User talk:AndyJones/Archive 2

New collaboration

I've been brainstorming on a new collaboration, let me run an idea by you:

I'd like our next collaboration to be on Romeo and Juliet, to bring it to GA status. I think it would set a standard for the other play articles. I also think that since it is second only to Shakespeare's article in number of page views, it deserves to look good. Right now, I'd rather the project to focus on improving several articles to GA, rather than burning ourselves out to get one FA. GAs aren't all that hard to achieve, especially as an organized group. I bet we could get R&J to GA in less than a week, without breaking a sweat, then move on to another article. Once we have a solid base of GAs, we can concentrate on improving those to FA.

Anyway, here's a plan outline for R&J:

  1. notify project members
  2. cite all sources (reliably)
  3. breadth - do enough research to assure that the article covers all important aspects of the topic. The outline on the project page should help
  4. style, format, copyedit
  5. apply for GA

So, what do you think? Wrad 14:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, haven't read Measure for Measure yet, but I plan to. Those are just side projects. I'll be right there with everyone else when it all starts. Do you think the time is ripe to start this new collaboration, or should we wait, or bring it up on the project talk page? I suppose we could do it the way we did last time. I have discussed it with a few others who seem to agree. Wrad 19:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same thing I was worried about, but I think I've come up with a solution. In my little newsletter thing I'll say that we're starting a collaboration on R&J for GA status, as the WS article has boiled down to copyedit issues. Those with strong copyediting skills may wish to stay with the Shakespeare article and continue the push for FA status, others may want to join in on R&J, the choice is theirs. Something like that. I'm not too good at copyediting, myself, and I'd like to do some real expanding! If you could put up the to do list, I'll notify the members. Wrad 21:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're back and better than ever. I'll start notifying people. I think two people acting at the same time can move the masses more effectively than one. Wrad 20:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'm starting at the top and working down. See you in the middle. Wrad 20:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request about your POV pro-Rotary activity

I included you as a non-declared Rotarian editing POV Rotary wiki, on this Arbitration Request. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration

You're a lawyer. You should advocate on that.

If you are close to Rotary, you should declare it on your page, as it would help you to feel better, believe me. You can have politic or religious preventions against declaring yourself, but Rotary is an association, not a religion. I know that masons are frequently in Rotary and hide themselves as masons (they swear to hide), but I am not antimasonic (I just think that elitism in masonry leads to violence) at all, you know. If you are a member or close to a Rotary member, to declare yourself as a Rotarian would help you, believe me. Pierre 04:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A deceitful sockpuppetry

You MUST read The Life and Times of BenJonson (Wiki editor) in the Shakespeare Authorship discussion section. He is finally exposed as that celebrated Oxfordian Smatprt! (Felsommerfeld 23:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi. Sorry you've been dragged into this. It's true, I have an expertise and I make edits about what I know. Felsommerfeld wrote the following about this article: "*I mean why are we even having this discussion? The guy from Stratford wrote it all, period." If he had his way there would be no article on the authorship question at all. Since he cannot kill the article he is trying to edit out anything which challenges his position, including deleting whole sections without input or discussion. Now you know...the rest of the story.Smatprt 01:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Felsommerfeld's accusations of sockpuppetry have gone way too far. He knows, as do the actual long-time editors of this article (of which he is not), that Ben Jonson and I are two very different individuals that happen to see eye to eye on the authorship issue. Feel free to investigate, research or whatever you need to do to confirm this. For starters, BenJonson lives fulltime on the east coast, I on the west. Check our IP's or whatever (I am not that technical to know how you check, but I know you can and immediately clear this up and stop Felsommerfeld from his one-man war.Smatprt 01:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smatprt is smart enough to use different IP addresses. Please check out the Shakespeare Authorship discussion about user BenJonson and read the evidence in detail. You can form your own opinion. (Felsommerfeld 01:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Oh dear. Do I really want to get involved in this? Of course not. Anyway, I seriously doubt that Smatprt and BenJonson are one-and-the-same. Smatprt hasn't denied being Stephen Moorer (who I confess I hadn't previously heard of, sorry Stephen) and BenJonson is very probably Roger Stritmatter. Either way, I doubt they can be the same person, since BenJonson isn't as experienced with the technicalities of editing as Smatprt, and that would be a bizarre attribute to try to fake. But then, is any of this valid evidence in the world of authorship? And do I care much? No. AndyJones 07:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Andy, I never said I was famous, just easy to look up. And you are right about Benjonson's editing technique. I hadn't thought of that.Smatprt 13:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo and Juliet on screen

I don't know what to do with the first paragraph; the first sentence doesn't make sense, and the second doesn't flow. I have run-through everything else, and here present the work for your consideration.

The films' openings reveal each director's care to establish authenticity: Cukor introduces his characters in a shot of a scene played on a proscenium stage; Renato Castellani's 1954 version opens with John Gielgud, famous as a stage Romeo, as the Prologue in Elizabethan doublet and hose; Zeffirelli sets his scene with an overview of Verona, and his Prologue, in voiceover, was another famous stage Romeo: Laurence Olivier. In contrast, Romeo + Juliet opens with images of television and print journalism, targetting the tastes of a younger audience.[4]

There is a particular difficulty for the screen-writer towards the end of the fourth act, where Shakespeare's play requires considerable compression on the big screen, without giving the impression of "cutting to the chase".[5] In Franco Zeffirelli's 1968 version, Juliet's return home from the Friar's cell, her submission to her father and the preparation for the wedding are drastically abbreviated, and similarly with the tomb scene: Paris does not appear at all, and Benvolio (in the Balthazar role) is sent away but is not threatened.[6] In Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet, the screenplay allows Juliet to witness Romeo's death, and the role of the watch is cut, permitting Frair Lawrence to remain with Juliet and to be taken by surprise by her sudden suicide.[7]

Including the four major theatrical releases already mentioned, Shakespeare's play has been filmed more than 40 times.[citation needed] Several of the adaptations of the story have been filmed, also, most notably West Side Story, Prokofiev's ballet and Romanoff and Juliet. Similarly, several theatrical films, such as Shakespeare in Love and Romeo Must Die, consciously use elements of Shakespeare's plot.

RedRabbit1983 10:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Eyrian

Thank you for your useful comments there. I was perhaps a bit harsh in not continuing to assume that Eyrian had good faith, and was just trying to make a point. Bearian 16:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Take it slow, young Luke Skywalker .... Bearian 17:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close of the afds might be appropriate, but it has to come from some neutral respected person who sees the discussion, not someone with a position in the matter. The best thing to do at the moment is to comment usefully for whatever position you support in the actual afds. DGG (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Whew! How about I start with the most important thing? R&J is going strong! Another user from the project started helping out. I feel the same about Shakespeare. QP is about to reapply for FA, so keep your eyes open. 'bama came back for a bit but is still a little sour. As for the rest, I'll have to look at what you said... Wrad 20:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication requests

I noticed that you've requested to userfy many of the "in popular culture" pages. I've userfied a recently-closed page at User:CaveatLector/Kitsune in popular culture. I figure you would be the best person to keep track of this class of deleted articles. If you would like "in popular culture" pages that have already been deleted, I can undelete them and move them into your userspace as well.

Here is a partial list of already-deleted pages nominated 7-28 or later (I just quickly scanned them, this is probably not complete:

Let me know what you'd like; anything you can find. Cool Hand Luke 17:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I did all of these, and made a directory at User:AndyJones/Deleted trivia, so that you can keep track of the ones that might be userfied elsewhere. If you find anything else that you want, just let me know. Cool Hand Luke 20:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add this one to the userfying that he has also requested: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermes in popular culture? Mathmo Talk 00:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I've got that taken care of and updated the list at User:AndyJones/Deleted trivia. If there are any others that slip through, you can let me know. Cool Hand Luke 22:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment here, and wanted to say I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. I too agree that some of these articles have potential. Other common forms of such articles are "Pop culture <something>" and "Cultural depictions of", both of which I've linked to in the Prefixindex. I also saw that you (or someone) tried to start a request for comment on this spate of AfDs. I'd be happy to support any future attempts to discuss this issue. I also saw the list above of AfDs. That is rather incomplete, as the history of such AfDs goes back much further than the recent spate. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Popular_culture_articles for more on finding such AfDs, and see this search. There should be ways to further refine such seraches. There will be a lot of crap mixed with the diamonds though, so good luck! :-) Carcharoth 01:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture? Carcharoth 21:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am now! It's on my watchlist. AndyJones 07:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
!!!! - well **** me with a chainsaw..what an exercise ?! On my watchlist too...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how close an eye you are keeping on your store of userfied 'in popular culture' articles, but if enough people get involved, it might be better to move it to the Wikipedia namespace so it can be more collaborative? I've added a good resource at User talk:AndyJones/Deleted trivia. Carcharoth 09:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As requested

User:AndyJones/Air Force One in popular culture

I hope you'll be requesting these to be restored at WP:DRV once you have referenced them and removed any and all original research, rather than just shifting them back into project space; do that and they will be redeleted under WP:CSD#G4. Neil ╦ 17:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here is User:AndyJones/Cultural References to Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil CitiCat ♫ 22:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. AndyJones 07:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bermuda Triangle AfD

Per your request, I have userfied "The Bermuda Triangle in popular culture" to User:AndyJones/The Bermuda Triangle in popular culture. — Deckiller 14:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I agree with you about deletion being inappropriate in many scenerios. Once the Wikipedia Annex is fully operational, I hope to reduce these deletion issues (especially relating to fiction); for the time being, however, deletion is the method everyone seems to be using. — Deckiller 14:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. AndyJones 16:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfD

I noticed that you voted to keep the Wp:an/i and Wp:afd redirects at the Redirects for deletion page. I also voted to keep these redirect pages. I thought that if they were removed, then I would not automatically get to the pages I was looking for if I happened to type all lowercase letters, which would be pretty inconvenient. However, it turns out I was wrong. The software will automatically send someone to the appropriate page, even if they type all lowercase, and even if the redirect pages are deleted. It's just like a redirect, but without the redirect page. Deleting them will remove needless clutter in mainspace searches. With this knowledge, I wonder if you might consider changing your vote to delete. Thanks, and have a good day. Nick Graves 18:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo and Juliet

We've nearly got the breadth parameter covered for this article now, which leaves mainly style and copyediting issues. If you like, go ahead and look over my writing for mistakes. I know for a fact that there are several, and I don't want to be too embarrassed when we call Redrabbit in on it :) Wrad 22:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saviour

The Outlaw Halo Award
To Andy Jones, for salvaging great works on pop culture for later use....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(about the award)

Andy - I'll get to Tyrannosaurus in pop culture soon, now prioritized given what has happened..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will

The Barnstar of High Culture
I commend your hard work on William Shakespeare. Choosing to edit such a high-profile, controversial and research-intensive article is a mark of patience, perseverance and dedication to Wikipedia that is rarely seen. We clearly need more editors, such as yourself, who are willing to dedicate their time and energy to writing articles about their areas of expertise. Awadewit | talk 04:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sherzo and Glasgow University Student Television

Thanks for reverting to my last version. the debate on it's notability wasn't closed, and then Sherzo decided to blank the page on his own whim. I recreated it and nominated it AfD in order that a consensus could be reached. Sherzo's actions have resulted in a complaint which can be found here. As a result of this complaint he has made a counter complaint against me which can be found here. I would appreciate it if you read both complaints and commented as you see fit. Thanks. TorstenGuise 18:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple tales, Fee tails, and Special tails…

cf. your comment on the Shaks FAC page. I'm certainly no lawyer, but the description of a Fee tail—aka. Entail—on Fee tail certainly seems to match Will's will, as best I'm able to understand it. He takes care to specify “…his daughter Susanna and the first son of her body lawfully issuing…” etc., thus filling the criteria for a Fee tail special (and clearly trying to achieve a Fee tail male) and avoiding a Fee simple. The legal wrangling Susanna and Elizabeth Hall get into after Thomas Nash's death seems match the description of a Common Recovery. As the Fee tail article states, the relevant bits of law and practice were obsoleted about a century ago; which may explain why the term rings false to someone familiar with current terminology in the area?--Xover 20:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet versions of Will's will are often quite deficient in one way or another. Here is a transciption from Chambers—and verified against the original—of the relevant part of the will (the linebreaks are from Chambers, not the original; and --this-- indicates a strikethrough):
Item I Gyve Will
bequeath & Devise vnto my daughter Susanna Hall […]
To Have & to
hold All & singuler the saied premisses with their
Appurtennaunces vnto the saied Susanna Hall for &
during the terme of her naturall lief, & after her Deceas
to the first sonne of her bodie lawfullie yssueing & to the
heires Males of the bodie of the saied first Sonne lawfullie
yssueing, & for defalt of such issue to the second Sonne
of her bodie lawfullie issueing and --so-- to the heires Males
of the bodie of the saied Second Sonne lawfullie yssueinge,
& for defalt of such heires to the third Sonne of the bodie
of the saied Susanna Lawfullie yssueing and of the heires
Males of the bodie of the saied third sonne lawfullie
yssueing, And for defalt of such issue the same soe to be
& Remaine to the ffourth --sonne-- ffyfth sixte & Seaventh
sonnes of her bodie lawfullie issueing one after Another
& to the heires
Males of the bodies of the said fourth fifth Sixte &
Seaventh sonnes lawfullie yssueing, in such manner as
yt ys before Lymitted to be & Remaine to the first second
and third Sonns of her bodie & to their heires Males;
And for defalt of such issue the said premisses to be &
Remaine to my sayed Neece Hall & the heires males of
her bodie Lawfullie yssueing, and for defalt of issue to my
daughter Judith & the heires Males of her bodie lawfullie
yssueing, And for defalt of such issue to the Right heires
of me the saied William Shackspere for ever. […]
It's also worth noting that the original document was heavily revised and in haste—just a month before Shakespeare died, and those willing to interpret his signatures claim to find obvious signs of sickness in his writing there—and that Francis Collins, the lawyer, had a habit of letting draft wills stand rather then produce a fair copy. If you get down to subtleties such as a possibly rote use of “saied”, the document is probably not in a state to support such. However, the transcribers whose work I've found on the web have been prone to insert oft repeated words—such as “saied”—where they are not present in the original; which seems to be the case here.--Xover 21:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both Chambers and Schoenbaum (twice) refer to it as an entail, so we certainly have a source for it. I'm not sure I would ascribe either worthy with any particular legal expertise, but they're usually very thorough so I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that they had consulted someone familiar with the law or practice in the Elizabethan era. Given how central Will's will is to Shakespeare scholars, I'd be much surprised if the document hadn't been, repeatedly, pored over by a murder of lawyers. In any case, I'm not overly concerned with the wording there either way. I just wanted to follow up on the enatil thing to make sure I hadn't completely misunderstood.--Xover 21:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Was making a joke

Andy, I reverted the "dum dee dum" on the Shakespeare article and left my reasoning on the FAC page. One thing: In the article's edit summary, I made the comment "hell no." When I wrote that, I was smiling but it occurred to me you might take it as an attack. That wasn't how I meant it. Best, --Alabamaboy 12:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I laughed at the dum-ing down joke, though! AndyJones 12:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O Romeo!!

Wow! I almost want to give you a barnstar for that display! How do you think we're doing GA-wise? Wrad 21:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, to be honest I was pretty lucky nobody reverted something I did or made an intervening edit, or my edit summaries would have been up the Swannee! As for GA, I think it's pretty-much there already, although I've only read as far as the point I edited to yesterday (that is, as far as the character heading). The page could use a really thorough copyedit, but I think it's got FA potential. AndyJones 07:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted trivia sub page

Unless there is massive changes to the articles listed there, and a decent attempt to re-create them in proper article form: (paragraph form, rather than a cluttered list), it will get put in Miscellany for deletion in a few months time. I've seen many people say "move it to my subpage so I can clean it up", and lots of time goes by: and nothing is done. My point is: subpages aren't just a storage area for deleted articles. RobJ1981 16:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare project - New collaboration debate

The Shakespeare project's first collaboration has ended in success, with William Shakespeare reaching FA status! Congrats to all who chipped in! We also had success in our second collaboration Romeo and Juliet, which is now a GA. Our next step is deciding which article to collaborate on next. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare#Next Collaboration to help us choose. Thanks. Wrad 04:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Hamlet is it. Want to make a to do list? I'll start sending invites when I get the chance. Hopefully we get a wider participation than we did with R&J. Wrad 04:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and a smile

MarnetteD has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks, also, for your note on my talk page about the many Hamlets in KB's film. After I typed my edit summary I remembered that in one of the extras on the new DVD of the film that Richard Briers has also played Hamlet in his career. Thanks again and keep up the good work here at wikiP. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlet

The Shakespeare Project's new collaboration is now to bring Hamlet to GA status. Wrad 00:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the synopsis as it is on the talk page, or at least satisfied enough to put it on mainspace. I'm unsure whether you are, though. Do you still feel that your comments need to be taken into account better? Wrad 20:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to because JJ and I have a history. I think if someone else does it it will be a more solid change, ie backed by more editors more publicly. Wrad 17:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll post the question at the talk page, and give it a day. AndyJones 17:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WS edit

I knew that wasn't anything to do with you, by the way: your edits are always spot on (I'm still not coughing up the tenner, mind).qp10qp 13:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"incontrovertible"

*lol* They might not have brains, but they certainly have audacity, to be sure. RedRabbit 18:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Norfolk in Richard II

Oh, yes, how silly of me! I just idly looked up who was the historical Lord Marshal of England at the time and added in the name. Opera hat 17:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say so, yes. Sorry about that Opera hat 17:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Your note on my page

Hello AndyJones. I offer many apologies. I have only seen the packaging of the plays in the catalogs that I get that seperates them by category and they haven't released all 37 yet. If you have a complete set that you got (and I am very jealous that you do have all of them) please feel free to change the edit back and, again, my apologies for making you do the extra work. Thanks for your note and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 19:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Shakespeare

andy, I wanted to ask you about this...on the WS page under "Authorship" you have this statement;

"popular interest in the subject, particularly the Oxfordian theory, has continued into the 21st century."

I tried to add to this and wanted to say "popular interest in the subject, particularly the Baconian and Oxfordian theories, have continued into the 21st century."

I got the message from you but am a bit confused as to why no edits are allowed there? Thanks... (mirrorverses)

Sandbox of comment

I have to say I really don't like all this "Deborah Cartmell says this..." "Lawrence J. Guntner argues that..." stuff. People reading an article want to be told things - it's a huge distraction to be repeatedly told who says or argues those things: people they've never heard of, and who they can look up in the references section if they want to. Besides, I credit readers with the intelligence to know that if a statement is normative by its nature they shouldn't confuse it with an objective fact. I don't want to edit war on the subject, though. What do other editors think? AndyJones 19:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MfD of your user subpage

You might want to comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AndyJones/Toupees in popular culture. I'm surprised no one explicitly notified you about it yet. Mangojuicetalk 03:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Have commented there. AndyJones 07:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have closed this MfD as a Keep. Best wishes, Xoloz 00:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. AndyJones 08:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you like it

I think the reason that bit was removed was because it was in the synopsis section. It should probably be in the Criticism section somewhere, but I don't know how or where exactly. Wrad 19:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictitious films (2nd nomination)

As you participated in the first AfD for this article, I thought you would be interested that it has been nominated once again. SkierRMH 21:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Copyediting

You wrote on my talk page:

I don't know if you're interested, but those of us working on Hamlet think we've got the breadth-parameter more-or-less covered, and the page could now use a great copy-editor.

Therein lies the problem: I am not a great copyeditor. I am easily overwhelmed by the task and often called away by things in real-life. Certain problems are easy to identify and correct; others, not so easy. When I have finished The King's English, which I have been reading off-and-on for a while, I might get round to it. You might say that my copyediting relies, all too often, on clever guess-work; it's lacking a proper foundation. RedRabbit 11:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you may want to take part in the anti-"redlink hate" revolution going on at the FAC talk page. I believe you expressed an opinion that redlinks were good, and I agree. Wrad 18:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg
Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish my twenty favorite fellow Wikipedians a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlet people

I've only asked Awadewit. And about the red links: I just remembered you'd mentioned it randomly once. Wrad 21:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New GA collaboration

Looks like a collaboration is developing naturally at The Tempest. Three editors are already going at it there. I personally like having two collaborations, a GA one (Tempest) and an FA one (Hamlet). I think I'm going to bring it up on the project talk page. Wrad 23:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. Whatever it takes to get people editing. Wrad 15:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dannycali

Hi there. I'm still looking in on the various popular culture AfD lists every now and again, and I spooted User:Dannycali/In Popular Culture deletions, which is a useful list. I then noticed that that user was blocked. I was wondering if you have had any interactions with this user (as I haven't)? The unblock request seems to have moved here. I'm not sure what to make of it, so was wondering what you thought. Carcharoth 12:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Branagh Hamlet

The source may say under but the official run time is 242 mins, which is slightly over. I have the video. We might need to find other sources and go with the consensus. Paul B 21:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now correcting myself. It's 232 minutes, so your source is correct. Duh. Paul B 21:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However the talk page of Hamlet (1996 film) article has a different story. So, tthis seems to be unresolved. Paul B 07:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The video says 232 mins. I have just fast-forwarded it through the machine, and it ended at 3hrs 52 mins according to the video timer (that exculdes the time taken up with the copyright warning at the beginning). Paul B 09:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the DVD, but it appears that the film takes up two disks. My guess is that the extra time arises from duplication of content, probably the credits. But we'll have to sort it out otherwise people will keep "correcting" either or both of the pages. Paul B 13:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlet ce

Thanks for the barnstar! Looks like Roger Davies is copyediting Hamlet for us. Wrad 19:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy. Thanks for the message. In that case, I'll plough through the reminder of the untouched stuff this afternoon and leave you a clear path! I was going to give it a second pass but that can wait til other editors have put right any snafus I've introduced. :)))) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 14:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All yours. I'll pick this up again tomorrow, I expect. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 14:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smatprt, mostly. I think we may want to create a Dating Hamlet subarticle for those who want to delve into the details, and I don't really want to outline absolutely everything on the main page. Wrad 17:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy. Thanks for the message. I hope to finish the copy tomorrow/Saturday. Sorry if I've been a bit absent, I had to disappear off to France and what with preparation for the trip and everything I've have had a load of time available. I'm concentrating at the moment on making the prose clearer and more concise. The nitty-gritties I'll leave til the end.--ROGER DAVIES talk 19:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy

Hello again. I saw your revert on the BBC Shakespeare Plays page and it brought up a memory. When I was doing my learning about the plays (which was many moons ago) I seem to remember that there was some debate over which categories some of the plays fell into. I think that The Winter's Tale was one of the ones that scholars kept moving from spot to spot (it always reminded me of the great speech in the Cyrano de Bergerac play about these designations) but I could be wrong. Maybe that debate was involved in the edit that the anon IP made. I am wondering which category your boxed set lists this play.

On another note I hope that my posts on the talk page for Branagh's film of Hamlet made some sense and I hope that they bring it out on DVD where you are soon. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 01:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, yes Winter's Tale may have been the subject of debate: BBC makes it a comedy. The problem plays get that issue, too, and the BBC Shakespeare classify those (even Troilus & Cressida) as comedies. AndyJones 02:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blantant Vandal Tag?

Andy - I've never heard of a blantantvandal tag. Can you please post the dif here or on my talk page so I can verify your accusation? I'm not saying this with 100% recall - in the heat of the ridiculous sockpuppet accusations, I did defend myself, but I honestly don't remember posting any tag. Perhaps I was posting in my sleep? Smatprt 07:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think so. That was a stop hand symbol and a "warning" to stop vandalzing. This was my first "warning" and I followed what I thought was the required process of "warning" someone before reporting them to an administrator. Your accusation of a "blantantvandal" tag was not quite accurate.Smatprt 08:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlet

After some tinkering with the introduction, I came up with this, and here submit it for your consideration:

For other uses, see User talk:AndyJones/Archive 2 (disambiguation).
The American actor Edwin Booth as Hamlet, seated in a curule chair, c. 1870

Hamlet is a revenge tragedy by William Shakespeare: it is one of his best-known plays, one of the most-quoted works in the English language, and one of the few to be universally included on lists of the world's greatest literature.[1] It is among his most-performed—topping, for example, the Royal Shakespeare Company's list since 1879.[2] Its 4,042 lines and 29,551 words, taking over four hours to deliver, make it also Shakespeare's longest play.[3]

Hamlet is based on a Danish legend recorded by Saxo Grammaticus in his Gesta Danorum. François de Belleforest translated this into French in his Histoires Tragiques (1570). Shakespeare is thought to have borrowed much of his plot from a now-lost Elizabethan play—known today as the Ur-Hamlet—which was the first known version to include a ghost. Although Hamlet bears many similarities to Belleforest's work, it is unknown whether Shakespeare took elements from it directly or indirectly, via the Ur-Hamlet or some other source. Shakespeare wrote his play sometime between 1599 and 1601; three different versions survive, known as the First Quarto (Q1}, Second Quarto (Q2), and First Folio (F1), each having lines—and even scenes—missing from the others.

Many commentators have wondered at why Hamlet takes so long to fulfil the Ghost's demands for revenge. Some see his delay as a plot device—if he kills Claudius quickly, the plot is cut short—; others, as a reflection of the complex philosophical and ethical issues that surrounded the concept of revenge in Shakespeare's day. It is another question whether Hamlet becomes genuinely insane during the course of the play, or merely acts so. Other questions occur as psychoanalysists probe Hamlet's unconscious desires and feminist critics explore Ophelia and Gertrude's experiences.

Even during Shakespeare's lifetime (he died in 1616), Hamlet was one of his most popular plays. Richard Burbage, the leading tragedian of the Lord Chamberlain's Men, was first to perform the role. [4] It was revived during the Restoration period and has been popular ever since. Many adaptations for cinema have been made, beginning with silent versions in the early 20th century.

You may use or ignore it as you please. Let me know if you want anything more.

Can you recommend a film version of Taming of the Shrew? I want to find some inspiration for the small parts that I have as the Page and Curtis. RedRabbit 13:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be delighted to read it. However, I cannot publish my address here, because I fear that spammers are on the prowl, but you can find it by clicking "E-mail this user". I shall duly take your reviews into account when I select a film version. So far I haven't had any luck, because Bittorrent has been most unhelpful. RedRabbit 04:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on Branagh's Hamlet

Hi again. I noticed the well deserved {{cn}} tags that you added to the paragraph on the page for KB's film. I wanted to let you know that on the commentary track that Branagh and Russell Jackson discuss the fact that it is unlikely that the play was ever performed with all of the scenes that are included in this film. Actually, I think that they say it would never have been performed in this form but it has been about three months since I listened to them. If no editor adds citations for the statements that you have tagged in the next couple of months do you think that we should remove them? Thanks again for your time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hamlet & Lacan

Do you fancy writing a paragraph on this to drop into the psychoanalysis section? --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry: I've looked into it, but unlike most Wikipedians I'm nowhere near a University so I'm stuck with the sources I have available to me here. The only one I have is Lynn Enterline's Psycholanlytic Criticisms, and frankly she doesn't say anything I can understand.
I think it was Wrad who wrote the phsychoanalytic section of the page, so may be the better person to ask. AndyJones (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks (and for asking Wrad). I can get material on this, I think, but it may take a few days to obtain and a few weeks to digest :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ard3 cites Marjorie Garber Shakespeare's Ghost Writers: Literature as Uncanny Causality (1987) on the subject. AndyJones (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Actually it was Dionysus who wrote most of the version we have now. Wrad (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, re dating the play, I am less clear than you what the discussion decided regarding main article and sub-article. Could you clarify this for me please? --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The decision here is that the section on the page is good as it is, but for the moment (i.e. until I do some more work on it & add some sources) my sandbox is NOT to become a {main|article}. AndyJones (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message :) I've copied to the peer review, with comments about other citation possibilities mentioned :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Larcin

Your guess abouth the possible edit by Larcin was right as he uses the range of French IP between 84.100.**.** and 84.102.**.** I revert whatever the content of his edit, feel free to do the same with this vandal Regards. --Bombastus (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving!

Photograph of pumpkin pie.

I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

Sure. I wasn't planning on adding anything to performance history untill later this week, so we shouldn't edit conflict for a while.Bardofcornish (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rotary International

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rotary International. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlet

Good morning! In one of the very early scenes Hamlet summarises his view of the incestuous relationship very succinctly as "father-uncle" "mother-aunt" (or similar). I can't find it anywhere (I have 2006a now). Did I dream it? Can you help please? --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Andy. Very much appreciated. Would you have time to cast an eye over the newly-created Minor characters in Hamlet and flesh it out a bit please? --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some actory stuff about the Olivier and Branagh film version to fill it up a bit. Now it needs scholarship :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, did you really write a Toupees in popular culture article? If so, respect! :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trusts

Your edit inspired me to make some changes. I had originally only tagged the article since I knew nothing about trusts (I was looking something up). Thanks - Davandron | Talk 04:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Jowett, "Johannes Factotum: Henry Chettle and Greene's Groatsworth of Wit", Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, vol. 87, no. 4, (1993), pp. 453-86.

I downloaded the article for you. It is a JSTOR article in a PDF format. If you give me your email I will email it to you. You can leave it on my talk page or here. If I knew how to post it online somewhere I would do that, but I am not that computer saavy. Saudade7 00:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also left you this note on the Help Page:

You can go to your local University and pay for a yearly library card that allows you access to the physical library, and that will give you access to a proxy service for the University's server. This should give you access to all the articles and online journals and databases that your University subscribes to - JSTOR articles, Medline, and all the Wilson Web, Bibliography databases, NexusLexus, OED etc. I think at the University of California schools, which are public/state schools, it costs non-students $100-200 a year. Maybe private Universities don't offer this? I think they give discounts if you are retirement age too. What you get will depend on what the University itself subscribes too.

Good Luck Saudade7 00:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay

Just so you know, you can always leave me a message on my page if you need something downloaded e.g. JSTOR. I am on the Wiki once a day, at least. Good luck with your Shakespeare books. Saudade7 00:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taming of the Shrew

Xlil's edits were actually fully cited, just in MLA format. I'll have to fix the format sometime, but all the sourcing is there. She also recently edited the Titus Andronicus article in a similar way. I've invited her to join the wikiproject. I've noticed a lot of great edits by newbies lately on play articles. Wrad (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlet synopsis - comments

I'll take it from here if you like and cut it. For instance, Laertes leaping into the grave is strange without context and it's much clearer to say that he and Hamlet fight, without going into detail. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've moved it over to the Hamlet page itself, with a link to my sandbox in the edit summary. All yours. AndyJones (talk) 13:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Andy. I've cut it a bit and re-ordered it slightly in places to avoid duplication. Can you please check it for errors and typos? Thanks, --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joyeux Noël

The composer of my favorite Christmas carol.

I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Merry Christmas! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Award-winning humor

If there is a wiki-award for cleverness and punny humor, you must get it. The "duthie? - no he doth not" summary was truly inspired. Happy New Year from the crazy American! Smatprt (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]



I entirely agree with Smatprt.

The Barnstar of Good Humour
In small recognition of your consistently witty edit-summaries, which are a joy to read, please accept this Barnstar of Good Humour. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


PS: My time is not my own this week so I'm sorry I've not kept up with your pace. Hopefully back into Hamlet at full steam, tomorrow. --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: I've just updated the barnstar template - and therefore this page too - with a Br Eng variant. You're the first to receive it :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Happy New Year

The Half Barnstar
For your very fine work on Hamlet with Wrad --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:OlivierHenryV.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:OlivierHenryV.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:LovesLaboursLost.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:LovesLaboursLost.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Andy

Your kind gesture is very much appreciated. Thank you, --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input at the FAC page :) I try to avoid musing there as it can easily spawn a lengthy discussion that creates the impression (when the page is rapidly scanned by the FAC director) that consensus is not reached. For similar reason, the moment a comment is struck through, I ignore it. People can and do change from Support to Oppose if something that hadn't occurred to them crops up. So, to be honest, the quicker FAC is over the better as it can get quite predatory. I moved the Sarah Bernhard image to the talk page for this reason. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shakespeare's works

This article's comedy section has plot summary parameters that need to be filled. I plan to write some, but there are so many I thought I might need help. Wrad (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hamlet promoted

Thanks so much for the star, Andy! I'm proud to have had some association with the article, which really is superb.

– Noetica♬♩ Talk 23:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another barnstar

The Editor's Barnstar
I award you this Barnstar for your tireless and fine work on Hamlet, while at the same time staying in good spirits. I haven't had the chance to work with you directly much, but your contributions deserve some recognition (though it looks like you've already got lots of it.) Happy Editing! Bardofcornish (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tempest revision

I know I promised, Andy, but my computer melted down and I haven't got it back up yet. I've been relying on my work computer to keep in touch with the outside world. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Hamlet has 208 quotations in the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations; it takes up 10 of 85 pages dedicated to Shakespeare in the 1986 Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (14th ed. 1968). For examples of lists of the greatest books, see Harvard Classics, Great Books, Great Books of the Western World, Harold Bloom's The Western Canon, St. John's College reading list, and Columbia College Core Curriculum.
  2. ^ See Shapiro (2005) and Crystal and Crystal (2005, 66).
  3. ^ Based on the length of the first edition of The Riverside Shakespeare (1974).
  4. ^ See Taylor (2002, 4); Banham (1998, 141); Hattaway asserts that "Richard Burbage... played Hieronimo and also Richard III but then was the first Hamlet, Lear, and Othello" (1982, 91); Peter Thomson argues that the identity of Hamlet as Burbage is built into the dramaturgy of several moments of the play: "we will profoundly misjudge the position if we do not recognise that, whilst this is Hamlet talking about the groundlings, it is also Burbage talking to the groundlings" (1983, 24); see also Thomson on the first player's beard (1983, 110). A researcher at the British Library feels able to assert only that Burbage "probably" played Hamlet; see its page on Hamlet.