User talk:Xover/Archive 10
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Xover. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Speedy deletion nomination of List of Cambridge University Press journals
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on List of Cambridge University Press journals, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Randykitty (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Sonnet Uniformity Act
I recently dipped my toe into updating 1 little element of Wikipedia's 154 Sonnet articles and, well, it turns out that more than 1 thing could stand improvement. I've written up a little manifesto cheekily called User:Phil wink/Sonnet Uniformity Act. Ultimately, I'll post a link on WP:BARD, Shakespeare's sonnets, and possible William Shakespeare. But 1) I despair of getting enough feedback to achieve "consensus" worthy of the name, and 2) I hope to get a sanity-check from dedicated editors before completely exposing it.
Would you be kind enough to read my harangue, and comment? (Please comment at User talk:Phil wink/Sonnet Uniformity Act so we can maintain 1 discussion.) I may continue tweaking it a bit, but I think it's pretty much complete, apart from updates based on ensuing discussion. FYI, I've put out this same request to Tom Reedy and Thefairyouth154. I'm much obliged for any insight you can contribute. Phil wink (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Phil wink: Apologies for not getting to this sooner, and yet further apologies for not being able to give it more attention now either. I've quickly scanned through the Act and overall consider it a wonderful initiative and would not object in the least to this becoming a policy of WP:BARD. I do have some niggling little things in there I would want changed, but as I don't have the time to follow up on it I think I'll rather leave off even mentioning them. I'll try to get back to it when I have some available WikiTime again. Meanwhile, I applaud your efforts on this and on what little I've looked at of your other efforts to improve the sonnet articles. I find it a crying shame that these are not in better shape and so am very grateful for the effort and care you've put into cleaning them up. Kudos! --Xover (talk) 08:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your encouragement, and I'm happy to entertain your thoughts in the future. Phil wink (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
That citation I found and posted in Cuthbert Burby looks to contain enough meat for one of those satisfying thunk! moments when you drop a new article into Wiki, and the next passing new page patroller thinks: "WTF wasn't there already an article?" Over to you and your colleagues, I'm WikiGnomishly moving on.
(The new articles of which I'm most proud are those where I've done my best, created a stub, and asked for help from relevant WikiProjects - and have got it, with an upgrading by another editor to start class for the improved article.) Narky Blert (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Taming of the Shrew, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Continuum and Macmillan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Nomination for merging of Template:ISSN link
Template:ISSN link has been nominated for merging with Template:ISSN search link. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Tragical History of Guy Earl of Warwick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Methuen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Xover. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
What did you think of my work here? The matter is very near and dear to my heart. I read for Macbeth in my high school English class, so when the teacher mentioned the theory Macbeth was the murderer I was kind of shocked. "ZOMG, did I kill Banquo?" Ribbet32 (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Ribbet32: Very nice work! I love these quirky little articles about, relatively speaking, obscure corners of Shakespeareana. And I was only very peripherally aware of the Third Murderer so I even learned something new and interesting in the process. It's a pity character criticism of Shakespeare's works (and literature in general) is so out of fashion these days. I find it much more interesting than most of the New Historicism-influenced criticism that's been the focus in the last century. --Xover (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 22:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
--Cameron11598 (Talk) 22:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
|
Congratulations, it's a... |
| ...Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC) |
Shakespeare Theatre Company / Folger
Hi Xover Thanks for the info about the Folger Library. Actually I am quite familiar with them and have an open invitation. I have putting together an article on their Folger Theatre as one of the several tasks I would like to perform - however there is a minor problem of time. Thanks again
ed
Ecragg (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Back to Malone
Well, Xover, I'm glad to see you have found some time to return to expanding the Edmond Malone article. After having mostly been away from it for more than a year, I reread the entire article. Your new material, and indeed the whole thing as far as it goes, is very well written. I could find only one tiny correction to make. As always, I look forward to being of editorial assistance with any further additions or changes you have the time and inclination to make. --Alan W (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- "More than a year"? I just browsed through the history, and I was reminded that the bulk of your massive expansion of the Malone article, and my editorial assistance, goes back well over five years! Where does the time go? --Alan W (talk) 05:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Heh heh, yeah, time does fly! Thank you for your kind words regarding the Chatterton section; but as I recall, its claims to quality mostly stem from your gentle hand grooming the rude beast I had dropped in there. I believe you rewrote most, if not all, of the section just before I dropped off the face of the (wiki)planet. But, hey, the praise is well deserved, you just addressed it to the wrong recipient! :-) --Xover (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Kind of you to say, and of course I am glad I helped in my way with the earlier Chatterton material; but, first of all, I meant that everything in the article, which I reread in its entirety, is very good, not just the Chatterton part; and, also, you just added some new material, mainly the paragraph beginning with: "The controversy was a perfect match ...", and the quote that follows. Not one thing in those additions that I felt I needed to change. Hey, give yourself some credit, too! In any case, these collegial collaborations, when they work, are a very positive feature of Wikipedia, and we certainly work well together. As you once said, like Gilbert and Sullivan (although, amusingly, I recall hearing that they didn't like each other personally). Regards, Alan W (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, yes; Gilbert and Sullivan's relationship was notoriously stormy, as I understand it. Helped not a little by their business partner, and owner of the Savoy, Richard D'Oyly Carte (a scoundrel if ever I saw one). Perhaps not the best analogy if one wishes for a harmonious collaboration, come to think of it. But they did make some spectacular shows together that neither was capable of without the other (they tried!). And in that sense I feel the comparison is somewhat apt: it is tremendously helpful to me to have recourse to your keen eyes and steady editorial hand on Malone! And more than that, such collaboration, as you say, greatly increases the pleasure I derive from this little hobby. --Xover (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, Xover. I took what you had said about Gilbert and Sullivan only in its obviously positive intentions, believe me. I'm just amused now thinking of the real situation between those collaborators, and thanks for the additional info about D'Oyly Carte. His name certainly lives on, but I knew nothing about the man himself. As for our collaboration, you likewise have helped me with your strengths, including navigating the often tortuous (and torturous) pathways of Wikipedia. And you're no slouch in the writing department yourself. --Alan W (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, yes; Gilbert and Sullivan's relationship was notoriously stormy, as I understand it. Helped not a little by their business partner, and owner of the Savoy, Richard D'Oyly Carte (a scoundrel if ever I saw one). Perhaps not the best analogy if one wishes for a harmonious collaboration, come to think of it. But they did make some spectacular shows together that neither was capable of without the other (they tried!). And in that sense I feel the comparison is somewhat apt: it is tremendously helpful to me to have recourse to your keen eyes and steady editorial hand on Malone! And more than that, such collaboration, as you say, greatly increases the pleasure I derive from this little hobby. --Xover (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Kind of you to say, and of course I am glad I helped in my way with the earlier Chatterton material; but, first of all, I meant that everything in the article, which I reread in its entirety, is very good, not just the Chatterton part; and, also, you just added some new material, mainly the paragraph beginning with: "The controversy was a perfect match ...", and the quote that follows. Not one thing in those additions that I felt I needed to change. Hey, give yourself some credit, too! In any case, these collegial collaborations, when they work, are a very positive feature of Wikipedia, and we certainly work well together. As you once said, like Gilbert and Sullivan (although, amusingly, I recall hearing that they didn't like each other personally). Regards, Alan W (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Heh heh, yeah, time does fly! Thank you for your kind words regarding the Chatterton section; but as I recall, its claims to quality mostly stem from your gentle hand grooming the rude beast I had dropped in there. I believe you rewrote most, if not all, of the section just before I dropped off the face of the (wiki)planet. But, hey, the praise is well deserved, you just addressed it to the wrong recipient! :-) --Xover (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 17:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
--Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The Merchant of Venice's reverted edit
I apologize on my recent edit(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Merchant_of_Venice&action=history) on The Merchant of Venice. When I was editing the article, I thought that there was a grammar error in said article, and did not know that this was in fact not a mistake. Thanks for reverting the aforementioned article. JaventheAldericky (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- @JaventheAlderick: Don't worry about it. We all make mistakes, and this was a very very minor one. Be bold!, and remember that reverts are not criticism but a normal part of the editing process. --Xover (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Shakespeare authorship question scheduled for second TFA
This is to let you know that the Shakespeare authorship question article has been scheduled as today's featured article for a second time, for 23 April 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 23, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Macbeth (1979 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Griffith Jones. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Family of William Shakespeare
Template:Family of William Shakespeare has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Opera hat (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Macbeth (1916 film) into List of William Shakespeare screen adaptations. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: 1) Please don't template the regulars (for the reasons outlined in the linked essay; have you read it recently?). 2) Please actually read the edit summary: it does attribute the source article. --Xover (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Xover. The edit summary reads "Add Macbeth (1916 film)", which is not the same thing as noting that the prose was copied. Attribution is more properly provided with an edit summary such as "Attribution: content in this section was copied from Macbeth (1916 film) on April 28, 2017. Please see the history of that page for full attribution." Sorry you found receiving a template annoying. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: It was literally before my morning coffee (please don't poke the Xover before morning coffee! That's, like, the sixth pillar or something.). In the interest of less wikidrama, let's stipulate that the annoyance may—may, I said!—have been somewhat out of proportion to the provocation. :)Regarding the edit summary, I'm not certain I entirely agree with you, but since it costs nothing I'll try to make sure that in future I make clear that the addition in question is from the linked article, rather than merely regarding it. And all evidence to the contrary aside, I do very much appreciate feedback on such matters; even, or perhaps even especially, feedback I don't agree with. So thank you for that! --Xover (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Xover. The edit summary reads "Add Macbeth (1916 film)", which is not the same thing as noting that the prose was copied. Attribution is more properly provided with an edit summary such as "Attribution: content in this section was copied from Macbeth (1916 film) on April 28, 2017. Please see the history of that page for full attribution." Sorry you found receiving a template annoying. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, no - Shake-speare vs. Shak-speare
Hello again, Xover! Thank you for just thanking me, but after reading down and refreshing my memory of all the confusing forms in the various editions, and after looking at the convenient List_of_Shakespeare_plays_in_quarto, I have to acknowledge that the change made by Kl0f was correct. I took it out of context at first. I think I got it right this time. Again, saddened by reflecting that Paul is no longer with us, so he could check his own work along with the revision. So the rest of us have to carry on. Hope all is well with you. Regards, Alan W (talk) 05:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Alan. Well, no; I just saw the edit but didn't know that detail off the top of my head and didn't have time to look into it. So the thank you was for taking the time to look into it, and not really for "correcting" it. Which reminds me; I should probably go thank Kl0f for correcting the original mistake. :)Anyways, yeah, there's always a little twinge of regret for Paul whenever these kinds of issues pop up. Felt all the keener for the relative paucity of active editors in the Shakespeare area. --Xover (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:WPBARD Overview
Template:WPBARD Overview has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Love it!
|
The Article Rescue Barnstar | |
| Awarded for your "quick rewrite" of Jessica (The Merchant of Venice). Josh Milburn (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC) |
- Yes, amazing job! Are you interested in this article being featured on the main page on DYK? I could nominate it for a 5x expansion. Yoninah (talk) 09:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: I'm sort of philosophically opposed to DYK, and I'm not sure it's in a state that merits being featured (even as a DYK), but if you'd like to do so I certainly won't object. --Xover (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- That's what I was wondering, about the state of the article; you noted that it was a "quick rewrite". I'm not up to doing more work on it, so I'll let this one pass. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 09:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: I'm sort of philosophically opposed to DYK, and I'm not sure it's in a state that merits being featured (even as a DYK), but if you'd like to do so I certainly won't object. --Xover (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Good afternoon! Thanks for yuor msg regarding the article Yorick and Yurick. I will glad if you will assist i English, because it is dificulty to translate properly unussualy prases. For this moment I have not time to continue this article and can be today and tomorrow will update it. Seems I will absent long time from Sunday and in case this article will unpropriate, can be it will better readable but not full, I will copy it and you will delete it. I will absent 4 month about from Sunday it is why I am not sure that you and readers will agree with the article? which is not completed. In case on Sunday the article will good enough and you will ready to wait continuation after 4-5 month, you can remain what we will have. Грищук ЮН (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Грищук ЮН: If we're talking months with no progress, I'm afraid that's a little too long a stretch of time. But I'll tell you what... My biggest concern right now is that I simply can't understand what the article is about (in policy terms, its "assertion of notability"). Could you find me an English language source that discusses the topic? And perhaps try to improve the article's lead so that it explains what the article is about, and why the topic is notable?PS. Also, while I would be happy to assist with general copy-editing, I think you need to find someone who understands Russian as well as English. A lot of the article's problems appear to stem from a problem expressing the Russian concepts properly in English, and no English speaker, no matter how proficient, will be able to help significantly if they do not understand the Russian original. Perhaps someone from WikiProject Russia or WikiProject Film/Soviet and post-Soviet cinema task force can help? Or possibly you could ask around on Russian Wikipedia for someone who is more comfortable expressing these concepts in English? --Xover (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Грищук ЮН: I see you've been editing the article quite a lot over the weekend. However, I do not really see it improving in the areas that concerned me, as outlined above. And since you indicate that you will be away from the project for several months soon, I feel I must warn you that it is very likely to end up nominated for deletion while you are away. If you would like, you could prepare a rationale for keeping it in advance and I could try to make sure it is posted on the discussion page (not as good as you being able to argue the case yourself, but that way at least your position would be represented by proxy). You might also prefer to userfy the article until you've improved it to a point where you feel it will meet the inclusion criteria. My apologies for being such a spoilsport when I can see how much effort you've put into creating the article!Also, since I see you have not contacted the relevant WikiProjects as I suggested above, I'm going to go ahead and post a message at a couple of them to ask for help with the article. --Xover (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
This wiki-kitten is here to thank you for your edits on Jessica (Merchant of Venice) page. It is great to see a student project properly expanded.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: Awww, what a cutie! Thank you. :) --Xover (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Just popping in here to see what you've been up to lately, Xover, and, well, I'm astonished. A truly outstanding job. A miraculous transformation. You well deserve the acclaim you've won for helping with this article. Your Wiki work just gets better and better. Regards, Alan W (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of A Midsummer Night's Rave
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A Midsummer Night's Rave you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 23
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 23, June-July 2017
- Library card
- User Group update
- Global branches update
- Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
- Bytes in brief
Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)