User talk:AndyJones/Archive 4

Archiving my talk page (except barnstars):

Dominic Luciano

The sad thing (and please note that I never read the article in question) is that based upon this it almost seems that something might have been put together about an amazing 15-year-old kid with cerebral palsy, neurofibromatosis, and (in 2007) 14 tumors in his body... who still has the time and courage to work with computers and play jazz piano. If the article author had asked for help instead throwing a tantrum, he might well have recieved it. You showed incredible restraint. I hope you don't mind if I dig a bit more into Dominic online to see if some minor notability might be found. Maybe this debacle can become a win for Wiki. Regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Post back here if you feel you have something and I'll take another look. I imagine the deleting admin would be prepared to drop a copy of the article in your user:space, if asked. AndyJones (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see my comment here. AndyJones (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I'll request he drop it HERE if it can be done, and will most definitely check back for your input. The author had been quite testy and you showed remarkable restraint. I have actually sent him a message through his youtube account (same username) and perhaps he might deal with me civilly. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Dominic Luciano

In the AfD for this article, the author did state "Then quit screwing around and delete it already." It was then tagged G7 by User:MuZemike. I read through the AfD and was fairly sure that with the tenuous claim to notability, coupled with the uncivil attitudes of the various (?) article supporters, the article was not going to be kept anyway (at least not as it was). As far as I was concerned, the author did request deletion, and s/he still had the opportunity to redact it or take it back.

As you suggested, I'm exhuming the article and placing it at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox Dominic Luciano if anyone wants to have a go at it. ... discospinster talk 02:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just left my thank you on DS's talk page. I can see the problem with peacock in the article. I will look for sources and see if some judiscious sandblasting might make it encyclopedic. Not excusing the author's incivility, he was apparently creating an homage to a young man who is even now recuperaqting from an unsuccessful surgery to remove tumors... and the mere use of the word "delete" associated with his friend pushed him past reasoning. I'll see what can be done... and thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. I've watchlisted the sandbox. AndyJones (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psych folk

Thanks, but I suspect this one will keep on running. It does need reliable sources, so I'll try and dig some out. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R&J

I think we're ready for FAC now. As the two top contributors, perhaps we should co-nom? Wrad (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adadewit will see it at FAC shortly, won't she? ;) Thanks for your advice on FAC behaviour - I've never been a proper co-nom on a FAC before! I did a lot of work on researching the themes prior to the GAC, so I hope that it holds up to FAC. -Malkinann (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty cool. Wrad (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On talk page guidelines

Hiya Andy! I recently redid my edits to Talk:Romeo + Juliet, which you undid on October 16. You claimed that "we [Wikipedians] don't delete talk page conversations, however banal]. If you would take a look at the corresponding guideline, WP:TPG and more specifically, WP:TPG#Others' comments, you'll see that in fact "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article" is appropriate, which, in my personal opinion, was more than just: babbling about the guns used in the film and "racially motivated" cast choices are not discussions about the article on the film, but the film itself - I myself even joined those "discussions" when I was just a newbie on Wikipedia.

Often talk pages are filled with ranting, personal attacks and even advertisements. I sure hope you do delete those messages! Kind regards, --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 17:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, I'm curious why you removed the Shmoop analysis of Romeo & Juliet from External Links. I read the rules for external links and thought I was in the clear. Shmoop has about 150 print pages worth of analysis on R&J, written by Ph.D. from Berkeley who teaches the play in english classes at Berkeley. Shmoop also offer a writing guide that walks students through the process of writing a paper on R&J. I'd love to learn from your experience and figure out an appropriate way to link to Shmoop's resources from this article. (Also, check out Shmoop's jobs page - we hire Shakespeare buffs). Many thanks, Barriodude (talk)

  • I've moved this conversation to the article's talk page (here), where a wider group of people will comment. Be warned that the article is going through a featured article candidacy as we speak (see here for all the gory details), so expect to have to fight for any change you want to make, right now! Best, AndyJones (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Shakespeare notice

There is currently a discussion going on regarding the project's policy on how information on characters should be represented in articles on Shakespeare's plays. Please take part by clicking Talk:Romeo and Juliet#Character Analysis. Further context, if needed, can be found by scanning the two previous talk sections on the page as well. Sent by §hepBot (Disable) at 04:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC) per request of Wrad (talk)[reply]

Sandboxing Something

Felice_Beato#Selected_photographs

Belton_House#Owners_of_Belton_House

Boydell_Shakespeare_Gallery#List_of_art_works

Flag_of_Armenia#Usage

Flag_of_Australia#Construction

Flag_of_Belarus#Proper_flag_protocol

Albatross#Species

Actuary#Notable_actuaries

Dime_(United_States_coin)#Mintage_figures

Demand_Note#Common_features_among_denominations

Levenson 2006?

Hi Andy, I just noticed when I was trying to port over some of the definition of "star-crossed" into star-crossed that although you put in the footnote to Levenson 2006, it's not in the big full references list at the end of Romeo and Juliet. Did you mean it was from Levenson 2000? Could you please have a look at this for me? Thanks! --Malkinann (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch: you're right. I've fixed it. AndyJones (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And looking at the big reference list in detail, I've found some more problems...  :'( Help? --Malkinann (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I'll be at the university library tomorrow so in principle I should be able to fix anything (!!!). What type of problems? I'm logging off Wikipedia now but I'll check back in the morning. AndyJones (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Romeo_and_Juliet#Reference_problems_-_help.3F covers the ones that I've found - I've removed the seemingly unused references, but there are still date discrepencies between footnote and reference with John Russell Taylor, Rodriguez, Furness, and Bloom. (Not sure which Bloom, either - there are two listed in the references.) --Malkinann (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany

Hi, per this post, I will be glad if you provide an alternative structure per your suggestion in the talk page. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, Album titles etc are piped in dab pages for formatting - see Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Exceptions. PamD (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. AndyJones (talk) 09:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Newsletter?

Hey.

What do you think about something like this? Work in progress, obviously, and I'm hoping someone will step up and replace the lorem ipsum. :-) --Xover (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?

Hi Andy, I had added that line "In the groupings listed below, the names of the play's pivotal characters link to expanded descriptions." in an attempt to respond to Karanacks continued complaints about the list. I was trying to provide context as to the appearance of the list with weight being given to the major (or pivotal) characters by virtue of them having links to expanded articles. I obviously failed. I guess "agree to disagree" is the way to go. I certainly have no problem with the revert and will gladly let it stand. Smatprt (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes…

…you do. --Xover (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afterlife

Well, I've started working on Macbeth, personally. Good luck with the new job. Wrad (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin.collins RFC/U

Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you had endorsed at least one summary in the prior Request for Comment, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

Happy holidays Andy, and the very best of wishes to you and yours in the new year! Here's hoping Real Life won't keep you too busy to hang around the `pedia in 2009: we miss your steady hand! :-) --Xover (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Christmas Wishes to you, too. Expect to see me vastly less than usual during my current work assignment (slated to end February), though, since I've not got spare internet-time during the week (nor sometimes at weekends!). I haven't been lost to Wikipedia though. The Shakespeare project can expect to see my work again in a few months. Best, AndyJones (talk) 19:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thin air

Ack! Good catch on the Tempest quote! --Xover (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Macbeth: Reply

The only reason I reverted it is because it wasn't a useful improvement, I'm aware she is a 'villain' in it, can't live in England and not know about Shakespeare and his various work. Thank you for contacting me though.

Edit I made the mistake of selecting WP:BLP whilst in Huggle, that was the only reason behind that sort of revert. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Shakespeare

Hi. I'd be curious to know what your opinion on this article is. The topic is clearly notable, but the article as it stands is original research and an essay. Might it be better to seek to have this deleted, and wait until a better version is produced? It seems deleterious to keep it lying around in this state. - Biruitorul Talk 01:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Hi Andy. Per the stipulations at WP:CANVASSING, I've pinged your talk page to "appropriately canvass" you wrt the deletion discussion currently taking place at "WP:Articles for deletion/Home and family blog." (Note that I've also pinged the talkpages of all of your fellow participants at last years deletion discussion at "WP:Articles for deletion/List of blogs," to ensure that my notifications are to a small number of wiki-contributors that have been neutrally selected.) I hope you'll consider taking part in our discussion. Thanks. ↜Just me, here, now … 07:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dai Hsi 2.JPG

Hey there AndyJones, I'm just letting you know I removed the {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} template from File:Dai Hsi 2.JPG as it is not licensed as a non-free image, so this tag does not apply. If you believe this image is possibly unfree, the next venue to take this image is WP:PUF. Regards. — Σxplicit 04:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, except the page says "Summary fair use" and "Comment fair use" which sound like two assertions of fair use to me. If your reference to the fact that it's not fair use is based on the fact that it's also tagged {PD-self} then you're relying on a tag that's clearly and self-evidently wrong. Dai Xi (whose article claims he died in 1860) is unlikely to be a Wikipedian.
I'm not saying this can't be fixed. Maybe it ought to be {pd-old} or something. The point is that someone more knowledgable than me needs to check that, and removing the tag hasn't solved the problem. AndyJones (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that, but the problem with the image is that it's tagged with {{PD-self}}, which I think we can both agree is false, so WP:PUF would probably be the next option. {{PD-old}} states that "This image is in the public domain because its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of no more than the life of the author plus 100 years." According to the article, Xi lived from 1801–1860, making his lifespan approximately 59 years. 100+59=159, so 1860+159=2019. Therefore, the image doesn't fall under that license yet. The tag you restored also puts this image in a deleted category, which is why I removed the tag. — Σxplicit 18:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Are you intending to take it there, or are you asking me to do so? AndyJones (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have the rationale, I believe it would be fit if you nominated it. — Σxplicit 21:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think I'm mistaken. It just has to be 100 years after the death of the author, which should can be applied in this case. — Σxplicit 00:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is violating your copyright/license

I noticed last week that the Alcott Arts Center appears to have copied your basic Plot Summary of Shakespeare's "Comedy Of Errors" for their production this coming weekend, without any attempt to comply with the Creative Commons BY-SA license, and attempted to claim some form of ownership by changing four or five words. Let me show you the two summaries.

Your Plot Summary: "The Comedy of Errors tells the story of two sets of identical twins that were accidentally separated at birth. Antipholus of Syracuse and his servant, Dromio of Syracuse, arrive in Ephesus, which turns out to be the home of their twin brothers, Antipholus of Ephesus and his servant, Dromio of Ephesus. When the Syracusans encounter the friends and families of their twins, a series of wild mishaps based on mistaken identities lead to wrongful beatings, a near-incestuous seduction, the arrest of Antipholus of Ephesus, and accusations of infidelity, theft, madness, and demonic possession."

Their Plot Summary: "the play tells the story of two sets of identical twins separated at birth. Antipholus of Syracuse and his servant Dromio of Syracuse arrive in Ephesus, which turns out to be the home of their twin brothers, named the same. When the Syracusans encounter the friends and families of their twins, a series of wild mishaps based on mistaken identities lead to beatings, a near-incestuous seduction, the arrest of Antipholus of Ephesus, and accusations of infidelity, theft, and demonic possession."

They list the unattributed summary on their August 1 and 2, 2009, events calendar dates, as well as on their Google Calendar (August 1, 2009, August 2, 2009).

I sent them a friendly warning asking them to either do attribution and link to the CC-BY-SA license text, or change the text in order to comply with the CC license, but they seem to be ignoring the email. I looked up the "Comedy Of Errors" Wiki history and you are the one who created that particular basic plot summary. So now I'm telling you, the copyright holder, about the Alcott Arts Center's copyright infringement of your work. Bryananderson (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern, but to be honest I'm not too worried. The moment I post something under GFDL I cease to have any meaningful personal copyright in it: and people will inevitably re-use it, not always in strict accordance with the terms of the licence. Strictly speaking you're right, though: they really should acknowledge if they copy their material from Wikipedia. AndyJones (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

I notice you have not made a similar threat (and that is what you have done on my talk page) to the user Ceoil. Maybe while you are doing this, you can address the personal attacks he has made at me on his talk page, attacks which I have not provoked or responded to in kind. Darktower 12345 (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter (September 2009)

The Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
Issue 1 (September 2009)

Content

Orphaned non-free image File:Jacobi Skull.JPG

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jacobi Skull.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Kline Skull.JPG

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kline Skull.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Smoktunovsky Skull.JPG

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Smoktunovsky Skull.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Houston Skull.JPG

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Houston Skull.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Branagh Skull.JPG

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Branagh Skull.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Burton Skull.JPG

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Burton Skull.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Olivier Skull.JPG

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Olivier Skull.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Gibson Skull.JPG

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gibson Skull.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Shakespeare Template and Info box

Hi Andy, I don't think we've spoken before, but I've been doing some work on Shakespeare recently. I've done overhauls on The Two Gentlemen of Verona, The Taming of the Shrew, Henry VI, Part 2 and Henry VI, Part 3 and am just finishing up Henry VI, Part 1. I'm not sure you're the person to contact about this, so if not, I apologise for bothering you; the reason I contact you is that I notice the Shakespeare template box has been completely redesigned, but shouldn't there have been some discussion about it? I notice from the talk page that usually people propose a new design to see if others like it or not. Shouldn't that have happened here? Also, I noticed that the same user has added an info box to the top of the Two Gentlemen of Verona page. Again, shouldn't this be something which needs discussing, and if accepted, mentioned on the standardised layout on the project page? I could be wrong here on both counts of course, which is why I sought your opinion. Thanks Andy. Bertaut (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
Issue 2 (January 2010)

Previous issue | Next issue

Content

Late replies to your ref.desk question: "Thinking outside.."

See: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_February_18#Thinking_outside_yourself
--Seren-dipper (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Seren-dipper (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed non-free use rationale for File:AnimatedBalcony.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:AnimatedBalcony.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Court of Common Pleas (Ireland)

Hi Andy, long time no… &c.

While working on Edmond Malone I noticed that Court of Common Pleas (Ireland) was a redlink. Since you mention that you're an attorney, and it relates peripherally to Shakespeare, I thought perhaps you would be interested in at least stubbing the article. The article on Court of Common Pleas (England) is reasonably well developed, but I don't know how much of that material is relevant for the Irish institution. In any case, I figured I'd be so bold as to drop you a note on the off chance you'd be interested in de-redlinking this.

PS. I've nominated The Tempest at WP:GAC. No one has stepped up to review it yet, but I hope it won't be too long now. It would be very nice to have your input when we deal with the inevitable niggling issues from the review. Cheers, --Xover (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't expecting miracles, but I figured you might at least have a better idea of what sources might be worth checking to stub out an article on the Court (cf. eg. what I did on Peter Martin; just a line of actual article, but a list of sources that can be used to flesh it out further). Anyways, thanks for taking a look anyway: as mentioned, it was mostly a long shot because the redlink annoyed me.
As for The Tempest, I'm pretty sure you're still by far the largest contributor by pure edit count, so I expect most of your material is still there (although possibly somewhat mutilated in the interval). I would very much appreciate it if you were able to keep half an eye out for its GA, for that very reason: there are whole sections of it that I'm utterly unqualified to do anything with. And if we should manage to lure you back to Wikipedia more in the process then that would be an undivided bonus for the project. :-) Cheers, --21:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:DanesBalcony.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:DanesBalcony.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of supplying a fair use rationale for the image. Do, of course, feel free to revert or change as you please. --Xover (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you. AndyJones (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of LegalMatch for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article LegalMatch, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LegalMatch (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you can help

Hi Andy. Would you please take a look? Tom Reedy (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of fictional...

At Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_fictional_salespeople, I quoted an AFD comment you had made a while back. I thought I should let you know as a courtesy in case you feel that this no longer represents your view on the subject or if you have anything else to contribute to the current discussion.

Also, do you have any idea why, out of all the nominations back then, only List of fictional coaches was deleted? Never mind, clear from restored content. Matchups 16:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnstar of Epic Awsomeness

The Invisible Barnstar
As per always, you've snuck in and done a massive and spectacular job on King Lear, without getting yourself embroiled in the seemingly inevitable dramaz! For this you get The Invisible Barnstar, since I couldn't find the Ultimate Barnstar of Epic Awsomeness that you really deserve (if you keep this up may have to create one, just for you). Xover (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion would be to stick with the topic that interests you. My interest lies mostly in biography, and I find all the litcrit stuff actively wearying, so bringing a play article to FA tends to sap my energy and interest disproportionately. It'd probably be different if we managed to get the good, constructive, collaborations with several editors going—since such collaborations can be fun in themselves, regardless of the topic—but with the very low number of editors we usually manage to bring in, and the inevitable drama, it's better to stick with something you have an interest in in itself. I'd much rather see you do the occasional Afterlife section well, than have you throw up your hands in disgust, and go find greener pastures.
On that note, nevermind the timing, I think it would be useful if you left a note on the article's talk page outlining what you've done, and pointing at any weak spots or similar, for other editors' reference. And also to drop a note on the WP:BARD talk page to similar effect. This is actually an “underhanded” ploy to start to build up the WikiProject to a sustainable level: right now all anyone sees is a wasteland, only disturbed by the big drama-explosions that happen periodically, and stay far far away. The few editors who are active over time thus have to carry a disporportional part of the burden, which wears them out and uses up their enthusiasm. I want to slowly but surely try to build up the project to critical mass, where people see fruitful and collegial collaboration and want to join and do their part, so that we can actually start to make a dent in the most critical articles. Reminding people that there are other things than drama happening is one piece of that puzzle; and showing by example that there are other editors here who do manage to collaborate and edit collegially is another.
Or put another way, the editors who have done the best and the most work on improving the articles under WikiProject Shakespeare's scope lately are you and Bertaut (who has very quietly done some great work on a lot of play articles), but for all the world (i.e. all the potential new editors on the project) by all the noise and light it looks like all the action has been me, Tom, Nishidani, Paul, Smatprt, etc. and the SAQ stuff; and that stuff is actively discouraging to those editors that we want to get engaged in the project. I want to make it plainly visible that there is other stuff, good stuff, happening too! --Xover (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Songs that reference Magic [Copied from the Entertainment Ref-desk]

Not a proper reference desk question, I know, but I'd be grateful for any examples to add to this brainstorm of songs which reference magic. The criteria are:

  1. Very prominent references in the title, chorus or frequently-repeated phrase better than subtler ones.
  2. The word "magic" preferred to related words like "spell" or "illusion".
  3. Big chart hits which everyone knows preferred to obscure album tracks.
  4. Songs where the connection is obvious are better than ones where you'd need foreknowledge to make the connection (e.g. The Magic Flute or Hedwig's Theme).
  5. The more eclectic the list becomes, the better.

My list begins:

  • You Can Do Magic - Limmie & the Family Cooking
  • Every Little Thing She Does is Magic - The Police
  • A Kind of Magic - Queen
  • Magic - Pilot
  • I put a Spell on You - Nina Simone
  • Love Sex Magic - Ciara & Justin Timberlake AndyJones (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Marvelettes with My Baby Must Be a Magician Britmax (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Moments Britmax (talk) 11:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do You Believe in Magic (song) Staecker (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magic by Olivia Newton-John. Britmax (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ramble On by Led Zeppelin. The Wizard by Black Sabbath. Blood Sugar Sex Magik by the Red Hot Chili Peppers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Ramble On"? That doesn't exactly meet the OP's criteria as it's not very prominent and, dare I say, barely a passing mention is made in the line "How years ago in days of old, when magic filled the air." It's basically a song about losing a girl. Dismas|(talk) 12:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not. But it is a well-known song by a wellknown band, and it does have an entire verse dedicated to Tolkien's Middle Earth universe (which can be said to be magical in its own right). --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Black Magic Woman" - Santana, err... I've heard this song for years and always thought it was written by Santana but apparently not. psst... Song titles should be in double quotes per MOS:TITLE --Dismas|(talk) 11:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list I extracted from my record collection:

--TrogWoolley (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Jazz standards count, That Old Black Magic by Harold Arlen and Johnny Mercer (1942). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You Can Do Magic by America. The title is the same but this 1982 song is different from the Limmie & the Family Cooking's 1973 song. Oda Mari (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Magic" by Bruce Springsteen. --Viennese Waltz 08:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Abracadabra" might actually be the worst song ever, but it's very well known and very about magic. Look out though, because it will reach out and grab ya. Recury (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Music Barnstar
For a far better answer than I could have hoped for, I award the entertainment ref-deskers this musical barntar. Excellent work, guys, thank you! AndyJones (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to cause no fuss ... —Tamfang (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Matchups 01:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS Nobody has mentioned Puff the Magic Dragon. AndyJones (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except Jayron. —Tamfang (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah. AndyJones (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

Volume I, Issue III
February 2012

To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page.
ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.

File source problem with File:WilliamBlakePity.jpeg

Thank you for uploading File:WilliamBlakePity.jpeg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Shakespeare

hi, Im trying to find someone who can write a wiki article on Millennium Shakespeare - this is a first attempt but could do with some help on this to get it published. Many thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Millennium_Shakespeare — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.188.150 (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare sidebar discussion

I have started a discussion here about the Shakespeare sidebar template that has been added to several articles. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I'm writing an academic article on people-participation in the 'production' of Shakespeare studies. I noticed that you had recently provided some edits for the Wiki Shakespeare page, and wondered if I might ask you some questions about that? This project is at a very early stage so I've not yet refined or worked out a fixed methodology. So the questions are also not yet fully formed. (And I am aware that you also contribute to many other pages.) 1. What motivates you specifically to contribute specifically to the Shakespeare page? 2. Do you consider that your skills in this regard are general, technical, or specialist? 3. Have you contributed to other Shakespeare-related pages? 3. What's you opinion on how the Shakespeare page has evolved over time? 4. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Shakespeare page in terms of its current form and content? 5. Who would you say are the target readers for this page? 6. What have been the advantages and/or the frustrations of working on the Shakespeare page? 7. What are your reflections on the process of wiki-engagement in terms of dialogue, connection, community and collaboration? 8. In your view, are there any other questions that ought to be considered? Many thanks for taking the time to read this! TheoryofSexuality (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recalled to life

I'm trying to recruit Wrad to relive the glory days of our youth. Wanna play? Tom Reedy (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, happy to help in principle. But I am busier now than I was when I was a very active Wikipedian, and I'm not as knowledgeable about Jonson as I am about the bard: I've read a few of his plays but I'm not a particular fan. Also I should warn you that I'm a firm believer in the theory that the works of Jonson were written by the Duke of Clarence. AndyJones (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andy I'm dropping just about everything in preparation for a trip to the UK the month of November, so any WP work I do will just be piddling around until I return. It will probably be December before I can do any appreciable work on the page. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, AndyJones. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, AndyJones. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, AndyJones. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]