User talk:Tom Reedy/Archive 3

park this here for right now

Giles Edwin Dawson (4 March 1903 – 26 August 1994) was a 20th century Shakespearean scholar, paleographer, and librarian.

Life

Born in Columbus, Ohio, the son of noted American ornithologist William Leon Dawson and Frances Etta Akerman. Dawson graduated from Oberlin College in 1925 and went on to earn an MA and PhD from Cornell University. He served on the faculty of the University of North Dakota and the Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland before joining the Folger Shakespeare Library as a reference librarian in 1932.

Dawson served in the U. S. Navy in World War II. From 1946 until his retirement in 1967, he was the curator of books and manuscripts for the Folger. He was a member of the Catholic University faculty from 1935 to 1972, lecturing to graduate students until 1967. He also taught at Howard University from 1975 to 1977. From 1984 until May 1994, he volunteered as the rare-book librarian for the Washington National Cathedral.

Family

Dawson married Margaret Williams in 1926. they had two children. She died in 1957. Two years later he married Margaret White, with whom he had three children.

Role in Ashbourne portrait controversy detailed William Pressly,The Ashbourne Portrait, Folger Shakespeare Library here]

Hand D article

Major works

Four Centuries of Shakespeare Publication, Lawrence, Kansas, University of Kansas Press, 1964, LIC#64-64798

Elizabethan Handwriting, 1500-1650: A Guide to the Reading of Documents

Elizabethan handwriting, 1500-1650; a manual with Laetitia Kennedy-Skipton. W. W. Norton and Company, 1966.

Life of William Shakespeare

Draft2

FYI: I am still watching Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox draft2 so noticed your edits, but haven't looked at exactly what's happening. No problem if it's just an experiment, but before doing too much work (and particularly before anyone else joins in), please contemplate the copying within Wikipedia procedure. I believe that if just you work on a draft somewhere, then later paste it into an article, that's ok because the history of the article will accurately show that you are responsible for the change. However, if anyone else edits the draft, things get tricky. Another possibility is a history merge, as happened before, but that is made more messy by the fact that draft2 had a previous use. BTW, when the other article was copied in to the draft (diff), the edit summary should have included a link to the source, something like "copy from Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship for sandbox editing". Johnuniq (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. So far it doesn't look like anybody other than myself is going to do any work there. If they do I'll chase them away! Probably I'll just work out edits and see what they look like and maybe drop in a rewording or a section or more likely a reorganization. And should I move the page to give it another name? Tom Reedy (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think moving the page would help as the result would have the old history—there's not much old history because the previous draft2 was history merged into the SAQ article, but it slightly complicates issues. If you think it might go on for a while, why not make a user subpage (with an edit summary like my above suggestion), and work there (and then undo your changes at draft2)? If wanted, you could invite others to participate (or they might anyway). There is only an issue if others join in, so if you are just experimenting for a week or two more it probably does not matter. Johnuniq (talk) 02:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll do so if I can figure out how to make a user subpage. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Sir Thomas More (play), you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Methuen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am hereby socking you

	For unraveling my knitwitted efforts
	Keep up the appearances; your work is appreciated :) Thanks for your help and best wishes! Knitwitted (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, Tom. It looks like heavydute laundering tonight. She's falsestaffed you, ramming you (!) with socks. I'm sure foul shirts and smocks, foul stockings and greasy napkins will shortly follow.Nishidani (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Website

Good evening, Tom Reedy. A few minutes ago you undid a new source in an article on a theory which as such is in contradiction to your beliefs. Well, you obviously think you have a vested right to revert all such things in articles broadly connected with WS, and to make sure that they are not introduced again. However, I am quite certain that some people had already seen the questionable website before you undid what one of the users (maybe she is a lady) wanted to introduce into the article in question. Good luck, --Zbrnajsem (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

I don't want to eliminate the interesting section you added to the Spelling article, but it seems rather tangental to the subject (spelling as such isn't even mentioned in it). I wonder if it would be better to create a new article on S's signatures, which would allow for expansion of the discussion of the history of their discovery; forgeries; disputed cases etc. Paul B (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah hell you're right! I glanced over the article last night and thought to add the 7th signature but for some reason it didn't register that the spelling was the main topic! I'm busy working on a couple of other articles, so if you want to begin one about the signatures go ahead and I'll chime in by-and-by (or is it spelled "bye-and-bye"?). Tom Reedy (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created one on William Shakespeare's handwriting. I called it that rather than "signatures" to allow for inclusion of discussion of orthographic evidence for Sir Thomas More and possibly a bit on the Ireland forgeries, and maybe other fakes or disputed manuscripts. At the moment is kind of stops in 1916, so more recent scholarship is required to beef it up. Paul B (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do whenever I get time. My priorities right now are the quarto page and the More page. A lot of the More material will crossover to the handwriting page. Strangely I usually get less done on the weekend than I do during the week! Tom Reedy (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of Shakespeare plays in quarto (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to John Fletcher

Sir Thomas More (play) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Lombard

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!!

100px	Holiday Cheer
	From somebody who actually gives a sh*t. Best, Knitwitted (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but who's on the receiving end?:-) Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is not my sorrow deep, having no bottom? Knitwitted (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As another Bottom would say to congeners, man is butt an ass.Nishidani (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "man" being the operative word. :) Knitwitted (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The neutered form, substantively, is rarely 'operative', having been operated on, and disactivated of sex.:-( Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a shirt to give? How Christmasy spirit is that? Tom Reedy (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would've given you another sock but someone took away my sockie. :'( Knitwitted (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I will be glad to look at the images - if you want I can also make sor PR type comments on the article itself, though it will take me a few days. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I don't need an exhaustive review, just a sampling. The article isn't finished yet. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed it - bottom line is all the images are free in the US as the original copyright expired and they are faithful photos of two-dimensional free works. I think they should all use the same license - Jappalang is great at knowing which license is best to use and might be a good person to ask before changing all the licenes. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Tom Reedy, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:Tom Reedy.

See a log of files removed today here.
Shut off the bot here.
Report errors here.
If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

	Season's greetings and best wishes for 2012!
	Thanks for all you do here, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hovenden

Yes, it's interesting. It's a pity it's uploaded with all rights reserved. I really wish people would make their photos available. Do they imagine they are somehow going to make money or preserve their artistic integrity by reserving the rights to such snapshot images? I wonder if we can get together a collection of images of similar memorial sculptures. Paul B (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL of the day

As you know, the nefarious triumvirate (TomReady, Nishidanii, PaulBarllow) have been brought to account, and now their ringleader joins them. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/HenryVIIIyes. I guess the others will see this here. Johnuniq (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All good things come in threes. Even socks. Knitwitted (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presley linking

High blood pressure, as you say, is a very familiar condition, while glaucoma is an ordinary dictionary word without exceptional relevance to the article subject--I think it's an easy call not to link either of those. The problem with megacolon and hepatotoxicity is that the source doesn't clearly support those diagnoses--there are multiple etiologies and manifestations of enlarged colon and liver damage, and while your guesses are good, we can't be certain those terms are the ones medical professionals would have used about Presley's case, based on the current sourcing. Regards, DocKino (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed you civilly, and you have responded with unprovoked personal attacks on my Talk page and the article's Talk page. You clearly need to reacquaint yourself with WP:CIVIL. As for the links you desire, your swift resort to an ad hominem argument reflects how weak your case is on the substance. DocKino (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the behavior of DocKino on the Elvis talk page and elsewhere, you should consult this page. See also this edit. Onefortyone (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited John Lyly, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Registrar and William Lily (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Sorry about wrongly accusing you of making a mistake! Mea culpa. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]