Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:15, 5 February 2008

Archives:

• /1 to Nov 06
• /2 to mid-Dec 06
• /3 to Jan 07
• /4 to Mar 07
• /5 to mid-April 07
• /6 to May 07
• /7 to July 07
• /8 to Sept 07 oct in fact
• /9 from Nov 07

Leda

Well done, Johnbo! Hey, are you doing something to Raphael? Do you want me to stick my nose in and make suggestions or not? Amandajm 12:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It's your show, mate. I wasn't intending to make major contributions, just egg you on to achievement. You can shout me lunch, if I ever get back to England..... Amandajm 08:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving multiple pages

See WP:RM#Moving several pages at once for moving multiple pages. I do think they should be discussed on one page since they are related to each other. TJ Spyke 23:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed rename for subcategories of Category:Women by occupation

As you participated in the discussion on Female writers (10th century), I thought you may be interested in the proposal I have made in which that category is subsumed.--Matthew Proctor 06:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Advice

Hi there. Bowing to your superior knowledge and experience (I'm serious); I'd like to ask your advice. Do you think that the recently updated article Golden hats and the specimens it links to should be tagged as visual-arts-related? athinaios (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

William Segar

Started William Segar (found 2 images of him while digging for heraldic banners. Everything is related.) Will cleanup the stuff in Commons soon. - PKM (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't help with Raphael, though I watch with fascination. Have fun there. Segar can sit for a few days; I have to go deal with real life. - PKM (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Grand manner

Grand! Must be a nice diversion from the fine work on Raphael. JNW (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Johnbod! On the whole, it's great!

Vasari needs to be reference at his first mention.

I've had a little fiddle with the intro, improving the flow of the language, I hope.

About the pics, I think that a number of them should be larger.. I'll do an arrangement, and if you don't like it, well, you can always revert it! (we get kinda used to that!)

... I just found a really horrid little bit of vandalism in Giotto easy to overlook.

Amandajm (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not people who do it, Johnno, it's person... Hmmmph! I'll do it tomorrow! It's about 11.45 in the Great South Land (this clock has never worked since the day I got the blinking computer! I've had enough of Jesse Trees and so on, tonight. I've just been working on Leadlight, trying to compensate for the fact that someone insists that there is no difference between stained glass and leadlight.

Check out the "Leadlights" at Sydney Central. They really are stunning. Australia has some wonderful 19th/early 20th century glass, including a fantastic Deco designer, Napier Waller. Daniel Cottier set up a studio with the artist Lyon (I've suddenly forgotten his first name) who was a brilliant draftsman and colourist, and he developed a very good sense of how colour worked under Australian conditions. .....Yawn!.... busy day, tomorrow...Amandajm (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Former Students of Easington Community Science College

Category:Former Students of Easington Community Science College, was decided to be kept. Whether or not you voted for this, your contribution to the CFD was valued.Thanks.--Sunderland06 17:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Cats Prophets in Christianity and Prophets in Judaism

I have Removed the above from articles having Prophets of the Hebrew Bible Cat. I was using List of Prophets of Christianity as a reference where Joseph, father of Jesus is listed as a Prophet of Christianity in the Secondary List. Kathleen.wright5 20:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You say Philip, and I say Bart...

The subject of the painting has indeed been re-interpreted since I was a student. I let the changed title go, since a google search (!?) confirmed the Batholomew credit, and I figured the editor was a different person or a contributor gone good. Either way, the painting is indeed now known as St Philip. Thanks for the correction. JNW (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Roberto De Luna

John, FYI, In restoring a couple of comments on the talk page of this article, you inadvertantly deleted a number of others. I think the talk page has been fully restored. Pastordavid (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

renomination of Category:Charismatic religious leaders

Category:Charismatic religious leaders was previously nominated for deletion by User:The Wild West guy who said "Isn't this POV?". However that CFD was incomplete because the nominator didn't tag the category itself. You participated in the previous discussion so I'm notifying you that I've renominated (and tagged) the category; discussion is here. --Lquilter (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Subcategorization for Renaissance painters

I am not sure I have a preferred way of subdiving the ~500 Italian Renaissance painters. Since there already exist geographic subdivisions for Italian painters, a temporal one seemed preferable. I was not completely satisfied with syntax of Category:Italian Renaissance XV century painters. Suggestions welcome.Baroque1700 (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Natividad

Ahhh! I just got a CD of the three tenors singing Christmas Carols for Christmas! They must be really missing Luci! I know I am....

OK... I'll get it going.... I've been having a bit of drama on this side of the planet and haven't got a lot of energy left, after I've been round the traps and fixed vandalism etc.

The other thing that I want for Christmas is a white Mercedez convertible. I've been asking Santa for one for the last 48 years. Oh, well, I'll have to settle for Yardleys lavender water, and a jar of Major Grey Chutney. Amandajm (talk) 10:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

See also:Nativity of Jesus in art

I've made a start. Amandajm (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, Johnbo, you can call the murky past whatever you like.... Amandajm (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Goin' great, Mate! Where you have the reference to plays and temporary Nativities, Ill write a description of all the various media that are used to depict the Nativity: sarcophagi, mural, ivory carving, panel and oil painting, sculpture, tableau etc.

If you are working on that history section, then I'll grub around for moore pics on commons. I know some of the things that I want but havven't located themm yyet.

I love Altdorffer's pictures. In The one that I chose the Baby looks so delighted with the big pile of coins, the old king is so delighted with the baby, the middle King is grinning all over his ugly face with tears in his eyes, and no regard for the mmagnificent present he has bbrought, and the young King loooks so extremely humble and adoring. They most a really remarkable contrast to the arrongancce of Durer's Kings (one of which is Durer himself) who are comparing gifts. Amandajm (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that page from the Book of Kells ought to go in, with the explanation that was at the other page that it celebrates the Nativity of Christ in a symbolic rather than pictorial way. Amandajm I'm going to dump this talk on the pages talk page and continue there, OK! (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, John! I've got the three tenors on, full blast, because I'm at the other end of the house. Luckily it's lunchtime, not midnight. Amandajm (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Journalism scholars/academics

Hi - We recently had a CFD on Category:Journalism academics that closed with no consensus (). You commented on that discussion, so I thought you might be interested in continuing the discussion at Category talk:Journalism academics to try to arrive at a consensus-based decision. --Lquilter (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review of Category:Articles needing an infobox

Hi there! You participated in the CfD of Category:Articles needing an infobox. You may be interested in the DRV I opened at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 12#Category:Articles needing an infobox. Thank you! Cheers, Rkitko 01:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Nativity

dear Oddbod, here's the plan

1. Finish combine my waffle with yours
2. Cut or combine all galleries to 4 pics- this means that where there are five you use the important ones like the one with the glowing baby and the long caption within the text. (which is where the Book of Kells now is.)
3. You could split the talk into sections between the galleries, if you wanted to, and if you think it works.

Have fun! Amandajm (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Las Meninas

Hi Johnbod, sorry for the random canvass, but I've seen you around a fair bit and have a request. <A hem>I've put Las Meninas up for peer review here, and would greatly appreciate any though or comments you might have. Thanks either way.Ceoil (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits, and the van Eyck detail looks very well. 'currently housed' is gone. Ceoil (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It is never allowed to travel to exhibitions. That's interesting; is it because of its condition, value? Ceoil (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's gone through a great re-write. I will continue to pore over it, but it's always fun to catch sentences like that. JNW (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I will try to look it over, maybe later tonight. I've got Lopez-Rey's magnum opus from 1999, which might be of help. JNW (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A question of style: I've been changing references to deceased authors to past tense ('Janson suggested' rather than' 'Janson suggests')--is that a legitimate copy edit, or just silly? Thanks, JNW (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, really bad haikus from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will new mop act?
Ooops, .com blocked

New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well Main Page

New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault

A. B. so grateful
Misplaced Pages trembles
Watch out DRV

A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye

Qatar is blocked
Shucks those range blocks are tricky!
Will get it straight soon.

Colbert's elephants
stampede Misplaced Pages
Must protect, protect

Wiki fortress not.
Open gates, knowledge wings free
But fiends are about

Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ... A. B.

John, thanks so much for your support in my RfA.

Have you thought of becoming an admin yourself? We need "content-oriented" admins as much if not more than the more numerous "behaviour-oriented" admins and you are an editor's editor.

Think about it and in the meantime, enjoy your haiku. --A. B. 14:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nativity

Well done Johnbod! I really like the headings under which you have grouped the pics. With regards to that window from Canterbury, it has been pieced together from a number of windows. Luckily most of the Magi are intact, but a couple of the scenes, eg Lot's wife don't seem to bee typologically related. There is another one on the other side for which I haven't identified a subject. Further down the content gets still messier.

I didn't like the OTT Rubens which seems to be quite huge, reproduced smaller then the de la Tour, so I've swapped it (after a bit of trial and error) with one of the same shape as the de la Tour. I hope you approve.

I like the Magi set and the folk art set. it works well. Amandajm (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Lot's wife.... very good! Maybe the whole upper part of the windo is more intact than the bottom is. Perhaps the other scenes relate as well. Have yyou alreaday reverted my change?

That new pic you have put in is stunning. Iv'e never seen it before. I notice your comment about it "still having" Byzantine elements. This is true of course, but it's complex, because the artist is of a Gothic rather than Byzantine tradition. It is obvious that the influence on his work is Italian. It has elements very similar to the Lorenzetti. It's comment needs to refllect that.

We don't need two Rubens. The other one looks quite goood as a thumb, because oof the intense colour. I've increased the size of the ter Brugghen, otherwise it's just wasted because it looks muddy.

Amandajm (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Johnbod, I'm about to tell you very rudely that I don't care (much) about how registered users see the page. What matters to me is how kids see the page when they are doing their school assignments. Which is why I size nearly all the images. Anyway, I think the page is looking good. I just added a little bit to the Bohemian Master, but then I realised I wasn't signed in. Amandajm (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmph! I just fiddled with Las Meninas. Gotta go and visit sick relations. Wish it wasn't pouring with rain.Amandajm (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my RFA

	<font=3> Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 62/0/0 yesterday! I want to thank Snowolf and Dincher for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and since you are reading this, I haven't yet deleted your talk page by accident!). Please let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance, and keep an eye out for a little green fish with a mop on the road to an even better encyclopedia. Thanks again and take care, Ruhrfisch ><>° 18:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi Johnbod,

Thanks for the GA review again. In the review you mentioned we should mention about Martin & his other work. Also, you mentioned some of the language is clunky, & it is underlinked. Would you please elaborate a little bit on that. Thanks very much in advance, --Be happy!! (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comment! I've also responded to your comment on the talk page. --Be happy!! (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again very much!!! --Be happy!! (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 16 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nativity of Jesus in art, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 11:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		Congratulations on being the inspiration for the Nativity of Jesus in art article and doing such excellent work on it! Amandajm (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Yes this is really beautiful work. Excellent!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 13:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done! - PKM (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't jump to conclusions

Hey: I don't care if you revert the changes but don't send me a message about it as if were an idiot. I know they aren't spelling mistakes. I just don't like most Commonwealth spellings, aesthetically speaking. The article wasn't related to the British or places that prefer Commonwealth spellings so I felt it was irrelevant (and it is). My edit was unrelated to spelling; I moved a paragraph that seemed as if it were injected inappropriately in the middle of a section, towards the end of a section. Why don't you focus on that edit, and trying to make it a better article in lieu of nitpicking over superficialities like my preference for Center over Centre. It's my preference, I was the last one to make the change, changed things in that section. You can do the same. Get over it and stop preaching. Or better yet undo my edits and keep it to yourself. Also, proofread your posts. Arthurian Legend (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Johnbod. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. VanTucky 05:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky drinks

You tweaked the caption of the monk drinking wine in medieval cuisine with the motivation that it's POV. I don't actually know the context of the illumination since the source dodesn't specify the origin, but the furtive look on his face is what made me write that caption. Do you by any chance know what kind of document it's from?

Peter 08:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not the Commons info that's the issue but the source itself. I might have missed some note on which archive and document it was from, but there was really no information about what kind of document it was from.

-Peter 08:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Queluz

Thanks for your edits. I have changed some. The problem is the images are now better and more profuse than the text. I am trying to expand the text to incorporate the images so that there is not an incongruous gallery at the bottom. I have also tried to link to some of the spare images in the text, I'm not sure this allowed but I can't see the harm - it seems a shame to wast any. The problem is trying to expand and keep the page stable at the same time. Personally, I think it is looking pretty good, certainly one of Misplaced Pages's best illustrated architectural pages. Giano (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

History of Art

Hello, how come you call one of the best History of Art sites - all-art.org - a spam ? Why do you keep deleteing it ? Try google "history of art" - this site comes at 6th place. Pretty good for a spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.44.36.154 (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Johnbod: just wanted to make sure you know, this derives from the same site as this . Cheers, JNW (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a funny link. I especially like the understatement of the text, which notes that Baldung lacked Durer's sense of decorum. A new article, perhaps: Gastric misfortunes in Western Art. JNW (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Las Meninas

Sure; next day or two: I'll look forward to it—that painting fascinates me. Annoyingly, I used to have some good books on Velásquez but was in the habit of giving my books away. Quite the opposite now Misplaced Pages has come along...more and more shelves! qp10qp (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Johnbod, I just wanted to thank you for all you expertise and help over the last week. The article is now much stonger and tighter than I could have hoped for. Ceoil (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

FA. Would you have any problem with a co nom, some of the more technical comments I might have difficulty with. Ceoil (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I'm talking with JNW about working together on the Rokeby Venus. Any interest. Ceoil (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Formatting is so trivial, anal, and irrelevant, but beware it can be heartbreaking for your scrupulously researched, detailed, poured over article to be held to random standards. But anyway, onwards; who knows somebody may actually read it. Ceoil (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Great, there is a full essay on the venus in the Carr book, which I highly recommend. Ceoil (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

CFD Potpourri

Hi Johnbod, I've been catching up on CFDs that came up while I was taking a "rest-break" of sorts. I came back just in time to discover that one of my own, Category:People who emigrated to escape Nazism, is up for renaming. Would you be good enough to have a look at my comment -- I'm pretty sure you'll want to change your position on that particular CFD. I think you'll also be interested in my suggestion re Category:Worker's NGOs -- not sure if you'll agree, but give it some thought, eh? And lastly, I've made a significant alternative proposal re Category:Natural sciences, which is starting to gain support. I'm sure whatever you have to say there will be of value. Hope you'll find the time to respond! Regards, Cgingold (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that -- the CFD was relisted on a new date. I just fixed the link at Category:Natural sciences, so you can get to the CFD by that route now! See ya later, Cgingold (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Las Meninas

Is is significant to mention that the Mazo portrait of Margarita depicts her and her attendants in mourning for her father? (It's significant from a clothing perspective, not so sure in this context, so I didn't add it.) - PKM (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

All the image captions could be tightned. Images serve as good hooks for people just scanning, and at the moment some of the close ups look like they are randomly thrown in. Ceoil (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I nom later tonight, I have a bit more housekeeping (formatting and checking refs) to do before then. Do you think we're missing anything at this stage. Ceoil (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, gimme a few hours, a cigarette, and a stiff drink. Ceoil (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Now is fine, I have a few sources on intrepation I need to read through. Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we are heading to AN/I re: 'painting of 1656' vs. '1656 painting'! Replyed on talk to your points bty. Ceoil (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't got to this as soon as I'd hoped. I am half way through reading it and making notes. I will have some challenging questions, and I don't know if you would prefer to sort these at PR rather than FAC. I need a couple more days. qp10qp (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No, qp10qp, we'll wait. Take your time. Ceoil (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are happy with your responces to qp10qp's comments, please feel to do the honours on FAC. I think its ready. Ceoil (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to leave 24 hrs - qp will (let's hope) be back tonight. But it could go any time. Things will be quiet for the next 2 days I expect. You should stick it up. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats probably wise. I've read the article so many times I don't see the words anymore. Some distance and a last tidy seems like the best course. Ceoil (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

To take me out of circular discussions, I went away and nomed. Ceoil (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you help yesterday, it was appreciated. Back to editing at last. Have good holiday season. Ceoil (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Modernist drama, NOTHING

Hi Johnbod, I cannot find an article in[REDACTED] on Modernist drama -- there's a category, Category:Modernist drama, theatre and performance -- but no article. Can this be so? Can you think of something I've missed? --Lquilter (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an administrator. I paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better admin. I am going to take things slowly for now -- I'm working my way through the Misplaced Pages:New admin school, double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, though I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. --Elonka 02:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:South Tyrol

supparluca emptied and redirected Category:South Tyrol despite consensus at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 28#Category:South Tyrol to leave it alone. Chris (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Copied CfD talk Johnbod (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

block on Ceoil

You are right its not a good block, any day of the year. take it to AN/I. i will be there to support you. DGG (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Thanks for your good work and for your help, much appreciated. Modernist (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Thanks for all your hhelp and encouragement! Amandajm (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Darius Painter

One likes to check, but is there a reason you've deleted out my edit? Twospoonfuls (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Matisse paintings

I noticed as I was putting on the template that there are a number of meagre articles, not even sufficient stubs. I suggest a decision as to which ones are worth adding to and which are not. I kept them so that other editors could have a look. Tyrenius (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

CFD CPCA bishops

You stated "Delete per nom" there, but I nominated the cat for renaming, not deletion. You may wish to clarify your response. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

History of clothing and textiles

I've started expanding History of clothing and textiles - I would appreciate your thoughts. PKM (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Michelangelo_Caravaggio_038.jpg

This is very clearly a far worse image than the one you have replaced it with - a typical washed-out Yorck project scan from a 50-year-old book. Please reverse this imediately! I am very concerned that you could possibly think this the better image and would be grateful if you could explain your reasoning, preferably at on en WP. diff on en Johnbod 23:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. OK so what is the issue again? The other version is higher resolution and feels better. Your version is simply darker. -- Cat 23:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it is much richer and has far better colour values. Your preferred version is washed out. Caravaggio is famously dark - that is why the image is at Chiaroscuro. I am concerned because when I can be bothered to check these bot-changes to so-called "improved" images they are often worse. Do you actually know what works like this look like in the original? I have removed the tag on Commons on the other image - is there anything else needed to stop the replacement process? Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is trivially easy for me to revert the bot edits. I will do this now. I will quote this thread too. -- Cat 23:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I think I have reverted all the en:WP changes. But what can we do to stop futre occurences? I saw the original of this a year or so ago btw. Johnbod (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The best solution is finding a high quality image of high resolution. We have a high quality image with low resolution which is not good. Where is the source of the image located? A nearby wikipedian can take a photo of it for example.

In the future DO NOT revert CommonsDelinker. On the pages you reverted commons delinker a link to this thread was not generated. I could have deleted either version and you would have generated redlinks. Manual reverts of commonsdelinker creates problems and no benefit.

-- Cat 00:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It is in Italy, & not supposed to be photographed (of course). An amateur photo would be worse than either of these anyway; you need special lighting - it is about 2m high. I won't revert Delinker if you don't tag superior images for replacement - deal? Johnbod (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The museum may have a better quality image for our taking. Museums typically have these DVDs full of the content inside the museum so people visiting can take the photos. So that may be an option. You could contact the museum for a better image as well.

Commons has over 2 million media. We commons admins try to juggle these 2 million images trying to get the best ones for the +250 wikis these images are used at. This isn't very easy as there are so few of us around. It makes our job more difficult and time consuming when people contradict CommonsDelinker. We can't force anyone to obey us but all we ask is to let us work from a central location. So I ask you not to revert CommonsDelinker even if you are 100% right to do so. Just page me or some other commons admin and we will sort the issue centrally. I or any commons admin may make a mistake. This is no big deal and it would be easier for everybody if we do this.

-- Cat 02:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I appreciate your prompt response & will do so in the future. The better image is actually far better than the vast majority of our images of paintings, a great number of which are, like the poorer version of this, scans from books over 50 years old with similar faded & washed out values (Yorck project etc), no matter how high the resolution. This painting is actually in a church, as you can see from the file description. I remain concerned that decisions like this are being taken; perhaps you could let me know if you are tempted to replace any more images of old master paintings. I am rather distrustful of Commons procedures here, especially after finding this 1930s reproduction replacing the one of an original (yes looking more faded) in the Met NY, which now is hidden away], only accesible from the file of the fake (sorry repro). It was clear from the discussion on this that knowledge of older artworks is in very short supply on Commons. If this can happen to the most famous image in Japanese graphics, God knows what is going on elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I cant remember how many images I juggled today so I can't make any such promises. I do however invite you to work on commons. You could help better categorize painting images and work on the quality. You could even help with the featured pictured thing as well as commons:Commons:Deletion requests. Your expert opinions would be most welcome. -- Cat 02:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I do a certain amount of categorising there, but only see these deletion & replacement tags when they crop up on articles I watch. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to use the undeletion process (COM:UNDEL) if you disagree with a deletion. There is no easy way to monitor the RC feed of commons. -- Cat 03:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that is a helpful link - I don't generally find Commons procedures & working pages easy to track down. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

VA MOS

In your edit summary for Las Meninas, changing "1656 painting" back to "painting of 1656" and deleting "now held by...", you cited the VA MOS, but I can't find these recommendations at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style. Could you point me to the correct page? Thanks. Awadewit | talk 03:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Meninas

Yeah, notwithstanding my intent to carry on a normal life, I'm unable to exit. And a very happy new year to you, too! My concern was that Las Meninas would collapse under the weight of so many well-meaning edits of the last two weeks, but quite the contrary has occurred. Congratulations for all the fine work, and for the crusade to make sure that 1656 does not become an adjective...here's hoping that 2008 will be modified by positive adjectives. Cheers, JNW (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Very good. Later in the day I will get back to Lopez-Rey to find more specific references to the 'cutting down'. He is actually very detailed as to the various sizes that the painting was listed at under each inventory, whether or not it was framed, etc. JNW (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure--how so? Gotta run, but will return. By the way, agreed re: the Picasso business. JNW (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Quentin Metsys the Younger

I have begun the merest stub of Quentin Metsys the Younger. - PKM (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Pentimenti

Hi Johnbod. Please note this from Grove Art Online:

Pentiment .

Visible evidence of an alteration to a painting or drawing that suggests a change of mind on the part of the artist. In particular, it refers to previous workings (see also Underdrawing) revealed by the change in the refractive index of oil paint that occurs as it ages: thin layers of paint that were originally opaque may become semi-transparent. In Titian’s group portrait of the Vendramin Family (c. 1543–7; London, N.G.), for example, the figure of a young, bearded man on the far left was moved inwards. The head of the figure in the original position is now evident as a ghostly image on a patch of sky. The term is also used to refer to such effects where they do not necessarily imply a deviation from the original intention. In Pieter de Hooch’s Interior (London, N.G.), for example, the chequered floor is visible beneath a maid’s dress, confirming that the figure was added after the floor was painted. This may have been necessary given the precise geometric pattern of the floor and the perspective involved. Pentimenti suggest that painters refined and altered compositions as they worked, and, for this reason, they are often cited as evidence of authenticity; similarly, they are less likely to appear in copies. The term is also used to describe the hesitant preliminary workings that show beneath some drawings.

And this from OED online:

A sign or trace of an alteration in a literary or artistic work; (spec. in Painting) a visible trace of a mistake or an earlier composition seen through later layers of paint on a canvas.

Pentimenti are seen particularly in oil painting (see quot. 1951).

1823' Edinb. Rev. '38 430 This seems to be a pentimento of the author. 1850' Edinb. Rev. Oct. 566 The pentimentos in Ariosto's manuscript are numberless. 1903 R. FRY Let. 6 Mar. (1972) I. 204 What looks like a retouch above the man's left shoulder turns out on closer inspection to be an original pentimento. 1951 R. MAYER Artist's Handbk. ii. 100 The refractive index of the oil film has changed and a thin coat of paint..has become sufficiently transparent to allow under-painting or drawing to show through. The effect is called pentimento. 1991' Apollo Mar. 164/1 X-radiographs..indicate a pentimento to the outline of the rock.

The article Pentimento is therefore faulty, and should be fixed.

Best wishes! I'll back off now, while you edit. But more needs to be done.

– Noetica Talk 22:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note at my page, Johnbod. Let's conduct our conversation here though, for convenience. You ask how Pentimento and the definitions above differ. Let me set that aside for a moment and compare the earlier wording in Las Meninas with Grove Art and OED:

Examination under infrared light has shown that Velázquez made minor pentimenti (alterations) to the figures as he worked;...

According to this, a pentimento is an alteration; according to the sources I cite, a pentimento is a trace of or evidence of an alteration. So by their lights it is incorrect to say that the artist "made minor pentimenti". OED's citations give no precedent for this usage. Turning now to the article Pentimento, I should say that it looks pretty good! But it does begin like this:

A pentimento (plural pentimenti) is an alteration in a painting...

That initial statement itself is not directly supported by any source; it is contradicted by respected and notable sources; and therefore it is in need of alteration to show the distinction I draw attention to, and at least to recognise the Grove–OED definition as well. I see that a couple of the external links support the initial statement, but this all needs to be made explicit and clear. Some might think this is hair-splitting. As far as I'm concerned it is not. Not for an article that is to become a featured article – as Las Meninas surely will, very soon. – Noetica Talk 23:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what, in a painting, the difference between an alteration and "A sign or trace of an alteration" might be (nor, on a different note what a "pentimento" in a literary work, as opposed to a manuscript, might be). The word alteration could be substituted in all the OED examples without changing the sense. If you look at the Italian origin - "repentance" - the pentimento is the alteration, but the alteration is only evidenced by the traces of earlier states. I see you have reverted me & will leave it as it is. Johnbod (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

John, I reverted you in rather unusual circumstances. You had started editing and reverting in the very section I was working in (as you could have seen from the record). I reverted only provisionally, so that I did not lose other closely considered work that I had just done.

I do not agree with you that alteration could be put in place of pentimento in the OED citations without change of sense. In a couple of cases you do retain a sense that would work in the context, but it is not precisely the same sense. (It may be a better sense, in one case.) In the last case ("the effect is called pentimento"), alteration would be inaccurate and strange.

No matter! This is all easily fixed. If you will allow me, I'll now do an edit that allows for both senses. Then we won't have to wrangle over this side issue, and can move things forward.

Of course I agree about the Italian; but that doesn't settle anything. It is common for shifts in exact meaning to occur in transit from language to language. And I don't say that Grove and OED are "right" (though it is indisputable that they faithfully record some dominant usages); I only say that they carry weight, and we should not lightly ignore them. Not in a featured article.

In a minute or two you'll see my compromise at Las Meninas.

– Noetica Talk 00:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with it as it now is. Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

After my compromise edit, you mean? Good!

– Noetica Talk 00:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, before - the "temporary" version is better, as shorter, I think. Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Begging pardon for dropping in, but how about just Examination under infrared light reveals minor pentimenti, without the parenthetic clause that now follows? JNW (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well i'm sure most people would feel the need for some explanation of the word, link or no link; bu I don't think it should be too long. Johnbod (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The article references the NG Glossary (online) "Pentimento is a change made by the artist during the process of painting". I don't see it as a different understanding, but a wider one, so I have no objection to the earlier marks being described as pentimenti, which is of course very common, & also found in the pentimento article. Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Medieval iconographers

Johnbod, I came across your post here and just wanted to say that I am not, in fact, a puppet of Aramgar's but another editor with a genuine interest in Medieval iconography, among other subjects. I was very pleased that you liked the article I started, so I wanted to correct any impression that I might not be an actual person. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Zao!!

Hi John!! How are you? Wish you a merry new year!! Finally I've been able to add a new article here: it's Monastero di Santa Giulia, Brescia. Maybe it'd need your help, as (for example) I don't know how it's the English equivalent of tiburio... ?!?! Ciao and thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Attilios (talk • contribs) 23:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Queluz National Palace

This article, to which you contributed, will be featured on the Main Page on January 5, 2008. Risker (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Biblio in Las Meninas

Thanks for your note, John. The article looks great. I think there should be no impediment to its promotion now.

You recover, OK? :)

– Noetica Talk 01:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hope you are feeling better. Cheers, JNW (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Great to see that Las Meninas has now been promoted, John. It really is a gem.

All the best to you.

– Noetica Talk 23:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help - I know how long it takes to do those things.

Congratulations John; it was team effort at its best. I'm working slowly through the Venus, as soon as there is a reasonable amount of content I'll be calling in the heavies again, so expect a call! Ceoil (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Johnbo! I just looked at Las Meninas (which I didn't have watched) and saw it has a gold star! Congratulations for all your hard work! Things have been a bit of a mess hhere as myy compuuettr crashed and its taken me a while too gget my intternet connection going...aanndd guess what?.... I've got double letters againn! It mmust be Meee! Amandajm (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which which passed nem. con. with 45 support, 0 oppose, and 0 neutral. Thank you for your support and all the kind words that were expressed. I will try to live up to the trust placed in me by the community. I now have my homework to do and then pass the Marigolds.

Oh, yeah ... cheeky .... Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

High culture

Hello! I'd like to see a caption that explains why this image is considered to be such a very exceptional example of high culture. Show, don't tell! And yes, the troll is quite impressive. Cheers, --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

John Michael Wright

Hi, sorry, back briefly - up to my eyebrows in the Real World. This is great. - PKM (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Robert Peake the Elder

I've stuck this up now, and wonder if you'd be kind enough to cast an eye over it. I can't believe there's much more info to go in, because I've pretty well rinsed my sources dry; but I've put some queries on the talk page that you might be able to help with. Cheers. qp10qp (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you been following the discussion on Talk:Robert Peake the Elder? We're having far too much fun there. - PKM (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

David Norman

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article David Norman, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of David Norman. LeyteWolfer (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

		Thanks for your support
		Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Saint Joseph

Thanks for contributing to the discussion on the Saint Joseph talk page. We definitely needed the help. When I first came across the article, it said: "Joseph was, according to the canonical Christian Gospel accounts and tradition, the husband of Mary and the father of Jesus of Nazareth." I thought it was a simple error and tried to correct it, but that met with fierce oposition, as you can see on the talk page. Anyway, I was getting extremely frustrated, so I hope you'll stick around until it gets resolved. Again, thank you. Fratprez (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wright

Can you supply the book and page number? Unfortunately <ref>Waterhouse</ref> isn't likely to satisfy as an authoritative reference?--Doc 08:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Italian musical instruments

I suspect there may be some long-standing Wikipedians who know CFD who would find your assertion that the procedure is new to me quite funny. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 10:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Snotty" comment withdrawn. Sorry you felt that way - it wasn't my intention. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Senior wranglers

User:Roundhouse0 has brought it to my attention that I wasn't clear in this CfD nomination. I meant for Category:Senior wranglers and Category:Second wranglers to be discussed together, but didn't make it clear that I was including Category:Second wranglers in the same discussion. If this makes you want to change anything you have said or add anything new, please do so. Sorry for the confusion. LeSnail (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Beham

Yes, it was the only off-Wiki site - not that it was a brilliant one anyway. But all I have (well, prints anyway) is now on Commons. Did you see my latest J Hopfer acquisition: Charles V, a wonderful example of the 'Hopfer style', also ill. in Landau? See you have been under anaesthetics for the New Year - presume non-alcoholic ones? Anyway I hope all's well now... Nick Michael (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fine now, thanks. I know the print but hadn't seen yours - in fact I'm sure this has grown considerably since I last looked - lovely stuff. You might, or might well not, be interested in Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/History of erotic depictions - whether the review or (apparently less contentious) adding something to the article. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/History of erotic depictions looks like another can of worms: I've enough of this with Toilet and Pubic hair. I mean, how the hell did I get into this stuff anyway...? My eldest has just become an admin on Simple Wiki and now spends more time arguing and bickering than he does writing articles! Nick Michael (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wlliam Larkin

Can you help identify this portrait? - PKM (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've started the expansion of William Larkin - comments and contributions welcome! - PKM (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you identify this portrait?

John, I wonder if this portrait rings a bell. It is a C19 copy, but I am certain there is an original as I have seen it elsewhere. Any clue? Nick Michael (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

May I butt in? Image:Clouet Claude de Beaune de Semblancay.jpg - PKM (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Felicien Rops images

Hey. To make things clear: I know one image isn't enough for an artist, but there's a commons link to a whole gallery of his works... I don't see why they need to be duplicated. The Misplaced Pages article loses its layout and overview by adding images. Key (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong, I'm afraid. I presume you don't work on visual arts articles much? Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain why I'm wrong? I did the edit after I read what the guidelines have to say about this. Maybe this will help this discussion, from Misplaced Pages:Layout:

If an article has many images, so many, in fact, that they lengthen the page beyond the length of the text itself (...), you can try to use a gallery, but the ideal solution might be to create a page or category combining all of them at Wikimedia Commons and use a relevant template (...) and link to it instead, so that further images are readily found and available when the article is expanded.

I'll be glad to agree with you, if you can tell me how I'm misusing this guideline.

(PS: you can keep the discussion on this talk page if you'd like, that way it's less confusing for me.) Key (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles on art are a special case - the pictures are often more important than the text, not just an illustration as usual. A gallery probably would be the ideal solution, but to cut to one, somewhat untypical, picture is not. See also Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style, though it does not addresss this specific situation. You should also remember that images can appear very differently depending on the users settings and equipment. Hope this helps. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for refering to the visual arts manual of style, I didn't know about its existance. But even there, they actually give the same guideline: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Visual_arts/Art_Manual_of_Style#Too_many_pictures.2C_too_little_text.3F. Or are you saying that when you view it with your settings, the images don't go past the length of the text? Because my Misplaced Pages image settings are standard. Also, for the record, if the other picture is more typical, I'm fine with keeping that one. Key (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I have big settings, as I expect you do, but most users don't. The two pictures together give a resonable enough impression of the range of his art, which neither alone would do. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My settings are default. I think most people will have those too. The whole commons gallery gives a reasonable enough impression of the range of his art. It's not like the images are lost to the readers. I'm going to stop arguing about this, though: probably for the best, since we're not really convincing each other. Please, think about it again, and about the guidelines. I'm pretty sure you have to read them with default settings in mind. Key (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Venus

Went to my local bookstore yesterday and by freakish conicdence (its a very small family run operation, more concerned with mil-hist and self-help books than art) found a copy of this. And its great. By the way, do you know of a copy of the picture featured in the times of the canvass post richardsons cleaver attack, pre repair. Ceoil (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me know which bits and I'll work with you on it. By the way, I hope we didn't fall out over that FAR. Ceoil (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have an artists impression of how the painting looked after the slahes, but its an artists impression, and under coptright. Ceoil (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean "It is an admirable light for....whilst raising the said..."? Ceoil (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OWN?

I've spent some months on this, so I'm probably guilty of a bit of WP:OWN - sorry about that. However, that's best remedied by discussing things, and your problems with my edits, not by personal attacks in edit summaries. I'm very happy to discuss any changes on the talk page.--Doc 13:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Vel

	The Velázquez Barnstar of Cultural Transcendence
	I Ceoil award this for past and future work on the great master. Its been an honour to work with you, sir. Ceoil (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cornelis Ketel

I started Cornelis Ketel but it's not really a coherent narrative. Would love your input if you have time. - PKM (talk) 07:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Most Phallic Building contest

An article that you have been involved in editing, Most Phallic Building contest, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Most Phallic Building contest. Thank you. faithless () 08:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Timoteo Viti

Hey, how are you? Can you review the entry I've created for Timoteo Viti. It was difficult to translate and reword from the original source, if you can look it over for me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was getting at, I'm usually good at rewording and combining sources. Thanks a lot, looks a lot better. -RiverHockey (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, thats why I asked you to do it. He needed an entry but I didn't have any other resources, and you seem like an expert. -RiverHockey (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 30 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cornelis Ketel, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Tabloid always wins; thanks for the great hook. - PKM (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Murillo

My apologies! I am so sorry to have caused you offense, or problems with the display on your monitor, by using the Murillo under the heading "art". But a painting of Jesus clutching a bird is misplaced under the heading "canonical Gospel accounts". The incident is an invention of Murillo, no matter how credible. However, the addition of a picture in the context of this article is not worth arguing about; and I have therefore happily withdrawn the picture from the article altogether. Since I originally introduced the Murillo painting into this article (which I did not in order to turn this article into an art gallery but to demonstrate the point I was making, namely that there was a discernible shift of the portrayal of Joseph from a doddery old man to a youthful looking man), I trust no one is going to feel offended by my having withdrawn the picture now in response to your objection. must insist though that, contrary to your assertion, my edit summary was entirely true. 22:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks yr message. You have a point concerning the pic, as do I. But in the context of this article, the purpose of which is not an art gallery, let's not expend any further time on this point. – As regards the subject matter, I cast my bread on the water. After all, it is not a purely scholarly matter, since there are also strong opinions about it; and the better the article manages to disentangle the one from the other, the closer it moves towards encyclopedia standard. 23:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.190.28 (talk)

Freud

Johnbod, the comments by Grayling that I removed ("the judgment of time seems to be running against him", etc) weren't a specific criticism of Freud. They were just a vague, rhetorical observation, and I see no reason why this sort of thing should be in the Freud article at all, whether written by Grayling or anyone else.Skoojal (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

VAwebteam

Misplaced Pages:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_January_30#Image:Copper_snuffbox.jpg FYI Tyrenius (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I never thought you'd ask. ;) Tyrenius (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

• This user helped promote Lisa del Giocondo to featured article status.

• Just a doodad and a thank you. -Susanlesch (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  

Thanks for your help on Sigmund Freud

There are many determined Freud supporters who revert edits pointing out how widely and severely he is criticized. Any help you can give is appreciated. NuclearWinner (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Peake

Sorry about edit conflicts; I will leave alone at this time. –Outriggr § 03:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No hard feelings, I hope, on the gallery issue. Overall, I think the article is excellently written. I am shocked that there wasn't an article about Peake before (I have actually heard of him and seen his work before), and I'm grateful that you guys took the time to create it and get it ready for FA. We were getting a little spirited, and I wanted to make it clear that I do think it's a good article. Karanacs (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

PROD of Cornelis de Heem

As far as I can tell, the Spanish and French articles are only really copies of this one (or the other way round) – I only speak French. The German article is a little more lengthy, but still doesn't cite any references for the person. Not being notable is a criteria for deletion, and as far as I can tell, there's no notability asserted in the article through WP:BIO. Please let me know if I'm wrong — alex.muller (talk • edits) 18:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Las Meninas

I see Las Meninas will be FA on 5 February - congratulations! - PKM (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

On 2 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Timoteo Viti, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Archtransit (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

FAC

No worries, and no skulking. The game's afoot. I've started improving our image store for Isaac Oliver. I also just ordered Karen Hearn's Tate exhibit catalogue on Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger; it's been remaindered. - PKM (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Las Meninas

News to me but its on the main page today. Its attracting quality edits like this, actually lots of them. I have a few disused grenades, a pellet gun, mines, and a sub to hand. Still, help needed. Ceoil (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see if the article improves in anyway in the next 23 hours. I doubt it. I hesitate to use my flame-thrower, but jesus christ I'm not being presented with a wide bunch of options, so far. Ceoil (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello Johnbod, I have granted rollback rights to your account. The reason for this is that, after a review of some of your contributions, I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended use of reverting vandalism: I do not believe you will abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Misplaced Pages:New admin school/Rollback and Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck.

Just the right time for this. Well spotted on the vandalism. I normally check back, but I wanted to block the IP asap to stop more of the same.

Tyrenius (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)