User talk:Qp10qp/Archive 6

This is an archive of inactive discussions.

James I and tabloid history

You just know what this is going to be about, don't you? :-( Check out Talk:James I of England. Can you weigh in there and try and make the case for going back to the way things were when you took the article through FAR? Carcharoth 13:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you happen to read the version of the text that got reverted? It summarized the daughter article and (I don't think) wasn't unduly weighted. I truly trying to work towards consensus here. Jeffpw (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I jump into one of your talk page discussions and get this response. Then I find you have jumped into this conversation. However, as far as I'm concerned, you are more than welcome. I had come here to ask if Qp10qp would like to help out with the editing of Personal relationships of James I of England. Given the controversy and the unhelpful attitude of some of the editors involved, it is quite possible he won't want to touch it with a 10-foot bargepole, and that will be a loss for Wikipedia. But I am here and asking anyway, as he has mentioned a serious factual inaccuracy in that article that needs correcting, and I am after a source for that (the Carr allegations). Carcharoth (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A further update. I eventually bit the bullet and moved the footnote into the new section. The consensus on the talk page seems to be that this will do as a temporary placeholder. After a bit of a break, hopefully Personal relationships of James I of England can be improved to give people as much of an insight as is possible into all this. Would you have time to check the current state of the main article (James I of England))?. There is an LGBT category on there that i hadn't noticed - presumably that is OK? Also, my integration of the footnote may have been clumsy, and could probably do with improvement from you. What is missing at the moment is what the three biographies you used for that article say about this. I seem to remember you said something about this earlier in the year? Carcharoth (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I unwatched; I'll come back and weigh in if the tone improves, or at least, if the tone doesn't deteriorate further. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to work on the personal relationships article because it is not my type of page, being essentially an essay. The inaccuracy I referred to lies in the following: "On the eve of the trial, Carr threatened to reveal publicly that the King had slept with him". This is the sort of evidence that some people would like to have but which we don't have, because we do not know what Carr threatened to reveal. If you need references, Akrigg (didn't buy this book until after the FAR; details in "Further reading" section) says, p. 200, "Just what Somerset's threatened disclosures were, it is impossible to determine". Willson, pp. 355–6, says, "Historians have speculated as to the nature of this secret. James had no doubt about it. 'It is clear to see', he wrote, 'that he would threaten me with laying an aspersion upon me of being in some sort accessory to his crime'". Stewart, p. 276, mentions that the Spanish ambassador Sarmiento wrote to King Philip that Somerset said "he would say that which he knew in his own defence, without the King being able to complain about it, since he was the cause of it".

None of these historians suggests that Somerset was planning homosexual revelations, though no doubt others may have suggested that. Their chief suggestion is that since James had had Overbury placed in the tower Somerset (who was probably technically not guilty, his wife being the arranger of the murder) might have been hinting that he would incriminate the king in the plot. James had placed Overbury in the tower for refusing an impossible offer of the ambassadorship to Russia, and complicit in this set-up had been Thomas Howard (Frances Carr's uncle) and probably Carr himself. Another line of reasoning is that since Carr had been effectively chief secretary of state, he might have considered revealing damaging state secrets, for example about negotiations for the Spanish marriage. Bacon, the prosecutor, said at the trial:

For my lord of Somerset exercising at that time by his majesty’s special favour and trust, the office of secretary, did not forbear to acquaint Overbury with the king’s packets and dispatches from all parts of Spain, France, and the Low-Countries; and this then not by glimpses, or now and then rounding in the ear for a favour, but in a settled manner; packets were sent, sometimes opened by my lord, sometimes unbroken unto Overbury, who perused them, registered them, made table-talk of them, as they thought good. So I will undertake the time was, when Overbury knew more of the secrets of state, than the council-table did.”

This gives an idea of what James had to fear: that he would be accused of having Overbury imprisoned and then killed to keep him quiet about state secrets. It is interesting that just before Carr was arrested, he used the state seal to seize some papers, presumably as a basis for blackmail. Whatever the case, we don't know what he intended to reveal, because he didn't say so himself, and, when it came to it in court, he didn't reveal anything: it's all speculation. But I suspect that homosexuality was the last thing on his mind at this moment.qp10qp (talk) 07:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough (about not editing that article). Thanks for the reply at Talk:James I of England, especially the bedchamber point. I may give it a go (editing the daughter article). One thing I want to avoid is promulgating any misinterpretations. The two extreme positions seem to be encapsulated in the two links at the bottom of the page: this one (quite persuasive) and this one (a bit overwrought and taking a rather religious perspective). The biases of each essayist are obvious, but can you comment on any bits of what they say? Also, can you briefly say what those three biographies said on this (Croft, Stewart and Willson)? Carcharoth (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review request

I am soliciting peer reviews for a little article I wrote on Sarah Trimmer's The Guardian of Education. If you have a moment, could you take a look at it? I'm not planning on taking it to FAC, but I do want critiques of it. The peer review is here. Awadewit | talk 10:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Favourite painting

Did you see it was on University Challenge last night? Of course they failed to get it! Can you think of any additions to Category:European court festivities, btw?Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:PKM is the QE1 portrait expert, and can certainly help. I don't have the more specific Virgin Q ones, though I'm alarmed to see how many Strong books I do have. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's great - just the sort of thing we're short of. I use "magnificences" a bit in Royal entry, but there don't seem to be any other articles. Maybe "Court festivities under/of C de M" , "Court entertainments..." something like that. Do you know User:Wetman - he likes this stuff & did a lot on Royal Entry Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just come across the short Ballet Comique de la Reine btw. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re the Young Bess portrait, Karen Hearn's Dynasties: Painting in Tudor and Jacobean England 1530-1630 makes a case that this painting and the 1546 Edward VI as Prince of Wales are likely by the same hand, but probably not by William Scrots. As far as books on portraits of Elizabeth, everything I've seen seems to still be deferring to Strong's Gloriana as the definitive work (but I don't have access to the scholarly journals to see if there's an up-and-coming authority in the next generation). - PKM (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and thank you for slapping the deletion request on Elizabeth I by William Scrots. - PKM (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do need an article on Scrots; start one and I'll hop on. I've been trying to decide if it should be William or Guillim (or Guillam?) - more recent books tend to prefer the G spellings.

I am working on the Armada Portrait as we speak (and have just discovered some great detail on the Serjeant Painters decorating coaches in Queen Elizabeth's Wardrobe Unlock'd that I'll have to write up).

And the Surrey definitely deserves its own article eventually. - PKM (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a record of payment to Scrots under yet another spelling (Stretes) for two full-lengths of Edward VI, and a painting of him in the Louvre seems to be one of them. I had to search in French, but I found the image - will add it. I've seen aother one that is attributed to Scrots, but I don't know onn what basis. Still digging.... PKM (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was confusing. Hearn says that Image:Edward VI of England c. 1546.jpg and "Young Bess" are dated to wood of the same age that may be from the same tree. Both are labeled "?Flemish School". Hearn has a smallish b&w of the Louvre picture and labels it as by Scrots. The .jpg of the Louvre picture looks like it has been digitally sharpened beyond reason; I am going to try and find a better image or unsharpen that one and see what comes out. Image:Edward VI of England c. 1546.jpg recently made featured picture status, and there is discussion of provenence [[1]. - PKM (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding some more links and notes to Talk:William Scrots. - PKM (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From favourite paintings to favourites

I know you said you didn't want to get involved in the 'personal relationships' article, but what do you think of favourite? i think Johnbod has done a good job there, though he rightly points out that noble court and courtier are not up to scratch. Would you have any ideas there? Carcharoth (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try and look up that ODNB quote you mention. I want to tread carefully around that article until more work has been done. The best approach at the moment might be to rigorously attribute the people making the claims and make clear where the differences are. I absolutely agree that, while at times convincing, the two websites I pointed out are not really reliable or unbiased. Carcharoth (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scrots DYK Hook?

Perhaps User:Johnbod has given you your DYK hook:

File:Edward VI William Scrots c1550.jpg

...that William Scrots, King's Painter to Henry VIII and his son Edward VI (pictured), was paid an annual salary twice as large as that of his predecessor, Hans Holbein ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PKM (talk • contribs) 19:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably fine for a hook, but you have to be careful with these salaries - Levina Teerlinc also got £60, starting at around the same time, and apparently before she was a lady-inwaiting. So I'm not sure where that leaves Gaunt's "unprecedented". Lucas Hornebolte was on £33 odd. And those are assuming the salaries all stayed flat - which I expect they did. Plus was some of it for materials? I suspect Holbein got less because the agreement left him freer to do outside work, as we know he did. We should maybe add a section to AoTC. Johnbod (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - I've just seen Strong AOTC p52 says Teerlinc only got £40 in 1546. I see the salary figure has bounced around a bit in the history. Johnbod (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I reffed the amount to Gaunt but the "unprecedented" came from Lukacher, which I should have reffed to him. Of course, he isn't an art historian. I'm not sure whether to take the word away (replace it with "substantial") or to ref it to Lukacher. As far as DYK is concerned, I don't think it matters too much, as it doesn't change the point (and I do think it's a cute fact that anyone at all should have been paid more than the great genius Holbein). And I quite agree that Holbein was probably only part-time at court. I have to admit that I don't know what a "King's painter" entailed. If Teerlinc, Lucas and co were also employed in that capacity, then maybe you didn't have successors as such, but just people on the payroll, sometimes more than one at a time. qp10qp (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaunt seems ok on points at the moment, but - see new bit in AOTC - Strong says Horenbout got a "huge" £62/10 vs Gay saying he got £33/6. I give up. As you say, the title seems a tad vague, & not perhaps exclusive. Scrots succeeded on Horneboltes death, but Holbein was also so described. It had been used for what became the Serjeant painter until the arrival of Horenbout; he then got demoted. Johnbod (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean Strong says Scrots got a "huge" £62/10? (that's in English Icon). As you say, for a DYK hook, it should be good - it's pithy, short, and representative. I've put in the DYK nom. - PKM (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, in AOTC (V&A) he says Lucas got it. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I have both, will check to see if the wording is exactly the same. Perhaps a case of mixed up notes? (Oh no, I smell Original Research!) - PKM (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed somewhere that this figure was ascribed to Lucas as well. With careful wording however, I don't think this should affect the DYK, which is just a comparison between Scrots and Holbein.

I was just checking the Levina Teerlinc page, and guess what painting is attributed to her there! No way, I say. qp10qp (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will replace that image with the Maundy; thanks for the heads-up. - PKM (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC) edited image link - PKM (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again

I want to thank you again on your help on Knox. Raul promoted it today. I will embark on another project soon and this time I will look for the best sources! Also, with practise I hope my writing/prose will also improve. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is he?

QP, can you tell me if we have a link to the Hugh Blair fellow mentioned here? He doesn't seem to match any of our Hugh Blair dabs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't seem to have an article on him. We have one on Uta Frith, who co-authored a book on him. I daresay that the reason we haven't got an article is that to write it, one would need to read that particular, single book on him. That page is a bit dreadful, isn't it? qp10qp (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You think it's dreadful now, you should have seen when I started on it. Oh, my, what a mess. I think I'm just about sick of autism, but there is such a walled garden in need of serious pruning that I keep getting drawn in. Thanks for looking! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Janet Frame, who immediately jumped into my head in this category, as I've read a bit about her. Brilliant, little-known literary genius. qp10qp (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, by "dreadful", I only meant that I find the whole business of restrospectively diagnosing/guessing at autism to be dubious. You've, of course, done a marvellous job of referencing all this speculation. qp10qp (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still have to go read all those sources; I'm already finding some respected scientists who also agree it's dreadful :-) At least the table format makes the origin of these post-mortems pretty clear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor I've never encountered before removed Janet Frame; I don't know enough about her to argue in favor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the criterion was fame (most famous literary writer in New Zealand after Mansfield) and speculation about possible autism (in this case, in a medical journal), in which case, Frame would qualify. Anyhow, I'm not bothered. What's one name, more or less? It's true, I suppose, that Frame is little known outside new Zealand and the literary community, though she was touted for the Nobel prize. Her prose is startlingly good: she was no normal novelist. Perhaps leaving her off the list shows her more respect. :) qp10qp (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think she belongs, but that page is so ... strange ... that I'm not exercised enough to go to bat over it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Józef Piłsudski

I'd appreciate your comments on that article. You may not be that suprized to learn that some editors there accuse Poles of cabalism and such. Since you worked with Poles and Lithuanians on Jogaila/W2J and with me on Soviet invasion, I hope you are both neutral and knowledgeable enough to offer some insight on this article. PS. I considered asking you for help with copyediting but you said you are busy this year, so... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 03:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A recent objection concerns itself with dashes and punctuation. It is not my strong suit, could you help me with that part of the nomination? I'd appreciate it a lot.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I think I fixed the problem you were having.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Priestley

Would you mind weighing in at this discussion about Leibniz and Priestley between WillowW and I? I think our endeavor is tipping over into original research, but perhaps not. I trust your opinion. Awadewit | talk 05:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK (William Scrots)

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

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

Egbert

Qp, would you take a look at this diff for me? I want to make sure I avoid looking like an owner of the article, but I think this is not really necessary data and should be reverted. I am happy to do it myself, but I thought I'd get a second opinion first. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donation in a good cause?

Maria and I were wondering if you would be willing to donate $5 or $10 towards a Cervantes pot. We recently discovered that the Spanish wikipedia has FAs on a number of British and American writers and texts, but we have none on any Spanish-language writers or texts. So, we thought maybe a push at the reward board would do the trick. See our discussion here. Awadewit | talk 20:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Segar

Thanks! Heraldry is an old fascination of mine; every once in while it pops to the forefront. I love Robert Peake; do start the article. Also want to expand William Larkin one of these days.

Glad you snagged a Hearn. Great, isn't it? Speaking of references, I just got this in the mail: http://www.amazon.com/Dress-Court-King-Henry-VIII/dp/1905981414. Be afraid. (Court mourning. Wardrobe records. And confirmation of the attribution of the portrait of Catherine Parr in the red gown to William Scrots; have to update that, probably get to it on the weekend.) - PKM (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For being the best. DrKiernan (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Somebody suggested giving you a barnstar for all of the great work on FAR. DrK beat me to it. Marskell (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded, and pouting that I didn't get to "vote". Qp, you are an amazing unsung hero. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. It's very kind of you guys! Nice to have it officially kept. But lets not get carried away—the article hasn't got a proper ending yet, for example. And there are unrepeated things in the lead that need to go. I'm still working through my to-do list, keep notwithstanding.qp10qp (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Style guide

Can you help me with writing a style guide for wikipedia? I am limited by time and inexperience, and I still have to get through several books. Something brief and helpful to the general reader is all I want. I've already made a start. RedRabbit (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I shall not declare my "guide" finished until I have done all the required reading. I dare say I can recognise good prose, but I need time to set out the principles. I have started with the most common errors that rankle me. RedRabbit (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin-Shelley family tree

Mike Christie has kindly made a Godwin-Shelley family tree for us. Do you mind taking a look at it and sharing your opinion? See our discussion and the link to the tree here. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 19:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've got the rough draft for Fanny Imlay pretty much completed at this point. If you want to look in every once in a while as I'm polishing it up, I would appreciate it. Can I just say that we are going to have a devil of a time explaining Mary Shelley's soap opera life without making it sound like a soap opera? Awadewit | talk 21:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it sure was a soap opera. Maybe we should just recount what happened objectively. The urge to do a Gone-with-the-Wind job will be overpowering. But we Puritans will overcome temptation, I am sure.qp10qp (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wulfhere

If you have the time, I'd be very glad if you could cast an eye over Wulfhere of Mercia. There's a comment on its current FAC from one reviewer asking to eliminate some of the qualifying phrases such as "probably", "perhaps" and so forth. You may recall from at least one or two reviews you've done of my articles that I have a bit of a weakness in this direction. Angus McLellan very kindly commented at the FAC in my defence to the effect that this sort of prose was a necessary evil in early medieval history. However, I know you have a good eye for this sort of thing, and so if you could point me at one or two phrases you think could be sharpened, I'd be very grateful. If you don't have the time, no problem. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry; and the FAC now has three supports to one oppose so will probably pass relatively soon. So if you're busy, don't worry about it. Thanks again. Mike Christie (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this stand? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mike is part way through my comments. I am certain to support. qp10qp (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qp, Sandy already promoted it, so need to respond again on the FAC page -- if there's anything else it can go to the article talk page. Thanks for all the comments, as usual! The article is a lot better now. I left a last few comments at the FAC page, and one query about Eddius. Thanks again. Mike Christie (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Las Meninas

If you're still in an Iberian baroque mood after Queluz, a look over this, which has been much expanded in the last week, would be very much appreciated. Johnbod (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My strong preference is to hash out 'challenging points' before FAC. I hope you will comment with both barrels, leaving sentiment and equite at the front door, and thanks for taking the time. Ceoil (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is probably best - more people are watching that. Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only getting to go through your review and all the work from you and Johnwod now, but thanks for you effort and help with this. Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Piłsudski

Ah, I see I succeeded in drawing you into another Polish history article :) Well, enjoy your readings over XMAS; FYI I am back in Poland with family for 2 weeks and I will not have access to the books I used for most of the article (as they came from the uni's library).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this allowed me to create a new interesting article :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am uneasy about "Overall, by the end of Pilsudski's life, his government's relations with national minorities were increasingly problematic". Re JP and Jews, some interesting stuff: [2], [3], and in particular, [4]. Re minorities: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. The point is that Piłsudski was minority friendly - but even as a dictator he had little support on that front, and couldn't stop the deterioration of those relations. In other words, we should indicate the problems of minorities in the Second Polish Republic (keeping in mind due weight) - but be careful not to turn it into Poland bashing along the lines 'minorities had it bad there'. PS. And as for the argument - stomach it for the FAC - some people will not change their oppose unless we change the article into a rant about evilness of Poles in general and Piłsudski in particular, I am afraid.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, relations with the minorities were bad, I think everybody agrees on it. But Piłsudski tried to improve them, and this should be clear that those relations destabilized not because, but despite his efforts.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the same to you

A very Merry Christmas to you too. Thanks for all the help this year. I've learned a lot about the Anglo-Saxons and about sources from the work I've done; from you I've learned more about how to think critically about history, though I still have some way to go there. I owe you half-a-dozen favours at least; if I can help with anything, please let me know. Mike Christie (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobean seasonal greetings

And Merrie Yuletide to you too, Qp. What did they get up to at this time of year in Jacobean times, I wonder? Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently they sat down to watch Shakespeare plays at Hampton Court! See here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes

Thank you, Qp. The feelings are mutual; I smile when I see your name because you stand for everything that's good about Wikipedia, and remind me why I'm here. I wish you all the best for the holidays, and hope you have a great start to the new year. Best, SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

Happy Holidays to you, too! You know what you have taught me and it is inestimable. Without our email exchanges, I would not be nearly as productive as I am today - and I have you to thank for that. Qp, you are a diamond in the rough. Awadewit | talk 07:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And a Joyous New Year

I hope the New Year is healthful and joyous for you and yours! All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Late reply

A (belated) seasons greetings to you too! And happy new year! I have endured a forty-degree day, and am about to try my luck in the main street of my suburb, which will presently be swarming with people.

I am sure I am not the only Sisyphus. I must do some more reading to prepare for my labours in 2008. RedRabbit (talk) 08:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]