User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday/Archive 4

Mozart music
The clip in the Mozart in Italy article looks fine, and thank you again for all your work in setting this up. I'm pleased to hear of possible progress on Grand Tour music, too. I have no immediate plans for bringing more Mozart to FAC, but will keep you posted about this. Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll work on Agrippina. What would you like me to do, and what's the timescale? Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll copyedit this weekend, & let you know what I think then. Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:DERM
I recently started the Dermatology task force and want to create a subpage for the taskforce that addresses dermatologic photos, giving guidelines/recommendations for good images. On that page I was simply going to link over to Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_criteria, but also wanted to added a few comments specifically geared towards dermatologic photos (like something about always having a ruler, etc in the picture to keep size in perspective, etc.). I also found a paper online (see ) and thought I could integrate some of its pointers into the page. However, I am a dermatologist, not professional photographer, and therefore wanted to know if you, or any of your friends, would help me develop this page? kilbad (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I created a basic page at WP:DERM:PIC. Perhaps you could look it over and post some feedback? kilbad (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Agrippina (opera)
I have left a number of suggestions on the article's talkpage. I hope to begin copyediting later this evening (UK time) Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you want me to add for the new references. Details were given on the talkpage, and they seem to have been carried correctly into the article. I am preparing a "list of musical numbers" section to add to the article, and will post it later today. I have also gathered more background and general stuff which can be fed into the article, which should enable us to expand the background section. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, the Grove I have used is New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (British special edition) Volume 8, edited by Stanley Sadie, published by Macmillan, London 1980. IBSN  0-3333-23111
 * Sorry, I imagined you would add the New Grove reference to the bibliogaphy from the details I provided. I have now done so. There will be other books/sources, for some further material I will add later today. Do we have an author for the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on "Recitative and GFH"? Brianboulton (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I reckon we're on schedule. Just to let you know what I'm doing, I'm currently expanding the "Context and Analysis" section and reorganising some material. This should be posted later today, assuming I can postpone some non-wiki work (which I can). I then intend to revise the lead. Finally I want to do a line-by-line read-out-loud to see how the article sounds (I have done this with every FAC I've submitted - it's amazing what gets overlooked in preparation). My target is to have done with all the major work by tomorrow (Wednesday) evening, leaving us a couple of days for tweaks, adjustments, and the incorporation of any last-minute material that arises from the peer review or elsewhere. Are you happy with this? Brianboulton (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

 * 18:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC) The  Helpful  Bot  18:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

RfAr
Please see this change I made, specifically to your comment. I was assuming your comment was directed at Sandstein and made some changes to reflect that. If I made a mistake in thinking that, feel free to correct it. Thanks, Tiptoety  talk 01:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; 2 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:


 * Books extension enabled
 * News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
 * Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
 * Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 20:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Featured Sound
I saw your article in Signpost and feel I need to create a featured sound. Any advice? Please reply at my talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider three speaches. 1. Barack Obama's 11/4/08 Grant Park Speech. 2. Lou Gehrig's Farewell Address. 3. Barack Obama's 2004 Convention speech. Can any of these be found?  I guess the second might require some restoring.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't I just see the Obama Inauguration speech pass featured? Explain the subtleties a little more if you can. I think the 2004 DNC speech might be PD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that his acceptance speech is not work performed in the normal course of duty as an employee of the federal government. It is not a part of the job of a Senator to make such speeches.  Thus, it may not be PD.  His DNC speech occurred before he was a federal employee and thus may not be PD.  However, I think the latter is likely to be considered a part of a National Democratic Party event.  It would be a PD as work of a DNC chairman if such is PD, IMO.  Of course, that may not be considered PD and thus the rub.  Obama essentially appointed the new DNC chairman, so it is possible that this is a federal job.  I am not sure how the DNC is affiliated with the federal gov and whether its work product is normally PD. Who do I talk to?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not gotten a ruling yet.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Pictures
If you have anything that would be useful in illustrating any of our articles on shows by Victor Herbert, that would be nice. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, also shows by Noel Coward, but those are mostly after 1923. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: "I have images for The Black Crook and Gaiety Girls in my queue, so if you be interested in those, poke me and I'll get them done." Sure! Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, I do not think that The Ameer should get an article. There are lots more important Herbet musicals that do not have articles, including: Cyrano de Bergerac (1899), The Singing Girl (1899), It Happened in Nordland (1904), Miss Dolly Dollars (1905), Dream City (1906), Little Nemo (1908), The Enchantress (1911), The Lady of the Slipper (1912), The Madcap Duchess (1913), The Only Girl (1914) and My Golden Girl (1920).  -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Progress on Agrippina
"Handel's music emphasises the irony of Grimani's libretto by variously emphasising the surface message of characters attempting to deceive each other, the hidden truth of the matter, or, in some cases, such as Agrippina's aria 'Non hò che per armarti', where she promises Poppea that deceit will never mar their new friendship, at the same time as deceiving Poppea into ruining her beloved Ottone's chance for the throne, both (in that case by the winding melody for Agrippina and minor modal key pointing to her deceit, but the clearly-defined structure emphasising the ostensible truth of her words)." What a sentence! (What the ????? does it mean?) Some work is obviously required on this section, and I'll have to ask you to do it. Overall, however, I think the article is looking promising. Let me know if you have problems with anything I've done. Brianboulton (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have revised and extended "Context and Analysis", subdividing it between Background, Composition and Libretto. I have also put the section in its logical position, before rather than after Reception.
 * I've extended the Reception section with info. on some recent New York and London performances
 * I have also rewritten the lead.
 * I have taken off the size forcings of the in-text images. There are possible questions about best image placement to be considered.
 * I have yet to run through to find typos, other prose issues, and to ensure adequate citation, etc. I am a bit concerned about the "Music" section, which has a different sound to the rest of the article. I don't have access to the sources, but some of it sounds, well, iffy. Take this sentence, for instance:


 * Re Britannica: to format the refs properly we need author if possible, title and page number of the article, most definitely. A cite to "Britannica" isn't enough. Where did you actually read the article in question—is it possible to ring through and ask someone to provide that information? Brianboulton (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Britannica refs probably OK now. I will do the citation templates, this evening: I hate them, too, but I've found from long experience that they usually save trouble in the end. I still have to do a thorough prose check on the article - I'll try to do that this evening, and report back tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm about all done, now. I will probably keep nibbling at the prose and making odd alterations, but essentially I have finished, subject to oversights, unspotted typos, etc.
 * One point slightly concerns me: we have not used Dean and Knapp's book "Handel's Operas 1704-1726" as a source. Some Handelians might say that this is the definitive text and ask why we haven't used it. I have tried without success to locate a copy, even through inter-library loan—it's a hard book to find. We have used other Dean writings as a major source, and have plenty of other scholarly references, so I think it highly unlikely we've missed anything significant. However, I think it looks odd to have this major work listed as "Further reading", so I've deleted it from there.
 * The article has changed a great deal from its peer review some days ago. I wonder if it's worth contacting one of the peer reviewers and asking for a quick once-over, so that a neutral pair of eyes can make some judgement on the article's current quality? Brianboulton (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is worth holding the FA nom for a few days while we try to access the Dean/Knapp book. Your target date for TFA is 14 April; Today's featured article, Saxbe fix, was only promoted on 28 February, and quite recently Edgar Speyer, promoted on 10 February, was featured on 1 March. So there is no need to rush. The FAC will be quicker, and much less painful, if we are seen to have sought use of the best sources. I personally doubt that Dean/Knapp will say much of significance regarding Agrippina beyond what we already have, but if you can access it though the National Library of Scotland, we can at least cite a couple of facts to it. I don't understand your comment about the nomination, can you explain more clearly why you want me to do it? Brianboulton (talk) 10:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggestion re books: A few relevant pages from Dean on Handel are available as previews at Google Books, and . Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Re above, the first link relates to Dean & Knapp Vol II, 1726-1751, which is not relevant to Agrippina. The second is a general Handel book which I am looking through. Meanwhile I have found quotes from Dean & Knapp Vol 1, and have incorporated them into the article. See last sentence of Composition section, end of first paragraph of Music section and first sentence of next paragraph. Anything more you can add will be good. User:Ruhrfisch, who did the recent peer review, has agreed to look at the article again later today. Brianboulton (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Latest: Ruhrfisch has revisited the PR and left further comments which I've dealt with. I am a bit worried about the status of some of the images, and have asked an image expert to take a quick look. Haven't heard from you today - perhaps you could let me know what if anything you have dug up. We can then decide when and how the article goes to FAC. I will be out most of Saturday (7th) but will be online later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Southampton Operatic Society
Notable? If not, please nominate for deletion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Pinafore
I reformatted the dates in Brit date style. Can you please fix the historical cast tables so that they look neat like the ones in Trial by Jury? Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, Should the G&S project subscribe to this?: Article alerts/Subscribing
 * If so, kindly subscribe us. Thanks!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Is it possible to make the tables a size smaller, and maybe fit them onto two tables instead of three? I think that would look better in the article and reduce the complaints that we received with Trial about how much room they take up in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That looks nice. Only one thought: When text wraps in a box, why is there so much space between lines.  Can you get it to clos up so that there is not so much white space?  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Super! That's just what I was hoping for. Can you fix the line height in the previous "productions" table just above it? It this works for all browsers, we should definitely do it for all the articles - I agree that it's good to wait and see if there are any comments about it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: "Oh, god. More newspaper diving. Oh, well! Might not get this done before the final FA polish - I'm already a little behind with some essays for University, but if I have a chance, I'll try and find 3-4 contemporary reviews and discussions." Please don't nominate articles for review until you are in a position to be able to help out with responding to reviews in reasonably prompt fashion. Otherwise your nomination is as good as saying "I nominate Ssilvers to respond to this review." Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Agrippina update
Are you back with this project (saw your responses on peer review)? Please contact me for further discussion and agreement on a rational timetable for taking the article forward. Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. From the peer review you will see that I have removed unlicensed images and replaced them, where possible. I have also replaced the apparently dodgy Handel portrait. I am continuing to scour my shelves, and the library's, for more information, and have added further material into the Music section (which I have basically rewritten), and elsewhere. I am currently going through the synopsis, checking it against Hall's original summary. I also want to reintroduce into the synopsis references to arias which someone has cut out.


 * My belief is that we need at the very least until Saturday 14th before going ahead with an FAC nom. Assuming a 12-14 days' candidacy, and a successful outcome, that gives around 16-18 days before 14 April. As soon as the article is in FAC I will leave a note on the TFA talkpage requesting that this date be kept free, for the moment, on account of the Handel annversary.


 * I am only interested in going for this as a co-nom. If you want me to field most of the FAC comments, that's fine, but since you initiated this project, I really think you should make the nomination with me as co-nom. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As to what needs still to be done, my next main job will be a rewrite of the synopsis. Although I agree that the present version is OK (except for some third act confusion), there will be no answer at FAC to the question as to why we are relying on a translation of a summary of the libretto instead of summarising the libretto itself. I have the libretto - in Italian, but I can work out the meaning - and can base my version on that. Where the existing phrasing is adequate I won't change it. I will also use this opportunity to restore to the synopsis references to key arias, which were taken out some days ago by a visiting editor.


 * Apart from the synopsis I am still trying to improve sources. Anything you can do in this line would be great. The Dean-Knapp 1704-26 book continues to elude me, though I shall be in London on Wednesday, and hope to make it to the ROH library. I also want to think about the best response to the Opera Project criticisms of the article's structure, and finally I want plenty of time for a line-by-line final edit to ensure grammar and prose are up to standard. I, and no doubt you, have other things to do meantime, so I reckon that Saturday 14th March should be our target FAC nom day. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Re your last comment on my talkpage, I said I wanted "to think about the best response to the Opera Project criticisms of the article's structure", not that I wanted to capitulate. I prefer emmolient language to confrontation. Nothing will be done in this line without your agreement. Brianboulton (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; 9 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:


 * News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
 * Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
 * Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 00:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Pinafore
Thanks for the message. I've been working pretty hard on the article. Please check my changes. Also, I have left it up to you to integrate in any further materials from Stedman and Jacobs. Note particularly the "analysis" section, which could use some more research. It would also be nice to have a review from the New York opening if you can find one. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Noël Coward
Thanks for your help. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Agrippina - latest
I hope you are feeling less ill. The situation on Agrippina is now as follows:-
 * I have redone the synopses, using an Italian libretto as my base rather than the second-hand summary. My Italian isn't great, but I can understand enough so that, with my knowledge of the plot, I can do a pretty accurate summary.
 * I have tried putting the synopses and the cast list in the article after the Background, composition etc stuff. This is as far as I want to go in the direction of the Opera Project's preferences. I think it's OK, it's a logical and defensible sequence. If you have a real problem with this, let me know quickly.
 * I was not able to dig up any further source material at the ROH, so that's it—we go with what we've got. Tonight I will begin to go through the prose line by line, and try and rid it of typos, redundancies, poor phrasing etc, so that it is as crisp as possible. When I've done this, it will be ready for FAC.
 * Since the article history shows that I am now the main editor, I had better do the nomination, with you as co-nom (I had intended it the other way round, but it will be expected that I do as the main editor). Unless I hear from you otherwise, I will do this some time tomorrow (Friday) evening. Then it will be in the lap of the gods. Brianboulton (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agrippina is now at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Pinafore comments are up
See Talk:H.M.S. Pinafore/GA1. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I see you are one of the main editors for H.M.S. Pinafore. I put up some review comments a little while ago. While the content of this article is great, and I don't doubt it will reach FA in due course, I made suggestions about the structure of the article which so far don't appear to be being implemented. (Not that I'd expect them all to be implemented, and I have noted some of Ssilvers comments regarding particular issues). I still feel the structure could improve and I'd like to be able to tick this off. As reviewer of something that represents the painstaking work of a small group of dedicated editors I'm reluctant to "be bold" and attempt a re-structure myself. If the main editors want me to have a shot at that, let me know and I might be able to have a go this weekend. Otherwise, though, I'm figuring this article will be in your and Ssilver's capable hands :-) Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Agrippina references
OK, but can we agree that in future, disagreements between us arising from the review need to be sorted out here and on my talkpage, rather than being advertised on review page itself?

WikiCup Newsletter

 * 17:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC) The  Helpful  Bot  17:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comments would be appreciated
As someone who has contributed to a thread about terminology on WT:NPOV/FAQ, I'd like to point you to a thread that attempts to bring the issue to some sort of closure, here. It's important we try and get to the end of this debate, so your comments will be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time. Ben (talk) 08:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009  Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition &raquo;  — 16 March 2009


 * News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
 * Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 23:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Urgent
Please look at the W. S. Gilbert talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Rhyolite images
I'm not quite sure whether you mean for me to look for more images or whether you are offering to look. I was also not sure what you meant by "Featured Pictures"; that is, I couldn't tell whether you meant to pursue a project separate from the Rhyolite article or whether you meant that the images in the article should be replaced by better ones. I'm also curious to know what wing of the Library of Congress to search. Any research tips or links to archives would be appreciated. Up to now, I've used mostly my own photos or images from the Commons that had what looked to me like proper licenses. The mine image was, as far as I can recall, my first attempt at hunting down, modifying, uploading, and licensing an archived image from someone else's collection. Much obliged for any advice. Finetooth (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And, oh my goodness, I just noticed above that you have lots of experience with Featured Pictures. I have none. Finetooth (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Agrippina edit conflict
Judging by your edit summaries, you were editing at the same time as I was, and changing things before I had finished. I suppose I should have put an "inuse tag" on. Anyway, all is well now I think. I have been firefighting an intervention which late last night introduced new problems into the page (see talkpage). I am trying to keep a lid on this to avoid it spilling on to the FAC, so please try not to be provocative! As to why the recitative was included in the list, it is the one and only ''accompanied" recit in the opera, and is mentioned twice in the article, so I included it with the arias, marked "accompanied recitative". Someone else relabelled it. I'm too tired to bother, now, so I suggest we leave it out unless someone notices. Please ping me when you have read this so I know you are up to speed. Brianboulton (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Shoemaker's, I just noticed your intervening edits.  To answer, NHHA usually numbers (and FC has included) everything that will be rehearsed with orchestra, including accompagnati but excluding secco recits. Logical enough, though a pain when one is rehearsing from mixed Messiah editions!Sparafucil (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: New Norfolk, Tasmania
Aye, Surprised that it looks like it'll pass actually Noodle snacks (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

H.M.S. Pinafore
Please address the comments, since they've been up for a while. I have already left my responses. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * When can you work on shortening the Reception section? You need to summarize The Times review (I don't have it) as well as the hostile Figaro review, which is just a ridiculous bunch of lies from a reviewer who probably didn't even see the production, and you need to explain why Figaro was hostile to WSG.  I'll leave it to you, since I added all the other reception stuff.  OK?  Best regards.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming FAC
Re: the article you plan on taking to FAC, Sandy suggested getting User:Eubulides in advance. Raul654 (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No communication?
We are supposed to be co-noms on the Agrippina article, but since the FAC opened there has been virtually no direct communication between us. The impression to outsiders might be that we are not working together. This may be partly my fault, and if I have offended you in some way please let me know, but in any event I would like to hear from you how you think the FAC is going, and whether you think there is more to be done to improve the article. If you have issues with the article, or with the way I have responded to reviewers' concerns, it is important that these are raised directly with me, via my talkpage, and not on the article's talkpage or through abrasive edit summaries. Brianboulton (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

colour correction
Hi, I just found this for someone else and thought I'd share it with you, as you seem to be tearing your hair out with colour corrections these days! When the LoC provide colour charts, spot on colour is usually just a couple of clicks away. Cheers, mikaultalk 11:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * GIMP isn't quite so easy but the same principle applies. If you sample any of the colour chart's grayscale patches with the Colour Picker tool it'll give you three (R,G,B) numerical values for it. They should be equal. If they're not, you have to tweak the individual (R,G,B) channels with the Curves tool until they are. White is always 255,255,255; Black is always 0,0,0; neutral gray measures at any triplicate of equal values between them, depending where on the chart you sample. Get that right and the colour balance of the image should just fall into place. --mikaultalk 21:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi SH,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:HMSPinafore2.png is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 22, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-03-22. Note that this image wasn't actually in the H.M.S. Pinafore article, so I stuck it back in.  howcheng  {chat} 23:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

H.M.S. Pinafore
Thank you and your opera friends for all your work and material, here and in related articles. I have cleared Pinafore at GA, and I don't doubt it will be on its way to FA in good time. Best wishes. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Agrippina - Dean & Knapp chapter
If you let me have your email address I will forward the chapter to you. It is essential, however, that we don't work at cross-purposes in incorporating any of this material. When I have finished reading, before making any edits I will let you have a brief summary of what I think we should use; you can then add your own suggestions to the list. From what I have read so far there won't be any major changes; some additional analysis in the "Music" section, some further performance history, a few added details here and there, and some stuff on the thorny issue of the editions. Let's try and get this done quickly: the FAC has been stalled for nearly a week, the clock is ticking on towards the anniversary date, and we both have other things to move on to. Brianboulton (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad you have the chapter. If you can weave into the synopsis a few scene indications, e.g. "Outside the palace,..." or, "The action now moves to Poppaea's bedroom, where..." - then fine, provided the narrative isn't too much disturbed. Why don't you have a go, post it and see how it looks? My general view is that the chapter confirms a lot of things already in the article, adding more detail in a number of areas without containing anything problematic.   I am currently dealing with a small number of non-contentious points, for example date of performance, place of composition, additional performance history, instrumentation of the music, etc. These are small additions, which I will post shortly, so you can see them & comment if you wish. I want to add something to the Music section, and tonight will look closely at the tangled mess of information about editions, alternative arias etc, about which the chapter, on first reading, is far from clear. Keep pinging me here if you see anything which causes you a problem. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Have responded to your detailed points on my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have done most of the small things. The main thing I've done is to rearrange and add stuff into the Music section (I've taken some stuff out too). Let me know if you have problems with this. I'm now in the murky world of editions - will report on that tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done the rest of my stuff, and I propose shortly to ask Awadewit to start looking at the revised article. That shouldn't stop you going ahead with your bits, but it might be prudent to go carefully until she has spoken. Brianboulton (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Awadewit has given the article unconditional support now. Another editor has added support. I suggest we leave any further changes until after the FAC closes, which I imagine will be fairly soon. Brianboulton (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry you've been ill. Like I say, at the moment best do nothing. Brianboulton (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Collapsible navbox for Sullivan
Can you make this collapse?: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Sullivan_operas&action=edit Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. We don't need to include the G&S operas, because they are already in the G&S template.  But, if it's collapsed, I wouldn't object, if you prefer it.  I like the way it is, because if someone looks at one of the SWOG's it helps them easily navigate to the other SWOGs without getting bogged down in the G&S operas, which the G&S template covers.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Just go ahead and collapse it, please. Don't worry, I don't need to see it in advance; I have seen the other ones you did. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ero e Leandro
--Dravecky (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Cassiopeia A
I believe your concerns have been addressed. Please look at the alternates. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Vis a vis WikiCup
Any particular reason why? No need to actually say, I'm just curious, as you appeared to be doing very well. GARDEN 22:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC) == Wikipedia Signpost : 23 March 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
 * Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
 * News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Tachysphex specie.jpg
Hey SH, there is an edited version of the image you commented about at the nomination. Could you please check it out? --Muhammad (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

PD review
See commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 02:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Agrippina main page request
I was going to ask you to do the request anyway, as the whole thing was your idea in the first place. Let's hope it succeeds, and I trust you are feeling better. Brianboulton (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Re barnstar - it's the thought that counts - thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 09:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Collapsing Sullivan nav box
Hi. I hope you're feeling better. Can you get to this soon? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I figured it out. See if I did it right.  Also, can we crop the photo of Sullivan to get rid of all the unused space at the top?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC on signature subst'ing
Since you were involved in shaping the current guideline on substing signatures, you may wish to see WT:SIG. – xeno  ( talk ) 03:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Naturopathy
Frak, that is a sure sign that reading too much postmodernist magical thinking claptrap has rotted my brain. That whole range of modalities sentence I tried to compromise into the lead is weaselly and undersourced. Really, that article desperately needs a good source describing the frequency with which practitioners avail themselves of different modalities. - Eldereft (cont.) 07:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Or whether your particular batch of supplements was made from the right part of the right plant that if the mixture was well-homogenized each of the big green pills will contain a therapeutically-relevant amount of the putatively active ingredient. Good luck if you try to whack some more sense into that article before I get back. - Eldereft (cont.) 12:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikicup
Never! –  Juliancolton  | Talk 17:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Verdi
Thanks for your note. You may be aware that I have been doing a lot of work on the Verdi opera articles over the past few months, especially the early operas which were lacking quite a bit. This work has included:


 * Performance history sections are expanded, again especially for the early operas.
 * Roles boxes exist for all.
 * With one exception, Aroldo, all the synopses are act-by-act and scene-by-scene fleshed out and arias integrated into them. I'll work on that soon. Un giorno di regno lacks an English translation of the first lines of the arias, but I don't have an Italian/English libretto.
 * Selected recordings exist for all, I believe.

Clearly, many are lacking a more detailed opening paragraph and further infomration of various sorts. However, the later operas also need attention and I see in the case of Otello that there has been a flag on one rather "essay-like" rambling section for quite a while.

So, I'll be happy to contribute what I can to the work on any of the operas. All the best, Viva-Verdi (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD on Sheree Silver
Articles_for_deletion/Sheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination). Please be informed. – Shannon Rose (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 30 March 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
 * Special report: Community weighs license update
 * News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Userpage kats
Ur userpage was below the minimum kat quota but I haz fixed this for you. Ceiling Cat (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Pinafore
There is already an "Analysis" section. Your discussion of sources should go in there, I think, or be a subsection of that. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi SH,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Salvador Dali A (Dali Atomicus) 09633u.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 3, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-04-03.  howcheng  {chat} 22:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget
to sign your comments. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Cochineal
I'd suspect just two points. An insect is an insect, and 12 year olds are unlikely to do reports on this one. This article was nommed in January for Australia Day, can't remember if you did it or someone else, and the comments were (from Sandy, I think) that it was in pretty poor shape.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Serif font
Wikipedia used what is now called the "Classic" skin; sometime in (I think) 2004 it changed to Monobook, the current skin. Classic used serif (I think Times), and as you observed Monobook uses sans serif. Complaints at legibility were made at the time (see Wikipedia talk:Serif or sans-serif), and speakers of slavic languages complained that the font Windows actually used to render sans-serif Monobook incorrectly rendered slavic diacritical marks on latin characters correctly (although I checked Czech now, and it's in monobook, so I guess that's fixed). For yourself you can change to classic skin in the preferences panel (although Classic's rendering on the modern mediawiki engine differs enough from Monobook to sometimes be an issue). Dog Day Today (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Bovista
Hi, just wanted to drop you a note to assure you I'm not a nutjob homeopathy-POV pusher, and if you come across anything else I've written that appears to fall into that category, let me know and and I'll fix it. I'll put the Bovista article higher on my "to-do" list, and by increasing its length, reduce the relative proportion of the homeopathy paragraph to the remainder of the article. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was just dropping by to say the same thing. If Sasata's maintaining the article and intends to take it to GA, I don't think you need to worry about a thing. J Milburn (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XI
Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 21:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

Agrippina
Your original request was for the 14th, and here you asked (after I had already left to go on the road for several days) for the 6th or 9th. Now it's too late for the 6th, but I can still make the 9th or 14th happen, if that's what you want. Raul654 (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sheree Silver
Thanks for the head's up. I don't know what to add at this point, since at this point the issue has progressed to the dead horse stage; Black Kite might just appreciate as many of us staying out of it as possible. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And I agree with your reasoning: it's always nice for someone to know when she/he needs to defend one's opinions. Despite my instincts, though, I can't help but mull on adding my two cents' to the discussion. (Primarily, I don't care especially either way, but two appearances on a reality show don't merit an article on Wikipedia.) I just worry that if I add to the discussion on his talk page, I'll ramble far too much & harm my case. -- llywrch (talk) 05:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up from me too, though my ability to keep my mouth shut is compromised by not having a little voice over my shoulder warning "no!" :) -- Web H amster  13:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks from me too - I have commented on Black Kite's talk page but I refuse to defend my comments in the Afd, they were reasonable and supported by other !votes. – ukexpat (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to personally apologize, Shoemaker's Holiday, if I offended you in any way by the discussion on Black Kite's page. I was just making sure the closing admin had read the consensus correctly. Spring12 (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 6 April 2009 ==


 * Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
 * News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
 * Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject China
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wicked World
No problem. I guess I've been spoiled by almost excessively enormous image sizes when viewing other restorations.  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 20:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)