Please refrain from making accusations that assume bad faith against other editors, as you did here and here at Talk:Alfons Mucha#Alphonse vs. Alfons, as it borders on a personal attack, and is unhelpfully critical of the editor rather than the edit. Article talk pages are not for addressing editor behavior issues; this is what user talk pages are for. While I appreciate that you corrected NihonJoe's absurd accusation of WP:OWNership, you followed with further ad hominem aspersions, including an accusation that I am ignorant of or incompetent with regard to the visual arts (which could not be further from the truth; I'm a semi-professional antiques dealer, who specializes in Victorian through Interwar, including Nouveau!). Furthermore, I had already stated that I had not been aware of the old naming discussion before performing the move, so your further accusation that I "disregard[ed]...the views of other editors" is an accusation that I'm a liar, and thus a blatant personal attack. So is your unfounded accusation that I "typically" make moves against consensus; I am in fact a frequent user of WP:RM and have been for years. I have over eighty thousand edits, over 99.9% of them non-AWB, but individually performed, and mostly wikignoming tasks; a few errors (and I did not actually consider this one an error, because the case for "Alfons" outweighs that for "Alphonse") are inevitable and not a big deal; this is a wiki and it's just text. You also accused me, without specificity or evidence, of disregarding policy, in your further attempts to personalize the dispute instead of addressing anything of substance relevant to that article talk page. In short, you are severely overreacting, and bringing a grossly inappropriate level of personal hostility to bear. Finally, ranting at another editor in public with unsupportable accusations as you did at that article talk page, even after already being warned to stop abusing the article talk page for that purpose, is not any kind of example of how to work toward consensus in a collegial manner. There's an essay at Meta that begins "Don't be a..." that it is more of an example of. And this is not the first time I've been wrongfully verbally abused by you like this. If it happens again, expect a WP:ANI filing about your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 00:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ethiopian art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chiffon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I just reverted your good faith change to this, objecting to "his". My comment did not fully reproduce the link to the archived discussion of singular "they/their" which is here [1] --Wikiain (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
You say that Harrison is British . . . surely? I don't know. I haven't read anything, and I know little about him. What I do know is compatible with his being British, but that's all. How do you (almost) know? (Does he perhaps speak with a British accent? I wouldn't know, as I've not heard him speak.) Perhaps you could comment in Talk:Martin Harrison (curator). -- Hoary (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
You said you disagreed with the merge in your edit summary. From what I could tell from reading my source (listed on the Chemical milling page) and the previous Industrial etching article, they described exactly the same thing: chemical etching used in manufacturing and industry. What was the difference? —Kierkkadon talk/contribs 17:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
JB,
Please see my edits at Sculpture and some explanation on the talk page. In general, I think the layout on highly illustrated articles is now really messed-up, and this is a test case for me. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Splitting off Art and gallery images to a new page would be a good way to tighten up this unweildy mess of a page, my shorter summary para created AFTER the split you undid now means both compete for readers rather confused attention MrsKrishan (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Relief, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intaglio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Johnbod, it's people like you that make this project have value. Thanks for your fine, fine work. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
Hello! Your submission of Peiraikos 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! Gamaliel (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
What about this? : "Neanderthal" language (!!!) + Black African (Aurignacian)languages + "Vasconic" (Solutrean) languages + Uralic(Magdalenian) languages / (& the Indo-European languages in Anatolia and in Caucasus in 7000 BC... The Indo-Europeans came to "France" between 4500-4000 BC.) Regards, Böri (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
On 1 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peiraikos, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that little is known of the Ancient Greek painter Peiraikos other than that he painted ordinary people and sold well? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Peiraikos. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod - You commented a while ago at WP:Featured article review/Barbara McClintock/archive1. The article has undergone quite a bit of work, and the review now needs additional comments. If you have the time and interest, would you mind returning to the article to expand or revise your existing comments? Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I saw your edit where you changed Naturalism (arts) from an article to a redirect to the disambiguation page Naturalism. Your edit summary said "Redirect to disam, as this covers only painting, & is very inaccurate. Realism is where this belongs". One of the effects of that is that there are 200+ links which now go to the disambiguation page.
Rather than go into those articles and edit the links there, do you think it would be appropriate to change Naturalism (arts) to a redirect to Realism?
Thanks, SchreiberBike (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
This is all Jill Cook-style background. It's a longish new article of mine on 18th century stuff, could get longer but the final section (re India) is worth an article of its own. Related is noble savage but that's fairly much a rambling mess at the moment. I find it interesting that the BM is in effect reinventing the idea of a "natural history", as it would have seemed to those Scots. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
On 4 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jacopo Caraglio, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the engraver Jacopo Caraglio fled to Venice from the Sack of Rome in 1527, before moving to Poland as court goldsmith? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jacopo Caraglio. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The 200 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal | ||
It gives me great pleasure to garland you with this award. Many congratulations are in order, as you have become one of the few Wikipedians to contribute two hundred articles to the Main page in the "Did you know?" section, increasing not only our knowledge but also beauty, by your focus on art. You have made a huge impact and are a great asset to the encyclopedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC) |
Great work! Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
On 5 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Giovanni Battista Agucchi, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Giovanni Battista Agucchi (pictured), who became secretary to the Pope in 1623, was a friend of artists and a writer on Baroque art theory? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Giovanni Battista Agucchi. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Have you seen this - Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Potential_admin_candidates? (Click on the link at the end of Scottywong's post)... Black Kite (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I was just talking about how the Anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan has a "see also" section which includes the page Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia. So why can't the other page also have a "see also" section? Ninetoyadome (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Johnbod, Given your contribution history, I would appreciate it if you would please take a look. I was referred to you by a mutual acquaintance. If you can find the time, and it is not too much trouble. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I found this beautiful object while searching Commons for something quite unrelated. There are seven other views of it, which I've now corralled at Commons:Category:Passion of Christ pyx from Sierra Leone. Thought you might be interested in it. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I've archived the debate [2]. Nothing more productive was going to come, and the majority approved the motion that info boxes are not always necessary. Seems a good compromise. Giano 19:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
As a laugh, Carl A. P. Ruck seems to think it was painted by mushrooms... History2007 (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Noted your edit to the intro of Wells. It's so nice to have people around who can change ones expression for something that is more, rather than less, accurate!
How are you feeling about Pope Francis?
Amandajm (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Amandajm (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
They follow the pattern suggested by Art of Europe. Dimadick (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Good morning, Johnbod! Isn't there an English term for de:Notname? I have found several cases in JSTOR of English-language texts that just use the German term in italics. Google Scholar, and Google in general, is impossible, as their overly generous search results give me every case of "(he did) not name (somebody or something)" and similar phrases. --Hegvald (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2668476
There are a couple of alternatives I can't remember right now.
Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, John! Amandajm (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
The article has been improved significantly since its second nomination which you reviewed. I have listed the article for a peer review. If possible, I would like your review in it. The link to the peer review is: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Jainism/archive2.
Thanks
Rahul Jain (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
if you could stick in a reference to your most recent addition at Statue. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
What a relief to go check an edit to this page and for once have it be a solid, sourced, improvement. You give me hope in humanity. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Can you add anything useful to Adriaen van Cronenburg? He's really hard to pin down. I can add lots more to Commons, just need some free time...! - PKM (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
It occurs to me you might enjoy knowing what brought me to Doubting Thos. -- search Thomas in [3]. EEng (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Don't be a prat, it's below you. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --John (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I responded to your comment on the article talk page. Thanks. Alexandrathom (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I saw your comment on Crisco's talk page and I thought I might weigh in on it. I don't think that putting it in on Easter Monday is a good idea because Easter Monday co-incides with April Fools Day and I don't think it would be right for a serious article such as this to go in with a lot of "humourous" entries. But that's just my opinion The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I see from your userpage that you've run into him too. [4] EEng (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi there - Regarding Template:Did you know nominations/Group of Monuments at Mahabalipuram, I responded on the nom page. I think that what was unclear was that the pages were worked in Sandbox from 1-1-13 until their nom date. Thanks for looking them over. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
See the post from Cynwolfe on TK's talk page. Would be interested if you had any insights. Ceoil (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
On 31 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Doubting Thomas, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in art Doubting Thomas (pictured) normally thrusts his fingers into the wound of Jesus, but the Gospel of John does not say whether he did this? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Doubting Thomas. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
5,944 on the day, who hoo! Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure that your latest edit is an improvement: it might be understood to mean that the name AV is used everywhere else except in the USA. I don't have hard data but my "informed impression" is that KJV is used in many parts of the world. Perhaps you'd like to give this a little more thought? Jpacobb (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
My views on the subject; copied from Jpacobb's talk page:
You are invited to the first ever Glasgow Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Sir John Moore, 260-292 Argyle Street, City of Glasgow G2 8QW on Sunday 12 May 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Scottish topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I try hard to stay out of ANI and even Bach. Please clarify for my personal understanding what you mean by "All the recent ones I know, like this, have been initiated by people adding an infobox, without prior discussion of course." - I did NOT add an infobox to Bach (or Robert Stoepel, or Handel), I suggested to add one, the Stoepel one was taken, the Bach one was not welcome enough, I moved on. What precisely do you mean by "all the recent ones"? How should I understand of course? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
On 7 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Girdle of Thomas, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Elizabeth, queen of Henry VII of England, bought a belt that had touched the Girdle of Thomas (legend illustrated) to help her pregnancy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Girdle of Thomas. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if you are still watching the Statue page, but I came across and added an item about Byzantine avoidance as I was playing with that page. In view of the aniconism page that I no longer watch, but just took a brief look at now, how widespread was that statue avooidance effect do you think? If you are not sure, it does not matter, but I was surprised to see that issue about Byz statues. Was the effect as widespread as the source suggested? History2007 (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
—Tom Morris (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bowing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Speaker of the House of Commons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The Epic Barnstar | ||
For your recent work related to art history/manuscripts. Keep up the good work! Stalwart111 08:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC) |
Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
casing of art
Thank you for casing in your articles the treasures of art, books and knowledge, like some medieval manuscripts were luxuriously bound in gold, silver and jewels, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (17 December 2009)!
A year ago, you were the 97th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Style (visual arts) 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! —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 20:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Not a problem, I will stop immediately. Apologies. I was attempting to be bold, but perhaps I was too bold. Please see my comment here for context. Please feel free to respond here or on my talk page. I'd be happy to revert my page moves, assuming that is something a non-admin can do. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) : I questioned whether or not there was opposition to move institution-specific GLAM pages on several projects, but received only one response: see here. Next time to I will wait a longer time to hear back from more editors, ideally the project coordinators themselves (I was rarin' to go!). --Another Believer (Talk) 03:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, I posted on the project's talk page. Sorry again for the lack of warning. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
"No way" diff is a little bit short; please explain more. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
No problem. In fact I was just fixing what was already in the article and cited to the NPR report but using weasel words. Nonetheless, I've fixed the citation style and added a ref to the second sentence just to make it explicitly clear. Cheers, Peregrine981 (talk) 11:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi John, good to catch up the other week. I've discovered new WP vigour and want to tackle the WikiProject archaeology pages and some organisational stuff in order to (hopefully) tempt more archaeologists to get involved and convince experienced Wikipedians that we know what we're doing! I've begun in a sandbox here: User:PatHadley/Map of Archaeology. What do you think? Cheers, PatHadley (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
On 23 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Style (visual arts), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that according to Jaś Elsner, "style art history" was "the indisputable king of the discipline", but is now "dead"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Style (visual arts). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about the GODHELPUS spelling mistake, you know what it's like editing Wikipedia I hope, you could have been clearer, I really didn't see it, I live in France (have done for twenty years), and have been an English Language Teacher for 15. I regularly use dictionaries, translate and so on and would just like to point out that in French, for example, the word is adresse whereas in English it is address, and so on, there are numerous examples of doubled consonants in English/French which are single in the opposite language. So I was more concentrated on the underlying issues and didn't see my (apparently glaring) spelling mistake, you could try and be a bit less agressive in future. CaptainScreebo Parley! 21:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Please clarify this edit summary in Lindisfarne Gospels: "((ec)No, you mustn't do that - see WP:ERA..." WP:ERA states, "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content." The established era style was AD. When it was just changed to CE, I reverted the edit. What were you referring to? Bede735 (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, could you please give more detailed explanation than just 'no thanks' to removing infoboxes? I can see that the objects in the Pergamon museum are rather large-scale, still they were taken from where they had been & placed in a museum. If they are not artifacts, how would you classify them? AntonBryl (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that it isn't, only that I don't know, but are there any sources that show that the Society of Antiquaries of London is a society that being a Fellow of would meet WP:PROF #3? The society's Wikipedia article doesn't have much by way of third-party sources, so it's kind of hard to judge from what I can see. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, and I have no issue with withdrawing the nomination for deletion, but I just wanted to ask for further clarification first, if you wouldn't mind. - SudoGhost 20:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello Johnbod,
do you have a book with information about Vasily Perov's painting Portrait of Fedor Dostoyevsky? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I removed the link you put in the image caption per WP:OVERLINK...the article for the painting is already linked in the text right next to the image. Thanks for cleaning up some of the prose. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Not really. There's one possible exception: the killing of the Apis bull by Cambyses II, as described by Herodotus. Whether that actually happened is, like a lot of what Herodotus wrote, seriously doubted, but he may well have been recording genuine Egyptian traditions about Cambyses. A modern book that mentions the killing of the bull says "this terrible act of disrespect was held to be the cause of every evil that befell the Egyptians from that time on", but it's a book for popular consumption, not a high-quality RS. Herodotus himself doesn't seem to say anything to that effect, and his point seems to be that Cambyses was crazy and bad, and possibly cursed by the gods for his behavior.
The Egyptians had their own cult statues, of course (and Apis and other sacred animals were sort of live equivalents of cult statues), but I don't remember seeing anything about protective powers being ascribed to them. I imagine some cult images were stolen in the days of foreign invasions—I'm thinking particularly of the Assyrians, who sacked Thebes and probably some other cities, don't seem to have played at being pharaohs to the extent that some other foreign conquerors did, and generally liked to plunder other people's stuff. But anyone who was able to seize a cult statue would have already overcome Egypt's natural and man-made defenses, broken through any fortifications a city had, and forced its way into the rather fortress-like temple at the city's heart. If the cult statue was lost, the city was already screwed. This was the sort of calamity the Egyptians didn't like to think about and that simply would not have happened during any of the three great kingdoms.
I can easily see how Greek city-states, constantly fighting each other, could develop the sort of capture-the-flag mentality about cult images that the story of the Trojan palladion demonstrates. In contrast, Egypt's natural stability gave its people an absolute dread of instability that, I would guess, prevented beliefs from developing in that direction. They did ascribe apotropaic powers to objects like amulets and ritual tools, but nothing that I know of stood for the well-being of a city or the nation in that way. A. Parrot (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I thought I would drop you a note to say that I mentioned in this month's issue of Ichthus. If you wish to receive the full content in future, please drop me a note on my talk page.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the additions to the Art in Medieval Scotland. If you get the chance could you take a look at Scottish art in the Prehistoric era? There is a good chance you will know some significant item I have missed. am happy to look out sources if necessary. All the best.--SabreBD (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
On 29 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Camuliana, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Image of Camuliana, said to be a miraculous icon of Christ, was carried into battle by Byzantine armies, but probably destroyed in the Byzantine Iconoclasm? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Camuliana. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |