User talk:Johnbod/43

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to explicitly thank you for your edits! They really helped the article---and my understanding of it---a lot! Only just now saw them :) --Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 04:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Enamelled glass 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! CMD (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style page you wrote the following (or maybe EEng copied it from EEng's talk page):

He's got the idea from the wording of the policy: "An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content". And one bit you need to read is (MOS:RETAIN "Edit-warring over style, or enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is never acceptable." I've put a query for you above. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I often find myself having to look for things in Wikipedia, and would be interested in reading the query you describe. But I can't find it. (unsigned)

It's the higher-up bit here. Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, I need some acknowledgment because I really feel I don't get enough, so what about you maybe telling me "Heck yes, this Ehrismann chap is an interesting fellow, had never heard about him, but then, so many provincial artists are overlooked abroad or forgotten altogether; it's a shame, really, but thanks for being here!" You may be the only person who might appreciate what I am trying to add here. All the best, --Edelseider (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I've been aware of you since the Palais Rohan, Strasbourg Peer review - mid-2016 I see, and your stuff keeps improving. I'm sure I'm not the only one. The less-viewed stuff doesn't attract much praise or attention, as I know from my own articles, but equally they tend to get messed about with by others, and over the years the views add up. Only a vanishingly small proportion of our readers ever comment on talk, but that doesn't mean they don't appreciate us (we have to believe). You don't do WP:DYK, do you? That can add a few '000 views over a single day, which is gratifying, & can lead to improvements and notice by others. Keep up the great work, & consider yourself patted! All the best, Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did DYK a lot - and then I stopped. And I will tell you exactly why. I submitted articles about beautiful churches and chose the prettiest photos to go with them. And what happened? The photos were never used in the article announcements. Notre-Dame de Guebwiller and Église Saint-Pierre-et-Saint-Paul, Neuwiller-lès-Saverne are such amazing churches, but who will click on the links to the articles if he/she is not goaded by a picture to do so? As I am dealing with art and architecture, if the images of what I propose are concealed, I am done with proposing. It couldn't be more frustrating, and more simple. You live and breathe visuals arts, so you understand what I mean and what I feel! All the best -Edelseider (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May I add a pat, to what Johnbod already said. Thank for your DYK suggestions, and please do it again. If you want to go for hits, don't proceed to DYK but ITN (In the news). If I show an unknown pianist on DYK, there may be some hundred views, but in the Recent deaths section of ITN, you easily get 10 times as many, see Eleanor Sokoloff. Just watch Deaths in 2020, and look who has too little prominence there (right now J. J. Lionel and Delphine Levy), and polish. Nothing for forgotten artists, of course, for whom DYK is just right. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Hah, but I will not go around killing people in order to get clicks for ITN! :) Thank you for the tip, and for the kind words. My next article will be about one of the most beautiful naked women in the world. She truly is second to none in the looks department. See here. Ciao, --Edelseider (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see, - bad news for Levy, I'm afraid. You don't ave to kill, the die more than we can do justice to. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Well, even non-pic dyks can get good views (especially now they are on for 24 not 12 hours). My most recent got 5,717 views with no pic, though a decent hook. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(bztt, we are at 12 hours again.) congrats anyway - a beer got even more yesterday, just because the hook mentioned Nazi, sigh. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pats to Edelseider and Gerda and Jon (pat pat pat). When I tell people I edit Wikipedia, or have gone to Wikipedia conferences I get odd looks and comments like "I never thought of Wikipedia having a conference". Realized years ago that one of the signs of Wikipedia's success and influence is that it has become a "thing" like a sidewalk or light bulb. It's just "there" now, and most people never think about the past steps of real-life folks actually creating the stuff. And besides, individual editors are the only ones who actually know the extent and effect of their edits, and we've all forgotten 99% of them until reminded. So, chin up, pat on back, and thank you all for your service. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A hearty thank you, User:Randy Kryn! I have just been banned for several months on German Wikipedia for completely idiotic reasons, and I just had to ask (sorry for that, Johnbod!!) if all that stuff is really worth getting sanguine about. We are not in 2005 anymore, after all, and the pioneering days are well behind us. All the best! --Edelseider (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, your Wikipedia experience is not complete until you get banned on German Wikipedia. Pioneering days, yes, but how far from them depends on if Wikipedia is now dug in enough to last for another 50 years. If so this still puts us in the semi-pioneering days, with lots of room to roam. A 19 year old Wikipedia would be just out of diapers in some cultures. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) At both of your talk pages, actually. Edelseider, I'm glad you're around and doing what you're doing. It's really, really nice to look across the Rhine from Swabia to see you at work in Lorraine. Since reviewing Palais Rohan at GAN ages ago (I've gotten better at it!), I've wondered about working with you. Drop me a line! There's a certain Memling in Stuttgart I've had my eye on for a while now. Hell, it gnaws at me that Palais Rohan isn't an FA while my own darling Ludwigsburg Palace is. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits on Palazzo Pisani Gritti. One question: you changed the spelling of "story" to "storey". Why? The spelling "storey" seems less common in British usage and rare in American usage. --Macrakis (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As A BE speaker, I find "storey" normal. A substantial proportion of those hits are for the "tale" kind of story. But change it if you like. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I was sloppy with my ngrams search and hadn't considered the "first story in the book" context. The following ngram analyses are all done with the 2019 British English corpus (which is new and might be more accurate):

• upper storey -- 82%
• storey window -- 54% (e.g., third story window)
• storey building -- 80%

So storey does definitely seem more common in UK English, though not universal. On the other hand, when you look at English as a whole, these proportions go down to 45%, 10%, and 25% (strange how different each of these is).

With the new US 2019 corpus, it's 22%, 3%, and 7%. It's hard to know (in both directions) how much of this is due to "contamination", where the book hasn't been tagged correctly as US/UK.

Anyway, I'll leave it as story for now, but I acknowledge that the case for it is less strong than I thought initially. --Macrakis (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not one that uses thepeerage.com or Debretts etc but this version of a few days ago is fairly typical of what is seen for current members of former royal families in India. I cleaned it up a little but these things are particularly tricky: royal titles, privileges etc were finally scrapped in 1971 but in many cases well before that, yet there remains a rather slavish/feudal attitude among many of the population and especially the Indian media. That attitude is engrained in Indian culture - it is why I get charming messages such as "Dear Sir, you are a bastard for ****ing removing stuff from my article. Your mother is a dog. Have a good day. Thank you."

Sorting out the wheat from the chaff can be painful because puff pieces in the press are common and, arguably, they're all socialites of one form or another even if only within the area of their own former 100-acre princely state. Their titles are often still used, even though meaningless, and they quite often do exert significant local political or philanthropic power but that goes unreported. - Sitush (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all what you said though! Jodphur is one of the major princely houses & former states, & I think still pretty rich - as you say they gets lots of coverage in India. If there's still a "feudal" attitude, it's at least partly because rural conditions often are still pretty feudal. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hilda Seligman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Wimbledon

Lustreware (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Creamer

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod,

I know that you are an expert on English ceramics; I have read some of your excellent articles. I also see that you have corrected the categories I have selected for a few of my early medieval English pottery articles. I don't know the difference between English pottery, English porcelain and English ceramics. Should I be using the Medieval Ceramics in England for my British medieval pottery articles? Are there other categories that I should become familiar with?

Also, I have uploaded several images of Border Ware, Surrey whitewares, Shelly ware, and Sandy ware to Wikicommons. I will continue to create articles and upload images for this time period. I have created image categories for the above wares and am not sure which main categories to add these sub-categories to: Category:English Pottery, Category:Medieval Ceramcis, Pottery in England (there may be others). Can you advise me on the correct organization of subcategories and categories for these medieval ware articles and images? thx! MauraWen (talk) 13:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Categories should be added only to the lowest level that precisely fits in a particular category tree, so if "Medieval Ceramics in England" fits, then just use that. If post-medieval use "English pottery", and so on. Commons categories may be different and are often were messy. You seem to have treated Border ware correctly there. Eventually we could do with an "English medieval pottery" category. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thx Johnbod, We could use an "English medieval pottery" category for Wikipedia articles, Wikicommon images or both? I want to clarify. MauraWen (talk)

I meant Commons, but it's the better name, imo. The WP category could be renamed via a tedious WP:Cfd process - let me know if you launch one. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, Yes, I would like to work on that, I will read about the process. I am assuming that you are talking about renaming the "Ceramics in Medieval England" category, "English Medieval Pottery". There are existing pottery articles for this category that I could expand and look for images for Wikicommons. How would you define "English Medieval Pottery" in terms of time period? I know that some early medieval wares can fall into the Anglo-Saxon time period, but I suppose Anglo-Saxon falls under the Medieval category, and that Anglo-Saxon pottery does not need its own category? (Maura) MauraWen (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, plus we don't have much on AS pottery. Usually "medieval" stops at 1485 for England, by convention. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find your edit summary gratuitously insulting and unnecessarily personal. While I have no problem with the changes you made, the modification I made was far from "silly". This was how I found the article when I made the change. I just see your change as an alternative way of organizing it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, the time had come. This article had to be started: Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation (Memling). I finally did it. I would be so glad if you would contribute as well – there is hardly a more interesting work. All the best, --Edelseider (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Internet censorship topic is Semi-protection and I can't add information about internet shutdown in Iran, at the Shutdowns part of the topic. It's link of the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship

There are some useful things about Iran internet shutdown, you can help me to add (only two or three sentence is enough): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019–2020_Iranian_protests#Internet_shutdown

♡Thanks HappyBird6858 (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a line & a link already, which seems ok. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Deprecate parenthetical citations you wrote "Oppose as the thin end of the wedge etc. I don't like this system at all, but it is dying the death naturally. Nor do I like the promoting of the horrible sfn style in the proposal."

I plan to take part in merging Pseudonymity into Pseudonym. The citations are a bit of a mess for both articles. At Talk:Pseudonymity I believe there is a consensus to overhaul the citations, but what system to use seems still up for grabs. Since some sources are cited more than once, I was thinking of using the sfn style which you think is horrible. What would you suggest instead? Jc3s5h (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking! I use my own very simple style, which is especially good when 2 or more sources are being used together several times, but with different pages, as its highly flexible. It's also easier for new editors to understand in edit view - anyone who's trained editors knows that all the template styles completely freak out most of them. You can see it in the articles on my talk page - recently À la poupée, Devunigutta Temple, or Enamelled glass. It might be less good for strings of one-off web references, though these are usually a sign of weak sourcing, and indeed weak content. Best of luck! Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It took a while for me to go look. I looked at Enamelled glass. I won't go into the absence of clicking from short citations to full citations, or the absence of metadata. I'll just ask what printed style manual the full citations follow?

The reason I hope they do follow a printed style manual is that if another editor wants to add a different kind of source from those already present, the editor will be able to look up how to format the citation. Otherwise, the various editors will just make it up as they go along.

I used to use a style similar to what you used. When I did that, I put an HTML comment at the beginning of the references section indicating which printed style manual I was following. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Afaik, it doesn't follow any particular manual - most people don't have access to these anyway. The book/paper citations are designed to be quick to adapt from google books & JSTOR respectively. I think the style is easy enough to pick up. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have annoyed you with this redirect. I was planning to do a separate article about the royal collection because as you say it isn't really the same thing as the Prado, but I haven't finished reading about the new museum near the Royal Palace. I think there has been some dispute as to what should go in it.

As regards the related complaint about paintings in York, I was thinking of writing about some of the ceramics in the museum there, so I would have reorganised some of the related categories in due course. Apologies again.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks - an actual Spanish Royal Collection would be a good idea, which I would add to at some point. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, do have a look at the Royal Collection article. I haven't done anything about the York ceramics yet.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Queen Anne style architecture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William and Mary.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your review of the Portrait of a noble young Lady, and your label in its talk page. Is this article on Pieter Pourbus, from which the Portrait of a noble young Lady is derived, worth a mention, and a grade, in your VA project? and now eligible to GA/FL/FA vote? In my view, it is now complete, as I have been compiling all available information on this painter, and reported it in this article with all sources available. Have a good day! --Emigré55 (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, as C. There are lots of unreferenced passages, which would need to be sorted before a run at GA. Also some format/style issues. Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will look into the passages which might be insufficiently referenced. Do not hesitate to read through, and add "ref.need." where you see a need. As to the format/style issue, please let me know, as I am no expert, and relied until now on the other people who reviewed the article, and corrected here and there, like Hoary lately.

Have a good evening, --Emigré55 (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there is only one "ref.need." left. Someone read the article recently, and had left 4 "ref.need." labels. I filled 3 of them, and am looking now for the one left the right reference(s). So I am not sure what your mean when you write that there are "lots of unreferenced passages". Do not hesitate to read and tell me where exactly you feel there is a need. cheers, --Emigré55 (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: Hello, I have added today the last reference asked which was missing. As far as I am concerned, and I believe I know this painter very well (I have collected all sources available so far), the content of the article has reached this description, in my opinion: "Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting.". Which would qualify as an "A" grade. The only question on which I cannot judge is the "wikification" (I am too "new" to Wikipedia to know all the subtleties in that field), although, as mentioned above, the article was fairly deeply reviewed by Hoary recently. @Hoary: do you want to have another review? @Johnbod: & @Hoary: How can I/we proceed to the next step? thank you in advance for your advice and guidance. have a good evening.--Emigré55 (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are still several paragraphs with no reference (partly because there are still too many paragraphs). You are likely to have a long wait after nominating it at WP:GAN, so perhaps you can do that now, and continue to work on it. Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Will do. Have a good evening. --Emigré55 (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are more problems that need to be addressed. Like the sentence "Even so, I would not like to conceal any of the most special. That is why I wish to present this view of Pieter Pourbus": "Born in the Dutch town of Gouda, he based himself in Bruges from an early age" what is given with the source Van Mander 1604, fol. 257r; original text in Dutch:"…Evenwel soud' ick niet geern eenige der besonderste verzwijgen. Daerom ick hier wil voor ooghen stellen Pieter Pourbus"." Note that there is no mention of Bruges in the source. And translation would be more like "However, I would not be pleased to conceal one of the more special. That is why I like to present you Pieter Pourbus.". I have noticed before that he has trouble understanding Dutch, so understanding old-Dutch is even more of a problem. The Banner talk 18:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for greatly expanding Enamelled glass. I left a tiny stub, and suddenly it's an extensive, detailed article. Thank you also for finding some excellent additional sources I'd entirely overlooked. I added another source from the Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History (a nicely eclectic set of curator essays!). Ancient glass trade also has some interesting content and sources. HLHJ (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re your revert on page Altar crucifix: I tried to change the page to 'Altar cross' but this was not allowed by Wikipedia. Not sure why.

The page has a lot of issues:

1. It's largely original research with a focus on Roman Catholicism, although even that aspect is poorly resourced.
2. The images have little to do with the title of the page. The page is called 'altar crucifix' when the two illustrations are altar crosses (with no corpus) from a United Methodist chapel and Armenian Apostolic cathedral.
3. The denominational information is inaccurate.
4. The focus of the article is entirely American.

I'm not interested enough to rewrite it and source it (and I'm a real live theologian). Maybe someone else will. --IACOBVS (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a move to Altar cross, but this should be done the proper way, especially as others may object. Not sure I can be bothered to do anything about this or the other issues either. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources that say enamels must be painted on the glaze? I have other sources that say that Chinese enamels may be painted on unglazed biscuit or on the glaze - [1], while some pieces may be painted both on the biscuit and on the glaze. This is mentioned for famille verte [2], and I have seen another source that say that famille rose enamel technique changed in Jingdezhen, although it is vague on the detail but seems to imply that some were painted on the biscuit, so I need to find other sources. Hzh (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ok, but I think those painted on the biscuit are a minority variant from particular periods - it would be good to find one to illustrate, by the way, or mention if any of the current pics are of one. The phrasing should be modified, but the overglaze link needs to be very prominent. I'll copy this to the article talk, where any continuation should go. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod. Thank you for rewriting the article for cliché verre. I've reviewed your DYK nomination. It only needs a couple small issues resolved and it will be good to go. gobonobo ^{+ c} 04:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't know why you reverted my edits. There's no consistency about citation style in the article (currently there are some citations are without a template but at least one is with {{cite book}}). Besides you deleted also ISBN codes, my archival research to find the correct author/editors/publishers of a book (there were some wrong/dubious cases), {{use dmy dates}} and {{convert}} templates. These have nothing to do with citation style/templates. Maybe I should have done separate edits. Thanks in advance.--Carnby (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you should have done. Just because some editor comes in & adds a deviant style doesn't mean someone else can come in re do it the way they like. Feel free to re-add the ISBNs, but these are very trivial. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited L’Estampe originale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rue de Rome.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/L’Estampe originale at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that you are editing Polykleitos at the same time. I had an internet glitch and reapplied a change that may have undone something of yours? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No - different sections, so no edit conflict. I'll leave it with you now. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about using this but the writer might be you!

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KaOcAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=%22The+proportions+of+the+Doryphoros%22+harmony&source=bl&ots=z6ecOWnLEU&sig=ACfU3U1Qst2NKNegX0EFTWGPUxvdRJa2Qw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwip07GMmezrAhWOa8AKHdD6DD0Q6AEwEnoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22The%20proportions%20of%20the%20Doryphoros%22%20harmony&f=false

A New History of the Humanities: The Search for Principles and Patterns from ...

By Rens Bod

:-)

--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heavens, no! But this is an excellent source for you. I thought there were Indian "canons" but not really any equally precise Chinese ones, partly because they have little early (pre-Buddhist) sculpture of human figures, apart from their tomb figures, which are relatively low status. Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You read my mind! I came to the same conclusion: Aesthetic canon as it stand is essentially a dictionary definition and the only example given seems highly dubious. It is not a standalone article and I can't see how it could be without massive cfork.

So I suggest we redirect it to body proportions but right now there isn't really an obvious target section, so it would need one writing (or copy existing across?). I'm not clear where it would fit, any ideas? (Assuming you agree!) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that fr:Canon esthétique is a great deal longer, so let me translate that first and see what transpires.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... which repeats the Botticelli canard, again without citation. It also gets bogged down in attractiveness. But it did lead me to the Egyptian Canon (where, as I've noted at BP, you had arrived before me). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I do think there is room for an article on the general history of attractiveness, where stuff like the white skin might go. Maybe it can be squeezed into Female body shape. Maybe not. Anyway we don't seem to have such an article yet. Johnbod (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've started to look at Indian as well as Egyptian practice and am beginning to think that this article might well be expansible. Certainly, it is going to be easier to park the details of the Egyptian "Canon of Proportions" there and cover the "profile head, shoulders and chest square on, hips and legs in profile" style. It is only incidentally related to 'body proportions' (except maybe skull distortion). Material about hair, makeup, fashion etc would take us down a rabbit-hole that I would rather leave to others. So let's allow 'Aesthetic canon' to live a while longer to see if it can develop into something that can stand in its merits. But I will continue to remove the OR. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from sites that copy Wikipedia, I have found only one use of the phrase "aesthetic canon" (at https://www.jstor.org/stable/687754mBjrLL). There are many many more instances of "artistic canon". See for ex Western canon. If this article is to persist, I suggest a change of name. Agree? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you should do a WP:RM - that may show if anyone else is interested in the topic. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that I would be laughed at if I raised it as a controversial move. I could just be bold but may I suggest it would address your concern if I put a note at the talk page of Canon (disambiguation), Canon (basic principle), Aesthetic canon, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arts, to say that I plan to do it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All moves are by default potentially "controversial", unless claimed to be "uncontroversial", which people often get badly wrong. I don't see why anyone would laugh. Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the risk of going badly wrong is to do a backroom deal among the usual suspects at an RtM page, having failed to notify the people who might have a real interest. So let me try my way first: if anyone asks for a formal RTM, I will of course acceded. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I just had! Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But you are family :-) Ok, accepted. But as I have asked, let's collect any opinions that can be summarised in the RTM. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we wrap up this RM before an admin declares 'no consensus' and 'status quo', which neither of us wants? I am willing to accept your initial proposal "artistic canon of body proportions". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well say so there - but it needs the plural "canons", doesn't it? Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is Talk:William Dobson#Who Is Really In This Painting? in your area? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of - thanks, I commented. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to visit Art world for some reason, perhaps just to wikilink. Sent the last two days doing a rewrite, easy since I have the physical books by Becker, Thornton, Crane, and Wolfe on my shelf. You last visited in 2016, to comment out an entire section on "Theory". I would welcome some comment before I dig myself deeper.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply on talk there. Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AMM Pittsburgh has kindly done some expansion of Fred and Betsy Bang so we may be able to get them up at DYK. I have made a start on a nomination and given you some credit for your work on Betsy. As you have an interest, you may like to watch or assist the progress of the topics through the mill... Andrew🐉(talk) 17:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to l-o-o-k at an article first before making erroneous claims about an edit. The Lesbian article uses both Harvard style and citation templates to cite sources.Your "WP:CITEVAR breach" summary shows that you jumped to conclusions before actually looking at the references section. I conducted a search of your user contribution history with https://sigma.toolforge.org/ and today is the first time that your name appears in the article's history, so you are definitely unfamiliar with the article. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly I am, but I am very familiar with WP:CITEVAR. I didn't jump to any conclusions, I just saw your edit summary, and checked the talk page to see if this change of citation style was discussed - of course it wasn't. You should just propose your changes there, per policy. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also familiar with WP:CITEVAR: "it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page" -- since the article was created almost 20 years ago, and since that time many editors have edited the article with non-Harvard style referencing ... the preference for non-Harvard referencing suggests the existence of a consensus. "If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it" -- the article contains both Harvard referencing and citation template referencing, so at this point in the article's existence both styles have been acceptable.
I added <ref> tags to the Harvard references in the footnotes, which retained them in the exact same referencing format as before, and also matched all the other Harvard-style references in the article that used <ref> tags. I did not convert Harvard-style references into citation template referencing. If you had bothered to compare the Notes section before-and-after you would have seen that the Harvard references where not changed -- so your claim in the summary that I breached WP:CITEVAR is false.
I did change "<ref group=note>" to the Efn template so that non-Harvard referenced footnotes could appear in the Notes section. Using the template did not change the Harvard-style references. The {{notelist|group=note|33em}} template was changed to {{notelist}} so that all footnotes could appear in the section. There is no policy/guidance that I know of that prevents the <ref group=note> wiki markup from being substituted with an Efn template. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, when you get a copy can you email a copy of this. Lost password ....thanks, and hope all is well. Ceoil (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't think my library is running it. You can read 100 articles free pcm at the moment, which is what I do now. Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have added a short reference to "Hoiberg & Ramchandani 2000" but no such source is listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I fixed that, & reverted your totally shameless cite-banditry - you need to read and follow WP:CITEVAR. Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Contemporary art gallery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Art fair.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. I found this which explained the apparent Engvar difference, which is what I applied. I later realised that it's a noun anyway (I think?), so 'practiced' would be the correct spelling in Commonwealth English as well (according to that article).

2. 'Cliché verre' passed the rule of thumb used to apply MOS:FOREIGNITALIC—it doesn't show up on Merriam-Webster Online, so it might not yet be assimilated into common use in English. I'm not sure what you meant by "sources treat it as an English word", was this explicit? Or more implicit like with the formatting...? I dunno. —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used for the page, several online, treat it as English. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Went through the three that were online, and I'm still not sure what you mean precisely by "treating it as" an English word; they use it as another photographic term, and don't italicise it. At the end of the day, even if the sources were explicit in saying that Cliché verre is an English loanword and that it has become assimilated from French (which they do not), the fact that it doesn't show up in English dictionaries is a clear indication that it has not assimilated into common use in English from French—and must be in italics per MOS:FOREIGNITALICS. —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It's an obscure term whichever way you look at it, & there's never likely to be "common use in English" in any form. So one should look at how the specialized sources that do use treat it; "it doesn't show up on Merriam-Webster Online" is a poor indication. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of MOS:FOREIGNITALIC is italicising foreign terms and phrases that "do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English"—so looking at how specialised sources treat them is not useful. Merriam-Webster Online is simply a convenient starting point and not an arbitrary rule; the criteria for whether something has assimilated into everyday use in English is dictionaries in general, I believe, and can perhaps be extended to demonstrable instances of non-specialised usage: such as in the general media. Also, let's not pretend that dictionaries don't get more technical and specialised than the average English speaker—they're good indicators of whether words are reasonably common in non-specialised parlance. At the end of the day, the spirit of italicising technical, non-assimilated words derived from a foreign language is to make the encyclopedia more accessible and readable for the larger global masses—and it lives up to that. —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources suggest that every day English writers us the term they treat it as an English word, but that is not very often. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey John, I'm working on getting Portrait of a Musician ready for FAC and had a question I hoped you might be able to help with. The Ambrosiana website and a publication by Frank Zöllner (2019) says the painting is in oils and tempera but Marani (2003) and Syson/National Gallery (2011) scholars say its just in oils. None of these entries discuss any discontinuity in scholarly conesnsus about oils vs oils and tempera or anything (so it doesn't seem to be anything controversial), in fact I wonder if Marani and Syson/NG just forgot? Originally I just had oils in the article but I'm leaning towards including both, with an explanatory note, since I trust the musuem that has had the painting for 300 years more... any thoughts? Even though Zöllner's publication is newer, it's a reprint from 2011 (or somewhere around then) and I'm fairly certain the only reason it was reprinted was because of Leonardo's 500th anniversary last year, not for making corrections. Aza24 (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think all you can do is lay out both views. The Ambrosiana will obviously be the closest to any technical examinations & analyses, if there have been any. They actually say "Tempera and oil on panel" (not oil and tempera"). Without analysis I'm not sure how easy it is to tell the difference. Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there doesn't really seem like an easy way out... I'll see what I can do. Btw, if you'll excuse my ignorance, what is the significance of "tempera and oil" vs "oil and tempera"? Aza24 (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One would think the first-placed indicates the main medium. The second might just be touching up in places. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that's what I assumed you meant. I suppose that makes sense, although it adds another layer (no pun intended...) to the puzzle. Aza24 (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. re medrs talk [3], you got me there, I think (unless I'm missing something of course :) ...had me checking whether I really was on the talk page I thought I was... oh, never mind? Cheers my friend, 86.190.128.121 (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, forgot about the rename - removed. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thamks for the fun. 86.190.128.121 (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jakob Seisenegger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Court artist.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thanks for maintaining the integrity of the Wikipedia. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I bring up minor issues with you too often, lol, but here we are. I've seen your recent work with tapestries, any thoughts on if their names should be italicized? Seems like a grey area in my mind, at the moment there's a lot of inconsistency (Amnesty-Sís-Pinton Tapestries and Great Tapestry of Scotland are not while Christ in Glory in the Tetramorph and Magna Carta (An Embroidery) are for example) Aza24 (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesty-Sís-Pinton Tapestries not I think - the individual ones have titles, but this seems a bit of a made series title. Great Tapestry of Scotland yes, & most sets - really they should be treated like paintings - Triumph of Foo, Life of Foo etc. The odd Magna Carta (An Embroidery) seems clearly the official title. I'm deep in the Commons swamps on these at the moment. Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Byrhtnoth

added a link pointing to Maldon

Tapestry

added a link pointing to Koln

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Swiss cheese shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Elms^super 03:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits, such as those to Swiss cheese, appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you. oknazevad (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out for a boomerang here, oknazevad! For some reason you are now determined, with your usual tenacity, to disrupt a page that has been quiet for 6 months. I'm fine with taking this to ANI, & if you carry on like this, that is where it will end up. But this is not the place to discuss it - I will respond at the SC talk. Meanwhile, please stop edit-warring! Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't revert other people's edits if you don't have a specific grievance against it. It was exceedingly unlikely anybody would ever object to it. Avis11 (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should. The reception of many of your other edits shows "It was exceedingly unlikely anybody would ever object to it" to be a triumph of hope over experience. Do a proper WP:RM procedure & we'll find out. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Talk:Helena_(empress)#Requested_move_25_October_2020 and, yes, the first response is an oppose! Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He did not provide further reasoning when questioned, and invalidated his own argument by an unrelated reply he made down below (without, of course, bothering to cross out his earlier comment, making it look like there's still significant opposition to the move). No one else expressed opposition to the move. 3 counting myself supported it. The arguments provided for a move are quite reasonable, and none really have been properly addressed. Since you're the one that started this and you're uninvolved, you might want to do me the favor of closing it. Avis11 (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? There is at least one move-to-something-else, one leave-it-where-it-is; these are opposes, even if they don't bold it. Plus other complicated comments. And you seem to have changed your mind on the precise new title. So much for "It was exceedingly unlikely anybody would ever object to it"! I'll let an experienced closer close it. Johnbod (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said and you ignored, the leave-it-where-it-is went against his own position by his comment further below. The move-to-something-else provided no reasoning, therefore his argument is worthless. A mere sentence without any justification cannot obstruct a well elaborated argument. It's been demonstrated that 'mother of Constantine' is in accordance w/ the sources and a better disambiguation that 'empress Helena'. All comments, far from complicating the process, are okay with the move. So yes, it remains "exceedingly unlikely" that a defense of the current title will be elaborated. Since you went out of your way to obstruct this, I again ask that you close it. Avis11 (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It isn't really the done thing to ask a specific editor to close something, especially as I probably am involved, and never do closes. Someone will come along. Johnbod (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now closed, and moved to a different name Helena, mother of Constantine I. Johnbod (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October

Some apples left for you, with thanks for all the art and music. See my talk today for an expressive image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Gerda, and thanks for all your work too! Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(too lazy for a new thread:) they are preparing Christmas sets, - may we hope for one of your "cards"? - Beethoven 250, DYK? more on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so - I'd better get a move on! Johnbod (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tell them, perhaps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd better. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, Now at Template:Did you know nominations/Adoration of the Magi (Jan Mostaert) , but needs a review. Johnbod (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making me aware of mixing up these two breeds ! Of course my photo shows the Swiss Brown (Braunvieh) Regards --Olga Ernst (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - aren't they both cute though! Johnbod (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are ... definitely ! I removed my photos from Category:Brown Swiss ! As soon as I have clear information from the farmer to whom the cattle belong, I also want to have my files renamed ! Regards --Olga Ernst (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That can be a hassle on Commons - a note on the file might be enough. Johnbod (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A request on the file works perfectly ! I have done it a couple of times already ;-) --Olga Ernst (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All files renamed and thanks again ! Regards --Olga Ernst (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	A belated recognition of your superb additions of images to the Weller Pottery article! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the Bayazid I article did you mean "Bajazet", instead of "Bazajet"? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I meant "Bazajet", but I see "Bajazet" is more commonly found, and enshrined in the opera titles etc. There is a case for having both, but I will settle for "Bajazet" only. That linked search, for things using two different ways of saying the same thing, is a poor way of demonstrating anything. Johnbod (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was not sure if you had simply mis-spelled it. Was not trying to demonstrate anything. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - no worries. It is in fact used - they can't all be misspellings. Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Beshogur (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this was an oversight, but.... Please do not removed sourced information. There is obviously no issue with you adding more sourced information, but removing existing cited information is just looking for an unprincipled edit war. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that I did - I removed an unreferenced very POV spin & replaced it with better stuff. You then chose to repeat a ref, placing it very oddly, so I've now added something more relevant that ref actually says. You also changed the WP:ENGVAR, with no discussion or justification I could see. Johnbod (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well maybe we're having an edit mixup or miscommunication. I most recently left your sourced addition and re-added an additional relevant sourced bit. I apologise for the changes in English, that's just habit. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I wanted to respond to your vote for Gog at WT:FAC and your concern about losing a reviewer. I intend to return to active reviewing, so maybe we'll balance each other out. I'd like to reinvigorate the PR process for articles that often struggle to get attention, like pop culture and sports. It would be great if by time things get to GAN or FAC they are practically no-brainers. I also have a bunch of pet projects I've been neglecting and I'd really like to get re-engaged in content development. Have a good week! --Laser brain (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, good to know. I'm trying to do more reviewing myself. Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod. I would like to apologize to you for being short tempered with you in recent days. Some of your comments rubbed me the wrong way and I lashed out at you a few times. I try not to participate in incivility or attacks on Wikipedia. I am sorry that I fell short a few times. Thanks for your understanding. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. We have slightly different attitudes to handling some aspects of categories, but I know you do great work, which is much appreciated. Johnbod (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Johnbod. It looks like you reverted three edits rather than two here when you edited Paul Joseph Watson. You reverted to this version. Was it your intention to change "far-right" to "right-wing" in the first sentence? Compare for instance the footnotes currently numbered 6 to 12, and, well, the content of the article altogether. Bishonen | tålk 20:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Yes it was - sentence 3 still reads "Despite the change, he is still understood to be a far-right individual by multiple sources.." Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested, you might want to see if there's anything you can do to rescue Draft:Sara Radstone from the slush pile. I've moved it from mainspace to draftspace as a precaution against over-eager deleters (it's already been tagged for speedy deletion once), and it looks more salvageable than the usual standard of new artist biographies. I know that Radstone is going to be notable in Wikipedia terms (I saw a retrospective of hers at York Art Gallery a couple of years ago, and when it comes to contemporary ceramics YORAG is A Big Deal, even though I have to concede she isn't to my taste at all), but have little interest in ceramics myself and don't know where one would go about finding WP-compliant sources, since it's likely all going to be in specialist periodicals in locked-down (lockdowned?) libraries. ‑ Iridescent 15:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit, there's enough on google (see talk) & I'd guess the creator has a whole lot more. I've started Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Draft:Sara_Radstone, which I hope will produce a helper. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hopefully this will be keep-able, as a first article attempt this isn't at all bad. I'm reluctant to move it back into article space until it has some more sources on it, as being plastered with maintenance templates is likely to annoy the author into walking out and they obviously know their stuff. ‑ Iridescent 16:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure it can be kept - notability isn't an issue. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't an issue, but somebody thinking "there isn't notability", "this might be autobiographical" or "potential spam" is. If I hadn't rescued it from CAT:CSD before one of the regular delete-everything admins got the chance to run their "delete everything on this page" script, it would already be a redlink, and new page patrollers do love tagging things for deletion. ‑ Iridescent 16:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually read the edit notice itself: you don't own an article for an indefinite period of time, nor do you have any right to insert unsourced information, undo sourced additions, contravene WP:DASH, etc. {{in use}} should be removed if it's sitting on top of an article for several hours. Stop with this nonsense. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before you continue removing little bits of the text you don't like, that I have not got round to rewriting and referencing to Collins, I'll point out what you should have noticed long ago, that almost all the old original text is EB 1911, with the usual EB 1911 template at the bottom. It is pointless and childish to claim WP:V, WP:OR etc etc. I'll continue to revert further disruption. Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A thread about your behavior: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Johnbod_repeatedly_inserting_unsourced_information,_removing_uncontroversial_formatting,_and_refusing_to_be_collaborative ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And virtually none of the unsourced information that you keep on re-adding is in this fairly short biography. Don't lie. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very interested in understanding why you think this article is exempt from WP:DASH. @Fram:. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ping me about hyphen vs. dash vs. other dash discussions. I have nothing to do with them, have no interest in participating in them, and when I do see them they seem invariably as an utter waste of time. Fram (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the problem and if you think it is, you did not understand my complaint. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not. Here I was thinking that your link to WP:DASH had something to do with your complaint, silly me. Fram (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my haste, I overlooked the fact that you obviously were not the person who closed the discussion: this was sloppy of me. Sorry. That said, the complaint was about this user's attitude. Again, sorry for involving you unless you decide that you want to be a third party on the article's talk page to mediate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you for being reasonable, fair and compassionate in a very harsh environment. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Indo-Saracenic architecture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malays.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here you suggested I should check before reverting. In fact, a version just before the most recent sequence of edits had 2 AD indicators (no BC), and 14 CE/BCE, which was probably appropriate for a place with no Christian influence until the late 15th century. Also, it's still inconsistent. I only came across this in RCP, so others are free to tidy it up, and as you say some of the markers were superfluous. David Brooks (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Older versions (as far back as 2007 or before) use AD, the CE apparently added around 2015. The idea that using AD is only appropriate for subjects with "Christian influence" is completely wrong, and also not in WP:ERA. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jeypore

added a link pointing to Kalinga

Nataraja

added a link pointing to Khmer

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at London Beer Flood shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
The other editor felt it was unfair that I didn't do this,[4] so... (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to London Beer Flood can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. If the editor is editing in good faith, it is discouraged to attack IP editors for being an IP, presumably a vandal. Note that this is the encyclopedia that *anyone* can edit. Unfortunately, the IP showed no signs of vandalism. GeraldWL 09:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about him being a vandal. Johnbod (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered whether you would be willing to cast an eye on the article Shamsa which I have just written. I know nothing about the subject and wonder whether the term has wider meanings that I have failed to discover. I have found a few sources online, but you might have access to better sources. You might wonder why I have strayed so far from my usual haunts, and the answer is that the Shah Jahan shamsa illustrated in the article is soon to be featured as "Picture of the Day", and I have been researching a suitable caption to use on the main page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, had a go - nice addition! Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, I recently created a series of articles about Phoenician inscriptions in the British Museum, many of which are not on display (Idalion Temple inscriptions, Kition Necropolis Phoenician inscriptions, Tamassos bilinguals, Idalion bilingual, Kition Tariffs). I believe you have collaborated with the museum in the past - do you think they would allow us to use their photos of these artefacts? It is a real shame frankly that so many notable artefacts are hiding in storage like that. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My contacts have all moved on, I'm afraid. It's not that they actually mind, certainly at curator level, but getting formal permission through their legal people is an appalling vista. I'd just treat them as 2-dimensional objects, which they are really, or give a fair-use rationale, and use them. It's what I do with prints etc. Johnbod (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of that Denning quote. It never ceases to amaze me how pomposity and arrogance can cloud the judgement of even the greatest mind. I wonder if he had the strength of mind to apologize after the acquittal. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - famous in its day, & for some time after, but I had to set up the redirect, which surprised me a bit. I think there was some sort of apology. Johnbod (talk) 08:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) As far as I'm aware the BM has withdrawn all cooperation from any WMF-associated sites or organisations following Fae's "copyfraud" stunt, so don't expect any co-operation from them. Unless you're confident enough that the photos on the BM website are unquestionably 2D (and are willing to gamble that "copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’"—which derives from the European Court of Justice overruling the UK government—won't be retracted in two weeks when ECJ rulings cease to apply in the UK) or you're confident that you can justify a fair use rationale, be prepared for their legal team to come after you. (That's not to say you shouldn't do it, but speaking as someone who was there for Transport for London and witnessed the National Portrait Gallery, these big institutions can cause massive timesinks and significant reputational damage if we annoy them enough that they set the legal department loose.) As Johnbod says, the curators themselves won't care and in general will be quite flattered to see us taking an interest, but the legal teams are loath to set precedents for their images being released into the PD and consequently being available for all and sundry to use on greetings cards, videogames, wallpaper and pornography without the approval of the original photographer. ‑ Iridescent 08:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they were doing much for several years anyway. The good contacts left one by one, & little was done (by either side really) to replace them. I sleep no less easily in my bed for all the prints I've uploaded. Johnbod (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iridescent, thank you. These public institutions need to take the time to think about their raison d'être. The are funded with public money for the public good. When they photograph an object they are doing it for public benefit. And the logic of maintaining control over their images doesn't hold; all their most famous objects (e.g. the Rosetta Stone) are on public display and consequently have thousands of high quality PD images available to all. Maintaining control over images of lesser known objects does nothing but stifle the propagation of public knowledge. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @Jononmac46: who has recently uploaded a number of these images, a number of which I am keen to use for the articles I have been writing. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The argument the museums would make is that it's the income from licensing that allows them to provide the public service in the first place, and if they lose that income then they're facing either charging admission fees or mothballing galleries, either of which would cause worse damage to their educational remit than people not being allowed to duplicate their expensive full-resolution specialist photography.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on the general principle—I've done more than my share of uploading from art gallery websites—but anyone considering stepping into this arena with regards to the UK at the moment needs to be aware that they're essentially gambling. British law recognises sweat-of-the-brow (Bridgeman Corel was a US case and doesn't apply in the UK or EU). When we copy images from British books and databases we're relying on the Football DataCo ECJ judgment that allows sweat-of-the-brow to be disregarded when there's no subsequent creative input. (For antiquities there's a secondary issue of determining at what point restoration and reconstruction constitutes "intellectual creation".)

Unless Frost and Barnier agree that the UK will continue to follow ECJ rulings and EU Directives (unlikely, as sovereignty was the primary argument for Brexit in the first place), then in eleven days both Football DataCo and the 2019 Copyright Directive will cease to apply, and the Museums and Galleries Council will be looking for a sucker to serve as the test case to establish how to interpret CDPA88 going forward. No prizes for guessing which website they'll come after. ‑ Iridescent 07:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent, I have some good news for you here: “ Up until 29 March 2019 (or whatever date is ultimately agreed for UK withdrawal), the position should remain as currently specified in s 3 of the European Communities Act 1972, so that UK courts remain bound by rulings on EU law by the ECJ. However, clause 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill provides that, after 29 March 2019, existing rulings of the ECJ on EU law (ie rulings given before 29 March 2019) could in principle be overridden by a contrary ruling of the Supreme Court.” So the UK Supreme Court would have to consciously override the 2012 Football DataCo judgement first. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I'm saying. 29 March 2019—which turned out to be 31 January 2020 in the end—has been and gone; the moment transition formally ends (2300 on 31 Dec 2020 GMT), all these ECJ rulings become open to challenge in the UK courts, and more importantly the 45 years of directives which were automatically incorporated into UK law during the withdrawal process immediately become subject to Parliamentary sovereignty. One can expect sweat of the brow to be one of the first test cases to come up; neither the UK government nor the devolved administrations care about Wikipedia, but they do very much care about Facebook, and all four administrations will be under extreme pressure from lobbyists to bring either test cases or changes to statute law to clarify what constitutes "legitimate reuse", and extreme pressure from their own backbenchers to deliver a visible and easily-enforced variation in law from Brussels. As I say, I know it sounds like scaremongering, but from the experience of the battles over the relatively trivial matter of the TfL roundel and the National Rail double-arrow you do not want to be standing in the middle of the road when the juggernaut of an outraged public sector body with the backing of government lawyers and egged on by the DMGT is coming down it. ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to review it for you, but could I ask if you'd be able to make the hook fact a bit more explicit, maybe with a sentence in the lead? It might be me misreading it slightly but it seems you have to piece together the hook from several different sentences. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you do - give me a mo - sources added to nom. Ta Johnbod (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johnbod, I have submitted the Ink wash painting for DYK review. Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - I think the bullet-pointed artists might not be accepted for counting the expansion (which could be fatal), & more refs may be needed, which I can probably do. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Merry Christmas Johnbod!!
	Hi Johnbod, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all you do--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! With 8,358 views, your Portrait of Sir David Webster hook is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of December. Accordingly, it has been included at DYKSTATS December. Even more impressive given that it appeared in a 12-hour queue and was not in the lead/photo slot. Keep up the good work! Cbl62 (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And a happy Christmas to you too! All the best. Storye book (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Stonehenge at mid-winter sunrise is my Wiki-Solstice card to all for this year. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Season's Greetings
	Merry Christmas Johnbod!! Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and a beautiful and productive New Year! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas to you, and many thanks for your good work and your good sense- Best wishes, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the card, John, and all the best to you for the holidays. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind wishes and for all of your help and guidance over the year. My best wishes to you for a Merry Christmas and a prosperous new year.Venicescapes (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

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 2021. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

	Merry Christmas Johnbod
	Hi Johnbod, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and healthy New Year, Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia,    –Davey2010Talk 19:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Holiday Cheer!
	To Johnbod, best wishes to you and yours for a holiday season filled with light and a happy & healthy 2021. Ewulp (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Magi (Jan Mostaert) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Half-Sick of Shadows, Said the Lady of Shalott		Happy holidays
		Dear John, For you and all your loved ones, "Let there be mercy". Wishing you health, peace and happiness this holiday season and in the coming year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, Merry Christmas. I am having some trouble understanding this deletion, marked "minor" of comments on Talk:Immaculate Conception. What's up? Elizium23 (talk) 11:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - reverted. I meant to thank him, & wondered why I had to do it twice! Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I feel you. Elizium23 (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Season's greetings!
	I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2021 will be safe, successful and rewarding...keep hope alive....Modernist (talk) 12:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Holidays!
	Hi Johnbod, May your holidays be merry and bright, and hope you have a happy and healthy 2021 Netherzone (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Feliz Navidad!
	This year COVID-19 lockdown has taken me beyond borders so here's a Spanish seasonal greeting in a painting from Romania, owned by a French king, commissioned by a Spanish lady-in-waiting, painted in 1596 by a Greek: The Adoration of the Shepherds (El Greco, Bucharest) Jane (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Natalis soli invicto!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy editing! Wishing you and your loved ones a great next year and beyond. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Elmer Schofield, Across the River (1904), Carnegie Museum of Art.		Best wishes for a safe, healthy and prosperous 2021.
		Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Oneupsmanship: This painting turned the friendly rivalry between Edward Redfield and Elmer Schofield into a feud. Schofield was a frequent houseguest at Redfield's farm, upstream from New Hope, Pennsylvania, and the two would go out painting together, competing to capture the better view. Redfield served on the jury for the 1904 Annual Exhibition of the Carnegie Institute; at which, despite Redfield's opposition, Across the River was awarded the Gold Medal and $1,500 prize. It was not until a 1963 interview that the 93-year-old Redfield revealed the painting as the cause of the 40-year feud between them. Schofield may have painted it in England, but a blindsided Redfield knew that it was a view of the Delaware River, from his own front yard!

	Johnbod!
	Wishing you a great holiday season, overflowing with good health, wealth and wisdom for 2021. Coldcreation (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johnbod, perhaps you missed my earlier ping, but just to let you know this is on hold awaiting your reply. If it's going to run on Jan. 6 as desired, kindly reply soonest.  JGHowes  ^talk 22:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Seasons greetings. Hope you and yours are safe and well during this rather bleak period, though I think we will get through it. Best Ceoil (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Master of Delft

added a link pointing to Koln

Nursing Madonna

added a link pointing to André Gonçalves

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The links between photography and imperial anthropology (deriving from eugenics) is not something new or even, India-specific. See publications by Elizabeth Edwards of Oxford and Christopher Pinney of UCL.

Also why you think that I will claim of caste as invented by the British? (And all were merry before they came?) That is Hindutva thought-school. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a new one for the list. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am telling that if I supported such ludicrous claims of caste being invented by British (as you accuse me of), I would (then) belong to Hindutva thought-school. Which I am not. So, there's no chance of supporting such claims. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is the classic nationalist/liberal academic/Congress faction that leans that way - "divide and rule" etc. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not the first time I am being greeted with sugar-coated imperial apologia. (Please add this to whatever list, you maintain) Anyways, you are welcome to find reliable sources that reject my assertions. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Ink wash painting 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn't nom it, but can get to it in a day or so, if he doesn't. Johnbod (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evening Johnbod - Season's Greetings, and I hope the end of 2020 (thank the Lord!) finds you and yours keeping well. Do any of your books tell you where this, [5], is to be found? William Nicholson, 1908. I suspect it is squirreled away in Oakly Park, Bromfield, Shropshire, (an article to be written), unless it's been sold. I'd really like an image on Commons, as it would greatly enhance the article on Hewell Grange. Any suggestions gratefully received. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't think so. All the best for the New Year! Johnbod (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Johnbod: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message