User talk:Johnbod: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:23, 10 December 2007

Archives:

Fayum mummy portraits and Pitsa

Hi Johnbod. I see you are busy dealing with grammatical and other sloppy issues in my additions to the Mummy Portrait page. I never seem to spot my own typos... I was a bit nervous to do anything on that page, as I could see that heated discussions had taken place there not so long ago. It's nice to see such swift, positive, and cooperative reaction. Thanks!

By the way, I'd like to start a short page on the Pitsa panels, but find it very difficult to get information. Any ideas? athinaios 15:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Ah, that reminds me. Would you mind having a look at the Severan Tondo article at some point? I've extended it from half a paragraph to about three (still a bit pitiful, but what can you do), mainly based on German wikipedia, but if anything were to be added in terms of style or, most importantly, provenance, that would be excellent... athinaios 15:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for adding the Pitsa panels to the Western painting article. They're well beyond my usual interests (I'm a prehistorian) but I'm very intrigued by them, mostly because they're so rarely referred to. athinaios 22:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following recent Fayum/Pitsa related forays, I've created the following subsection: [[1]] (unreferenced for the moment, like the whole article). Have a look if you like. athinaios 02:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! athinaios 02:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freculphus

Stumbled across Freculphus and thought he might be of interest to you. -- SECisek 04:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Offering money

You are welcome to claim the reward yourself (or donate it to Wikimedia if you refer), if you help to write a good furry article! So far one furry and one non-furry have received $50 each. I look forward to the time when RainRat has to give away his $150. :-) GreenReaper 15:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinet paintings

Hi. Thanks for the comments on the Flemish Baroque painting article. Vlieghe has a short chapter on late 16th and 17th century cabinet paintings, and a good bibliography, none of which is general. I looked over the cabinet painting article and it reflects the type of sources where I have read a lot about this genre: mannerist studioli, cabinets of curiosities, Kunst- and Wunderkamers, and the fijnschilders, etc. I think I have an exhibition catalogue somewhere here that is helpful, but it might take me a bit to find. I'll let you know if I find good source that gives a general overview, and can easily provide lots of bits and pieces if needed.--Stomme 18:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Sittow

It seems that English sources use interchangeably Michel and Michael Sittow. In books - at least according to Google Books search - Michel seems to be prevalent, same is true for Google Scholar. Also, Michel was the name he used himself (Estonian name Mihkel... and you really don't want to know what his last name means). See Atlas of World Art, for example. Also, Getty seems to be wrong about several other things (ie, "nationality: Netherlandish (preferred), Flemish"), so I don't think we should trust it in this case. I think Michel Sittow would be best, with redirect from Michael Sittow and both names prominently mentioned in the lead. -- Sander Säde 19:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another RfA Spaming

Thank you for constructive criticism in my recent RFA which did not pass at (18/27/10). I will be sure to improve my editing skills and wait until someone nominates me next time. Thank you for you comments! Tiptoety 00:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is true, but it is a mistake that i made and deserves to be brought up in my RfA, i will take this as a learning experience and improve. Thanks again! Tiptoety 00:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chryselephantine sculpture

Hi Johnbod. If you take, as I suspect, an aethetic interest in this type of thing, I should draw your attention to the other, more famous, Archaic chryselephantine piece, found in the same context at Delphi as the one I illustrated the article with. Unfortunately its only image on wiki commons (Image:008MAD Jewelry.jpg) is a bit wonky (or do you think I should cut it to shape and replace the other one with it?), which is why I didn't use it, a better image is here. Note the inlaid eyes and the gold eyelashes. Isn't it astonishing? The same deposit (no on display in a small room in Delphi museum, also contained an incredible assemblage of tiny, inbcredibly fine, ivory carvings, perhaps furniture inlays, tantalisingly giving us a hint of so many lost wonders... athinaios 17:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. They're not my photos, alas... athinaios 10:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LSMR-401 class landing ship mediums

Given your participation in this October 30 discussion, you may be interested to know that the involved categories have been renominated. The new discussion can be found here. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High culture

I am asking myself a difficult question: shall one leave your caption for Ezekiel, who, as painted on the ceiling, is described by you as very high culture, because it just made my day (rotfl, in short), or one shall try to be serious and remove the picture with its caption altogether? I feel perplexed. Cheers. ziel & 09:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK: Lucas Horenbout

On 10 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lucas Horenbout, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai 08:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 10 November, 2007, a fact from the article Trial of Penenden Heath, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 15:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 11 November, 2007, a fact from the article Flemish Baroque painting, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—Wknight94 (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tudor artists

I have started Artists of the Tudor court and left myself a bunch of to-do's on its talk page. Care to play? - PKM 19:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great additions, thank you very much. I put in a DYK joint nom for this one. - PKM 22:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great expansion of Serjeant Painter; much needed. - PKM 01:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha we found Lizard at the same time - I hit an edit conflict with you on it. Strangely, we found them in different places - different spellings! Got the missing one too. - PKM 02:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Waterhouse is in Google Books. There's a mention in passing of William Herne as a serjeant-painter in Dynasties so I googled it. Night night. pk —Preceding unsigned comment added by PKM (talk • contribs) 03:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's long enough for DYK now. :-) Taking a break; need sunlight. - PKM 20:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the hooks. I am not a member of Daughters of the Golden West - I'm not in sympathy with all of their qualifications though I am a first generation native Californian. :-) - PKM 20:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 12 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Raphael Cartoons, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

art awards cats

response on my talk page --Lquilter 16:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indenting

Could I ask you the favor of properly indenting your comments in xFD discussions? You have a tendency to pop in what appear to be random numbers of colons before your comment and then don't include the asterisk. If you would put in the same number of colons as the comment you're replying to, plus one, followed by an asterisk it would improve the flow of the discussion. Otto4711 16:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're referring to. My comments appear to be properly indented. If you're talking about my response to Mike's that's directly below yours, that is correct because I am responding to him and not you. Otto4711 16:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

awards cats

thanks! for the good work on the awards cats. --Lquilter 21:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my RFA

If you voted in my RFA...

Zeno

Dear Johnbod, I think there is no need to argue about that - we both are authors, you in this place and I am in the german WP, so I think we can solve it together. As you said, for e.g. Lovis Corinth the link was fine to you (I have written the german article de:Lovis Corinth) and for Franz Marc it is good too – so how can we lead the users of the english articles to that pages? Seems I started it the wrong way in using the same way I should do in the German WP; any ideas from you to do it a better way? Zeno.org has pictures from about 4500 artists and text works from more than 700 autors, most of those Germans like Annette von Droste-Hülshoff and I think it is worth to be linked as a service to the reader of the articles here.

Other thing: You have written "He looks to be a genuine editor on de.wp" - right, I'm there since 2003 and I am main author of a high number of articles, about 100 awarded articles are listed now on my userpage in en too. There is a simple reason why I am working in de: my english writing is that bad that it really is better for me not to try it here; nevertheless I normally work here with IP accounts to set Interwikis and external links to different articles and make small edits too. There is no idea of spamming when I think that links to external sources would help to expand WP as a service for the readers. I recently translated "my" Charlotte Berend-Corinth so you can see that 1) it really is better I should not work in en and 2) as a gift to you as an author of articles around art to get somewhat like virtually shake-hands – right? Greetings from Berlin -- Achim Raschka 07:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info on speech scrolls

Thanks for filling in some info on European speech scrolls. It was needed. Madman 23:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That ceiling again

Thank you for alerting me! Would you believe that I didn't have a "watch" on that article?! There have been more than 50 vandalistic or inappropriate edits, some of them quite well meaning but simply non-wiki, like linking one of the bold words in the first line.

I'm glad you picked up on the date problem. It was actually even worse than it appeared because it said 1520-1560 and some well-meaning person amended it. The vandal had also changed a date in a refence, which was harder to spot, but someone did. I'll locate the dates of the tapestries, and add them as well.

Amandajm 07:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright John...you just shout away, if it makes you feel good!

It's 2.00 on this side of Earth and I've had a really rough week!

As for the tapestries, where are they usually? I've seen a set of them and I can't put my finger on where they were. I can't remember whether they were hanging in one of the Vatican corridors, or if there is a second set somewhere like Hampton Court Palace. One of my favourite parts of the Vatican is the Map Corridor. It would be easy to loiter there for hours, but one never has the opportunity. Amandajm 15:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Artists of the Tudor court, was selected for DYK!

On November 16, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Artists of the Tudor court, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

scholarship versus scholars

As long as we're talking about scholars on the CFD, there's an issue at WP:CATGRS that really bugs me. The profession/identity intersection category includes the example of LGBT literature. But this is a perfect example of confusion of people and genre. Not all LGBT writers write LGBT literature; not all LGBT literature is written by LGBT people (although a preponderance is). I've pointed this out on Wikipedia_talk:Categorization/Gender,_race_and_sexuality but gotten zero traction. Would you care to comment? --Lquilter (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#DATABASE?

As a CFD regular, have you any thoughts on my proposal at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Not_a_structured_database? (Note: I am sending this message to a few editors who I notice are experienced particpants). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

scholars & academics

I cc'd your comments from the journalism academics CFD to Category talk:Scholars by subject. --Lquilter (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Negative qualities

You have been volunteered![2] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod!

You're probably right. Do you like my article? Which is your cathedral? Amandajm (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know St George's at all. We generally pay a visit to St Saviour's when we are in the UK, mainly so my son can look up Shakepeare's nose and see if there iis still chewing gum up his left nostril. The only RC Cathedral I know well is Westminster, where I sometimes get a quick cup of coffee in the basement. For visitors to the Abbey, one of the best kept secrets is the basement cafeteria at Wesley Central Methodist. Amandajm (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, poor Constable

I don't think anyone got it at the time, either. But, no. I haven't got a television.

Funnily enough, I was thinking about you a moment ago. I've just removed the attribution to William Scrots on the young Bess portrait at the Elizabeth I of England article, which I'm trying to rescue from a FAR. I have five books with it in, and all say "artist unknown". I notice you do the same on the Tudor artists page. My only worry is that I may be missing some recent scholarship; but the attribution wasn't reffed, so I plunged.

By the way, while I'm pestering you...I intend to get hold of one of the Strong books on Elizabeth's portraits; do you know of any other good books on that fascinating subject? qp10qp (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Oh, on Category:European court festivities, I'm working up an article on Catherine de' Medici's "magnificences" in my sandbox, here. It's still in the jottings stage, really, and is going to be a long time coming now that I've saddled myself with Elizabeth. I think I noticed that you or someone ploughed the "magnificent entertainment" franchise into one of the joyous entry type articles. I haven't found an article equivalent to the one I'm working on, and am wondering what to call it. qp10qp (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University Challenge

I noticed the mention on Qp10qp's talk page. I hope you got the questions right! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

My thinking on the categories in question is (I hope) pretty straightforward. The categories "English Renaissance plays" and "17th century plays" are not synonymous; some plays (Romeo and Juliet is an obvious example) belong in the first but not the second, while others (those of John Dryden, say) belong in the second but not the first. And yes, plays and masques that date from 1600 to 1642 logically belong in both categories. Ugajin (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you on "by author" subcats; good idea. Ugajin (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nativity

Hi, Johnbod! I made a change to the Book of Kells section, realised after a while that I was wrong and went back to fix it... and discovered that you had deleted the whole section. Good move! It seems inappropriate to have a section on the nativity in art, which only deals with one (to most people, rather obscure) aspect of the subject. A nice Christmassy article might be warranted. How about I do one? It probably won't be very scholarly, but it will be pretty! Amandajm (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually working on it, offline. I don't think it will be exactly deep or analytical. But I'll get some good pics together for Christmas.

The midwives is interesting. There was obviously a conviction that there was no way that Mary would have had to deliver the baby without help, even though she was not in her own village, and couldn't get proper lodgings. It's quite easy for a person in our society to die of neglect, but I suspect it was less the case. The town had a responsibility to its visitors. There were obliged to be hospitable. ... Oh Dear, it's two am! Amandajm (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose or delete

Hi Johnbod, just wondered in you might consider clarifying your !vote in CfD November 22#Category:Rider_legislation. I !voted "delete" on a nomination to delete, and you said "oppose per BHG", which doesn't seem to make sense to me. (That may of course just be my misunderstanding!) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armada Portrait

I've got a good start on Armada Portrait and I've put in a DYK nom for it. Need to add dimensions and maybe more on technique and the clothes. - PKM (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Surnames

I have started a discussion at Category talk:Surnames about Category:Surnames which I hope will be able to address the issues in common to the surnames category tree, without implicating issues particular to any one group of surnames. I'm posting this notice to all participants of the 11/11 CFD. --Lquilter (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old school categories

I'd welcome your thoughts on my suggestion on how to assess these categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: « Another request for edit summaries »

Thank you. I will try not to forget. Have a nice day ?/night ?

Eras-mus (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify?

Perhaps my new article Favourite is more Wiki-topical than I realized? Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify that for me? Just what are you trying to hint at? Speak plainly so that I can understand. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, In reply to your question, the reference was generally to the air of intrigue and over-excitement that we currently have in parts of the project, without any very specific references to persons. I should say I was completely unaware of all this at the time, and know nothing of your relations with Durova. Anyway, since metaphors from court life seem to come naturally to those discussing these matters - "god-king", "star-chamber" - "cabal" and so on, and our coverage of the historical topics is exceptionally poor (other than in biographies), I shall be plugging away on courtier, and similar topics like Alexandre Bontemps. I am not sure you have quite completed your transition to a Bicycle monarchy, but best luck in your efforts. Johnbod (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 27 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Favourite, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--WjBscribe 09:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the best hook I've seen. Andplus (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cfd clarification

Your next-to-last response troubled me; you seemed to think I was being intentionally obtuse or argumentative. I hope my response clarified that I'm not invested in the topic at all, and was merely trying to point out a possible flaw in the logic used in reasoning for the proposed change. I certainly wasn't trying to vociferously argue a technicality; I apologize without reservation if it came across that way. Maralia (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK (William Scrots)

On 29 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Scrots, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Spebi 08:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Elizabethan fun

Another long-brewing project: I have started Accession Day tilt, which I suspect you may want to play with. - PKM (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When in doubt, consult Strong. :-) - PKM (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 29 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alexandre Bontemps, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 23:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VA project

Regarding your comment on my talk page asking me not to change VA tags. Please see the VA project stating 'It's not necessary to list your name here to edit this page or edit related articles.' Thanks Tom 15:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your second comment on my talk page. Again, please understand that anyone is allowed to edit such pages. This is the criteria for the visual arts assessment which the project links to. Instead of making personal comments on people's talk pages sucha as, "If you think Raphael is B-class from the VA point of view, you clearly have little feel for the subject area, so please leave the VA tags for those who do," please just simply write on the article talk page why you think don't think an article meets a particular criteria. Thanks Tom 16:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of collaboration

I noticed you signed up for Raphael at the the Core Contest. I took a few Italian Renaissance art classes as an undergraduate with an excellent professor who included bibliographies in his syllabi. If you want me to dig those up and locate the Raphael material, I would be happy to do so. I see you already have quite a list of sources, but just in case... Awadewit | talk 15:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Tyrol categories

Hey johnbod, I really don't want to see a whole new page of accusations getting thrown about. We've had this on multiple pages when Gryffindor, Rarelibra, and PhJ show up. The German perspective is that it should be South Tyrol, and only South Tyrol. The issue people forget is that we are not here to back the German perspective, or the Italian perspective (Alto Adige) for that matter. If you look at the page now, it is about as neutral as it can get, and now has a lot of information for the reader to understand the different names used. Anyway, getting back to the reason I wanted to message you. You stated correctly that things are still unstable. Maybe you can just press pause on that vote once again? It can be discussed sometime early next year, and I would suggest having some Admins help decide the best name for the categories rather than these constant votes. That or have someone like Lar babysit the discussions. :-) take care, Icsunonove 18:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I am really glad that you at least like the article content so far. :) I'd like to get some feedback on the title then when you have a chance. The problem in my view is that when we deviate from a title like Alto Adige/South Tyrol or Province of Bolzano-Bozen, it becomes biased towards one particular national point of view. At least in this case we've found that it is quite common to 'hybridize' the title; hopefully saving everyone a lot of grief. German usage itself concentrates on the term Südtirol, and I'll have to accept the majority of native-German speakers will want the only English usage to be South Tyrol. I just wish that people could see the compromise in using Province of Bolzano-Bozen, and also all the work that was done to really educate readers on the different names. Nothing is missing afterall. Anyway, either keep or reject, hopefully that request can be closed soon..hah. It is already turning into another b**** fest with stuff like Gryffindor's "or else I'll have to slap an official warning on you.". Oh Dear. :-) regards, Icsunonove 19:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leda

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

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

Moving multiple pages

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

Proposed rename for subcategories of Category:Women by occupation

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

Advice

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

William Segar

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

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

Grand manner

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

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

Vasari needs to be reference at his first mention.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Former Students of Easington Community Science College

Category:Former Students of Easington Community Science College, was decided to be kept. Whether or not you voted for this, your contribution to the CFD was valued.Thanks.--Sunderland 06 17:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Cats Prophets in Christianity and Prophets in Judaism

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

You say Philip, and I say Bart...

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

Roberto De Luna

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

@@ Line 336: / Line 336: @@
 ==You say Philip, and I say Bart...==
 The subject of the painting has indeed been re-interpreted since I was a student. I let the changed title go, since a google search (!?) confirmed the Batholomew credit, and I figured the editor was a different person or a contributor gone good. Either way, the painting is indeed now known as St Philip. Thanks for the correction. [[User:JNW|JNW]] ([[User talk:JNW|talk]]) 20:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
+== Roberto De Luna ==
+John, FYI, In restoring a couple of comments on the talk page of this article, you inadvertantly deleted a number of others.  I think the talk page has been fully restored.  [[User:Pastordavid|Pastordavid]] ([[User talk:Pastordavid|talk]]) 17:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)