User talk:AndyJones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, AndyJones, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I've answered your question at the help desk. If you have any more questions, do not hesistate to ask me (click on the "A note?" link in my signature, and edit that page). Once again, welcome! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Inheritance Tax (United Kingdom)

Looks great! Remember that you should always be bold when updating pages. Because I am not an expert in that field, I cannot judge it; however, Wikipedia does have a peer review process where other editors will leave input for you. In addition, I commend you for leaving some notes at the talk page; this is extremely helpful! While a justification isn't required for every edit, it's great that you did so. Happy editing, and don't hesistate to ask me anything! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 01:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Only just seen this - good stuff: it is nice to see some tax professionals contributing. You may like to add a link to it at Taxation in the United Kingdom, and expand the summary paragraph there ion IHT. There should probably also be a short summary paragraph at Inheritance tax, which is meant to cover all jurisdictions, not just the US as it does at present. Finally, query whether it should be moved to United Kingdom inheritance tax, like United Kingdom corporation tax. But, once again, well done. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and thanks for the articles on Furniss v. Dawson and the Ramsay Principle, but query whether they ought to be merged, probably at the latter; and some discusion of later cases, particularly Macniven v. Westmoreland and Barclays v. Mawson, would be welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abstain?

Why did you vote abstain when you could have voted me a pony? After things wikisettle for me a bit, I'll see what I can do about restarting the HS discussion. I bet we can get buy-in. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On Trust (Law)

I think a link to Trust (Law) USA, should be in the disambiguation page Trust (I don't know if it is right now), and then from there a link to the current Blind trust page, which I think is more of a stub right now. Go ahead with the change you think fits better, I'm sure you are better qualified for doing this since you are a lawyer. I'm just a computer programmer. Thanks Homerotl 01:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Ramsay Principle

thanks for starting this article. I removed the following text from the top of the article:

I am in the process of writing this page. I am saving it in small blocks to the internet as I go. If you are seeing this message you are looking at an intermediate version of the article. (If you are seeing this message after, say, 3 October 2005, I have died, or got bored, or something and you should remove it.) AndyJones 20:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The reason being articles aren't supposed to contain anything but encyclopedic information - you can post messages mentioning the status of the article on the talk page but the idea with articles is to pretend wikipedia is a real encyclopedia - just as you wouldn't find notes in Brittanica saying "I haven't finished this section yet!", you shouldn't be able to find them in wikipedia. Of course my analogy is a bit odd, because you wouldn't find incomplete articles in Brittanica anyway, but the policy with wikipedia is that even the pages that aren't yet nearly finished shouldn't lapse from an encylopedic tone or refer to themselves. After all, all articles here are works-in-progress.

Keep up the good work. --81.154.236.221 18:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:"Snow"

Again, my current proposal is to merge all the stubs into a general article about the Poetry of Mao Zedong which is a broad topic you could really expand on then link to Wikisource which is where all source documents SHOULD be. Sasquatcht|c 22:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Bryants etc.

Liked your approach on the Bryant afd. Good work. AndyJones 23:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, just trying to do due dilligence and actually support my arguements.--Isotope23 00:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare on screen

Great work!! Very impressive. The Singing Badger 20:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Userfied?

I saw you use the term userfied on AfD. What does it mean?—Gaff ταλκ 02:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Destiny

I'll talk to him, perhaps via email. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 23:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] a belated barnstar

Hey, thanks for the cudos! Funny, I only just noticed it now. That's very kind of you. Cheers! --PullUpYourSocks 03:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. Very good work!AndyJones 12:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good Humour

Thanks for the Barnstar of Good Humour! — TheKMantalk 00:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spam reversion

No, you did quite right. I gave the guy fair warning, and he did nothing, so that's what happens. BDAbramson T 22:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Mooney (Blogger)

Hi AndyJones. Just a quick word with regard to the Paul Mooney (blooger) thing. I hadn't realised that there was already a discussion going on on the matter. I was using CryptoDerk's vandal fighter and saw it come up. I took one look at it and thought "nonsense!". I'll try to be a bit more thorough in my investigations before marking as Afd in the future. So, thanks for setting me straight on the matter! Much appreciated! KC. 17:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Foo

Hi Andy, when I say "collapse [[foo|foo]]", I mean that I take any wiki link where the description part and the article to link to are the same, and remove the redundant description part. So [[Buffy the vampire slayer|Buffy the vampire slayer]] is redundant, it can be replaced by [[Buffy the vampire slayer]]. Foo is a metasyntactic variable commonly used in programming. Hope this helps. Cmdrjameson 19:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Mooney (blogger)

All right, I understand what you're saying, but I still think a speedy could have worked better. Now you have to wait a week before things can progress, but if it was speedied you could report the guy for vandalism as soon as he tried to touch the Paul Mooney the comedian article. In any case, it doesn't really matter now, you've got the consensus already and I hope you won't have to waste any more time on that blogger guy. Flyboy Will 19:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Internet legal resources in UK

Saw your comment that there was no internet resource for UK court decisions on the Case citation page. Thought you may like to check out BAILII. Maybe an email to the council of law reporting about releasing the copyright on the backsets to BAILII would be good if you are in the UK.

Regards FedLawyer 03:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC).

[edit] BAILII

AndyJones,

It saddens me that you would find it more appropriate to delete a link to annother free info database because it has been denied public documents (judgments) by the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting, rather than write to the Council and use your efforts to have them release the copyright. AustLII had similar problems until enough people supported it - indeed even Wikipedia was limited to start with. Is it not time to send people to the site so that they can complain that the common law of England is copyrighted to the Incorp council of law reporting who (with your favoured commercial link sites) will charge them a fee if they want to know the law (which, of course, they are presumed to know).

But, it is not for an Australian lawyer to emancipate the Brits. I leave it for you to restore the BAILII link, unless you think that we should all be denied awareness of the free access legal database of the UK because it is presently crippled by the Incorp Council.

Regards FedLawyer 13:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Newbie

I see Raul's answered your question, but thanks for thinking of me! By the way, we usually get lots of new users with an email address as the username; most never edit or make only one or two edits. I'd mainly be concerned about the ones that will become regular contributors. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Newbie

Hi. I noticed you gave User:Nihitmehta08@yahoo.com a hint about user names. I kinda suspect he doesn't know he's become a user. He's been posting homework questions at my talk page, calling himself "anonymous", and I've had to politely decline, both there and at his own talk page (which he may or may not be aware even exists). Cheers JackofOz 02:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I get the impression he's very young. Oh, well. AndyJones 12:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Wars of the Roses disambiguation

I think it is anachronistic and (which is worse) misleading to describe the lands between the Irish Sea and the North Sea, excluding Scotland, as "Britain". I suspect the medievals would agree since (if I remember my Malory correctly) they tended to distinguish between Britain the Less (Brittany) and Britain the Great. I'm not very well read in this area but it sounds wrong to me. Can you provide any contemporary source that describes this stretch of land as "Britain"? Then again, you must do as you think right. I am dealing with enough articles not to want to get involved in another. The reason we Englanders know we're top nation in these isles is because Celts like yourself get so chippy about denying it ;-) Stroika 00:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Everyonesacritic.net

Hi Andy, Since your vote for delete on this AfD, I have since cleaned up to adhere to NPOV and provided evidence of Notability. Could you please change your vote to keep?

Thanks,

--Dave 21:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Because

Biased persons are trying to revert it to the overly, eqaully biased article it was. Courier new 00:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Inherently funny

Don't know how closely you follow AfDs you already voted on (I try but sometimes fail due to the size of my watchlist) but I did respond that I would like to know more about the Jimbo locking and demonstrating the page story. Thanks. Turnstep 02:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Have replied, there. AndyJones 10:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Elizabethan Theatre

Greetings! Since you are one of the three people who post frequently on the William Shakespeare talk page, I thought I would include you in this.

If you haven't noticed, I've been trying to push WikiProject Theatre a bit. Someone on the talk page noted that the project is really very large and I agree. So in order to break up some of the work and concentrate it, I have decided to break up WikiProject Theatre into a series of smaller theatre projects. The first of these is WikiProject Elizbethan theatre. This project, spanning the 84 years between the beginning of Elizabeth I's reign to 1642 when the Puritans closed the theatres, covers such names as Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe and Ben Jonson. It aims to expand Wikipedia's coverage of the Elizabethan theatre as well as bringing the articles up to a high level of quality (close to or attaining FA status).

This project has not actually been launched as an official project yet, but the 2 main pages have been created on subpages of WikiProject Theatre and can be viewed here. I would like to get some feedback and suggestions before I officially launch the project. Please feel free to become a member of the project if you'd like. Please leave any messages regarding this here and I will watch your page. Thanks! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a note. WikiProject Elizabethan theatre has officially been launched. Thanks for joining! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 02:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thought I'd draw your attention to [1], which was originally written as a wiki-article. It was deprecated by somebody or other so I took it to my own server and put in a link from the Flanders and Swan page. Cheers. El Ingles 13:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] changing username

hi, i just rembered recently i have id in winkpedia i went to my talk and saw your message telling me to change my username thanks for the help i was curious to know that did you ever read a book called lord of the flies or kane and abel

[edit] The two Trust (law) pages.

Hi there, I've proposed a re-merge of Trust (law) non-USA and Trust (law) USA - I understand you split them in the first place. Your contribution in the discussion at the relevant talk page would be appreciated. Thanks! Nuge talk 04:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British national poet

thanks for the support there, especially from a Shakespeare buff, to be perfectly honest with you though, I think both Burns and Shakespeare are universal rather than merely "national".

[edit] Shakespeare

Thanks for your nice comment on my work in your edit summary. Such is what keeps us wikiholics at the grindstone, Guinnog 21:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] it:Astrud Gilberto

Hi, I've read your note, can I ask you what precisely did they say about it? Thank you :) --g 22:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Well they weren't very specific. They've asked me not to put excerpts from their email onto Wikipedia, but they refer to "inaccurate staements and blunt lies". I can tell from their comments to me that the sections they object to disappeared from the English Wikipedia somewhere between these two versions, therefore whatever they disliked is on the left pane but not the right pane in that link. I don't know if that helps you, much. AndyJones 12:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • PS, compare also these versions. Magya is her management. AndyJones 12:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rotary International

It seems you begin an edit war on the Rotary page. Would you justify please. There is an explanation page. Can you edit it ? as a blind such an huge list as enlarged by Rotarians is not usable. Were is the problem in placing some header ?

another question : are you member of the Rotary Club ? You seem to have the profile for.

Thank you PierreLarcin2 20:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

A question: Does Pierre's argument that conventions used one language of the Encyclopedia can apply on another make sense? I thought each language has different policies as its user base requires. -- 127.*.*.1 12:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • That's what I think too. I've got no view on the substantive pro-Rotary -v- anti-Rotary edit war happening at Rotary International. I'm just following WP:SELF. Are you intending to raise the possibility of wikipedia being improved for blind users at the Village Pump? I don't see "click on a link" type comments as helpful in that regard, myself. AndyJones 13:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Someone will have to raise it. Pierre tells me that he can not navigate into the Village Pump because it is too complex for his reader. At the moment, I'm trying to think of what to write. If you have any suggestions I would be happy to consider them. -- 127.*.*.1 13:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This is an interesting question. I shared a house with a blind guy about ten years ago, and he used the internet a great deal. Unfortunately we've lost touch, so I cannot ask for his guidance on this. I checked out the accessibility sections of a couple of websites in the UK: Here is The Royal London Society for the Blind, and here's the BBC. I suppose they are starting points. I'll consider this issue some more. AndyJones 16:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting a little tiured of this silliness; this individual obviously has listening & comprehension problems, and a serious (though very strange) agenda. I would suggest if you know any admins, it's time this guy got blocked.Bridesmill 21:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, he seems to have engaged in a bout of trollery on Friday evening shortly after my last edit. I really am losing patience with the guy and his constant ridiculous accusations and insults. If there's any more this week I will suggest that he be blocked on the administrators' notice board. He certainly does not play well with the other children. I see from his talk page that he was warned by User:127. I wouldn't say he took it in the right spirit, though. AndyJones 20:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, thank you AndyJones. You certainly feeled that our arbitration request is ALSO concerning you...For your repetitive blanks on the facts I brought. Nice huge work you did on me. As you maybe saw upstairs : I did not ask blocking of pro-Rotarian users because the repeted blankings they do (only on "negative" aspects) and repeted request for fact sourcing (only on "negative" aspects- no such request on "positive" rotarian). Such a huge work just show that you are concerned by restriction in critic facts only to Rotary International in a wiki. See you at arbitration.

Yes : i forgot. Sorry. Ooops. You are CERTAINLY not Rotarian or pro-Rotary We apologize. Rotarian salutations. PierreLarcin2 14:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As a drive-by editor who spotted the WP:AN mention of this issue, it looks to me like you have good fodder for a user conduct RfC on this topic. It might help get some valuable input for PierreLarcin2 to consider from otherwise uninvolved editors. Good job with your patience on this, by the by. Tony Fox (speak) 18:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there,

Hi there,

Thanks for your input. I noticed you are an attorney, hence your take on things. I would just like to point out the legal meaning of "rape" is narrower than the general meaning of the word. "Rape" existed before it was a crime. And different jurisdictions across the world define "rape" in vastly different terms.

I am not sure why the Wikipedian dictionary definition would be any better than one we can come up with ourselves. Before I provided my definition, I read the definitions given by the most authoritative dictionaries of the English language. The definition I gave was based on the best parts of these definitions. Moreover, encyclopedic entrys usually have space for more elaborate definitions. Hence, you find a more complete definition for the word "paradox" in Wikipedia than you find in your average dictionary.

Best regards, Michael

Michael D. Wolok 14:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-promotion

Hello, Andy. Thanks for the help-desk help on my query re the above. Can I take it that you'll do all the removing, or should I join in?

My original point was that I couldn't find out whether there were any wiki-guidelines on what to do when encountering this sort of thing, which is usually the work of - for obvious reasons - anonymous IP addresses. This cannot be the only example, and I wonder whether something ought to appear somewhere among the FAQs or wherever is appropriate? Any thoughts? Best, Andrew (aka GuillaumeTell 21:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

To be honst I'd rather you joined in. Was in a stroppy mood during yesterday's session, and I logged off for fear of overreacting. Anyway, you'll see I've started at the bottom of his list. I'll look back again & help out further this evening or tomorrow. I don't know if there's a policy, exactly, but last time I got involved in case like this I said this. AndyJones 12:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I think I've done them all now, and have put a short note along the lines of yours above on both his talk pages. I shall be interested to see what, if anything, happens in consequence. --GuillaumeTell 18:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, good work. We'll see what come of it: usually, nothing does, which is good. AndyJones 20:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
He seems to have metamorphosed into 217.247.240.32, not to mention 217.247.240.99, but I'm fighting the good fight. Best--GuillaumeTell 00:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] web diredtory

Thanks for the information.--Chuck Marean 16:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Othello, Patrick Stewart's production

KXL June 19, 2006: What exactly is "spammy" about listing Stewart's production (which took place years ago, and so is not an advert for it)? Other S. plays appear to have significant productions listed. I would say his is quite significant, since it's a unique twist. The link provided all sorts of details about that production -- which I would say is more legit than all the film versions.

[edit] Shakespeare

I noticed you reverted my edit to the opening sentence of the William Shakespeare article, citing this sentence as being "Weasel words"

"...was an English poet and playwright, generally considered to be the greatest writer of the English language."

I was thinking that being that he is probably the most famous (and brilliant) artist of all time, this should be mentioned in the first paragraph, rather than calling him merely a poet and playwright. Take a look at the opening sentence of Einstein, or Rembrandt, or Mozart. Paradoxically, two sentences later, the sentence "...has a reputation as the greatest writer of the English Language..." remains. (I see those two sentences as quite similar)

What do you think about putting it back? AdamBiswanger1 20:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

    • Copied above to Shakespeare talk page, and will reply there. AndyJones 20:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, since you're an "Avid Shakespeare buff", perhaps you could assist fellow buffs in creating articles for each of the sonnets. We're pretty excited about the project. AdamBiswanger1 20:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

    • Thanks for the invite: yes I've been very impressed with all the good work you're doing there. But the sonnets aren't my thing, and I'm perfectly happy plodding along on my own with this little project. AndyJones 20:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Good God that's a big list~
Tongue nor heart cannot conceive nor name thee! AdamBiswanger1 01:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King James

I've responded to your point about King James I on the relevant talk page. You are, of course, absolutely right: he was always James VI. He was never King of Great Britain in any legal or constitutional sense, and the only regnal number he ever had was 'VI'. He was never even known as James 'I' in England during his lifetime. As a general principle a monarch only acquires a regnal number when a successor comes along with the same name. King John has never be known as 'John I' for the simple reason that there has been no 'John II'. I've edited out the silly and unhistorical reference. Rcpaterson 22:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

re
Your question
  • I left you an answer on Help desk Best of luck // FrankB 17:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
And again!. See also: WP:CP. Cheers! // FrankB 18:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization

I'm glad I was able to help in response to your query about capitalizing "states." Now that I see you are a UK editor (and fellow lawyer), I might suggest that you analogize "states" in the USA to "counties" in the UK to determine when a cap is appropriate. Would be glad to look at a sample of the sentence/article you were querying to see if any change is warranted in the capitalization practice, though what I said in the help should usually cover it. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 01:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Rotary

I've been advised that it may be worth considering a WP:RFC/User to sort out the situation on Rotary International. Would you be willing to co-sign one of those?Bridesmill 23:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Someone suggested the same thing to me. See Tony Fox's comment (last one under the "Rotary International" heading on this talk page). Yes, I'd sign, I think. Also, you'll see that in this edit I made a pretty substantial list of examples of Pierre's misbehaviour, which I can copy across. AndyJones 08:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation - the theory

Hi - thought I'd drop you a line here rather than on the Estate tax (United States) page, since this is a minor point. As far as I know, using six words, exactly, from an outside article almost certainly falls within the "fair use" provision of copyright law. While "fair use" has never explicitly been defined in this area, I doubt there has ever been a successful lawsuit where (say) someone sued someone else for copying a string of a dozen words (and nothing else). John Broughton 12:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I 100% agree. Looking for an exact string on the internet is a way of searching for copyvios, though. Your problem was the opposite: you were using the absence of a match as evidence of OR, when of course - by itself - it is nothing of the sort. AndyJones 12:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • PS I like the way you've dealt with this. If a {citation needed} tag sits there for a while, ignored, it's perfectly legitimate to remove the offending section as unreferenced. Good rewrite of the opening, too. AndyJones 12:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Good talking to you. John Broughton 15:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare project

Was just wondering what book you're writing about Shakespeare. Have you found any useful information in the Wiki articles on this? I'm thinking of writing one too. (Felsommerfeld 09:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

  • Why not? Give me an email address and I'll send you a copy of my proposal. It might put you off relying on my opinion, though! (Note that Wikipedia gets trawled a lot, so it's best to give an email address in non-computer readable format (e.g. name at wherever dot com) AndyJones 19:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I can't help but notice that you spend lots of your (apparently prodigious) energy reverting jerks -- a thankless task enough, for which I thank you. (I guess you deserve a barnstar, but I've not yet figured out how to award such things!) You are one of the few serious folks concerned with Shakespeare (and signed on for that Elizabethan Theatre project), so I would like your opinion about some of my recent edits: in a desultory way I've gone after two or three of the plays, trying to supply decent references (ideally on line and authoritative, otherwise easy-to-find books) and cite the citable. I've also done some bigger things: I redid the "List of Characters" for Hamlet, Twelfth Night, and (partially so far) Henry IV, Part 1. What do you think? My thought was to standardize the section heading, and make the one-line character name prominent, any little essay being indented. As to the essays, my sense of things is that they should be meta-observations for the most part, and not dwell on plot points. (That is, give facts that are hard to pick out in the course of reading the play, or that help at its start (e.g. Hamlet is thirty, so is probably just living in Wittenberg, rather than at the university there; Feste is probably middle-aged; Marcellus and Voltemand can be doubled in performance), comments on the names themselves ("Fortinbras" is French for "strong-armed"; "Rosenkrantz" was a good Danish name in 1600), and other sorts of information that don't occur to me right now. What I would like to get away from in the character-list, tho, is the tendency for the little essay to go charging off into explaining the character's fate, or speculating on their motivations. The problem with putting such material here is that it is backwards: we start talking about plot points before we have even encountered the synopsis.

OK, so far, so logical. The problem is that one may want to talk about, say, interesting interpretations of the part of Laertes but not do anything so grandiose as put out a special page for the purpose. What to do, and where to do it? Am I all wet in wishing to keep that sort of thing out of the "List of Characters"? — Jrmccall 22:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Afraid I'm taking a bit of a wiki-break. Real-world stuff. Thanks for the not-quite-a-barnstar! I'll give the main part of your posting some thought and hopefully reply when I'm back on Wikipedia more regularly. My experience with wikis, though, is that the only good way to test something is to be bold, and try it out. Also, they're not all jerks: a summary of my opinion on that subject is here. AndyJones 08:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare on screen

I reassed it as List-Class because it is a list. (You should consider archiving your talk page.) Cbrown1023 23:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks. AndyJones 07:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bryan Reynolds

Dear Andy, Thanks your feedback on the entry for Reynolds. When I was working on the site with my friends we didn’t realize that it was a bit excessive. We included all the links to people in the Transversal Theatre Company because we discovered that they have pretty cool personal websites. Then we saw great opportunities to link to the introductory chapters on the Palgrave site. We hadn’t considered that we were promoting the publisher and book sales. Sorry about that. Basically, we just stuck every link we found to Reynolds on the entry, which turned out to be a bit much. So, we have removed all of the external links, except the one to UC Irvine theatre dept, and we reduced the size of all the photos, and we cut the photo for Transversal Enterprises because we have not written the entry yet for the book. Really, we figured that someone else would do it. Sincerely, Gregor

[edit] Authorship

Hi Andy, I'm going on a WikiBreak due to work issues, just wanted to say sorry for leaving you in the lurch while civil war erupts on the authorship page! P.S. the true secret is that Shakespeare wrote Bacon's works. The Singing Badger 16:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, I knew it was something like that. No worries. I think you were right to back away from it. Expecting you to keep up the kind of detailed work you were doing in the midst of the current edit war would have been unfair on anybody. Enjoy your wikibreak. AndyJones 07:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotation in Cemetry Gates

Hello, I'd just like to apologize for adding that quotation in The Smiths' Cemetry Gates to the article on Richard III, I didn't know it was inaccurate. But I'm intrigued now: do you know for a fact that line doesn't appear on the play?

See you!

[edit] Richard III

Thanks for reverting to my original revert! :) I was at work when I did that and couldn't pull out my Bevington text to check it... --Etacar11 14:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anne Hathaway

Please explain to me how a mention of a new text about her is inappropriate in a category about new texts about her. Thanks. Josiewarvelle 15:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The Nevada performance is the American premiere. I removed that part, since I can see the point that it is, by your definition, spam. JW

[edit] Bermuda Law

I wrote the (incorrect) post on the Bermuda Law talk page,(under a different IP address) and I regret using the word "colony". I used that term because I was unsure as to the formal status of the island. Seeing as I was wrong,(on the the law and the island's status) you might delete the post.205.188.116.196 11:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  • No, don't worry, it's fine to leave it there. AndyJones 13:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions of Rotary interest

Good evening. I noticed your recent changes on Rotary International Page. I have three questions :

  • - may I know why you confirmed CeeGee changes and blanked mine ?
  • - I would like to know in which city you live [I live in Lille, France], if possible.

If you answer no, I would like to know why.

  • - I would like to know if you are close to a service club [for example through your wife], and if yes, to which one.

Thank you very much. Looking forward to read from you. User PierreLarcin 19:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong on Shakespeare

What exactly are you saying I'm wrong about in your recent comment Andy? MarkThomas 16:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Strachey

I'd just to add that adding a citation for both those points is sort of moot - it's knowledge i picked up from a book earlier this semester, and finding it again would be... effortful. It's more or less an accepted point in New Historicist criticism concerning Strachey's influence upon Shakespeare's final play.

[edit] Reynolds cont.

Dear Andy,

Thank you for your continued participation in the entry on Reynolds. On October 9, 2006 we wrote you the following message and made a number of changes to the entry that we thought would make it more objective:

“Dear Andy, Thanks your feedback on the entry for Reynolds. When I was working on the site with my friends we didn’t realize that it was a bit excessive. We included all the links to people in the Transversal Theatre Company because we discovered that they have pretty cool personal websites. Then we saw great opportunities to link to the introductory chapters on the Palgrave site. We hadn’t considered that we were promoting the publisher and book sales. Sorry about that. Basically, we just stuck every link we found to Reynolds on the entry, which turned out to be a bit much. So, we have removed all of the external links, except the one to UC Irvine theatre dept, and we reduced the size of all the photos, and we cut the photo for Transversal Enterprises because we have not written the entry yet for the book. Really, we figured that someone else would do it. Sincerely, Gregor”

At this point, the only two things we can think of changing are: 1) The Reynolds’ quote from Performing Transversally. We are removing the last two sentences because they direct people to Reynolds personally -- by quoting his email address (which anyone can find on the web anyway) -- which may have overstepped the privacy of Reynolds’ personal space. 2) We are removing the word “better” from the second paragraph in the section on “The Devil’s House” because it is evaluative. If you have any suggestions on how to improve this wikientry, please let us know. We are removing the tag, but in no way does this suggest our unwillingness to further change the entry. We feel the tag does not need to be there, unless there is a clearly explained reason for it. Gratefully, Gregor

[edit] Thanks for your assistance on the Help Desk

Many thanks for your very helpful comments on the Help Desk. I shall definitely do as you suggest. Thanks again. Tanaats 18:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Nomination: Villains from comics and graphic novels

An editor has nominated the article Villains from comics and graphic novels for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villains from comics and graphic novels. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Villains from comics and graphic novels during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 22:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

After looking over the AfD, it looks like I will be closing this AfD with the result of delete. I thought you might want to know, beforehand. Nishkid64 17:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strange Illusion Adaptation of Hamlet

You reverted the contribution I made to the film adaptations of Hamlet. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so I wasn't sure where to put my reply to you. I put my comments on the Talk page of the article, and then I discovered this page. Please see the article's Talk page for specific information about the sources I used for my contribution.

From other comments on this page, I see that you take the time to clean up articles that contain incorrect information. That is commendable. However, when you deleted my contribution via a reversion, you were wrong. The film is as legitimate an adaptation as that masterwork "Strange Brew." I thank you for your efforts, but sometimes you might be too quick to dismiss other people contributions. I glean from the other comments on this page that you are working on a Shakespeare book. I, too, know a little about Shakespeare and adapatations of his work. Also, I have a little bit of education in me. So, please don't be too hasty in your deletions, because sometimes you might be in error. As a Shakespeare scholar, I'm sure you'd be interested in learning more about Shakespeare, even if it's from an unexpected source.

By the way, I made "several" edits to the page because I'm new to the whole editing thing, and I kept finding minor errors after I saved the page. I was in haste, but I wanted to get the information up there. Actually, I assumed that someone would actually research the film and fill in the details, since there are so many detail-oriented people on Wikipedia. I never imagined that someone would actually delete my comments within one day. I thought people would be pleased to discover a quirky "new" adaptation. I'll try to be more careful when I make an entry. However, the information I posted is still accurate.

Pxm 12:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)PXM

[edit] Re: Source Please?

"Can you give a source for this change? I'm aware that you've pasted a lengthy synopsis into this page before, and I just want to be sure that this one doesn't violate anyone's copyright. I'll remove this in the next two days if there isn't a reply."

Thank you, but there is no source but myself. I am 100% that it doesn't violate a copyright and that's actually the reason I wrote it myself. I felt that the previous summary was slightly lacking and as I have read the play numerous times and performed from it, I felt I could enhance the summary. I also have added various quotes and monologues to the previous stub of The Two Gentlemen of Verona section in Wikiquote.

I hope you find my information accurate - I respect the opinion of a Shakespeare scholar and I'm certain you know much more than a fourteen-year-old. Because I am new to Wikipedia, I can get really confused as to how things work, so I know I've confused a few things.

The only source of my writings is William Shakespeare himself and - if you believe that The Two Gentlemen of Verona may be an adaptation of a previous play - Jorge de Montemayor. Thank you!

Elesi 03:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/d/User_talk%7EAndyJones_e343.html"