User talk:Wrad/Archive 6

Yamucha
Yo, I did some work on Yamucha article and I think that you should take a look :) Also I'm working on Tenshinhan article now, slowly SSJ 5 (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry
Howdy, this note is a little long, so in case you are busy:
 * Don't worry
 * I've seen this before, Deb will enforce WikiProject consensus
 * Keep working on FA/GA/1346
 * Avoid WP:SPLICE problems (no cut and paste moves)
 * Officially join WP Years! Consider taking on a leadership role, and recruiting
 * Use the 1340s FA drive as a rally
 * Don't worry

I think the prose and timeline articles are fine. Just keep working on 1346. If you think the prose and the timeline need to be in separate pages, just make your new contribution in a new page (1346 (summary) perhaps) and mention that it too should be moved to 1346 on the wikiproject. Once it is clear that there is consensus at the wikiproject, Deb will fix the move problems.

Note that you actually created a small problem with the 1345 page, which will probably require an admin to fix. WP:SPLICE or so describes it. Basically, don't do "cut and paste" moves. It's not a huge deal. Everyone makes mistakes, and the wiki makes it reasonably easy to fix them. I'm just saying Deb has a complicated little mess to clean up, so it shouldn't be too surprising if he waits overnight to decide what to do.

I've seen a fair number of situations like these, and they've all been fixed. Almost always the "drive by" admin will enforce the consensus from the wikiproject, and will even fix lots of the broken things the wikiproject participants didn't realize were broken. For instance, if you guys need help writing more robust templates, I or other wikiproject template guys can help.

You might want to recruit some people to work on the year project, and list yourself as an official member! Presumably there are a fair number of history buffs who would enjoy writing summaries of years. Personally, I think you'd also have very good luck getting people to write decade summaries. I think a fair number of people would could benefit from summaries at the century, decade, and year levels.

You might also be able to get various geographical wikiprojects to contribute to a (geograpically/culturally) broader understanding of the year. For the decade or century summaries, you could probably get subject wikiprojects (science, literature, philosophy, art, etc.) to describe the major movements of that time period.

Your talk page mentioned not liking being just one of millions. At least in my experience, it is only more like one in ten thousand overall, and at the various wikiprojects more like one amongst 5-20 nice people. *You* have the power to make WP:WikiProject Years a wonderful, lively place. Some polite canvassing like you've done for 1345's wikiprojects is a start, but remember to also mention the positve things. Don't just ask for people to comment on the problem, also mention your new, exciting series of articles, currently at 1345 (summary) and User:Wrad/Sandbox2, and that you think some people at those projects might like to help finish the 1340s.

At any rate, I'm just saying, don't worry. Deb will cleanup up the move mess. You should continue your good work on GA and FA articles, and consider stepping into a leadership role with WP:WikiProject Years. JackSchmidt (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

King Arthur
Hey Wrad, it's been a while since we worked together. However, I find this article to be rather excellent. I checked over to find any errors just hoping to make some edits and could find none. There were minor fixes, but at FAC they will be noticed. I don't see why the other main editors have to wait for Hroth. I think we should let them nominate it. Please reply at my talk page. Thank you. -- Meldshal42  (talk)  13:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I sent you an email to try and elaborate a little about where I am coming from. I hope it makes sense. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Brigham Young University Collaboration for July 2008
Thanks to all those who helped out with BYU-related articles this last month, and a big thank you to Wrad for helping get June's Collaboration (BYU Jerusalem Center) to GA status. I look forward to working with you on this month's article. Go BYU! --Eustress (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

1345
Just to let you know that I have unprotected it. Deb (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team Proposals
Please comment on the current FA-Team proposals. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrad, I see you're involved with Wikiproject Years
One thing on my to-do list I haven't gotten around to yet; "1800s" doesn't mean "1800–1809" anywhere outside of Wikipedia, and it strikes me as an extreme case of jargon. Is there any way you Wikiproject Years guys could change "1800s" to a disambiguation page that points to the century and also to a page called, for instance, "1800&amp;ndash;1809"? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We'd have to bring it up on the talk page again. But first we just need to get more members so there's someone there to talk with! Wrad (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What does this Wikiproject years mean? You invited me. Igor Skoglund
 * I will participate maybe later because I have another project right now about history and art. Igor Skoglund

King Arthur
Ok, it's nominated :)  I 'borrowed' some of your language from the SGGK nom as I liked it when you did it, hope you don't mind :)  Thanks a lot, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. I like. Wrad (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: FA nom (copied from my talk) lol! thanks :) Assuming I'm allowed, do I renominate or can the other one be returned?  cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

al-Arabiya
Hi Wrad, I notice on your blog you have translations of al-Arabiya articles. This may be a bit of a stretch, but does al-Arabiya post al-Qaeda statements, or do you happen to know of a website that does? (Ideally I'd like both Arabic and English statements, but Arabic alone is fine). I was trying to search for them but I'm not even sure what to look for. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All I've ever seen from Al-Arabiya is quotes from Hamas and Hezbollah, even though I've seen a good number of articles focused on Al-Qaeda. I get the feeling that reporters are not getting anywhere near Al-Qaeda spokesmen nowadays, possibly because they all are in hiding and get arrested once they stick their heads out. Wrad (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So where do all the al-Qaeda statements come from, and where do the English translations come from? Just random websites known to be used by them? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any since Al-Jazeera (?) published a Bin-Laden tape. Or at least only very few (maybe one). What Al-Qaeda statements are you referring to? Wrad (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I thought I'd read about some recently, probably from al-Zawahari rather than bin Laden. (I notice as I search Google News the info that "On June 5, 2008, the Islamist website Al-Ikhlas posted an audio message by Al-Zawahiri", so I guess I answered my own question!) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. A Zawahari letter came out recently. I have it on my blog somewhere... Wrad (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team successes!
Indigenous people of the Everglades region, Draining and development of the Everglades and Restoration of the Everglades have all recently become FAs! King Arthur is now at FAC! Thanks to our hard-working team members! Awadewit (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Awards for King Arthur
Wrad, as you'll see, I handed out some awards for King Arthur. Did I miss anyone?! Awadewit (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

1346
Nice work on a much-neglected area. People usually take those year articles as something like disambiguation pages... --BorgQueen (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added my thoughst to the wikiproject page. There's more at issue here than a good set of year articles. +sj + 05:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet
Good idea. I've been mostly off-Wikipedia for a few months on another project, but that's pretty much written now so I'll have more time to work on anything the peer review throws up. I say, go for it. AndyJones (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

KA
Have I just been lucky so far, or are folks like this as common on wiki as they were on usenet (I used to try and help folks on there a long while ago, before I gave up due to the number of cranks)? Anyway, I'm staying out of this bizarre thread from now, just thought the following quote might be useful if you're going to carry on: from Jackson's Language and History, chronological summary, p.696 "Mid or Later Sixth Century... lp, lc, rp, rt, rc > lf, lch, rf, rth, rch", with full details in section 149 of the main text... Cheers and good night :) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ping
Hello. I sent you an e-mail, if you could reply to it :) Wizardman  00:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(Sings) Stay, don't go
The great thing about Wikipedia is that it's all virtual. We can switch off, ignore people, dewatchlist. Really, we are just sitting at home enjoying a hobby, and what happens on screen isn't worth getting worked up about, I think. You are a wonderful contributor: the way you stuck with William Shakespeare when everyone else was leaving the ship is one of my best memories on Wikipedia. It was a brilliant example of sticking with something through thick and thin and getting the payoff at the end. It will be the same with King Arthur (if the FAC has anything to do with your frustration). When that excellent article makes FA, you will deserve great credit for having noticed Hrothgar's work and led the FA Team's mission on the article. Without your leadership, I would never have been involved there, nor Jb and Awadewit. And it's been a long time. I know you put your heart and soul into what you do here. And I'm sure that one thing behind this is your dismay that a scholar like Hrothgar might be put off the project because of the arguing at the FAC. I can't speak for him, but I suspect that anyone who works in the area of Arthur studies will be more than familiar with the variety of people and views that the subject arouses, and I am hopeful that he will just sigh and take it in his stride.

So my advice is, stand back from all-or-nothing feelings, The truth is that you are in charge of how much time you spend on Wikipedia, how much arguing with certain individuals you want to do, and what article you choose to work on. Take a break, of course, but afterwards find some quiet places to edit now and then—and I'm sure Wikipedia will work its charm on you again. I get by working on quiet articles, some that no one at all is interested in: for me, it's not what happens on the screen that gives me the pleasure, it's reading, pottering among my books just as and when I feel. With some nice music on, a glass of port ... it's a heavenly hobby when approached in that vein.

When one meets with hostile argument, it is the easiest thing just not to answer. Or, as Hrothgar has done, to answer once or twice and then switch off. I wish you all the best and hope you'll stay around, but completely on your own terms. No one can make us angry without our permission. qp10qp (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The above seems good advice to me :) You will be sorely missed if you do retire for more than a brief period; I, for one, have greatly appreciated your support and encouragement...  As for me, qp is quite correct, such issues are common-place when it comes to Arthuriana, although it is disappointing to have to deal with them here too; I won't let it put me off, just yet!  On that note, assuming this FA nom goes through I'm going to be writing the last two chapters of a book and then looking for another wiki-project for myself, all suggestions welcome :)  Chin up ;-) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Once more unto the breach, dear friend, once more!
Hey Wrad.

Come on man; go get drunk, take a walk, play some video games, etc. You're the Protagonist here, and the properties of Narrativium dictate that you can't let the Villains prevail! :-)

If you feel Wikipedia has ruined your life then perhaps that's a sign you've been spreading yourself too thin, trying to do too much. Maybe scaling back to fewer projects, and less controversial ones, would help. I know us Bardolators wouldn't mind having you all to ourselves; you're the very soul of the project and we'd be lost without you!

If you ever want to talk, or need someone to rant to, or whatever; my email and IM contact info should be fairly easy to find and I'd be privileged to lend you an ear.

In short, I think what you really need is a great big: 

Xover (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Finally, I'll paraphrase you a section that used to be included in the user manual for NewsWatcher — the first and greatest Usenet newsreader for Mac OS — entitled “Spaf's Words of Wisdom”. It was obviously written for Usenet, but I'm sure you can agree they apply almost equally well to Wikipedia:

Spaf's Words of Wisdom

The following words of wisdom are by Eugene Spafford ("Spaf"), a professor of computer science at Purdue University, a leading authority on computer security and ethics, one of the founding fathers of Usenet, and a self-proclaimed semi-pro curmudgeon.

People rail about their "rights" without understanding that every right carries responsibilities that need to be observed too, not least of which is to respect others' rights as you would have them respect your own. Reason, etiquette, accountability, and compromise are strangers in far too many newsgroups these days.


 * Axiom #1 — Wikipedia is not the real world. The Wikipedia usually does not even resemble the real world.
 * Corollary #1 — Attempts to change the real world by altering the structure of the Wikipedia is an attempt to work sympathetic magic; electronic voodoo.
 * Corollary #2 — Arguing about the significance of article names and their relation to the way people really think is equivalent to arguing whether it is better to read tea leaves or chicken entrails to divine the future.
 * Axiom #2 — Ability to type on a computer terminal is no guarantee of sanity, intelligence, or common sense.
 * Corollary #3 — An infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of keyboards could produce something like Wikipedia.
 * Corollary #4 — They could do a better job of it.
 * Axiom #3 — Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crap) applies to Wikipedia.
 * Corollary #5 — On an unmoderated talk page, no one can agree on what constitutes the 10%.
 * Corollary #6 — Nothing guarantees that the 10% isn't crap, too.

And finally, perhaps Spaf's best advice of all: “'''Don't sweat it—it's not real life. It's only ones and zeroes.'''»

That last one I meditate on, with alarming regularity, whenever the September that never ended gets to be too much. --Xover (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've spent some time away and think that I let my watchlist get too big for my, uhhh... britches. I've missed the Shakespeare project. I think it is honestly the best one on the wiki. Wrad (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And it could certainly use whatever input you might seek to give. For what it's worth, my watchlist is around 5000 pages long. It can take me an hour to just review all the changes made since I last logged off. Believe me, I understand. I have regretably come to notice that there are more than a few editors out there who can cause severe rectal discomfort (OK, that was cleaned up a little ;) ). I know some people think I'm one of them. Sometimes these people have a point other than the one on the top of their heads, sometimes they don't. I myself try to steer clear of those who are repeat offenders in this regard, although sometimes that can be very hard. But it would be really sad to see that such individuals of at best dubious parentage (another cleanup) were to cause the loss of a valuable editor. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My watchlist is about 120, and that's getting too many. Most are dormant, though. Keeping to a few makes sense, I think. qp10qp (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't leave
It's been a pleasure working with you [the two times that I have]. If you left, we'd lose one of the most knowledgable featured article contributors we have. I know you would have nowhere to entertain yourself after wikipedia (except stripper bars :)). Come on, don't leave... -- Meldshal   (talk to me)  17:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oliver DeMille / George Wythe College
Before you go, any comment on these two articles? Thanks! --TrustTruth (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BARD newsletter?
Hi Wrad,

dunno whether you're checking your talk page during your semi-Wikibreak, but I figure it's worth a shot. :-)

I was futzing about with some graphs and stats and stuff, and was going to post this on the WP:BARD talk page. But then I recalled at some point seeing you doing some relevant edits over by one of the Newsletter bots (I may misrecall, it was something that showed up in my Watchlist at one point). What are your thoughts on a Newsletter for WP:BARD, and what do you think about including something like the above linked stuff in it? --Xover (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that would be awesome. However, the newsletter bot seems to be dead. I left a request there weeks ago and it has just sat there. I want to spread the word about the Romeo and Juliet peer review, too. Wrad (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm told WP:AWB can do this, but I'm on a Mac so I can't test (AWB is WIndows-only). Otherwise, if we decide we want that kind of functionality, I might take a stab at putting together a newsletter bot just for this purpose. I mean, how hard can it be? (Famous last words!). --Xover (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * PS. I dropped a note on the newsletterbot's operator's user talk page to see what the status is. --Xover (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet collaboration
Greetings! The current Shakespeare Project Collaboration is Romeo and Juliet. This project is currently going a thorough peer review and copyedit before moving on to FAC. The link to the peer review is Peer review/Romeo and Juliet/archive1. Have a look! «  Diligent Terrier  Bot    (talk)   20:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

?
Would you be at all interested in taking Brigham Young University Jerusalem Center to FAC? --Eustress (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We should probably do a peer review first, but sure. Wrad (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team Mission 5: Solar solicitude/solidarity
Hi Wrad,

As an FA-Team member, I'm soliciting your assistance with FA-Team Mission 5 on Scattered disc and Solar energy (and possibly others). Your enthusiasm and expertise with sourcing would be much appreciated. Please sign up on the mission page and watchlist the mission page and articles if you are interested in helping out. Geometry guy 15:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Quiney nominated for GA.
Hi Wrad,

Since you asked about it on the talk page last year I figured you would want to know I've finally got around to applying a little polish to it and nominated it for GA. --Xover (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Smatprt user violations
Please see the Baconian theory and Shakespeare authorship Talk Pages where I complain about Smatprt's disruption of the GA nomination of the Baconian theory article and his automatic reverting of my edits. This user has a history of violations []. I'm feeling quite angry about this. Where can I find a list of moderators with power to assist? What is the procedure for banning him or removing him entirely? Best Wishes Puzzle Master (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Authorship section on William Shakespeare
I definitely don't want to stir up that hornet's nest again either, but I had a thought the other day…

Take a look at the Pathology article, and then hit the Edit button for a few of the top level sections on it. Most of the sections in that article give a “See also…” link to the main article for that branch of Pathology and then transcludes the lede section of that article into the main article! Admittedly I'm kind of a technology geek, but that was just too elegant. At some point in the future it might be worthwhile investigating the possibility of improving all the main articles for which William Shakespeare gives a “See also…” for to the point where we can do the same. Worth thinking about even if utterly unrealistic right now. --Xover (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Another rebuke, huh?
I notice that when I complain against Smatprt on the Administrator forums about his edit Violations (which I can fully justify with examples) you sit back and do ... NOTHING! When he plays victim and complains about me you can't get there quick enough to accuse me of something ... what was it this time? Canvassing? In truth I find your one-sided judgements irritating. I can work hard on the quality of an article, someone like Smatprt can try to use it to promote his views (because that's his ONLY agenda here) and when I stand up for justice someone like you backs the aggressor. I know he bullied everyone into getting his piece into the William Shakespeare article by persistent reverting and what did the administrators do ... NOTHING! No doubt you'll congratulate yourself on reaching a compromise but I wonder how you would have dealt with Hitler's demands. "Tell you what, Adolf, we'll give you France and Poland if we can keep Britain". It's spineless and pathetic! Go on, ban me, you know you want to! Puzzle Master (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No I don't. Canvassing is wrong no matter how mad you are or how right your side is. I don't appreciate getting messages on my talk page trying to draw me into authorship issues. I'd wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole. Please don't leave messages here when you're mad at Smatprt, just leave them at the Shakespeare project page. Wrad (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Bye bye
See my talk page! Puzzle Master (talk) 11:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Brigham Young University Collaboration for August 2008
Thanks to all those who helped out with BYU-related articles this last month, and a big thank you to Wrad for helping make some big strides on July's Collaboration (BYU Hawaii). I look forward to working with you on this month's article. Go BYU! --Eustress (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

New FA-Team mission needs your help!
Félix Houphouët-Boigny needs to be copyedited and peer reviewed. We would appreciate any and all help from the crack members of the FA-Team! Sign up here. Merci! Awadewit (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

CfD nominations of 3 Shakespeare categories
Category:Shakespeare academia, which you created, has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Also nominated for renaming are and. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI: another editor has proposed renaming to Category:Shakespearean scholarship. Cgingold (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Help
Hi, I need your tool. --70.121.33.78 (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD
I've nominated Obama Republican and McCain Democrat for deletion. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Three Witches
Hey Wrad, I noticed editing has dropped of on the above article - re read it again this morning; wondering if it is going to be taken further. Ceoil sláinte 09:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How many copy editors do you know? I think its a fine article, and would to really like see it nomed. Same for 1345, which I consider a wow article.  Ceoil  sláinte 18:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Byron
I would like some help with the George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron page. I started working on it to help with a problem Nandesuka was having with some other users who kept adding and changing things that were uncited. I decided to cite most of the article to remove any controversy over what should be included or not. I've already applied a few sources, and have 8 more to apply.

Now, I have started working on it here User:Ottava Rima/Byron. To accommodate the size of his early life (as people prefer the biography pages to focus on career, themes, etc), I have created this page George Gordon Byron's early life based on the information that I posted in the userfied biography. I would need help creating an appropriate summary (I left the material in), but I don't know what information is "interesting" enough to leave in. I would like feed back. I am asking a few people about this. I would like to settle the first half of the biography before starting the more complicated second half. After that, I will post it to the Wikipedia main space and work on the career and relationship sections. If you could edit any, or mention something on the talk page in my user space, that would help a lot. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team new mission
Hi Wrad, You've probably noticed that the FA-Team has just launched a mission to help WikiProject AP Biology 2008 and WikiProject North of the Rio Grande improve articles towards featured quality. As the coordinator of the MMM mission, I'm hoping you would like to join in and support a few articles from one or both of the projects. If so, please add your name to the articles you are watchlisting on the mission page. Thanks, Geometry guy 20:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Copyedit request for GA
Looking at it now. --Xover (talk) 11:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I had a go at it, but you're generally a better writer than I am so I'm not sure how much value I added there.
 * I added in a couple of cn and who tags; not so much for verifiability as to tag unspecific phrasing (e.g. "Scholars", cited to just one source, borders on weasel wording). I also left some stuff in comments in the source (in addition to what was already there) that should probably be looked at on the talk page at some point.
 * Anyways, I hope this was some help (fresh eyes, if nothing else); and don't be shy about reverting any of it if you're unhappy with it! --Xover (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it reads a lot better now. Wrad (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)