User talk:AndyJones/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, AndyJones/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've answered your question at the help desk. If you have any more questions, do not hesistate to ask me (click on the "A note?" link in my signature, and edit that page). Once again, welcome! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inheritance Tax (United Kingdom)

Looks great! Remember that you should always be bold when updating pages. Because I am not an expert in that field, I cannot judge it; however, Wikipedia does have a peer review process where other editors will leave input for you. In addition, I commend you for leaving some notes at the talk page; this is extremely helpful! While a justification isn't required for every edit, it's great that you did so. Happy editing, and don't hesistate to ask me anything! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 01:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only just seen this - good stuff: it is nice to see some tax professionals contributing. You may like to add a link to it at Taxation in the United Kingdom, and expand the summary paragraph there ion IHT. There should probably also be a short summary paragraph at Inheritance tax, which is meant to cover all jurisdictions, not just the US as it does at present. Finally, query whether it should be moved to United Kingdom inheritance tax, like United Kingdom corporation tax. But, once again, well done. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and thanks for the articles on Furniss v. Dawson and the Ramsay Principle, but query whether they ought to be merged, probably at the latter; and some discusion of later cases, particularly Macniven v. Westmoreland and Barclays v. Mawson, would be welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain?

Why did you vote abstain when you could have voted me a pony? After things wikisettle for me a bit, I'll see what I can do about restarting the HS discussion. I bet we can get buy-in. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On Trust (Law)

I think a link to Trust (Law) USA, should be in the disambiguation page Trust (I don't know if it is right now), and then from there a link to the current Blind trust page, which I think is more of a stub right now. Go ahead with the change you think fits better, I'm sure you are better qualified for doing this since you are a lawyer. I'm just a computer programmer. Thanks Homerotl 01:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Ramsay Principle

thanks for starting this article. I removed the following text from the top of the article:

I am in the process of writing this page. I am saving it in small blocks to the internet as I go. If you are seeing this message you are looking at an intermediate version of the article. (If you are seeing this message after, say, 3 October 2005, I have died, or got bored, or something and you should remove it.) AndyJones 20:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason being articles aren't supposed to contain anything but encyclopedic information - you can post messages mentioning the status of the article on the talk page but the idea with articles is to pretend wikipedia is a real encyclopedia - just as you wouldn't find notes in Brittanica saying "I haven't finished this section yet!", you shouldn't be able to find them in wikipedia. Of course my analogy is a bit odd, because you wouldn't find incomplete articles in Brittanica anyway, but the policy with wikipedia is that even the pages that aren't yet nearly finished shouldn't lapse from an encylopedic tone or refer to themselves. After all, all articles here are works-in-progress.

Keep up the good work. --81.154.236.221 18:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:"Snow"

Again, my current proposal is to merge all the stubs into a general article about the Poetry of Mao Zedong which is a broad topic you could really expand on then link to Wikisource which is where all source documents SHOULD be. Sasquatcht|c 22:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Bryants etc.

Liked your approach on the Bryant afd. Good work. AndyJones 23:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just trying to do due dilligence and actually support my arguements.--Isotope23 00:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare on screen

Great work!! Very impressive. The Singing Badger 20:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied?

I saw you use the term userfied on AfD. What does it mean?—Gaff ταλκ 02:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Destiny

I'll talk to him, perhaps via email. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 23:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

a belated barnstar

Hey, thanks for the cudos! Funny, I only just noticed it now. That's very kind of you. Cheers! --PullUpYourSocks 03:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good Humour

Thanks for the Barnstar of Good Humour! — TheKMantalk 00:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spam reversion

No, you did quite right. I gave the guy fair warning, and he did nothing, so that's what happens. BD2412 T 22:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Mooney (Blogger)

Hi AndyJones. Just a quick word with regard to the Paul Mooney (blooger) thing. I hadn't realised that there was already a discussion going on on the matter. I was using CryptoDerk's vandal fighter and saw it come up. I took one look at it and thought "nonsense!". I'll try to be a bit more thorough in my investigations before marking as Afd in the future. So, thanks for setting me straight on the matter! Much appreciated! KC. 17:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Foo

Hi Andy, when I say "collapse [[foo|foo]]", I mean that I take any wiki link where the description part and the article to link to are the same, and remove the redundant description part. So [[Buffy the vampire slayer|Buffy the vampire slayer]] is redundant, it can be replaced by [[Buffy the vampire slayer]]. Foo is a metasyntactic variable commonly used in programming. Hope this helps. Cmdrjameson 19:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Mooney (blogger)

All right, I understand what you're saying, but I still think a speedy could have worked better. Now you have to wait a week before things can progress, but if it was speedied you could report the guy for vandalism as soon as he tried to touch the Paul Mooney the comedian article. In any case, it doesn't really matter now, you've got the consensus already and I hope you won't have to waste any more time on that blogger guy. Flyboy Will 19:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your comment that there was no internet resource for UK court decisions on the Case citation page. Thought you may like to check out BAILII. Maybe an email to the council of law reporting about releasing the copyright on the backsets to BAILII would be good if you are in the UK.

Regards FedLawyer 03:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

BAILII

AndyJones,

It saddens me that you would find it more appropriate to delete a link to annother free info database because it has been denied public documents (judgments) by the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting, rather than write to the Council and use your efforts to have them release the copyright. AustLII had similar problems until enough people supported it - indeed even Wikipedia was limited to start with. Is it not time to send people to the site so that they can complain that the common law of England is copyrighted to the Incorp council of law reporting who (with your favoured commercial link sites) will charge them a fee if they want to know the law (which, of course, they are presumed to know).

But, it is not for an Australian lawyer to emancipate the Brits. I leave it for you to restore the BAILII link, unless you think that we should all be denied awareness of the free access legal database of the UK because it is presently crippled by the Incorp Council.

Regards FedLawyer 13:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Newbie

I see Raul's answered your question, but thanks for thinking of me! By the way, we usually get lots of new users with an email address as the username; most never edit or make only one or two edits. I'd mainly be concerned about the ones that will become regular contributors. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Newbie

Hi. I noticed you gave User:Nihitmehta08@yahoo.com a hint about user names. I kinda suspect he doesn't know he's become a user. He's been posting homework questions at my talk page, calling himself "anonymous", and I've had to politely decline, both there and at his own talk page (which he may or may not be aware even exists). Cheers JackofOz 02:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get the impression he's very young. Oh, well. AndyJones 12:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Wars of the Roses disambiguation

I think it is anachronistic and (which is worse) misleading to describe the lands between the Irish Sea and the North Sea, excluding Scotland, as "Britain". I suspect the medievals would agree since (if I remember my Malory correctly) they tended to distinguish between Britain the Less (Brittany) and Britain the Great. I'm not very well read in this area but it sounds wrong to me. Can you provide any contemporary source that describes this stretch of land as "Britain"? Then again, you must do as you think right. I am dealing with enough articles not to want to get involved in another. The reason we Englanders know we're top nation in these isles is because Celts like yourself get so chippy about denying it ;-) Stroika 00:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Everyonesacritic.net

Hi Andy, Since your vote for delete on this AfD, I have since cleaned up to adhere to NPOV and provided evidence of Notability. Could you please change your vote to keep?

Thanks,

--Dave 21:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because

Biased persons are trying to revert it to the overly, eqaully biased article it was. Courier new 00:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Inherently funny

Don't know how closely you follow AfDs you already voted on (I try but sometimes fail due to the size of my watchlist) but I did respond that I would like to know more about the Jimbo locking and demonstrating the page story. Thanks. Turnstep 02:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have replied, there. AndyJones 10:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Elizabethan Theatre

Greetings! Since you are one of the three people who post frequently on the William Shakespeare talk page, I thought I would include you in this.

If you haven't noticed, I've been trying to push WikiProject Theatre a bit. Someone on the talk page noted that the project is really very large and I agree. So in order to break up some of the work and concentrate it, I have decided to break up WikiProject Theatre into a series of smaller theatre projects. The first of these is WikiProject Elizbethan theatre. This project, spanning the 84 years between the beginning of Elizabeth I's reign to 1642 when the Puritans closed the theatres, covers such names as Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe and Ben Jonson. It aims to expand Wikipedia's coverage of the Elizabethan theatre as well as bringing the articles up to a high level of quality (close to or attaining FA status).

This project has not actually been launched as an official project yet, but the 2 main pages have been created on subpages of WikiProject Theatre and can be viewed here. I would like to get some feedback and suggestions before I officially launch the project. Please feel free to become a member of the project if you'd like. Please leave any messages regarding this here and I will watch your page. Thanks! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note. WikiProject Elizabethan theatre has officially been launched. Thanks for joining! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 02:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd draw your attention to [1], which was originally written as a wiki-article. It was deprecated by somebody or other so I took it to my own server and put in a link from the Flanders and Swan page. Cheers. El Ingles 13:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

changing username

hi, i just rembered recently i have id in winkpedia i went to my talk and saw your message telling me to change my username thanks for the help i was curious to know that did you ever read a book called lord of the flies or kane and abel

The two Trust (law) pages.

Hi there, I've proposed a re-merge of Trust (law) non-USA and Trust (law) USA - I understand you split them in the first place. Your contribution in the discussion at the relevant talk page would be appreciated. Thanks! Nuge talk 04:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British national poet

thanks for the support there, especially from a Shakespeare buff, to be perfectly honest with you though, I think both Burns and Shakespeare are universal rather than merely "national".

Shakespeare

Thanks for your nice comment on my work in your edit summary. Such is what keeps us wikiholics at the grindstone, Guinnog 21:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it:Astrud Gilberto

Hi, I've read your note, can I ask you what precisely did they say about it? Thank you :) --g 22:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well they weren't very specific. They've asked me not to put excerpts from their email onto Wikipedia, but they refer to "inaccurate staements and blunt lies". I can tell from their comments to me that the sections they object to disappeared from the English Wikipedia somewhere between these two versions, therefore whatever they disliked is on the left pane but not the right pane in that link. I don't know if that helps you, much. AndyJones 12:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS, compare also these versions. Magya is her management. AndyJones 12:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rotary International

It seems you begin an edit war on the Rotary page. Would you justify please. There is an explanation page. Can you edit it ? as a blind such an huge list as enlarged by Rotarians is not usable. Were is the problem in placing some header ?

another question : are you member of the Rotary Club ? You seem to have the profile for.

Thank you PierreLarcin2 20:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question: Does Pierre's argument that conventions used one language of the Encyclopedia can apply on another make sense? I thought each language has different policies as its user base requires. -- 127.*.*.1 12:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a little tiured of this silliness; this individual obviously has listening & comprehension problems, and a serious (though very strange) agenda. I would suggest if you know any admins, it's time this guy got blocked.Bridesmill 21:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, he seems to have engaged in a bout of trollery on Friday evening shortly after my last edit. I really am losing patience with the guy and his constant ridiculous accusations and insults. If there's any more this week I will suggest that he be blocked on the administrators' notice board. He certainly does not play well with the other children. I see from his talk page that he was warned by User:127. I wouldn't say he took it in the right spirit, though. AndyJones 20:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you AndyJones. You certainly feeled that our arbitration request is ALSO concerning you...For your repetitive blanks on the facts I brought. Nice huge work you did on me. As you maybe saw upstairs : I did not ask blocking of pro-Rotarian users because the repeted blankings they do (only on "negative" aspects) and repeted request for fact sourcing (only on "negative" aspects- no such request on "positive" rotarian). Such a huge work just show that you are concerned by restriction in critic facts only to Rotary International in a wiki. See you at arbitration.

Yes : i forgot. Sorry. Ooops. You are CERTAINLY not Rotarian or pro-Rotary We apologize. Rotarian salutations. PierreLarcin2 14:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a drive-by editor who spotted the WP:AN mention of this issue, it looks to me like you have good fodder for a user conduct RfC on this topic. It might help get some valuable input for PierreLarcin2 to consider from otherwise uninvolved editors. Good job with your patience on this, by the by. Tony Fox (speak) 18:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Hi there,

Thanks for your input. I noticed you are an attorney, hence your take on things. I would just like to point out the legal meaning of "rape" is narrower than the general meaning of the word. "Rape" existed before it was a crime. And different jurisdictions across the world define "rape" in vastly different terms.

I am not sure why the Wikipedian dictionary definition would be any better than one we can come up with ourselves. Before I provided my definition, I read the definitions given by the most authoritative dictionaries of the English language. The definition I gave was based on the best parts of these definitions. Moreover, encyclopedic entrys usually have space for more elaborate definitions. Hence, you find a more complete definition for the word "paradox" in Wikipedia than you find in your average dictionary.

Best regards, Michael

Michael D. Wolok 14:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Self-promotion

Hello, Andy. Thanks for the help-desk help on my query re the above. Can I take it that you'll do all the removing, or should I join in?

My original point was that I couldn't find out whether there were any wiki-guidelines on what to do when encountering this sort of thing, which is usually the work of - for obvious reasons - anonymous IP addresses. This cannot be the only example, and I wonder whether something ought to appear somewhere among the FAQs or wherever is appropriate? Any thoughts? Best, Andrew (aka GuillaumeTell 21:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

To be honst I'd rather you joined in. Was in a stroppy mood during yesterday's session, and I logged off for fear of overreacting. Anyway, you'll see I've started at the bottom of his list. I'll look back again & help out further this evening or tomorrow. I don't know if there's a policy, exactly, but last time I got involved in case like this I said this. AndyJones 12:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've done them all now, and have put a short note along the lines of yours above on both his talk pages. I shall be interested to see what, if anything, happens in consequence. --GuillaumeTell 18:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good work. We'll see what come of it: usually, nothing does, which is good. AndyJones 20:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to have metamorphosed into 217.247.240.32, not to mention 217.247.240.99, but I'm fighting the good fight. Best--GuillaumeTell 00:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

web diredtory

Thanks for the information.--Chuck Marean 16:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Othello, Patrick Stewart's production

KXL June 19, 2006: What exactly is "spammy" about listing Stewart's production (which took place years ago, and so is not an advert for it)? Other S. plays appear to have significant productions listed. I would say his is quite significant, since it's a unique twist. The link provided all sorts of details about that production -- which I would say is more legit than all the film versions.

Shakespeare

I noticed you reverted my edit to the opening sentence of the William Shakespeare article, citing this sentence as being "Weasel words"

"...was an English poet and playwright, generally considered to be the greatest writer of the English language."

I was thinking that being that he is probably the most famous (and brilliant) artist of all time, this should be mentioned in the first paragraph, rather than calling him merely a poet and playwright. Take a look at the opening sentence of Einstein, or Rembrandt, or Mozart. Paradoxically, two sentences later, the sentence "...has a reputation as the greatest writer of the English Language..." remains. (I see those two sentences as quite similar)

What do you think about putting it back? AdamBiswanger1 20:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since you're an "Avid Shakespeare buff", perhaps you could assist fellow buffs in creating articles for each of the sonnets. We're pretty excited about the project. AdamBiswanger1 20:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the invite: yes I've been very impressed with all the good work you're doing there. But the sonnets aren't my thing, and I'm perfectly happy plodding along on my own with this little project. AndyJones 20:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good God that's a big list~
Tongue nor heart cannot conceive nor name thee! AdamBiswanger1 01:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King James

I've responded to your point about King James I on the relevant talk page. You are, of course, absolutely right: he was always James VI. He was never King of Great Britain in any legal or constitutional sense, and the only regnal number he ever had was 'VI'. He was never even known as James 'I' in England during his lifetime. As a general principle a monarch only acquires a regnal number when a successor comes along with the same name. King John has never be known as 'John I' for the simple reason that there has been no 'John II'. I've edited out the silly and unhistorical reference. Rcpaterson 22:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re
Your question
And again!. See also: WP:CP. Cheers! // FrankB 18:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

I'm glad I was able to help in response to your query about capitalizing "states." Now that I see you are a UK editor (and fellow lawyer), I might suggest that you analogize "states" in the USA to "counties" in the UK to determine when a cap is appropriate. Would be glad to look at a sample of the sentence/article you were querying to see if any change is warranted in the capitalization practice, though what I said in the help should usually cover it. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 01:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Rotary

I've been advised that it may be worth considering a WP:RFC/User to sort out the situation on Rotary International. Would you be willing to co-sign one of those?Bridesmill 23:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Someone suggested the same thing to me. See Tony Fox's comment (last one under the "Rotary International" heading on this talk page). Yes, I'd sign, I think. Also, you'll see that in this edit I made a pretty substantial list of examples of Pierre's misbehaviour, which I can copy across. AndyJones 08:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation - the theory

Hi - thought I'd drop you a line here rather than on the Estate tax (United States) page, since this is a minor point. As far as I know, using six words, exactly, from an outside article almost certainly falls within the "fair use" provision of copyright law. While "fair use" has never explicitly been defined in this area, I doubt there has ever been a successful lawsuit where (say) someone sued someone else for copying a string of a dozen words (and nothing else). John Broughton 12:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I 100% agree. Looking for an exact string on the internet is a way of searching for copyvios, though. Your problem was the opposite: you were using the absence of a match as evidence of OR, when of course - by itself - it is nothing of the sort. AndyJones 12:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS I like the way you've dealt with this. If a {citation needed} tag sits there for a while, ignored, it's perfectly legitimate to remove the offending section as unreferenced. Good rewrite of the opening, too. AndyJones 12:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Good talking to you. John Broughton 15:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare project

Was just wondering what book you're writing about Shakespeare. Have you found any useful information in the Wiki articles on this? I'm thinking of writing one too. (Felsommerfeld 09:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Why not? Give me an email address and I'll send you a copy of my proposal. It might put you off relying on my opinion, though! (Note that Wikipedia gets trawled a lot, so it's best to give an email address in non-computer readable format (e.g. name at wherever dot com) AndyJones 19:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I can't help but notice that you spend lots of your (apparently prodigious) energy reverting jerks -- a thankless task enough, for which I thank you. (I guess you deserve a barnstar, but I've not yet figured out how to award such things!) You are one of the few serious folks concerned with Shakespeare (and signed on for that Elizabethan Theatre project), so I would like your opinion about some of my recent edits: in a desultory way I've gone after two or three of the plays, trying to supply decent references (ideally on line and authoritative, otherwise easy-to-find books) and cite the citable. I've also done some bigger things: I redid the "List of Characters" for Hamlet, Twelfth Night, and (partially so far) Henry IV, Part 1. What do you think? My thought was to standardize the section heading, and make the one-line character name prominent, any little essay being indented. As to the essays, my sense of things is that they should be meta-observations for the most part, and not dwell on plot points. (That is, give facts that are hard to pick out in the course of reading the play, or that help at its start (e.g. Hamlet is thirty, so is probably just living in Wittenberg, rather than at the university there; Feste is probably middle-aged; Marcellus and Voltemand can be doubled in performance), comments on the names themselves ("Fortinbras" is French for "strong-armed"; "Rosenkrantz" was a good Danish name in 1600), and other sorts of information that don't occur to me right now. What I would like to get away from in the character-list, tho, is the tendency for the little essay to go charging off into explaining the character's fate, or speculating on their motivations. The problem with putting such material here is that it is backwards: we start talking about plot points before we have even encountered the synopsis.

OK, so far, so logical. The problem is that one may want to talk about, say, interesting interpretations of the part of Laertes but not do anything so grandiose as put out a special page for the purpose. What to do, and where to do it? Am I all wet in wishing to keep that sort of thing out of the "List of Characters"? — Jrmccall 22:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid I'm taking a bit of a wiki-break. Real-world stuff. Thanks for the not-quite-a-barnstar! I'll give the main part of your posting some thought and hopefully reply when I'm back on Wikipedia more regularly. My experience with wikis, though, is that the only good way to test something is to be bold, and try it out. Also, they're not all jerks: a summary of my opinion on that subject is here. AndyJones 08:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare on screen

I reassed it as List-Class because it is a list. (You should consider archiving your talk page.) Cbrown1023 23:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Reynolds

Dear Andy, Thanks your feedback on the entry for Reynolds. When I was working on the site with my friends we didn’t realize that it was a bit excessive. We included all the links to people in the Transversal Theatre Company because we discovered that they have pretty cool personal websites. Then we saw great opportunities to link to the introductory chapters on the Palgrave site. We hadn’t considered that we were promoting the publisher and book sales. Sorry about that. Basically, we just stuck every link we found to Reynolds on the entry, which turned out to be a bit much. So, we have removed all of the external links, except the one to UC Irvine theatre dept, and we reduced the size of all the photos, and we cut the photo for Transversal Enterprises because we have not written the entry yet for the book. Really, we figured that someone else would do it. Sincerely, Gregor

Authorship

Hi Andy, I'm going on a WikiBreak due to work issues, just wanted to say sorry for leaving you in the lurch while civil war erupts on the authorship page! P.S. the true secret is that Shakespeare wrote Bacon's works. The Singing Badger 16:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I knew it was something like that. No worries. I think you were right to back away from it. Expecting you to keep up the kind of detailed work you were doing in the midst of the current edit war would have been unfair on anybody. Enjoy your wikibreak. AndyJones 07:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation in Cemetry Gates

Hello, I'd just like to apologize for adding that quotation in The Smiths' Cemetry Gates to the article on Richard III, I didn't know it was inaccurate. But I'm intrigued now: do you know for a fact that line doesn't appear on the play?

See you!

Richard III

Thanks for reverting to my original revert! :) I was at work when I did that and couldn't pull out my Bevington text to check it... --Etacar11 14:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Hathaway

Please explain to me how a mention of a new text about her is inappropriate in a category about new texts about her. Thanks. Josiewarvelle 15:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Nevada performance is the American premiere. I removed that part, since I can see the point that it is, by your definition, spam. JW

Bermuda Law

I wrote the (incorrect) post on the Bermuda Law talk page,(under a different IP address) and I regret using the word "colony". I used that term because I was unsure as to the formal status of the island. Seeing as I was wrong,(on the the law and the island's status) you might delete the post.205.188.116.196 11:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions of Rotary interest

Good evening. I noticed your recent changes on Rotary International Page. I have three questions :

  • - may I know why you confirmed CeeGee changes and blanked mine ?
  • - I would like to know in which city you live [I live in Lille, France], if possible.

If you answer no, I would like to know why.

  • - I would like to know if you are close to a service club [for example through your wife], and if yes, to which one.

Thank you very much. Looking forward to read from you. User PierreLarcin 19:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong on Shakespeare

What exactly are you saying I'm wrong about in your recent comment Andy? MarkThomas 16:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Strachey

I'd just to add that adding a citation for both those points is sort of moot - it's knowledge i picked up from a book earlier this semester, and finding it again would be... effortful. It's more or less an accepted point in New Historicist criticism concerning Strachey's influence upon Shakespeare's final play.

Reynolds cont.

Dear Andy,

Thank you for your continued participation in the entry on Reynolds. On October 9, 2006 we wrote you the following message and made a number of changes to the entry that we thought would make it more objective:

“Dear Andy, Thanks your feedback on the entry for Reynolds. When I was working on the site with my friends we didn’t realize that it was a bit excessive. We included all the links to people in the Transversal Theatre Company because we discovered that they have pretty cool personal websites. Then we saw great opportunities to link to the introductory chapters on the Palgrave site. We hadn’t considered that we were promoting the publisher and book sales. Sorry about that. Basically, we just stuck every link we found to Reynolds on the entry, which turned out to be a bit much. So, we have removed all of the external links, except the one to UC Irvine theatre dept, and we reduced the size of all the photos, and we cut the photo for Transversal Enterprises because we have not written the entry yet for the book. Really, we figured that someone else would do it. Sincerely, Gregor”

At this point, the only two things we can think of changing are: 1) The Reynolds’ quote from Performing Transversally. We are removing the last two sentences because they direct people to Reynolds personally -- by quoting his email address (which anyone can find on the web anyway) -- which may have overstepped the privacy of Reynolds’ personal space. 2) We are removing the word “better” from the second paragraph in the section on “The Devil’s House” because it is evaluative. If you have any suggestions on how to improve this wikientry, please let us know. We are removing the tag, but in no way does this suggest our unwillingness to further change the entry. We feel the tag does not need to be there, unless there is a clearly explained reason for it. Gratefully, Gregor

Thanks for your assistance on the Help Desk

Many thanks for your very helpful comments on the Help Desk. I shall definitely do as you suggest. Thanks again. Tanaats 18:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: Villains from comics and graphic novels

An editor has nominated the article Villains from comics and graphic novels for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villains from comics and graphic novels. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Villains from comics and graphic novels during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 22:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After looking over the AfD, it looks like I will be closing this AfD with the result of delete. I thought you might want to know, beforehand. Nishkid64 17:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Illusion Adaptation of Hamlet

You reverted the contribution I made to the film adaptations of Hamlet. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so I wasn't sure where to put my reply to you. I put my comments on the Talk page of the article, and then I discovered this page. Please see the article's Talk page for specific information about the sources I used for my contribution.

From other comments on this page, I see that you take the time to clean up articles that contain incorrect information. That is commendable. However, when you deleted my contribution via a reversion, you were wrong. The film is as legitimate an adaptation as that masterwork "Strange Brew." I thank you for your efforts, but sometimes you might be too quick to dismiss other people contributions. I glean from the other comments on this page that you are working on a Shakespeare book. I, too, know a little about Shakespeare and adapatations of his work. Also, I have a little bit of education in me. So, please don't be too hasty in your deletions, because sometimes you might be in error. As a Shakespeare scholar, I'm sure you'd be interested in learning more about Shakespeare, even if it's from an unexpected source.

By the way, I made "several" edits to the page because I'm new to the whole editing thing, and I kept finding minor errors after I saved the page. I was in haste, but I wanted to get the information up there. Actually, I assumed that someone would actually research the film and fill in the details, since there are so many detail-oriented people on Wikipedia. I never imagined that someone would actually delete my comments within one day. I thought people would be pleased to discover a quirky "new" adaptation. I'll try to be more careful when I make an entry. However, the information I posted is still accurate.

Pxm 12:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)PXM[reply]

Re: Source Please?

"Can you give a source for this change? I'm aware that you've pasted a lengthy synopsis into this page before, and I just want to be sure that this one doesn't violate anyone's copyright. I'll remove this in the next two days if there isn't a reply."

Thank you, but there is no source but myself. I am 100% that it doesn't violate a copyright and that's actually the reason I wrote it myself. I felt that the previous summary was slightly lacking and as I have read the play numerous times and performed from it, I felt I could enhance the summary. I also have added various quotes and monologues to the previous stub of The Two Gentlemen of Verona section in Wikiquote.

I hope you find my information accurate - I respect the opinion of a Shakespeare scholar and I'm certain you know much more than a fourteen-year-old. Because I am new to Wikipedia, I can get really confused as to how things work, so I know I've confused a few things.

The only source of my writings is William Shakespeare himself and - if you believe that The Two Gentlemen of Verona may be an adaptation of a previous play - Jorge de Montemayor. Thank you!

Elesi 03:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Romeo and Juliet

Your recent edit to Romeo and Juliet (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 07:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question on info boxes

I was wondering what you thought about this new practice of including character names in info boxes for the Shakespeare plays. As you are aware, I'm no big fan of the boxes in general - and thankfully we've disposed of the "influences" and "influenced" issue for the man himself - but I see now that these boxes are (unfortunately) becoming fashionable, some editors are starting to list the play characters in these boxes as well. In each case so far, they have been duplicative of the articles themselves that already contain a much better character section. Can you imagine listing all the characters in, say, Henry VI, part 1 in the info box? Not pretty. Or listing only "major characters" - who would decide that? Smatprt 00:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm there - it seems that every new info box for a Shakespeare play primarily features info that is already in the first paragraph (or close) of each article. Do you see any benefit to them? Personally, I think they cheapen the article in a kind of USA TODAY approach to news reporting, instead of an encyclopedia article. For me, it's like adding more "lists" on a site that officially doesn't really want lists at all.

I ask the above questions directly to you as a long-time editor to test the waters a bit before bringing the issue up on each and every play page that has an info box, which I imagine would be the next step, yes?Smatprt 00:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bard and edit

Here: User talk:Mandel/Shakespeareedit. The talk page has been updated. Sorry for the troubles. Mandel 16:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry V (play)

jeeze dude, it was a mistake i forgot to change back before i saved....show some civility wills ya'.--emerson7 | Talk 19:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Let me first introduce my self i am --Missionimpossible 22:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC) i plan to become a lawyer i saw that you have on your user page that you are a in house attorney i was wondeirng could you tell me what that is?[reply]

thank You for answering my question! Sorry i am new to wikpedia and i hope you forgive my mistake as once someone said to me to err is human to forgive is divine!


I stand corrected

I concede it is "Arragon", and that Shakespeare wrote great plays. But he sucked at spelling.

List of Shakespearean characters

The Original Barnstar
For truly awesome and inspirational work on List of Shakespearean characters I award you the original barnstar SilkTork 00:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


That is long and devoted work. And is nearly one of the longest pages on Wiki. I'll nominate it for a peer review for a Good List. I see you are not quite finished yet, but are almost there. I truly admire what you have done. Nice one! SilkTork 00:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why revert?

Your revert confuses me. We're trying to get things put together. I don't really think the particular section I edited "belongs" to anyone. This seems to be an exception to the rule. You even said you agreed with it. Why not let Smatprt do a revert if he wants? Wrad 08:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't really offended. I just thought it was weird because I've seen it done this way on other pages to similar posts I made. Wrad 14:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shakespearean characters

(darn it, my edit somehow contained a blacklisted link…) Sorry, that would be my fault. Since WP:WIAFA differs considerably from WP:WIAFL, I generally skip over lists to avoid giving misleading information. At any rate, I've posted them here (just scanning them, quite a few can be ignored, like the TOC/SS ones).

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • arguably
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AZ t 22:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck editing, AZ t 22:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler on Hamlet

Apart from it being patently ridiculous to put a spoiler on a 400 year old play, the text of Template:Spoiler notes that a section called "Plot" or similar should be presumed to contain plot elements. Please don't revert like this blankly, against all sense and against the actual documentation of the template you're reincluding - David Gerard 17:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare

No, no!! Quite the opposite :)

"A" ranks above "GA" in the world of WikiProject ranking. It pretty much means that the article is very close to FA status, and should be worth a Wikipedia:Peer review, and then a final push to FAC. --Mais oui! 07:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

87 Exit

Hi, I'm the 87-IP from the spoiler discussion. I was blocked again, this time for initiating a vandalism report against an admin who suppressed my comments on WP:ANI: [58], [59], [60] (Oh, and he changed the discussion too: [61])

This whole thing is either:

  1. completely ok; good for me, I got finally rid of my Wikipedia addiction! Keep it up!
  2. completely not ok; well, someone should do something. I certainly don't feel like heading back into the fight right now.


Comment Noted

Hi Andy. Thanks for the redirect to the discussion on spoilers. I was 90% sure I was out of line putting my oar in the water and expected a comment. Bad impulse control, I guess. Regards --JohnJardine 13:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare

Hi! Thank you for your concern and your friendly advice; I was not, and i am not, going to insist anymore. I surely can fully understand why they aren't able accept it y e t (in spite of many evidences already studied, published & above all, the Shakespearean works themselves!:). I was once an academic student of medieval and renaissance English literature, and i was fortunate. Best Regards. --Lusitanian 18:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare project collaboration

There has been a general consensus since the beginning of the project to make a collaboration effort on the William Shakespeare article, it just hasn't gotten off the ground yet, so I have an idea that may help it get going. Let me know what you think:

  1. We need to be sure those in the project are aware of the collaboration and thus able to join in the effort (perhaps through simple messages on user talk pages).
  2. We need to decide exactly what needs to be done to bring it to FA, whether it be through a peer review, discussions on the talk page, or both.
  3. Push for it until it passes. The sooner we do it the better, because it will give the project its first real taste of success and set a standard for other articles.

You're all over Shakespeare articles all the time, so I wanted to propose this to you for suggestions, especially since you are probably more familiar with the history of the article than most others. Wrad 21:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I think on top of that I will make the collaboration known to project members. Wrad 14:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard referencing

I'm guessing that you were joking when you asked Wood who? And is "(2003:80)" meant to be a reference? If yes, what does it mean? when reverting me in Shakespeare's life. It's one of the three preferred methods on Wikipedia and the most common when a cited author him/herself is introduced into the text. User:Wrad has already picked me up over this (see here) for inconsistency of style in the main article, so I don't propose to defend it here—it's just that your edit summary seemed a bit harsh! Due acknowledgement of course to all the work you're putting in there—the FA review should be in the bag! All the best. --Old Moonraker 15:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

regarding sources to William Shakespeare

Ok, I'll try to find more reliable sources for the article. Thanks for letting me know.--Romeo in love 19:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that makes sense. Thanks.--Romeo in love 21:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on student tv

Hi you recently provided input for an RFC on LooSE TV i was hoping you could do so again on the National Student Television Association and Glasgow University Student Television articles. thanks Sherzo 11:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sherzo 02:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Wikipedia clearly has the same problem"

(in this edit) Hey, please don't be that hard on me, I'm a completely unpublished author. And as an Obvious Foreigner, I have absolutely no idea why I bother even trying to write these complex mysterious words anyway. As far as I can remember, I've always been thorgrohorougly confused about These Particular Words. The other words I don't get are the articles, and I don't know why speakers of the English language bother with them in the first place. I'll be fine one day! I'm trying! I promise! Honest! =)

Seriously, though, I guess I should learn to read and triple-check everything before I save. =( --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hamlet

Noticed your post. Just curious, what is AN/I? I hope I'm not coming off wrong, I'm just trying to get this page from getting OR tags all over it like the other play articles. I'm also trying to hold back any of my frustration with JeffJo. He's nothing if not enthusiastic, and I like that. Wrad 15:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the discussion, could you give some input regarding what should be in a Themes section of this play? This is something that really needs to be fixed, as many of our plays have OR tags all over these sections. JeffJo has also brought up some interesting ambiguities between context and theme that need to be hammered out. I'm about to just start creating what I have in mind, in the hope that it will hammer itself out over time, but I think that will just start an edit war, unless I have more support or the discussion dies. Wrad 19:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just started a project for a future Literary criticism of Hamlet page at User:Wrad/Literary Criticism of Hamlet. This may help the problem, and anything you can add or suggest from time to time would be great. Wrad 20:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for taking that fact out of the shakespeare page. I couldn't make heads or tail of it when I was trying to standardize things. Wrad 21:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Essential Shakespeare Handbook

Do you have the Essential Shakespeare Handbook (I think that's what it's called)? If not, I recomend it because it is very well written and organized. It has very good, clear information on all the plays. My director for Comedy of Errors showed it to me and I just ordered it. Sydneysaurus 16:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it IS temporary

Yea, I'm leaving for God knows how long, but I think I might come back when school starts again. Hopefully, this event will only last for a few weeks.--Romeo in love 16:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not the only one

No, you're not the only one ([62]). I've never kept track. Thank you for the requested copyedit. RedRabbit1983 13:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Shakespeare

The Chronology and Performances sections still bother me; it is as though they are impervious to copyediting. I am under the spell of familiarity, and need someone with fresh eyes. RedRabbit1983 13:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is something terribly wrong with the first paragraph of Style. The last paragraph has a weak discussion of humour. The next section, Influence on theatre, literature, and language, makes me nauseous every time I read it. RedRabbit1983 17:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about overwriting my work. The writing flows better now because the ideas are better explained. RedRabbit1983 19:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

Chronology and publication

The precise chronology of Shakespeare's plays cannot be established accurately. A number of his plays were printed in quarto versions during his lifetime, of varying quality, but there is no evidence that Shakespeare was involved in their publication. Indeed, a number of these have been labelled "bad quartos": mangled versions of the plays usually believed to have been reconstructed from the faulty memories of some of the players. These bad quartos were described as "stol'n and surreptitious copies" in the First Folio.[1] Published in 1623, around seven years after Shakespeare's death by John Heminges and Henry Condell, two of Shakespeare's former colleagues from the King's Men, the First Folio was a collection of the majority of Shakespeare's plays, and is the only existing source for sixteen of them.

Each play that survives in several texts has signficant textual variants (differences between the texts), both small and large. These corruptions may stem from compositors' misreadings, or from faulty source materials: which may have been Shakespeare's own foul papers, a theatrical prompt-book, or a scribe's fair copy.[2]

Other textual variations are harder to discount. For example, the quarto and folio versions of King Lear differ significantly. Traditionally, editors have used a conflated Lear which includes every scene from both versions. However, Madeleine Doran sees the two as meaningfully distinct. Gary Taylor and Roger Warren, in The Division of the Kingdom, argue that textual differences such as those of Lear arose from different provenances for the two texts.[3] Though not universally accepted, this hypothesis has influenced both critical and editorial practice in recent decades, and both Cambridge and Oxford have published separate editions of the quarto and folio Lear.

One important question is whether Shakespeare himself wrote every word of the plays commonly attributed to him alone, since several of his plays show signs of either collaboration or revision or both. This would not be uncommon for collaboration between dramatists routinely occurred in Elizabethan theatre.[4]

Influence on theatre, literature, and language

Influence on theatre, literature, and language is much better now! Now, if only I could say the same about some of the other sections. RedRabbit1983 07:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michell or Mitchell

Which is it?? Wrad 15:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is to be done?

I don't know if you've noticed the edit war re-brewing over some authorship wording. What should we do here? I'm about to add a few scholarly sources, but I don't want to get mixed up in all of this. Wrad 16:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship refs

I just overhauled the refs in the Authorship section, and added notes for further explanation. I hope this provides a bridge between parties that is backed up reliably. Please have a look. Wrad 18:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I definitely don't think deleting it is the answer. Do you have a ref for the Looney bit? If you do, go ahead and add it. My ref just mentions Ogborn. I'll reword the statement you say is circular(?) It is located in the source I give, though. Wrad 21:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the Looney bit, added a ref, and changed the wording. It was a bit circular. Wrad 21:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson refs

You will have to go some to convince me that you need three virtually identical refs in one sentence. It makes the sentence read unacademically (you hardly ever see that frequency of noting in academic humanities texts) and it is pointless. I hadn't finished what I was going to do, which was to add the three different page numbers to the single reference at the end of the sentence. Personally, I wouldn't have referenced that book because the guy doesn't seem a major academic, but he's published by Routledge, so fair enough. But on the main point, the three identical refs and intrusive tagging is amateurish, though I don't suppose it will affect FAC.qp10qp

I am; but between you and me some odd little changes were made to that section which I'm concerned about but which no one will probably notice. For some reason, someone removed the Love reference which I covered that sentence with, and they added it to the previous sentence. Well, I read that Love chapter yesterday; did they? I may be mistaken, but I don't remember it dating the beginning of the authorship question and so I am not sure it is a valid reference to the sentence it has been added to. It's little vaguenesses like that which are marring this article. This isn't a game of cosmetics: the references have to be checked by everyone who applies them. And I see no reason whatever to replace the Love ref with the Gibson because it referenced that middle sentence perfectly well; at the very least, the two should be combined.qp10qp 15:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

Are there sections that don't look professional? Well, I have objections to the following.

The school probably would have provided an intensive education in Latin grammar and literature, although Elizabethan-era grammar schools varied in quality.

This sentence bothers me, possibly because of the "although" clause.

By 1592, Shakespeare was established...

Why is this date punctuated? Is it so important that it must be stressed? The paragraph is formed around a single quote not itself worthy of a whole paragraph.

Within two years Shakespeare was an actor...

After emerging from a long quote and a parenthetical note, the reader is plunged into the next paragraph thus. The reader then has to backtrack to the previous paragraph to answer, "Within two years of what?". I think this has been changed to avoid repetition of "By", which never bothered me in first place.

The third paragraph seems like two random facts lumped together. It lacks coherence.

 Not done Third paragraph of what section, please?

Sorry. This one: In 1596, Shakespeare moved to the parish of St. Helen's, Bishopsgate.[27] In 1598, he appeared at the top of a list of actors in Every Man in His Humour by Ben Jonson,[28] and his name was featured on the title pages of published quartos—a sign that his name itself was a selling point for the volume.[29] RedRabbit1983 17:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare may have borrowed stylistic elements from contemporary playwrights like Christopher Marlowe.

At least one other playwright has to be listed in the comparison.

The first paragraph of Performances is dull.

 Done Or, at least, rewritten. AndyJones 17:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare's stagecraft and verse style bear the marks of the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods in which he lived,[70] his style developing not only with his own tastes and skills as a playwright but also in response to the tastes and requirements of his audiences.[71]

Yes, this does seem to say something about nothing. We should probably cut it.

 Done by RedRabbit. AndyJones 17:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He and other dramatists at the time used this form of blank verse for much of the dialogue between characters in order to elevate the poetry of drama.

Which sentence is "this form" referring to?

Humor (largely influenced by Plautus)[8] is a key element in all of Shakespeare's plays.

This still needs expansion.

 Done in a manner speaking: I've cut it back. AndyJones 16:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of Influence on theatre, literature, and language could be improved.

My only other quibble is with punctuation: particularly the use of dashes and the punctuation appended to dates. RedRabbit1983 16:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done yet. I'll have a look, but I'd assumed the unpleasant proliferation of mdashes was done by someone who knew the MoS better than me. AndyJones 16:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good night

I should be in bed (I live in Australia). Good night. RedRabbit1983 18:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why did you remove this link without any trace? Adam78 16:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer. I already wrote in my comment that if the link itself didn't remain, its content could be incorporated in the article. It may be a completely new aspect and I don't think it would deteriorate the article in any way. So part of my question involves the "trace" rather than the link as such. Adam78 18:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good

I agree. I have a few plans/ideas up my sleeve: such as aiming to get more GA articles in our project. We don't want to burn ourselves out, although I think we all did a fine job on the Shakespeare article. GA may be a good goal to aim at for awhile. Also, I hope Alabamaboy come back. He was our most experienced member. However, I invited Qp to join, and he is now an honorary member with prolonged plans within the project, so that will be a huge asset. Wrad 16:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A member of our project just re-submitted the Shakespeare article for FAC. He stepped in on the scene a bit late and is unaware of the current issues, though he/she means well. Might want to comment on the new FAC page, though. Wrad 17:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlet

Andy,

you removed a perfectly legitimate link I put on the Hamlet page.

The Winter's Tale

Andy, In response to your note, I've put in several sources for the information I inserted into The Winter's Tale page, and hope this meets your satisfaction. In addition, sometimes, in the field of theatre and the creative arts, a production or performance itself becomes documentation as well; i.e., if a director or actor (or designer, musician, etc.) does something on stage that reveals something "new" in the text, that "something" can and should be considered "scholarship" as much as an article published in a journal or book. After all Shakespeare didn't publish his complete plays in his lifetime (including especially The Winter's Tale - which first appeared in the First Folio), and he probably had little if anyting to do with the Quarto publications that appeared during his lifetime; nor did he write articles or books or otherwise document how his plays were staged, or should be staged thereafter. Moreover, in academia, the staging of a play may be called "creative scholarship." What I have attempted to do in the section on The Winter's Tale that I added - bout the source of the name of the play - is to document an interpretation of the text based on a specific stage production, and have also included the references to document this interpretation. I appreciate your dilligent work on this. All the best, Weimar03Weimar03 (talk)

  1. ^ Pollard, Alfred W. (1909). Shakespeare Quartos and Folios. London: Metheun. pp. xi. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  2. ^ Bowers, Fredson (1955). On Editing Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Dramatists. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 8–10. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  3. ^ Taylor, Gary and Michael Warren, ed. (1983). The Division of the Kingdoms. Oxford: Clarendon Press. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  4. ^ Walter Wilson Greg, ed. (1904). Henslowe's Diary. London: Bullen. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)