I started reading just now, but real life has interrupted. I will come back and finish this later today. Looks excellent so far. Finetooth (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done for the nonce. Gilbert is always fun. I encountered what I think is a big problem in the lower sections, and I left a note on the article's talk page with a suggestion about how to fix it. Finetooth (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't go too far afield of Trial. This is the Trial article, not the G&S article, so unless the influence can be traced to Trial, at least in significant part, I think it's too tangential. BTW, re: my annoyance this morning, you should know that I think you are doing a good job, but I don't appreciate when you are preachy with me, which you are quite frequently. I know that I am not perfect, and I make sloppy mistakes sometimes. However, I think I am a very good writer and copy editor, and no one on Wikipedia is perfect. Before you tell me what to do or criticize some sloppiness of mine, I suggest that you review your own edits and make sure that you who are about to throw a stone is without sin. Instead of preaching to me, just correct something if you think it is wrong, leave an edit summary, and I shall do the same. I think that is the Wikipedia way. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you make the casting tables nice and square, the way the Pirates ones are, with the grid lines? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I tried to do the casting table for Utopia, but I can't figure out how to get the date header for the 1975 column to float up. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if you find more on Crypto, Perichole, or any of the other companion pieces played *in London*, I would add that to the articles. I don't think we need any information on companion pieces played OUTSIDE of London. Sounds like you had fun in the library. I am going thru your changes and making copy edits. I will leave you information on the Trial talk page about any significant changes that I make. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK: best of both worlds: I added a Note 2 to the 1898 cast that gives the names of the non-notable late 1899 cast members. I suppose that you could put the footnote marker at the end of the description of the 1899 production row. Where do you like it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I finally have an idea of what you did. IMO, People go to Wikipedia to read the Synopsis and find out some background about the show and maybe information about musical numbers and productions. Please do not bury the straighforward sections about the show below the analytical sections. Take a look at what I did. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That looks much neater, Shoe. Can you get them to compress more to the left, as in Pirates? As they are now, they look a little too spread out. I think it's easier to read across the columns when they are a little narrow, if possible. Also, can you do the same magic to the Benefit performances? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I buried my last short note to you too far up on this page. Yes, the current layout is an improvement over the four sets of notes. I went back just now and did a few more tweaks. The main one replaced the last big block of italics with a small bold head. It's hard to predict what might happen at FAC. For example, literary critics might weigh in with concerns unrelated to the copyedits. I think, though, that we have fixed most of the small things. Finetooth (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I handled as many of the comments as I could (at least the ones that were up before I went to sleep) but left a few for you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put this on my ever-expanding to-do list. I can't promise anything in the immediate future, but I'll take a look when I can. Finetooth (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks dude. The review wasn't meant to actually be premoted. It was so that it could not only get feedback from the PR but an even deeper prospective from a GA. Tahnkyou.GearsOf War20:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your GA review of the Ellet biography and your recommendations for bringing it up to FA standards! Will be working toward that goal soon. - Epousesquecido (talk) 11:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lead image is captioned "Chaos in the Courtroom...." Where did that phrase come from? It sounds nice, but I am now thinking that if we just made it up, we should take it out of the image caption. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll leave it to you whether or not to leave the caption alone. How do we make the G&S template at the bottom of the article "hide" as a default? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Template: I would rather hide it on all articles - it's easy as pie to click the [show] button, and I think it's more attractive to have one sleek little line at the bottom than a big fat template about stuff that is not directly informative about the subject of the article itself. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bradley, p. 6 agrees with Benford's Lexicon, which says that Edwin and Angelina are a traditional pairing of lovers' names, dating back to the 1764 poem The Hermit by Oliver Goldsmith. Oh! Look here: http://victorianweb.org/mt/gilbert/judge1.html I think you will find some other info here for the article - maybe even enough for a short article on the Judge's Song? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Urk! I didn't even know there were any comments at the Trial peer review. I'll never learn how to use Wikipedia properly! Please see my various comments there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome. I was happy to see the FA star and glad to have helped in a small way. I have in mind to copyedit Trial by Jury if you still want me to and if it's ready. Just let me know. Finetooth (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I am about to ask you for a bug favor, before you decline please just think about it. You said that the article suffers from poor writting. Can you please rewrite the entire article by upgrading the grammar and improving it so that it is well written while at the same time not getting rid of an of the key stuff in the article.GearsOf War02:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shoemaker I am very dissapointed in you. One, because you didn't tell me that you were going to enter a RFA! I would have supported you! Next, my article has yet to be rewritten do I had to move on. Next time, tell me when important stuff happens. KingRock(Gears of War) 03:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For your many contributions to articles about the works of Gilbert and Sullivan (and each of them separately), I award you this barnstar. Because of your enthusiasm and expert research skills, the quality of these articles is being greatly improved, and the coverage of Gilbert and Sullivan on Wikipedia is proceeding swiftly. Well done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was first recorded on the 1953 album. The discography page gives information about all the recordings, so it seems particularly helpful in the paragraph, since we are making the point about Trial as setting a pattern for the later G&S operas. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to let my temper get the better of me. Let me start again: It would be easier for me to help you, if you would send me a request and wait for me to respond before deleting material from the article. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth gave us some comments recently on the peer review page. Do you think those have all been dealt with adequately? Also, I think there may be one or two outstanding Awadewat comments still needing your attention on the article's talk page. I reviewed them today and did what I could. Please make any changes that you think appropriate. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marc says that the cast list in article is certainly correct as is: - the other names in the source linked above came later, as shown in the programme image in the article from April 1875. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, should we use this source, pp. 65-69? It suggests that the idea for the story of Trial actually comes from Gilbert's story An Elixer of Love and other earlier sources. It also notes that the chorus was a fairly new innovation of G&S, as we had discussed in the Thespis article (could go back there for some language and cites). -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I knew you would be able to separate fact from fiction. But I need to cite this book for another point, which I have already done. I doubt that anyone will try to add a piece of info that is demonstrably wrong, and if they do, we can easily explain it. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This source has a substantial discussion of the text and music of Trial by Jury, from about p. 24 to p. 31. I'll leave it to you to decide whether or not to mine it for more info/quotes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it needs to be broken up: In fact, I moved it up so that all the stuff about the opening night is together. The prose just needs to be smoothed out. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can make it very simple for me to understand -- and complicated rules tend to fail, so this should not be a problem, if the information in an article is all carefully cited as being gotten from a specific source, how can that be a copyvio? -- carol (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, I had Agrostis gigantea on my watchlist and saw the copyvio notice. I completely missed it and thought I might give some specific examples. Generally, Carol, wording and phrases taken directly from another source, cited or not, is a copyright violation. For example:
From the source: The sheath of each leaf is open and hairless; it has a tendency to split open into a deep-V shape, sometimes all the way to the node.
From the wiki article: The sheath of each leaf is open and hairless; it has a tendency to split open into a deep V-shape.
Even the grammar was copied, with the exception of the last clause. The entire paragraph under "Foodplant" was taken directly from the source. Citing sources is important, but it must be written in your own words. Sometimes it's an honest mistake; it is possible to read a source and then get that particular phrasing stuck in your mind. Hope that helps. Cheers, Rkitko(talk)03:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is one of the first plant articles that I wrote, and I will not complain to much about how it is handled. I will say this though, this is a terrible way to communicate. And I will say one more thing about this. Perhaps this is the reason there are so many articles here that do not cite their references.
Encouragement and education via discouragement and 'figure out the problem on your own' templates -- is that the best in action? -- carol (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that what you ended up with is OK. Walbrook's description of Penley's career came when Penley was still famous, and IMO, Walbrook is making a much bigger deal of Penley's place in Trial than it warrants. Notice that Stedman, Ainger and the other later writers hardly mention him. I disagree that "Trial was a big springboard to his career". Trial was merely his first starring role. He was just a replacement player, late in the second production. If he didn't get his break in Trial, he'd have gotten it somewhere else. He did not play John Wellington Wells, which was cast the next year - they had to go looking for someone new (any idea why?). His biggest role by far was Charley's Aunt. In fact, you might say that he was a one-hit wonder. It's like writing about, say, Bernadette Peters, today. She is mega-famous to Sondheim fans. She got her first Broadway roles in Johnny No-Trump and George M!, but the article on Johnny only says that she made her Broadway debut in the show. Neither article goes into any detail about her, relying instead on the hyperlink. In 50 years, she will certainly not warrant much of a description in even a Featured Article on those shows. The place for detail on Penley's career is in the Penley article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote that Fred left the cast due to tuberculosis, and you cite Ainger, p. 120. Ainger does NOT say tuberculosis - he just say "poor health". I had read somewhere else that he died of liver disease. Can you tell me where you found the cause of his death? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the recent changes you made. Not sure about the Jacobs question - why don't you write a couple of sentences about A Nice Dilemma, if you think Jacobs' analysis is helpful to the reader, and I'll tell you whether I think it's too much. It would be nice to cite Jacobs for something, just to show that our research is complete. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. You participated in this ANI thread. I picked out the names of some editors I recognised, or who had extensive comments there, and I was wondering if you would have time to review the articles mentioned in the thread I've started here, and in particular the concerns I've raised there about how I used the sources. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed your reply on this: Have you gone thru the Ealdgyth comments on the peer review page? Do you think that all of those, as well as the last few Awadewat comments on the Trial talk page, have all been dealt with now?
Reminder to self: This source, pp. 65-69 or our previous discussion in the Thespis concerns G&S unique use of the chorus. Also, This source has a substantial discussion of the text and music of Trial by Jury, from about p. 24 to p. 31. Finally, need to check this book. Which ones are you obtaining? I don't know if they're worth buying. If you can't access one or more of them, I'll try to review them this weekend. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am finished reviewing your changes of this morning and making my edits. I did not make any frivolous changes. For example, our readers are very familiar with what oom-pa-pa sounds like but have no idea what omm-cha-cha means. The "Nice Dilemma" chorus definitely makes an oom-pa-pa sound between the bass notes and the higher choral voices, as the image that you added clearly shows in the first four measures. So, don't change what I wrote, unless you have a good reason. We must EXPLAIN the sources, not merely parrot them when they are incomprehensible. As to taking the older sources with a grain of salt, I certainly agree, and that is what I was trying to tell you with respect to Walbrook. So, go ahead and review what I did, but I expect you to consider carefully why I made a change before reverting it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that you are going to get musicologists to agree on the exact distinction between the baby-talk terms "oom-cha-cha" and "oom-pa-pa". I think that the second term is far better known among English-speakers, and so it will be more meaningful to our readers. I don't think technical accuracy is as important as presenting concepts in a way that the general encyclopedia reader can understand. If something makes your head hurt, that is a good indication that the readers won't understand it, and we should simplify. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a great image, but can you put an image from an authorized production at the top of the article, and move the new image down a bit? Also, it seems to me that some of the images in the article are oversize, and when we get to working on the article, we will get MOS comments on that, so why don't you downsize them now to what you think is appropriate, just to get a jump on things. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I go and support your prints, will you cease? The question is, are you trying to make an art that is like those prints? If so, it is tiresome. -- carol (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shoemaker, I'm not very happy with the image description there, which draws attention to itself. In my opinion, the issue is not the frame but the fact that the photo would possibly be copyright in the UK. This is true of the other version and of several other images on the page, by the way. The only safe solution, it seems to me, is to upload a copy direct to Wikipedia, where UK copyright is deemed irrelevant for such images. qp10qp (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: We cannot use the picture with the frame because then the image is of a 3-D work of art, which is apparently not allowed. Removing the frame makes it a derivative work of art, which apparently we cannot use, either (at least on commons). Awadewit (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of the frame is irrelevant for Commons, because the whole photograph is, in principle, copyrighted in Britain. But it is an issue on Wikipedia because the Bridgeman-Corel precedent does not cover photos of three-dimensional objects. So the way for us to be safe is to have a frameless photo uploaded here on Wikipedia. Derivations of free art, as covered by Bridgemen-Corel, are allowed, I believe; an image out of copyright in the USA can be chopped about, coloured, etc. because no one has the rights to it. My effort is below: comments welcome, Paint Shop Pro (I know, sorry) at the ready. qp10qp (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help and review, by the way. I might indeed reupload this one to Wikipedia, with different wording. But I am waiting to see whether it is worth doing this with the other images. For the moment, I have reuploaded the Claire Clairmont image to Wikipedia and put the Commons one up for deletion as a stalking horse, here, to see what happens. If it is deleted, as I think it probably should be if the rules are followed to the tedious and rather, in my opinion, unnecessary letter, then the die is cast. qp10qp (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you get that smooth oval? I've just done an oval of the coloured one, but the edge is a little pixelated. The ideal, which I'm working on, is an oval, no frame, uploaded on Wikipedia. qp10qp (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps instead of reverting wholesale Carol's edits, you could instead tease out the copyvio by hand. I realize it's a difficult task and there's a lot of material, but in the process of reverting back to before she edited, you're recreating legitimate problems she did correct and efforts other editors have undertaken to improve the articles since she edited it. For example at clementine, you reverted (diff) the nutrition infobox that I had taken the care to include. Please be more careful when reverting edits that were so long ago in the edit history. Cheers, Rkitko(talk)02:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really possible, I'm afraid: I think it's more-or-less all copyvio. Certainly other work by her frm that period was, and everything I checked of that version. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly possible to rescue at least some of her articles. It is always practical to stubbify a biography, as I just did with Thore Christian Elias Fries]].DGG (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is an example of an article that has much more traffic than one of the lesser-known plant stubs where it's easy to revert beyond her edits or completely delete and recreate as a stub. Carol first edited clementine in November 2007 and began to expand it in December 2007. I agree removing her copyright violations without rewriting yourself is the best option in the face of so many copyvio articles. But I disagree that simply reverting to a stable edit beyond her first one is the best answer in this case. You've wiped out the good faith edits of other editors that had nothing to do with Carol's copyvio. Over a hundred edits (many of them vandalism, but the point stands) occurred since Carol first started editing that article. Remove her contributions, fine, but I think reverting past her first edit on a page that's been edited so much is the easy answer but wrong solution. --Rkitko(talk)12:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, please be careful about this. Also I need to make it clear that my list consists only of articles Carol started. --Blechnic (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted at the top of the talk page, I left the ones on Senecio's with change of name due to possible taxonomic problems, please don't strike through these, as it's an attempt to let the plant editors know where the problems are, and striking them out will remove them from an alert issue. --Blechnic (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS just the change of species ones, and thanks for doing the last part. I did the virus, Carol didn't write it correctly. --Blechnic (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, it is a serious mistake to remove the qualitative information about G&S recordings. The G&S Discography is the most authoritative source for that information in the world, and we need to establish its credentials in order for all of our articles to be able to use it. See my responses to Sandy and add any relevant information that you know that can shore up the argument. I really think this will be quite important to the whole project. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to have a look later, but my wiki time for the week is about spent (Saturday morning I'll have more time for caeful browsing). My point was that it might be better over the long term to just let her fix her own mess, rather than reducing things to stubs. It's quite unlikely that the lawyers will be suing tomorrow (or within a month, or (realistically) ever), and it's a lot of work for her to do. She can do it though, and she will do it if given half a chance. That proposal might be read by someone with a certain neurotype to read: "let's wipe out any trace of Carol's efforts, because any effort of hers should be suspected." --SB_Johnny | talk19:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I beefed up your description of Broude a bit. I hope you don't mind - I didn't want to add a confusing extra message there. Feel free to fix further, etc. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to as many of the FA comments by Maria as I could. I think there is one that needs your attention, and see if you have changes to what I did. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the Discography, I slimmed down a little bit of your language and added a few things that I think are helpful. I also moved one paragraph around. Please take a look at your convenience and send me thoughts, perhaps by e-mail if you want to discuss. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made a rather minor further edit where two things were lumped together that do not belong together. I guess I am satisfied with it, although it seems obvious to me that the bullet point about Opera News should be combined with the bullet point that starts "Other specialist sources...." Good job. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Shoe, I saw that you re-added the Gänzl quote in the lead with the edit summary "I like this quote, and it appears nowhere else". The thing is, as I noted at the FAC, is that something that appears in the lead but not in the body of the article violates WP:LEAD. Quotes are tricky in the lead for that very reason, unless of course the quote is somehow notable. Since the sentiment (the opera's popularity) is made clear, I don't think it's necessary. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter, however. María(habla conmigo) 12:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strike that, my mistake. Ssilvers moved the quote from the lead to the "Production and aftermath" section, so it does obviously appear elsewhere. Do you still want it in the lead? María(habla conmigo) 12:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about Signpost, I just write articles. Please let me know, when it is done (not now), how we can use the Signpost publication to help us in the future, and how I can find the information in the future. I'll put a link on my userpage, I guess. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I agree with what you did, but if Sandy agrees with you, that's fine. Otherwise, let's discuss by e-mail. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I spent a whole day on the research for the Discography defense, and part of another on dealing with it, and it has caused me a lot of stress at work. What is going on? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message. I don't have time any more to edit the G&S articles regularly, but if I see something that I can correct quickly, well.... I appreciate all you've done in this area. Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only other thing that still doesn't seem to be working quite right is the big fat table on the assessment page that expands from {{Grading scheme}}. It shows the C-class when you click it here, but it does not show it on our Assessment page (unless, by some miracle, it fixes itself overnight). Thanks for your help on this! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. You fixed it! Also, only four of the C-class articles are still showing up as "unassessed", but it looks like that is resolving itself. As I suspected, after I had finished re-assessing last night, most of our articles are C-class. That means, generally, that either they are incomplete but have some in-line referencing, or they are pretty complete but lack in-line referencing. Anything that is still B-class is, IMO, a pretty good article, materially complete with some good research indicated. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For your hard work, excellent research and collaborative spirit in improving Trial by Jury first to GA level and then to a Featured Article, I hereby award you this Gilbert and Sullivan Barnstar. This was the Gilbert and Sullivan Project's first FA-class opera article, and, as such, its improvement has been extremely important to the project. You have been the driving force in making this article into one of Wikipedia's finest articles. Congratulations! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider reformatting your views so they don't appear multiple times in the TOC? There are 3 "view by Shoe" in a row in some places. I think how Celandor did it... he gave one heading, then multiple sections which are gettting endorsed independently, works better... Just a suggestion. Best. ++Lar: t/c15:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should read my comment on the talk page. BLPSE is an enforcement provision (I don't know where the idea that it's a policy or a howto or whatever came from). As such it isn't editable. It's been passed by the arbitration committee and if you want it changed appeal it to the Committee or to Jimmy Wales. --Jenny00:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to homeopathy, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. User DanaUllman (talk·contribs) has been banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)23:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, SMH. Thought I'd drop you a note about some recent happenings at OmbCom, here. Would very much enjoy to hear your opinions. Bstone (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Shoemaker's Holiday. Per your request, I am letting you know that the formal proposal for the Ombudsmen Committee is up for discussion at the Village Pump here. I hope you'll read it over and leave your opinion. Thanks! Bstone (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There have been numerous proposals that got a majority of support, and no other Wikipedia process or vote attempts to judge based on total number of people looking at the page.[1]
To pick an example out of the air, WP:AFD discussions do that. As there aren't any other reasons to edit the page except to express support or opposition to proposals, I don't see the problem.
In this instance, if 150 people have chosen to look at the proposals and make at least one edit, and only 20 or so of those have supported a given proposal, it's not possble to say that there is community consensus for that proposal (those 20 people obviously cannot be more representative of the community than the 130 who have not supported it and possibly didn't even read it).
The solution is to wait longer and see if things change. Another way of interpreting it, which I think is more helpful, is to examine the proposals with most aggregate support, and take them as indicators of areas of greatest concern. This is what I did in selecting the two proposals with more than 30 net endorsements. --Jenny03:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I'm a bit surprised you reverted the stub! An article only needs one. Did you realize that I didn't change the cats? On the Opera Project we try not to revert each other's edits without some explanation. When we discussed this on the project page I don't think we were in disagreement! --Kleinzach04:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like your new material in the Sullivan article. I trimmed it a tiny bit, but I don't think it's too much. Obviously, anything that you added and that is not already in the G&S article should be added there too. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marc added back in the Topsy-Turvy reference. I don't feel strongly, since we have the other refs. Why don't you discuss it with Marc, and point out that it is hard to find a good ref. for it plot points in the film. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Shoemaker's Holiday. You have new messages at Zginder's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Mitchazenia would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Mitchazenia to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shoemaker's Holiday . If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
Hey ... I'm glad to see you came back. Once the idiotic arbcom-mandated six months is up, you will have my support (not that it really means much of anything) if you try another RFA. --B (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't bear grudges; you are a net benefit to the project. One glitch should not shut you out forever, in my view, but I believe your RfA, however well-merited otherwise, was a touch premature. Sadly, people have long memories here and it takes a long time for the water to flow under the bridge. That's unfortunate, and I look forward to supporting your next RfA. --Rodhullandemu01:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see I've been beaten here. I know you weren't keen to approach ArbCom, but I feel this needs to be clarified - as a general point as well as for your individual case. As it asks to list those "affected" it seemed to me I had to add your name there. WjBscribe03:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. I am still keeping an eye on progress, but I've given you enough to do there, & don't wish to add to the burden at present. The main issue, when you come to it, is whether to split, or to go for a possibly 9-to-10,000 word article. I've left a comment about that on the review page. Incidentally, I've learned more about Gilbert and Sullivan through this article, and through my earlier review involvement with Trial by Jury, than through any other source. It used to be just something that my dad was interested in, but now I'm beginning to understand why. Good luck with the article. Brianboulton (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, can I ask for your help, briefly, on a non-Sullivan matter? One of my general Wikipedia aims is the extension and upgrading of classical music and opera-related articles generally - hence my interest in your G & S projects. I have been doing a few Mozart things recently, including a full annotated list of Mozart's 22 operas which is now at FLC. Unfortunately, it has received very little interest there. It needs some comment from people with a broad interest in the subject, and a feel for opera. If you could spare a few moments to look at it, and preferably leave a comment, I'd be most grateful. Comments from anyone else in your project would of course be equally welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. The policy is to keep the list simple; plot summaries are included with each opera article, available via links. Brianboulton (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 15 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bamboo textiles, 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.
I saw your post on my talk page. I typed up a long response; then remembered that my talk page was linked from Wikipedia Review today, and thought better of posting it. By the way, if the fifth paragraph of your related original post is true, the process was not completely done. You can check the evidence of this for yourself now if you wish.
I'm sorry you feel backed into a corner. Honesty may indeed be a good path to a future community RFA, but I certainly wouldn't want to go through it in your shoes - especially not anytime soon with some of the current factional fighting. GRBerry00:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is your opinion about the two amateur performances? Marc removed them, but I think they are worth mentioning. Would you read the recent discussion and weigh in, either way? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the Mozart list comments (italicised, below) that you left on my talk page. I am sorry for the delay in responding, but my attention has been elsewhere, temporarily. (The comments were unsigned, but I tracked you down)
1. I'd integrate at least some of the footnoted comments into the text
I have had other comments about the length of the text, which is already longer and possibly more detailed than with most lists. I do not think it should be extended further.
2. the footnotes give an illusion of referencing, however, I don't think any opera in the list itself is actually fully referenced. You need at least one reference per row, that covers the entire row (it may contain several sources, and you can use the same ref over and over, but you'll die at FLC if you don't)
Most of the footnotes include a reference to a source (I have added more, recently) so it's not quite an "illusion". I am stil working on this. I have looked at many Featured Lists of one kind or another. Some have no citations at all in the body of the list, others are full of them. Some have a column headed "References", with citations for each line included in this column. There seems to be no standard way of doing it. I am in favour of methods that do not smother the table with reference numbers unnecessary. For example, if the performance details for all the operas have been taken from Osborne's book, a single citation to this effect in the "First performance details" column heading should suffice. I am continuing to work on this
3. One footnote, "1964 revision K. 424a", is probably significant and should be noted in the article proper.
It's no more significant than the other five opera K numbers that were changed in the 1964 Kochel catalogue revision. All six are noted, and are now cited to the on-line Kochel catalogue.
4. The prose is possibly a bit too scholarly. While keeping all the information, see if you can tone it down to a level where, say, a 16 year old writing a paper on Mozart would find it easy to use.
Hey Shoemaker, sometime ago at PPR, you commented on my image of a plantain flower and advised me to nominate the image at FPC. The image is now up for vote at Musa x paradisiaca flower. Do you think you could vote for it there? Thanks, Muhammad(talk)18:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
just saw your comment at FRINGE... thanks! (I don't think it has as chance of happening, sadly, but that's the strongest guideline support I can think of.) ThuranX (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slp1 and I have now put Learned Hand up for peer review, prior to a submission for FAC. I know you have been involved in the project, so if you have any comments, please get stuck in. All the best. qp10qp (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2008 (UT
Can you also reformat the bottom image to a better location, not hitting a crossbar, but within the section? Good size on the one you changed. Is there a WP guideline on image formatting that you can link me to so I can do this in the future? --Blechnic (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm have you considered a Peer Review? That's probably better if you're not interested in getting any status for it. Besides, more editors can input that way, and the feedback may well be better that way how do you turn this on00:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(I'll just loan this header.) I can try to answer a few questions myself, but I am by far not the most active or knowing member here, compared to others, i.e. Briangotts over me. –HoltT•C16:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Briangotts (talk·contribs); I began the project and maintain the project's homepage (updating article requests and the like). I also attempt to sort the tagged articles by class and importance, and improve important articles by sourcing, etc.
The project is designed to organize efforts relating to improving articles on Norse history and culture, as well as providing a place for people to discuss relevant issues (such as uniform transliteration, presentation of conflicting sources).
What recent achievements of this project are you most proud of?
The scope of your project is rather broad, covering not just the history of Viking period, but back to the Nordic Bronze Age and forward to the High Middle Ages, after the conversion of the Norse to Christianity, and then it adds Norse mythology, and literature as well. In addition, as the Norse had such a major effect on Europe in the Viking Age, the project's remit gets stretched even further, to places and people affected by the raiding Vikings. How does having such a broad remit affect the project's organisation?
I think it allows members to focus on areas of particular interest to them. For example, User:Berig's special area of interest is the study of runestones and Norse sagas. User:Grimhelm and User:Berig tend to focus more on viking interaction with the east, particularly in early Russia. User:Leifern is a Norway-specialist, and User:Haukurth appears more oriented to Iceland. There's room for a very broad array of interests in the project.
One thing I've noticed during my time on Wikipedia is the really wonderful depth of coverage for Norse mythology and culture here, at least in the Viking age. Though some of the articles are fairly short, and many could use more referencing, even the shortest article seems to be inevitably well-written and informative. Can you tell us about some of your working methods?
I think this is a function of the excellent and intelligent people who work on the articles. I'm not sure that there is any one "working method" used by the project members. I generally get started on an article and then notify people who I think will be interested in working on it (both on the project talk and on user talk pages); we then collaborate on improving and expanding as we're able.
You also have eight featured articles and twenty good articles [At least, according to your front page - just edit and correct this if that's wrong]. Are there any current drives for more such content?
In my humble opinion, it is a bit short. Normally, each question should have an answer that exceeds more than 2 sentences. When people read interviews, they want to know MORE than just a basic summary that they could find on the project's main page. OhanaUnitedTalk page16:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm a newbie, but i think I'm supposed to place this here. Let me see if I can get this right...So, I noticed that my addition to the NAET article was reverted due to advertisement spam. Could you explain your view point on this to me? I looked it up on [Wikipedia:Spam], but still feel a little confused. I was trying to see it from an advertising point of view, and looked in the talk pages. after doing this, I realized that I definitely should not have completely deleted the stub, although I did use bits of it. But I digress. In writing the article, I tried very hard to be as unbiased as possible-I myself am a fence sitter peoplewhen it comes to NAET in a family of pro-NAET(but I still might have gone a little pro-naet in the article.) The first section of the article explains how NAET defines itself, but I did try to use non-naet affiliated sources when discussing The Debate and the alternatives. I also feel that my addition had a lot of relevant, verifyable information, and that it could be spot edited to make it a good article, (although I'm sure it has many mistakes right now-it's my first article.) Could you help me understand the "reverted edit...advertisement spam?" thing? Thanks. Jediskywalker (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/WikiProject report is a problem (see my comments on talk, and they only scratch the surface). I asked Rudget what he wanted to do with it, and he replied that it could be moved, just before protecting his talk page (I don't speak French), so I can't dialogue further. It's currently linked from the Signpost (see the last line), so it really should be moved somewhere until you sort out what to do with it. It looks like you're in charge of the WikiProject Report now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue there is one of overstating the case vis-a-vis what that Project has tagged and what it has produced. Editorial control over the content of the interview needs to be exercised, as the current article is really pushing limits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe you can go ahead and move that to a temp page, and clear the redirect, since it's linked now at the bottom of your most recent Project Signpost report. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Real deadline ??? ROFL ... that's the other reason you get paid the big bucks :-) You ruin every family weekend, making sure you have something ready for 17:00 UTC on Monday, and then it runs five days late :-) Pop up a link by Monday at 17:00 UTC, and then assume you have at least three more days to work on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin, but the problem is the page you were trying to move it to. Ok, so now:
I just queried a bunch of people today about their membership in the project. I will go through the FCs and GAs and see who thinks they are a member. I know Teemu08 (talk·contribs) who signed up today has produced lots of content for the project. I just saw the talk page moments ago while trying to track down who to talk to.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the number of respondents to our membership survey, we have begun seeking people who will nominate themselves for specific responsibilities to make the project run more smoothly and to get other people involved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, those types of portals aren't really showcasing mainspace article content but rather indices of other places in Wikipedia and thus more of an internal page. I generally don't have much experience with those sorts of things, but the person that is better at that than me is RichardF (talk·contribs), and I'd suggest asking him for help. Feel free to keep me updated. Good luck! Cirt (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully I disagree. Perhaps if the portal were simply about "Sounds" or "Media", or "Audio", or something of that nature, but "Featured sounds" clearly has the connotation (and the intention) of a page which is internal to the project itself. Cirt (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I think we are starting to go in circles here. Perhaps you should bring up your idea on the talk page of WP:FPORTC - though I think others will probably share my viewpoint. It really is an internal-Wikipedia page. It is fine to want to improve it (and RichardF (talk·contribs) is good at that), but it would be inappropriate for it to be a WP:FPORT itself. Cirt (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This week, I suggested here that the Olympics WikiProject should be featured. I see that you have done some of the ones in the past, and so I was wondering if you'd be willing to do this week's on WP:OLY? I'm sure I or any of the other regulars would be willing to give you the information you need. Jared(t)00:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had never heard of the song, but it has a very funny lyrics. I don't know how to translate the subtle tone to English, but well, here are the first passage of it.
My brother is a street musician, well, he is a meanie, pish (pshaw)!
I dont' know, I don't knooow, he snatches off my banchan (small side dishes), I don't knooow.
Bulgogi, tteokbokki he soley takes, but gives me oiji (오이지, heavily salted cucumber pickle) and kongnamul - (note:he takes delicious food, but gives her sister vegetables)
My brother is a grabber, my brother is a meanie, my brother is a crafty rascal.
(Or My brother is a pig, m brother is a dog, my brother is a shark)
My brother is a nitpicker, well, my brother is a meanie, pish
I hate, I hate, he steals a glance at my letters, I hate it
When he goes to Myeongchijwa (old theatre once located in Myeongdong, Seoul), he goes alone, when he is on an errand, he scamps over it.
My brother is a poor excuser, My brother is a hasty-pants, My brother is a nitpicker.
This is the last verse.
My brother is a drunkard, well, my brother is a bibber, pish
I don't know, I don't knooow, why he is druken till late night, I don't know
He is always late at work, but irritiable that his monthly salary does not get raised
My brother always get peevish, My brother is a bibber, My brother is fibber (or braggart)
Congratulations! Your hard working is finally rewarded. Good job on clarifying "South Korean copyright law", so I really appreciate your contributions. Keep up the good work! --Caspian blue (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm just back. Do you object to my removing the second quote from the Bond book in the blue box? It seems really just self-serving on her part, and I don't see that it adds anything to the article. It's also in a part of the article that is crowded with lots of images. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is to leave you a note about Samuel Johnson. As per this, I trimmed out 3k worth of text and then added in 9.5k worth of text in terms of elaborations of plots/subjects of works, influence on contemporary works, more detailed explanation of biographies, added a section on his influence on criticism and response, and organizations/celebrations based around his character. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you like the photo! Thanks for the nomination! I do have a larger image that I could upload to the commons. That might help some of the concerns. Though I'm not sure how to address the concerns about the look of the water -- apparently, they've never seen how polluted our rivers are,... ;-) The Allegheny isn't quite as bad as the Mon, but I wouldn't swim in either one if I were you,... ;-) Dr. Cash (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want critical commentary on Back to Methuselah before submitting it for peer review. It is still classified as "Stub", although it no longer is. I've looked for illustrative pictures but found none of interest.
Please respond to this on my user page and tell me where you wish future communications to be placed.Wugo (talk) 03:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why we need this article in addition to Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan. Isn't it better to steer people to one common article who are interested in the cultural influence of G&S operas and songs? I it would be better help readers to understand the overall impact and legacy of G&S rather than to break down that influence show by show. I suggest that we merge the article into Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan. Let me know if you object? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good start. I agree that the musical theatre project could cover it. What was the music like? Not operatic, I take it? Can you put up a list of the musical numbers? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I could be wrong, but Dibdin and Bickestaff's stuff general seems ot be classified as ballad opera - I suspect this is always something of an after the fact classification, rather than what they would have been called at the time. The Grove article on Dibdin certainly refers to it as an opera. David Underdown (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to get the sound to format in the picture slot of dyk here. Can you help? It won't float right as required. We need to triple check this as it cannot hazard the main page Victuallers (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is my understanding that Shoemaker's Holiday is probably the first person to have a sound featured in the DYK position on the main page. Well done. Victuallers (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of early recorded opera singers (who died before 1938)
Here is my list. I've put the more famous singers in bold (though all of them are important in their own way). If you dip into the articles you will see that some of them are substantial. Anyway here is the list:
People will be curious to know what she sounded like, but a solo may be best . . . but some questions: where do you usually find recordings? Do you take them off CDs? If so, does is the sound restoration done by the CD company put the recording back under copyright? Or do you get the recordings off the net? --Kleinzach04:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I understand, let me ask you again: does the sound restoration done by the CD company, say by Ward Marston or someone similar, put the recording back under copyright? --Kleinzach07:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is famous. It was recorded in New York on 24 March 1907 (Victor C4326 95200 [3]). I'd advise against cleaning it up too much as it will take the bloom off Caruso. Of course there's a lot more of him than her. Her 1906 recording of 'Mi chiamino Mimi' would show off her voice better. Request: can we try to get the capitalization correct (see title above)? We take a lot of care with this on articles. (We have checklists of correct titles etc. e.g. The opera corpus). --Kleinzach05:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If what you say is true, then an awful lot of recordings on the commercial market are copyvios, and I don't think that is the case. If the 50-year rule was repealed, I seem to have missed it. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I told the other person preventing decluttering of this article, if you want to create an article about the evolutionary theory, go ahead. (I don't know enough to do so.) But it doesn't belong in the article, which is about the character or character-type. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
The situation seems resolved - for now anyway - but if you have a concern feel free to drop a message on my talk page, but please include a diff if you think there has been a violation.
The 5,000th article is now up, but I've been having my doubts about the interview. For the present, I'd prefer to concentrate on some other ideas. Of course some other members of the project may still be interested in doing it. Best. --Kleinzach00:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there SH, I was flicking through the wikiproject reports that I did earlier this year (and latter half of last year, I think?) and was wondering how it was getting on now, but can't find a trace anywhere. Has it been abandoned? Caulde20:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I've also been having some difficulty with it. For some pieces, it only plays the first small bit of the recording and then stops. Vassyana (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the title of the recording, but why say "The Mikado" twice? It's already in the title, so it doesn't need to be in the caption below. Can't we can streamline the caption underneath as I had it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that makes sense. Let's move forward with Pinafore. I've gone thru Ainger and Bradley. I'll do Allen. Can you do Jacobs and Stedman? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
General question about these old recordings (Sullivan's speech; Mikado): When I listen to them, there is a terrible echo. In the case of The Mikado, the echo comes after about 10 seconds and competes with the first iteration just as if you played a recording and then started it on a second player about 10 seconds after the first one. In the case of Mikado, this resolves after a couple of minutes so that the end of the recording is easier to hear. But the Sullivan one has the terrible echo throughout and is unintelligible to me. Is that the way it's supposed to sound? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting idea, but there are problems in recording as far as many of the artists are concerned (because of their existing recording contracts). But we might try a a part of the Holywell Ensemble's concert (if I get their permission) or maybe better still one of the pieces from Tomasz Kamieniak's recital of virtuoso 19th century pieces (see programme). --Smerus (talk) 06:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind, but I refactored my little mistake when I changed my vote to support. And yeah, I watched that whole guideline/policy discussion, there were good arguments on both sides. But with some of the things Jimbo and others have said, as well as my own views on Civility on Wikipedia, I have to come down on the side of a strongly worded policy. You have no idea how much and how many times I've held my tongue from erupting in fire and brimstone ..... but that's one of the things that makes Wikipedia appealing to me, the standard of civility. Although I'm very good at flame wars, I find Civility far more satisfying and challenging. :) Dreadstar†06:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Shoemaker's Holiday. You have new messages at Kleinzach's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
It is best to have 2 because I do not want the number to change from 3 to 2 or to 1 someday especially when we running out of noted arias. Since we have started with 2, we have to keep it that way every month. However, from now onwards, I will update the portal every 2 months, not every month like before. We could use "Manon! avez-vous peur...On l'appelle Manon" for next update. Just make sure you have ample of noted arias. - Jay (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to have 2 Puccini's arias for December, rather than couple it with others, but if you couldnt get 2 Puccini's, then we can do as what you suggested. - Jay (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. It certainly is a fine performance. It's good to see a sound get recognised. What's wrong with using the template with huge sets of sound files? I didn't notice anything strange with my screen reader. I vastly prefer it to being hit with eleven templates though. Graham8702:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks. Sorry you were sick. Just one question. There is a red link for a fourth file. Do we need to remove the red link or what? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 3 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frog Legs Rag, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for entering the contest. I noticed that you picked two lists that fall under "Art, Architecture, and Technology". Per the rules, you are only allowed to work on one list per topic, so you will need to change one of them. -- Scorpion042222:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to add "literature and theatre" to the under-represented ones, because we could certainly use more lists in that category and I'm not going to discourage you if you want to work on such a list. -- Scorpion042222:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the second list, you are re allowed to have worked on articles in the topic. However, if you nominated any FLs in that topic, then you will need to pick a new one. -- Scorpion042222:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I strong disagree. The word skeptic implies that scientists ignore the magic of thinks like Paranormal beliefs. I contend that it's a POV term, since the real skeptics are those who deny science. These POV pushers should be known as denialists, similar to Global warming, AIDS, Evolution, and other denialists. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions22:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done! I put the ref in for one of the tagged sentences, and deleted the other sentence (it was pretty trivial anyway), so as far as I can tell there are no more tags in the article. Thank you in advance for taking the time to review it! —Politizer( talk • contribs )01:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you again, but I was just wondering: now that I have removed the problematic tags, should I remove the "on hold" message from this article's entry at WP:GAN and put it back in line for a review, or are you planning on doing the review? (I don't mean to sound as if I'm rushing you; I just haven't nominated an article for GA before and want to make sure there's not any procedure I'm missing.) Thanks again, —Politizer( talk • contribs )03:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saw your request for extension, and I am inclined to agree. One question, though: can you say that you think SA's behaviour has improved significantly more or less than Martin's? To some extent, I think it has improved more, but is it enough better?
I have a hard time judging these things, because I think that SA's behaviour problems are less serious than MartinPhi's in the first place, so I'm inclined to give him a pass when I probably shouldn't.—Kww(talk) 03:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw the discussion on the El Cid sound file (Pleurez, pleurez, mes yeux) which inspired me to write an article on this fascinating lady! It's about half done. I'll let you know when it goes on Wikipedia, probably tomorrow sometime. I can't help with nominations because I haven't got ogg, but at least I can do this. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your take is different than mine; but I consider the evidence that Johnson is carelessly researched far more important. It would have been sent back for reworking and renomination weeks ago if it were any of the articles for which Sandy closes; if the nominators do this, I will look over the nominated text for flaws. If I find less than half-a-dozen, and a random sample of the footnotes seem sound, I will support. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has suggested to me that I should approach you about the possibilty of adding musical sound clips to the article Rhinemaidens which I am currently developing. I know nothing of this procedure. I imagine there to be copyright restrictions on uploading recordings - is there a way round these, an equivalent to image FU? Are there further technical I would need to resolve? A few words of advice might help me to decide whether it's worth pursuing this idea. I would be most grateful for your assistance here. Brianboulton (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks indeed for your prompt and helpful reply to my request - I should, of course, have specified that it was Das Rheingold excerpts I was seeking. The one you have found is Wotan's soliloquy "Abendlicht strahlt der Sonne Auge", which unfortunately is not related to the Rhinemaidens, and wouldn't be appropriate to add to my article. So it looks as though I may be out of luck here. But I do appreciate your willingness to help. Brianboulton (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your offer to review the article Sinhala alphabet. I have replied to your questions on the talk page. For convenience, I copy the reply here as well.
I guess I am the main editor of this article, so here my reply. The font support for Sinhala is clearly suboptimal, and I guess most people will not have the necessary fonts installed, let alone rendering support. This is why all the tables have a *png-version, for which you do not need the fonts. You can click on the link on the bottom of the tables to see them. The content is thus accessible to anyone, whether they have the fonts installed or not. All tables combined give you a complete overview over the independent glyphs. Making the image version the default would make the article visually more pleasing to most of the public, but might annoy people who do have the fonts installed. Any opinions on whether to prefer unicode, png, or a combination of both?
The archaic Sinhala numeral system mentioned above is so incredibly archaic that it is not mentioned in any Sinhala grammar or article I am aware of. The referenced webpage is the only source, so I am not sure if this would even pass WP:V and should be included. Any more material on the numerals would probably be OR.
There is an external link to the entire Sinhala alphabet (600+ glyphs). Given the size of the alphabet, I am not sure whether the full text should be included inline, but I could make a similar table to store on WP itself. Not sure though whether this would make any difference to the reader, they might just as well click the external link. Jasy jatere (talk) 08:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
3.png)
_09633u.jpg)
.png)
