IF YOU MENTION AN ARTICLE HERE - PLEASE LINK IT!!!

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 /10 from April 08 /11 from July 08 /12 from October 08 /13 from Feb 09 /14 from Aug 09 /15 from Nov 09 /16 from February 2010 /17 from June 2010 /18 to Dec 2010 /19 to March 11 /20 to Oct 11 /21 to Jan 12 /22 to April 12 /23 to September 12 /24 to January 2013 /25 to April 13 /26 to July 13 /27 to November 13 /28 to January 14 /29 to August 14 /30 to May 15 /31 to November 15 /32 to February 2016 /33 to 31 July 2016 /34 to 30 November 2016 /35 to April 2017 /36 to December 2017 /37 to April 2018 /38 to October 2018 /39 to April 2019 /40 to September 2019 /41 to December 2019

This user is one of the 200 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/California State University Sacramento/Art of the Ancient Mediterranean (Fall 2017)
• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Amherst College/Women and Art in Early Modern Europe (Spring 2017)
• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/College of DuPage/History of Art- Prehistory to 1300 (Fall 2017)
• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Duke University/Art in Renaissance Italy (Fall 2017)
• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Duke University/Art in Renaissance Italy (Spring 2017)

Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Bellows, North River (1908), Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts.		Best wishes for a healthy and prosperous 2020.
		Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

On 2 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ratnagiri, Odisha, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Buddhist site of Ratnagiri (Buddha head pictured) in Odisha, India, includes rare carved scenes that seem to combine eroticism and hair-cutting? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ratnagiri, Odisha. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ratnagiri, Odisha), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

--valereee (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The 2020 WikiCup began at the start of January and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you are interested in joining, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Creative editors like yourself seem to enjoy taking part, and many return year after year. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lalitasana, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in Buddhist art, bodhisattvas are often shown seated in royal ease (example pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lalitasana. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lalitasana), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod! I've always been puzzled by the dates given for this statue... I've looked up a bit. One author I've found says the date is generally given as 2nd century CE, but thinks it is actually 4th century CE in Pieris, Sita; Raven, Ellen (2010). ABIA: South and Southeast Asian Art and Archaeology Index: Volume Three – South Asia. BRILL. p. 264. ISBN 978-90-04-19148-8., while a less specialized summary of available dates gives a range from 2nd century BCE to the 7th century CE in Arundhati, P. (2002). Annapurna : A Bunch Of Flowers Of Indian Culture. Concept Publishing Company. p. 43. ISBN 978-81-7022-897-4.. What is your opinion? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've no personal view - I see: Blurton, T. Richard, Hindu Art, 1994, British Museum Press, ISBN 0 7141 1442 1, p. 78 says "most scholars ... now accept.. on stylistic grounds ... [a date of ] 2nd or 1st century BC". I'll poke around. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ellwood, 47 from 2000 says "has been dated between" 2C BC & 1C AD. I think I'll widen the range & add stuff. Blurton & Ellwood have longish accounts. Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem there is quite a lot of divergence on the dates. Thank you for the feedback! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lotus throne, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that around 200 CE, the Indian monk Nagarjuna exhorted a king to make "Images of Buddha with fine proportions / Well designed and sitting on lotuses" (example pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lotus throne. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lotus throne), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

--valereee (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sculpture in the Indian subcontinent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Skanda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --evrik ^(talk) 04:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 h for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   Sandstein 20:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandstein, I am only here because I’m currently in conversation with Johnbod on a completely unconnected matter, but can we please have a diff for this supposed personal attack. You see, Johnbod is one of our more esteemed, long serving content editors not associated with incivility or associated behaviour. Giano (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's hardly hard to find: User_talk:Evrik#WHAT_THE_FUCK!!! Andy Dingley (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m glad my life has not been so sheltered that WTF as modern parlance has not totally escaped me. Your great grandchildren must consider you a treasure indeed. Giano (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, Giano, as refreshingly charming as ever. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed and you and Sandstein remain unchanged by time too. Talking of time, did you know that when The Low Countries were governed by narrow minded people, rather like Wikipedia, in the 17th century, the intelligentsia invented coded ways of saying the word “Fuck”, they did this by painting little birds as the Dutch word for bird was then currently slang for recreational sex (bad) as opposed to procreational sex (good). So presumably a bird flying away could mean...well, I’ll let you work it out. Giano (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not seriously vested in this discussion whatsoever, I just wanted to say that I absolutely love what you just said and appreciate your cultural awareness. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• How the fuck is "what the fuck" a personal attack? You're a fuck, sure. But "what the fuck" is the equivalent to "what on earth". How is this blockable? freshacconci (✉) 21:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The upper casing and the three exclamation points were the bounce. Should have been [EDIT: presented as] a politely worded question instead, [EDIT: WHATTHEFUCK???], upper cased with three question marks. It's all in the wrist. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC) (Free Johnbod, and Epstein didn't kill himself) [EDIT: Edited later to make clear what I originally intended][reply]

Well that is true no doubt. But it is totally typical that blatent and unapologetic breaches of policy are overlooked (see User:Primefac's comments at the Evric talk section). Johnbod (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

!!!kcuF eht tahW Randy Kryn (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC) (dobnhoJ eerF) p.s. this should have been talked out before a ban, given the clean slate. But women like bad boys, so there's that (I've got two bans to my record, and the scars to prove it)[reply]

• • All I can say is that sometimes it happens to all of us, WTF; OMG; but we do go on...Modernist (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Johnbod (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As User:Freshacconci points out above, there was no personal attack. Certainly my edit was bad-tempered, in reaction to a sneaky (no edit summary) breach of the rules (as Sandstein agrees). I was especially annoyed that I had not spotted his mess for over 3 weeks. One tries not to lose one's temper on WP, and nearly always succeeds, but sometimes it happens. I see from Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks that "A block is not intended as punishment; it's meant to prevent you from making disruptive edits, either in good faith or as vandalism." After 220,000 edits over 15 years, without ever previously being blocked, how likely is this to be a problem over the next 22 hours? Any "disruption" here came from Evric, who everyone but him agrees did breach policy, but refuses to accept or even discuss this, and will no doubt continue to edit regardless of policy. Johnbod (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I am completely convinced by John's reasoning. the unblock will present no danger to the wiki. RexxS (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rexx! Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As noted at WP:ANI, I would have agreed to unblock Johnbod if they had acknowledged that their conduct was wrong and committed not to repeat it. That not being the case, it is likely that the conduct will reoccur and the block remains needed. Sandstein 22:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, Johnbod's post is very close to what you're looking for. Johnbod, please consider bringing it even closer. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ringstone, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that small Indian ringstones of the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE typically have four nude female figures around the central hole? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ringstone. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ringstone), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

--valereee (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the "attorney" part you reverted to on Mike DeWine, and made it "former attorney." That should be descriptive enough and not mislead any readers. Thoughts? MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't really care but normally we just pile up all appropriate career designations. What happens when he loses office & goes back to the law? Johnbod (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Domestic architecture. Since you had some involvement with the Domestic architecture redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How odd! We must have both moved it at exactly the same time. Never known that before. You must have been a milli-second before me. Giano (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - I was puzzled when I saw it. I think I'm done now (I kept the lower placing - I expect the village are as unkeen to have their article dominated by strangers crashing into each other above them as the manor were). Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks! Agreed. I gave up editing when I realised we were both in there together. Giano (talk) 11:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes are planned for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of the 134. Sign up on page if interested in participating, hope this will prove to be good fun and productive, we have over 44,000 stubs! It's not really a "contest", just something to improve our content!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of painting, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kota and Chamba (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Deccan painting, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that images of the widowed queen who commissioned the first major work of Indian Deccan painting were erased after her son rebelled and imprisoned her? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Deccan painting. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Deccan painting), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Lotus throne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This serves as a warning about edit warring and 3RR on Lotus throne. This appears to be an extension of your actions here. This was also noted at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Lotus_throne. 71.178.130.61 (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Get it through your head - you are not entitled to change referencing styles to your whim without discussion - that is what WP:CITEVAR says. Read that ANI discussion, where several commenters (all except Evric) agreed:

• • "I wouldn't have put it quite as Johnbod did, but your edit clearly does violate WP:CITEVAR, in particular the instruction to avoid "adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates"." ... Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Evrik, you should not have changed an existing citation style, if only because this brings exactly no benefit to readers. Please don't do it again. .... Sandstein 20:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)"[reply]
  • "Evrik's edits didn't only violate CITEVAR. He also didn't make the conversion to sfn correctly (see this version). He left out ref=harv, which meant the short cites weren't linked to the long cites, making the conversion pointless, and as a result the Notes section contained 24 red error messages (e.g. "Harv error: link from CITEREFPal1986 doesn't point to any citation") for editors with the relevant script installed. He also wrote p= instead of pp= for multiple pages, and used hyphens instead of en dash. The errors left the article in poor shape for its day on the main page. I can see why Johnbod would have been annoyed. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)"[reply]
  • "...Evrik's edit was a violation of CITEVAR and very poor for other reasons, unfortunately in time for a main-page appearance. The original author should be allowed some leeway. To block an editor with no history of trouble and a clean block log, over 24 hours after the post and 16 hours after the complaint, seems heavy-handed. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)"[reply]

- Also the section on it above here. Your behaviour is altogether strange. Johnbod (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing html style over article content is the very definition of a red flag, to be avoided like the plague, editor. No offence 71.178.130.61, but go argue tiresome archinia and cat's breath on another website. Noting the AN/I report was closed several days ago. Let...it...go... Ceoil (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 71.178.132.138 (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am trying to add some information compiled by User:Brianboulton in a sandbox draft that he left; I hope to add it to the existing article for the composer that he was writing about. for some reason, another editor has opened a "Miscellany for Deletion" request to stop my efforts. I am not planning to write to every editor who knew of his work, but only to long-standing editors like yourself. I see that you have been here for over ten years, and are one of the 200 most active Wikipedians. Could you please assist? You are the only editor whom I have written to at this point. I just need some input, from an experienced and knowledgeable editor.

the discussion is at the link below. I have already opened a section on the talk page for this composer, in order to add the information to the existing article. I appreciate any support. thanks.

• Link to MfD for drafts page : Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Brianboulton/drafts.
• Link to MfD for specific draft on composer: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#User:Brianboulton/drafts/E.J._Moeran_List_of_Works
• Link to talk page where I hope to add this data: Talk:Ernest_John_Moeran#New_data_to_be_added

If you reply here, please ping me. I appreciate your help. thanks. ----Sm8900 (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented at the discussions, Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mughal painting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Realism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now has the star, many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Its a bit pricey, but I highly recommend Rachel Moss's c. 400-c. 1600: Art and Architecture of Ireland . Good analysis of both terms and types, and goes into detail on many specific objects. The clarity of writing is up there with Lorne Campbell. Ceoil (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

link that works? - yes, I think I've seen, maybe used, some from google preview. Or maybe that was on the other big multi-volume history (A New History of Ireland, 9 vols). I wrote IA in 2007 & 2010 & have hardly revisited. I've got more books since then, mainly on the Anglo-Saxon side. It ticks along, getting 150-odd views a day, & I think is a nice length. But I should check it out. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would. Next time in waterstones etc ask them to take of the plastic. The book is very useful also on delineating object types, which is something too few people actual do here. I agree Insular art as it stands is about the right size, with good links to the sub articles. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ps, have moved almost totally away from painting in terms of visual obsessions, although I do still love paintings: the last time I was blown away in a gallery was seeing red paintings by Millais a few years back, but that was largely because of a deeply informed guided tour courtesy of User:Iridescent. but otherwise, book purchases are all about: objects I wonder if this is an age thing, in the way men generally stop reading fiction after around 40 years. Ceoil (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it's that general - I've always been more aware of objects than most "art-lovers" for reasons I may have explained, & on wp I've always been motivated by filling gaps, which means I've done relatively little on paintings (effectively my first article was old master print, which we didn't have at all). At the moment (for the last year) I've been on a big Indian thing - mostly thin to terrible coverage when I started, and huge views compared to Western medieval art. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I've always been more aware of objects than most" - yes I know. In other news, when I first visited Mrs Ceoil in the states, I was whisked around a series of 17th century graves in New England. that is to say am besotted with Funerary art atm, and may update your and Ling's article shortly, even if the additions are very eurocentric. Ceoil (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are loads of gaps there, & many of the surrounding articles linked to are weak. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Commemorative Stone You removed the reference you perceive as extra , but there is no original reference to look at or click on for "Gallagher". if there is one, please point it out to me.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Looking at the first version of the article the reference was placed after the word "stone"[reply]

the erased reference is Gallagher, The Reverend John A. (1936) http://www.umanitoba.ca/colleges/st_pauls/ccha/Back%20Issues/CCHA1935-36/Gallagher.html The Irish Emigration of 1847 and Its Canadian Consequences CCHA Report, University of Manitoba Web site. Retrieved February 07, 2011.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

here, dude, but I've made it clearer. This is how refs are supposed to look. Johnbod (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it went to line 23--Mark v1.0 (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome! I have relocated to Colchester. It would be good to see you! Amandajm (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - do you still have family near me? If so, let me know if you are around, & have time. Or in town. I don't go down the A12 as often as I used to, but I might at some point. Would be very nice to meet. Email me. Johnbod (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Baburnama (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Zafarnama

Razmnamah (British Library, Or. 12076) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bhadravati

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Manson_(priest)

I am meeting this priest today, and I have to point out how influential his role is within the Diocese; he was equivalent to a 'Second in Command' of the diocese, if you will. His position has advisory to the bishop, and he was given his title 'Monsignor' by the Pope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Manson_(priest)

'By extension, it refers to "inferior" or "lesser prelates", that is priests who have the title and dress of prelates as a personal honorific, i. e. Papal chaplains, prelates of honor (formerly "domestic prelates"), and honorary protonotaries apostolic. All these enjoy the title of "monsignor", which also is used in some nations for bishops and archbishops.'

• I still don't think he is notable, & he is unlikely to survive without other references. Just being a 'Monsignor' won't be enough, I think. Nor would these normally be called "prelate", though that may be technically correct. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and please add correct, precise categories - not like St. Francis of Assisi, Halstead. This is how you keep appearing on people's watchlists, which you probably don't want to do. 15:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Johnbod, your contribution to my article is unsubstantiated. It largely doubles informations described in detail in the article. The Votive Panel of Jan Očko of Vlašim was certainly not executed by Theodoric. I have studied Czech gothic art systematicaly in the past several years and the original article in Czech Wikipedia was reviewed by art historian, employed in National Gallery Prague.--NoJin (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine. Please pay attention to the points in the article my edits have corrected. The new title is not I think the usual one in English, & I am minded to launch a WP:RM to discuss, which you should have done. Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was this useful? If so, how? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A warning/reminder that that page (and sometime this one) is subject to recurrent attacks. It saves me having to redo the research every time. It isn'rt complete by any means. So yes. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Useful to you, perhaps, but it serves no purpose in improving the page, which is really the purpose of article talk pages. I'm going to remove it. You can keep such information within your own userspace if you feel the need. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Useful to other editors who may be watching the page, or come across it. Given its history, there may be a number of those. But if you want to be a jerk, I can't stop you. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think WikiDan61 is bang out of order here, to the point of randomly picking something to complain about, but isnt this what page protection is for? Ceoil (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bishandas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daulat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Encouraged by the collaboration at Sic Bar, I have been thinking how great it would be if a few of us got together and knocked out a new FA as big collaboration. Might you be interested? Giano (talk) 21:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I thought I'd let you know that I have now finished the review of Biblioteca Marciana and it has passed. You had a lot of good input into the review process and seem to have helped and provided guidance for our friend Venicescapes quite a bit, so I figured you may want to know that it's GA now, as well. Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind - thanks! A very thorough review too. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I was beginning to feel under-appreciated.......

Amandajm (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be involved in an edit war: I’ve raised the matter here, if you wish to comment. Moonraker12 (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]