding this issue? Thanks, and Happy New Year (in advance) Kafka Liz (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate any input you might have at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies#Proposed expansion of list. Your input, as an editor very familiar with the visual arts, would be very welcome, particularly any opinions you might have regarding the "qualification" of those artists suggested for the expanded list. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited State (printmaking), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mantegna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the best!..Modernist (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This use of rollback was clearly unwarranted. I doubt that your personal judgement about the value of my edits is sufficient to justify using of rollback (Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool), but I wouldn't mind if you had actually checked what you rolled back. Huon (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I explained in advance I would be using rollback - I don't have twinkle or other alternatives. You did a considerable number of edits that were wrong and with a plainly misleading edit summary, & I looked at them all, though some in more detail than others. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the categories I removed were not supported by sources or even by the article text. I acknowledged that my edit summaries could have been better, but I'm not aware that "bad edit summary" is a reason to revert an edit (and it's not as if edits with more precise edit summaries weren't rolled back). I would be surprised if you could point to just three categories I removed that were unambiguously supported by sources and did not run afoul of WP:CAT/EGRS. That you rolled back unrelated good edits in the process is just the icing on the cake. I even made sure to make that two edits, not one; you could have undone just one while keeping the other intact. Huon (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to leave this one alone for now, but it dilutes the point of the articles if they're all about terms for different things. In most cases we should write about the things themselves, not the "terms" that "refer to" the things. We say Albert van Ouwater was an artist, not that Albert van Ouwater is the name of an artist. Anyway, happy editing in the new year. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a kickass piece! Not really a dagger, but more proof that the "Art Knife" is not a modern invention. Thanks for posting that.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Christ Carrying the Cross (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Dominican and Typology

Andachtsbilder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dominican

Dagger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mughal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's to a 2012 full of joy and satisfaction for you. --Wetman (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and to you of course, and thanks for Wentworth Woodhouse. If you ever get a chance to see the Dan Cruickshank tv prog mentioned at the bottom, it is well above the average of its sort, & these days about the only way to see inside. Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention is requested here: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Reshoot_of_Yogo_sapphires. PumpkinSky talk 23:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have anything useful at all. -PKM (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit the Muhammad images case pages for the next two days. Some of your edits, such as this one, have not been helpful, even considering the low standards for the discussion. NW (Talk) 17:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure of the status of this "request"! Fortunately I have just completed my evidence - probably. Does your "request" cover my evidence section? An interesting approach to procedure if so, with the deadline falling within that period. As I recognised in my next post, that one was based on a misreading of AC's post, but it is a feature of this whole affair that basic factual errors become internal memes that are restated in the many different pages this dispute has spread to, and it is highly helpful to point this out. AC is especially prone to this as he comes and goes from the discussion at intervals. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a request, but an instruction, as provided for by the Arbitration Committee's practices (which are enforced by the clerks) on excluding disputants temporarily or permanently from case pages. If you edit any of the case pages within the next 48 hours, your account will be blocked. AGK [•] 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I am not allowed to adjust my evidence? Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you may not. Although your problematic edits were in the discussion sections of the case pages (especially the workshop), temporary case bans are from all case pages. If you edit Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images or its sub-pages, talk pages, or sub-talk pages, you will have violated the 48 hour case ban. I trust this clarifies the situation, AGK [•] 17:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Memo:

• AChole being "bullied"
• sensible discussion, Nov 11
• [March 2011 debate]
• Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive_22#Addressing_editors_who_have_significant_concerns_about_the_use_of_images_of_Muhammad_on_this_article Ahole bullied again

Thanks for coming in and filling out the content of that article! This is a problem with quid pro quo reviews - I don't know the field. The hold-up now is that the specific sentence needs to be referenced, and it appears to be in the book I can't see on GoogleBooks, so I'm dropping you a line to say that I'm asking at the DYK review for a page ref. at the end of that sentence. And of course if I've messed up in my wording of ALT3, please feel free to correct it. Thanks again, and I think you should get a co-credit, I just don't know how to do that. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Christ Carrying the Cross. There are some small concerns about it. If you could check them out, that would be awesome. :) --LauraHale (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, replied there. Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G'day John!

I was just looking at the Nativity in art, (on the 6th January, too late to be useful of course) and thinking that there ought to be a separate page for the Magi. I then found it, but it is called Adoration of the Magi and probably ought to be moved to a page name that is similar to the other. it also needs some work. The gallery has umpteen pics by Rubens while other important pictures are missing. Can I suggest that the word "Adoration" ought to be left out as it is just one aspect of the Magi story. An article on the Magi in art ought to include the journey etc.

Important works include the window in Canterbury Cathedral which shows the whole narrative (I s'pose it's one of the earliest relatively intact representations in England) , the Benozzo Gozzoli from the Medici Chapel (essential), the Stephan Lochner from Cologne Cathedral (also essential as that is where they are allegedly buried), the Giorgione of the Three Philosophers. One of my personal favourites is the magnificent Tissot of them lurching along on their camels in saffron robes.

What do you think? Is this the project for next Christmas?

Meanwhile, my Leonardo blog [14] has been visited by 1600 people, of whom perhaps 50 have read the greater part of it. I do wish that people would leave comments, even if they hate it.

Amandajm (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's do it for next Christmas. Dream of the Magi has been on my to-do list for years, though their journey doesn't really get going as a separate subject until the Renaissance. Galleries always tend to accumulate too many 17th works I find. The Shrine of the Three Kings is an important work, & see Chasse (casket). I've read a fair bit of the site - I'd read the lot if I could get a ticket to the bloody exhibition! Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

British Museum Department of Asia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Amaravati

English Baroque (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Whig

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stipple engraving, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that stipple engraving was used in the 18th century to make accurately sanguine reproductions of red chalk drawings by artists such as Watteau? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stipple engraving.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knew everyone, joined everything, as far as I can see. The library at Capheaton Hall is enthused over by biographers of Swinburne the poet (grandson); I'm not finding any details. The RA external link explains why he knew plenty of artists and I've seen mentioned Turner, Cotman, Varley, Martin Archer Shee, David Wilkie, Thomas Lawrence, list goes on. This paper abstract suggests there is plenty more about collecting (Henry George Ward, a son-in-law, has an engraving after one of the daughters). I wondered if you had anything specific to add on his patronage. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, but I'll keep an eye out. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, I was wondering if there's anything else you'd like me to address at the FAC? Or if not, would you be willing to change your "Comments" to "Support"? --Elonka 17:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've only read about half the article that would be inappropriate. I hope to return to it. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the mis-post to your userpage! I wasn't paying attention.  :/ --Elonka 18:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I backed out your edit adding the "Saint" to the honorifics in Thomas More. My understanding is that the honorifics should be the ones the historic person possessed in life - which might have been used by some page announcing an arrival or in a document addressing the person. I've opened a discussion section on this in Talk:Thomas More to get a more official reading on this. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Y u no adnim yet? Me thinx u probly beter kwalifid den me. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, I've long been on the list of refuseniks, wherever that is. Johnbod (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I understand. I would like your opinion about a possible Christian art subproject, and maybe some other related projects, as per the WT:X comments. I don't know if any of them would necessarily produce any more activity than we already have, but it is possible, maybe, if I could get together a list of the highly regarded reference sources which might specialize on various subtopics of "Christianity", they might be useful in helping some editors find relevant sources. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you may remember, I'm dubious, in these days of falling editor numbers, of proliferating task forces etc. There aren't too many editors doing a lot on Christian art, & we aren't hard to find. Resources are a huge field; I have a long list of books I use on my user page, but an almost totally different one could be constructed, & the bibliographies of books & college reading lists via google is probably the best way to do this. Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On translating an article from German I came across a redirect from Bozzetto to Maquette. So I established an interwiki link, only to find out that in Swedish these are two different articles. Can you help me to understand? What's the preferred term in English. What's the plural of Maquette? We are talking of a collection of Bozzetti. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say maquette or modello are more common, & as very often any difference in meaning varies between different writers. Maquettes. I'd say the Swedish ones should be merged, but that's their affair - I can't read them. Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, helped, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in my recent comment at Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#Plain language. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Christ Carrying the Cross, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in medieval typology, Isaac carrying wood up the mountain for his sacrifice is the most common parallel for Christ carrying the cross? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Christ Carrying the Cross.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work creating that article and thanks for organising the tour of the Royal Manuscripts at the BL too. My eye was caught by the statue at the entrance which came from the Bristol High Cross. There wasn't an article about that so I started one which I hope to work up for DYK too. Just letting you know what the visit has inspired. Andrew Davidson (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff - I'll add to the page, where I'm trying to keep a tally of outcomes. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pastiglia, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that some Renaissance caskets decorated with pastiglia work mixed musk perfume into the material, and were believed to have an aphrodisiac effect? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pastiglia.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John, would you mind taking a look here? -- Marek.69 ^talk 22:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Era (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hijra

Jami' al-tawarikh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Timurid

John de Mowbray, 2nd Duke of Norfolk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lancastrian

Richard Burchett (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Henry VII

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring to User:Wiqi55. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - thanks Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, not a huge deal, but you've got like 17 edits to the same thread in the last few hours on the ArbCom page. I know this happens sometimes, but could I please respectfully request a little more previewing before saving? When there are several edits from the same editor, it makes things a little harder for me to review, both via my watchlist and with WP:POPUPS. Thanks, --Elonka 19:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note you have a passing interest in the subject. I'm looking at cleaning up the above, but in fact they only get about 20 hits a day (Architecture gets 3000) so maybe the solution is to get rid of them? Coverage of architecture is pretty dire until you get to the level of modest specifics, where there are some perfectly good articles. I am starting on the Index but interested in sorting out some of the mess more generally. Maybe at least the two should merge into a roundup of good or reasonable articles. Just looking for views at the moment... ProfDEH (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that both are somewhat better than nothing, especially the Outline - the categories are very large and chaotic. The outline has got a bit infested with local heroes, as these things do. One could adopt a qualitative approach and just remove poorer articles, or leave in the current undiscriminating style. 20 hits a day is 20k over 3 years or so, but they don't really warrant too much time. Does the architecture project use this thing - very useful, & you just sign up once? I'm increasingly directing my effort to low-quality/high traffic pages - unfortunately there are lots. Best of luck! Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You probably want to respond to AGK at new section at the bottom of the proposed decision talk page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, working on it thanks. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you're aware, I've quoted you in a conversation with PBS at Talk:Kenilworth_Castle#Thomas_Chaloner. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks so much for sorting out. Seems like the section to which you redirected was a great idea. If enough English language sources are eventually found to build an article, it can be moved back out. When I get the chance I'll see what I can find under the new name you found. StarM 01:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i'm afraid the prose is instantly recognisable as that of my notorious former partner in literary crimes, Dr Colin Trodd. [15]. Paul B (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Jami' al-tawarikh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mongol language

Saint Peter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Attribute

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]