Hello! Your submission of Rock relief at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have done some correction. Please see this.Arman ad60 (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod With this edit [1] you added a bunch of duplication. The information is in the paragraph right below the one you added. Pretty much the exact wording. I wont revert it, Im trying to stay away from reverts unless its something I did, I leave that to you after you look at it. AlbinoFerret 03:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Ok, thanks, fixed. But I think it is better to get nicotine out of the way first, if only because there is undoubtedly lots of it in e-juice

Thats fine, I am not stuck on anything or any order. More editors working on it will make the article better. AlbinoFerret 03:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to also remove "The cytotoxicity from using e-cigarettes is unknown" ? or did you just not notice it was there? AlbinoFerret 03:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the latter, sorry! Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But I've moved it now - it's not just about nictine, or cancer. Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I did go through the article, but I am all for others jumping in and changing, moving, adding. Better articles result! AlbinoFerret 04:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a section on Mystery Wolff at WP:AE here is a link [2] since you have been involved in the discussions I felt it was appropriate to notify you. AlbinoFerret 18:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Persian art

added links pointing to Fars and Khorasan

Daniel Hisgen

added a link pointing to Finding of Moses

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
This dispute case can be found at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Jesus. This notice has been sent to you by Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you popped up on this page after me. I hope you're not following me around Wikipedia. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are not working your way through my watchlist (which would take a while). Look at the history. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think we have a mandate to conduct the merge as you suggested. Basically there's consensus for a merge to end up with Arabesque (art), which I'd say should be the default target/primary meaning for Arabesque (so the other articles should be listed under Arabesque (disambiguation)). Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that, and I'll copy this to the talk page there. Do you want me to do it? Some might prefer to see it go straight to Arabesque (disambiguation) - with ballet and music it's arguable there is no clear primary meaning. I'll look at the views. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do; and to whichever target you think best. In older discussions I think you favoured the (art) variant. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do - yes Arabesque (art) if the plain term cannot be justified. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The plain term is currently a dab page, but really all the other terms do seem secondary - obvious enough in the case of European art, but also true of the ballet position and its use in music. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly they all derive from it, but it is their relative prominence now that matters - no doubt most balletomanes have little idea about the art. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to compare different artforms, of course. Still, it's a mess having all searches arrive at a dab page. FWIW Oxford put ballet first, while Webster puts Islamic ornament first. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Views in last 30 days:

• Disam 3516
• Arabesque (Islamic art) 6570
• Arabesque (European art) 1764
• Arabesque (ballet position) 2128
• Arabesque (classical music) 888
• Deux arabesques (Debussy) 1545
• Arabeske (Schumann) 389
• Arabesque Records 162
• Arabesque (rapper) 122

...and so on. So the 2 art ones combined are over double the rest combined, and over 4x the next largest. Just under double if Deux arabesques is included, but that is a different term, like Arabeske (Schumann). So yes, I think the plain term with a hatnote is ok. Let's continue at the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Adoration of the Shepherds (Poussin) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see new note on DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Desco da parto

added links pointing to Diana and Acteon

Persian art

added a link pointing to Turkman

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several articles are implied by the hierarchy in the template, which seems to be stabilising in its new form.

I have written a new Islamic embroidery, using most of the available images from Commons in the process! There aren't many that I can find, but no doubt more are tucked away in odd corners. Any suggestions for improvement (and new articles) welcomed! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - don't get me started! Islamic bookcover, Islamic silk, most periods of regional art other than Safavid art, Qajar etc. Arabic miniature is especially poor. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, as a biology editor I'm ideally qualified to talk, but I couldn't help noticing a gap or two! Is there a better page than here that can serve as a forum or aide memoire for folks to list tasks such as these? Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Islamic art I think. There certainlly aren't enough people interested to start a project. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Asian Month Barnstar
	Thanks for your great contribution in Wikipedia Asian Month 2015! --AddisWang (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you know where this section of the arabesque article came from? It might be the product of considered reflection on established sources ... or a bit of rampant WP:OR by an IP editor. If the latter, a bit of surgery might be in order. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's what I thought just about worth keeping from this old version, plus my distancing first para. In fact I'm sure it could be referenced, as many Islamic authors come out with this stuff, not least the late Titus Burckhardt, who makes most Western art historians froth at the mouth, but was long accepted as an authority on Islamic art. And it has some validity no doubt; the few contemporary Islamic writings take this sort of approach too. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Nollaig Shona Duit
	Thanks for all your usual highest quality contribs over the year and for setting the pace within VA, enjoy the season and best for 2016. Ceoil (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Shepherds (Poussin) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Scroll (art)

added links pointing to Petiole and Acanthus

Arabesque (Islamic art)

added a link pointing to Neoclassical

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2016 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! All the best Gavin / – SchroCat (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! A jultomte for you! Hafspajen (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same. Best wishes to you and yours, too!! I give you back your card... but with a short Catalan translation! :))) [3]--Kippelboy (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An expert is needed here. Nobody KNOWS for sure how the original looks like. Hafspajen (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Filippino_Lippi_016.jpg

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for all your contributions to the project (some of which I've used in class!), Johnbod, and merry Christmas to you and yours. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! All the best for the holidays, Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm off to Midnight Mass tonight in the cathedral in Udon Thani. No queuing up outside in the cold - its 29º here! Al the best, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

to you for Christmas and the coming year, John. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warmest Wishes for Health, Wealth and Wisdom through the Holidays and the Coming Year! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Season's greetings!
	I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2016 will be successful and rewarding...Modernist (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And a merry merry to you as well! - PKM (talk) 02:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you join it please. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have to go to bed. But some of your changes are not good at all. Don't expect them to last. Johnbod (talk) 04:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Am happy to discuss. There was a lot of edit conflicts their on my end anyway so apologies.

Agree the prior wording about duel use was not very good. Have adjusted it to more closely match the sources.

Anyway done working on it. All yours.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK your gift inspired me! I didn't put as much work into it as you did into yours, but here it is: The Holy Family With Angels. Happy Holidays, Jane (talk) 10:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod:, I told you that I don't know how to change the title, redirect etc. You changed the title, not me. It was OK as it was before. Your turn to change it back. But I do know the facts, "Umayyad desert castles" is NOT equal "Jordanian desert castles", not at all, so you cannot write that, that would be factually wrong. I know how to edit within the constrains of the given page, if you intervene on the next level, then you please do the technical part, I stick to what I know best, you to what you know best, and the product benefits from us both. But don't do hasty changes and ask me to undo them, because I cannot, sorry. Happy Christmas, 2.54.154.216 (talk) 15:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)Arminden2.54.154.216 (talk) 15:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod. I noticed you've invested some time in the Shroud of Turin article so I was wondering if you could take a quick look at my suggestions to improve the neutrality of some specific wording, outlined at its Talk page and contribute your thoughts? I know with the lead-up to Christmas editors have had other priorities, so if wikipedians do see any merit in my suggestion I'd like the community input. If not, I'll move right along. Much appreciated! 121.216.197.53 (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, I hope you had a fine Christmas. Two months ago you helped me with my FAC for the Jacob van Ruisdael article. I just put it up again. Hopefully this time around it does get some votes. I made some more changes as well, hopefully for the better. Please have a look. Thank you. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John. I've been perusing Don Hitchcock's site, where I found a fascinating page devoted to Stone Age discs (or rondelles), which he thinks may have been used as spindle whorls. Do you, or any of your talkpage watchers, know anything about these artefacts? I can't find any mention of them on WP, perhaps a new article may be in order. Regards. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 06:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very little. Weights is I think the usual explanation, also for fishing/hunting nets. Johnbod (talk) 09:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't heard those hypotheses, but I think the fairly precise centering of the holes lends itself more towards spinning. Googling Stone Age discs/rondelles doesn't come up with a lot, but there are a few results when one adds "whorl" as a search term. The images on Don's site do seem to resemble what are probably Iron Age whorls and are definitely medieval ones. Anyway, thanks for the reply, I think I'll leave the old discs for another day as I'd rather start an article on the Grimaldi Venuses. Cheers. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 10:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your last revert of my removal of content recently added to this article, Massacre of the Innocents. I assume your edits were done in good faith, but I hope you will be more careful. Apart from coming close to an WP:EDITWAR, you essentially take responsibility of restored content. Had you taken a closer look at the content or my explanation on the talk page I don't think you would have concluded my edit summary was misleading. Just a friendly reminder. Thank you. 63.197.119.253 (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, to call material that is clearly referenced OR in an edit summary is certainly misleading. And of course it turned out to be copyvio, not OR. I suggest you get an account (if you can) and start editing more carefully. Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I included it was OR & Undue and explained this on talk prior to your second revert. OR mostly for first paragraph citing primary sources to make editor's argument, which turned out to be apologist website's argument. I take responsibility for not recognizing edit as copy vio copypaste sooner, but edit was sloppy OR and clear undue. I don't think you can defend it as otherwise now knowing where it came from. Still, consensus building for new content is important and your reverts prior to discussing objections were counterproductive. I think erring on the side of caution is preferable and actual policy as far as I can tell. Thank you for your advice. 63.197.119.253 (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Queen thinks he's notable now. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016

peace bell

Thank you for your beautiful Christmas wishes, returned with my review, and the peace bell by Yunshui! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the post before you removed it. You had an interesting point of view. It is a red flag when a source misrepresents the material its views are based on and may lead to questions of its use on reliability grounds. AlbinoFerret 17:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well the review has 3 sourceson the point, not all of which I can see, but they don't represent that one terribly well. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gislebertus

added a link pointing to Tympanum

Villa of the Mysteries

added a link pointing to Mary Beard

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you are a recent editor of Electronic Cigarettes, I am asking for your input to an Arbitration Enforcement Request AE. Found here. If you have time I would appreciate your input. The items in question are listed out 1-8. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mystery_Wolff
Thank you Mystery Wolff (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I assume that you have quick failed this GA nomination. But it hasn't been closed properly. Talk page and elsewhere still show it as open. Can you please close it? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but these templates are a mystery to me. Do you know how to? I now see you made good comments back in August, more detailed than mine, so maybe you should close it anyway. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done that now. It actually was easier than I thought, by just following Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Failing. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note, per closure of this discussion you'll have the opportunity to propose more deletions in the tree of Category:Celtic Christianity if you wish. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Persian art at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John, would mind finishing your review for Juan Manuel de Rosas FAC? Several other editors have given their support, but yours is lacking. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i just am appliyng the same that the people made with Catalan churches, it make seen as different types of churches when within that context should be same, you apply that "wikipedia law" also with the Catalan churches, or let modify it to be in line with the rest of Spanish churches, answer me please, for get a conclusion--Vvven (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are completely wrong, and should not have done that. You will see that French, German and Italian churches do not follow this pattern, nor do most Spanish ones. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I see that in fact NONE of Category:Churches in Catalonia use this style either, which saves me correcting them. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

begin to appply the same meausres in this Template:Benedictine monasteries in Catalonia. you must see the large amounts which the same problems that you say in these change that i try to propose Category:Romanesque architecture in Catalonia, Category:Modernisme architecture in Catalonia, with repetitive "...de...", "...d'...", or "Casa...", make the same with the other autonomous communities or let me put these names for the churches in the rest of Spain--Vvven (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

addition to that template and 2 categories, i found other Santa Maria de Manresa and if you can search it could found more--Vvven (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

see this article Catalan Romanesque Churches of the Vall de Boí--Vvven (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See this, "Seu" means "cathedral" practically all cathedrals in catalonia, are named Seu, f.e. Seu Nova (new Cathedral), Seu Vella (Old Cathedral, Seu de..., man, you need to change much in catalonia, or let me put the native names to the rest of Spanish churches, also could be an option--Vvven (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there large amounts of articles, including some world heritage sites, with Palau instead Palace.......Vall de, or Vall d'... Hospital de.....

As i said need to be in line with the rest of Spain, and even being of the same country, because is a kind of promoting, it heard the name good with its native name, for me there no problem, the wikipedia have could be open, because there is just a way to name this churches, but that be in all Spain, not this favored region--Vvven (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there are some, all by I think 2 authors, but they are still wrong, and I will tell them so. With secular buildings "Casa", "Palau" etc it is not so bad, and place-names such as "Vall de" are fine, but there is no need to keep churches fully local. No doubt the locals at Fontclara just call the church "Sant Pau" anyway, not "Sant Pau de Fontclara". Johnbod (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to add to discussion as an outsider, but I disagree with changing, for example, Old Cathedral, Samamanca to Old Cathedral of Salamanca. I would agree with Santa Maria de Manresa, but then again, some would refer to this church as the abbey of Manresa.Rococo1700 (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral on the cathedral; both work ok & there is no established style afaik. I'm not clear which you agree with at Manresa - Santa Maria de Manresa or Santa Maria, Manresa? Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rococo1700 Why are you interested in matain the name of Santa Maria de Manresa and not San Isidoro de León (instead of Basilica of San Isidoro, León) if for start has the same historic relevance, with the confusion with other abbey in the town, i have to say that all Spanish towns as smaller as its are, it there more than three churches.--Vvven (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other Catalan churches with same that i ask for the Castilian churches: Sant Benet de Bages, Santa Maria de Serrateix, Sant Ponç de Corbera, Sant Esteve de Banyoles, Santa Maria d'Amer, Santa Maria de Ripoll, Santa Maria de Roses, Sant Miquel de Cruïlles, Sant Pere de Besalú, Sant Pere de Camprodon, Santa Maria de Montserrat Abbey, Sant Salvador de Breda, Santa Maria d'Àneu, Santa Maria de Gerri, Santa Maria de Gualter, Monastery of Santa Maria de Vallbona (in the municipailty of Vallbona), Bodegas Güell (Guell celler), Catalan Romanesque Churches of the Vall de Boí (Sant Climent de Taüll, Santa Maria de Taüll, Sant Joan de Boí, Santa Eulàlia d'Erill la Vall, Sant Feliu de Barruera, Sant Quirc de Durro, Santa Maria de Cardet, Santa Maria de Cóll.--Vvven (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these, like Santa Maria d'Àneu are famous and the full name, including the place, appears in sources in English. But this is not the case for most of the churches, either in Catalonia or the rest of Spain. Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are famous is due to has many years this article with this name in wikipedia in english, and take this as the formal name for English, due to articles in wikipedia. here there a large list with cathedral named with the native Catalan word that means "cathedral" "Seu", or old cathedral Seu Vella, or new cathedral "Seu Nova" followed by of (de, d') and the city: La Seu (disambiguation)--Vvven (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, "are famous is due" to many mentions in books from years before Wikipedia was invented - look at the link. Also please look at Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Catalonia. Johnbod (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion, i think that it could put in the article "this church also can be called Santa Maria d'Arneu, and the name of the article "Santa Maria, Arneu", applying the same rules of the rest of churches in Spain--Vvven (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, you arent answer to me or change the name of the catalan "wrong named" churches, if you will not, so i will make change the name in the rest of Castilian churches--Vvven (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed some and will, since you insist, change others, but you do not have the right to demand that I do so to your timetable. The rules are clear - why don't you just follow them? See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Your attitude verges on being disruptive. You can of course change them yourself, which would be the constructive approach. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dont tried to mean disruptive, less offensive, is just sound that maybe due to my little knowledge of English, is misunderstood, sorry, i recognize i was direct, but that is not wrong, in just a way of debate, thanks for help--Vvven (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sure, no worries. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that I am categorizing items according to provenance is uninformed. You are flat out wrong. I was trying to categorize paintings according to location. For example, Juan de Pareja is a painting that is part of the Collections at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, a collection in New York City. The provenance of the painting includes Cardinal Tommaso Ruffo, Rome; Litterio Ruffo, 2nd Duke of Baranello, Naples; Vincenzo Ruffo, 3rd duca di Baranello, Naples (1772–76; sold to Hamilton); Sir William Hamilton, Palazzo Sessa, Naples, and nearly a dozen other owners. Look up MMA information, then go to object information, then to provenance.

Please look up the definition of provenance before you make uninformed accusations.

Second, I did not say I did not make the changes, just that I couldn't recall what my role was in the process, and that even if I didn't, that I supported the change. You pointed me to here? that I had not created and to which I had not deleted any categories, instead I had added more. Next time organize your thoughts better before you complain.

Third, before you make such changes, you should discuss this with other editors. Again using the same criteria that you are using above, "But this is not the case" that is used for other collections. Period. You are using arbitrary personal criteria for making a decision and avoiding precedent. I think your category is arbitrary. I believe, the primary entry should be category:Collections in the Borghese Gallery, and making those works formerly in the called, works formerly in the collection, if they should be so assigned at all. (see provenance argument above).

Fourth, can I remind you that this move changed the category of items but maintained their link to Borghese. It wasn't a clear emptying of a category. I think the way you have structured the categories now is confusing. I recommend that we move to the talk section of that category and debate this, or obtain outside mediation. I thought the change that I was doing was one that would be seen a minor and unimportant. You however have made a change even when another editor pointed out to you that he disagreed with you and gave you the reasons why. Please make a reasoned argument why you think this change is better or we will have to seek arbitration. Please refrain from making claims that are not true such as the provenance claim

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

Feast of Herod with the Beheading of St John the Baptist

added a link pointing to Feast of Herod

Plate (dishware)

added a link pointing to Antiquity

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this up (partly incorporating text from a subtopic) so as to have something in place before mysteries of Isis, which links to it, appears on DYK. I'm having a hard time figuring out which categories it fits in, though. What categories would you use for a modern metaphor and artistic motif that is based on classical sources (but not a myth or story)? A. Parrot (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff - all news to me! I've had a go. I'm off to the BM "Egypt, faith after the pharaohs" today btw. Johnbod (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Late Antique Egypt was a very interesting place. Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Christians fighting in the streets of Alexandria, monks going out into temple ruins and supposedly fighting demons there, and ostensible Christians invoking the name of Isis (whether or not they remembered who she was) to make the neighbor's obnoxious dog stop barking. There's a letter of complaint to the governor of the Thebaid from 567—just three years before Muhammad was born—that suggests a group of Nubians got into the Temple of Isis at Philae and started worshipping her there again, more than a century after the family of priests who had run the place died out. That incident may have been the occasion for the transformation of the hypostyle hall into a church. A. Parrot (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jan Gossaert

added links pointing to James Snyder and Valois

Bernard van Orley

added a link pointing to James Snyder

Elizabeth of York

added a link pointing to Lancastrian

Matilda of Scotland

added a link pointing to Battle of Alnwick

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Born the heir to an [[Irish peerage]] (which did not disqualify him from being a member of the [[House of Commons]], he accompanied his

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John, Rosas is now a FA. Thank you very much for your great review and for having given your support. I appreciate that. --Lecen (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dosso Dossi

added a link pointing to Este

Gundestrup cauldron

added a link pointing to Raptor

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Let's hope we can finally reach consensus. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in the GLAMing Madrid Challenge. I encourage you to continue editing on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects to improve and advance the free knowledge, and to leave any comments, criticisms or suggestions for future activities in the discussion page of the event. --Rubén Ojeda (WMES) (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

¡Thank you for participating in the GLAMing Madrid Challenge!

I saw you changed "is held by" to "is in" in Les Grandes Baigneuses (Renoir). That's all right, but I was puzzled by your edit summary suggesting that "is held by" is not English. It is standard English, and also common for paintings, but since the simpler "is in" is fine, too, I won't argue with the change. I can also understand removing "a scene" as unnecessary, but I think "a" was left there. Corinne (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

" the women standing in the stream in the background posed in the large" was the bit I meant, but I managed not to hide it, I see. I can't even work out what was intended. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't, either. Oh...and I take back what I said, above, about "scene"; I'm used to looking at just the revision history, with the two columns, and the "delta" view threw me off; I didn't see you just removed the square brackets and not the word "scene"; I'm also sorry I misunderstood to what your edit summary referred. Corinne (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I wasn't being very coherent. I see Hafspajen has been away nearly a month now... It's a lovely painting, & it would be nice to sort the article out, but I don't have much on Renoir. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Working, very slowly, towards an FAC.[4]. Not here to ask for a review, more that since it's such a visible page and likely to draw attention, can you be on hand to rule on any VAMOS issues likely to crop up. I'll ping you if needs be, if that's ok. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)...I'll be there too. Cassianto^Talk 09:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, though he's not really my period. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a general view here on bio and organisation/ structure, without into getting specifics. Am leaning towards the way El Greco is laid out, which we are a long ways away from here. No hurry or rush. Ceoil (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Re. "prehistory", it took me a while, but now I got it :-) Clear-cut definition, basta.

Could you please take a look at the "deep history" article? I think it's too high-flying and lacking a simple lead with a basic definition.

Is there anything to that idea that more recent researchers, by using a whole array of means borrowed from the nature sciences and applying them both to literate and illiterate cultures (which might have been contemp. with each other), are "blurring the distinction between the terms 'history' and 'prehistory'"? From the way it was written it seemed to me that it came from somebody who knew what he was talking about, but now it looks illogical. Or is there more to it? Thanks, Arminden (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly the case for "history", where archaeology and other scientific (and social scientific) approaches have long been joining the analysis of contemporary chronicles and documents, even for quite recent periods - eg Industrial archaeology. Also for periods in protohistory, for example the Celtic Iron Age. But this has been going on since the 18th century, and eg Greek & Latin authors writing about the Celts have been treated with great suspicion for nearly a century, even though archaeology in fact confirms much that they say. But "written records" have never been relevant to most of prehistory, eg the European Stone Age, because there just aren't any. The original version before either of us started to change the article read "Historians increasingly do not restrict themselves to evidence from written records", which is very misleading in Prehistory because they never did, since the Renaissance or the birth of archaeology anyway. I'll have a poke at deep history, but it isn't really my thing. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John, if I may bother you again: there is a 1500-year discrepancy between the PPNA dates given by specialised archaeologists here, and the dates used by the WP articles on Pre-Pottery Neolithic A, Jericho, the Wall of Jericho and the Tower of Jericho: ≈11,500–10,500 cal B.P. vs. 8000 to 7000 BC. The PNAS article is referring specifically to the PPNA site at Dhra', but Jericho is only a stone throw away, so regional differences can hardly play a part. Or is it connected to calibrated carbon dates vs. what has become common dating standards? Thanks again, Arminden (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that paper is 2008/9. It may just be newer findings giving a new date, or there may be more to it. Unfortunately all the editors at PPNA with apparent expertise seem to have moved on, & I'm loath to change anything in an area I know next to nothing about. I suggest you copy the query to the talk pages of the articles, and maybe the archaeology project talk, and see if anything happens. If nothing does, after 8 years or so there should be new 2ndary sources reflecting the new date, somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your recent edits to the various "kebab" pages. I'd like to take a moment if I may, to explain some of the things I've been hoping to achieve there lately.

It's a little complicated because of the various meanings of the word kebab in different places. The main source of difficulty is in the English use of kebab to mean meat and/or vegetables cooked or served on small skewers. This is of course the correct definition of the English loanword, according to English dictionaries.

However, to avoid some of the problems described at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, I'm hoping to impart a more "world-wide view of the subject", as best I can with my limited knowledge. I think it's important for people to understand what the word normally means in English, but also to learn what it means in its native lands, and especially, to get an appreciation of the rich cuisine that it refers to there.

In Middle Eastern culture and languages, kebab doesn't necessarily indicate the use of skewers. If we take the English language usage to define the articles' topic, or the world-wide meaning of kebab, then it becomes very difficult to talk about things like köfte kebab. Köfte kebab is one of the most popular types of kebabs around the world, and though it may be cooked on a skewer - then called şiş köfte in Turkey - it's often cooked directly on a grill, similar to a hamburger. This is very common in Turkey, Bulgaria, Israel, and many other countries.

To illustrate this, I added the photo of the "British Asian style barbeque" at the top of the kebab article, with the additional comment: Note that the meat patties are described as "kebabs", while the vegetable skewers are not, which you've removed with the comment "flat untrue". But the original photographer described it as "...chicken kebabs...and an assortment of vegetables". The photograph is quite clear, the skewers contain only the "assortment of vegetables", while the described "chicken kebabs" can only refer to the meat patties, which are a type of köfte kebab. This is completely in keeping with the way the terms are used in their native Western Asia. In the Turkish and Persian kitchens for example, with the possible exception of shashlik, vegetables are usually cooked on separate skewers, because of the different cooking times. They are not called kebabs. The term kebab specifically refers to grilled meat dishes. So I believe my note is correct, at least in terms of how the people cooking the meal described it.

I've added some further explanation about what I've been working towards in Talk:Kebab#disambiguation and improvement, if you care to have a look.

Sorry if I'm telling you things you already know. I'm not an expert and I still have much to learn about the subject. I hope we can come to an understanding, so that we're not working at cross-purposes.

Cheers! IamNotU (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the caption to that photo is complete crap, frankly. It shows exactly the basic British barbeque foods (minus pork sausages, admittedly) - the only "British Asian" thing might be the arms of the chef. It shows vegetable kebabs, chicken thighs (clearly not wings), beefburgers, and the American import of sweetcorn. It is exactly what I and most unambitious British barbequers cook! I am entirely sympathetic to your aims, but not necessarilly the edits you make. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, obviously I have no real information about the source of that photo. I'll try to find something better, thanks for pointing it out. I'm having some difficulty with how to present the kebab article that's both about the English loanword, meaning all kinds of food cooked exclusively on small skewers - or, döner kebab - and at the same time about the term used throughout the Muslim world cuisine, which includes meat patties grilled without skewers, things cooked on large swords, and even things that are more like a stew. It's particularly difficult to deal with the ongoing edit war over the inclusion of ancient Greek dishes in the history section, "because they're meat cooked on a skewer". I'd like to see the kebab article be primarily about the latter usage, with the English usage redirected to shish kebab and döner kebab, and dealt with there. That seems to be the most appropriate. If you have any suggestions, I'm happy to hear them. IamNotU (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you just have to set it out as it is, at some length, and risking confusion. Pudding has similar issues. You may need to be careful to avoid giving the impression that there is no graspable subject at all. I don't really agree about your split - shish kebab is too specific in British English I think, and doner kebab too. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Lead Writing Award
	To Johnbod, for some nice work on the lead of some art and history articles, particularly Italian Renaissance, which I felt was the best one I read. An Amazon voucher is on its way.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnbod. This is a piece of unabashed soliciting. I know George Bernard Shaw is not on your usual beat, but Brian Boulton and I have the article up for PR, and in search of a really rigorous review we hope you might perhaps be willing to look in. Perfectly understand if not, naturally, Tim riley talk 15:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Paestum

added links pointing to Juno, Etruscan, Gymnasium and Phoenician

Greek Revival architecture

added a link pointing to Strelka

Regency architecture

added a link pointing to Clifton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]