User talk:Wrad/Archive 2

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		I award you this Barnstar of High Culture for your great work getting Green Knight to Good Article status.Cúchullain t/c 02:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yay! My first! Wrad 04:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare

Thanks for the talk page message. Yes, I completely agree with you. The article has been promoted from GA class to A class recently: I think due to the good works of the Biography wikiproject. I'd suggest one way forward might be to put a "featured article to-do list" on the article talk page (linked from the project page, of course) with items like:

• review previous peer review and confirm all items dealt with
• check for unsourced statements and remove or source them
• get User:Redrabbit to proofread
• apply for final peer review
• apply for FA status
• open the champagne

etc. etc.

We can then tick these off using {done} tags, until they're all done.

Braveheart picture

As requested, it has been lightened . And no, I am not going to boil the other user in oil for 3RR. He made a mistake. I hope he uses the 2nd chance wisely. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

re: Shakespeare Wikiproject

Thank you for inviting me over to the project. I really appreciate it.--Romeo in love 21:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Hamlet

• WP:AN/I. The place to report problems that need an admin's attention. And thanks for your patience with the guy. You've got more of it than I have. AndyJones 15:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks for the various messages: I don't feel I have much to offer on the "themes of Hamlet" discussion, to be honest. I have put your sub-page on my watchlist, and I'll keep an eye on progress. Excellent work being done at the WS peer review, I think. The only big problem I perceive at the moment is the sources section. I can see lots that can be done quite eaily to improve it, though. I've got a book deadline in the real world this week, so I probably won't be doing any detailed work until maybe Friday. Cheers. AndyJones 20:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Green Knight

I'll add the sources soon, but I probably won't be able to tonight. As for the Malory connection, a page number to whatever edition the quote is from couldn't hurt.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Several. I actually have two where I'm at, I can do it right now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

'Tis done.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare's religion

On 10 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shakespeare's religion, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 01:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ashley Ferl image

I did. Thanks for the message.

P.S. I like your "A picture of me." Haha. hmwith 15:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note

Hello Wrad. I just wanted to drop a line to say thanks for your note. I guess you understood what I was trying to say. The series in question (which I was lucky enough to see as it started while I was in college) just didn't seem to fit in with the other items that were on that page. The productions were all very traditional and became more so when the switch to Eliabethan costuming came along when Jonathon Miller took over as producer. If the criteria for that category changes please feel free to include it. Thanks again and keep up the good work you do here at wikiP. MarnetteD | Talk 20:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

re: Exceptional Newcomer Award

Thanks for the award, Wrad! I just don't know what to say...but thank you!!!!!!!!! :) Romeo in love 15:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

relatebard

Note that on , John Hall links to a disambiguation page, and there's no actual article for the John Hall in question, so you probably should change this to John Hall (1575-1635) or some other appropriate red link. (I think John Hall (Shakespeare's son-in-law) would be a little silly, but it's an alternative.) - Nunh-huh 14:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It actually links to John Hall (physician) I had to do some digging to find it. Wrad 21:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Great! Glad you could track it down.-Nunh-huh 21:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet criticism

I applaud your courage; I spend a lot of time avoiding such difficult topics. I'll do what I can, though--do you want it now or when you make the page go live?

DYK

On 16 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Judith Quiney, 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.

--Carabinieri 09:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet criticism part 2

Hi Wrad--I've poked around a bit, and I feel there should be sources for pretty much everything on your subpage. May I make the following suggestions, though, based on my own sense of the critical traditions:

• If you agree, I'd like to add some stuff about criticism of Hamlet from 1660-1770--in essence to deal with the controversy over the unities, poetic justice, and Hamlet and Ophelia's decorum.
• I'd like to add a bit more articulation to the discussion of Romantic readings of Hamlet, particularly the notable figures from William Hazlitt to Jules Laforgue and Stopford Brooke.

I feel kind of uncomfortable changing your prose, though; how would you prefer I proceed?Jlittlet 20:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I think I misunderstood what you were asking before. OK, that makes sense; I will place my findings parallel to yours but in a separate section...Jlittlet 21:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I put the stuff I've worked up on your subpage (inset with asterisks); do with it as you will! (I'm still working on it, too) Jlittlet 16:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare

I've revised the lead, but we'll probably have to wait a while to see if it's what Ceoil had in mind. I'll also be going to sleep in a bit, but I'll check on the progress of the FAC tomorrow. Thanks for all the work you've put into the article and the FAC process. Best, --Alabamaboy 00:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out the MacBeth reference now. --Alabamaboy 01:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest putting the Shylock info in the influences section. The lead is already getting far too long. Best,--Alabamaboy 01:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. I'm about to add in some of the performance history to the article, per another FAC request. Check it out in a few minutes.--Alabamaboy 01:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

KA project

Jeez, sorry, I must have missed your original post. I think that's a great idea. Let's do it. I want to start by citing all the statements, and probably correcting some of what's there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Mitchell

Wow! That's incredible, I was on the page fixing Mitchell at the moment you fixed Mitchell. Many thanks. AndyJones 15:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• My bad, Michell. Correct on page. AndyJones 15:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What is to be done?

It was my bad, I dare say: I started it all in the first place. I'll take a look and let you know what I think. We'll never get FA status with an unstable page! AndyJones 16:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Oxford

I think your Oxfordian {note} contains a few errors. Maybe remove it and reconsider in a day? I'll have a look at the sources again tomorrow. AndyJones 19:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's late at night depends which time-zone you're in, I suppose and my previous edit may have been unhelpful: what I meant was firstly that it was Looney, not the Ogburns, who first popularised the Oxford idea, and secondly that "While scholars have acknowledged that this theory has a little more backbone than other authorship proposals, the idea has yet to convince the majority of scholars" seems either completely circular, or - looked at another way - to be saying that Oxfordianism is correct but that scholars haven't grasped it yet. AndyJones 20:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely don't think deleting it is the answer. Do you have a ref for the Looney bit? If you do, go ahead and add it. My ref just mentions Ogborn. I'll reword the statement you say is circular(?) It is located in the source I give, though. Wrad 21:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the Looney bit, added a ref, and changed the wording. It was a bit circular. Wrad 21:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"personal attacks"

Wrad please stop removing reasonable criticisms of editors. They are not insults. I don't want crticisms of me to be removed. Saying that an editor's arguments do not make sense is not the same as saying that an editor is a cretin or whatever. IMO, your approach is actually weakening rather than helping debate by censoring important points. Paul B 00:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I've dealt with Smatprt before, and attacks and pointing fingers won't get you anywhere. Stick with the facts. Your opinions about other editors are irrelevant to the discussion. The fact that Smatprt is an oxfordian is irrelevant. What he says is what needs to be debated, not what he is. And that should be done in a civil way. Wrad 00:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The No Personal Attacks policy is clear that critcism of editors's views is legitimate. It lists what are considered to be personal attacks:

Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against disabled people) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.

Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.

Threats of legal action.

Threats of violence, particularly death threats.

Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages.

Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery. Admins applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee of what they have done and why.

None of these apply, even the affiliation clause, since I did not say "you are an Oxfordian, so your ideas are worthless". Indeed I was clear that irrational extremes are to be found in both camps. Paul B 00:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

How about WP:CIVIL? I don't really want to argue this with you. Wrad 01:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Authorship

Wrad, I felt bad about cutting your roman numeral note, which must have taken a good deal of time to construct, but you did say on the FAC page that you wouldn't mind. I believe that the present state of that section is very clean: it contains only citations to good sources, and it has neutral language. I'm pretty sure that it is now of FA standard. Of course, Smatprt may not be happy; but he has won his main battle, which was to keep this section in the article. All the theories are covered in the referenced sources (I've been reading some of them), and so he has won that point too, that some academics do discuss this. The article's credibility is very much refreshed, I think, by no longer having the Delia Bacons, Hoffmans, and Ogburns of this world rubbing shoulders with the likes of Wells and Schoenbaum. qp10qp 05:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, the goal is FA status. But the real goal is a quality article. I'm sorry that Alabamaboy has got fed up, but even if the article fails, being involved in this process on such a difficult article is very worthwhile. The article is improving all the time, and that's the main thing, whether it passes or not this time. By the way, I read your article about Sir Gawain and really enjoyed it. Thanks for that!qp10qp 05:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Although Awadewit, like me, would have preferred to drop the section, she will accept this compromise I am certain. She only required good academic sources in support of those theories so long as the article purported to reference them through bad sources. Now that those theories are referenced to good sources, which all dismiss those theories, the matter is sorted. The section now makes it plain that the theories are not accepted by academics and it quotes academics in support of that.qp10qp 05:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Move

Good move! [1] RedRabbit1983 18:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Rescue from deletion barnstar

Many thanks for the star; I must thank you in return for bringing my attention back to the poor list, albeit in a roundabout way! Cheers :) -- Editor at Large • talk 06:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Review for Elijah

It couldn't hurt.

Seriously, there are a few additions I have been working on and a revision of one section. The perfectionist in me wants to wait. However, asking others for their views is probably a very good idea. It should point out things that we have over looked and it never hurts to have someone else proof read our work. So, go for it. ThomasHartman 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sonnet 18

Wrad:

Is this the right place?

Thanks for your comment. I've done a bit, but more is necessary. I can't get back now for a day or perhaps longer, so feel free... I'd be happy to have any feedback on what I've done. Cheers (gives away my UK domicile) Jlhughes 22:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Booth

Like you, I've been trying to improve some of the refs; but who is "Booth", who is referenced twice? I can't track that one down. Any idea? Cheers. qp10qp 09:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Melchizedek

seeing this article as a result of a request for speedy, it seemed to me --talking now as a non-admin--that they articles may not have been adequately merged, or that there was consensus to merge, so I restored your version.DGG 18:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Apology

Some time ago I have accpeted your invitation to join the Arthurian group. But unfortunately, a heavy workload in my paid job has left me only brief moments for Wikipedia and I was not able to offer any real help in this work. I am sorry about that, since I don't like to assume obligations I can't fulfill, and because i am truly interested in the subject, but this situtation seems likely to continue for some time yet. Good luck with the work, I will be happy to join you in practice when I can. Adam keller 08:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Shakespeare

I've tried not to sign up to anything on Wikipedia because I want it to just be fun and not a commitment (though I'm committing myself to this article, so long as RL doesn't insist otherwise). But please do regard me as an honorary member. The truth is, though, that I'm much more comfortable working from my own library than from Google Books, Amazon Search Inside, etc., which I am having to do for this article; and I'm hoping to focus mainly on sixteenth and early seventeenth century history in the future, plus a few art articles. But I totally agree with you that Shakespeare is poorly represented on Wikipedia at the moment, considering his stature, and that the project is much needed.qp10qp 04:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted

I stongly shared the feelings/frustrations expressed by you and Alabamaboy at the "Not promoted" thread. Personally, I'd stopped editing a few days ago, and taken the page and its FAC off my watchlist. I really felt there was nothing more I could add. However, thank you for your hard work and leadership throughout the process. Let's take a break for a while then regroup at the WikiProject to decide on our next task. AndyJones 14:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

FA Status

I have nominated our main article, William Shakespeare, for Featured Article status yet again. Since you were a gigantic help in the process of making the Shakespeare article tremendously well-written, I would like you to help me get it to Fa status. Please help.

Sincerely, Meldshal42_{Comments and Suggestions}^{My Contributions} 15:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wrad - I was concerned at your "object" to the current FA request. It seems to me that it is more than ready and anything else that needs adding is purely cosmetic. Might it be better to simply withhold support instead of actively "objecting". You must admit that the article is in considerably better shape than the last time you supported it. I am concerned because it seems the lack of consensus among editors was the primary reason the FA status was denied. Thanks. Smatprt 23:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That FAC request was never added to the correct page and so is not active, despite the comments there. It is too soon to go again because we fail on a few criteria. We can put this right quite soon, so lets be patient. Wrad, kudos for the ISBN stuff! I'm re-researching "Style" at the moment, so it's probably as well not to bother with the ISBNs in that section for the moment, as it may change a lot.qp10qp 02:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

DYK Update

Hi Wrad, thanks for the reminder. I've not been a regular updater for some months now and the process has changed substantially in that time. I don't have much time online today and need to refresh my understanding of the new rules before I get back to updating. Maybe you could drop a line to some of the others who appear to be online? I'll get back to updating duties soon I hope. Thanks. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure Wrad 15:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

On July 4, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ariel (Shakespeare), 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.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Unseen characters

I sense a theme pervading some of your articles - unseen Shakespearean characters. Perhaps there is a list brewing there? Or is that too much toil and trouble? (sorry, I couldn't resist). Awadewit | talk 12:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sycorax (Shakespeare)

On 4 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sycorax (Shakespeare), 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.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare

Thanks for the talk page message a few days ago. Romeo and Juliet GA-drive sounds like a great project. Our first GA drive for a play will be a great place to hammer out the realities of the issues covered on the project page. (Or are you too busy doing GA drives on unseens and ghosts? Varrius from Measure for Measure, anyone? ;-) ) AndyJones 17:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• My only misgiving is, are we abandoning the Willam Shakespeare article? Or are you happy to give QP a few more weeks/months to do his/her stuff? If so, I suggest we just go at R&J like we did the WS FA-drive. Put a to-do list on the page, inform members of the project, then blitz the article. AndyJones 20:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm off wikipedia until tomorrow (this'll be my last edit) so if you want a to-do list from me it'll have to wait a day! AndyJones 21:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Not so sure about that. You seem to have caught 'em all! I'll start looking through my books, here. AndyJones 21:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• I see you've really ploughed into R&J. Good work.
• Well said here! I was thinking the same thing myself. Does our Shakespeare in Love article say "there have been many famous love stories in previous films such as Casablanca, Some Like it Hot, Sleepless in Seattle..."? I wonder if we need a {cn}-style template called {sfw?}.
• Anyway, my main reason for bothering you at your talk page was to say that IMHO the biggest weakness of R&J at the moment is its domination by its adaptations-and-other-trivial-guff section (or whatever it's called). I'm going to have a go at creating Romeo and Juliet on screen as a major fix for that, so please leave me to it for a few hours! AndyJones 18:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Mass deletions of material from Shakespeare Authorship Question article

Wrad - I posted this on the project page and would appreciate your comments and advice. As a regular editor to all things Shakespeare, you all know (and many are sickened) by my interest in the Authorship Question. My last (and first) year here at WP has been quite a learning experience, and believe it or not, the FA process for the WS page was quite an eye-opener. But many of us learned a few more things about WP, so even though the article did not achieve FA, I think one day it will and in the process has already (and will further) become a great article. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Shakespeare Authorship article itself. For the past 8 or 9 months, the page has been relatively stable. In the last week, 2 or 3 new editors (and one unfortunate sockpuppet which has already been banned) have made mass deletions of referenced material. No big surprise - all the deletions were Oxfordian or anti-stratfordian. Now this is the page where most of the mainstream editors from the WS FA process said that the authorship information should go. Now,... that info is being deleted, section by section. Unbelievably, in their haste, these editors have even cut the stratfordain disclaimer (that academics dismiss all the alternative candidates) that I had grown to accept. Anyhow, because this is the WikiPjoject Shakespeare, I have been advised, and had already been considering, requesting that the editors of this page take a look at what is going on. Because I have resisted their deletions, they are now waging a campaign to have me declared some sort of SockPuppet for long-time editor BenJonson, even though I don't think he's made an edit for weeks or months. This accusation has been plastered on at least a dozen admin mailboxes - none of which, so far, has fallen for their game. I know the truth, I detest sockkpuppets, and I know that some clever administrator will be able to prove their accusations groundless. In the meantime, however, the page is the one that will suffer. In spite of the fact that most of you are staunch stratfordians, I have also found you to be reasonable and have a sense of fair play. I ask that you look at the talk page and bring some cool heads into the discussion. I ask that you look at the article and its format for the last 8 months, then look at the edits over the last few days. I realize some of you may want to hold your noses as you read the article, but if we are attempting to make these articles better, then the kind of attitudes and accusations and mass deletions goin on on any of these pages should be a cause of concern. Thanks for hearing me out. Smatprt 04:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope that you can find the time to read the testimony of many aggrieved editors on the Administrator's Noticeboard. [[2]] Also here on the Fringe Theories board. [[3]] What is the procedure for a complete ban? (Felsommerfeld 13:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

Jean Keene good article review

Hey Wrad, I just fixed the issues the GA reviewer brought up about the lead paragraph. Also found & added the ISBN number of the Cal Anderson book, which is a great assist in people looking for it. Looks like there's one issue to go, still: the wikification issue. Do you have time to do that? I'm kinda running short.

But yeehaw -- looks like this article is very close to being declared a GA. That's terrific! --Yksin 22:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Quiney aka. Richard Quiney?

Hey Wrad. I tried sending this to you with the Wikipedia email link, but it occurs to me that you may not have set that up to receive email, so I'm posting here as well. I trust you'll pardon the paralellism. :-)

I note that the article on Thomas Quiney contains a claim that he was “also known as Richard Quiney” and that this seems to have been part of the original text when you created the page. Whence comes this alias? I've been unable to find any reference to this in any of my sources.

Ah, I see where the confusion stems from. Let's see. Thomas Quiney was the son of Richard Quiney, and also had a brother Richard Quiney (who was a grocer in London). And two of Thomas and Judith's sons were named Thomas and Richard Quiney (the third was Shakspere Quiney). I'm looking at this stuff a bit right now so unless you have any objections I'll update the page to reflect this when I next touch it.

Romeo and Juliet

If you look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images it states that "Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers)." By setting the size like that it forces everybody to see the thumb at the size you want rather than what the viewer wants. In some cases readers want smaller images because they need larger text, so they set their default to 120px and a forced 200px thumb makes it hard to read. In other cases the reader has a large monitor and sets the default to 300px, so now the foced image at 200px is too small for them. If you find that pictures are too small then go to your preferences and change it. I don't just change the image size without checking. I have looked at them on 15", 17", 19" and 21" monitors and at multiple resolutions to make sure that the picture is viewable. If not then I do set a larger thumb, such as for maps, so the detail can be seen. If you look at the edit I not only reduced the large thumbs but made the smaller thumbs bigger in Romeo and Juliet. Also there is the load time. For users on dial-up, and there are a lot, will have a longer load based on larger pictures. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Midsummer Night's Dream lovers reference

Hi Wrad, I was wondering where you'd got to on R&J, when I came across the AfD on the Midsummer Night's Dream characters!!! If you can access JSTOR, I've found a reference which discusses the lovers and Oberon and Titania and oppositeness and sameness and something to do with the idea of being individuals - I'd have a lash at adding it in myself, but it goes over my head. [4] let me know if you can't access it. -Malkinann 11:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Pquote

Hey - is it working now?--danielfolsom 03:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I know what I did wrong now. Wrad 03:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Shakes

I'd like to put the bald chap up again in the next few days. I've addressed the two main points raised at the last FAC: references and copyediting. Others have contributed a great deal to the article since then, too. I believe it now meets the criteria. You've stuck with the article, and I want to thank you for that, as I have otherwise felt unwelcome. I think there's a good chance your commitment will pay off this time, though it's never going to be easy trying to get this article through, and we must brace ourselves for criticism (fortunately, I am thick-skinned, and I sense you are too). Would you be prepared to sign up to a nomination? That doesn't mean you would be expected to chase round after objections (my hand's up for that), but it wouldn't feel right to me if you weren't on board–after you stuck with the ship when it hit a couple of reefs.qp10qp

Yaye! I'm really thrilled. That's made my day.qp10qp 21:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 2 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Philostrate, 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.

--Yomangani^talk 22:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

On August 6, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robin Starveling, 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 Wrad. We always need more classical stuff on DYK. Keep it up and well done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare Wikiproject

Hello, Wrad!

For various unexpected real-world reasons, my profile on wikipedia has been a bit low, for a few weeks. I'm not necessarily back up to my full happy-to-spend-hours-working-on-a-section mode, but I'm certainly here for a while today so I thought it was worth saying hello and making a few observations and asking a few questions:

1. How are things going with the GA drive on R&J? Did it rather run out of steam, or is it still going ahead? If the second, are there any areas you think could particularly benefit from an overhaul? Alternatively, now that trivia has been mostly stripped out, do you think the article overall is too short?
2. As you'll know, I abandoned editing WS. I think, looking at the article now, that my achievement, equally with that of a few others who walked away when I did, was that we got the article up to a standard where the professionals were willing to take it over and run with it. I didn't feel I had more to contribute when it got to that stage. You'll see that I've gently kept an eye on it since, but rarely contributed except occasionally to the talk page. Also, I've had some email correspondence with Tom Reedy outside Wikipedia - I encouraged him to come on board when he suggested it - and I've uploaded a few images to Commons at his request.
3. Anyway, am I right to think that WS is about to have another FAC? If so, I assume it is ready, but are there any tasks or issues you want me to run my eyes over? I've no desire to nominate this time: and I'm sure there's no need for me to do so. Obviously whatever happens I'll keep an eye on things and help wherever I feel I can.
4. Just in case you're worried about the response from Wikiproject members, I'll say upfront that I personally won't oppose a "downgrading" of the sexuality/religion/authorship stuff from "section" status. I do feel it needs its proper weight in the article, though.
5. My feeling is that if the wikiproject had achieved FA status for WS, we would have all felt on fire to move on to the project's next task. As things turned out, the effect was a bit deflating, especially with Alabamaboy's withdrawal from Wikipedia and mine and (less so) RedRabbit's from the article. But I'm sure the project can still achieve great things. And there's so much to achieve.
6. On another topic, I'm becoming a bit dismayed by the current drive to remove pop-culture and trivia references from wikipedia, and especially from articles within the Shakespeare project's scope. I see it, perhaps perveresly, as one of the great strenths of Wikipedia that it covers these matters in a way other encyclopedias cannot. I also believe quite firmly that one person's trivia is another person's Wikipedia is not paper. My proposal will be to find a place, possibly on another (or even a new) wiki, possibly in wikipedia:space, where all the pop-culture, trivia and other unwanted list-like material can go, rather than being deleted outright. Would you oppose me on that if the issue comes up? AndyJones 16:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet criticism

Sure!Jlittlet 00:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose I should...I just have a hard time getting used to the idea of an encyclopedia with footnotes, although I see the need. Anyway, Cymbeline is fairly easy to footnote; Macbeth will be a pain...Jlittlet 01:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

duel vs dual

I suppose they could be duel... competing tasks, so to speak. I like your spelling better, however. It just works! Haha. Thanks. Lara♥Love 19:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Will

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		I commend your hard work on William Shakespeare. Choosing to edit such a high-profile, controversial and research-intensive article is a mark of patience, perseverance and dedication to Wikipedia that is rarely seen. We clearly need many more editors, such as yourself, who contribute high-quality literature articles. Awadewit | talk 04:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Judith Quiney

Thanks for the heads-up. I've started to address the points brought up, including airing out some skeletons that have been nagging at me. Thanks for the nomination, by the way, and for helping with the article. It's much appreciated!--Xover 12:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Random Smile!

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

-WarthogDemon 22:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 13 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Literary criticism of Hamlet, 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.

--Wizardman 02:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

On August 14, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mary Saunderson, 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.

It's not a problem. I would have simply returned it to the page and see how the backlog panned out. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Help with Hamlet theme section

thanks for your help with the themes section in Hamlet. I was having trouble fitting your performance history/themes information into that section, but you definitely found a good spot!!Bardofcornish 21:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Romeo

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

Thanks!

Nope, it would take steam roller to get to ME! - And I feel like I successfully defended myself on that bit of silliness, as well as that badly mounted attempt to get me banned (Ha!). As it happens, for the last month, I have been in solid rehearsal for Macbeth, and am producing a giant produciton of Peter Pan, as well as a 3-show Shakespeare rep. My July-Sept workload is immense. But I have been watching and throwing in my 2 cents every once and a while. Thanks for the welcome back, though. You are a scholar and a gentleman!Smatprt 17:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare on main page

Raul654 decides which FA is Today's Featured Article. To put Shakespeare up for consideration, add the article to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. It helps if there is a specific date you can tie the article in with. Based on experience, though, I wouldn't be surprised to Raul picks it sooner rather than later b/c it's such a high profile FA. Best, --Alabamaboy 01:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK: Darkness (poem)

On 19 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Darkness (poem), 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.

--PFHLai 05:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

SGGK

Hey Wrad, I've been unable to contribute very much for the past while. Sir Gawain looks quite good, I'll take a more extensive look at it right now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

BYU

Your changes to BYU were too dramatic and they decreased the qualtiy and neutrality of the article, so I changed it back. JackWilliams 19:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to extend the history past 1909, but leave the intro alone, please. It is a very good, informative, and fairly neutral intro. JackWilliams 19:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You did some good work on the history section, so I added that back. The intro was excellent before you changed it, so I left it as is.JackWilliams 19:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, for now, just be careful about reverts in the future. We will discuss more on talk page. Wrad 19:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello

hey hey! what's up? :D--213.101.231.252 04:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Opinion sought on Shakespeare redirect

Someone brought up the redirects to Shakespeare in performance for a RfD. This is not a valid RfD, as I've said at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_23#Redirects_to_Shakespeare_in_performance and the RfD template is messing up the main redirect the article (the Shakespearean performances redirect, which is how Google still lists the article). Please join in the discussion and voice your opinion. I'm hoping we can speedy keep these redirects. Thanks,--Alabamaboy 22:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 26 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article History of Brigham Young University, 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.

--DarkFalls ^talk 01:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet

First draft Hamlet to-do list:

1. Deal with copyright issues on current version of synopsis.
2. Reduce that (or any other) version of the synopsis to 600-900 words.
3. Break out Hamlet on screen.
4. Re-order sections per the Wikiproject guidelines, as altered by our learning experience at R&J.
5. Tighten up the "sources" and "date & text" sections.
6. Expand the performance sections.
7. Vastly expand "criticism" section: since this has broken out into its own article per summary style, I assume there'll be plently of material at the main article to use.
8. Generally expand and tighten up: overall there's too much repetition, waffle and lists-of-examples which could make room for more detail and analysis.
9. Fuller lede based on all the above.
10. Thorough copyedit.
11. GA application.
12. [Get some of the professionals who took over at WS involved.]
13. [FA application. This is definitely one of the articles in our remit which we should plan to get to FA, eventually.]

My wife's a bit ill this morning and has gone back to bed, so I've got a few spare hours. I'll start having a look at the stage and screen stuff, and see how I get on. AndyJones 09:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Jane seems much better now, so we're off out. I've done a first draft of Hamlet on screen. I'll look over the performances section in the next few days, but I think those'll be my main contributions on this one. AndyJones 11:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sycorax (Shakespeare)

Well, I can certainly have a go at it; but I fear I'm neither familiar with the topic, nor a particularly good copy-editor, so I don't know how much help I'll be.--Xover 09:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Some kind of degree of separation

Just about to sign off and had quoted your username in my update on Hamlet, so ended up navigating to your page, and I notice you're a Kansan. I was at Lawrence for a year, so I thought I'd say so. If you're doing English there, and Mary-Karen Dahl is still floating around drama, leap at the opportunity. DionysosProteus 01:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

BYU Testing Center cites needed...

...that was fast. Thanks! - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 23:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet

I don't know why you deleted the comment you just added, but I believe Sarah Bernhardt made a film of a scene from Hamlet in 1900. Paul B 03:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh, well, my source was off, so I figured it was irrelevant. Wrad 04:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment on my talk page. I think the version at talk should go onto the page, now, yes. I don't think it's "there" yet, if you know what I mean, but I think I've done as much as I'm personally going to, for the moment. If anything it's Proteus who might have reason to be unhappy with the current version. I don't actually disagree with any of the opinions he expressed: I was just motivated by a desire to shorten and tighten up. FWIW I strongly disagree with a view expressed by JeffJo? (someone, anyway) on the talk page that the synopsis for a long play should be long because it will be more useful: my view is the opposite, namely that if you don't keep it brief and clear you'll lose the attention of a reader who is a comparative newbie to the subject: and they're the target audience an encyclopedia. AndyJones 09:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Are we going to move this? AndyJones 17:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to because JJ and I have a history. I think if someone else does it it will be a more solid change, ie backed by more editors more publicly. Wrad 17:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll post the question at the talk page, and give it a day. AndyJones 17:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry

Thanks for reviewing A Vindication of the Rights of Men. I thought the article would sit and molder at GAC for a while, so I wasn't careful about fixing everything before I nominated it - I thought I would have time later. Bad Awadewit. I'm ashamed you're having to fix that stuff. Awadewit | talk 22:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It's actually pretty good. Wrad 22:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI

I'm sure you know this already, but you might keep in mind that Sikh's are often extremely sensitive about being lumped in with other Indian religions (like putting a mention of them in with islam). Not saying it should go in the intro, but just be aware. Personally, I think that a separate Sikh subsection might be the way to go, considering they are rare among religions in requiring long hair. VanTucky ^Talk 00:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I'll see what I can do, there. Wrad 00:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I was going to move it, but ended up just taking it out. I've already mentioned it in the Asia section, although I do want to look up that bit about India... Wrad 01:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for nominating the Mary Wollstonecraft articles for featured topic - I am anxious as well. I had been hoping to wait until they were all FAs and I had a chance to go over them all once again. For example, I need to rewrite the second half of the Mary Wollstonecraft page to reflect the new pages on her works. I wrote the biography page without having written the works pages. What do you think about renominating them all again later? Awadewit | talk 05:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think they definitely fit the criteria. I'd like to leave it and see what happens. Wrad 06:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

They may technically fit the criteria, but I don't feel that they quite cohere as a topic yet. That is one of things I was going to work on once all of the articles had reached FA. Awadewit | talk 07:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know more about it then I do. I guess it's up to you. I'll understand if you withdraw it. Wrad 07:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I can withdraw it, actually, since I didn't nominate it. I was actually hoping to have everything shaped up in two months and nominate it on 22 November, my wiki-birthday, as a present to myself. :) Silly, isn't it? Awadewit | talk 07:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

SGGK

Hey man, congrats on getting Sir Gawain and the Green Knight passed as a GA!--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You're quick

Congratulations on beating me to fixing both references. I had spotted the error, tried to fix both, had an edit clash and then tried to fix the one you missed first tiem only to find you had beaten me to that too.--Peter cohen 00:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Long hair

I reviewed the article according to the good article criteria, and my analysis is on the talk page. Thanks for your nomination! GreenJoe 17:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)