User talk:The Dancing Badger/archive3

This Shakespearean Tireless Contributor Barnstar is presented to The Singing Badger for his continuous work on Shakespeare related articles. Presented by --Alabamaboy 17:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:Meles-face-1a.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Meles-face-1a.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

—Nick Boalch\^talk 00:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Enceladus

Hi,

This is regarding the article Enceladus (moon). Just wanted to say that I did not finished expanding the article, so I plan to finish first and then we will think about rearranging sections... (In particular, the Orbit section will move too :)

The plan I would like to stick to is borrowed from the French article, so if you read French even a bit, you can have a look and tell me what you think!

Thanks! -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That's cool, I didn't feel that strongly anyway, so you go ahead and finish the expansion! (L'article français est très bon, et il a beaucoup de bonnes images!) The Singing Badger 17:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Please help on William Shakespeare

Posted by Pruneau^T 00:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the AID maintenance team.

Curtain Theatre

Re your objection: I did provide a reference! It is the book at the bottom of the article under the heading 'References'! All my info comes from this source.....Which by the way, is the standard bio of Shakespeare....Colin4C 12:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a long book; I meant that page references would be useful. But I guess I should have been more specific, sorry. The Singing Badger 14:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Badger, while I don't defend all the stuff about the Curtain, as some of it came from the Hoxton page - but the premiere of Hamlet and documented performance of Dr Faustus comes from Peter Ackroyd's biography of London at page 170-1. Difficult to see your claim of 'fiction' ... or don't you hold him in any esteem as an authority? Kbthompson 17:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... that's weird. I can't think why Ackroyd would name the Curtain, since we know virtually nothing about that theatre. And Hamlet was written no earlier than 1599, so would have premiered at the Globe. And Marlowe's plays were staged at the Rose, I thought. Still, my half-baked memories hold less weight than Ackroyd's book, so put them back if you want and I'll look into it! The Singing Badger 19:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Your's read far better than my tortured prose, anyway, to which I can only provide the defence of heteroglossia; however, the good Colin has ventured forth, armed with more and better references and provided a concise and factually correct paragraph; that I think will cover the matter. (I think Colin believes it was the ur-Hamlet that was premiered here, but he removed any contentious material, so that's an argument for another day). I think Ackroyd is good, but in looking into his references, I couldn't find anything remotely approaching a book, or page source for this chapter. So, perhaps half-baked is better than an author pushing out a book a month .... I did add a note on Ben Jonson's duel in Hoxton fields, if your encyclopedic knowledge of early theatre extends that far. In my reading on the former matter, I did come across reference to an earlier theatre (5 galleried) at Whitechapel, any knowledge of that? Kbthompson 10:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The Whitechapel theatre was the 'Red Lion'. It was probably the first designated theatre building in London, built in 1567. But it didn't last long, and virtually nothing is known about it except that it existed. I'll try to find a reference. The Singing Badger 13:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC) (ta! k)

IMDb rating

Hi, could you elaborate on why you removed my edit? Yes IMDb ratings do change, but never by much, especially those with thousands of existing votes. Whether slightly variable or not, it is certainly more encyclopedic than just repeating the film title! Oldly enough, I just this minute proposed we make what I did a policy, could you share your thoughts there? Thankyou :) - Jack (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Other" - Cahoone quotation

--145.53.115.121 09:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Could you maybe tell me on what page of his book I can find the quotation of Lawrence Cahoone that you inserted in the topic "Other"?

"What appear to be cultural units—human beings, words, meanings, ideas, philosophical systems, social organizations—are maintained in their apparent unity only through an active process of exclusion, opposition, and hierarchization. Other phenomena or units must be represented as foreign or 'other' through representing a hierarchical dualism in which the unit is 'privileged' or favored, and the other is devalued in some way." (Cahoone 1996)

Sorry, I didn't insert that! I was probably just moving the paragraph. You'll have to look earlier in the edit history to find out who inserted it. Cheers, The Singing Badger 12:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Timon of Athens neutrality

I think most of the neutrality issues have been resolved, and I did a better job citing sources. I got rid of some contentious material that sounds like it was from a secondary-source introduction. I don't have access to every study of the play. I understand that the new Oxford edition goes into great detail why they think Middleton was involved, but I haven't seen it. Scottandrewhutchins 04:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. I actually have a copy of the Oxford edition so I'll add some stuff. The Singing Badger 11:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy

Hi, Badger! Thanks for keeping watch on Caroline Island while it's been on the main page. I wanted to encourage you, though, to leave more positive edit summaries. I'm sure that this edit was meant with good intentions, but we may run off or antagonize potentially valuable editors by calling them "pendants" and wishing "death" to them, even in a joking manner. -- Seth Ilys 21:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about that - I am usually polite but the 'January 1 2001' thing drives me up the wall. I promise it won't happen again! The Singing Badger 21:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Elias Koteas on Ararat (film)

Thanks for your rephrasing--it looks much better now. Feel free to delete this note--I just wanted to express my approval.

Hashshashin 01:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. The Singing Badger 02:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Orbit graphs

Thanks for extending the captions under my orbit graphs in Pluto. I refrained from putting extra graphs (views) in the articles on big KBO to avoid too heavy orbit section. Please let me know if you think extra diagrams would be useful there. Any suggestions to make the graphs more helpful are welcome. Eurocommuter 00:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hello Eurocommuter, I was actually going to make some suggestions. Your diagrams are amazing, but I think sometimes they are more complicated than is necessary and will simply frighten the average reader. Here are some suggestions (this is just my personal opinion):
• The yellow line pointing to the vernal point is unnecessary.
• The use of darker colours for the half of the orbit below the ecliptic is a problem, because the red orbit is too dark (it hardly shows up on my monitor) so at first glance Pluto's orbit looks like a semi-circle. I think if the colours were more similar, the point would still be made without it looking so odd.
• Looking at some of the other diagrams, this one of Ixion is way too complex: the yellow and blue lines could be dropped, the big image of Ixion gets in the way, the dates also clutter up the image, and again we have the problem of Pluto's orbit being half-invisible. If you try to remove everything that isn't 100% necessary, these diagrams would be more instantly understandable - you would get a quick, simple guide to Ixion's orbit.
• Maybe a simple rule of thumb is: if the explanation of a diagram is too big to fit in a caption underneath, it's probably too complicated!
• I hope you do not take this as too critical, your work is amazing and very helpful, and feel free to disagree with my suggestions! The Singing Badger 00:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your interesting comments! You highlight the very same points I feel unhappy with.

• Choice of readable colours is, of course, essential. Most people are not aware of the technical realities (e.g. the author of the graph has no control , as per the design, how SVG ‘standard’ colours are rendered on dozens very different client systems). I’ll try brighter colours, of course.
• Striking the balance between the readability to a casual reader and providing a bit of content for more a savvy reader is very tough.
  • The yellow segment pointing to the vernal point is cluttering but it gives the opportunity to compare these graphics with other sources (JPL applet for example) for a sanity check.
  • The spheres indeed have a nasty habit to get in the way no matter the time I spend rotating the point of view to get a better view. However, they give comparative sizes and help to reduce the feeling of the flatness of the graph, I believe.
  • The dates, again, clutter the picture, but in the TNO field one likes to have an idea where the object is now.
• I like your rule of thumb. Maybe a way to try to strike the balance is to provide more details (and a good description to replace my drafts) on the image page. I actually hoped that people will click on the graph and re-work my description. I believe that this is the place to be both simple and precise. I would appreciate if you could have a look and improve some of them.

Finally, I fully agree that the readership for articles like Pluto is quite different from the typical reader of say 2002 TX300. The content, including my graphs, should be adapted in consequence and currently it is not. In addition, the current planet fever brings thousands of people to the otherwise obscure (literally, given the distance from the Sun...) articles, suddenly putting in the headlights somehow technical content. I hope the editors experienced with popularisation of science will take over from the original authors often limited to technical language.

I will try to implement your comments progressively, put them on my preview pages and let you know. Again, thank you for a thoughtful (and flattering!) feedback. Regards Eurocommuter 12:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. I tried rearranging things on the Pluto page, and I have arrived at an important principle: do not explain or even refer to a picture within the body of the text. Instead, all explanations of the picture should be in the caption. This is because the text of an article can easily be changed (by vandals or just well-meaning editors) and cease to accurately describe the diagram; also pictures can get moved, and may end up miles away from the text that describes them. If the explanations are in the caption they're more obviously 'tied' to the picture and things won't go awry. I don't know if this is Wikipedia policy, but it should be. :) The Singing Badger 15:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

British bands and singers

It seems someone has been going through some of the articles and replacing British with English for possible POV reasons. Thanks for editing The Human League. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 22:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Coronae

Thank you for adding in Miranda, the sources I was working from didn't mention this! Jpb1301 00:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I salute you

Your patience in responding to that Baconian nut over at Talk:Shakespearean authorship is quite impressive. Keep up the good work. john k 23:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I should stop, actually - I'm only encouraging him. But thanks! The Singing Badger 00:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A word of explanation for John's comment. The proposition that "All Baconians are nuts" is a priori true and so one need not seek out any counter evidence such as work that the Baconian nut has written that might bring down this proposition. It is gratifying that Wikipedia is blessed with visits from intellectuals from time to time. (Puzzle Master 00:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

My bad

My bad on messing up those edits to Shakespearean authorship. It just really sticks in my craw when someone uses sock puppets to self promote their own work. Anyway, I've undone the revert. Best,--Alabamaboy 15:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on the craw-sticking! The Singing Badger 16:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Colours

Thanks for the on-going improvement of the article irregular satellite! The only wish I would have is to please try to keep a few terms with an established scientific meaning, namely colours (sometimes called broadband colours, referring to colour indices, including infrared H,I,J,K... colours) and not colouring. Also the categories like grey(=neutral=sunlike), light-red (or reddish) etc, while the names someteimes vary from one author to another, let’s keep them as used in the refs we quote. Cheers Eurocommuter 13:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, sorry about that! Keep watching me... The Singing Badger 13:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, like-wise (i.e. please keep watching me for unexplained obscure terms). Without your work this article will be so terse and full of dry facts that it would have a combined readership of 10 worldwide :)- Eurocommuter 14:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Authorship

I am taking this page off my watchlist for a few months. The Singing Badger 00:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanx for the Wikinfo reference. The real winner of all our disputes is the article. (Puzzle Master 10:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

British Columiba

I've lived in BC for all my life, I've never heard of a movement to remove the British from British Columbia, the crown doesn't really have much control over British Columbia anymore, offically the Queen could refuse any laws we pass but she hasn't done that yet. We still fly the union jack over our port though, I do not know why but as it is BC will stay bc for a while to comeTotallyTempo 19:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC).

Woodstock

Great work on Richard II, Part 1. Very impressed. AndyJones 18:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:D The Singing Badger 18:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Barryispuzzled

Dear SB,

As you may have gathered I decided to keep away from the Shakespeare Authorship discussions because I find Barry such a thoroughly obnoxious, self-centred and arrogant bully that I knew I would be unable to restrain my impulse to tell him so, but I think his latest reply to you is really so offensive that some sort of intervention has to be made, perhaps an RfA. Any thoughts?

Paul

Hi Paul, I was actually starting to like Barry - he writes good copy when he's in the mood - but he's completely gone off the rails lately. I too am trying to stay away from the page so I'm not keen on getting further tied up with it but I agree that Barry is digging his own grave and needs a warning that he can't go on like this. The Singing Badger 13:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)