Don't misquote the policy please: "It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. Content reusers should also consider leaving notes at the talk pages of both source and destination." My edit summary note was fine (especially as the material added was also by me). Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't misquote anything. Cited the policy (didn't "quote" anything) , called it to your attention, and fixed it at the articles's talk pages. Take this in the spirit in which it was intended. 7&6=thirteen (☎)13:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you thought you need to tell me to "chill please". I was pointing out something, I didn't bold anything, I didn't issue any trouts, I didn't call anyone out. Ealdgyth - Talk13:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary of "mostly from..." was well intended, but poorly formed. Didn't use the word "copied" at all. Cf., your first note in your DYK nominatin. Not to mention that it was buried in the 193 edits you did to that page, so your "didn't look very hard" comment is misplaced. 7&6=thirteen (☎)15:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
On 21 May 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pregnancy in art, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that there was a fashion in England for pregnancy portraits(example pictured) in the decades around 1600? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pregnancy in art. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pregnancy in art), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
An interesting AFD along the same lines as the Tang Horse AFD....
Just thought you might like to put in your two pennorth on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caftan (Metropolitan Museum of Art) as it reminded me a lot of the Tang horse article, but I didn't want to ping you as given our interactions in that AFD, just pinging you might have come across as a bit passive-aggressive. But I just thought it might be something interesting and relevant to you. Mabalu (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of The Raising of Lazarus (Sebastiano del Piombo)
Hello, Johnbod – I was just looking at the latest edit to Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, and I noticed that in the caption to the image in the Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec#Paris section, there is a red link at the French title of the painting. In edit mode, I can see that it is an inter-language link to the French wiki. I assume that means there is no article on this painting in the French wiki. Do you think leaving a red link there is a good idea? – Corinne (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the blue "(fr)" took you to the ten word French article. But both the red & iw links are pretty pointless; I have removed. Johnbod (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What a fascinating building, and completely unknown to me. And a great pleasure to meet today. I've added a rather acerbic appreciation from Ian Nairn - I hope not too critical! KJP1 (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I hope everything is well. Several months ago, you provided some helpful suggestions to improve the article Astronomica that I was working on. Well, since then, I've put in a lot of work into it and am currently nominating it at FAC. I was wondering if you would be willing to look over the article as it is and maybe leave some comments on the FA nomination page? I would really appreciate it. Thanks!--Gen. Quon(Talk)15:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should not take a view as to whether an event was fortunate or not.
The ideal resolution, of course, would be to find a source describing the event as fortunate, and then quote/cite that source. bd2412T18:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the circumstances, I am fine with the wording stating that this is fortunate. I'm just saying that in an ideal world, someone would hunt down a source supporting that view. bd2412T13:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." 120.17.11.169 (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, hope you're well. With regards to the above, I've reverted twice now but they are now socking from various ip addresses. The article has been protected (on the wrong version). The half-wit behind the socking is clearly hell bent on creating some kind of edit war, but I've had a time of it just recently with regards to socks. It's pointless reporting it at SPI as nothing is ever done. CassiantoTalk14:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a reprehensible attitude. The way to resolve disputes on Wikipedia is through discussion not by "waiting him out" or edit warring. Neither of you have opted to post on Talk:Paestum with an opinion on why that particular word is warranted, but I continue to await your input. (And in case it not obvious, having a dynamic IP address is not socking. If you have any evidence that this user is socking, then I would be interested to see it at SPI.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you continue this combative WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude it will make it very difficult if we ever need to work on something together in the future, which could happen since we are both very active editors. You have, for reasons unbeknownst to me, been extremely emotional about this article since we interacted. Yes we got off on the wrong foot, mostly because you were inexcusably rude, but in the interests of maintaining a collaborative editing environment I am willing to overlook it for the future. If you are too involved with this article, maybe if you take a break from it and come back, you will find that this was all unnecessary. Seraphim System(talk)04:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have told you several times, I am waiting for your promised improvements, so I am taking a break from the article and will indeed come back. We are not both very active editors, and there is no chance of us working together in the future. You asked for an explanation about my MOS edit, and I went to mild trouble to dig out the link for you. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well despite your protestations, I see you are currently involved in the same FAC review then I am, and if you are active in Christian Art or Medieval Art or history, which you are, then most likely we will run into one another again, or that I will unwittingly try to improve an article that you created in the future (I don't make decisions about which articles to work on based on who created them, btw) ― so it would be best to move on from this and not carry it into more public areas like FAC or GA. I don't mind if you just want to avoid me, but that is not what you are doing, you are reverting edits and posting endless messages with disparaging remarks and you have called me "stupid" and "dumb" and yelled at me. I don't want this to continue escalating or to become a reoccuring problem on other articles in topic areas where I am active. Seraphim System(talk)17:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Crown of Hungary
Hello, Johnbod - I was just wondering if you agreed with this edit to Holy Crown of Hungary. I don't know if there is a significant difference between cupola-shaped and dome-shaped, or which word is better for this context. If you think "dome-shaped" is better, don't you think a hyphen should be added? – Corinne (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Virgin and Child
I just wanted to check if you saw the ping on the FAC page; I think Ceoil has finished working through your points. Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was wrong, I must have hit the diff previous or something because they were aligned incorrectly, for some reason it looked like you removed "lands in" — I still have not figured out why this happens, but I think you added "lands in" and that is correct, so I've self-reverted, thank you. I really do appreciate your edit, but I am once again noting that it is kind of creepy that you are stalking me. I don't mind the occasional encounter, but you have, within 24 hours become involved in three articles I am working on, in areas where you are not usually very active. Usually after an incident like the one on Longquan celadon editors take some time apart. The juvenile name calling in particular is really something you should take some time to think about. Now you are stalking me, and I am asking a second time that you stop. Seraphim System(talk)21:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And more important then just your participating, your comments appear to be directed towards some kind of personal issues with me. This type of editing environment is toxic and there are enough articles, even in medieval history, that you certainly do not need to stalk me to the most obscure corners of the topic (like Neville-Neville feud, and article that gets about 100 page views a month). For example on Ancient Religion in Rome, your comments were mostly directed towards some personal feelings you have about GOCE and how articles are posted there, and by association some kind of grievance you have developed with me. It's funny that you say you agree with Ealdgyth completely when your position is that the article is mostly fine, well-written and that requesting a GOCE review is "denouncing" an article in your words. I don't see that anywhere in Ealdgyth's comments. The question is whether there is consensus for source review and more significant copy editing, your answer seems to be no, Ealdgyth's answer as I understood it was yes. Whatever your issue with GOCE as a concept or its processes, please stop taking it out on me. Seraphim System(talk)21:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with you is that I have yet to see an article improving with your copyediting. No one is saying Religion in ancient Rome does not have problems (and I mentioned a couple of obvious ones), the question is whether your edits are reducing or increasing them. I am perfectly entitled to check other articles you have edited, though in fact all the ones where I have commented were on my watchlist. At Neville–Neville feud I merely corrected an obvious gross error, which you reverted before realizing I was right. You are attracting a growing amount of attention from a number of editors, and if you carry on like this that will increase. I strongly suggest you direct your editing at articles with more obvious and fundamental problems, rather than ones where a lot of reading and subject knowledge is needed before significant changes should be made. And read through what you edit to reduce the number of basic typos and grammatical errors. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, no thst is the definition of WP:HOUND following me around to correct trivial things and constant personal attacks. GOCE checks our copy edits anyway, and if you think one of my copy edits should be checked you can always ask there publicly. As it is, this is nothing more then hounding and personal attacks, and if it continues I will have to ask other editors to get involved and then they will probably just ask that we do things other then bug each other. Which is what I am asking you to do right now, stop. If my edits are as horrible as you think they are, or if what you are saying is as important as you think it is, someone other then you will bring it up anyway, and that will probably be more productive because of your personal involvement in the issue. There are a lot of uninvolved editors around. I've been in situations like this before, and then I've stepped back and said maybe I am making too big a deal out of something, if it's as important as I think it is, someone else will mention it. I don't think you really have any idea about the extent of the problems on Religion in ancient Rome, and I'm keeping my opinions about your editing to myself. I have received more then enough personal attacks from you to ask for help if it continues. Seraphim System(talk)15:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I think it's really better if these comments come from someone uninvolved, three people responded at Religion in Ancient Rome, so there was no need to chime in and bring in some dispute from another article, and make the comments personal, which they were (including calling me stupid and dumb on Longquan Celadon, an article that called stoneware porcelain in the first sentence, until I fixed it with an OUP source.) I haven't resorted to name-calling even once, and I don't think there is much to defend here. At this point I am basically just going to ignore this editor. I hope that doesn't sound unreasonable to anyone, but let me know.Seraphim System(talk)16:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But yes Neville-Neville feud was where it crossed the line, and I'm not asking for sanctions or I would be at AN/I, but I want it to stop. I really don't want to have an editor following me from article to article to continue making personal attacks because I made some mistakes on a copyedit. I'm still brand new to GOCE and I'm bound to make mistakes. That said, the article is really not of stellar quality to begin with. It's not like any mistakes I made aren't fixable, but they've been greatly exaggerated. The biggest mistake was that I didn't catch the places where the article doesn't match the sources. I'm incredibly responsible about sourcing, but unfortunately, it seems many articles have problems about this, so I will be more careful in the future. I certainly don't consider myself dumb or stupid, and I manage to be patient with new editors on subjects I'm knowledgeable about, and honestly, I'm perfectly happy to not work on Longquan Celadon for a while, if this editor will just leave me alone. I find personal attacks very disruptive in general, when I am trying to get work done. Seraphim System(talk)16:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly sensible not to ask for things you won't get. As the article explained before you removed that bit, Longquan Celadon is on the border between stoneware and porcelain, and is often called both. The old version was careful not to call it either, but explained the situation. The new reference, from a short entry by a non-specialist, contradicts his fuller account elsewhere, not to mention the 4th para of the lead. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I should have to ask for sanctions, please just stop. Ealdgyth left a long thorough comment about being careful that the sources line up with the text. When I get a feeling that something is wrong (which it usually is) I will source check from now on like I do during normal non-GOCE editing—I've found that in some of the problematic sentences we discussed on talk, the text wholesale was not supported by the citation. What I've done here is remove some language that was, in my judgment, poor language, but because I didn't check the sources I've left some of the poor language in the article. I agree that this is not ideal. That is like a surgeon cutting out half the tumor. No one wants a surgeon who removes only half the tumor, so I will be more careful from now on. My changing the meaning of something that is not even supported by the citations is really an understatement of the problem (if only that were the extent of it), for which you have not been willing to take any responsibility. It's pretty obvious to me that Longquan Celadon has a lot of problems that you are not willing to acknowledge, but I really have enough on my plate right now. (The "new reference from a non-specialist" is the Grove Encyclopedia of Decorative Arts btw, from Oxford University Press, and yes it does contradict the rest of the lede, and your "blame the source because it contradicts the article" approach is really a far more questionable editing philosophy, then the fact that I made some good faith mistakes while editing). You can stop stalking or checking my edits or whatever you are doing, really don't think an experienced editor who uses Wikipedia as a source against OUP should take it upon themselves to "check" anyone's edits. Maybe worry about yourself instead. Seraphim System(talk)17:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Fellow in Renaissance Studies - School of English, University of Leicester. Professor Campbell is a Renaissance and seventeenth-century specialist with broad interests in cultural history, art, architecture, legal history and theology. He has a keen interest in the Islamic world and is an acknowledged expert on John Milton." From his campus bio. That you think your source trumps mine shows the problem. I notice Campbell seems to share my "POV" in using Japanese terms for Chinese ceramics, and of course he lists Gompertz at the top of his bibliography! Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Calumny of Apelles (Botticelli). Lucian describes the subject: On the right of it sits Midas with very large ears, extending his hand to Slander while she is still at some distance from him. Near him, on one side, stand two women—Ignorance and Suspicion. On the other side, Slander is coming up, a woman beautiful beyond measure, but full of malignant passion and excitement, evincing as she does fury and wrath by carrying in her left hand a blazing torch and with the other dragging by the hair a young man who stretches out his hands to heaven and calls the gods to witness his innocence. She is conducted by a pale ugly man who has a piercing eye and looks as if he had wasted away in long illness; he represents Envy. There are two women in attendance to Slander, one is Fraud and the other Conspiracy. They are followed by a woman dressed in deep mourning, with black clothes all in tatters—she is Repentance. At all events, she is turning back with tears in her eyes and casting a stealthy glance, full of shame, at Truth, who is slowly approaching.
Does he call them "poor quality imitations" too? I've found your comments to be very dishonest, and what work I've seen of yours has been of poor quality, and obviously very rushed and not much care has been taken with this articles, sources have been misinterpreted, WP:LEDE has not been followed and the writing quality needs to be improved, it is unclear and does not have enough context. I'm really not especially interested in aggressive and pushy criticism from an editor whose work falls far short of our basic standards. I have not checked your other work, maybe this is an isolated incident, maybe it's a widespread problem, but I'm not going to go out of my way to check up on you. I'm sure an editor who misinterprets sources on one article has done it on other articles also. Those who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones. Seraphim System(talk)18:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lucky you. For the current official position of an organization, an official source is the best. One of the many weaknesses of our guideline is that it does not make this more clear, but it is naturally universally observed. Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've only just noticed that you changed the classification from B to C. I may have some time to work on the article over the next week or so. Which aspects do you think are most in need of expansion / improvement? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember why I did that (or that I had). It seems rather harsh, & I have changed it back. The lead could be expanded to 4 paras though, but it is comprehensive, well-written & referenced. Johnbod (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...and nice work, have run across many of your excellent art pages. Something I've noticed and worked on, and maybe this is true of your older pages, is on artworks you didn't italicize the titles and many first mentions or add the pages to the artist's templates. These are minor things compared to the presentation and writing of the full articles, and just wanted to mention them. Thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there @Johnbod:. You've been helpful with the Sutton Hoo helmet page, and I was hoping to solicit your input on a related matter. Do you have any sense of what chance 'short but essentially complete' articles, such as Guilden Morden boar, Tjele helmet fragment, or Gevninge helmet fragment have of clearing the good article hurdle? As it is the articles state pretty much all the information that is published on their topics, but they are minor topics without much information published. Thanks!--Usernameunique (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience the GA review process depends entirely on the single reviewer you get, which is why I don't like it. On quick looks, the boar should be fine, & the other increasingly more vulnerable. But give them all a try, & explain that all the lit is covered. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Johnbod, appreciate the input. I'll give them a go. In your experience, how does the featured article candidacy process compare to the good article process? Simply reading the criteria I can't really tell what the difference is supposed to be, other than the number of people reviewing the articles. Particularly with regards to 'short but essentially compete' articles like those above, it's unclear how those would be treated. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In light of this, I'd be interested in knowing what past problems (if any) you've had with the GOCE. I joined the project a number of years ago to help improve articles, and "this project has the potential to do harm as well as good" could be applied to any WikiProject. A request for a copyedit is certainly not a denunciation of an article, and is not taken as such; we just do our jobs. Miniapolis19:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are several ways that copyediting can go wrong. One is not having the sources and changing the meaning inadvertantly by changing words. Not all words are always synonyms and not consulting the sources when copyediting can result in problems. Another problem is shifting around text and divorcing it from the sources supporting it. I see that one pretty often - people move stuff but don't move the source. Some examples from the article that brought up the diff you highlighted : "with only occasional intervention from deities but a pervasive sense of divinely ordered destiny." which was changed to "with occasional intervention from deities and a pervasive sense of divinely ordered destiny." That changes an oppositional set of statements to two joined statements. Or "Romulus was credited with several religious institutions. He founded the Consualia festival, inviting the neighbouring Sabines to participate;" becomes "Romulus was credited with founding the Consualia festival, where the neighbouring Sabines were invited to participate". Where the fact that Romulus was credited with founding other things than the Consualia was lost. Or "The impressive, costly, and centralised rites to the deities of the Roman state were vastly outnumbered in everyday life by commonplace religious observances pertaining to an individual's domestic and personal deities, the patron divinities of Rome's various neighborhoods and communities, and the often idiosyncratic blends of official, unofficial, local and personal cults that characterised lawful Roman religion." which becomes "Costly and centralised religious rites were vastly outnumbered by commonplace religious observances including those pertaining to an individual's domestic deities or the patron divinities of Rome's various neighborhoods and communities. Lawful Roman religion was characterised by an idiosyncratic blend of official, unofficial, local and personal cults." This lost the fact that the centralised rites were to the state deities. Does the GOCE have a set of training exercises or instructions? Things to be careful of? Any oversight or mentoring for new members? Ealdgyth - Talk20:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Ever since this string of edits, painstakingly Americanizing an article on a steam railway built to serve a stately home in Buckinghamshire (a topic that only needs an old maid cycling through the mist to the cricket club whilst sipping a warm half of bitter to make it the most quintessentially English topic possible), by an editor who then claimed to have "improved 5000 words" in some GOCE competition despite the fact that every single one of his "improvements" was reverted, I've looked very askance at the GOCE/LOCE. It has a legitimate place in cleaning up articles by people who are knowledgeable about a topic but don't understand appropriate tone or Wikipedia's formatting standards, or by people to whom English isn't a first language and make basic errors. However, when it comes to any kind of remotely complex topic I'm not sure I've ever seen a GOCE/LOCE edit that improved the article—for every thoughtful and intelligent editor there, in my experience there are a dozen tedious edit-warriors who either think the MOS is some kind of holy writ or that their local version of English is the only legitimate one. (A bitchy-but-true comment Ritchie333 once made in a different context rings true to me as well—when you look at someone's contributions and you can't find a single one that actually improves any reader's understanding of any topic, you have to question just why they're here, and GOCE seems to have more than its fair share of people to whom that applies at present.)
TL;DR: "The GOCE has some good people, but it also has a lot of well-intentioned people who are out of their depth, particularly on complex articles which are generally the result of multiple people collaborating, and don't appreciate (or don't care) that 'corrections' can be just as disruptive as an outright vandal or POV-pusher." ‑ Iridescent20:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think to some degree problems with GOCE are similar to the problems with editors thinking they can "google-search" their way to a comprehensive article on anything other than the most obscure topic. This is a source review I did the other day on an article at FAC from a very well-meaning but quite new editor. It probably shouldn't be a GA, given the sourcing problems (we had Lulu, AuthorHouse AND PediaPress all as sources!) but its symptomatic of the "solve problems by googling" research a lot of editors do. Ealdgyth - Talk20:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input, and I agree that these are potential pitfalls. Given the painful, term-paper prose of many WP articles, however (even some GAs, and all of which detract from the 'pedia's credibility), I maintain that we do more good than harm; in any case, we do our best. Miniapolis23:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see this while I've been in the garden, eating etc. I agree with all the above. It is complex subjects with uneven coverage that are especially a problem I think. As for "denouncing", I've said at the project that editors should be encouraged (nagged) to say what they actually think is wrong with an article, rather than just "Hi, this could do with a copyedit" - which might be ok for a new article, or one with weak English, but not Christianity or Islam, two recent suggestions that I've added cautions about on the GOCE page. Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over the GOCE help documents and noticed there is no advice on how to work around sources and work WITH sources. It really at the minimum should emphasize that sources need to stay with the information they are sourcing... the lack of that statement is one reason that many people view the GOCE's "help" as less than helpful. Ealdgyth - Talk13:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am really sorry to learn of the dissatisfaction of these experienced editors with the Guild of Copy Editors. As far as I know, we cannot prevent editors from joining the project, but I assume that, if a pattern of poor editing is seen, the lead coordinator could persuade them to spend their time elsewhere. I agree that keeping citations with the right material is important; perhaps a short tutorial on this, with examples, could be drawn up. Regarding losing crucial meaning in the process of revising a sentence, I agree that this is something that needs attention. Perhaps it would help a little to draw up a tutorial with several examples to show how to avoid this. I also think that the editor who requested the copy-edit needs to carefully review all the edits made by a copy-editor to ensure that meaning was not changed, and either discuss it with the copy-editor or make a further change to correct the misinformation. If the requesting editor does not check the edits, or does not even see that the meaning was changed, perhaps s/he does not know the subject matter as well as s/he should; the problem may not lie completely with the copy-editor. I try very hard not to change meaning when I copy-edit an article, and if I'm not sure, I sometimes read the source material or leave a comment for the requester, or suggest alternatives from which s/he can choose. If Jonesey95, Miniapolis, and Tdslk think it would be useful, perhaps new participants at GOCE could be assigned to each of us for a while to mentor them, or at least review their edits and make suggestions. – Corinne (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of the disruption Quainton Road railway station I mention above, it would have been a little difficult to ask the lead coordinator to have words with the editor in question, given that the editor causing the disruption was the GOCE lead coordinator at the time. (Don't get me started on my opinion of any project that sets up its own rank structure, either; I hold WP:MILHIST in contempt for the same reason.) I meant what I said in saying that once one gets either to GA/FA level, or to complex topics where sources with differing POVs need to be sensitively integrated without distorting either meaning or balance, I have never seen a LOCE/GOCE review which didn't cause problems. I agree entirely with Ealdgyth's main point; if someone in any other context were to try to edit an article without access to the sources and just working on their own guesswork regarding what they felt the sources ought to say they'd immediately find themselves at least topic banned and probably blocked, but when it comes to GOCE we're expected to turn a blind eye. ‑ Iridescent17:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Current GOCE lead coordinator here to say, since I was pinged:) I am surprised that you have never seen a GOCE copy-edit of a complex article that has not caused problems (a double negative I might work to rephrase, BTW). That has not been my experience at all. Many of our editors, especially those who work on requests, are thanked frequently for their copy-edits. I don't work on requests often, but when I do so, I find that editors on the article's talk page are usually eager to discuss and resolve questions that arise during my editing. Take, for example, my time working on Magna Carta in 2015, during which I engaged in a fruitful talk page conversation with multiple editors. Here is a link to my copy edits of the article during that time, along with additions to the article by those involved editors. The article was nominated as a GA shortly thereafter, and it sailed through its review in 24 hours, being described by a very detail-oriented reviewer as "of extremely high quality" even before the review. As far as I can tell, the GOCE's copy-editing did not cause problems in that case; rather, it enabled the article to pass GAN smoothly by identifying and fixing prose problems before the GA review. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of what Corinne has said, although I don't have time for much mentoring. FWIW, I may be the last of the GOCE's (relatively) old guard and am surprised at the level of resentment of the wikiproject. We're dedicated amateurs, and you get what you pay for; any issues with a particular copyedit should first be raised with the individual copyeditor. IMO the drives and blitzes have gone a bit overboard, but the only thing I can control is what I do. Our collective hope of whittling down the backlog of articles tagged for copyediting may be unrealistic; for perspective, though, when I came in the backlog was about 8,000 articles and now it's over 1,500 (and rising, since it's much easier to tag than to fix). Miniapolis17:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to add that, like all editors, Wikipedia's volunteer copy-editors can and do learn more and more over time. A kind, informative comment to the copy-editor regarding problematic edits could assist in this learning curve. Some of the things I've learned over the past five years are: idioms, spelling, and word usage of other variants of English; formatting; how to keep a citation with the information if I re-word a sentence; meanings of words other than those I knew before; words to avoid; templates; how Wikipedia articles are generally organized; things I probably shouldn't change before asking the person who was writing or expanding the article; some particularities of Wikipedia's style such as WP:LQ, etc. Also, I'd like to add that when I first started reading articles on Wikipedia, I was astonished at the number of errors in each article that I read. That's what got me started copy-editing. I copy-edited articles for about two years before I even learned about the GOCE. So, I really think that most good copy-editors do make a positive difference in most articles. – Corinne (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At least two of us here know cases where several "informative comments to the copy-editor regarding problematic edits" produced no positive results at all, in fact the reverse. I'm sure many GOCE people do good work, but the fact remains that anyone can join up, and there seems to be next to no quality control (which after all was originally the mark of a guild). Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, but (a) don't you see similar issues with editors who are not copy-editors? and (b) are you suggesting that the GOCE as a project implement more quality control? If so, do you have any suggestions for how to do that? – Corinne (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re a) yes, of course, but GOCE editors typically do more in volume terms (per article), and also the style of the requests page makes them feel licenced, even if the request is purely a drive-by one. As examples Christianity and Islam (see above) were added within a short time by different editors claiming to be about to take these to GA/PR/FAC, when in fact both had only a handful of edits (to anything). There may have been a tit-for-tat aspect there. Re b) yes, I am. There are various ways of doing this, none of which are likely to be popular with the editors who need them most, and all rather time-consuming for those doing the work. Somebody has to look at what GOCE people are doing, and feedback on it. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds as though placing a {{Copy edit}} template on the article for which copy-editing is requested—with the "for", or "reason", parameter set to tell of the request being made and warn of imminent changes—could be made part of the requesting process, which currently doesn't require such an alert, which then could be discussed or contested. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that could help, certainly. One issue at present is that watchers of the article aren't aware that a GOCE request has been made. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, isn't there a template that anyone can place at the top of an article that s/he thinks needs copy-editing? If so, then perhaps the WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors could create a different template that says something to the effect that "A copy-edit has been requested for this article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests and will take place in the next few weeks", and placing this template at the top of an article could be made part of the process of requesting a copy-edit. Regarding improving copy-editing at the GOCE, perhaps new participants at GOCE could be assigned to one of the coordinators who would review the first few copy-editing efforts and, if the copy-editing shows problems, the copy-editor could be assigned a mentor. Perhaps it should be two mentors: one a GOCE coordinator (or experienced GOCE copy-editor) and the other an experienced content creator/editor. I'd be glad to help mentor new copy-editors. Jonesey95 is about to take a wiki-break, so may not be able to respond until his return. – Corinne (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion included using the standard copy edit template with appropriate wording, to avoid having to craft a new template, which shouldn't be too complex a chore, but would require someone with the technical skill, and even special permission (e.g. "template editor" rights), to accomplish. It might be that we (the GOCE) do something as simple as provide boilerplate that we ask requesters to post to the talk page, just something that alerts other article editors of a copy-edit having been requested and gives them a chance to weigh in as to the advisability of such an effort. As far as needing to increase the competency of the Guild, I think we're dealing here with articles curated by editors with a keen grasp of English and capable of writing with nuance above and beyond the usual. Some of us at the Guild might not be alive to the demands of editing such a page, partly because so much of what we encounter—mainly in the backlog, not so much on the Requests page—falls short of basic intelligibility. Copy-editing of such articles as are being discussed here can more reliably be left to the active subject editors. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Johnbod. Teniers' modelli have never been questioned before. Why do you feel they are not authentic? I am surprised by your edit here. Jane (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The image therefore should have been properly "presented", not removed. Your edit seemed to me to be destructive rather than collaborative or constructive in this context. Jane (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can't argue with that. It is an interesting subject and I feel that it is sadly very underrepresented in the literature. Jane (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really excellent work here recently. They were nearly all on my watchlist, but was especially pleased with the Danaë expansion. Its a fascinating sequence. Ceoil (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Once I started, I can't stop them now. At some point I'll do a group article on the poesie I think (but keeping all the individual ones of course). Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The posies would be a great addition. I notice the bio is also very strong, your work again, later touched up during that house of commons nonsense a few years back - those were the days when only that level of incompetence was all we had to deal with :) I have a preference for his mid to late period, post 1550, work. For me its "mostly" about the portraits. Ceoil (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just got Hale, Sheila, Titian, His Life, 2012, Harper Press, ISBN 978-0-00717582-6, all 800-odd pages, (only £6 hb inc p&p on Amazon, as some plates had come loose) so have been looking at the bio, which does the job (unlike most old masters), but is rather listy. As you can see, I've mostly been concentrating on his girl power side over the summer. I now forget what got me started on him. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot to be said for focusing on sequences of articles, when you are immersed in the sources and its all fresh in the mind. I'm also inclined towards girl power; strong female protagonists seem to dominate his most successful work, also my life, fortunately! Ceoil (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd put your talk page on my watchlist during the dogs in art discussions, and must second the motion of your good work on the Titian (and many other) pages. On the byways of art pages I keep seeing you, Another Believer, and others who really have shared their talents with the world. Thanks. And I should check out and become more familiar with your work more, Ceoil, and I see you have an image of poor Lizzie on your user page. Amazing stories and editor's expansions of the Pre-Raphaelite group. Can you both take a look at the Camille Claudel page if you get a chance, I've only learned of her a couple of months ago and her life is really in need of a major film in English. Thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod - first, thanks again for taking the time to review. It's much appreciated and your comments were very helpful. If I've addressed them all, would you be kind enough to stick a "Support" at the front. Obviously, if there's anything you're still concerned about, just let me know. Thanks again and all best wishes. KJP1 (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, I'm really sorry to turn into a shrew, but I think we could wrap Chartwell up if you were able to indicate your Support. I wouldn't nag but there are a couple of other things I'm keen to crack on with and it would be good to put this one to bed. As before, give me a shout if there are still issues of concern. KJP1 (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your revert -- there was a relatively lengthy discussion in IRC about the paragraph, and multiple editors had issues with its phrasing. This way, it is far more clear. Thank you for your ongoing work with the article. I'd be curious to read the section on this in the source, though, since it's quite an interesting topic. Keira199602:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the article, since I've absolutely no interest in edit warring over it, but I'm interested to see how you feel it's not an improvement? There's a few parts there with awkward phrasing: "had given trouble from the start", "The site is on sandy soil, draining a large area, and the preceding "Great Chapel" had had similar problems.", lintel "to" the doorway as opposed to of, etc. Using talk pages is only necessary for building consensus, otherwise WP:BB applies, and I hardly feel an editor bringing up a paragraph for second/third opinions requires posting in a talk page... Keira199615:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Un-neccessary passive voices, faux-technical language such as "erection". I see no awkwardness where you do, and you introduced a confusing tense change re the site. You shouldn't have "a relatively lengthy discussion in IRC" just with your pals, and should certainly not then cite this unseen discussion to back up your changes. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are editors who I've had absolutely no interaction with before, and one of them raised it, not me. As I said, I'm not interested in edit warring over a minor copy edit, though I would advise a careful read of WP:OWN. Your avoidance of the passive voice is very Orwellian, though![FBDB]Keira199606:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My committee? Hilarious. I've had zero interaction with any of these editors before, the one who changed again (with differences to mine, mind you) was not even present for the original discussion... I wasn't even the one who brought up the change, just the one stupid enough to try and maintain it. Keira199614:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Johnbod: I have checked all the edits by 58.69.101.221 that I could find. Also popes fr Peter through Pope Clement VII; the interesting and picturesque edits seemed to have stopped w Alexander VI. My Talk page shows the current status as far as I know at this time; (some of the listings I will move to the sandbox). I will next be looking at the edits done by 49.147.191.157, who seems to be connected. It appears this may be out of some school in the Phillipines. Cheers. Mannanan51 (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for this work! The edits certainly seem to have a Phillipine background. As for reversions, once the issue has been raised, and is recorded in the edit summaries, in the long run good sense usually wins out. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I was posting this, a block was placed on the user. I've decided not to post this on that Talk page. **My apologies. I have no preference at all regarding the images of the various pontiffs. But in light of a raft of edits from various users with similar names, urls, and modus operandi, all throwing a barrage of edits at papal infoboxes going back to September 1, (and twice noted on the wikiproject Talk page, 'though not by me) which were reverted by a number of different users and blocked by one, I suppose, at some point, I had come to view his/her/their edits as somewhat suspect. Point taken. In the future, I will abstain from reverting Kim, Job, Jobee, John, Jobee Dalog, or any of his/her/their alter egos. Mannanan51 (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There should be only one reference to the Weirda article, as the second citation is Wikipedia Italia.
please link to the exact mention of Anonima Gaddiano as an author - as I came across my references in a book and my google does NOT give me a link where it is used to reference an author.
You should never cite anything to any WP. The search above gives several clear instances where it is used as an author name - we do not call book "he"! Try pp 117-118 here. No, the header for notes is not "references" in most articles - look at FAs. And so on. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Pietà (Titian)
On 27 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pietà (Titian), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Titian intended his painting of the Pietà to hang over his grave, but it never did? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pietà (Titian). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pietà (Titian)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld15:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Questions
Hello Johnbod, I have few questions about DYK. Can lists be nominated for DYK ? Also, is it necessary that the article is expanded if the article is nominated before 7 days of creation ? Please reply at the quickest. Thanks and regards, 2.51.18.94 (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm not the best person to ask, but I think: No for lists; Normally yes, but some latitude may be given by reviewers, especially to new editors there. Hope that helps, Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Niello, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Panther (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.
Hey John, I am supporting the development of a GLAM project with an institution in the United States, and they made some suggestions for edits at Talk:Yiddish_Book_Center#RE:_citation_clarification. Do you think you could take a look at that? I know there was a window of time where you reviewed and checked on contributions by other organizations to Wikipedia -- do you think you could review those? Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Hey - done that - see the talk. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. The articles done may also count towards the ongoing challenge. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles please add them to the sub lists by continent at Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld16:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
diff bw our def of primary source and generally accepted one
Johnbod, quite some time ago I asked at PR is a govt report of Bengal famine of 1943 is a primary source. You said No, Wikipedia's def differs from common understanding. Could you explain/elaborate, please? Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk)22:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARY defines them as: "* Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources." This is not the usual definition, excluding sources that are not very close to the events, but are old, not written to modern historical standards etc. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the British govt of India issued a report in 1946 about a huge famine in 44-45, and if several of the authors were in India (some in Bengal) during that famine, would that be a primary source in Wikipedia's view? Tks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk)03:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's gonna languish untouched in PR for a month or so, then take another bitter gust of wind in the face when I move it to FAC. I won't mention your name when I make that argument re Primary. Tks again. Lingzhi ♦ (talk)11:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Anonimo Gaddiano
On 28 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Anonimo Gaddiano, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the brief biographies of Italian artists by the Anonimo Gaddiano were written before Vasari's Lives of 1550, but not published until 1892? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anonimo Gaddiano. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Anonimo Gaddiano), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Wikipedia Asian Month 2017: Invitation to Participate
Hello! Last year, you signed up to participate in Wikipedia Asian Month (WAM) 2016 on the English Wikipedia. The event was an international success, with hundreds of editors creating thousands of articles on Asian topics across dozens of different language versions of Wikipedia.
I'd like to invite you to join us for Wikipedia Asian Month 2017, which once again lasts through the month of November. The goal is for users to create new articles on Asian-related content, each at least 3,000 bytes and 300 words in length. Editors who create at least four articles will receive a Wikipedia Asian Month postcard!
Also be sure to check out the Wikipedia Asian Art Month affiliate event - creating articles on Asian art topics can get you a Metropolitan Museum of Art postcard!
If you're interested, please sign up here for the English Wikipedia. If you are interested in also working on other language editions of Wikipedia, please visit the meta page to see other participating projects. If you have any questions, please visit our talk page.
This will be the last message you receive from the English Wikipedia WAM team for being a 2016 participant. If you sign up for WAM 2017, you will continue receiving periodic updates on the 2017 event.
I have just merged back the art patronage article to its original home, as discussed on the George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham talk page back in September. The trouble is, I don't know how to dispose of the art patronage article's title page. The best I could do was blank the article and put a redirect. Could you sort it out, if you have that expertise? Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
saying its three kings infers that it only had three kings, saying three of its kings means they had more kings but only three were named Otto. That is not poor English it changes the meaning entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ODP123 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There were a number of monarchs who were not previously categorised under 'Kings of England' - e.g. Henry III of England, Edward I of England, Edward II of England, Edward IV of England - so I do not feel that there was previously a consistent policy/system that all monarchs should be so categorised. For that reason, I did not raise the issue on talk. If you wish to revert my edits (and make corresponding edits to the pages listed above, and any others which were not previously so categorised) I do not object.Alekksandr (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Johnbod, I hope you are well. I have a favour to ask. If you have time and inclination, your comments on Cragside would be very much appreciated at the peer review, here, Wikipedia:Peer review/Cragside/archive1. It's a fine example of Victorian domestic, with an equally fascinating owner. It occurs to me that you may also be able to assist with a question we have been unable to resolve regarding the price paid for Millais'sChill October. Details in the footnote and on the talkpage. If you've too much else on your plate, not a problem at all, but if it's of interest, we'd be most grateful. With best regards. KJP1 (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I commented at [[6]] on problems with his edits, but on the whole I think they are better there than not there at all. I'm working through adjusting them somewhat, without having personal knowledge of all these works. that there too. Johnbod (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your ludicrous attempts to remove all mention of the 4th Lateran Council, whose decrees are extremely well-known, will not succeed. You can read the full text here - Canons 67-70. You have raised the suitability of the template on the talk page - let's see how much support you get. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. I am trying my very hardest to avoid making this an issue of race, but it certainly must be at this point. Jewish sources which explain the motives of non-Jewish-people are simply biased. The source provided is entirely bogus. 76.169.78.241 (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources actually do not establish motive for wearing the hat. That has always been speculation, as there is no historic record to this motive. However, plenty Jewish sources have thrown more than a fair share of speculation into the wind. You cannot find a legitimate source which discusses motive for this hat. 76.169.78.241 (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and your links are only confirming what I already know. There was no specific prejudice against the Jews. It was customary for other, non-jews to wear identifying clothing also, without persecution. There is a difference between identification and discrimination. You do not understand the motives for this, nobody does. 76.169.78.241 (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My apologize, by "motives" I mean the specific intent of the King enforcing this law. Yes, some things are mentioned such as preventing sexual intercourse between different races, (more than just the jews), but we don't know if these were actually mallicious or perhaps they were normal to preserve a specific bloodline? Perhaps he has every right to do this? Who knows, you or I simply do not. This is certainly not antisemitic. The template is ridiculous and is absolutely biased. It belongs nowhere here. 76.169.78.241 (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do suppose we should reach some type of agreement. I personally believe the hat is stylish and fashionable, and would be considered elite fashion for the era. I believe this is almost certainly true. Yes, I supposed we do think it looks stupid now, but the design of the hat is actually high-fashion. Just because others, such as the Nazi's have practiced similar behavior, and may have also misconstrued history for their own purposes, does not mean we should label everything as antisemitic. And the term of "antisemitic" itself is actually ironic, in that its use is both ignorant and racist. Wouldn't you agree? 76.169.78.241 (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On 25 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gavaksha, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the gavaksha motif, common in Hindu temples, originated in replications of timber and thatch roofs? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gavaksha. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gavaksha), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
It doesn't seem that unwieldy to me. This is bit shorter but with the essential links:
... that in Hoysala architecture, the emblem of the empire, a warrior stabbing a lion, is often sculpted on the roof of the projecting sukanasa of temples (example pictured)?
You are right. I should have posted a notice under WP:CITEVAR. I apologize.
See WP:Own.
"Cite banditry" indeed.
Apparently the interest of the readers is secondary. That being said, the article was better and more useful before your revert. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎)12:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Sukanasa
On 1 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sukanasa, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in Hoysala architecture, the emblem of the empire – a warrior stabbing a lion – is often sculpted on the sukanasa of Hindu temples(example pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sukanasa. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sukanasa), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)21:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Johnbod. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
Hi Johnbod, I responded to your comment on the Dome talk page. Thanks for noticing that.
I also wanted to mention that your photo-size change does not display as well on my screen as it does on yours. I am using a 1366 x 786 display and the larger image sizes in the "General types" section cause them to become dramatically misaligned with their respective text, with the lowest image now entirely in the "Early history and simple domes" section. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many screen sizes & setting now that nothing suits everyone - actually I have a default preference set at 400px, so they are probably even larger for me. There is never any excuse for fixing as low as 130px, quaranteeing hardly anyone will be able to see the pics. Staggering some to left and right may help, or using mini-galleries for some. Or the text, much of which seems rather suspect to me (see talk there) could be expanded. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the images to mini galleries with image sizes that average 200px wide. I hope to eventually find additional images so that each type will be represented. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Johnbod, the PR for the above is now closed and the FAC opened. If you have the time and inclination, your comments on the article would be greatly appreciated. Any and all thoughts would be most helpful, but any thoughts/suggestions/sources you may have on the likely prices Armstrong paid for Chill October and Jephthah's Daughter would be particularly valuable. As you'll see from the Footnotes, the sources don't agree. Thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hindu temple architecture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cog (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk13:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I can see you developed the article Doucai once. I have created the new articles wucai and kinrande, so please feel free to expand and add it to the DYK list if you wish. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I'm afraid I'm travelling & busy, so will be unlikely to be able to meet the deadline. Nice to see them anyway, Best for the holidays, Johnbod (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now super busy with the holidays and a bit of a crisis, so haven't posted this directly to as many people as I'd intended. Please take best wishes if I didn't get to you. Johnbod (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas to all!
We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2018 will be safe, successful and rewarding...Modernist (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Nativity scenes attributed to Zanobi Strozzi
Seconded. John, hope you had a good season, and the travel wasn't too stressful; having admired you presence here for years, it was great to finally meet and chat. Ceoil (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)03:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
_Barnstar.png)
.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)
