User talk:Wrad/Archive 3

Shakespeare's printers (reply)

I don't know much about templates; they're beyond my skill level. Ugajin 23:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I can help with green

Wrad, iirc, you said you're not so good on the science side; I can help there. If you've got science factoid you want help wording, checking, or sourcing, let me know. The thing on color blindness struck me as probably a poor retelling of what was in the Britannica. If you can tell me what it said maybe I can write it up better or find a better source. Dicklyon 03:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you email me a copy of Laird, Donald A. "Fatigue: Public Enemy Number One: What It Is and How to Fight It." The American Journal of Nursing (Sep 1933) 33.9 pgs. 835-841 so I can see if it's a reliable source for thing about workplace studies, and so I can see what they mean the color green being restful; the statement as currently formulated has the ring of hype or misinterpretation to it. Dicklyon 05:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Religous debates over Harry Potter

Thanks for sticking up for the article; it was very much appreciated. Serendi^podous 19:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

template

Excellent work on the template. Since it's called "Shakespeare's printers," I removed Burre and Ponsonby; they're from the right era, but didn't actually work on any Shakespearean texts. Also added Thomas Cotes. As for Shakespearean editors: those of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries can be found in Shakespeare's Editors; I don't know of a convenient list of the more modern ones. Ugajin 04:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Braveheart edit

Again, sorry for not giving you the credit due. Understand that you aren't the only one dealing with ass-clowns. When you get a chance, come on back. We could use your help. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well good luck on Hamlet, Wrad. My time is getting chewed up by the Lead policy stuff. I hate discussing policy. The only thing worse than people vandalizing WP is people using the rules to try and justify it. lol Later, tater. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for saving me the time of doing it myself. Dub is having some trouble grasping that the citations have to connect any inaccuracy to the film. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Very well. Just know that if they deviate even slightly from the source, they need to find a new one for it to be included or it will be removed. I jumped in bc I know you likley worked hard to find that source, and I've skimmed it. I don't want it cluttered so much that you lose the verifiability. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Valued

Just to say that your contribs to GAR are much appreciated. I share some of Ling's concerns, but I think it is far more important to GAR to have thoughtful reviewers such as yourself than to be prescriptive about what GAR is for. Best wishes Geometry guy 21:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Things were getting a little heated there. So I felt I should back away a bit. After saying the same thing twice in a row, there really isn't anything else to do but argue. You're right, without reviewers, how could there be a review? Wrad 21:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

CSI

i just answered you in the Talk:CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, i guess we are both very fast clickers.Yamanbaiia 22:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

i added references and expanded the lead section. if you have time would you give a quick glimpse again to Gil Grissom so i can renominate it?Yamanbaiia 23:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Religious debates over the Harry Potter series

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		For aiding in the long and torturous road to Religious debates over the Harry Potter series at last achieving feature status against my own expectations, I award you the Barnstar of High Culture. Serendipodous 12:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare titles

That's odd, because we don't do that in practice at all. I reverted it back to be consistent with all the other plays, but we should definitely talk about this at the Shakespeare project. If we do change Othello, we should change them all. That's why I reverted it, just until we decide so we can get them all right and in agreement. I just started a discussion on the topic at the project page. Wrad 00:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There was certainly a time (a couple of years ago) when this was the case, so we had The Most Excellent and Lamentable Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet and The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark etc. Personally, I think that having the full titles is necessary and the only way to have the Shakespeare's plays articles comply with WP:LEAD (the actual articles should, of course, reside at the common name). More to the point, it offers more information, which is surely what an encyclopaedia is all about. There is, of course, the issue of conflicting full titles, but a quick glance at virtually any of the Arden editions of the plays will find that the hard work of establishing the correct full title has already been done (which is what we did with Romeo and Juliet). - Green Tentacle 01:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, don't just tell me, tell the project. I can tell you this, though, things have changed. I'm not the only one who reverts such things. Wrad 01:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I wrote my reply when I saw the first version of your message, which you edited three times while I was typing my response. Having seen the most recent version of your message, which mentions the project page, I added my response to your discussion over there. There really is no need to be so rude. - Green Tentacle 01:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be rude. I just wanted to make sure that you and I weren't the only ones talking about it. Others need to be involved, and I didn't know what you were planning to do. And it may have looked rude to say "things have changed", but I was merely stating it as fact. Somewhere along the way, what we said to do, and what we actually did, split into two different things. We need to fix this. I'm sure you'll agree. Wrad 01:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It did look rude, but I accept your apology. Of course, we do need to sort this out. I've just added another response on the project page. One of the (many) problems with Wikipedia is the number of policies that change. For example, I currently have a lot of image tag warnings on this talk page; the images were correctly uploaded at the time, but since then the policy has changed and I then get (usually automated) messages lambasting me for not uploading images under rules that had not even been invented when I uploaded them! - Green Tentacle 01:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that again. Sometimes the shortest way to say things isn't the best way, I guess. I've personally noticed that this is one of the more contested issues on Shakespeare pages, and was hoping for a chance to discuss it. I guess we'll be part of the problem—changing policy again. Wrad 01:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

rvv

Hi, firstly I want to say thank you for your many great edits, particularly your many good uploads of medieval and modern historical images such as Image:Gawains return.jpg and also those adorning Jean Keene.

I want to say thank you for your many good faith edits on Wikipedia.

I noticed your revert of some edits by User:In Defense of the Artist. Your edits were quite in order (as were his). I am just concerned about your use of an edit summary containing the letters "rvv", which is normally taken to imply that the edits being reverted are vandalism (that is, a deliberate attempt to make Wikipedia worse).

The main word here is deliberate. I know we often find edits we strongly disagree with and believe to be questionable, but when that happens I think it's important not to call them vandalism, because quite often they aren't deliberate. So please avoid using the term "rvv" and other possible references to vandalism in edit summaries or discussion. --Tony Sidaway 02:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought it just meant you reverted two edits. If I revert vandalism, I call it that. If I revert something else, I leave a nice edit summary explaining why. Is there some sort of policy I haven't read or something? Wrad 02:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. It means ReVert Vandalism. My apologies. Hopefully Defense Artist doesn't know what it means either. Wrad 02:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. --Tony Sidaway 02:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:GAR

I have noticed that you are a frequent reviewer at that Good Articles project. good article reassessment is experiencing a considerable backlog problem. There are several articles dating from August that still have not generated enough discussion to close. Could you please take a look at the oldest articles and make some fresh comments on them? Please note that some of these have undergone signigicant changes since they first came to GA/R; please judge the article only on its merits as of its current version. If you reviewed an earlier version of any of these articles, please also consider re-reading them and either revise or endorse any earluer comments you have made. Thanks for your help with this! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet

I worked on the Date and Texts section, as requested. I still see some problems with the article. Footnotes 7 and 8 refer to "Edwards" and "Jenkins," though it isn't at all clear what works are being referenced, since Edwards and Jenkins aren't in the bibliography. Ugajin 09:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that was the intention. Well, when you add the new section you can easily revert it back. The irony is, I only got drawn to the page because of a discussion over at Talk: Pilot (Smallville)#Plot section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Braveheart historical inaccuracy

I wanted to make sure that I recalled correctly your specific claim that the material you added to the article on historical inaccruacy was entirely lifted from the source as a direct quote, and not at all paraphrased. If its the former, we cannot adjust the quotes at all. If it is the latter, we are going to have to look at the source a lot more closely. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The info you added is a specific, exact quotation from the material, is that correct? We are encoutnering issues with the writing. Did you paraphrase the material, or quote it specifically? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but I was wondering if you could answer my question: was what you added a specific quote, or was a paraphrasing constructed by yourself? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Wrad, just making sure, as there is only one citation to cover the entire paragraph. If you paraphrased any part of the citation, now would be the best time to let me know, so we can concentrate on tighteing up the language and adding more reference tags for that info wich is a direct quote to distinguish from any paraphrasing that might have occurred. Editors can edit the grammar of paraphrasing, but they cannot do so on directly quoted material. I hope you understand the distinction, and understand what I am asking. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I misunderstood you when you told me that the entire thing was a specific lift fromt he source. I will hav eto take a closer look at the source citation and move from there. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hugo Danner GA

Gladiator is an actual novel. The first half of the novel was later adapted into a comic book called "Man-God" 46 years later in 1976. I can erase his birth and death years if necessary. They are based on those given in the Young All-Stars comic book storyline from the late 1980's. The novel just says he was born in the closing years of the 19th century.

The source for the Spider-Man connection came from a Scifi.com (Sci-Fi Channel) review of the book, which is cited. If you don't feel it is a strong enough source, I can delete that section altogether.

Speaking about the god thing, his mother was religious, but religion does not play a large part in Danner’s life at all. I think once the history professor suggests he use his father’s formula to create the “Sons of Dawn”, Danner finally feels like he has found a purpose in life. I guess he feels so powerful that he doesn’t feel that God can even touch him. This is what the novel actually says. Tell me what you think. --Ghostexorcist 03:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I pasted the reply into the main article just now. --Ghostexorcist 03:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am 99% done with the changes. I have drastically increased the size of the "novel" section. I just need to work on the final paragraph a little. Please read it over and tell me if it is satisfactory or not (thus far). --Ghostexorcist 08:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm done. --Ghostexorcist 09:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if he ever went through with the lawsuit. The source just states he "prepared" to sue him. But I have changed the sentence around to note that there is no evidence that he carried through with the litigation. --Ghostexorcist 17:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Long Hair in the 1960's

The source you cited is a chapter about the history of the Gay Movement from the nineteenth century to the 1980's. It has nothing to do with hair styles in the mainstream or whether long hair was popular in the 1960's. If you lived through the 1960's and 1970's you would know that long hair was not widely popular in the 1960's as you insist on making the article state. At most musicians, hippies and some liberals wore long hair during the 1960's which were relatively conservative until the last couple of years. Disco1979 03:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I adjusted the wording a bit to reflect this. Wrad 03:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Gil Grissom (yet again)

Hello, hello. i am oficially obsessed with making Gil Grissom a good article, and after reading most GA articles of fictional characters i don't think anything more can be said about Grissom. All the referencing is done, the "casting" and "character creation" are done, the grammar seems fine, and it's not in a in-universe style (i think). You seem pretty impartial, would you please take another look?Yamanbaiia 21:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

GA sweeps

I noticed your comment on the GAN talk page regarding sweeps and your interest in possibly participating. For this initial sweep, only experienced, trusted reviewers have been asked to join. I've been needing to send out some more invitations for some time now, but haven't gotten around to it. I looked over some of your GA reviews and think you would be of great help in this process. If after reading over the project page you are still interested in participating, add your name to the list and pick a topic. Add the review tag and get to it. Let us know if you need anything. Regards, Lara❤Love 22:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sick of Shakespeare right now

I was attacked a good bit for protecting the Shakespeare article so much today. I was merely trying to keep the vandalism to a minimum so improvements people made wouldn't be lost (which can happen when a ton of vandalism obscures the good edits). Sad Mouse also attacked me over protecting the article (in addition to her comments on my talk page); since she seems to think I am so biased against her, I am staying out of the discussion. I told her if she could convince the other editors, I'd support the new consensus. Also, you should be aware that I've re-protected the article. If another admin undoes this semi-protection, I will not undo their action. Just FYI. Personally, though, I believe this article is so high profile that it should be protected most of the time.--Alabamaboy 01:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Because some people think I acted inappropriately in protecting this article, I have removed the protection. I apologize if this causes you and the other editors any trouble. I have opened a discussion on my use of my admin powers at User_talk:Alabamaboy#Request_for_comment_on_my_use_of_admin_powers. Please comment if you feel like it.--Alabamaboy 01:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet (Reply)

This seems reasonable, as the citation uses the "name" version. I apologise, having not read Queering the Renaissance.
Despite this, I believe that if this quotation were to appear elsewhere in the article the "word" version should be used, appearing to be the currently accepted version. --80.42.56.58 17:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet

To be honest, I'm afraid I haven't looked at them at all yet. BUT, I finally managed to get to my college library today and brought home a couple of books on Hamlet, so I was just about to do precisely that. Then I read the sources additions and got distracted. That authorship stuff is a little repetitious. I've done one edit, but it'll take a little more before it feels right to me. Going to play with that for a little bit. Very interested to look at the analysis and crit. bits though. Read an interesting essay in a collection called Shakespeare & The Question of Theory on the bus home today, which fits in with the last stuff I read on the play, so I might have some more material shortly. I've been looking out for a better Hamlet image for the top too. Though, I have to say, that someone felt the need to inform us that Booth is sitting on a curule chair I find incredibly endearing; it's just the kind of random, useless information juxtaposition that makes Wikipedia unique. Even if the picture moves, we have to keep that caption. DionysosProteus 22:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the info is significant enough to warrant being in the main body? I only have the New Cambridge (Edwards 1985) edition here (and the New Cambridge Q1), and he's pretty negative about the Harvey note, as the footnote explains. Although he's positive about the War of the Theatres reference, to me his argument reads like a bit of a stretch (lots of "if we can assume"s) and he offers it as his own unique interpretation (S added it just as he was finishing). I agree that the Caesar material might be interesting enough to incorporate (it also provides internal evidence for the conception of the role as Burbage) but I felt that since I was removing the Harvey material, that ought to go into a note also. I was also aware of the ever-increasing length of the article as a whole, and I'd like to see more in the analysis and performances sections (I need to put something in about Constantin Stanislavski's 1912? Moscow Art Theatre production, designed by Edward Gordon Craig, as this is a biggie.

Re: the dating. I was aware as I put it in that 1600 or 1601 is uncited; I was hoping the rest of you could help with that. Edwards settles on mid-1601 for completion of the play (1985, 8); I think it'd be good if we could get the final date settled on for the Arden 2nd, Arden 3rd, and Oxford at least, and cite all four in a note. I was surprised to read "1599", which is why I removed it, but if we can cite then we could rephrase to offer the three possibilities. I'll put a request on talk. DionysosProteus 00:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I'm a little confused then. The old version of that paragraph seemed to say that it was the Harvey note that led scholars to 1599 or 1600, citing MacCary (1998, 12-13). Edwards says that Harvey signed his name with the date 1598, so I don't follow the 1599/1600 result from that. Google books doesn't have pages from MacCary; is that the argument he offers? DionysosProteus 00:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. In the meantime I've started a list of who says when. I'm working my way through that section, but am going to pause for a bit as I think it might be good to have a brief mention of why scholars are skeptical about the bad quarto and what that's all about, so need to do some reading. DionysosProteus 00:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Strike that. I didn't notice the Q1 discussion further down. That'll teach me not to edit one sentence at a time. DionysosProteus 00:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

More on Hamlet

Just so you know, I've left this message for RedRabbit. AndyJones 09:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Tybalt/Lady Cap

Fair enough. I didn't check the source at the end of the paragraph. I guess I was just expecting it to come right after the sentence. Sorry! Nowah Balloon 20:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Burning questions

I've got two, and since you're an admin and I know you, I figured I'd ask you. 1) How do I delete pages from my userspace? and 2)How do you move a page to a another page that already exists as, say, a redirect? Wrad 23:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me know what user pages you want deleted and I'll handle that. As for moving pages, use the move tab at the top of the page you wanted moved. If you have any problem with that let me know and I'll assist.--Alabamaboy 15:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Something for you

		The Rosetta Barnstar
		For your mastery of national variant spellings, together with your impeccable and appreciated contributions to Shakespeariana, please accept this barnstar. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 16:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oooo! This is unexpected! Thank you. I've never seen this barnstar before. Is it new? Wrad 16:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad you like it! You can use it as a door stop. I'm doing some modest stuff in a rude mechanical sort of way on sonnets 116, 121, and 122 (mostly because they were redlinks on the template) and I kept coming across your name in articles.

I don't know if the barnstar is new. I saw it earlier and - as I was looking at the original the other day - it seemed apt.

--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 16:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll use it to keep my user page open :) Wrad 16:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[Chuckle] By the way, the line Shakespeare is known for borrowing plots and characters in Philostrate is the understatement of the millennium. I expect you've read "1599" by James Shapiro. If not, it would be a wonderful source for background as is "Shakespeare's Language" by Frank Kermode. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 16:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, never read it, but it sounds interesting. Wrad 16:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

MAT Hamlet

Ooo, that's a tricky one. There's no good single sentence, which really should give me pause for thought. How about something to the effect of:

that: Stanislavski and Craig's symbolist production of Hamlet in 1911 put the Moscow Arts Theatre on the cultural map of Europe.

It's not terribly elegant, but still... DionysosProteus 21:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did, thanks for that. There are only two more pictures that I'm sure the copyright has expired on, a model and photo of the last scene. unfortunately all of the pictures showing the variable shapes that the screens formed are photos of a model and still in copyright. I'd prefer to integrate with the text, but in the meantime a gallery might be the best solution. I'll try to scan them in later tonight. I was going to have a go at some more copy-editing in Hamlet first, mainly to sweep out as many of the passive voices as possible. BTW, and slightly randomly, I've been thinking of an article on acting in the period but am stumbling on how to title it. How do you prefer to refer to the period? DionysosProteus 20:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(Shakespeare's)

Okay, thanks. Another query: this might seem like a dumb question, but when, exactly, is Hamlet supposed to be set? The article says something like "despite being set centuries before..." DionysosProteus 21:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You do? Sure. I haven't really kept up with that side of Wikipedia. When you get a moment, can you point me to the guideline pages for GA/FA? That'd be useful for Hamlet too. But if it looks right to you, then do go ahead. There is more material that could go in--off the top of my head, their differing approaches to the notion of "convention" (Craig loving and seeing the rebirth of aesthetics in it, Stan seeking to abolish entirely from the stage), but that's an elaboration of what's there rather than a new area. From the perspective of the content, all the major areas are in place I think. DionysosProteus 00:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, while copy-editing Hamlet, created a wikilink to cultural materialism and was horrified at what I found. Compared to New Historicism its a shambles. Which led me to a question: what's the current relationship between the main Hamlet article and Critical approaches to Hamlet? Does the latter have any more material in it yet, or is it an old edit of the main Hamlet awaiting elaboration? I was thinking that I might start to add my material into the off-shoot article and feed back in summarized form into Hamlet. I'm copy-editing the remaining sections in the main article... should I cut and paste the revised version into the off-shoot, or will that loose material? DionysosProteus 00:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

More Hamlet

Hey. A quick query for you. Do your sources have a more specific date during 1823 for when Q1 was unearthed? I've got Irace's edition but it doesn't say. I'm adding the discovery to the 1823 year page, but wanted to be more specific. Pretty obscure, I know.

With regard to Critical approaches to Hamlet, once I actually took a look at the page I realised what a silly question it was--there's lots of extra material there. Sorry about that.

DionysosProteus 17:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:2007big12.GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:2007big12.GIF. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dumb computer. Wrad 23:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

re:Talk Hamlet

Thanks for the apology. I also would like to apologize if I hurt your feelings, I do tend to overreact. No one should be punished for being eager to see an article get to FA! Happy editing, and let me know if there is anything at all I can ever help you with - VanTucky ^Talk 01:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter

Here it is. The big kahuna. Were it not for the fact that I would be accused of bias, I would base the section on this alone. Serendi^podous 15:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Go have a look at my revisions on Dumbldore's sexuality. Let me know what you think. Serendi^podous 17:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm worried. This same problem dogged RDOTHPS's first FAC, and I don't want to see this article lose its FAC over something as stupid as this. I've done what I can, I don't know what else to do. It seems some people won't be happy until the opinions of absolutely everyone on Earth are listed and categorised. Serendi^podous 10:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Wrad; just want to make sure we're still cool. This whole process frays the nerves and I know I can be grouchy when cornered. Serendi^podous 17:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject General articles

I think this this is a very good idea, and is a project I would support. Don't worry too much about User:Malleus Fatuarum; he's not particularly known for his people skills. Epbr123 10:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but I don't believe that I'm the one with the outstanding RfC. That would be you, wouldn't it Epbr123? Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epbr123

--Malleus Fatuarum 18:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The MAT production of Hamlet

Did you know? was updated. On 1 November, 2007, a fact from the article The MAT production of Hamlet, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. 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} 16:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Redlinks

Yes, I strongly agree with the views expressed in that discussion. I'm not sure where you envisaged I would to go to endorse those views, though. I don't spend much time over at FAC (I'm too busy picking fights over at AfD) so I'm not sure what the process is. AndyJones 19:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet Peer Review

Have you appoached Awadewit, Qp10qp or Tom Reedy asking if they'll contribute to the Hamlet peer review? If no, are you aware of any reason I shouldn't do so? AndyJones 20:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Tempest Collaboration

Fair enough. Word of caution, though: the tempest "collaboration" started as a result of this little edit war, so expect it to be an authorship-driven battleground. AndyJones 08:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This one is going to be, er, fun. What with a Baconian arguing that the Strachy documents demonstrate Bacon's authorship: as one of the few people of the day who could have seen them; and at least three Oxfordians arguing that the author of the plays could never have seen the Strachy documents because the play was written in 1603/4. (A busy year for their guy. No wonder he dropped off the twig.) Then there'll be the usual accusations made against those of us who try to keep the page on the straight and narrow. I see Godwin's Law has already been invoked. Anyway, I am researching, and I should start adding some material soon. AndyJones 13:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, me being dense, but here are you replying to Smatprt or to me? AndyJones 17:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

SGGK

Hey Wrad, have you seen the flurry of recent edits at the Sir Gawain article? It's received a lot of attention from new users (which has been brought to my attention by another established editor) and I can't tell if they're for better or worse, or a combination. At any rate, I'm sure some amount of cleanup is needed, and I think as the major editor, your opinion carries the most weight. Please take a look.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Literature proposal

Maybe you've seen by now, but I offered my tuppance-worth at the WikiBooks page. Just about to disappear, but had a thought I thought I'd pass on; we should do a scour of the articles themselves in their edit histories and invite anyone whose name keeps popping up to add to the list. I'm sure there're more articles than the ones in the list, too. DionysosProteus 01:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Tempest reply

I took a shot at The Tempest article; see what you think. Ugajin 04:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Another member for WikiProject Literature

Did you contact User:midnightdreary? S/he might be interested. Whenever there is a userbox, let me know. There might be a bit of traffic to my userpage in a few days when my wikipedia weekly podcast interview goes live. If I had the userbox up, it might draw people to the project. Not to toot my own horn or anything. Awadewit | talk 20:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll made sure to ask MD, as well as let you know about a user box. Wrad 22:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and maybe we can fix up this page a bit? List of basic literature topics. Awadewit | talk 22:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please think about adding yourself to this list of peer reviewers. Awadewit | talk 19:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Tireless Contributor

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		A barnstar on your ten-thousandth quality edit to Wikipedia! AndyJones 14:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yay! An Andy barnstar! Wrad 18:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. And Roger looks like he is doing a great job. And I will continue to think so until he gets to the bits that I wrote, when I will start to think grumble, grumble, whinge, arrogant bugger, etc. etc. ;-) Incidentally, look out for my comments this evening or tomorrow on Dating Hamlet. AndyJones 19:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to look through this again and clean it up before I raise it on the Hamlet talk page, but here's a link to my sandbox on the issue: User:AndyJones/Sandbox/Dating Hamlet. I'm now off Wikipedia until tomorrow. AndyJones 20:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:LIT

Categories completed. John Carter 16:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Dinosaurs and Featured Topics

Hi Wrad,

Congratulations on your big 10k! :)

I recently read your discussion here from August, where you were discussing a possible Dinosaur Featured Topic. Well, I think we may be getting close to a Category:Tyrannosaurs FT, with Daspletosaurus, Albertosaurus, and Tyrannosaurus already FAs, Gorgosaurus likely to make GA soon, and Tarbosaurus in need of some work, but probably not a lot more, before GAC. If you're still interested in a dinosaur FT (and obviously, that's a big 'if', since it's been months since the discussion), could you possibly look over some of the articles and possibly opine on what you think they might need for improvement? Obviously, I don't want to impose, but I'd love to get your feedback on this. There may be something else that sticks out as a possible FT on WP:DABS. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 06:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello? Firsfron of Ronchester 04:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The tempest over Tempest

Sorry, Wrad - Try This:

Shakespeare and the Voyagers Revisited, Stritmatter and Kositsky Review of English Studies, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2007; 58: 447-472. Best regards, Smatprt 07:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

BYU

HI Wrad. The BYU intro should convey relevant, educational information about BYU. Think about what an outsider should know about BYU if they only had 10 seconds to read the Wikipedia article. BEing a private university is really quite a minor facet of BYU. But it is key for people to know that BYU is 98% LDS, that the students follow a strict honor code, and that most males go on missions. JackWilliams 05:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's rare for a university to be one gender. So it's pretty uninformative to say that a school is coeducational. Being the flagship school of a church indicates it being a private university. JackWilliams 05:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wrad. Listen, I have had a lot of edit wars and discussions about the intro in the past. I hate to see my work bowdlerized. If you think it's relevant to say that the university is "coeducational" like a lot of lame university articles do, then maybe MAYBE we can slip a brief phrase in the middle of the intro. Same with "private." But not in the first sentence. JackWilliams 05:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wrad. Listen, Duke is not the flagship school of a major American Church. About all you can say about Duke is the generic "private coeducational research university..." BYU is defined by the fact that it is the flagship of the Mormon Church.JackWilliams 05:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

I have left a note at [[1]]. Regards, Mercury 01:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sound like good advice to me! Wrad 01:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think both Wrad and JackWilliams have too much time on their hands...anyhow, do either of you know why I am no longer able to edit the BYU page? (Sorry if this is the wrong place to address my question, but I'm not sure where else to go.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Email4jonathan (talk • contribs) 03:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

1603 version

I was unaware of the discussion (blush) and I've reverted it. I can't deliver a Hamlet quote for every edit summary (though I'm sorely tempted to try) I'm afraid so it's no good complaining when I use wikispeak :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet & Lacan

Can you help with this issue: User talk:AndyJones#Hamlet & Lacan? AndyJones (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hey, can you do me a favor? I'm currently reviewing Barn Swallow for GA. There is an "In literature" section which includes several quotes from Shakespeare, but currently the formatting is very awkward to read. I tried looking at in regular quotation format, but I'm unsure. Could you perhaps make a recommendation? Thanks a million, VanTucky ^Talk 20:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Wrad (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

yeah, my first instinct is to de-block them per MOS. But I just wondered if there was some special guideline for preserving the format of Shakespearian verse. Thanks again Wrad, VanTucky ^Talk 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

DIY conversion kit

I know you're busy but I've done a sortable list of common words requiring transmogrification into other English spelling variants. It covers about 80% of the variants I've encountered so far. It's here. Could you please take a look and add, delete or comment? the idea is to de-mystify EngVar conversion, as I'm sure fear of the unknown is the root cause of many disputes. Many thanks,--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool idea. Sure. Wrad (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't bite the newbies

Please don't bite the newcomers as you did to User Talk:GIPIMP26. A welcome and mild mention of uncited edits is usually more conducive to future constructive edits. Cheers. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 05:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Mass Hugo Danner editing

I have reverted many of the edits by User:Tenebrae. All of the changes were not fully discussed and I don't believe they even bothered to locate the citations for many of the sections they had problems with. I also deleted the newly added "Publication history" section because it belongs on the book's actual article. Hugo's page is about him, not the book itself. I'm sure I'll get an earful for this bulk reversion later from User:Tenebrae. Just letting you know. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comment in response to Matt Lewis on the contest page. Danny (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Wrad (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Contest talk

This really needs to be nipped in the bud. John Reaves does not stand to personally benefit from the content of Wikipedia:The Core Contest in the way that Matt Lewis and Bensaccount are claiming. Matt Lewis's essay in particular is not factually accurate on many of its points and should be taken with a pinch of salt. Or, given its length, a truckload. – Steel 23:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've taken the page off my watchlist for now. I don't really want to be the one who decides who's in the wrong. Wrad (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you help with this?

Wrad, you're at a university, aren't you (unlike me)? Is there any possibility of you obtaining a copy of the following for me? I expect it'll be on a database somewhere?? Don't worry if not.

John Jowett, "Johannes Factotum: Henry Chettle and Greene's Groatsworth of Wit", Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, vol. 87, no. 4, (1993), pp. 453-86

AndyJones 21:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: My email is ..........., in case you need to know that. AndyJones 21:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's in the mail. Wrad 23:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Have received it, many thanks. AndyJones 23:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Donation in a good cause?

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

John

Thanks for the good word. It was very encouraging and insightful. --Ephilei (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks

I feel like I'm just getting more and more tart with him, which doesn't help things. Wrad (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It happens. Don't worry about it. The important thing is you didn't let it get personal. Stay that way. There are others to help you. By the way, have you taken a look at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/COTF?

The current University Collaborations of the Month are Ohio State University & Princess Nora bint Abdul Rahman University
Every month two B-, C- or Start-Class higher education-related articles are chosen for you to improve. Be bold! This COTM is organized by WikiProject Higher Education. (vote for future collaborations or see past collaborations) This collaboration is effective: May 20, 2011 — June 20, 2011 until someone updates it. Pick the next WikiProject Higher Education COTM!

- Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

BYU intro

The problem I have with the lead is that it ignores defining elements of BYU: 1. The Honor Code 2. Male students going on Mormon missions. These elements are so central to BYU that they should be in the intro.JackWilliams (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Shrew & Titus

Thanks. Yes, I always approach the editor and ask that question when I see a huge addition made in a single edit. My resoning is that (assuming I get an answer) it will flag up whether there was a copyvio: an inexperienced user copy-pasting onto the page a (sourced) essay that they've picked up somewhere. I agree that at first glance they both look like good stuff. AndyJones (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm Active

I am active on the poetry pages, but I have a few questions so if you can get back to me as soon as you can I would greatly appreciate it... Thank you and have a wonderful day.... God Bless Rianon Burnet 18:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Green

The article Green you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Green for eventual comments about the article. Well done! SriMesh | talk 15:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Nurse (Romeo and Juliet character)

I have merged the article to the minor character list because it does not assert notability per WP:N. If the character is deeply analyzed in reliable sources, and you can prove it, feel free to bring it back. Please actually back your claims if you believe that to be the case, though. Just because Romeo and Juliet has been so deeply analyzed, it will not automatically mean that any random part of it can just be sourced instantly. TTN (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an article by article basis. Past AfDs do not prove that something is notable. I'm willing to bet most of them are just saved because of fan interest or the assertion that "It's old and part of a very notable piece of writing, so in turn, it must be notable itself", which is not correct. Also, how many have taken place during the last few months? Anyways, if the information definitely exists, you should be able to at least quickly find a source to at least assert notability. Otherwise, the current article asserts nothing, and is pretty much a bunch of original research. TTN (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what they always say, and they're always wrong in the end. Go ahead and try to delete all of the Shakespeare character articles that are like this one. You will fail because most people recognize that Shakespeare characters are plenty notable and not worthy of deletion even if not very good quality at all. Wrad (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Which kind of notability are you talking about? Do you mean Wikipedia's definiton of notability, which means that the characters are deeply analyzed in reliable sources, or the "It's old and part of a very notable piece of writing, so in turn, it must be notable itself." kind of thinking? If it's the first, please actually back your assertion. If it's the latter, please read over WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. TTN (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then you should be working to establish the article's notability through the inclusion of reliable sources. Claiming that you believe that they exist does nothing of the sort. TTN (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course they do exist. The following are just the first few that a casual google search brings up, and only those that focus on that particular character already in the title. Unfortunately I haven't got free online access to much in the field, and won't have much time hunting them down in the library.

• Toole, William B.: "The Nurse's 'Vast Irrelevance': Thematic foreshadowing in Romeo and Juliet. South Atlantic Bulletin 45 (1980): 21–30.
• Rees, J.: "Juliet's Nurse: Some branches of a family tree". Review of English Studies 34 (1983): 43–47.
• Everett, Barbara: "Romeo and Juliet: The Nurse's Story". Critical Quarterly 13 (1972): 129–139.

etc... -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Have a little respect for other editors and do a little homework before deleting everything. Wrad (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I personally certainly wouldn't want that article erased. I was rather startled when I saw TTN turning on the Nurse article right after I gave him that anti-cruft "award". Sorry if my previous edits gave you the impression I was supporting him here. There is, in fact, a difference between Shakespeare characters and Manga episodes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

notability of articles about fiction

As I'm sure you're aware, this 'pedia has many, many articles about fiction, and most of these articles do not meet various policies and guidelines such as WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:FICT, WP:WAC and WP:NOT#PLOT. A great many of these articles will end-up redirected or deleted because they can't be brought up to snuff. Most of these will be articles such as Cosmo and Wanda, not The Nurse, because the sources required to justify their existence simply don't exist. I see you've been adding refs while I've been writing this - great. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I know all of this. I just don't like it when people use deletion as a first resort. Wrad (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Colour Spelling

Here is the talk if you have forgotten:

Just thought i would explain that the info box at the top of the page is incorrect, the spelling colour is worldwide accepted, only North America use this other spelling derivation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.48.50 (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:ENGVAR --jacobolus (t) 00:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Only North America? The offical spelling of colour in Canada is c-o-l-o-u-r. Canadian dictionaries show both spellings, but c-o-l-o-u-r is listed first and is the primary usage of the word in Canada (as is honour, flavour, favourite, travelling, centre, etc). With that, I agree with your argument. It is said here on Wikipedia that in articles where information is given about a particular region, the accepted spelling for that article must match that which is offically accepted in the region. Globally, more native English speakers use c-o-l-o-u-r than c-o-l-o-r. --Bentonia School (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC) This is neither the place to discuss the merits of your argument (so I won't), nor to contravene wikipedia policy. This has been debated to death in more proper fora (and of course on this page—check the archives), and you're welcome to bring it up there (that is, at the talk page of the Manual of Style) again, but I very much doubt that you'll change the community's mind about it. --jacobolus (t) 06:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Colour is not American so therefore why is Colour redirected to Color? English wikipedia and all. WP:ENGVAR says that in cases like the AmericanCivil War then American Spelling would prevail but Color? Not a chance. I disagree whole-heartedly about the spelling of this article. Kaeso Dio (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. By that logic, why should Color redirect to Colour? Color is not British. ENGVAR also says to respect the spelling that is already there in neutral cases, so please respect the spelling already here. Changing it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Wrad 16:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Please read the infobox at the top of the page. This is an off-topic conversation. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Color"

My point is that American spelling prevails in American articles like the American Civil War but an article on color/colour is not from any country so English Spelling on English wikipedia should prevail. Kaeso Dio (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to the article Book of Mormon

Hello Wrad:

I'm putting this note here because I see your name in the edit history of the Book of Mormon article. There have been two "batches" of changes to the article recently. As I explained in the Talk, I reversed these changes, not because of the substance of the changes but because of the "process". Talk:Book of Mormon#Reversal of Changes

I'm hoping you and others will look at the substance of these changes. I don't want the people who made the changes to think their efforts were reversed and then simply ignored. (And I'm not able to comment seriously on the proposed changes.)

The two batches of changes I'm referring to are the ones made on December 15 by 24.2.75.193, and on December 17 by DJ Clayworth. (Because the changes were reversed, the best place to see them is through the article history.)

Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

?

I'm sorry it took me a long time to respond. But which article? I haven't been here alot in the past 4 months. Working for Him (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Shylock the Jew

Good thinking. Was thinking just the same: see here. AndyJones (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought it was weird. Wrad (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Nota bene, friend...

Religious debates over Harry Potter has been listed as the featured article of the day for December 27th. Even with the page protected from vandalism, the debate over sources vs. POV is going to get vicious. Prep yourself for 24 very difficult hours. Serendi^podous 16:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Oooh boy. This should be interesting. Wrad (talk) 16:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was relatively painless. :) I had a harder time when Barnard's Star was listed. Thanks for your help; I would have caved a lot sooner on some of those complaints than you did. You think we could go through the additions made over the last day and decide which we want to keep and which we want to ditch? Serendi^podous 02:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I was also pleasantly surprised. The article seems to have improved for the most part. Wrad (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

BYU

Wow... you're adding... a lot... of... references to BYU. The ref count is now at 151, which is more than double of Harvard University. References are important... but it's going slightly overkill. Maybe you should find some more generic sources which could replace multiple existing sources on the BYU article right now. It's just a suggestion, it's not too bad, but it's definitely getting there. Merry Christmas! - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but sources aren't the problem. The article is too long in general and needs more summary style writing. There aren't really any more generic sources. I'm just sourcing everything before I shrink it down. Wrad (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I see you're doing major work, and I look forward to seeing the end result. I saw that you changed this and, since that bit about the missions in the lead has been such a flashpoint, I want to explain why I worded it the way I did. I was using the article text from the fourth paragraph of Brigham Young University#Culture as an internal reference, and I wanted to get across that both men and women at the campus have a common touchstone in their orientation towards missions, though there are differences in how each gender ends up experiencing those missions. The most significant difference, in terms of wording the sentence, is that of the timetable.

Relatively few male graduates are (I'm assuming) going on missions, but a vast majority of the male students are. However, relatively few of the female students are going on missions, because of the age restriction, but a lot of graduates are, because by graduation time, they're old enough to go. By using the non-specific "most" and "many," I left in a fudge factor for the exceptions to the rule that would be inextricably rolled up into the percentages. I'll leave it to your call, but I think the way I had it (Most male BYU students take a two-year hiatus from their studies to be Mormon missionaries, and many BYU women serve in missions as well, though usually for 18 months and typically after graduation.) works best to convey a capsule view of the "mission thing" -- as it affects the campus -- without overdoing it, shorting it, or falling victim to awkward wording (the source for the statistics would have us say only, "97% of male graduates have served in missions [not specifying when or how long before or after graduation] and so have 32% of the female graduates [ditto on duration and whether it occurred before or after leaving BYU]). --Dynaflow babble 23:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Here was my dilemma. The reference I had only referred to those who had been on missions before graduating, thus rendering the statement after female missionaries incorrect. I had to remove it, even though many women do probably go after graduating. Wrad (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then that would point to a problem with the paragraph I used's sourcing (I see you've already added a {{cn}}). Looking at page xvi of http://accredit.byu.edu/resources/selfstudy/Executive_Summary.pdf?lms=23, which is cited in the article, I see a mention of the difference in duration between men's and women's mission committments. The statistics are still too ambiguously presented for my taste, though. Is it saying, "At graduation x% have served," or is it saying, "Amongst those who are BYU graduates x% have served?" Let me see if I can find a better ref for that, and something mentioning the gender-specific age restrictions. --Dynaflow babble 00:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I got a barnstar for getting Religious debates over Harry Potter to the front page, but you didn't; that doesn't seem fair, so I'm giving you one. Serendipodous 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I'll take what I can get! Wrad (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

RPP for BYU

Wrad, you might want to request page protection on the BYU article. If I remember how to do it I'll do it for you. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I just RPPed with semi-protection. You might want to block Jack from editing the article. It might do the trick. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I want to see if he responds on the talk page or with the undo button before I act. Wrad (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Too bad... the admin said there wasn't enough recent activity to protect the article. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No big deal, things are settling down. Wrad (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Hey, I forgot to give you this a couple days back... but here... have a cookie. :-)

- Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

MMmmmmmm. Wrad (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hope you still say mmm and not argh by the time you finish reading my latest bit on BYU's talk page. lol Happy Early New Year. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 10:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)