User talk:Johnbod/44

Out of several thousand DYK hooks featured on the Main Page during 2020, your hook for "the lowly, needy, insignificant Daulat" ranked as the No. 20 hook of the year with 1,618 DYK views per hour. A list of the 25 most viewed hooks of the year can be viewed at "Top hooks of 2020". Congratulations on your hook's remarkable showing, and keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Holy Family

added a link pointing to James Snyder

Joos van Cleve

added a link pointing to James Snyder

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I am sorry for originally reverting your edit on Assumption of the Virgin Mary in art, I am quite new to recent changes patrolling and made this mistake, sorry! BrownFerret (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Btw, do you know how I can watch edits done by a specific person or IP?[reply]

No worries! Afaik you just have to check their contributions every now & then. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been a member of Wiki Project Med Foundation (WPMEDF) in the past. Your membership, however, appears to have expired. As such this is a friendly reminder encouraging you to officially rejoin WPMEDF. There are no associated costs. Membership gives you the right to vote in elections for the board. The current membership round ends in 2022.

ReJoin Wiki Project Med Foundation

Thanks again :-) The team at Wiki Project Med Foundation---Avicenno (talk), 2021.01

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Confectionery in the English Renaissance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Violet.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for good wishes! - Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Kohl was on the Main page today, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johnbod. Admirer of your work on Wikipedia here. I have just made a brief page on a Renaissance sculpture in the V&A and was wondering if you could cast an eye over it? I am sure I have missed much and probably misunderstood more. The page is Meleager (L'Antico sculpture). Thanks Stronach (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good - I've touched up. Do you want it to go to WP:DYK? Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Minoan art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intaglio.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I saw how you interestingly corrected edit in the article of Saint Pater. This user Elizium23 is so called professional vandalizer here. He is doing dissurptive reverting of true and right information and then even threatens users. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an article on the term or idea of "the circle of" e.g. "the circle of Rembrandt"? Is that something that would even make sense to have? BTW, re watchlist, I would think that being an "highly irregular" person is a lot more interesting than being "highly regular" :) Aza24 (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was pleased at the comment, taking me back to the films of my youth (or rather the old films that were on tv in my youth). I never thought I would have it used to me! We have lots of articles on Attribution, but not one on it in the art sense. That would be the obvious place for it I think. There's the ho-hum Authenticity in art, but not there I think. Johnbod (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Authentic art" ugh. I will never understand how the van Meegeren's The Supper at Emmaus fooled people (though I suppose it is far easy to say such a thing after the fact); and oh my, a link from that page brought me to Smiling Girl... I will definitely have nightmares now. But yes a new page seem most appropriate. I will probably consider making it now, not do so, and come back a few months later to do so... as is the way of Wikipedia (for me at least!). Aza24 (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let me know when you do. Christie's used to have useful explanations of the terms it used in catalogues. I used it here but the link doesn't seem to work just now. Johnbod (talk) 05:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your edits to the Galloway Hoard page, it's looking much better. Adamcoulson (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Minoan art

added a link pointing to Akrotiri

Minoan civilization

added a link pointing to Akrotiri

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, I am sorry I excited you in thinking I was breaching WP:CITEVAR. Not at all. The pages I put my hands on, in particular Pope Julius II, have not an "established citation style", but more than one style. I was only trying to put some order and, in particular, to add the missing links from shortened footnotes to the full citation, which may imply, necessarily, the change of the citation style. So you jeopardized my job of reducing the list in Category:Wikipedia articles containing unlinked shortened footnotes. Please tell me which are the pages I am not allowed to touch because of your misplaced pretension of being in the right. I'll try to stay away from them. And, of course, the two pages you reverted, must be reverted again. Such a waste of time. Carlotm (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just read WP:CITEVAR dude - this applies to ALL pages. There is no problem with the so-called "missing links" that needs fixing, and minor inconsistencies in styles are NOT an excuse for imposing a new style you prefer without discussion. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you're being discussed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thanks for that! Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm testing our hypothesis about MOS:GOD so we'll see if it holds up to scrutiny. Elizium23 (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Johnbod, how's it going. Hope you're getting a kick out of The Dig. Any chance you might be interested in giving a quick read to an article with a somewhat similar theme, on the archaeologist Martin Rundkvist (currently at User:Usernameunique/Martin Rundkvist)? Chiswick Chap and I have been working on it, and are planning on taking it live shortly, with a concurrent good-article nomination. It's 0 and 2 at AfD, however, so having your eyes on it beforehand would help to ensure it's in the best shape it can be. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me! I'll watchlist. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for giving it a read! --Usernameunique (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you may like this new art page by a red-link seldom editing user. Well done. I'll add italics to it at some point to names of artworks, which most readers won't notice but improves (at least to me) the professional look of Wikipedia (one of my priorities when editing, which is why I make so many minor edits like italics, those category listings, and upper-casing which other language Wikipedia's don't have). Thanks for catching me out on the consecutive years edit, I've seldom added full consecutive years, maybe as little as a handful (if a handful is five). Haven't written as much as I'm capable of, and of major articles I think my best example of editing is on Guernica, and in some film plots. I tend to "write" on topics I like or have made an impression on my life. Thanks for checking my edits, at least this time. And that page linked to above is an example of someones good work, and just now gave them a talk page "thanks" too (maybe I'll toss an encouragement barnstar their way). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask your advice on where best to find out more on the 1928 Armistice Day medal by Charles Doman? See here and image. I came across this a while ago (June 2018) and popped it in the Cenotaph article, see here. What I'm particularly interested in is whether anyone has written about the imagery on the other side of the medal (Britannia, broken chains, laurel wreath, sheathed sword, supporting a Christ-like(?) figure, sunrise, etc.)? And also why it was decided to use this design at the Shrine of Remembrance, see here from 2017 (actually, that blog post seems to answer the question adequately).

What is a bit of a mystery is that there is a reference to that blog orginally appearing on 'The Perth Mint Coin Collector', but I have been unable to find that. What I did find was this blog post at 'The Perth Mint Coin Collector', which I find a bit strange. It dates from 2012 and claims "No amount of research could reveal information on the designer. Yet, given the quality of the work, it seemed improbable that there were no records. Further searches on the internet revealed no matching images and no further information." Surely it is unlikely that in 2012 there were no records out there on the internet about this medal/medallion? What do you think? It was being mentioned in The Medal in 1990 and The British Numismatic Journal in 1986, and obviously had lots of press coverage at the time in 1928. I think it was also exhibited at the Royal Academy of Arts Bicentenary Exhibition in 1968. And probably exhibited at the time there by Doman as well.

From here there is: "Took part in War Office Competition, 1921. Winner of the commission." (more on this here, but I have been unable to find that medal from 1921). I see the Wikipedia article on Doman has a reference about the 1928 medal to an article in The Sphere, so I should look at that as well (maybe just an illustrated feature). Anyway, can all this really have been that obscure in 2012? (Having said that, the RCT erronerously date the medal to 1918!) Going back to the 1921 "War Office medal" stated 'to be presented to certain foreign subjects', I wonder if this was the Allied Subjects' Medal? As from here: "The Allied Subjects Medal was instituted in 1922 [...] The roll for this award (WO 329/2957) contains the names of French and Belgian men and women, and also of Danish, Dutch and other nationals [...]"

There might be more here (The Obscure Heroes of Liberty) from 2019, and searching just on Doman (i.e. C.L.J. Doman) found this on page 374 of British Battles and Medals (1950): "ALLIED SUBJECTS MEDALS . ... The medals , which are circular , were designed by Mr. C. L. J. Doman , R.B.S. The head of the King is on the obverse , whilst the reverse depicts a very fine figure of Humanity standing over a steel-helmeted and seated British soldier in the act of offering him a cup of water. In the background are shown the ruins of war". I think that is definite then. Carcharoth (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find "[Book] Pickup, David. 2006. The Medals of Charles Leighfield Doman., "The Medal" No. 48/2006, 33-38 Pages" - per your first link? Might just be a catalogue without much comment. Otherwise I think contemporary press might have stuff. You could try asking curators at the Imperial War Museum or BM - the BM had an exhibition of WWI commemorative medals, I suppose in 2018 . Oddly, neither V&A nor the BM seem to have this in their online collections. Otherwise medal collector web groups. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Should have spotted that the Pickup one might have more details! Will try and acquire that. Carcharoth (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Minoan civilization

added a link pointing to Agia Triada

Minoan seals

added a link pointing to Tholos

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only briefly, as I don't want to go into too much detail here, but in regards to the above I was ferreting around and came across this at the V&A (and ended up reading about the donors, see Anne Hull Grundy), but the question I have here relates to the (annoyingly undescribed) item at the bottom of the photo - you can see both sides by clicking through the photo displays - that item is something I have never seen before, and I suspect it is a one-off artwork of some sort, but what is the 'hook'(?) meant to be? I will probably have to contact the V&A to find out more, but was wondering if you recognised that in any way (I thought it maybe vaguely resembles a tank with a human figure inside it)? Carcharoth (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, don't know. It looks like a brooch or something - the photo doesn't enlarge very much. There's "1918" & something else on the first photo, perhaps with a clip, and a crouching human with legs drawn up on the other - the front I suppose. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was almost certainly overthinking it. A clip-on brooch probably. It is 1914-1918 on one side. Carcharoth (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for you to check this problem out [1]?...Modernist (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be in breach of this - watch out! Johnbod (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Johnbold you may want to point this out to the third party and not be one sided.

P.S. Do not appreciate the exclamation point gives an impression of a pore education.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your DYK hook about the Assumption of Mary in art drew 8,188 page views (682 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is the one of most viewed hooks so far during the month of February and has earned a place near the top of the Best of February list. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnbod! Why is the portrait of Alberti that you published better than the one I published? Sergeiprivet (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably done by someone who knew him, not a very untalented artist from 200+ years later, copying prints. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was possible to publish two portraits without replacing the first one. These portraits are quite different. Sergeiprivet (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be possible to have more, but there are better choices on Commons than the one you added, I feel. I shoulsd add that the one I added showed him when very young, which was appropriate for that section. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please will you tidy away the AFC artefacts when you move a draft which has them to main space? Fiddle Faddle 21:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can just remove them, but I think something else is supposed to be done, & I have no idea what. I left the last editor a message. Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Treat it as any other move made by a competent editor such as yourself. Removing them is sufficient. You could consider adding wikiprojects to the talk page, but that is optional. AFC is not at all special, simply a way to try to assist those who would otherwise be discouraged by early deletion of less than useful material Fiddle Faddle 22:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, in faCT IT WAS CREATED NORMALLY IN 2012, THEN DRAFTIFIED AFTER A COPYVIO (oops). Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The caps lock key is not my friend either! 🤪 Fiddle Faddle 22:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not really here anymore, in fact, I’m probably a mirage. However, I was looking for something today and stumbled across this [2], now I accept without my kindly, fatherly, guiding hand disinformation boxes are here to stay, but were the mighty Gonzaga really “clients?” I believe clients are men picked up by call girls and others who ply dubious trades. The Gonzaga were patrons of the arts and murderers, but to call them clients is rather demeaning. I know this is not your doing, but I noticed you edited the page recently, so who else is there to call upon who understands these small nuances and niceties of life. Do hope you’re well in these dangerous times, I note our American friends have binned poor Donald, so I suppose the sun must be shining somewhere. Roll on Liberation Day! Giano (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose to Giulio Romano he was a client - I suspect architects think they have them rather than "patrons". I used to be a client to lots of people (lawyers etc) so I'm doubtful of your characterization of clients as a class. Don't think I've been anyone's patron though. I'm fine thanks (even half-vaccinated) & hope you are the same. Currently deep in Minoan art and related topics, about which I knew very little. Now I find the specialists don't know much either, but it's lovely stuff. All the best! Johnbod (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I’m not vaccinated on account of my extreme youth and being stuck in the wrong country at the wrong time. Any right thinking Government would be selling the vaccine at a premium to deserving people such as myself and making a good profit. The money I’ve paid on UK private health care over the years, I should think I own the Portland outright. I’m more than a little degruntled about it, but that seems to be a status quo for me these days. Of course the Gonzaga weren’t clients, you’ll be saying the Medici and the Krays were connoisseurs of the arts next. Stay well! Giano (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mysteries of Isis is now at FAC. I don't know if you feel like doing an FAC review at the moment, but since you commented on the article talk page when it was created, a few years back, I thought I'd let you know. A. Parrot (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I've received one support for this article, but after three weeks, Gog the Mild notified me that it's in danger of being archived. I hate asking for reviewers, but could you spare the time? A. Parrot (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas! Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am so glad to see that you are still here, Johnbod. I have tentatively returned to Wikipedia editing after more than 5 (rather sad and difficult) years, and have forgotten everything I knew, which wasn't much anyway. This is because I really need to update the page I created on the Catalan singer/writer Gerard Quintana. My immediate query is this: I can find my own user page as AgTigress, but in other WP sources (e.g. images I uploaded to Commons long ago), the name appears in red, and says the page does not exist. Should I try to do something about this, and if so, what? I hope I am not bothering you with trivial requests, but you have been so kind and helpful to me in the past. I very much hope you are well in these strange times. AgTigress (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely to hear from you, & glad to hear you are still tending the Catalan Mick Jagger. I'm well enough, thanks - Minoan stuff has been the main thing for a month of so. Let me root around. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you don't have a Commons user page, but are you sure you ever did? Your contributions there are here, and your talk page here, with an exchange from 2010. I think most likely you never had a commons user page (many don't), but you can set one up by clicking on the redlink. Many people just link to their WP user page. Do you want me to do it? All the best, Johnbod (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could do it for me? I am so clueless. I did upload quite a few photos to Commons. I am trying to do quite a bit of updating on my page for Gerard Quintana; in addition to catching up with the 'musical career' section, Gerard is now establishing himself as a novelist (first novel 2019, second just published, and has won a major Catalan literary award), so there is also a lot to put there. Some editing protocols seem to have got a bit easier, but I am as baffled as ever by references: many of them are web references now, and although the templates do help, I am still muddled. And I am so keen to replace the main photo on that page with a more recent one, but I simply don't have a clue about how to deal with the copyright issue. Thank you so much for answering my query, when you are obviously madly busy! AgTigress (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done that - just with a link back to your user page here for now (that's all many people do on commons), and the list of your uploads. I have Gerard Quintana watchlisted, & have put a 2020 pic in the lead. Give me a link to the pic you want to use. Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are a star! That picture will do for now, but the one I would really like to use, a very recent one, is this, one of the pics taken at the Press event for the literary prize a few weeks ago: https://www.eltemps.cat/article/12658/el-music-gerard-quintana-guanya-el-premi-ramon-llull It was published in the newspaper El Temps (which is one of the refs. I'll have to put in the text), but as far as I can see, copyright is 'Agència Catalana de Notícies' -- 'Catalan News Agency'. Though it needs to be cropped to a portrait format. Anyway, that may all be impossible — I don't know. In the meantime, the one you have inserted will do fine, because it is at least recent, even though he looks much more groomed than usual (he was presenting awards at some Catalan film industry event, and had clearly been ruthlessly brushed and combed...) I'll take the old 2007 pic out. I really am so grateful for your expertise, Johnbod. AgTigress (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would probably be difficult - you'd have to get the copyright owner(s) release, which might well not be forthcoming. There are a number of other more recent ones on Commons. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll leave that for now, and have another search amongst my own photos. At least I can manage to upload those. I don't like any of the other recent ones on Commons. I have tinkered quite a bit with the page, but there's more to do, e.g. I don't have the ISBN number of the new novel yet. I might have a go at the Sopa de Cabra page eventually, because it, too, needs a lot of work: I uploaded a better pic for the infobox just now. As always, thank you!! AgTigress (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just let me know if I can do anything else. Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I'll be back with another request for help in the not too distant future... AgTigress (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lenten Rose

Today, we have a DYK about Wilhelm Knabe, who stood up for future with the striking school children when he was in his 90s, - a model, - see here. - Thank you for your position in the arb case request, - I feel I have to stay away, but there are conversations further down on the page, in case of interest, - in a nutshell: "... will not improve kindness, nor any article". - Yesterday, I made sure on a hike that the flowers are actually blooming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Johnbod, on or about the 19 February 2007, of famous memory, you added to the article about William Dowsing (the iconoclast) the interesting factoid that he was "also known as Smasher Dowsing". (I must say if he was a smasher his portrait doesn't do him justice.) Your observation was not supported by an inline citation. Since you posted it, the soubriquet has been amended to "Basher Dowsing", again without any supporting reference. As I think the word "Basher" (like "Masher", with another meaning) smacks of a sort of sub-Dickensian, Lyttonian or Ainsworthian or even Arnoldian early 19th century slang, I doubt if Dowsing was referred to as "Basher" during the Interregnum, when there were so many beastly bashers around to choose from. "Smasher", apart from meaning something quite different, is marginally more possible but still seems a bit dubious to me. Dear friend, if (pardon me for suggesting it) this was a light-hearted jeu d'esprit, perhaps after 14 years the moment has come to own up honourably. Alternatively, if this is real history, would you be so kind as to direct the reader to the source? I have been putting in the inline references so as to de-tag the article, and have moved this informal name to the lead paragraph, where name variants usually go - so it is right up front. I'd like to justify it or scrap it now, one way or the other. With cordial good wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's "smasher". References are not exactly hard to find! I've added one that's online; no doubt others are better. Odd the old DNB doesn't mention it, unless it's recent. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for that. I know that "Smasher" is what you meant, and "Basher" is a diversion. However, all those 'easy to find' references you point to, pretty much, post-date your addition of February 2007, and certainly some of the wordings in those references suggest that they took the idea from the Wikipedia article. In fact it proliferated so much, that the 2018 reference you have given can't be taken as a precedent for putting that fact in Wikipedia, as that may where be where they got it from. What I'm trying to get at, is whether there is any authority at all for the idea that he was called "Smasher" either during or soon after his own lifetime. Do you have any information on that point? Best wishes Eebahgum (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly do not all post-date it! Look more carefully. Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, true, but then mostly those authors are calling him "a smasher" for themselves - it is their own expression. But there are others as you say. Please allow me to substitute two earlier refs which do at least state that he was so named in the past. Just trying to get at the reality of it. Thanks. Eebahgum (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL^{Query me!} 04:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Baetylus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tyre.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I have worked on a biography stub of a female visual artist of Pakistani origin namely, Draft:Misha Japanwala and I wish to bring the same to main space as a stub only.

Requesting your help in preliminary reviewing of notability at your own level, some copy edit and bringing in to main space if you deem the same correct course of action.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done some - not sure if she would pass Afd really. I see it's already in mainspace. Johnbod (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your comment about a potential COI, I have edited my user page to clarify things. Thanks for pointing out that it was unclear. Please let me know if you think this is good like this?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EMsmile#Disclosure If you feel that anything is still unclear please let me know on my talk page (or here). Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better (probably is necessary) to clarify exactly which of the various roles are paid, which remains unclear to me. When work is paid, there will always be a potential conflict of interest, & it is better to say how these are treated/avoided rather than just saying they don't exist. Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the first sentence now to include the word "paid": "Between August 2020 and July 2022 I am paid to work on a communication project regarding SDGs 6, 13 and 14.". For my other roles (last year), I think it's already sufficiently clear as I wrote e.g. under a consultancy contract. With regards to how I am dealing with a potential conflict of interest, I feel that the bullets points under disclosure say as much as I can. What else can I say how I would deal/avoid a conflict of interest? Note that I have also asked other Wikimedians in Residence about this. One of them shared his user page with me which I modelled my sentences on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic. Or this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CFCF&direction=prev&oldid=975767998 . I don't know how else to describe my case. If you can point me to other people's user pages, in particular Wikimedians in Residence, who have explained it better, I would appreciate this. EMsmile (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming the grammar comment was directed at that user, and not at myself. Canterbury Tail talk 17:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course - sorry if that wasn't clear. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could have been read either way. Mind you originally I thought it was the user in question who had responded to me, not you, so was really confused. Canterbury Tail talk 17:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually at his point thinking of doing something about their user page, they seem to be using it as a resume and webhost at this point. I've mentioned it on their talk page, not enough time for a response yet. Canterbury Tail talk 16:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Margaritone d'Arezzo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint Margaret.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit on the above article. Much appreciated. The content is a bit of a mess, isn't it. I hastily gave it a bit of structure with subheadings and so on because I only came in to add an image, but didn't really touch the content - and that meant that the header isn't really the header - it's the original first paragraph. It's an interesting subject, though - automatons so long ago! Anyway, I just dropped by to say thanks. Storye book (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your improvements on "Swiss cheese" articles, great contributions from someone who visibly knows what he is talking about! Sophos II (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I learnt a lot doing Swiss-type cheese. Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ajanta.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to drop you a note for ages. Did you see that Edward Town has re-attributed a slew of important portraits to George Gower, including the Hampden portrait of Elizabeth? [3] Also, he has pretty much established that Steven van der Meulen isn't Steven van Herwijk, here. I really must make some updates to the affected articles, but I am awfully busy with other things and never get around to it. Perhaps you can shame me into getting to work. - PKM (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you. Hope all is well - are you locked down at all? I haven't been keeping up with this area at all I'm afraid, & had missed these. Updates would be great, but shame isn't involved. Johnbod (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, yes we’ve been locked down for a year - just starting to open up. I got my 2nd jab yesterday, so not long now. Hope you are well. - PKM (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine thanks - now getting busy again with the garden, which finally (almost) stopped being badly neglected last year. Just one jab so far - the UK is using a 12 week interval so I'm nearly due the 2nd. Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrote Steven van der Meulen, and started updating Commons. More to come. - PKM (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry John, I didn't mean to overrule your citation style. I had begun cleaning up the refs, but the ones in the sources section were using a variety of styles, and I was getting a headache trying to figure out how the clean/standardize it up—switching to templates seemed like the quickest solution, so that was really the only reason I did so. If it's any comfort, I also added some missing page numbers along the way and adopted/standardized your suggestion of sources used more than once "in Sources with a short-form back in References" and sources used once just as a short form. Best - Aza24 (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as you've probably realized, I'm very sensitive to changes to cite formulae. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Go back to Greek and Roman history books, the Romans named Greeks in Egypt, Egyptiotes or Egyptians and named ancient people of Egypt, barbaros or barbarian, that's well known history. People represented in Fayyum portraits are those Egyptiotes (who first existed in the land from 7th century BC or even before as mercenaries and merchants, and other related ethnicities like Armenians). The arguments and estimates stated in the page is inaccurate. Fayyum portraits are represented as culturally Greek and that the first and correct impressions of early historians. I believe if you're historian, you already know the naming of different ethnicities in ancient land by the Greeks, I assume you already know Greek and Latin. Then why you attribute Egyptians to the ancients (referring here historically to Egyptiotes "attributing to Aegyptus" not the whole current population of Egypt as people from Qena to Aswan are still the same). Provide a good argument, not modern book by modern researcher because there is a lot of mess in naming happens when people of different language translate other books to their language (English, German, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.192.173.95 (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So get some references saying this. Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look up those sources I found online, read as much as you are satisfied. Greek called the ancient people of what you call Egypt, barbarians and they learnt philosophy from them. It didn't mean barbaric at that time, it just meant non Greek and was used, not only for ancient people of Egypt, but for Persians and all non Greeks, even today especially in 20th century locals of the North (and in the movies) in Egypt stereotypically refer to dark or black skinned Upper Egyptians as برابرة or بربري in Arabic. In addition, Romans named Cleopatra and Ptolomies, Egyptiotes. You may search up that by yourself in texts commemorating or recording the victory of Augustus on Cleopatra and her allies (Cleopatra is Ptolemaic, she isn't related to ancient people and that's well known historical fact). Always search up for the original texts in original language. I am not indicating that all North Egyptians aren't related at all, but culturally and ethnically they are different especially in the cities. And there is like 3100 years of foreign rule since the fall of Ancient rule by natives to the Amazigh.

Finally, people are by culture and traditions, first and foremost. Different people with same DNA would have different features, traditions, colors, and self-appointment. In addition, all DNA haplogroups are from very early times and prehistoric, it can't be traced to any modern ethnicity except for it's more spread in certain regions than others. Another problems in DNA is that communities are either patrilineal and matrilineal and there is no proof that any community adopts the same system throughout its history. History and culture can't be measured by very abstract measures as dental morphology or DNA and that's well known fact. It doesn't also indicate that they're entirely useless. Now you give a proof that there was 7-10 million natives at the Roman or Greco-Roman period. I want good references following historical texts and analysis, not a random guess work number with no support at all. Anyone can guess a number and write it between the lines in a book. Even if a reference as a whole is good concerning certain general topics, doesn't mean all its information is correct especially with respect to info. made by guesses, not comprehensive analysis.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1584152?seq=1 http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2305-445X2015000100016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks_in_Egypt http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2319347&redirect=true https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.192.173.95 (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When you finish reading the references notify me, if you don't know Greek, the references has good translations. I remind you that you're an editor (your profile shows you made many contribution). Don't get history matters personal, integrity should be the criteria of you editors and I think providing correct information is your top priority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.192.173.95 (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't provide good argument of 7-10 million figure, I think you should remove it as it's incorrect or give a notice it inaccurate or random guess. With respect to the part in the article saying Romans viewed Egyptiotes as Egyptians, you now already should have known that's Egyptians or Egyptiotes is actually the name of the Greeks in Egypt, that's misunderstanding based on mistranslation of barbarian to Egyptian and Egyptiotes to Greek. Such translation are made so that it's easier for the English reader to understand, but it's not the original naming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.192.173.95 (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's also in Greek methodology (when they tried to mix their religion to ancient natives religion) a quote with its source “Aegyptos conquered the country of the black footed ones and called it Egypt” Lucian of Samosata, Navigations

Hence, the name Aegyptos is pure name made by the Hellenes. Egyptians or Egyptiotes referring to Aegyptos (who's deity actually portraying Alexander III of Macedon with respect to attributes and accomplishments). [unsigned]

I'm copying this to the article talk, where it belongs. You've removed referenced material without providing relevant references for that. Johnbod (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A reference here, the population suggested by this reference is 3-5 million at most and that's including all ethnicities, not just the natives.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44696684?seq=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dod Phir (talk • contribs) 21:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for what you said on Yoninah's talk, - see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-03-28/Obituary! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... and also for missing RexxS --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much less important: some article's name. "Plenty didn't" (change their mind), you say, but they could now, no? In the former discussion, I count a few serious opposes, yours and 2 others. Not taking an IP too seriously, nor the sock, nor an editor who wasn't concerned about the opera but the character. Define "plenty" ;) - Seven solid supports back then, including the author of Richard Wagner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition is fine to Jacobin_(politics)#In_the_French_Revolution, but please include a citation for the statement so it isn't removed. This page already has a problem with not enough citations. Thanks! Skingski (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

to our cordial relationship of ten or more years? I always thought of you as a kindred spirit, but lately, we seem to be working at cross purposes. I suspect it has to do with the editor whose edits—unreliable, undue, and subtly exalting the culture of the Gangetic plain and in the process Hindu nationalist reconstructions—I'm determined to keep off the major India-related pages. What you do with him is your issue, but I'm saddened it has begun to color our relationship. Anyway, not complaining or here to argue, just lamenting a little. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cathedral of the Incarnation (Garden City, New York), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pantokrator.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's the "head article" you mention here? I haven't met the term before, and can't find a definition in WP:OCAT or anywhere else. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CATMAIN, in the main cat policy in fact. They use "main" article. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created the article for the art historian and V&A curator John Beckwith earlier today and noticed that he wrote a book on the Andrews Diptych, a 9th-century, probably North Italian ivory carving at the V&A (see here). I know very little about this sort of thing, but I wondered whether you thought it deserved an article of its own (or a mention somewhere)? —Noswall59 (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I expect it is a rather short book, but even so that alone makes the diptych notable. Thanks for doing the article - now you need to add him at John Beckwith (what a lot of them there are!) and link the bio at the many places he is mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I'll see what I can do about the Diptych. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I wrote the name of the dynasties such as the Umayyads and deleted the meaningless word "moors". This word was an insult to the Arabs after their entry into christianity. The names of the dynasties should also be written down, such as the aghlabid who ruled southern Italy and others. As for the word Muslims, it is a religion. Kasaxu (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to talk there - Moors is not "meaningles". Johnbod (talk)

The word Moor was an insult issued after the Arabs entered Christianity, and then it was applied to the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and various peoples who entered Christianity. This makes the article distracting and distorting the reader. Likewise, the “Umayyads” must be spelled out and written. They did not call themselves the "Moors". and the "muslim conquest" of Italy. The name the "aghlabid" must be clarified, as the word Muslims or Islam is his religion Kasaxu (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on this nav box for the High Renaissance? I'm not sure if the term is well defined enough to warrant such a thing, but I think it would help unify some of the articles... Aza24 (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes been looking - will comment soon. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aza24, is this still active/live? I had some comments - I think Titian & Georgione have to be there/ at the top, & some people in it I would certainly call Mannerists (eg the Vatican Gardens "casino" guy). Others seem a bit unimportant frankly. The works chosen are inevitably a bit random. Sorry for the delay. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops yes, sorry, I hide it away in this sandbox. My rationale for the major works was to give each of the "Principal proponents" two representative works. I was unsure about putting Giorgione and Titian at the top, because I'm not sure how much the Venetian school overlaps with the High Renaissance (Palma il Giovane, for instance), though I've added both now. I can add some works by them if you think my current approach to that section is sound. Aza24 (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i guess - earlyish Titians of course. I'll check it again & maybe make more suggestions. Is Vasari there (as a writer)? Johnbod (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vasari is in the "related" section with his lives, yes. I put Winckelmann and Burckhardt there as well, since they seem to have been among the earliest to use the term. BTW—in making the nav box I came across your work on Sebastiano del Piombo, fantastic job. Aza24 (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world... I'm not crazy, right? Oh Wikipedia... Aza24 (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope! I'll look at the template soon.... Johnbod (talk) 02:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Dancing Girl (sculpture)

added a link pointing to Indian independence

Glass

added a link pointing to Clara Driscoll

Indus Valley Civilisation

added a link pointing to Indian independence

Mohenjo-daro

added a link pointing to Indian independence

Pashupati seal

added a link pointing to Indian independence

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at [4]? What is your view? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably revert, but I don't have strong views. Did you ask User:Ealdgyth? I presume we're talking about the dates. Anglo-Normans could do with a section on when to stop calling people such, but his dates still seem within the zone. I think I have another o/seply above - sorry, weather's too good. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like SN handled it. Late 13th century is probably when I'd call it "English", Wm Marshall's pretty Anglo-Norman (he still held Norman lands and in fact managed to retain them even after John lost control of Normandy - so he obviously was still very much interested in Normandy ...) Ealdgyth (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John, you may remember this user. Above, you've met this one. They're all the same (full list here). May be good to know for the next time you encounter similar insistence. Sincerely, Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 18:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did wonder - I may have seen more similar, but I forget where - thanks Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apaugasma, see "Arabesque" section below. Cheers, 19:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you know what "pointy" means. For your edification. Opencooper (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. I've been here 16 years, with over 240K edits. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you got any better suggestion? [5] It's outright WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for an independent editor to remove it, or respond, or just leave it. I don't think its quite that bad, & you have made some pretty fierc comments in your time. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"HistoryofIran" has written a biased article, with sentences that are at best historically biased (Briant quite clearly cautions to accept neither version of the Gautama story, and the article presents other anti-Bardiya sentiment as has already been mentioned above) and at worst completely biased ("Darius loved Atossa the most", "he was a good king who quelled many rebellions" - things uncritically lifted from 40 year old monographs or the primary sources themselves). I suspect they are writing out of Iranian nationalism and are in any case not neutral enough to be allowed to continue to edit such pages, as all of the Persian history-related pages indicate similar bias

Not that quite bad you say? And I'm sorry, but who are you to say that? I've written nowhere as bad a comment as that, and still that shouldn't justify that others should be able as well. I'm disappointed - this is not what I was expecting from a veteran user. If you have an issue with me removing this, take it up to an admin. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you take it up with an admin! Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the edit you removed, which I don't see as "outright WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS". Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's literally the text I cited up above. In that case I would advise you to read the guidelines again, unless you agree with him, that is. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello why did you return my article Samlaxcs (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was wrong, as usual. Whether you like it or not, Moor, Moresque and Saracen are historical terms in English, not in fact insulting in themselves, and it is wrong to remove them wherever you see them, especially in historic quotes, or with dishonest edit summaries like "fixing typo". I and others will continue to revert such edits. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, the word "moors" was applied to all those with darker skin or dark hair, and it was applied to the Philippines, Sri Lanka, India, and various ethnicities. For this reason, I am deleting and correcting it, noting that historically the word "moors" not really was used but in modren day as will most of afrostrinc start used it but historically was not used until 1492. about "Sarcaen "is not an insult, but only corrected it to make article just more clear :-)). for" Moresque ", the historical name is Arabesque and Moresque. It appears to be a perversion and there is no source mention the word "moresque" at all

-) Samlaxcs (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense - they are (slightly) different things - see Moresque. I will continue to revert bad edits. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, but in any case, this is a misrepresentation of the name! Especially during this period with the Afrocentric campaigns promoting the name Moor, and the well-known name is Arabesque, not Moresque Anyone can open a page, but this does not mean that what was written on it is true at all. At the present time, many distortions occur. must be corrected and we do not overlook it Samlaxcs (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello brother, why do you always delete every change I make without saying the reason or responding to what I wrote to? is there's a problem? Samlaxcs (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"again" is not ever an appropriate edit summary as per guideline, and it is especially inappropriate when ignoring the item on the talk page. Aren't you taking liberties fashioned to tell the rest of us that you do as you please? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cut glass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crystal Palace.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cut glass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punchbowl.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello jonbod I have noticed that you are always returning or deleting all my edits without mentioning the reason. I hope for a response now and tell me the reason why you delete or return my amendments Samlaxcs (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just me, is it? Very often someone else beats me to it. The overall reason is that they are not improvements to the articles, which will lead any edit to be deleted. You should study the edit summaries I and others often provide. You are changing names on some fixed point of view I don't understand, never with any references, often with poor English, and with wierd edit summaries about Filipinos and Sri Lankans. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am here trying to correct common mistakes in articles, and I know that they are simple mistakes, such as deleting some mistakes, but I do this because I do not want wrong concepts to spread about my history and I do not want it to be distorted as well as there are many very simple modifications such as to delete a word or two words, for example Or correct the word "moors" because nowadays we have seen people often use this word and claim that it meant Africans, and this is not correct for this reason. I am trying to correct the names or amend articles that are written in the wrong way Samlaxcs (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But they aren't mistakes - "The term Moor is an exonym first used by Christian Europeans to designate the Muslim inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily and Malta during the Middle Ages. The Moors initially were the indigenous Maghrebine Berbers.^[1] The name was later also applied to Arabs and Arabized Iberians.^[2]

-but your edit summaries go on about filipinos and Sri Lankans. Johnbod (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the name Moors was not only given to Arabs or Muslims, but rather to Africans, Filipinos, Sri Lankans, and other ethnicities. Here, the disturbing thing is that many Africans believe that the word "moors" in the history of Spain is their history. Because they used the same term for them

Also, the name Moors was used as an insult, and no one really called himself this term Samlaxcs (talk) 08:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the quotation says, the name was first used for Berbers, only later Arabs, and if you are talking about north Africans, then "many Africans believe that the word "moors" in the history of Spain is their history" is reasonably correct. The origin of the term, as classical Mauri, is very clearly North African, & may well have derived from a term Berbers used to describe themselves. Do you have any evidence for usage of the English term for Filipinos and Sri Lankans? It seems to be used in Spanish and Portuguese, specifically for Muslim populations, as the article mentions, but is not a part of the meaning in English. In any case, this is not an excuse for removing the word in all contexts. Replacing "Moors" with "Arabs" is very problemmatic in many cases, and often just wrong. "Moor" was not an insult in itself, but the usual term for groups of foreign people. Of course it was not a term they, or most of them, used themselves, any more than "Japanese" is. But it doesn't seem to bother the people of Mauritania. Johnbod (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Moro people , Sri Lankan Moors The name was given to non-Muslims africans before Islam, and many other contradictory ethnicities were called not one specific ethnicity. Likewise, the name is still used in Brazil with the meaning (dark) and here is only an example that the name or the word does not have a specific meaning and did not call a single ethnicity as I am deleting it So as not to spread misconceptions as is happening now, especially in recent periods of distortion Samlaxcs (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cut glass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cork.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Insular art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. The article altar crucifix needs work. First of all, the title of the article really should be "altar cross" as many churches do not use a crucifix on their altars. The photo examples show a Methodist communion table and an Armenian Apostolic altar - neither tradition uses the crucifix. The article omits Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, even though a photo shows an Oriental Orthodox altar (the Armenian example).

A crucifix is a cross with the corpus (body) of Jesus nailed to it or in some cases painted on it. Generally, the use of a crucifix on an altar is restricted to Roman Catholicism (where it is required, but the Post-Vatican II rubrics do not demand it be placed on the altar and it is often behind it or to the side); Lutheranism (where it is customary in Europe and occasionally elsewhere), and certain Anglo-Catholic Anglican/Episcopal churches. A lot of the article is written as a pastiche with personal opinion backed up with footnotes that do not fully back up the assertions.

In addition, the "United Methodist Wikipedia editor" (my name for him or her) is at work posting "Methodist" content in almost every article on Christianity in Wikipedia. My favorite is under the article Mass (liturgy) where this editor asserts that there is such a thing as a "Methodist Mass" - a term that Methodists never use for their Eucharistic liturgies.

This all said, I have little time or inclination to redo this article with appropriate footnotes or to argue that it should be titled "Altar cross", so feel free to rollback my edits. I shall not dispute it. --IACOBVS (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. As I said, or implied a while ago, when you moved the article to something else, "altar cross" is probably the best title, but I don't feel like doing the modest amount of work for a proper WP:RM either. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I've recently stumbled across your excellent contributions at Cut glass, Engraved glass and Gold ground. It is (almost) unbelievable that such basic topics lacked their own articles until you created them only weeks ago. I hardly ever give these things out but I just wanted to thank you for such impressive and important contributions. They are a reminder of just how much we all need to do here. —Noswall59 (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks! Engraved glass did in fact have a short article, mainly on modern stuff, but the others indeed had nothing (Cut glass redirecting to Engraved glass). Italo-Byzantine is another one from scratch in 2021. Cheers! Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod! Please compare [6] and [7] with [8] or [9]. Again, if you meet another editor with this particularity, please take a look at their edit history and if appropriate post here. You could have nipped this one in the bud much earlier. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, but he will probably pop up again - there's something to be said for knowing where to find him. But thanks for your report. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John,

I noticed that you had undone my changes (which took hours to structure over night) on the History of architecture. I agree with your point about copying from other Wiki articles. I can rewrite it. However, the point about imbalance. It is grossly unfair to mark "Indian" architecture as one tiny section within Asia when Europe gets section after section. It should be noted that the architectural styles throughout the Indian continent is hugely different. There are different civilisations we are talking about. I consulted architects to understand the different styles (many of which have their own independent sections on Wiki). If we are cutting down on the size of the article, we should start with Europe which gets a gigantic slice of this.

But I agree with your point about copying, which I did for ease. I'll get a friend of mine to write it better. We will reduce the wordage if that helps. But yes, we can either have a few sections for the Indian continent, or none at all, because it's a gross injustice. I'd appreciate your support/advice on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunullas (talk • contribs) 15:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did feel rather sorry about doing it, but the reasons I gave are valid. I'm well aware of the variety of Indian architecture (I think I wrote a lot of what you added). The article does give more space (though lower down) to the Western tradition, but I think this inevitable, given the presumed interests of our readers. The old Indian section is not "tiny" at all, but a reasonable length in line with the other Asian sections. There are other cultures who have better reason to feel hard done by with the the present architecture, I think. I suggest you take this to article talk if you want to pursue it - but look at WP:LENGTH first. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. My main concern here is that 'Western' and 'Eastern' aren't the best way to show the distinctions. I'm glad you're the one who did a lot for the architecture pages for the Indian ones, so you'd know very well that Asia isn't supposed to be smaller than or even equal to that of the European one. I will not be directly undoing the changes you made. I respect your opinions and concerns. I will definitely give the length article a read. But I do sincerely feel that "Asia" as a section should be split. India, East Asia, and West Asia (which already has the Islamic section) don't necessarily fit together. The notion of "continents" is quite a 20th century idea that is vaguely defined. In our hundreds of languages, "India" (not the modern nation-state) is referred to as a continent. And it's extremely diverse to be shown under one umbrella. After giving the length article a read, I shall rewrite the India section to show the diversity. But I'll make sure it's not too large. I know that most readers now are Western, but Wikipedia is forever. This is changing in all fields. I'll move the talk to the article itself. Once again, many thanks for hearing me out. I hope we can come up with a fair solution :)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ref Botticelli. I don't think I'm being picky to request a specific citation for a specific fact. We already have a running battle against nonsense edits trying to 'correct' his date of birth so if we are going to give a specific date in the infobox for his date of death, it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect a citation for it. Given such an infobox citation, then I wouldn't have needed to put a cn tag to the text about his death in the body. (I strongly dislike drive-by tagging if I have any alternative but I don't have a copy of Lightbown and, given the DoB fictions, am reluctant to trust anything I might find on a web page.)

No need to reply, I will be content if the infobox is updated. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've GOT a specific citation, and you are being picky. No, I don't have Lightbown now, it came on an inter-library trasfer. The best solution for all the many problems caused by infoboxes is to remove the box. Or at least add a stiff hidden note. Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't but I do now:

| birth_date = c. 1445^[1]

| birth_place = Florence, Republic of Florence (now Italy)

| death_date = May 17, 1510(1510-05-17) (aged 64–65)^[2][3]

Hidden note added after birth date: Please do not change this because there is no reliable source for his date of birth. If you believe you have confirmable date, please present it at the article talk page first.

Yes, I know. I could have done all that first time. I have a knee-jerk reaction to passive voice that over-rides common sense. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw your name on the PR list of volunteers, so I thought I might ask for your help. I recently submitted an FAC for Edward Mitchell Bannister, a 19th-century African American landscape painter, but there have been few replies and the review page might be archived. If you have the time, would you be able to look at the article and comment on the FAC? Thank you! —Wingedserif (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

History of Pakistan

added a link pointing to Baloch

Portraits of the Apostles

added a link pointing to Encaustic

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every few days some IP or anon comments on some niche medieval music page I watch (most of which are in awful states) asking "why isn't this included?" "why is this page so bad?" "how can Wikipedia have such a bad article"? Like, what should I say—it's not like people are purposely making bad articles, it's that no one works on them in the first place... is there some essay about this? Best - Aza24 (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's WP:SOFIXIT. In a way they are asking a good question, to which the real answer is "Well because most of our vaunted 30,000-strong editor force is fixing short descriptions or writing biographies of 19th-century Americans of one sort or another. Johnbod (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's just frustrating because its annoying to see so much but I don't want to yell at them for trying to help. At the same time it makes me wonder what about Wikipedia deters some readers from editing an article themselves when they can see its in an awful shape. But yes, things like short description editing bothers me too, another reason to love the core contest... speaking of, I've only begun digging into history of music in the past few days or so (mainly just a lot of reading, but some editing to the origins of music section) and I found myself adding quite a bit to the classical music article (all of the "roots" section, for example). I suspect I may try and add more to the classical music article as a chug along with the history of music one; would the additions to the former be eligible to the contest—should I submit it as a second article or something? Aza24 (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people either don't want to do the research, don't feel confident writing, or prefer micro-topics with manageable numbers of sources. Articles can be submitted at any point before the close, afaik. Edits on other articles beyong the one submitted may be given some weight, but it's probably best to concentrate on one for competition purposes. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Regarding this, you might consider taking the matter to ANI, given this, this, this and this. The editor was apparently warned numerous times, was eventually blocked, continued doing it, multiple people called them out again, you called them out, and now they are still doing it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw, thanks - not sure I will take to ANI myself, but someone should. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, sorry to bother you when you're busy with TCC (the judges' comments there have been cracking me up, by the way). I was just wondering if you were still planning to make comments at the FAC for Inuit clothing? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

|There's nothing for TCC judges to do at this stage, but unfortunately I'm.travelling at the moment. I still intend to comment. Apart from time, this means I have to use a loathsome laptop. I could drop a note at FAC. Johnbod (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just figured I'd check in. It doesn't appear to be in danger of getting archived, but if any of the coords bring it up, I'll mention this discussion. Safe travels! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed Urine deflector has been nominated at Did You Know. Please follow the comments at the nomination's entry and chip in as you see fit. Thanks for your contributions and inspiration. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted something I fixed in Raphael (Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFGigli,_Laura1992). I understand we don't usually change the citation style on articles, but you left the sfn refs to Salmi in place. Why have one, but not the other? There was no consistent citation style, and it is nicer to have link to the reference in the list of citations, don't you think? Vexations (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't! There should be NO sfn refs in the article; that is not the style. I'm pretty cynical about these claims to "fix" things by using sfn. Then it is claimed there is no consistent style, & that is used as an excuse to convert the whole article to sfn without discussion. If a couple of sfn refs have crept in (it's a big article), feel free to fix that by converting them to the format the rest use. Johnbod (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to leave it alone and make sure to never touch an article you’ve edited prior to me. It’s been fun meeting you, but I don’t need this. Vexations (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I asked you to confirm your position regarding merging Rite and Ritual after I responded to your suggestions at Talk:Ritual but you have not yet replied. I thought it would best to say something here before making any assumptions about moving forward. Scyrme (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i ceertainly haven't changed my position - more forgotten it, after a month, was it? Johnbod (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's been about a month, which is why I'd like to reach some sort of agreement rather than waiting another month or more for further replies. Scyrme (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? You still haven't confirmed. I get that you may have forgotten your position, but you could just reread what you wrote as a reminder then read my reply. Scyrme (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear John Bod, Thank you for your intervention about the edits of the Banner, who sought to reduce the size of the images in the Gothic Architecture article. Could you take a look at Reims Cathedral? He is trying to reduce the size of all the image there, claiming that readers can simply click to enlarge the images. I agree with you that readers should not have to click on every image just to make it visible. Could you say a word on this in the talk page on Reims Cathedral? Many thanks! SiefkinDR (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I followed some of the comments, which I think you initiated on this editor's "etymology" campaign. I think it is clear that this editor is not here to make WP:en better for native English speakers. If you look at the pile of edits I just reverted on Black Friday (shopping)‎ (itself not exactly brilliant, because it does not distinguish the Black Friday of US origin from other uses of the same name)... you will see that these are all trivial adjustments, but usually in the wrong direction. I am reminded of this incident ["Zero article campaign] in which a speaker of Latvian (or was it Estonian) tried to lecture native speakers on use of articles. Of course it makes no sense, and the simplest explanation is that the problem editor is sincere, but is a total beginner at English. We keep getting stuff with strange phrasing ("Etymology has many pathways"), and someone should be able to guess the native language from which that came. Anyway, just to provide my support for taking this to ANI; I think this editor is just wasting other people's time. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! I thought he was well-meaning, but probably a net negative. Not sure about the language - I was thinking a rather young American, but who knows. At Black Friday he did catch one genuine issue "Origin of the term Black Friday" is not a great section heading, but should have just been trimmed to "Origin of the term". Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support and help with this. FYI, the page got about 33,000 views in 12 hours which puts it around #6 in the DYK charts for 2021 – better than Napoleon's penis, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Andrew - well done! As you know, my contribution was minimal, so thanks for the dyk credit. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the link. Between this topic area and the whole mess at Germanic peoples, I'm beginning to remember one reason why I cut back my editing... Ealdgyth (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - I think you wisely never got sucked in to the Crusades, Crusading, Crusadering movement swamp.... Fortunately my garden is too demanding at the moment for me to do much. All the best! Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was listed; however, it's listed on Commons, not English Wikipedia.[10] Your comments would be welcome there, too. Hope you're well! Risker (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - yes, fine, Best Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]