User talk:Xover/Archive 1

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Shakespeare

Hey! Just noticed your work on Shakespeare articles and wanted to invite you to join Wikiproject Shakespeare, a group of editors dedicated to improving Shakespeare articles on wikipedia. Just add your name to the list of members in order to join. We'd love to have you! The page also describes current developments and ideas within the project, as well as a list of articles needing help. Wrad 19:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My email is smatprt@aol.com - I'm happy to hear what you have to suggest. Smatprt (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Shakespeare Collaboration

The Shakespeare Wikiproject is starting another collaboration to bring Romeo and Juliet to GA status. Our last collaboration on William Shakespeare is still in progress, but in the copyedit stage. If you have strong copyedit skills, you may wish to continue the work on that article. Members with skills in other areas are now moving on. Improving Romeo and Juliet article will set a standard for all other Shakespeare plays, so we look forward to seeing everyone there. Thanks for all your help with the project. Wrad 20:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Quiney

The second ref on the page uses Richard and Thomas to describe him interchangably. Admittedly, though, it isn't the best of sources and may be wrong. Wrad 21:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that is confusing. I don't mind at all if you improve it. I was kind of in a hurry when I wrote it, and couldn't do any real thorough work. Wrad 21:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ref

Good catch. Cheers. I was going to check that lot. I moved that ref around, and I don't know what happened. I'd better check I haven't broken anything else in the process.qp10qp 18:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits

Thanks for your edits. So many people have been editing "Life" for weeks that until the last couple of days I have avoided it and thought I would only have to copy edit it; but it's starting to look as if it's going to need a fact and reference check and re-ref. Like you, I didn't get the "unbreakable" business and couldn't find it in Honan, as such; I assumed some other text must have said Quiney was a hatter, because my sources said he was a vintner, too. If I have to re-ref "Life", it will be another week down the drain.qp10qp 18:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Xover: combining short refs and full citations works well on Wikipedia. We must think of readers first, and multi-tagging is bad for them; it also goes against scholarly practice (and combination within references does not). Also, I intend to bullet combined refs at some point, where full citations are involved. And we must stay consistent throughout the article. Thanks for all your work, though. And, at the end of the day, you are free to edit as you wish.qp10qp 19:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't care much about the Chambers refs. The i is OK in books because there is a bibliography. We don't have a bibliography, and that fact is the source of every single issue that you raise—short notes make sense with an alphabetical bibliography but not much without. But the systems used in the article are the ones we have to somehow live with, per Wikipedia policy. I would never choose this arrangement in a million years, but it's what has evolved. I've only been on the article a few weeks, and so has Tom: we are making the best of the mess we found. Don't worry about the word "standardise"; there's no word for what we are trying to do, which I guess is to try to restrain the styles of reffing to two (full and short) and to keep substantive notes in "Notes" (another style I don't like).

The only thing I genuinely care about is blue tag rows. I can't read articles with tag rows, and I know I'm not the only one. I can promise you, however, that when I get round to bulleting combined refs, they will be much easier to read because each one will start on a separate line, even when tags are shared: so, goodbye semicolons. This is the last thing on my list, though, because it makes sense to leave it until all else is done.qp10qp 21:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks! And kudos to you for those link edits! How stupid of me. I must have been tired, because I got them right higher up the article.

On your comment about the article being slightly light on biography, there is an article called Shakespeare's life which I think we could get to FA one day. I've got so many Shakespeare biogs now (still not Chambers, I fear) that it would be a shame not to use them again. And it would be fun to go into the greater detail needed for so many little scholarly issues. I'm going to need a break from Shakespeare for a while after this myself though. qp10qp 21:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Judith Quiney

I applied this article for GA status, and it is doing quite well. There are just a few things listed on the talk page that need clearing up. I plan to help with a lot of them, but since you are the article's main editor, you would probably be a bigger help than I... Wrad 04:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Will

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I commend you for all of your hard work on William Shakespeare. To compose and copy edit articles with multitudes of other people is never easy. You have helped produce a fascinating and eminently readable article. Think how many high school essays will reflect your language! :) Awadewit | talk 04:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Will's Will

Yes. You certainly could be right about that. Also, I'm a bit worried there might be a typo in the version of the will I'm looking at, which says:

...unto the saied Susanna Hall for and during the terme of her naturall lief and after her deceas to the first sonne of her bodie lawfullie yssueing and to the heiries Males of the bodie of the saied Second Sonne lawfullie yssyeinge...

Now, if that had ended "...saied First Sonne lawfullie yssyeinge" then I could see an intention to create an entail. As drafted it looks like the gift would vest in the first son if he survived, therefore NOT creating an entail, and making the reference to the second son's heirs a substitutional gift. However if that is the interpretation then "saied" would be wrong (you only say "said" with reference to a person already mentioned, which the second son hasn't been). I'm wondering if a line was skipped in typing up the above - I found it by googling on the internet, so I could easily have found a naff version. AndyJones 20:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. Suggests that in the version I had looked at there was, indeed, the error that I suggested above, and therefore in the correct version a stronger case that there WAS intended to be an entail. Oh, well. Anyway, all of this is OR absent a source. I still pretty much stand by my view that QP's version is the better one. AndyJones 21:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Good: I think we've probably got there. I've withdrawn part of my comment at FAC, referencing this conversation.

Shakespeare project - New collaboration debate

The Shakespeare project's first collaboration has ended in success, with William Shakespeare reaching FA status! Congrats to all who chipped in! We also had success in our second collaboration Romeo and Juliet, which is now a GA. Our next step is deciding which article to collaborate on next. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare#Next Collaboration to help us choose. Thanks. Wrad 04:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sycorax (Shakespeare)

I'm in a bit of a jamb on this article. It's up for GA status and is doing pretty well. All it needs is a good copyedit by someone unfamiliar with the prose. I asked another editor to do it, but he got into a bicycle accident and may not be able to do it. Could you do it? I would be grateful. Thanks. Wrad 03:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet

The Shakespeare Project's new collaboration is now to bring Hamlet to GA status. Wrad 00:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No bot! :)

Hello Xover,

First of all, I am not a bot. Also, even if I were, please assume good faith. No, my recent edit to Hamlet was performed using software that analyses the links, and, in particular, detects links that need disambiguation. But other than that, all is manual. As for the message, it was automatically generated.

Now, explanation of my edits:

• First Folio is linked twice in the same sentence
  
• Sigmund Freud is linked just above
  
• Same for Craig
  
• [ [Sarah Bernhardt|Sarah Bernhardt's] ] is useless and makes the source code difficult to read so changed it to[ [Sarah Bernhardt] ]'s.
  

I hope you agree my edits are more than legitimate and I urge you to revert your revert and be more careful next time. Also, avoid making your prejudices such as "set a bot loose on Wikipedia pages" too explicit, it doesn't look good.

Randomblue (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

R&J

• • No problem - I wasn't sure which sentence to change - since they are in direct conflict. Can someone fix one of them so that section does not contradict itself as it does now? Thanks Smatprt (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Authorship name calling

I finally realized what bothered me about the Authorship discussion at the Hamlet page. It was the title of the section. I found "Rears its head" to be kind of insulting. It conjures up "rears it's ugly head" of course, and images that the Authorship issue is some kind of monster rearing its head and gobbling up innocent travelers on the road like some kind of troll. There has been so much derision and name calling that I admit to being sensitive - my own "welcome" to Wikipedia was a good example. I was a newbie that needed some advice, but you'd have thought I shot the queen! Thanks for your work here, by the way. Smatprt (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow - thanks so much for those kind words. I'll see you in the edit room! Smatprt (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

POV changes

Thanks for the thanks. Yes - that specific editor makes the same changes every few months. They are always the same and certainly bring a particular bias with them - giving undue weight to Marlowe's candidacy and deleting information that strengthens the case of other candidates. Thanks for keeping an eye out! Smatprt (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

David Garrick

I can provide some sources (contemporary and recent) which claim David Garrick as the "most famous actor of his day" and the importance of his role with Shakespeare. He and Samuel Johnson have been said to have interpreted Shakespeare "truly", where those before them disliked the "bard" and those after were followers of "bardolatry". What does all of this mean? I don't know, you are the assessor. I can just provide information. :). Also, Samuel Johnson isn't part of the Shakespeare project, but his "preface" to his edition of Shakespeare was important. I will be creating a page for it soon. Should Johnson be added, or should just that page be added? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Baconian theory should probably be the highest importance, because its a theory that Shakespeare was really Bacon. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Johnson page does little to discuss the Shakespeare work, and it was only one of many works he was famous for. It would be redundant to link both Johnson and his Shakespeare preface/edition. But I don't know if the Shakespeare group likes redundancies or not. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Chandos portrait

Responding to your inquiry at the talk page for the article -- please continue the discussion there, Talk:Chandos portrait. --- 83d40m (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Newsletterbot

The bot is working fine. Did you follow the instructions on the bots' userpage? « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 18:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've copied the instructions below:

1. Replace "WIKIPROJECTNAME" with your Wikiproject's name (below). (i.e. Wikipedia:Wikiproject Boston Celtics)
2. If this is your second newsletter from the same Wikiproject put "WIKIPROJECTNAME 2" if your third "WIKIPROJECTNAME 3" etc.
3. Answer the questions that follow.
4. Copy the template to this page. For example, {{User:Newsletterbot/WIKIPROJECTNAME}} would be copied not the text inside of it
5. Copy a link to your newsletter to the bottom section name "Newsletters to Deliver"
6. Your newsletter should be delivered in the next 12 hours (most likely less)

Tell me if you still have questions. Best, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 18:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet collaboration

Greetings! The current Shakespeare Project Collaboration is Romeo and Juliet. This project is currently going a thorough peer review and copyedit before moving on to FAC. The link to the peer review is Wikipedia:Peer review/Romeo and Juliet/archive1. Have a look! « Diligent Terrier Bot (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Raving Queen" etc.

Dear Xozer, This is in fact the line Richard Dreyfus' character himself uses to categorize the directorial line that he is ordered to follow in the film version of The Goodbye Girl.I cannot speak for the original play (of TGG) as I don't have access to it.

The conflation of Queen Margaret in R III is referred to in the article without any citation and itself constitutes a blind assertion. As too is the 'fact' in the text of the article that audiences are not familiar with Henry VI Pts etc. Without a textual reference, and I doubt that the author could find such a crass asseverance, my appendage to it remains valid. So I would suggest the article be rewrittem OR a respectable reference is given OR I shall appeal to any higher authority about your intervention. Jatrius (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC) (Misplaced message moved here from User page. Xover (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)) Thanks for that. I shall follow your direction.Jatrius (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Sir Andrew & Boldness

Hi Xover! Typing that section heading just made me think how curious it is that Andrew Aguecheek should help set the scene for you encouraging me to be bold! I might not have made that original entry on the talk page if I realised how it could be interpreted - I can be a right Sir Andrew myself, sometimes! Thanks for "prodding" me, as it were. I hope to find the right balance soon; maybe everything seems scarier when you're new here :) (I don't think it helps that I ended up on the RfA page and was reading some of the Oppose entries - "so and so didn't give an edit summary six months ago . . ." I've purposely exaggerated, of course, but that's how it seemed by the time I got to the end of the page!) Thank you again, I'm grateful for your response. Cheers, Maedin (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I have added my name to the WikiProject Shakespeare list! Maedin (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet

Wow!

Thank you. Most kind.

Still needs some tweaks to get the sourcing consistent with the rest of the article, I think. I'll look at the performance sections generally, today, I expect. AndyJones (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Greetings!

You are an amazingly hard worker on the Shakespeare project and I'm relying on you to weed out these anti-Stratfordian fantasists and allow reason to prevail! They don't know the Wikipedia rules as well as you do so you're bound to win in the end. Felsommerfeld (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

For entirely different reasons :), I too am glad you are hard at work on the Shakespeare project. Glad to see you over at the Baconian article. Politeness is sorely lacking on these pages - maybe you can be a good influence. Smatprt (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Baconian article

Thought you'd like to know, there's a job vacant to write the Baconian article which you might like to attempt. There's no pay but I can guarantee that when you've finished you'll have enormous fun defending your efforts against people who are waiting to tell you that you wasted your time. Puzzle Master (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Bye bye!

See my talk page! Puzzle Master (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr Wolf, huh?

You, my friend, are one of the nastiest pieces of work I've met on these forums. The Baconian theory article is a high quality article. I want to ensure that. You are trying to obstruct me. That's the reality. I'd love to meet you face so face because I don't believe you'd been so courageous in your vindictiveness then. It's easy to be nasty and tried to get someone banned behind the protection of a computer screen Puzzle Master (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Attacked again

Hi again, It appears that the banned user is back, using at least one name, possibly three. See [[1]]. He returned and immediately attacked me again - this time with an unfounded accusation of sockpuppetry, of all things. Can you take action? Thanks. FYI - his accusation includes you. Smatprt (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you?

Did you get my email? If not, it's smatprt@aol.com Smatprt (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No prob. I'm quite busy too, but I wanted to respond to your request. Smatprt (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Your message

Thank you for your recent message informing me of your accusation against me. I'm sorry that you feel that way. Best Wishes. ProsperoX (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)