User talk:Roger Davies/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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 3 |
Archive 4
| Archive 5 →


Contents

Adminship

Why is it that you are not an admin? If you want, I can nom you. Just a thought, respond here or my talk, I don't care as to which. <DREAMAFTER><TALK> 21:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks! And thanks for your contributions to Nancy, as well as the MOS amendment. It really helped us out. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra effort...

I was hoping to save you trouble as per this

To reduce administration in this situation, unless you request otherwise, only the Three Stripes plus the Tireless Contributor Barnstar will be awarded.

but thanks anyways for the whole set. --BrokenSphereMsg me 16:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoops! I'd actually forgotten about that :) I've got them set up now as a simple cut and paste so it's no real work. You can always give your spare ones to charity :) --ROGER DAVIES talk
So now it's actually more work for you to delete content vs. copy & paste.  ;) BrokenSphereMsg me 16:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I suppose so, yes. I hadn't looked at it like that :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the resized presentation.  :) BrokenSphereMsg me 16:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a ton

Thanks a lot for all the help with the Tag and assess. I'll not be able to assess any more articles for the next month or so, but once I return, I'll be happily bothering you with more assessment questions. ;-).

Anyway, heres a well deserved barnstar for your help and work in improving wikipedia.

The Barnstar of Diligence
In recognition of your tireless and most enthusiastic work in improving the sum total of all military knowledge, and in organizing the MILHIST Tag and Assessment Drive, and most of all, even in all this hectic work, both offline and online, you found the time to assess articles, as well as answer all our doubts. For that yeoman service, you deserve this Barnstar of Diligence. But that isn't enough. Hence, I, Sniperz11, by the power vested in me by no authority in particular, award you the Param Vir Chakra. Good Going, and keep up the great work. Sniperz11talk|edits 20:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I always try and be somewhat humurous, especially in a debate that is far more tense than it should be/needs to be. My mind is a scary place. Narson (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, seems just plain daft to me, though having posted I noted the debate was now 14 days old and the article appears to be at First World War/Second World War. Narson (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

To battle once more

Only fair to tell you the battle has broken out again at A Vindication of the Rights of Men. Let the games begin. :) Awadewit | talk 16:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
If you have a moment, perhaps you could BE-ise Jane Austen. We've decided to post the article early and enter the Core Contest (mostly because I need money). I would appreciate it if you could check back every once in a while and make sure no AE has crept back in. Awadewit | talk 13:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Done. No problems. Good luck with the contest! --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll let you know when we've added the "Style" and "Themes" sections. Awadewit | talk 15:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate

Hey Roger, long time no speak. Your comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Drive seems misplaced. Should it not be on WT:MILHIST? Woodym555 (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

YES! And that's where I thought I'd posted it (duh). Thanks for that, mate. Enjoying the mop? --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It has its benefits and its downsides. It means I can do most things unhindered now like page moves etc. Thanks for the Chevrons by the way, I feel honoured and want to thank all the coordinators! I am steadily plowing through all the VC recipients lists trying to create a few master pages. Taking a while though! Hope all is well. Woodym555 15:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Award

The Literary Barnstar
For your painstaking efforts to improve both the content and the prose of The Tragicall Hifstorie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke, I award you this barnstar. Few would have ventured into such "brave new worlds" as Lacan and Co. simply for the sake of a section. Awadewit | talk 16:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Donation in a good cause?

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

BE

Aren't you happy you volunteered for this? Reception history of Jane Austen has now gone live. If you could so kindly check it over for BE, Simmaren and I would be very grateful. Awadewit | talk 10:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:) It's actually a pleasure.... --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Volunteer editor

I see you volunteer on many subjects. While it is outside your expertise (which in this case may be an advantage) I would appreciate your input on the article post-abortion syndrome in which the contoversy and opinions are so strong there has been open discussion (and implementation) of purging peer reviewed material that goes against the POV of many editors who object to the very idea that abortion may cause mental health problems for women. They have eliminated dicussion of over 22 sources. Many of the edits are totally without merit, and we need more editors involved to keep it reasonable.Strider12 (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for thinking of me. I'll think it over for a few days before deciding but it doesn't seem to me that too much is broken in the article. It's just got a bit strange in the intro. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at it. While I agree the intro is slanted and awkward, in part I'm also asking you to weigh in on the discussion page. Strider12 (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Having thought it over, it's thanks but no thanks. I've got way too much on my plate to provide the intensive involvement that this will probably require and I'm not particularly interested in the subject matter. If it was a quick in and out, I'd do it but the augurs suggest a less auspicious outcome. --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Tagging

Thanks.. Well scho.l finsihed so I have plenty of time now so I'll try get few a huindred articles a dayy hopefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyriakos (talk • contribs) 20:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Something for you

Thank you very much! :-) Kirill 12:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hindu-German Conspiracy FAC

Hello Roger, thank you very much for your comment on the FAC for the Hindu-German Conspiracy. Could you suggest an uninvolved editor who may be help with the MoS and language issue? Any other comment will be very helpful also.Rueben lys (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Pleasure! The usual route is the League of Copy Editors though they're generally stacked out. You could try approaching one of the people here. If you get really stuck, I can look at it but not for a couple of weeks, at least, I'm afraid. Good luck, --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
You'll be pleased to learn that Maralia has agreed to copy-edit the article. She's very good but it'll be a day or so before she can start as she has another FAC article to finish first. In the meantime, you will need to provide some citations for the WW2 section of the article as there's an objection raised about this. (See the FAC discussion.) I suggest you ask the editor to tag {{cn}} the specific things he'd like referenced if you are unclear. Good luck, --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for the help.Rueben lys (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Re T in the Raj==

I'll try and get that sorted, cheers :)Rueben lys (talk) 12:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Muzzy

Hi Roger, in the War of the Spanish Succession, the illustration regarding the Battle of the Vigo Bay reads something like "xxxx pounds were recovered", same thing in the Battle of the Vigo Bay proper article.

Does not recover imply that it was theirs before? that's what I thought this word means, but I am unaware if it has a different sense for the above particular usage. If the usual meaning is actually the only one (for this purpose), then "recover" would be wrong, as those goods had never been theirs. I'd say, then, either "plunder" or "loot" would be a more proper word, but I may be terribly wrong, so any other you think more proper (if not "recovered" itself) would be fine with me.

What do you think? • Mountolive J'espère que tu t'es lavé les mains avant de me toucher 18:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think they're using "recover" in the sense of "get, obtain, collect" (shamelessly nicked from the Shorter Oxford) and it's fine. You'll start seeing this particular everywhere now :) Ciao, --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I still think it's tricky vocabulary, but I guess looting or plundering sounds too harsh to be an option. If any came to mind, please edit. Otherwise, I'll assume "clean hands" then ;) Thanks, Roger. • Mountolive J'espère que tu t'es lavé les mains avant de me toucher 22:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
"Salvaged"? Nice and neutral. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Youngstown Ohio Works

I recently requested a peer review for Youngstown Ohio Works, an article concerning an early 20th-century minor league baseball club. The article was rated B-class, but some reviewers suggested it's close to GA quality. Youngstown Ohio Works has been through one peer review, which yielded largely positive comments. At least one reviewer, however, raised concerns about the "Dissolution" section, indicating it was top-heavy with quotes. The article has been revised since then, but I know it would benefit from the feedback of a seasoned editor. I would greatly appreciate your recommendations. Sincerely, -- twelsht (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Roger, Thank you for your encouraging and helpful feedback. It shouldn't be difficult to beef up this article with additional material on the Ohio-Pennsylvania League. The old Spalding guides suggest that the O-P League was plagued by difficulties including uneven ticket sales and unreliable team sponsorship. The historical importance of the league is also worth mentioning. The Youngstown club produced a few players and officials who went on to the major leagues, but the O-P League as a whole produced many. I recently came across a newspaper article indicating that in 1906, the Youngstown club's players earned the highest salaries in the league--a detail that sheds light on the 1907 spat between the team's manager and its sponsors. All of this material should add up to at least 400 words. With luck, I should be able to revise and expand the article over the next couple of weeks. If you're in a position to give it a second look at that time, I'd certainly appreciate it. Thanks, again. -- twelsht (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Roger, Thank you for your last message! Your recommendations were EXTREMELY helpful, and I've acted on most of them. Over the past couple of days, I came across more information on the O-P League. I described the league's composition, and how it changed after the first season. Another item of interest was a league controversy involving player salaries. As you suggested, I filled out the article with references to other Ohio Works players (besides Castleton) and threw in a bit of local color, e.g., a riot that broke out during a game in nearby Niles, Ohio. Overall, the piece has grown by several hundred words. The most significant changes are in the "Dissolution" section, which was partially rewritten. One reviewer commented that an earlier version of this article devoted too much space to the Ohio Works' successors in Youngstown, while neglecting to track the team's progress in Zanesville. I dug up what I could about Zanesville, and the evidence suggests that the team's performance was mediocre. The manager's subsequent career, on the other hand, was rather interesting. He went on to sign future major league pitchers Stan Covaleski and "Sad Sam" Jones to their first professional contracts. As you can see, I was able to turn this piece around more quickly than I anticipated. I recognize that you may not be able to look at it immediately. When you have a chance, any recommendations to improve this article would be much appreciated. Thank you, again, for your help so far! Sincerely, -- twelsht (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Roger, No rush! In the interim, I'll add at least two paragraphs to the lead. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:Barnstar of Diligence.png
Roger, This is just a quick note to inform you that the peer review for Youngstown Ohio Works closed, and another member of the Youngstown Wiki Project nominated it for FA status. Earlier today, I acted on your recommendation to expand the lead into three paragraphs that summarize the article. Thank you, again, for the valuable feedback! Best, -- twelsht (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for the news and the barnstar. I'm tickled pink. Impertinant I know but may I trouble you to write a citation for it referring to baseball that I can proudly display it in honour of my maiden contribution to the sport? --ROGER DAVIES talk 00:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Award

The Baseball Barnstar
This Baseball Barnstar is a token of my appreciation for your help on Youngstown Ohio Works, a sports-related article that greatly benefited from your incisive comments. All the best, twelsht (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, also, for rescuing me from a life of awarding disembodied barnstars! Cheers, -- twelsht (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[Chuckle] and thanks again for the barnstar. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's a more fitting one! Thanks, again! -- twelsht (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Fabulous! Thanks, --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

CSD Gerald Oram

Placed a speedy delete tag on Gerald Oram. Did not assert notability of subject. Feel free to drop me a line about it. Chromancer (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Award

In recognition of your diligent contributions towards the various reviews of military history articles, I am delighted to award you the Content Review Medal. Kirill 16:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
In recognition of your diligent contributions towards the various reviews of military history articles, I am delighted to award you the Content Review Medal. Kirill 16:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Le Paradis massacre

I took your advice and nominated it for PR, thanks. Mattyness (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Arras (1917)

The sources backed up the old status so I moved it back. Woody (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 007 (UTC)

Thanks, again, for your support

I just wanted to thank you, again, for supporting the FA nomination of Youngstown Ohio Works. Earlier today, I learned that the article had been promoted. Please know that your recommendations played a decisive role in bringing this article up to FA standards. With appreciation, -- twelsht (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hindu-German Conspiracy comments

Hello Roger. First of all, a lot of thanks for your comments in the Hindu-German Conspiracy FAC which unfortunately did not work out. However, I worked through article quite a lot today, taking into account Sandy's comments, and think I have done a (half-)decent job editing it. Do you reckon you will have time to look at some time and give me some comments on where it might fall short. I gathered language was the main (if not only) problem that stopped it from getting promoted. I plan to renominate it sometime soon. RegardsRueben lys (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2

Sure. Though it would be better if I waited until Maralia has finished copyediting it. Let me know when that's done and I'll gladly take a look. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that will be wise. Cheers.rueben_lys (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request Jimmy McAleer

Roger, I recently requested a peer review for Jimmy McAleer, a B-class sports biography that appears to be close to GA quality. This is yet another baseball-related article, though the subject matter is less obscure. Any recommendations to improve this article would be greatly appreciated! Sincerely, -- twelsht (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Good piece with little to fault on the writing side (though I have made a couple of changes, mostly for flow, creating a split infinitive) but McAleer comes over as slightly two-dimensional. You talk about him being colorful without fleshing this out with sufficient anecdote to bring him to life. Also, his personal life is curiously neglected. Did he marry? Have kids? What became of them? What happened to his money? Did he get up to anything memorable (bond drives etc) during WWI? Did he turn to drink? To fat? Is the McAleer home a Youngstown shrine? Is the house still standing? If so, photo? --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! These are sound observations. I may have unconsciously modeled this piece on sports biographies that detail the subject's professional achievements while providing little or no data on his/her personal life. Unfortunately, it appears that McAleer's private life was rather bland. He was married twice and never had children. Moreover, his second marriage occurred toward the end of his life, well after the death of his first wife. (No scandal here.) His retirement was apparently just that. I can find no evidence that he played a significant role in Youngstown's civic life, a development that might have been expected, given his visibility. Still, the omission of such personal data was a mistake. I'll work it into the article. Sadly, you won't find a McAleer "shrine" in Youngstown, and his house is probably long gone. Youngstown is not a community with a strong sense of its own history, and the impulse toward preservation found in many other American cities is only starting to catch on here. Here are a couple dispiriting examples of what I'm talking about: The mansion of David Tod, the legendary Civil War governor of Ohio, was torn down in the 1950s, to make way for the local university's expansion. A similar fate befell the childhood home of movie mogul Jack Warner, which happened to be in the path of another university building project.
I'll get on this ASAP! Thanks, as always! -- twelsht (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
As you suggested, I included material on McAleer's personal life. I think the article sheds a bit more light on his personality. After reviewing the revised version, I sensed that McAleer was a more complicated figure than I first imagined. On the one hand, he conformed in many ways to the era's stereotype of a ballplayer--a brawler who didn't hesitate to make a point with his fists, or a bat, if one were handy. On the other, he was exceptionally well educated for someone of his generation. Nineteenth-century American high schools were the equivalent of early 20th-century universities, in terms of the percentage of the population enrolled. Some communities refused to fund them, dismissing them as elitist insitutions. McAleer not only attended high school; he also graduated. Further, he showed an early (and more than casual) interest in theater and later won the friendship of some fairly sophisticated people. Even his initial blunder with the Red Sox--the deliberate loss of a game with the Giants to bring the Series to Boston--was a rather clever ploy. His error resided in his failure to consider the feelings of his players. I think the piece is much improved, but please don't hesitate to make further recommendations! Thanks, as always, -- twelsht (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet Synopsis.

I agree. I've moved it over to the Hamlet page itself, with a link to my sandbox in the edit summary. All yours. AndyJones (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

MHA07

Am I supposed to keep the original #ing or does it matter? Plz respond on my page User_talk:Fleetflame. Thanx! Fleetflame (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Message from Indra

Roger, you made some comments referencing an article about me posted by someone called Athenaera. Why? I can't imagine that you were being deliberately spiteful, but that is what it sounds like. Explain? My email from Simon if you don't already have it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.50.79.157 (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[Chuckle] Hullo Indra :) They'd already zapped your edits as unsourced (see WP:BLP) and you're not supposed to edit articles about yourself (see WP:COI). I emailed you (indra at indrasinha dot com) back then to clarify this. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Talk:List of aircraft of the RCN

A tag has been placed on Talk:List of aircraft of the RCN, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Somethings for you

Military history service award
For tagging and assessing 1000 articles in Tag & Assess 2007, by order of the coordinators I hereby present you with this Military history WikiProject Service Award. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your fine work on 2000 articles in Tag & Assess 2007, by order of the coordinators I hereby present you with this Tireless Contributor's barnstar. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As always, keep up the good work :-) TomStar81 (Talk) 18:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Pi Kappa Phi

Hi. I am looking for a peer review for Pi Kappa Phi It was suggested by Miranda and I was hoping you could help out with some general revisions to the article.

Thanks Storkpkp (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Slipknot (band)

Over the past week I have dedicated a lot of my free time to restructuring and bettering the article Slipknot (band) which is one of my favourite bands. I requested peer reviews and of which I have kindly received some. I found you on the peer review volunteers page and if you have the free time I was wondering if you could give the article a review/copy-edit as I am not the best writer, as you will probably see. Thanks in advance for any help you might contribute, happy holidays. Rezter (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh and could you kindly leave any comments about the article on the peer review page: Wikipedia:Peer review/Slipknot (band)/archive4. Rezter (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

It's going much better now. Thanks very much! Fleetflame (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar! My first one :) Cheers from Poland, Ouro (blah blah) 20:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Francis Harvey

Thankyou for your support and contribution towards the FAC for the above article, it has now passed. Your attention here was gratefully recieved. Regards.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy McAleer

I recently sent this sports-related biography to the FAC. The piece benefited from your earlier suggestions and includes more data on the subject's personal life. Now that it's an FA candidate, further comments or recommendations would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, -- twelsht (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on the FAC! By the way, your earlier recommendations were helpful. They inspired me to include the (albeit limited) material available on McAleer's two marriages and also to mention his early interest in vaudeville--a detail that provides some context for his later friendship with George M. Cohan. Your comments also led me to dig deeper into the circumstances surrounding McAleer's fallout with Ban Johnson. Below is a small token of my appreciation for your help on this article. Cheers, -- twelsht (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Roger, Your recommendations would have been even more useful if we hadn't been dealing with the "Ghost of the American League." They were still quite helpful, however. Happy New Year to you, too, -- twelsht (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, T. I always enjoy reading your stuff (I never thought I'd find baseball interesting; I loathe cricket) and adding my 2/100 so feel free to ask any time you want input. I can do detailed CE as well as broad brush stuff but I prefer working on directions and expansion rather than combing through for literals. (Seems too much like real life somehow.) Anyhow, when you got a moment, take a look at Hamlet which is up for FAC: it's been occupying my every waking moment recently and I'd be interested in hearing your view. (The Dane will also give you a Total Break from Jimmy McAleer, so you can return to him with fresh vigor and new eyes.) Best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Roger, No problem at all. I feel honored that you asked. This project may be more in line with my longstanding interests. (Baseball is a relatively recent discovery.) Give me a couple hours to handle a New Year's Day obligation, and I'll be right on it! Best, -- twelsht (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Funny, you know, but the link to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hamlet was entirely triggered by your reference to the "Ghost" of the American League. I'm not sure if this is free association or stream of consciousness. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
They both qualify as vengeful "ghosts," too. McAleer did everything in his power to steal the last word on the Red Sox debacle. By the way, I read the Hamlet article, thoroughly enjoyed it, and posted a few comments below. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I overlooked it there earlier partly because I was expecting you to dive straight in at the Hamlet FAC. (Any registered editor can comment at a FAC, by the way, you don't have to be part of a committee or anything.) Your Hamlet edits were great. The only one I'd take slight issue with is the change of king to monarch to avoid repetition; sometimes repetition is very useful for clarity. But that's trifling:) And the "20" was a good catch. Thanks very much for such a painstaking approach --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Very good! I'll join the Hamlet FAC ASAP. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
You'll enjoy FAC, I think. The knack is not to spend toooo much time reviewing there. It can get addictive! --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
In the case of Hamler, the biggest challenge was composing a message of support that adequately summarized the article's chief merits. I'm not sure I succeeded on this score, but it wasn't for lack of trying. By the way, as someone relatively new to the FAC process, I'd like your advice. Is there a protocol for dealing with reviewers who leave negative reviews and then fail to either revisit the talk page or respond to messages? Your thoughts would be much appreciated. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks for the comments. Regarding reviewers who go walkabout, best is to mention that you've contacted them and they haven't responded. SandyGeorgia takes a more pragmatic view than Raul, regards subsequent silence as bad form, and will make her own mind up whether the points raised are addressed. It might slow things down a day or two but it shouldn't derail the candidacy. Hope this helps .... --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This helps quite a bit. Thanks! -- twelsht (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Life
This Barnstar of Life is for your assistance on Jimmy McAleer, a sports-related biography that benefited significantly from your comments and support. Cheers, twelsht (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Duck Soup peer review

I've now submitted Duck Soup for peer review in order to find out some better ways to improve the article's (and other Marx Brothers articles) quality. If you're interested in leaving feedback, you can go to the article's talk page and follow the link. Your comments are appreciated. Thanks. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 03:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WSC

I was wondering if I could ask you a large favour... screaming and running feet, general sound of terror, moaning and wailing. Well I would really like to make Winston Churchill an FA and I was wondering if you could give me a few pointers as to the way that I should go about it. Thanks! Harland1 (t/c) 13:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Good heavens! It's huge :) Firstly, you need to cut it down to about 9,000 words (it's currently running at about 14,000!) You can do this two ways: one is to hive sections off into sub-articles; the other is by condensing and removing redundancy. I'd recommend the later approach as it's not particularly economically written. Secondly, you need to work on the prose. Some problems come from flow, it's very choppy in places, the result of a succession of short sentences that don't quite follow smoothly from each other. In other words, it needs a vigorous copy-edit. I can work on both these with you, if you like, but as you've already got most of the raw materials in place it shouldn't be too painful (though you might be amazed at how long it will take).--ROGER DAVIES talk 16:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer of help, I don't want to take up your time to much, but if just now and then you could make a few suggestions and give me a few pointers that would be much appreciated, as you may have guessed I am fairly new around here and this would be my first attempt at any featured or good content. Thanks Harland1 (t/c) 18:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure, no problems at all :) Good luck, and Happy New Year, --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Your Final Tag & Assess Award

The Working Man's Barnstar
For your excellent work on 3000 articles in Tag & Assess 2007, by order of the coordinators I hereby present you with this Working Man's barnstar. -- TomStar81 (Talk) 23:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I do believe you have earned this. Thanks for the help, and Happy New Year! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hamlet

The Hamlet article is wonderful, and I can't think of ways to significantly improve it. The piece offers a seemingly comprehensive overview of the play's incarnations. It describes how Hamlet was adapted to meet the needs of specific cultures or to address popular political concerns. The discussion of critical perspectives struck me as inclusive, and I found the sections on the play's sources and rhetorical characteristics informative. The article is well referenced and includes illustrative (sometimes amusing) details, e.g., the reference to the American actor addressing acquaintances in the audience. By the way, the passage on 19th-century American productions of Hamlet reminded me of Lawrence Levine's Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America, which might prove to be a useful source. Levine argues that Shakespeare's works enjoyed wide popularity in the U.S. until the start of the 20th century, when they were increasingly identified with the cultural elite. He describes how U.S. productions of Hamlet tended to highlight the more sensational elements of the fifth act, occasionally inspiring unwanted audience participation. You'll see that most of my edits dealt with minor issues related to punctuation and style. I take a conservative approach to comma usage, so I won't be offended if you choose to remove some of them. As the summary edits show, I revised several sentences to improve clarity and addressed a handful of MOS issues. I wish I could be more help. It's a very impressive article. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

T&A workshop

I dropped a note on the workshop talk page (well, the one it's redirected to), but just to make sure you don't miss it—I've posted my workshop comments here: User:Maralia/MHA07, since they're pretty lengthy. Maralia (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Barnstar of High Culture
For stunning work on the FA drive for Hamlet, I hereby award you this Barnstar of High Culture. AndyJones (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

1345

Thanks for the support on the talk page! Most people seem to favor this change. I'd like to invite you to help out as we try to improve 1346, or at least to pop in every once in awhile to see how it's going. A Military History rep is a good thing to have around! Wrad (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Wrad, I missed this earlier! Glad to help, --ROGER DAVIES talk 00:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Here's to many more successful literary collaborations in the coming year! I'm so happy that we've found each other. It's nice to work with people dedicated to improving each word, slowly but surely, on Wikipedia. :) Awadewit | talk 08:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What a nice thought! And heartily reciprocated. Incidentally, next time you're in London, we should visit one of Dr Johnson's favourite pubs. It's still going strong and only about 200 yds from the Globe theatre :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds wonderful. I'm sure whatever grant I receive to do research "over the pond" will cover this expense since it is related to the eighteenth century! It is "field work", right? :) Awadewit | talk 19:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

I've added a few more challenges to the Wikipedia Awards Center. Just thought you might like to know. --Sharkface217 21:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Literary Barnstar

The Literary Barnstar
In recognition of your excellent work and tireless contributions to the Hamlet article, I award you with this barnstar. Literary is the closest I could get to Shakespeare / Drama / Theatre, etc. Keep up the excellent work! :-) Lradrama 13:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
You're very welcome. Happy to be of assistance! :-) Lradrama 13:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou very much for wishing me well with my future plans. It is much appreciated. :-) Yes, I am always willing to award a barnstar when I see a user doing some great work - anything that makes editing Wikipedia a more enjoyable experience I am in support of. Lradrama 11:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Favor

Maria has just put up Emily Dickinson for peer review. I have already reviewed the article recently, so my comments wouldn't be much help. I was wondering if you would be willing to review it. It is a good article and worth investing time in reviewing. :) She is planning on taking it to FAC soon and she had a rough time there last time - I want this time to be better. As you know, the more reviews the better before FAC. Awadewit | talk 20:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Favor, part the second: Would you mind translating Joseph Johnson (publisher) into BE? I'm planning on taking it to FAC in the next few days and that is one of the last things Willow and I need to do with it. Awadewit | talk 20:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the help on JJ! If you have time in the next week or two, could you be Britcise Analytical Review? I tried it myself this time, but after I read half of the article and found nothing, I figured I just couldn't see the words. I'm planning on taking the article to FAC after the Joseph Johnson (publisher) FAC is over. Thanks so much! Awadewit | talk 04:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In thanks for your help

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
On behalf of a grateful Wikipedian, I give you this barnstar as a token of my undying gratitude for the effort you made to help me and all the others who volunteered in the MHA07 drive. Thanks again! Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Congratulations!

Great to see your excellent article promoted. A long journey for the longest play.

And thanks for the star. I'll treasure it.

– Noetica♬♩ Talk 23:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 23:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

MHA07

Say, I've noticed people are still signing up for T&A. Do you monitor this, enforce the nobody-signs-up-in-2008 rule or just let it go? --Ouro (blah blah) 09:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just let it go, dontcha think? There are only one or two of them, they mean well, and it gets more articles tagged. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I figured the same, more or less. Thanks. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 11:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the star. If I happen to reach 4k, that'd be nice, it's just that when I got to 3k this morning I thought, yeah, I'll take another list, because you always had something cool to do when you had nothing pressing, you know? :) --Ouro (blah blah) 11:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's official now - I got a text to translate for next Thursday, which means I don't get much time to assess until the 17th :) so, no 4k probably ;) Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 15:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Never mind. You've done more than your fair share already and it's much appreciated. --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks loads. Means more than a barnstar to me. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 17:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ellipses

Hey there RD. When I saw the change in Chinua Achebe to the three-period ellipses, I was curious, so I checked the MOS for myself, and – of course – you were right. But then I wonder: Isn't there a danger of three periods being split up at the end of a line? Isn't that why we use the &nbsp; before and after? Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 16:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I read "Use non-breaking spaces ( ) only as needed" as meaning only add hard spaces if it does wrap but, to be honest, WP:ELLIPSES is far from a model of clarity. One of the irritations with WP:MOS as a whole is that it too often advocates fixes—which in the real world, are added retrospectively by the proof-reader to resolve formatting problems that have occurred—just in case the problem might occur. It introduces massive clutter. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yeah – Kudos on the Dane. Did you ever see the Simpsons version? – Scartol • Tok 16:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) No, I didn't but I wish I had. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Roger. As a serious editor at MOS, I just wanted to chip in with a couple of points. First, three-stop ellipses will not break between the stops. Second, the policy with ellipses at MOS is unsettled and has been contentious. This is a contained but complex problem in current punctuation practice (especially as applied to HTML), with wild disagreement among sources and even internal inconsistencies in their guidelines. I have amassed a good body of material on this, and when the time is right the topic should be revisited. For now my attention is focused on improving markup for our friend the hard space. I hope you will have a look at User:Noetica/ActionMOSVP, and perhaps have your say. I'll be bringing a measure of order and focus to the discussion in a few hours from now.
The whole suite of MOS pages needs reform and rationalising. A huge task, given the way Wikipedia works and doesn't work. Some of us are looking at that larger problem also. I hope you will join us in addressing it.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 22:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I know ellipses won't break between the dots (what gave the impression I thought otherwise?) but I can imagine situations where footloose ellipses might look unsightly. Anyhow, my comments about pre-emptive formatting were mostly about the hard space so I look forward to learning your thoughts later. If I feel I can contribute, I'll chip in.--ROGER DAVIES talk 22:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Roger, Scartol wrote this, above:

But then I wonder: Isn't there a danger of three periods being split up at the end of a line?

Scartol's continuation addresses a different matter:

Isn't that why we use the &nbsp; before and after?

The answer to that question is yes for before, no for after (with exceptions for each of these). But because the original question, as it stands, had definite content (accurately delivered or not) that was not addressed, I addressed it! I did not say that you knew something or that you did not know something.
Now at least the question has a definitive answer. I care about clarity and completeness; therefore I had my say. Sorry if you judge that improper, or could not see why I did it.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 23:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I read Scartol's question altogether differently. I took it to mean they detached, with a line break, from the truncated chunk of the text and thus appeared to be part of the subsequent text. His next question appeared to reinforce this, which is why I responded as I did. I didn't imagine for a moment that Scartol, with his considerable copy editing experience and considerable acuity, meant the three dots would separate internally. --ROGER DAVIES talk 00:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
All fixed. No problem! Thanks.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 02:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry for that confusion. I did word my question oddly, and – brace yourself, Roger – I thought there was some danger that the three periods would break up. (I seem to recall seeing as much on a website somewhere once, which is why I memorized the windows code for the force ellipse.) Alas, I was wrong – that's twice this century already! – Scartol • Tok 18:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Good grief! Well just make sure it doesn't happen again :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 :)
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 22:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway Roger, that is indeed better, at Hamlet: "The play vividly charts the course of real and feigned madness—from overwhelming grief to seething rage—and explores themes of treachery, incest, and moral corruption." I had scare-quoted incest because, as the sentence had stood, it must have referred to his mother's "incest" with his father's brother. But not now. – Noetica♬♩ Talk 09:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Contextualising Hamletian incest is difficult, simply because the degree of acceptable familial closeness varies wildly from culture to culture and from age to age. For instance, Henry VIII required papal dispensation to marry his brother's widow and obtained it on the grounds that the earlier marriage had not been consummated. A further complication is the Elizabethan concept of treason – namely, that intimacy with the king's wife was treason on the king's person – the best example of which is probably the trial and execution of Anne Boleyn, involving both treason and incest. Henry's marital shenigans were relatively current in Shakespeare's day, of course, and some scholars suggest that the thrust of Hamlet's incest and treachery charges is that Gertrude was intimate with Claudius prior to King Hamlet's death. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. That makes sense to me, and accords with my scare-quoting a laden and mercurial term. But it's not needed with the more general and abstracted mention that you now give it.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 19:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Does it? A wikilink would have done it equally well. Scare quotes are twee and bring too much POV to a word. --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFR

HI Roger. You were my first victim. Enjoy the newfound speed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

;)Thanks very much, --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You're not an administrator?!?! Then I'm confident that an RFA nomination is impending. Woodyyy!! ;-) SoLando (Talk) 01:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of ellipses... ;)

Animation of planetary motion
Animation of planetary motion

Hi ROGER,

I've been thinking of improving the articles related to planetary motion, and I've been trying to teach myself Blender, a simply awesome open-source program for 3D graphics. To paraphrase Immanuel Kant, "Two things inspire me with awe: the starry heavens above and the Blender program within." It's that cool, although I'm but a lame neophyte.

After much labours, I've succeeded in producing the animation at the left. What should I do to improve it? For example, is it too dark? Different colours? Once this animation is settled, I'm going to replicate it for several others, so now would really be a good time to make suggestions. I would be really grateful for any aesthetic insights you might have. (Wait, should that be æsthetic in BE? ;) Hoping all's coming up roses for you and Happy New Year, a rarely elliptical Willow (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ave Salix!
Excellent graphic, very compelling, rather like watching smallclothes tumbling in the drier or a dog racing around with ball :) My thoughts? The burnt umber colour might render too dark for the protanopic among us: perhaps a lighter tone to increase contrast. Also, perhaps adding a thin white outline around the planet might make it stand out a little more? (A friend, a graphic artist, switches his screen display to black and white to test this sort of thing. Squinting through half-closed eyes is another trick, I'm told.) --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

How wonderful — you know Latin! :) I may have to conjure you to look over some of my Catulline opuscula once they're anywhere near decent; of course, with Catullus, I'm at a disadvantage, since they often start out indecent. ;)

Those are excellent suggestions and I'll try to amend the image right away. You're right, it does look like a clothes-dryer! :) Willow (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know much Latin as I spent more time being beaten than taught. Earlier, I agonised over whether it's Ave Salix or Ave Salice to the extent that I phoned a Classics blue stocking for advice. She was out. :)
Odd day, today. I decided some weeks back to vandal fight, to see what it was like. I prepared scrupulously: for instance, I renamed my computer Rocinante and found a Tupperware salad bowl to serve as a helm. For the uninitiated, the vandal-fighter is at the sharp end of reverting the edits of brats for whom the pinnacle of achievement is deleting half the long-laboured-over text of, say, Odysseus and replacing it with a strange device (typically, "poo" rather than "excelsior", but you never know what lies around the corner). One is expected to leave stuffy pro-forma homilies on the miscreant/perp's talk page in the forlorn hope that this will reform them in their destructive ways. A day is enough. I shall leave this behind soon, I think, and scuttle back to military history or Shakespeare.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 15:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Poor quixotic Mr. Knightly! :( I was thinking of vandalizing a page with the words "Donna Molina de Viento", just for you, but I couldn't bring myself to do it. I do find it strange how some people thrill at their own power to scrawl scatology, don't you? I've never fought vandals per se, but I try to revert vandals of pages on my watch-list with a friendly, witty note. I don't want to provoke conflict, and I secretly hope that they'll be charmed enough to abandon their dissolute ways and contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia. That might be grasping at straws, but I have an advanced degree in carphology. ;)

I've updated the animation as best I could. I couldn't get your rim lighting suggestion to work, but I made both bodies luminous, which might help. I also fixed up the track as you suggested — thanks again, ROGER! :) Willow (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me the new version, which works better through slitted eyes (with pursed lips) ¦-| It might be warmer if the background were dark blue rather than black but it is a thing of wonder not matter what colour the sky.
It's probably a good thing you resisted temptation; some of the anti-vandal patrollers might not have appreciated it and most swoop so much faster than me. Anyway, that's me done with vandals I think. I have hung up my salad bowl.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 20:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Tooth

Thanks for removing my mistake. I wanted to remove the vandalism on the page. When I discovered, that the vandalism had been removed by a bot, I already had pressed the rollback button. You beat me, bringing the article to normal again. Thanks for taking care and happy editing.--Thw1309 (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I guessed that something like that had happened:) Rollback is neat, isn't it? Good luck, --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I still don't know about it. This was my first try and you saw the result. I think, for the moment I prefer the good old undo buttom, which shows the results before saving them.--Thw1309 (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom for a source

Yeah, like you didn't make this edit just so you could do that edit summary ;-) AndyJones (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Andy!!! How could you even suggest such a thing !!!! --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

BackLash 2006

you kept changing back something I corrected. What I said was infact correct, I own the event on DVD and she did choke her out with an armband/braclet she wore down to the ring, which fell off during the match Myselfimmortal (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough :) A citation and a reliable source is the usual solution. Thanks for mentioning it. --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For taking the challenge and warning more than 100 vandals, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this barnstar. Good job! --Sharkface217 20:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Thank you very much! --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing with feathers

Thank you, Roger, for my special sparkly and the encouragement that came with it. Emily is definitely going to FAC, even if I have to beat her into submission first. :) Again, I really appreciate your detailed thoughts and suggestions at the peer review, and you're absolutely correct that it looked a lot worse when I first saw the massive list! I have class tonight, but I aim to have some answers to your questions and a much better looking article by tomorrow. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 13:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I loved that quote. I especially liked it when he ordered the elaborately detailed dry martini and everyone at the table said, "Oo, me too!" "I want one!" Everyone except the bad guy, of course. Anyway, I'm taking a break from dear Em for the rest of today (and maybe tomorrow, as well; she really does drain a person like her friend Higginson said), so now is your chance to take another look. Exciting! :) Btw, any other Shakespeare article on the back burner? I just love the work you guys did on Hamlet. María (habla conmigo) 17:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that was one of the highlights for me too :) What I particularly enjoyed was the menace than Craig brought to the role. For the first time in ages, we had a Bond that Her Majesty's enemies would definitely not wish to meet in a side alley on a dark night.
For Emily, I've had a look at what you've done and am impressed by the way you've responded. Incidentally, your remark about her exaggeration and lying made me chuckle: excellent material to help bring her to life if you can work it into the article! I think the best way forward is for you to complete, in whatever time-scale best suits you, your comments/amends in response to my peer review. Once that's done, I'll go right through the whole article again in detail and look at the changes in the light of how they fit into the bigger picture. I think that's good use of both our time and, to be honest, is much more the process I'm (in real life) used to. One thing to consider while working on it is what can be done to reduce redundancy. Almost everything can be said in fewer words than its first draft (including the text of this rambling message!)
All the best, and keep up the good work, --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Menacing, but Craig could still play young(er) and inexperienced. The free running at the beginning of the film looked especially awesome painful for poor Bond.
I know exactly what you mean about redundancy; I have a tendency to ramble, myself. :) I'll take a week or so to go through the article at length, fix it up, make it shiny, and then I'll give you a shout. I really appreciate your guidance on this, Roger! Incidentally, you said this is your first exposure to her poetry; did you get a real sense of it reading the article? Do I need more "famous" examples? I wonder if American Studies majors are exposed to her; when I was studying in Hull I know there were several American lit/poetry courses offered, but as I took mostly Shakespeare and medieval lit while I was there, I wouldn't know what they were like. While in Rome... María (habla conmigo) 16:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Take your time. Mulling works better on intricate subjects than furious writing :) I formed an impression of her poetry, certainly. For a variety of reasons, I found myself thinking of her near-contemporary, Gerard Manley Hopkins. (It was the pre-occupation with nature and uunorthodox structures, I think.) But certainly, I'd like to learn more. Oh, and talking of Rome, I'm in Sicily next weekend ... :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Lucky you! A vacation sounds wonderful. As Emily wrote, "Bring me the sunset in a cup..." María (habla conmigo) 15:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I think I've reached a stopping point. I'm going to be busy most of the weekend, so I decided to bang most of it out today. I addressed all of your points, but some of them are not completed, per se, for various reasons (waiting for comment, I'm a stubborn mule, etc. :) I'm starting to anticipate putting this up for FAC soon. It's just unbelievable how it looks ten million times better than it did a couple months ago! If you hadn't seen the article before I got my hands on it, btw, it's rather frightening. So whenever you're ready, I'm up for round two. :) Enjoy your weekend, María (habla conmigo) 01:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great, thanks! María (habla conmigo) 00:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible edit warring on project article

There seems to be some issues going on over on the article : Military history of African Americans, in particularly in the section Military history of African Americans#Confederate States Army. Could you take a look at the article's edit history as well as the discussion, Talk:Military history of African Americans, and possibly give some input? Thanks. Sf46 (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Long overdue

The Working Man's Barnstar
For your brilliant and excellent work at MILHIST Tag & Assess 2007 -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review Request

Person Centred Planning is up for peer review. As it is about an approach to confronting and reversing oppressive power structures, I think you in particular will be able to take a constructive approach to reviewing it. Max (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Chevrons

Hi Roger,

Happy new year to you and your family.

Just wanted to ask if the Tag and Assess is still open, coz I havent got the Chevrons for the 1100 pages I assessed. I hope its still open coz I'd love to increase my tally.

Cheers Sniperz11talk|edits 11:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! Did you have a good break? In the meantime, the drive is still open and will stay open until the end of January. I didn't give you your awards earlier because I assumed you'd want to continue :) I'll do them now as an interim award though! Nice to hear from you again, --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Break was good... it really took all effort to keep away from wikipedia. But it felt good to go cold turkey for a while. Anyway, thanks for the chevrons, but I'll take them all at the end of december... Dont worry, there is no way I'm going to stop assessing pages. Thanks for the help, and great work with the Tag and assess drive. Cheers. Sniperz11talk|edits 13:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

dugong

Not sure that it was my example originally. I didn't see the point of changing it, and noted that the edit involving switching to US units as the main—unnecessary, I thought. Tony (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fort Parker massacre

I was doing a tag and assess for WikiProject Texas and ran across Fort Parker massacre. Curiously untagged by any other project including Military History. take a look see, perhaps there are other articles covering this under y'all's tag with another name. At first glance it seems to be too good an article to not be claimed by more than TX. Jacksinterweb (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Appreciation

WikiThanks

Thanks for your help off-wiki. Please accept my efforts at Briticising Mary Wollstonecraft and her works as a token of my gratitude. Awadewit | talk 01:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

   *
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For taking the challenge and successfully combating vandalism that has resulted in at least 20 bans, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this barnstar. Good job! --Sharkface217 04:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Can it be?

Someone has taken on the awesome project of William Godwin? Although I am currently swamped by Jane Austen and Mary Shelley, I can help you assemble a good list of books to read! I can review! I can copy edit! I can provide moral support! I can convert into AE (no wait...) :) Awadewit | talk 09:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Giggle! I've got a few books here already but he's quite far back on the back burner. I was going to chip away at him, and von Lossberg, and Jacky Fisher while working on my Shakespearean interests. And yes, it'd be great to do it in AE, with plenty of gotten's :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Godwin is last on my my MW list. I was putting him off until the end. 2011, 2012? :) Unlike, MW or even MS, he lived for a long time - 80 years. He also wrote a lot. Seriously, just let me know whatever you need. If he's still on your back burner when he moves up to my front burner a few years from now, perhaps we can do the article together. (I still can't believe there is no Political Justice article. Oh yes. 2,00,000 articles and people are searching for things to write about.) Awadewit | talk 10:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Tel Aviv

Hi, I listed Tel Aviv for a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tel Aviv. I saw you are interested in cities and so have contacted you to see whether you might consider helping with this. I have contacted two other users as well. Many thanks in advance.--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Piece of the action

When you contacted me about it back in October, I said I would get back to you. Imagine how embarrassed I am that a quarter-year has gone by ... Regardless, can I still get a piece of the action? I have found a bit of "spare time" at work, and should be able to process a chunk or two before the end of the month. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Operation Camargue PR

Thanks SGGH speak! 09:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I have never been sure how to cite two different works from the same author before, and it came up again with the inclusion of Windrows second work only recently. Thanks again SGGH speak! 09:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I have just this second cited that tag for you. Thanks for your help! SGGH speak! 11:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My friend we are all volunteers, how can I say that you passed a deadline set by yourself on something we all do in our own free time? SGGH speak! 09:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Boxer's Fracture

Thanks for the kind words. I picked one hell of a time to get clobbered though, getting struck before setting foot on campus for the new semester. Taking this in stride though I figure the rest of the school year should be better by comparison :) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Something for you

Thank you very much! :-) Kirill 01:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Doh!

I'm beginning to hate the MOS; conformity of spaces, dashes, hard, n, m, etc, etc. Emily's turning over in her grave right now! Thanks for letting me know and sorry for stepping on your toes... I'll let you work your magic alone now. :) María (habla conmigo) 14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be wonderful, Roger! If you're able to spend such time on it and are willing to put up with my nuances, I would be relieved for the help, especially during the nomination process; I could understand why some may be territorial about such things, but I definitely believe that the improvement of the article should be the no. 1 priority and not my ego. My first FAC didn't go as smoothly as I would have hoped, so extra support would be great. Would you believe I even asked my boyfriend (the Wiki-clueless man that he is) to proofread the latest version of the article for me? His main comment was, "You have enough time to find 160 references, but not enough time to fold the laundry?" :)
We have four shelves of books dedicated to Dickinson in our library, and although I only glanced at the Gardens book, it did look interesting. If you feel more research is needed aside from that, I can take another stab at things; staff members get leeway in the amount of books they can check out as compared to students, so I can risk the wrath of circulation and empty out what remains of the PS1541.Z5 section -- most of it is in my living room at the moment. María (habla conmigo) 15:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Laundry is the bane of my existence, with bananas and cats at a close second and third, respectively. ;) I look forward to reading your comments, but I have class tonight so I won't be able to reply until tomorrow. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 17:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind if I pop in here to mention that when I was at the MLA book fair in December, I saw a beautiful reproduction of Dickinson's herbarium and thought of you, Maria. :) Awadewit | talk 08:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Welsh VC recipients

Hey ther Roger, hows things? Anyway, as part of my whole VC list drive thing, I just revamped List of Welsh Victoria Cross recipients, when checking the what links here, I found your page. I was thinking about merging it into List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality as I have with other lists which are quite short. You can see a previewed version here. Do you mind if I go ahead? I don't want to step on toes. Woody (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I've just this minute left a message on Solando's talk page about this. Inspired, I must confess, by your string of triumphs, I was vaguely thinking that Something Ought To Be Done With It. That said, there's no good reason to treat it differently to the list you're doing :) So, in short, no, I don't mind at all. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Cool. By the way, I would be happy to over a co-nom if you want, I was thinking about asking you this week anyway. Woody (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much; I really appreciate the offer :) Is there anything you need to know? Oh, and I'm away this weekend (Fri-Mon) so any time after that I suppose.--ROGER DAVIES talk 16:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Well-intentioned ramblings. SoLando (Talk) 17:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Formalities

Woody and SoLando would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Roger Davies . If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Have fun answering the questions, take your time. When you are ready to transclude, leave a note on my talk page. Woody (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Good luck, though I am sure you won't need it. ;) Woody (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh and the exam has begun by the way. You have already got more questions than I did! Woody (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
It is my pleasure Roger. The tide of questions seems to have slowed down now anyway! Woody (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.