User talk:Johnbod/33

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.

Roman sculpture

added links pointing to Pantheon and Porphyry

Doric order

added a link pointing to Ornament

Foce del Sele

added a link pointing to Etruscan

Roman funerary art

added a link pointing to Scipio

Roman portraiture

added a link pointing to Patrician

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi John,

Will B is still the main contact. Thanks, Csldigicol (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks, Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2016 (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.

Ancient Greek architecture

added links pointing to Olympia and Metope

Aeolic order

added a link pointing to Phoenician

Ancient Roman architecture

added a link pointing to Tivoli

Doric order

added a link pointing to Metope

Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin

added a link pointing to Attribute

Tuscan order

added a link pointing to Metope

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your work on this page. Would you mind editing by section instead of the entire page at once? It makes it hard to modify your revisions one by one. Thanks. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes I would! I suggest you leave the page alone until I have finished working on it. How do you want to "modify" it anyway? Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's kind of hard to know when someone is finished editing. :-) Modify in the usual sense of "edit". - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oh, really! Not take half the article and split it to a crappy list? That's downright dishonest. Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand the dishonesty accusation. I put up a note on the talk page for the Roman temple article back in October, to which no one responded. I can't force anyone to read Talk pages, but consulting them is a pretty standard part of an editor's job. That said, you've been doing some really nice work on that page and I don't see why the splitting of a list into a list page is problematic. There are lots of these lists for similar articles: Roman theaters, Roman amphitheaters, Greek temples, Roman gods, Greek gods, and so on. This is just another one of them. No offense is meant to anyone's work. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Have to say, you're doing splendid work there! Haploidavey (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2016 (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.

Ancient Roman architecture

added a link pointing to Celtic religion

Temple

added a link pointing to Church

Tuff

added a link pointing to Etruscan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2016 (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.

Desco da parto

added a link pointing to Tondo

Ionic order

added a link pointing to Tuscan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

You removed the CSD tag from Genre painting, the article is copied and pasted from this site and therefore qualified for speedy deletion. You did not provide proof that the article was not copied and pasted, so I have replaced the CSD tag. Music1201 (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

See my comments on the talk page there. Frankly you are far too inexperienced and incompetent to be doing these. I will revert you. Ask someone with more patience if after looking at my comments you still don't understand why. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

My bad, just checked and it seems that Baharestan carpet is actually the more popular name. You're welcome to change it back if you want to. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your edits on Plague (disease). Please be warned that you seem to be edit warring. Also notice that your edit summaries are misleading. If you continue this behavior, edit warring without any justification, you risk that your edit privileges will be restricted by administrators. Debresser (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please be warned yourself. Your edit summaries are downright deceptive, you are performing multiple reverts to reinsert clear breaches of policies such as WP:LEAD, and refusing to engage in discussion. Johnbod (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oh, you are the Tu quoque type of guy.

Coming from you, the statement that I refuse to engage in discussion is large. Per WP:BRD it is you who after my revert should have taken this to the talkpage, instead of engaging in an edit war. Debresser (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:Individual crosses and crucifixes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - see the nom. This useful category had been disruptively emptied, but I have now restored the contents. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2016 (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.

Giulio Romano

added links pointing to Keystone and Rustication

Desco da parto

added a link pointing to Lying in

Groans of the Britons

added a link pointing to Germanic

Postpartum period

added a link pointing to Greek

Villa Lante al Gianicolo

added a link pointing to Neoclassical

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Very nice improvements to Rustication. However, I was amused to see the view from my bedroom window is now included as an example; it's amazing that one never spots what's under one's nose. I now realise that I am superbly positioned to write a page on the wonders of Early 20th century Imperialistic architecture - is that an architectural term do you think? Giano (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - now you've got me guessing - treehouse at Castle Howard? Very nice. Scotland Yard is Stripped Classicism I think. Of course I recognised your style in the article at once, and have been slightly worried your redoubtable aunt's carriage might appear crunching down the drive.... I'm, most untypically, on a classical architecture jag at the moment, having finally started to read right through Summerson, John, The Classical Language of Architecture, 1980 edition, Thames and Hudson World of Art series, ISBN 0500201773. I don't think I've actually done this since 1989 when I bought it, just dipping and looking at the pics and captions. It certainly does sharpen ones appreciation of grand city centres (if you never had, it's really good - 60 pages of excellent text, and tons of very well-captioned pics. All our articles such as Doric order, gutta etc were adequate, and hardly touched in 10 years. But all could do with expansion - "Rustication" of course much better than the rest. Roman temple was a shocker, and Ancient Roman architecture had nothing on, well, architecture, having been occupied by engineers. They all get huge views, and nobody turns a hair when you refurbish them, unlike so many other areas, where the slightest change brings hordes of soldier ants out. I'm taking a firm line with rustication: Grove is, imo, far too ready, like Commons, to call any rough medieval masonry "rusticated". Bah! And those diamonds are delightful under Mediterranean sunlight but not really it either. I'm not finished, and trying to get my head round the Pitti Palace now, having never actually seen it. Hope you're well! All the best, Johnbod (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ah well, I once had a student job showing people around the Pitti Palace and Uffizi - so i do know what I'm talking about there, although sullen American adolescent who only wanted to see the "nood in the clam shell" is permanently engraved on my mind - his parents had paid for him to have a private tour - I fear they wasted their money.I always meant to return to Rustication, I think I wrote it quickly to stop a wrong link to something provincial. I'm currently in a rented flat just off Whitehall while the new house is being renovated - I hadn't realsised before what a nice quite, but convenient part of London it is - can stroll through Embankment Garden and a two minute walk to St James Park - shame I'm not more of an energetic person. I have a feeling diamond patterned rustication has a name all of it's own - is t "lozenge rustication"? Giano (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Grove used "diamond", also Curl's dictionary. Summerson illustrates a page from Serlio showing many different types, including one coming to a point and another coming to a ridge, which I imagine would be the lozenge, which Prof. Google shows certainly exists. Actually now I see that the Uni of Catania pic you added includes both types in the square and wide blocks. More to add. I think I know those flats - a rather strong and intriguing atmosphere, which in a film would not bode well. But a great place to live I'm sure. I hope you get to the NG at least - when I worked in Soho I found 20 minute visits very satisfying & easy to fit in. Also it works as a short cut from Trafalgar Sq to Soho. It's my laziness that never got me as far out of downtown Florence to the Pitti, which is rather pathetic. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, very atmospheric, rather like living in a 1930s adaptation of an 1890s play. Apparently, I'm not the only famous writer to have lived here, George Bernard Shaw has too (said with true modesty). At night, it's quite creepy, I keep expecting to meet Miss Marple in the hallways announcing that a "murder has been arranged." I've been to the NG so many times, that I'm on first name terms with the janitors, I'll probably be invited to their Christmas party. The only problem is the price of a pint in my local. The University of Catania image was what I think you English call a googly to bowl and ask someone to describe - perhaps rhombus or demi-octahedron? Giano (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The only cheap pub round there is the Wetherspoons near the top of Whitehall, which I rather like when not too crowded. It's a huge and grandiose Edwardian banking hall that must have the highest pub ceiling in England, only rivalled by the one opposite Leadenhall Market. Do your NG pals still all come from Mauritius? Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Funnily enough, I have been in that Wetherspooms; it's confusingly called the Moon of the Mall - I suppose it's close to Admiralty Arch, but even so it's not in the Mall. I looked closely at it today, by the ground floor architecture, you can see it was obviously a bank - I'd never noticed that before until you said about it being a banking hall. At the other end of Whitehall is St Stephen's Tavern, that really is very good and so is the food and it's not too touristy. Giano (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please view the mobile version of Royal Collection and have a think about whether stuffing the lead with images you personally like (and keeping the lists) is such a good idea. About 50% of users accessing the article do so on a mobile or tablet. [1] Firebrace (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't look too bad at all, and there are various mobile views - it would look different on an actual mobile. I'm not inclined to take illustration tips from someone who left the article for some months with 4 images, two of them portraits of Charles I by Van Dyck! I follow the normal design conventions for WP, unlike you. I realize these don't always work for mobile, but that is a global problem we need to work out conventions for eventually. Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Be the change you want to see on Wikipedia. And "some months"? No, seven days... Firebrace (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I want to include some maps in some of the articles. I want a consensus for that. Please make your comment on the talk pages of Achaemenid empire and Parthian empire.Arman ad60 (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Everyone wants to include "some maps" - the question is which, which I'm not an expert on. I'll take a look. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Johnbod, the nominator of this DYK has responded to your review. Please stop by when you can to see whether sufficient progress has been made. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

On 8 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Roman temple, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Roman temples (example pictured) developed out of Greek and Etruscan forms? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Roman temple. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rustication (architecture), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Gibb. 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) 12:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Calf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lamb. 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) 10:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

For this edit:

 

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Debresser (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok, this goes to ANI. 18:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Be my guest. Just be aware that per WP:BOOMERANG, you are doing my work for me. :) Debresser (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Debresser, please don't template the regulars. Have you learnt nothing in your time here? Cassianto^Talk 23:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

It seems not! Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I usually don't, but when an editor behaves in a way that doesn't befit his experience, the reaction is likely to come in the form of a template. Debresser (talk) 06:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Four years ago ...

casing of art
... you were recipient no. 97 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

Sorry, another template ;) - In prose: I love your Roman temple! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks Gerda! Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The year you were UK Wikipedian of the year? Victuallers (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think so, yes. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You recently moved "Squab as food" to "Squab (food)". Please would you consider doing the same for Octopus as food. DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

And squid as food, etc? Actually my edit summary point is looking dubious in this area. Really Squab (food) should just be Squab, and that moved to a disam title. The others are perhaps more questionable. Move proposals are needed and I'm not really that interested in food articles. Sorry Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Someone appears to have turned off the Austen Talk page from the automatic archive bot and I was wondering if you could take a look to see if it should be turned back on. It seems like nearly the first twenty items there are ready to be archived. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking care of the archive at Jane Austen. There appears now to be an IP trying to enter the discussion without signing in and wanting to revise Tim Riley's comments and assessment on the Talk page there. I'm not sure what the general policy is for this non sign-in, though if your ok with it then I guess its there. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

In case you are not following the talk page there: thanks for pointing that out. After appropriate self-flagellation for stupidity, I have replaced the image of a flute-boy with one of a flute-girl, and changed the caption slightly to fit the new picture. It'd be great if you could have a quick look and check that it's okay; I'm really better on the literary evidence rather than the material culture side of things (as is now apparent to anyone who checks the page history!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Johnbod, I don't understand your argument at High culture. The material you have removed is reliably referenced. In fact it's better referenced than the majority of other subsections on that page. As you can read from the art game article, art games are analogous creations to art films and art music. They are clearly regarded as the set of cultural products held in the highest esteem by the video gaming culture. That meets the definition of "high culture" as found in the lede of our High culture article. So how can it be that that is not what is meant by high culture? At all? -Thibbs (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Seriously? Because only the distinct world of "video gaming culture" thinks that. No one else does. High culture needs general acceptance of some sort. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Couldn't the same argument be used to discredit art music and art film? I'm just struggling to see the distinction between those two genres of high art and art games. It seems kind of like a matter of personal preference. -Thibbs (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

No, classical music and films are reviewed in the mainstream press & other media; "art games" only in very specialized publications, like hundreds of other genres with their own following, which also aren't in the article. Johnbod (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think we're mixing terminology here. Classical music, along with art music, are genres of music broadly. Classical film and art film are both genres of film broadly. In the modern day, video games are reviewed alongside film and music by the mainstream press and in other media, but that has little bearing on their status as high art. Art games, which are a genre of video games broadly, have been discussed in academic literature, have been analyzed by art scholars in universities, and have appeared in museums and other institutions of high culture. Evidence of this can be easily discovered by reading through the articles on art game and Video games as an art form. It's not quite the same thing as calling professional wrestling, monster-truck racing, or beer pong to be high culture. I'll see if I can find some specific references for you tonight. -Thibbs (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Don't bother. No doubt there has been a lttle of all this, but not nearly enough. As the main author of art game you obviously have an interest which may have clouded your objectivity. Johnbod (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I notice that you are the main author of high culture. Could it be that your interest in that topic has clouded your objectivity? Your apparent disinterest in considering reliable sources that support the contrary argument certainly suggests as much. But that wouldn't be assuming good faith, would it? Look, I'm not interested in getting into an argument with you over this but I would like to understand how you are drawing the line that you are drawing. From the arguments you are making I get the sense that you are holding on to a number incorrect assumptions about the role that this multi-billion-dollar industry plays in modern culture. Are there any RS-sourced definitions of "high culture" or "high art" that exclude video games as an artistic medium? Can you help me understand your position without personalizing the discussion? -Thibbs (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm not trying to put my topic where it doesn't belong. Have you actually read the article? The longer and closely related Western canon might help too. And art game doesn't belong in there either. These are by their nature somewhat conservative concepts, and open to criticism on that and other grounds, but one has to take them as they actually are. Johnbod (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'm guessing that neither of us are trying to put any topic where it doesn't belong. So I take it your objection is based on the relative youth of the art game genre compared to that of, say, art films. Is that it? Is there a specific cut-off date you have in mind for when a genre or medium becomes ineligible to be described as "high art", or would you say that it's more of a general gut feeling from the artistic community? I'll take a look through Western canon tonight to see if I can locate anything more specific about why art games are not valid considerations as high art despite their placement in museums and art galleries today. -Thibbs (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Johnbod, I have read through Western canon now and I agree with your analysis that art games don't really fit there. Obviously high culture is not synonymous with the Western canon, though, and I'm not convinced that a brief mention of the art game doesn't fit within the "high culture" article as it currently stands. Art games occupy the exact same relationship to video games as art films do to motion pictures and as art music does to music. If you're comfortable with the inclusion of art film and art music then I have been assuming that it's because both of these genres of art represent the cultural artifacts of an upper class such as an aristocracy or an intelligentsia standing in contrast with the low culture or popular culture of, variously, the less well-educated, barbarians, Philistines, or the masses. What I'm unclear about is why you think that this definition (which of course I've taken more or less verbatim from the "high culture" article) is somehow limited by conservative conceivers to the art of only certain forms of media. Is this basically an "I know it when I see it" definition that only the cognoscenti know how to apply properly? -Thibbs (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well I've been reading too - Video games as an art form, which contains good stuff (all completely new to me) on the ongoing controversy, which is relevant but not mentioned in the para you added. This article is mainly about the concept itself, and its history, and should not degenerate into the sort of long list of genres and mediums that you get at The arts, which doesn't seem helpful to the reader to me, least of if repeated here. At the moment the article has only two short sections on specific media, on music and film. Nothing at all on literature, theatre, visual art etc. One could argue that all major media should be covered, or none. But I have been ok with keeping these two in the regular prunings this article certainly requires, and the sections are relevant in that they cover approaches to distinguish within those media. One might easily add a similar section on literature or theatre, perhaps less easily on visual art. But I can't see that bringing art games in as the third section is anything other than WP:UNDUE, especially as (unlike these other media) the whole question of whether games can be art evidently remains contested even within the gaming community. Recency has something to do with it, but also the restriction of interest in the general culture. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the explanation, Johnbod. I will defer to your expertise in this area. -Thibbs (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! You might develop the section at Classificatory disputes about art a bit, and no doubt there are other articles where mentions could be made. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kitab salat al-sawai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colophon. 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) 10:30, 28 April 2016 (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.

Kablammo (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

On 5 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gibbs surround, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Gibbs surround (pictured) is named after the architect James Gibbs, though he did not invent this style of framing a door or window? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gibbs surround. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gibbs surround), 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.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

On 5 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Etruscan architecture, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the orientation of new Etruscan temples may have been decided by augurs observing the flight of birds? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Etruscan architecture. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Etruscan architecture), 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.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

On 7 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tarquin and Lucretia (Titian), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Titian's painting of Tarquin and Lucretia (illustrated) took over three years to complete? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tarquin and Lucretia (Titian). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tarquin and Lucretia (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.

— Maile (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Coates until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yoninah (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I noticed your edit to the Talbot Shrewsbury Book. Since I have been downloading high resolution images from the BnF for Henry VI related articles (which is non-trivial but can be done), I wondered where the above image came from. The original link was dead and I noticed that there was another higher quality image available at the BnF linked to a special exhibition. This could actually be speedily downloaded using dezoomify unlike the larger of the 2 images for Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset. Both versions seem to be the same manuscript but the first has a Nice stamp while the second has a Burgundy stamp. The new one is not blurred at the top and generally sharper even if the scale is slightly smaller. I hope you like the newer version. Mathsci (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Actually I have had fun today finding the entire scanned manuscript in the digital library of the Royal Library of Belgium. I downloaded an even better version on Commons. That was not particularly straightforward, but the result is an improvement I think. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

It also gives a slightly better version of the detail of the miniature that you use in presentation miniature, which I've now uploaded. It's a different scan, because the vellum has a gentle curve on the left; but its more focused, with a little more contrast and better colours, particularly the gold and the yellows & oranges in the boy's clothing. Mathsci (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grandes Chroniques de France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clovis. 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) 10:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I realize that Boccaccio is considered a "Renaissance" writer. The problem is one of categorization. I put his books under Category:14th-century Latin books, which is under the Category:Renaissance Latin literature. To put the works under both categories would be redundant.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok, fair enough. I didn't notice that. Ideally, one might split the "Works by B" cat into the two languages. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Do you think I'm overreacting at Talk:Jennie V. Cannon#POV? I've no doubt that this editor is acting in good faith, but this is one of the most cockeyed interpretations of NPOV I've ever seen (which as best I can make out, seems to boil down to "we can't mention that an artist was considered significant"). Note that the editor in question is not only tag-bombing it, but also claims that this constitutes "spam" and is trying to get it speedy-deleted as such. ‑ Iridescent 16:34, 18 May 2016 (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.

Ancient Greek art

added a link pointing to Olympia

Orientalizing period

added a link pointing to Moulding

Vincent of Beauvais

added a link pointing to Saint Louis

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your contributions also are goods, but I clarify that im not a machine, i just for now a fan of wikipedia that when i finnish the task of demolished buildings, I'll left of touch wikipedia to do a lot of outside plans with the same strenght.--Vvven (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Hello! Your submission of Presentation miniature at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I know that im bit invisivible for you, but anything that we say change anything in wethever thing. i just want to say that you internet user, are making a great work, thanks for help in the articles that i work, and i really hope that you have great life, in the real life that is that really matters for a thousand miles, if you dont have the life thaat you deserve, i would give a key that change everything, i not joking nor crazy, just the true. cheers--Vvven (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for that! All the best, Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello Johnbod , please explain on what basis you feel entitled to remove our contribution. Was this content violating any Wikipedia rules?. Thank you. Neuralia (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

See WP:UNDUE. Check where Tim Parker goes to! Neither of the other bios actually mention such works. Pah! Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

You are right, sorry.!

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.

Ancient Greek art

added links pointing to Pausanias and Greek helmet

Archaic Greece

added a link pointing to Iambus

Petrus Alphonsi

added a link pointing to Godfather

Urn

added a link pointing to Neoclassical

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello Johnbod, long time no chat. I hope I may ask for your opinion, but if you are busy then of course that's OK.

I am starting to do something that may take time & trouble, but wondering if it's even a good idea in the first place. So in the Aftermath section of the large project in my sandbox, there is currently a table that may require considerable text to explain. I would have to explain each occupational category, explain (probably in a long footnote?) how the "magic numbers" in the table fields were originally obtained, and explain that the actual index value in each field can be disregarded (since it is their relative size that is meaningful). All of this gets at the impact of the crisis on various occupational groups. I have considered just deleting the table and writing a paragraph that describes its intuitive meaning, but I think it would be a struggle to come up with adjectives to describe the relative size of the impact felt: how do you verbally summarize 223 versus 89 versus 79 and so on down to 22 in the "destitution" column? etc. I have also considered adding back in the 4 or so columns that I deleted to condense the table (the ones that show how the "magic numbers" were derived). They are very interesting and illuminating (e.g., percentage of agricultural laborers in total population divided by percentage of same group who slid into destitution, etc.), but then we'd have a very large and potentially intimidating table.... If you are unsure how to approach this problem, do you know someone who might have a good insight? many thanks!   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. Important article! I would certainly keep the table, and also have a para or more of prose explanation. Tables with some columns of numbers and others in prose are generally less intimidating that all-number tables, I feel, so the explanations of each occupational category might be a column - or a bullet point list above or below. Can you do a hide/show for the other columns you deleted (which I can't find in the history)? I only ever do very simple tables, & I'm no expert. You should try User:Bondegezou - health-related statistics are his field - or User:Iridescent. Hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 11:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I would have thought a prose description accompanying the table would be the best approach. Too much mathematical handling is necessarily going to involve choices that get one into OR. Bondegezou (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'd actually go further, and put the table and explanatory text into a giant footnote (possibly in its own section to differentiate it from the normal footnotes) to create a de facto appendix. Being out of the flow of the body text would mean you can go into as much explanatory detail as you like without disrupting the flow for those readers who just want the story, not the statistics. I've pulled a similar trick in the past (here, for instance) to handle things which have to be explained to give the full story, but in which most readers aren't going to be interested. Regarding table formatting, User:RexxS is the guy you want here, although as a brief note in passing tables are one of the very few things on Wikipedia which are actually easier to create and edit in Visual Editor than Wikitext. ‑ Iridescent 13:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I can see that Iridescent's suggestion to move the table into an appendix would work - almost like internal "summary style" so those who wanted greater detail could skip to a longer explanantion. In any case, although you've worked hard on trying to get the table to fit into the narrowest space, you can't predict every browser it will appear on, so my advice is always to let the browser sort out column widths, text size, etc. and just concentrate on keeping the table simple and functional. This is how I'd advise you to mark up the table:

Apologies, John, for stealing space on your talk page. I've added the row headers and row/column scopes as recommended in MOS:DTT for the benefit of screen readers. And there's the rub, Iridescent: Visual Editor completely fails to create any markup that assists the visually impaired. When it learns how to prompt the editor for a caption and marks up row/column scopes/headers to meet our accessibility guidelines, then it will get my endorsement. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks Johnbod, Bondegezou, Iridescent & RexxS! I like Iridescent's idea of putting a textual explanations sans tables in the article's body text, then unpacking the full tables in a separate section at the bottom of the page... but I can't seem to successfully place the table inside a footnote... SO do you think would it be acceptable to most reviewers etc. if I just created an actual article section titled "Tables" or similar (that would probably show up in the TOC in the lede), and put some sort of internal link in the "Aftermath" section? I could also do this same thing with the two tables currently in the "Subinfeudation and land tenureship" section, BTW... or is there a preferred method of banishing tables to the bottom?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hehe, this is wikipedia - you can do whatever you think is best! If others don't like it, they can try to improve it themselves. I'd say make a section above the first standard footer section ("See also") and call it "Tables" or "Appendix 1" or whatever - you know how to make a link to that section from the main text, I'm sure. Let us know how it turns out. --RexxS (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Another even more extreme solution, if you want the table accessible to readers but don't want to bloat an already-long article with an enormous table, is to literally make the table into a separate article, with enough explanatory text so as not to confuse the hell out of readers who stumble across it via Special:Random. I used this on Postman's Park, where creating a separate List of tablets on the Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice meant I could go into detail without overwhelming the printer of anyone who wanted to print out the main park article. There are plenty of precedents on musician, author, actor etc articles, where "List of works by..." are traditionally shunted off onto a subpage when they get unwieldy. ‑ Iridescent 09:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's another viable option. Rather than jump onto that path from the outset, I think I'll try the "Tables" section in the article first. Then when the article is all done, if PR or FAC reviewers say it's too darn big, I might use that as my fallback option. Thanks!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

On 29 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Presentation miniature, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the earliest painted portrait of a reigning English king is a presentation miniature showing Æthelstan c. 934 (illustrated)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Presentation miniature. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Presentation miniature), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ancient Greek art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mary Beard. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed that you added Eleanor cross into Category:Individual crosses and crucifixes. As it's in Stone crosses, doesn't that suffice? – Fayenatic London 10:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, just realized "stone" are in "individual", after I readded them all. Maybe simpler just to take the cat out. All high crosses are stone, so.... Johnbod (talk) 10:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I addressed that issue in my close. IMHO the cat should stay in. – Fayenatic London 10:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ah... so High crosses should go into Stone crosses as a sub-cat, but as several pages in High crosses are not individual crosses, you carry on, and I'll pick a different example for my close. – Fayenatic London 10:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I put Wayside crosses in, and Monumental crosses which contains High crosses by country, so did not need Stone crosses after all.

OK, I think that's done, using selected sub-cats from "by form" and "by function"; only a few individual pages needed to be added directly. Let me know if you think it's unsatisfactory in any way (apart from the fact that some sub-cats contain one generic article). – Fayenatic London 11:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why not Carminow Cross? – Fayenatic London 15:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

In via "Celtic". Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Johnbod, to my eye it looks like this article, English Romantic sonnets, is an example of "self-publishing" [2]. If this is so, what should be done? Rwood128 (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

On further consideration, though it looks like the article is based on one book, written by the creator of the article, it does give other sources. Even though these are probably in the book, I don't know if any WP rules are really being broken. Rwood128 (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I took a look, & it didn't seem that the current form made much in the way of OR-type claims. It has been considerably improved, partly by reducing it, since the first author - see the history. By our low standards for Eng Lit topics, it seemed acceptable on a quick look. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Was great to meet you yesterday at the London meetup - thanks for the warm welcome! Zeromonk (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

... I thanked you already, but the Pancreatic article is astounding. I wish it had been there about 17 years ago so that I could have read it before my father-in-law passed away. Now that it part of the 'sum of all knowledge', fewer folks will be confused about the disease and able to ask their oncologist intelligent and informed questions. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree, stunning and helpful article! I was on my to give Precious to the new author ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

A case has been filed concerning you and the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. You are being notified since you are an editor of this article. Please give a summary of dispute here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain Gordon410 (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2016 (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.

Anglo-Saxon art

added a link pointing to Beatus

Ramsey Psalter

added a link pointing to Beatus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

On 27 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article High heel policy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1770, Parliament considered an act concerning high heels (pictured) and now, in 2016, it is making a fresh inquiry? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/High heel policy. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, High heel policy), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hey Johnbod - is it possible to ask you to add an English translation for the Latin blockquote in Spearhafoc? Its general meaning is readily apparent, but we should have a precise English translation. Figured I'd ask you since you added the quotation itself. God b wy -- Y not? 19:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

My Latin isn't up to it I'm afraid - ask at the classics project? Or can anyone translate a couple of sentences? Johnbod (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Probably not a good idea to ask the classics project - medieval Latin differs a bit from classical Latin. I THINK there is a translation of the Chronicon Abingdon out there... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok. I'm not too bothered; almost all the content of the quote is informally translated in the article. Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ancient Greek art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ornament. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have made some edits to the Francis Crick Institute talk page suggesting edits to the Francis Crick Institute article page. Would you be able to enact them? Alternatively, is it appropriate for me to go ahead and edit the article page directly, or is that not allowed?

Thanks!

TheFrancisCrick (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Do it, but say on the talk page you are connected. Your username is rather problemmatic btw, see Wikipedia:Username_policy#Usernames_implying_shared_use; a change mght be a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Johnbod, I went ahead, but ran into some problems, flagged up by another user. See my user talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:George_at_the_Francis_Crick_Institute

How should I proceed?

George at the Francis Crick Institute (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've restored some of it as quotation, but you need to reword the other bit avoiding WP:COPYVIO. Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2016 (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.

Derveni Krater

added a link pointing to Archaic period

Dionysus

added a link pointing to Pan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I noticed you created the page on the Stockholm Codex Aureus. I am currently working on a research project at the University of Cambridge regarding the Vetus Latina gospels, and the project lead has taken a particular interest to the Codex Aureus Holmiensis. Could you possibly drop me an email to chat further about this codex?

Best,

S TubaraoPreto (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I only added to the page, on the illumination, and I'm no expert. You can email me using the link in the menu on the left of the page. Johnbod (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

A case has been filed concerning you and the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. This case is being re-filed. You are being notified since you are an editor of this article. Please give a summary of dispute here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain Gordon410 (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hey hope you are doing well. There is a page you have contributed to that is being considered for deletion: List of Christian Nobel laureates. You are welcome to put in any input on the issues by going to the page and clicking on the link for that article. Jobas (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2016 (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.

Fish plate

added links pointing to Laurel and Greek key

Pottery of ancient Greece

added a link pointing to Neoclassical

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for all your work organizing and judging, and to WMUK for the prizes! Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Will it be from Marks and Spencer, do you know? Cassianto^Talk 18:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Amazon - even more classical! Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Big congratulations! A mighty fine article too!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Congrats! I thought the article looked great when I peeked at it. Spiffy award you got! Victoria (tk) 20:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! It's certainly a lot better than before, which is the main thing. Johnbod (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations! Though having seeing the work you do on these articles, it doesn't come as a great surprise that you got the award. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I just want you to know that I am willing to accept your apology for this edit summary calling me an "idiot". Debresser (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

After looking over WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, I still think that for you to apologize would be the correct course of action. Especially since you have since made an edit that proves you now understand your opinion was factually incorrect. And allow me to apologize for having answered you in the same vein.[3] Debresser (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

On 24 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Beatus vir, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Beatus vir ("Blessed is the man") (B pictured) begins the Latin text of two psalms, one notable in art and the other in music? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Beatus vir. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Beatus vir), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Precious again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Beatus vir, double precious is today's Waddesdon Bequest, "a spectacular collection of Renaissance treasures bequeathed to the British Museum by a Rothschild"! - I collect Reger pieces, one tomorrow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, there's a lot of similar stuff that needs doing. As you probably noticed I changed the redirect with that title to a proper article as it had enough content, and as part of my creating Draft:Navbox prehistoric caves which might interest you. Doug Weller talk 15:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Johnbod. Thanks for the note on what I said on Iridescent's talk page. Can I ask you for advice on something else by email? I am not sure if I have your current email address at the moment, shall I contact you through the Wikipedia emailer system? Carcharoth (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Of course, Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Briefly stopping off to ask for advice on an article I wrote today: Philip Hepworth. I am going to ask others for advice as well, but wanted to see what you think. There are two mysteries: (i) the birth year and (ii) some sources saying he worked on Trowbridge Town Hall. The de-wiki article claims this, but I think it is wrong and sources are confusing this with the County Town Hall (in Trowbridge). Would you have time to look at that? Carcharoth (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Did some edits. Don't know about the mysteries, but he needs a commons cat, & more description of Trowbridge. Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I found this and something about the more recent refurbishments ([4], [5]), but not much. I did find this rather strange item. You never know what you will find out there! Carcharoth (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply