User talk:TheoryofSexuality

Welcome
When you do an edit such as you just did at Grotesque you really should add a reference to additions such as the Owen part. otherwise it becomes just your opinion and will likely be removed. In which case the Shelly part probably goes as well. Also, if you put something, anything on your user page your name will appear as a blue link rather than as a red one and this is (opinion) a good thing. (Reasons upon request) Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your edit was also a good opportunity to add a wikilink to Wilfred Owen, which sort of cements your, or any edit, in a bit. Oh yes, welcome to Wikipedia. Carptrash (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Carptrash, I've added a ref for the WW1, and poem links for Owen.


 * For the Shelley not yet sure whether to add a quote from the book, or from a critic?
 * I'm a big fan of quotes, beign a book person I like using books as references, but both work fine. What fun indeed. Carptrash (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

ok will research best quote to support, thanks again TheoryofSexuality (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=561711120 your edit] to Grotesque may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * in dadaist work.'
 * to Thomas Mann stories would be encyclopedic:Some of Thomas Mann's early short story characters " Tobias Minderninkel," "The Little Herr Friedmannn," "Little Louise"--and others--surely fall into

Thanks for pointing that out, what a brilliant service! TheoryofSexuality (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The talk page is useful for passing on editing tips such as, "Be sure and sign all your posting with 4 of these. ~. That lets the rest of us know who, when, and a few other things.  Also, check out (in the "edit" mode) the use of these : at the begining of an edit to help set that edit apart from other edits nearby.  There is more and there will be a quiz, Carptrash (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

what fun, thanks!

TheoryofSexuality (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Shakespeare
1. What motivates you specifically to contribute specifically to the Shakespeare page? Linking to an article I had just written

2. Do you consider that your skills in this regard are general, technical, or specialist? specialist

3. Have you contributed to other Shakespeare-related pages? No

3. What's you opinion on how the Shakespeare page has evolved over time? No opinion

4. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Shakespeare page in terms of its current form and content? Don't know, haven't read it

5. Who would you say are the target readers for this page? No

6. What have been the advantages and/or the frustrations of working on the Shakespeare page? advantage = simple; no disadvantage

7. What are your reflections on the process of wiki-engagement in terms of connection, community and collaboration? I don't understand the question

8. In your view, are there any other questions that ought to be considered? Not qualified to give an opinion. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 5. Who would you say are the target readers for this page?  I meant don't know Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Shakespeare 2
1. What motivates you specifically to contribute specifically to the Shakespeare page?
 * Being very interested in Shakespeare

2. Do you consider that your skills in this regard are general, technical, or specialist?
 * specialist

3. Have you contributed to other Shakespeare-related pages?
 * Yes, many of them

3. What's you opinion on how the Shakespeare page has evolved over time?
 * It's generally got better, but since it became featured it has not changed much.

4. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Shakespeare page in terms of its current form and content?
 * Strengths: concision, clarity, and structure. Overall it covers a very wide range of material well. Weaknesses: The sonnets section is a littler idiosyncractic, and the 'speculations' one is little more than a dumping ground for bits and bobs that were otherwise not integrated.

5. Who would you say are the target readers for this page?
 * people interested in Shakespeare; students

6. What have been the advantages and/or the frustrations of working on the Shakespeare page?
 * The technicalities; former edit-warring over "authorship" issues; the difficulty of al;tering a longstanding page

7. What are your reflections on the process of wiki-engagement in terms of connection, community and collaboration?
 * ''It has changed dramatically over the years. The principal problems are with people adding half-digested or fringey ideas. The page has had little action since it achieved FA status.

8. In your view, are there any other questions that ought to be considered?
 * I'm sure there are, but I don't really know what type of question you have in mind.. Paul B (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

No Shakespeare for me
Hi, I got your message. Just a friendly reminder to use the Talk page, instead of editing a users homepage. Unfortunately, I wont be able to help. I only touched a Shakespeare article as a cleanup task.

Best of Luck TiMike (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)