|
Contents
- 1 memo to self - arty student project pages to check through
- 2 The
- 3 Category:Convicted book-thieves has been nominated for discussion
- 4 BM image
- 5 ArbCom 2018 election voter message
- 6 Greetings
- 7 Disambiguation link notification for November 27
- 8 Facto Post – Issue 18 – 30 November 2018
- 9 Disambiguation link notification for December 8
- 10 Transfer Printing Process
- 11 Merry Christmas
- 12 Murano glass - Venetian glass
- 13 Disambiguation link notification for December 16
- 14 Merry Gothic X-mass
- 15 Happy Saturnalia
- 16 Hey
- 17 Yo Ho Ho
- 18 Holidays!
- 19 no thanks?
- 20 Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
- 21 Merry Christmas !!!
- 22 Xmas
- 23 Greetings
- 24 Nativity at Night on POTD
- 25 Happy Holidays
- 26 Austral season's greetings
- 27 DYK for Adoration of the Shepherds (Cariani)
- 28 Tis the season
- 29 Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!
- 30 Merry Christmas
- 31 And a Happy New Year
- 32 Facto Post – Issue 19 – 27 December 2018
- 33 New Rfc on List of cryptids
- 34 Persian vs Iranian
- 35 2019
- 36 Disambiguation link notification for January 8
- 37 DYK for Shepherd with a Flute
- 38 DYK for Esther before Ahasuerus
- 39 Legit content?
- 40 Disambiguation link notification for January 15
- 41 Vitreous Enamels - Gallery
- 42 January 2019
- 43 Red herrings
- 44 Disambiguation link notification for January 26
- 45 Facto Post – Issue 20 – 31 January 2019
- 46 Convicts in Australia
- 47 Reverting changes
- 48 Thank you for your comments on the gallery Signpost article.
- 49 squigglysquiggly
- 50 Disambiguation link notification for February 8
- 51 Suggestion
- 52 Talkback
- 53 User talk:Legacypac
- 54 User talk:JoseEduardoTR
- 55 DYK for The Dead King and his Three Sons
- 56 DYK for Saint Sebastian Tended by Saint Irene
- 57 Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
- 58 DYK for Master MZ
- 59 Frog Service
- 60 Philip the Shortly Described
- 61 DYK for Mair von Landshut
- 62 Facto Post – Issue 21 – 28 February 2019
- 63 DYK nomination of Magdeburg Ivories
- 64 A barnstar for you!
- 65 DYK for Magdeburg Ivories
- 66 What's your problem?
- 67 Talkback
- 68 "jeez"
- 69 Turf War (Banksy) at AfD
- 70 Template:Did you know nominations/campaign announcement
- 71 DYK for Presidential campaign announcements in the United States
- 72 DYK for Frog Service
- 73 Swedish treeline
- 74 Facto Post – Issue 22 – 28 March 2019
- 75 Meynnart Wewyck Tudor portraits
memo to self - arty student project pages to check through
- Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/California State University Sacramento/Art of the Ancient Mediterranean (Fall 2017)
- Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Amherst College/Women and Art in Early Modern Europe (Spring 2017)
- Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/College of DuPage/History of Art- Prehistory to 1300 (Fall 2017)
- Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Duke University/Art in Renaissance Italy (Fall 2017)
- Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Duke University/Art in Renaissance Italy (Spring 2017)
Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The
In the discussion that Ceoil said was over, I didn't question that Princesse was her title, nor that it even mattered. What I don't like is the English "The" attached to a title in French, - Princesse de Broglie would be fine, Portrait of the Princesse of Broglie would be fine, but I dislike The Princesse de Broglie. Just to make you understand. The discussion was declared over. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Category:Convicted book-thieves has been nominated for discussion
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20190408130530im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
Category:Convicted book-thieves, 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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
BM image
Hi John, do you have any other captures of this - would like to include in the main boxwood article, if a little less blurred. I think it might be bothersome, policy wise, if I was to use one of the images from their website. Ceoil (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, any other versions would have been worse! I'm a poor photographer with a very cheap camera, and apparently very shaky hands. I was in the room at Waddesdon Manor this came from on Friday, btw! Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Greetings
It was good and interesting to meet you last night and don't worry you haven't offended the hurricane community. :P Jason Rees (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, and thanks for coming! A very enjoyable evening, I think for most. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 27
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
- Londinium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Isotype
- Prehistoric Ireland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Periwinkle
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 18 – 30 November 2018
Disambiguation link notification for December 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aegean art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intaglio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Transfer Printing Process
In the article on Transfer Printing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_printing) you added the line "Usually several different transfer sections were needed for each piece." However, none of the two provided references (Honey 6-7 and Savage 30) make mention of this. Would you be able to add a citation for this fact? 128.84.126.23 (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- Some time, but the two photos of patterns both make this pretty clear. Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Murano glass - Venetian glass
Hello Johnbod - I have redone Murano glass, and hope to get it to Good Article. I see you were opposed to a merger of Murano glass and Venetian glass. What do you think now I that have changed Murano glass? I believe that the current Murano glass article, with changes mostly to the intro and "Today" section, should be the Venetian glass article, and Murano glass should redirect to Venetian glass. Right now, Murano glass gets over 10,000 view per month, while Venetian glass gets about 2,000. Perhaps with your assistance, a decision on the merger could be made—and have a GA for a glass article. Your thoughts? TwoScars (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Angelica and Medoro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Villa Valmarana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Gothic X-mass
![]() |
Gothic Seasons Greetings | ![]() |
Wishing you all the best for x-mass, hope it is a time of cheer, and thanks for all the guidance and help over the year. Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC) |
Happy Saturnalia
![]() |
Happy Saturnalia | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC) |
Hey
Dear Johnbod, I'm not sure you know what you're talking about regarding Vikings, Viking Age and Norse, despite your know-it-all attitude. That's alright. However, would you mind spreading some positivity, though? Take it easy. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- What is clear, because you've said so yourself, is that you don't know much at all, and can't understand the term Viking. Yet rather than actually attempt to find anything out, you waste people's time by launching a string of move requests. It would be a very positive development if you stopped doing this. Johnbod (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Replied here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Norse_history_and_culture#"Norse",_"Viking"_naming. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Yo Ho Ho
ϢereSpielChequers 13:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Holidays!
![]() |
May a serene and snowy Christmas and New Years' await you. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC) |
no thanks?
Could you please explain why you removed the infobox from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoration_of_the_Shepherds_(Cariani)? What's wrong with it? Thanks, Laboramus (talk) 04:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
|
Hi Johnbod, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas |
Merry Christmas !!!
— 20:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Xmas
Greetings
![]() |
Seasonal Greetings and Good Wishes | |
Seasonal greetings for 2018, and best wishes for 2019 to all who continue to fight for good practice and higher standards in building this great encyclopedia. Brianboulton (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC) |
Nativity at Night on POTD
The picture for the article Nativity at Night is to go on the Main Page tomorrow, and the accompanying text is essentially what you wrote in December 2009. That includes "It is a small painting presumably made for private devotional use," I have raised at WP:ERRORS my disquiet with the encyclopaedia making a presumption: is there a source attached to this? Is the presumption addressed in Campbell p232/8 ? Kevin McE (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes of course it fucking is! When WP:ERRORS gets into art history the introduction of mistakes inevitably follows. But at least thank you for actually letting the outside world know what the errors crew are up to for once. So unusual. Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- What is the need for the attitude? The article, and extract, read as though the reference is to it being derived from the van der Goes work. I don't know what dealings you have had with people at ERRORS before that makes you so bad tempered about it, but I am trying to ensure that mistakes, and unsourced presumptions, are avoided. Perhaps you would like to make clear that Campbell publishes this presumption, maybe with a quote for the benefit of those who don't have a copy of The Fifteenth Century Netherlandish Paintings to hand. Kevin McE (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
Season's greetings! | |
I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2019 will be safe, successful and rewarding...keep hope alive....Modernist (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC) |
Austral season's greetings
![]() |
Austral season's greetings |
Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC) |
DYK for Adoration of the Shepherds (Cariani)
Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Tis the season
Holiday Cheer! | |
To Johnbod, best wishes to you and yours for a joyous holiday season and a happy & healthy 2019. Ewulp (talk) 01:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! |
Hello Johnbod, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Merry Christmas
--Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
And a Happy New Year
Merry
Rexxmas
2018
Facto Post – Issue 19 – 27 December 2018
New Rfc on List of cryptids
Since you participated in the rfc earlier in the year, I am letting you know of another rfc to merge List of cryptids. Which ever way the wind blows you are welcome to join in. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Persian vs Iranian
Hi. It looks like you're confused with the use of the term "Persian". The history and culture of Iran is not limited to the ancient Persian Empires, the region of Persia, or the Persian people. You can't categorize articles concerning the Median Empire and the Parthian Empire of classical Iran or the Azerbaijanis or the Kurds of modern Iran under the name "Persian". So, are you going to stop reverting my edits or do we need to start a discussion on this issue?
—Rye-96 (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not at all confused, though I think you may be as to the usual usage of these terms in English (which confuses many Iranians - this guy for one) and the way Wikipedia categories work. You seem to be trying to carry a distinction between "Persian" as an ethnic sub-group of "Iranian" back into ancient history, which just doesn't reflect usage in English-language WP:RS, where Persian and Iranian are generally synonymous, except for linguistics or when say Medes are being discussed. The Parthian Empire is certainly Persian - as the Greeks at the time called it, and Western writers have done ever since. So no, if you continue to make erroneous edits, I will continue to revert them. Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don’t see how this issue is relevant, in any way, to what that IP had been doing on the Persian miniature article. While Iran was entirely referred to as “Persia” in the Western World, I’m pretty sure the distinction between the three founding tribes and empires of Iran was made both by the ancient Greek writers and by later western writers on many occasions. Moreover, in present-day English terminology, the use of the term “Iran” has taken over the archaic term of “Persia”, in terms of topics concerning both modern Iran and classical Iran. There are loads of English-language RS already used on the English Wikipedia that clearly recognize the distinction between the two terms. The fact that you do acknowledge the exceptions of using the term “Persian” instead of “Iranian” in terms of linguistics and certain parts of the Iranian history, and that we‘re actually talking about two distinct categories by the names “Iranian culture” and “Persian culture”, illustrates how relevant this concern is. Perhaps more editors should be involved in this discussion.
—Rye-96 (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)- Probably - certainly there has been movement on the matter in recent decades, since the Shah expanded the English usage of "Iranian" beyond liguistic and ethnic matters, but it is just wrong to say that "Persian" is no longer used. Judg8ing by your edit summaries, you seem a poor judge of relevance. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the Shah didn't write all of these documents himself, Johnbod. The decree on the official name of Iran was announced in March 1935, but as you can see, the term "Iran" already existed in English (obviously in the national sense) prior to that. It's just that a general word choice preference took place. "Iran" is a well-established English term and its usage does indeed go beyond ethnic and linguistic contexts, which themselves do matter for a category on culture and cannot be disregarded. Nobody's rejecting the use of the term "Persian" altogether; that's not what the point is. The English (and Ancient Greek) usages of "Persian" vary, like that of "Iranian". We're talking about what gives us two distinct categories by the names of "Persian culture" and "Iranian culture" and what each one of them would have to cover precisely regarding the varying definitions of the terms. If you think we can't do that, then the two categories should be merged, since you're insisting that they're all synonymous.
"...the usual usage of these terms in English (which confuses many Iranians..." - "...you seem a poor judge of relevance." — I don't understand that language, btw. I think I could report it. I'm glad you managed to read my edit summaries, at least, cause I failed to see yours on multiple occasions.
—Rye-96 (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)- The sensible broad distinction, which we have had for many years here, is to use "Persian" for ancient and older historical matters, and "Iranian" for modern ones, with fuzzy borderlines and a deal of overlap. That is the china shop into which you have charged. Godd luck with your reporting! Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Using "Persian" for relevant ancient historical matters is exactly what I'm suggesting we should do, Johnbod. That being said, the Median and Parthian empires were not "Persian" and this is what we know from both classical Greek and modern English resources, and the term "Iranian" does also apply to ancient matters in English resources on many occasions.
—Rye-96 (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Using "Persian" for relevant ancient historical matters is exactly what I'm suggesting we should do, Johnbod. That being said, the Median and Parthian empires were not "Persian" and this is what we know from both classical Greek and modern English resources, and the term "Iranian" does also apply to ancient matters in English resources on many occasions.
- The sensible broad distinction, which we have had for many years here, is to use "Persian" for ancient and older historical matters, and "Iranian" for modern ones, with fuzzy borderlines and a deal of overlap. That is the china shop into which you have charged. Godd luck with your reporting! Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the Shah didn't write all of these documents himself, Johnbod. The decree on the official name of Iran was announced in March 1935, but as you can see, the term "Iran" already existed in English (obviously in the national sense) prior to that. It's just that a general word choice preference took place. "Iran" is a well-established English term and its usage does indeed go beyond ethnic and linguistic contexts, which themselves do matter for a category on culture and cannot be disregarded. Nobody's rejecting the use of the term "Persian" altogether; that's not what the point is. The English (and Ancient Greek) usages of "Persian" vary, like that of "Iranian". We're talking about what gives us two distinct categories by the names of "Persian culture" and "Iranian culture" and what each one of them would have to cover precisely regarding the varying definitions of the terms. If you think we can't do that, then the two categories should be merged, since you're insisting that they're all synonymous.
- Probably - certainly there has been movement on the matter in recent decades, since the Shah expanded the English usage of "Iranian" beyond liguistic and ethnic matters, but it is just wrong to say that "Persian" is no longer used. Judg8ing by your edit summaries, you seem a poor judge of relevance. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don’t see how this issue is relevant, in any way, to what that IP had been doing on the Persian miniature article. While Iran was entirely referred to as “Persia” in the Western World, I’m pretty sure the distinction between the three founding tribes and empires of Iran was made both by the ancient Greek writers and by later western writers on many occasions. Moreover, in present-day English terminology, the use of the term “Iran” has taken over the archaic term of “Persia”, in terms of topics concerning both modern Iran and classical Iran. There are loads of English-language RS already used on the English Wikipedia that clearly recognize the distinction between the two terms. The fact that you do acknowledge the exceptions of using the term “Persian” instead of “Iranian” in terms of linguistics and certain parts of the Iranian history, and that we‘re actually talking about two distinct categories by the names “Iranian culture” and “Persian culture”, illustrates how relevant this concern is. Perhaps more editors should be involved in this discussion.
2019
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Landshut Wedding, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hedwig Jagiellon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
DYK for Shepherd with a Flute
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
DYK for Esther before Ahasuerus
Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Legit content?
Could you check it? Seriously it sounds dubious to me. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, probably Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- It's really odd. How these Timurid buildings (Bibi-Khanym Mosque, Goharshad Mosque, and Gur-e-Amir) used that architecture style?! The article even claims Ilkhanate Mongols used that style. It cited two Persian books, and I didn't find that term in the linked Iranica articles. --Wario-Man (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Martin Schongauer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Snyder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Vitreous Enamels - Gallery
Yes, Johnbod, you are right, this item is possibly more suitable for the article Filigree. Regards, Chris OxfordChris Oxford (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
January 2019
Hello, I'm Dennis Bratland. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Missal of Silos that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.
See [1]. BTW, I do template the regulars when that’s all of my time they deserve. Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Would you please go to Talk:Missal of Silos and delete your personal attacks? You're aware that this is a violation of WP:NPA, WP:OWN, WP:TALK etc. If you can't make corrections to articles without flinging insults, perhaps I'm not the one who should stick to something else. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Well someone else has done so. WP:OWN on a page I last made small edits to in 2013??? It was a remarkably careless mistake and I pointed this out. It doesn't seem to have dented your over-confidence one bit. Happy trails! Johnbod (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- That's false. You did not merely call the mistake careless, though even that is an unnecessary commentary on contributors rather than content. You insulted me directly with vulgar, schoolboy name calling, a violation of WP:NPA. You doubled down by telling me not to edit on "your" topic. That is also a policy violation. Your words were a near-perfect match for the examples at the WP:OWNBEHAVIOR policy. I know you know all this, and I also know editors with many years experience and FA credits are deaf to it. It's extremely unlikely you will be held accountable for this kind of behavior, which is why it never gets better. Guys like you have made Wikipedia notorious for obnoxious gatekeeping.
Your history shows you have a pattern of escalating corrections into unnecessary conflict, both when you correct others and when others correct you. I know a lot of people think trying to shame and abuse anyone who makes a mistake improves quality, but evidence shows it doesn't. It creates defensiveness, and conditions editors to resist admitting error. It trains everyone to hide their mistakes, and rationalize them, rather than quickly owning up to them so we can all move on to something constructive.
This superlative sat unsourced on History of paper for 10 years until I raised this question. If I had been afraid of getting bit, I'd have left it alone and it would have remained uncited for years more, in the hands of you Wikipedia royalty. You and I will both make errors in the future, and I expect when you do, you're going to get bogged down in pointless bickering. I see your example and work to avoid being anything like that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- For puzzled passers-by, I'd better explain that all I did was revert DB's removal of referenced and correct information because he had failed to read the online reference with any care at all. But clearly he is one of those people who is always in the right. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- You fucking liar. Your edit summary was a personal attack. You are allowed to tell people to fuck off. Profanity is totally fucking fine. You are not allowed to call them motherfuckers. or "dickheads". You must think puzzled passers-by can't read a plain edit summary. What's so hard about saying "oops, sorry, I went too far"? What a fucking ego. Didn't I say you'd be deaf to this? Bye. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Fuckety fuck fuck to you both. And thank you for pointing the way to a very interesting article. Now please shake virtual hands and bury the hatchet (but not in each other?). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- You fucking liar. Your edit summary was a personal attack. You are allowed to tell people to fuck off. Profanity is totally fucking fine. You are not allowed to call them motherfuckers. or "dickheads". You must think puzzled passers-by can't read a plain edit summary. What's so hard about saying "oops, sorry, I went too far"? What a fucking ego. Didn't I say you'd be deaf to this? Bye. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- For puzzled passers-by, I'd better explain that all I did was revert DB's removal of referenced and correct information because he had failed to read the online reference with any care at all. But clearly he is one of those people who is always in the right. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- That's false. You did not merely call the mistake careless, though even that is an unnecessary commentary on contributors rather than content. You insulted me directly with vulgar, schoolboy name calling, a violation of WP:NPA. You doubled down by telling me not to edit on "your" topic. That is also a policy violation. Your words were a near-perfect match for the examples at the WP:OWNBEHAVIOR policy. I know you know all this, and I also know editors with many years experience and FA credits are deaf to it. It's extremely unlikely you will be held accountable for this kind of behavior, which is why it never gets better. Guys like you have made Wikipedia notorious for obnoxious gatekeeping.
- Well someone else has done so. WP:OWN on a page I last made small edits to in 2013??? It was a remarkably careless mistake and I pointed this out. It doesn't seem to have dented your over-confidence one bit. Happy trails! Johnbod (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Red herrings
What's "extremely silly" about moving the fish photo from the lead to the section about fish? A picture of a fish doesn't provide MOS:IMAGELEAD's "visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page", it goes against it by suggesting at a glance that the article might be about kippers. One could almost call it a (drumroll please)... --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Visitation (Dürer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Visitation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 20 – 31 January 2019
Facto Post – Issue 20 – 31 January 2019
![]()
Recently Jimmy Wales has made the point that computer home assistants take much of their data from Wikipedia, one way or another. So as well as getting Spotify to play Frosty the Snowman for you, they may be able to answer the question "is the Pope Catholic?" Possibly by asking for disambiguation (Coptic?). Amazon Echo device using the Amazon Alexa service in voice search showdown with the Google rival on an Android phone Headlines about data breaches are now familiar, but the unannounced circulation of information raises other issues. One of those is Gresham's law stated as "bad data drives out good". Wikipedia and now Wikidata have been criticised on related grounds: what if their content, unattributed, is taken to have a higher standing than Wikimedians themselves would grant it? See Wikiquote on a misattribution to Bismarck for the usual quip about "law and sausages", and why one shouldn't watch them in the making. Wikipedia has now turned 18, so should act like as adult, as well as being treated like one. The Web itself turns 30 some time between March and November this year, per Tim Berners-Lee. If the Knowledge Graph by Google exemplifies Heraclitean Web technology gaining authority, contra GIGO, Wikimedians still have a role in its critique. But not just with the teenage skill of detecting phoniness. There is more to beating Gresham than exposing the factoid and urban myth, where WP:V does do a great job. Placeholders must be detected, and working with Wikidata is a good way to understand how having one statement as data can blind us to replacing it by a more accurate one. An example that is important to open access is that, firstly, the term itself needs considerable unpacking, because just being able to read material online is a poor relation of "open"; and secondly, trying to get Creative Commons license information into Wikidata shows up issues with classes of license (such as CC-BY) standing for the actual license in major repositories. Detailed investigation shows that "everything flows" exacerbates the issue. But Wikidata can solve it.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Convicts in Australia
I'm not sure OWN is a fair accusation. User Tobby72 recently added another image that I did not touch, because it is relevant to the section and I guess there's enough room for it, although it's probably my personal preference that two images per section is enough. Three is pushing it. I like it when images stay neatly within their sections, and illustrate something in the corresponding text. I probably have a mild form of autism that accounts for this lol. - HappyWaldo (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Reverting changes
Please revert my changes instead of manually removing them. It is nice to get a notification of that type of thing. Also try to assume good faith instead of... not. Thanks ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on the gallery Signpost article.
You had left comments on the Signpost article. I would like to thank you here too for the comment. It is always insightful for writers to understand how readers are interpreting articles. A belated thank you. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
squigglysquiggly
FYI, the syntax for referring to templates in talk is to use the {{tl}} template. E.g. if you type {{tl|Hiddencat}} it will display as {{Hiddencat}}. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Others are available: I mainly use
{{tlx}}
because it can display parameters, which {{tl}} does not. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Renaissance dance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Volta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Suggestion
Perhaps you'd care the one sentence personal attack from this edit? Debresser (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- - missing words, but I expect the answer is no. Johnbod (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 19:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC). You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
——SerialNumber54129 19:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
User talk:Legacypac
Why are you reinstating the ramblings of an LTA? Natureium (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
User talk:JoseEduardoTR
Hey John, thanks for doing the appropriate tidiness to the text I wrote in the Talk:The Last Judgment (Memling) I am starting to know more about Wikipedia and I just 'thank' it in its history.
. I have a question. If you find and read this in another Talk's article, what would you do?
Keep having a wonderful week!
JoseEduardoTR (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
. Thanks to you. Did you read it? If so, if you would had read that text in the Talk:OK_gesture, what would you have done? – JoseEduardoTR (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
DYK for The Dead King and his Three Sons
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
DYK for Saint Sebastian Tended by Saint Irene
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Johnbod and The Rambling Man. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
DYK for Master MZ
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Frog Service
hello Johnbod
Thanks for creating Frog Service. An interesting and well-written article. Intially thought it was going to be some obscure 80s band id est Aztec Camera but was delighted by the content. Well done. Dorkinglad (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I leave it for those that call themselves the official ones to provide a rating but a clear B from me.Dorkinglad (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Philip the Shortly Described
Regarding this. I had a whole long message typed up about how I had deliberately made the original shortdesc the way it was and why that was probably the better choice. And then I had a nagging feeling and went and actually looked at the article. "D'oh!" indeed. I work mainly with Elizajacobean literature topics, with slight detours back to the late mediæval and up to the 18th century, in England. My view of "France" is, it seems, too much colored by that. So thank you for the edit with possibly the most educational value per character changed that has run across my watchlist the last few years! :) --Xover (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks - I nearly sent you a message, but didn't in the end, partly because of the time it would have taken to explain the ways the dukes & duchy were & weren't exactly "French", & the exact rank/status of the dukes. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
DYK for Mair von Landshut
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 21 – 28 February 2019
Facto Post – Issue 21 – 28 February 2019
![]()
Systematic reviews are basic building blocks of evidence-based medicine, surveys of existing literature devoted typically to a definite question that aim to bring out scientific conclusions. They are principled in a way Wikipedians can appreciate, taking a critical view of their sources. Ben Goldacre in 2014 wrote (link below) "[...] : the "information architecture" of evidence based medicine (if you can tolerate such a phrase) is a chaotic, ad hoc, poorly connected ecosystem of legacy projects. In some respects the whole show is still run on paper, like it's the 19th century." Is there a Wikidatan in the house? Wouldn't some machine-readable content that is structured data help? Most likely it would, but the arcana of systematic reviews and how they add value would still need formal handling. The PRISMA standard dates from 2009, with an update started in 2018. The concerns there include the corpus of papers used: how selected and filtered? Now that Wikidata has a 20.9 million item bibliography, one can at least pose questions. Each systematic review is a tagging opportunity for a bibliography. Could that tagging be reproduced by a query, in principle? Can it even be second-guessed by a query (i.e. simulated by a protocol which translates into SPARQL)? Homing in on the arcana, do the inclusion and filtering criteria translate into metadata? At some level they must, but are these metadata explicitly expressed in the articles themselves? The answer to that is surely "no" at this point, but can TDM find them? Again "no", right now. Automatic identification doesn't just happen. Actually these questions lack originality. It should be noted though that WP:MEDRS, the reliable sources guideline used here for health information, hinges on the assumption that the usefully systematic reviews of biomedical literature can be recognised. Its nutshell summary, normally the part of a guideline with the highest density of common sense, allows literature reviews in general validity, but WP:MEDASSESS qualifies that indication heavily. Process wonkery about systematic reviews definitely has merit.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Magdeburg Ivories
Hello! Your submission of Magdeburg Ivories 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) 00:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Done. You'd think being 950+ years old was enough .... Image first published in 1857. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
This is to thank you for your hundreds of high-quality art articles with equally stunning images that are so appreciated in the DYK column on the main page. It's a pleasure to promote your work again and again! Best, Yoninah (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC) |
DYK for Magdeburg Ivories
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
What's your problem?
I accidentally clicked a wrong link and instantly corrected my mistake. What the hell is your problem? For what reason are you calling me out by name in an edit summary? What the heck did I ever do to you? --Jayron32 23:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I hadn't seen the 2nd edit when I was editing, just your first reversion. Johnbod (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 13:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC). You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
"jeez"
Why so patronising, Johnbod? It's not the first time either, although it's a while ago now, and I have other things on my mind than finding diffs right now. Hmm? There's absolutely no need for it. I'm not even that fussed about civility, but off-the-cuff, gratuitous bollocks like that on a Sunday evening – I'd love to know. Nortonius (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Turf War (Banksy) at AfD
Thanks for participating in the ongoing AfD. Sure, the stub was pathetic, but doesn't mean the topic is not notable. I'm working to add more detail to Turf War (Banksy), so do you mind revising the discussion and sourcing again soon? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/campaign announcement
Will you still be willing to address the issues I raised recently? Those are the only things left before the nomination is approved. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
DYK for Presidential campaign announcements in the United States
— Amakuru (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
DYK for Frog Service
— Amakuru (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- I knew this was a winner! Congratulations! Yoninah (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Swedish treeline
Just now is my first time to log in since making that T:DYK edit, so I couldn't do anything, but you perhaps noticed that someone else tweaked it. When I made this edit, the latest revision said Global warming is likely to have an effect on the country's biodiversity, with the treeline moving further north and to higher altitudes, and forests replacing tundra. You need to direct your anger at whoever wrote the article, because altitude and latitude both match what was written there.
Moreover, if I'd looked at the source, I would have pulled the article entirely: it's based on an article from a self-published source. This website's about page says nothing about authors or reviewers, and the article is anonymous. Why am I supposed to trust that they interpreted their sources properly? An article written by an uncredentialled or anonymous person is reliable if reviewed by experts or published in an expert-run forum, and an article written by an expert is reliable, but an uncredentialled or anonymous person has no reputation and cannot reliably self-publish anything. Therefore, if you should do anything with your anger, you really ought to direct it at whoever decided that this unreliable source was acceptable. I expect the information's accurate (obviously, global warming means that the locations of minimum temperatures will expand), but that doesn't mean that we're free to use any source that says so. Nyttend (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Why do you think I'm angry? But this drive-by tinkering with stuff on the main page is a bad thing, & we are getting much too much of it. Your reply just just makes more clear the unhelpful nature of your edit. As I surmised, you hadn't then looked at anything, on your own admission. Johnbod (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 22 – 28 March 2019
Facto Post – Issue 22 – 28 March 2019
![]()
Half a century ago, it was the era of the mainframe computer, with its air-conditioned room, twitching tape-drives, and appearance in the title of a spy novel Billion-Dollar Brain then made into a Hollywood film. Now we have the cloud, with server farms and the client–server model as quotidian: this text is being typed on a Chromebook. ![]() Logo of Cloud API on Google Cloud Platform The term Applications Programming Interface or API is 50 years old, and refers to a type of software library as well as the interface to its use. While a compiler is what you need to get high-level code executed by a mainframe, an API out in the cloud somewhere offers a chance to perform operations on a remote server. For example, the multifarious bots active on Wikipedia have owners who exploit the MediaWiki API. APIs (called RESTful) that allow for the GET HTTP request are fundamental for what could colloquially be called "moving data around the Web"; from which Wikidata benefits 24/7. So the fact that the Wikidata SPARQL endpoint at query.wikidata.org has a RESTful API means that, in lay terms, Wikidata content can be GOT from it. The programming involved, besides the SPARQL language, could be in Python, younger by a few months than the Web. Magic words, such as occur in fantasy stories, are wishful (rather than RESTful) solutions to gaining access. You may need to be a linguist to enter Ali Baba's cave or the western door of Moria (French in the case of "Open Sesame", in fact, and Sindarin being the respective languages). Talking to an API requires a bigger toolkit, which first means you have to recognise the tools in terms of what they can do. On the way to the wikt:impactful or polymathic modern handling of facts, one must perhaps take only tactful notice of tech's endemic problem with documentation, and absorb the insightful point that the code in APIs does articulate the customary procedures now in place on the cloud for getting information. As Owl explained to Winnie-the-Pooh, it tells you The Thing to Do.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Meynnart Wewyck Tudor portraits
Did you see Painting of mother of King Henry VII revealed as oldest large-scale portrait of an English woman and this? I've added it to Commons and updated the info on the Lockey copy there. Wewyck is all over the web once one knows to look for him. I have the Burlington Magazine article, and I'm headed down the rabbithole, adding bits to Wikidata as I go. - PKM (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Interesting - will you do the bio? And there's Artists of the Tudor court, Best, Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'll likely do Artists of the Tudor court, unless you want to do it. Not sure about more than that. (Feel free to do any of this if you like...I'm really deep in Wikidata these days.) - PKM (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Added File:Henry VII of England Society of Antiquaries.jpg to Commons, with new attribution to Wewyck. - PKM (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'll give you first shot, Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Okay. Getting somewhere: http://vocab.getty.edu/page/ulan/500336012. - PKM (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Meynnart Wewyck linked, locked, and loaded. Also updated Artists of the Tudor court - more payment records. Interesting that the last recorded payment to "olde" Wewyck was the year of the first payment to Hornebolte. Comments, additions, and typo fixing welcome. - PKM (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'll give you first shot, Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)