User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday

Marcellus Formation

Thanks for the feedback on the GA review. I've made the changes you suggested, and listed it for peer review. Dhaluza (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Creatures of Impulse copyedit

I have a couple of other promises to keep before I can get to Creatures, but I've put it on my to-do list. Finetooth (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I started reading just now, but real life has interrupted. I will come back and finish this later today. Looks excellent so far. Finetooth (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Done for the nonce. Gilbert is always fun. I encountered what I think is a big problem in the lower sections, and I left a note on the article's talk page with a suggestion about how to fix it. Finetooth (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks better. Finetooth (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Trial by Jury

I wouldn't go too far afield of Trial. This is the Trial article, not the G&S article, so unless the influence can be traced to Trial, at least in significant part, I think it's too tangential. BTW, re: my annoyance this morning, you should know that I think you are doing a good job, but I don't appreciate when you are preachy with me, which you are quite frequently. I know that I am not perfect, and I make sloppy mistakes sometimes. However, I think I am a very good writer and copy editor, and no one on Wikipedia is perfect. Before you tell me what to do or criticize some sloppiness of mine, I suggest that you review your own edits and make sure that you who are about to throw a stone is without sin. Instead of preaching to me, just correct something if you think it is wrong, leave an edit summary, and I shall do the same. I think that is the Wikipedia way. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you make the casting tables nice and square, the way the Pirates ones are, with the grid lines? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to do the casting table for Utopia, but I can't figure out how to get the date header for the 1975 column to float up. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Companion pieces to Trial

Sure, if you find more on Crypto, Perichole, or any of the other companion pieces played *in London*, I would add that to the articles. I don't think we need any information on companion pieces played OUTSIDE of London. Sounds like you had fun in the library. I am going thru your changes and making copy edits. I will leave you information on the Trial talk page about any significant changes that I make. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

1899 cast

OK: best of both worlds: I added a Note 2 to the 1898 cast that gives the names of the non-notable late 1899 cast members. I suppose that you could put the footnote marker at the end of the description of the 1899 production row. Where do you like it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Trial status

OK, I finally have an idea of what you did. IMO, People go to Wikipedia to read the Synopsis and find out some background about the show and maybe information about musical numbers and productions. Please do not bury the straighforward sections about the show below the analytical sections. Take a look at what I did. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

See the talk page for Trial, where I have left my status report. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Tables

That looks much neater, Shoe. Can you get them to compress more to the left, as in Pirates? As they are now, they look a little too spread out. I think it's easier to read across the columns when they are a little narrow, if possible. Also, can you do the same magic to the Benefit performances? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Marc's code in Pirates. Does that give you the code you need? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, looks good now! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Suture diagrams

Hi, Just wondering if you are hapy with the final versions of the Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve#Suture diagrams? /Lokal_Profil 01:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Creatures of Impulse final tweaks

I think I buried my last short note to you too far up on this page. Yes, the current layout is an improvement over the four sets of notes. I went back just now and did a few more tweaks. The main one replaced the last big block of italics with a small bold head. It's hard to predict what might happen at FAC. For example, literary critics might weigh in with concerns unrelated to the copyedits. I think, though, that we have fixed most of the small things. Finetooth (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Creatures FA review

I handled as many of the comments as I could (at least the ones that were up before I went to sleep) but left a few for you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Trial by Jury copyedit

I'll put this on my ever-expanding to-do list. I can't promise anything in the immediate future, but I'll take a look when I can. Finetooth (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Trial by Jury

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Trial by Jury - Chaos in the Courtroom.png, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 04:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

Thanks for reviewing the article, I will keep working at it.Gears Of War 19:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks dude. The review wasn't meant to actually be premoted. It was so that it could not only get feedback from the PR but an even deeper prospective from a GA. Tahnkyou.Gears Of War 20:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

E. Ellet

Thanks for your GA review of the Ellet biography and your recommendations for bringing it up to FA standards! Will be working toward that goal soon. - Epousesquecido (talk) 11:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

NTWW

WRT this: Did you mean to sign up in the participants section? dorftrottel (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

TBJ timing

Why not cite the CD covers of some recordings? My recording totals about 33 minutes (Godfrey 1964, 1989 CD reissue) -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead image is captioned "Chaos in the Courtroom...." Where did that phrase come from? It sounds nice, but I am now thinking that if we just made it up, we should take it out of the image caption. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll leave it to you whether or not to leave the caption alone. How do we make the G&S template at the bottom of the article "hide" as a default? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Template: I would rather hide it on all articles - it's easy as pie to click the [show] button, and I think it's more attractive to have one sleek little line at the bottom than a big fat template about stuff that is not directly informative about the subject of the article itself. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The Light of the World (Sullivan)

Can you add anything to this new article? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Pinafore

Thank you very much for your note: I'll give the article my closest attention. Tim riley (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK then. Can you follow up on the Edwin/Angelina connection? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Bradley, p. 6 agrees with Benford's Lexicon, which says that Edwin and Angelina are a traditional pairing of lovers' names, dating back to the 1764 poem The Hermit by Oliver Goldsmith. Oh! Look here: http://victorianweb.org/mt/gilbert/judge1.html I think you will find some other info here for the article - maybe even enough for a short article on the Judge's Song? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Urk! I didn't even know there were any comments at the Trial peer review. I'll never learn how to use Wikipedia properly! Please see my various comments there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Creatures and Trial

You are most welcome. I was happy to see the FA star and glad to have helped in a small way. I have in mind to copyedit Trial by Jury if you still want me to and if it's ready. Just let me know. Finetooth (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

FPC (H.M.S. Pinfaore)

Will do, thank you for notifying me. NauticaShades 01:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of Grey Griffins book series

Alright I am about to ask you for a bug favor, before you decline please just think about it. You said that the article suffers from poor writting. Can you please rewrite the entire article by upgrading the grammar and improving it so that it is well written while at the same time not getting rid of an of the key stuff in the article.Gears Of War 02:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to remind you to please rewrite thank you.Gears Of War 20:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you still gonna do it? If it not just tell me.Gears Of War 23:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Gilbert and Sullivan Barnstar
		For your many contributions to articles about the works of Gilbert and Sullivan (and each of them separately), I award you this barnstar. Because of your enthusiasm and expert research skills, the quality of these articles is being greatly improved, and the coverage of Gilbert and Sullivan on Wikipedia is proceeding swiftly. Well done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, guys! I was happy to help. Let me know how Trial goes and if I can be of any help. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 13:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Mary Shelley

Mary Shelley herself is up for peer review, if you feel up to the task! Awadewit (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• I saw this book and thought of you. I hope you have it! Awadewit (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Pictures...

Oh, wow. I need pictures of most every medieval bishop of England. How's that? The big pushes would be things on User:Ealdgyth/Works In Progress, but anything medieval and English would be helpful. Doesn't have to be contemporary, illuminated manuscripts, stained glass windows, statues, tombs, signatures on documents, seals, I'm not picky. I'd especially kill for Ranulf Flambard, Nigel, Bishop of Ely, Hilary of Chichester, Theobald of Bec, William Longchamp, or Geoffrey, Archbishop of York, who are probably coming up on FAC at some point. I hate using the "picture of the cathedral" route! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Answer to old question

I found a source of the Gilbert Young photo: http://books.google.com/books?id=BpCMTsYMjy0C&pg=PA62-IA1&dq=%22Trial+by+Jury%22+Fisher+Sullivan+Bromley&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=0_1&sig=uJ9mOldgVptFxlU4sBIsBZUbNlE -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

TBJ

It was first recorded on the 1953 album. The discography page gives information about all the recordings, so it seems particularly helpful in the paragraph, since we are making the point about Trial as setting a pattern for the later G&S operas. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to let my temper get the better of me. Let me start again: It would be easier for me to help you, if you would send me a request and wait for me to respond before deleting material from the article. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ealdgyth gave us some comments recently on the peer review page. Do you think those have all been dealt with adequately? Also, I think there may be one or two outstanding Awadewat comments still needing your attention on the article's talk page. I reviewed them today and did what I could. Please make any changes that you think appropriate. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Opening cast: This source disagrees with our cast list. Can you advise? Thanks -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Marc says that the cast list in article is certainly correct as is: - the other names in the source linked above came later, as shown in the programme image in the article from April 1875. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, should we use this source, pp. 65-69? It suggests that the idea for the story of Trial actually comes from Gilbert's story An Elixer of Love and other earlier sources. It also notes that the chorus was a fairly new innovation of G&S, as we had discussed in the Thespis article (could go back there for some language and cites). -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew you would be able to separate fact from fiction. But I need to cite this book for another point, which I have already done. I doubt that anyone will try to add a piece of info that is demonstrably wrong, and if they do, we can easily explain it. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This source has a substantial discussion of the text and music of Trial by Jury, from about p. 24 to p. 31. I'll leave it to you to decide whether or not to mine it for more info/quotes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is another. Oops! That is the same as this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be broken up: In fact, I moved it up so that all the stuff about the opening night is together. The prose just needs to be smoothed out. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

properly cited vs copyvio

If you can make it very simple for me to understand -- and complicated rules tend to fail, so this should not be a problem, if the information in an article is all carefully cited as being gotten from a specific source, how can that be a copyvio? -- carol (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If I may, I had Agrostis gigantea on my watchlist and saw the copyvio notice. I completely missed it and thought I might give some specific examples. Generally, Carol, wording and phrases taken directly from another source, cited or not, is a copyright violation. For example:

From the source: The sheath of each leaf is open and hairless; it has a tendency to split open into a deep-V shape, sometimes all the way to the node.

From the wiki article: The sheath of each leaf is open and hairless; it has a tendency to split open into a deep V-shape.

Even the grammar was copied, with the exception of the last clause. The entire paragraph under "Foodplant" was taken directly from the source. Citing sources is important, but it must be written in your own words. Sometimes it's an honest mistake; it is possible to read a source and then get that particular phrasing stuck in your mind. Hope that helps. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 03:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It is one of the first plant articles that I wrote, and I will not complain to much about how it is handled. I will say this though, this is a terrible way to communicate. And I will say one more thing about this. Perhaps this is the reason there are so many articles here that do not cite their references.

Encouragement and education via discouragement and 'figure out the problem on your own' templates -- is that the best in action? -- carol (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

And, is that the best way to communicate back? -- carol (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Trial by Jury

I think that what you ended up with is OK. Walbrook's description of Penley's career came when Penley was still famous, and IMO, Walbrook is making a much bigger deal of Penley's place in Trial than it warrants. Notice that Stedman, Ainger and the other later writers hardly mention him. I disagree that "Trial was a big springboard to his career". Trial was merely his first starring role. He was just a replacement player, late in the second production. If he didn't get his break in Trial, he'd have gotten it somewhere else. He did not play John Wellington Wells, which was cast the next year - they had to go looking for someone new (any idea why?). His biggest role by far was Charley's Aunt. In fact, you might say that he was a one-hit wonder. It's like writing about, say, Bernadette Peters, today. She is mega-famous to Sondheim fans. She got her first Broadway roles in Johnny No-Trump and George M!, but the article on Johnny only says that she made her Broadway debut in the show. Neither article goes into any detail about her, relying instead on the hyperlink. In 50 years, she will certainly not warrant much of a description in even a Featured Article on those shows. The place for detail on Penley's career is in the Penley article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You wrote that Fred left the cast due to tuberculosis, and you cite Ainger, p. 120. Ainger does NOT say tuberculosis - he just say "poor health". I had read somewhere else that he died of liver disease. Can you tell me where you found the cause of his death? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the recent changes you made. Not sure about the Jacobs question - why don't you write a couple of sentences about A Nice Dilemma, if you think Jacobs' analysis is helpful to the reader, and I'll tell you whether I think it's too much. It would be nice to cite Jacobs for something, just to show that our research is complete. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Invite to review a set of articles

Hi there. You participated in this ANI thread. I picked out the names of some editors I recognised, or who had extensive comments there, and I was wondering if you would have time to review the articles mentioned in the thread I've started here, and in particular the concerns I've raised there about how I used the sources. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

More Trial by Jury

Sorry, I missed your reply on this: Have you gone thru the Ealdgyth comments on the peer review page? Do you think that all of those, as well as the last few Awadewat comments on the Trial talk page, have all been dealt with now?

Reminder to self: This source, pp. 65-69 or our previous discussion in the Thespis concerns G&S unique use of the chorus. Also, This source has a substantial discussion of the text and music of Trial by Jury, from about p. 24 to p. 31. Finally, need to check this book. Which ones are you obtaining? I don't know if they're worth buying. If you can't access one or more of them, I'll try to review them this weekend. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis - I tried taking the lyrics out of the blue box, but it definitely looks better in the box. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I am finished reviewing your changes of this morning and making my edits. I did not make any frivolous changes. For example, our readers are very familiar with what oom-pa-pa sounds like but have no idea what omm-cha-cha means. The "Nice Dilemma" chorus definitely makes an oom-pa-pa sound between the bass notes and the higher choral voices, as the image that you added clearly shows in the first four measures. So, don't change what I wrote, unless you have a good reason. We must EXPLAIN the sources, not merely parrot them when they are incomprehensible. As to taking the older sources with a grain of salt, I certainly agree, and that is what I was trying to tell you with respect to Walbrook. So, go ahead and review what I did, but I expect you to consider carefully why I made a change before reverting it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that you are going to get musicologists to agree on the exact distinction between the baby-talk terms "oom-cha-cha" and "oom-pa-pa". I think that the second term is far better known among English-speakers, and so it will be more meaningful to our readers. I don't think technical accuracy is as important as presenting concepts in a way that the general encyclopedia reader can understand. If something makes your head hurt, that is a good indication that the readers won't understand it, and we should simplify. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The text under the drawing looks good. Nice! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

New Pinafore image

It's a great image, but can you put an image from an authorized production at the top of the article, and move the new image down a bit? Also, it seems to me that some of the images in the article are oversize, and when we get to working on the article, we will get MOS comments on that, so why don't you downsize them now to what you think is appropriate, just to get a jump on things. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism guideline

Thanks for your comments at my talk page. I've proposed we create a separate plagiarism guideline (or rather, how to detect, deal with and avoid it). Please contribute at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Old musical prints

If I go and support your prints, will you cease? The question is, are you trying to make an art that is like those prints? If so, it is tiresome. -- carol (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

TBJ

Can you wait until Monday on the FA? I'm checking a couple of things. Have a nice weekend. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm done. Let 'er rip. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Summer!

Happy First Day of Summer!

A Beautiful Summer Field

Summer is a time for freshly grown fruits and vegetables.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Summer 2008! Mifter (talk)







If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Winter not Summer then I wish you a Happy First Day of Winter 2008!

Give this greeting to others by adding {{subst:First Day of Summer}} on their Talk Page.

Easton miniature

Shoemaker, I'm not very happy with the image description there, which draws attention to itself. In my opinion, the issue is not the frame but the fact that the photo would possibly be copyright in the UK. This is true of the other version and of several other images on the page, by the way. The only safe solution, it seems to me, is to upload a copy direct to Wikipedia, where UK copyright is deemed irrelevant for such images. qp10qp (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: We cannot use the picture with the frame because then the image is of a 3-D work of art, which is apparently not allowed. Removing the frame makes it a derivative work of art, which apparently we cannot use, either (at least on commons). Awadewit (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I believe that, but then, franklyl, Wikipedia image rules are pretty bizarre, and not like real life, where you should ask anyway. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's what Durova told me and she's a commons admin, you know! Awadewit (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue of the frame is irrelevant for Commons, because the whole photograph is, in principle, copyrighted in Britain. But it is an issue on Wikipedia because the Bridgeman-Corel precedent does not cover photos of three-dimensional objects. So the way for us to be safe is to have a frameless photo uploaded here on Wikipedia. Derivations of free art, as covered by Bridgemen-Corel, are allowed, I believe; an image out of copyright in the USA can be chopped about, coloured, etc. because no one has the rights to it. My effort is below: comments welcome, Paint Shop Pro (I know, sorry) at the ready. qp10qp (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Throws up hands in frustration. Do what you will - image manipulation is definitely not my forte. Awadewit (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and review, by the way. I might indeed reupload this one to Wikipedia, with different wording. But I am waiting to see whether it is worth doing this with the other images. For the moment, I have reuploaded the Claire Clairmont image to Wikipedia and put the Commons one up for deletion as a stalking horse, here, to see what happens. If it is deleted, as I think it probably should be if the rules are followed to the tedious and rather, in my opinion, unnecessary letter, then the die is cast. qp10qp (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you get that smooth oval? I've just done an oval of the coloured one, but the edge is a little pixelated. The ideal, which I'm working on, is an oval, no frame, uploaded on Wikipedia. qp10qp (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll try that. This is where I am at the moment:

. qp10qp (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A request

Perhaps instead of reverting wholesale Carol's edits, you could instead tease out the copyvio by hand. I realize it's a difficult task and there's a lot of material, but in the process of reverting back to before she edited, you're recreating legitimate problems she did correct and efforts other editors have undertaken to improve the articles since she edited it. For example at clementine, you reverted (diff) the nutrition infobox that I had taken the care to include. Please be more careful when reverting edits that were so long ago in the edit history. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 02:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really possible, I'm afraid: I think it's more-or-less all copyvio. Certainly other work by her frm that period was, and everything I checked of that version. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly possible to rescue at least some of her articles. It is always practical to stubbify a biography, as I just did with Thore Christian Elias Fries]].DGG (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is an example of an article that has much more traffic than one of the lesser-known plant stubs where it's easy to revert beyond her edits or completely delete and recreate as a stub. Carol first edited clementine in November 2007 and began to expand it in December 2007. I agree removing her copyright violations without rewriting yourself is the best option in the face of so many copyvio articles. But I disagree that simply reverting to a stable edit beyond her first one is the best answer in this case. You've wiped out the good faith edits of other editors that had nothing to do with Carol's copyvio. Over a hundred edits (many of them vandalism, but the point stands) occurred since Carol first started editing that article. Remove her contributions, fine, but I think reverting past her first edit on a page that's been edited so much is the easy answer but wrong solution. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, please be careful about this. Also I need to make it clear that my list consists only of articles Carol started. --Blechnic (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Senecio

As I noted at the top of the talk page, I left the ones on Senecio's with change of name due to possible taxonomic problems, please don't strike through these, as it's an attempt to let the plant editors know where the problems are, and striking them out will remove them from an alert issue. --Blechnic (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

PS just the change of species ones, and thanks for doing the last part. I did the virus, Carol didn't write it correctly. --Blechnic (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's just the Senecios. I'll check it real quick when I get a minute. Thanks, though. It was tedius. --Blechnic (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

TBJ; Discography

IMO, it is a serious mistake to remove the qualitative information about G&S recordings. The G&S Discography is the most authoritative source for that information in the world, and we need to establish its credentials in order for all of our articles to be able to use it. See my responses to Sandy and add any relevant information that you know that can shore up the argument. I really think this will be quite important to the whole project. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Clementine

Yes, it really needs referenced top to bottom. --Blechnic (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

re: RFC, etc.

I'll try to have a look later, but my wiki time for the week is about spent (Saturday morning I'll have more time for caeful browsing). My point was that it might be better over the long term to just let her fix her own mess, rather than reducing things to stubs. It's quite unlikely that the lawyers will be suing tomorrow (or within a month, or (realistically) ever), and it's a lot of work for her to do. She can do it though, and she will do it if given half a chance. That proposal might be read by someone with a certain neurotype to read: "let's wipe out any trace of Carol's efforts, because any effort of hers should be suspected." --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Trial by Jury and Discography

I beefed up your description of Broude a bit. I hope you don't mind - I didn't want to add a confusing extra message there. Feel free to fix further, etc. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I responded to as many of the FA comments by Maria as I could. I think there is one that needs your attention, and see if you have changes to what I did. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

On the Discography, I slimmed down a little bit of your language and added a few things that I think are helpful. I also moved one paragraph around. Please take a look at your convenience and send me thoughts, perhaps by e-mail if you want to discuss. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I made a rather minor further edit where two things were lumped together that do not belong together. I guess I am satisfied with it, although it seems obvious to me that the bullet point about Opera News should be combined with the bullet point that starts "Other specialist sources...." Good job. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Gänzl quote

Hi, Shoe, I saw that you re-added the Gänzl quote in the lead with the edit summary "I like this quote, and it appears nowhere else". The thing is, as I noted at the FAC, is that something that appears in the lead but not in the body of the article violates WP:LEAD. Quotes are tricky in the lead for that very reason, unless of course the quote is somehow notable. Since the sentiment (the opera's popularity) is made clear, I don't think it's necessary. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter, however. María (habla conmigo) 12:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Strike that, my mistake. Ssilvers moved the quote from the lead to the "Production and aftermath" section, so it does obviously appear elsewhere. Do you still want it in the lead? María (habla conmigo) 12:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost

I don't know anything about Signpost, I just write articles. Please let me know, when it is done (not now), how we can use the Signpost publication to help us in the future, and how I can find the information in the future. I'll put a link on my userpage, I guess. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I agree with what you did, but if Sandy agrees with you, that's fine. Otherwise, let's discuss by e-mail. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I spent a whole day on the research for the Discography defense, and part of another on dealing with it, and it has caused me a lot of stress at work. What is going on? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fred

I must say that I much prefer the photo to the lithograph. I think the litho loses Fred's expression in the role. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Shepherd

How about this one?: Classical Net "The Internet's Premier Classical Music Source" says of one of the recordings that Marc provided liner notes for: "The annotations are by Marc Shepherd, whose excellent G&S discography on the Internet is required reading for anyone who has gotten this far in my review!" -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Aargh!

OK, this is stressful: Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Assessment has not been coded to show the new "C" class. Can you fix it, or do we need a coding guru? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's still not showing up on this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Assessment (that is, in the graphical tables with the colors). Maybe it takes overnight to kick in? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Where's that documented? The template {{Grading scheme}} doesn't have it. Marc Shepherd (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Pinafore

Thanks for the message. I don't have time any more to edit the G&S articles regularly, but if I see something that I can correct quickly, well.... I appreciate all you've done in this area. Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

OK, I finished re-assessing all the articles. I ran the assessment bot, and it updated our assessment table, except for the articles that I had assessed as C *before* you fixed the coding. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unassessed_Gilbert_and_Sullivan_articles

The only other thing that still doesn't seem to be working quite right is the big fat table on the assessment page that expands from {{Grading scheme}}. It shows the C-class when you click it here, but it does not show it on our Assessment page (unless, by some miracle, it fixes itself overnight). Thanks for your help on this! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Great work. You fixed it! Also, only four of the C-class articles are still showing up as "unassessed", but it looks like that is resolving itself. As I suspected, after I had finished re-assessing last night, most of our articles are C-class. That means, generally, that either they are incomplete but have some in-line referencing, or they are pretty complete but lack in-line referencing. Anything that is still B-class is, IMO, a pretty good article, materially complete with some good research indicated. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Trial by Jury Promoted!

		The Gilbert and Sullivan Barnstar
		For your hard work, excellent research and collaborative spirit in improving Trial by Jury first to GA level and then to a Featured Article, I hereby award you this Gilbert and Sullivan Barnstar. This was the Gilbert and Sullivan Project's first FA-class opera article, and, as such, its improvement has been extremely important to the project. You have been the driving force in making this article into one of Wikipedia's finest articles. Congratulations! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible reformat in the ArbCom RfC

Would you consider reformatting your views so they don't appear multiple times in the TOC? There are 3 "view by Shoe" in a row in some places. I think how Celandor did it... he gave one heading, then multiple sections which are gettting endorsed independently, works better... Just a suggestion. Best. ++Lar: t/c 15:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you did. Cheers for that! ++Lar: t/c 18:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

BLPSE

You should read my comment on the talk page. BLPSE is an enforcement provision (I don't know where the idea that it's a policy or a howto or whatever came from). As such it isn't editable. It's been passed by the arbitration committee and if you want it changed appeal it to the Committee or to Jimmy Wales. --Jenny 00:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Final decision in Homeopathy arbitration case

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to homeopathy, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. User DanaUllman (talk · contribs) has been banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Portal

I never read the portals. Our best biographies, other than Gilbert and Sullivan are George Grossmith, Rutland Barrington, and Jessie Bond. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

After that, Malcolm Sargent, Donald Adams, Henry Lytton, Leonora Braham, Martyn Green, Richard D'Oyly Carte, Richard Temple (opera singer), Ilka Pálmay, Ellen Beach Yaw, Walter Passmore, Signor Brocolini, Fred Billington, Rupert D'Oyly Carte, Helen Carte, Louie Henri, Nellie Stewart, Fred Sullivan, Hugh Enes Blackmore, John Coates (tenor), J. C. Williamson, Bridget D'Oyly Carte, Edward German, Thomas Round.

By the way, Nellie Farren is a nicer article than many of these, but she was only in Thespis, so I did not include her. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talk page! --mauler90 (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:OmbCom

Hi there, SMH. Thought I'd drop you a note about some recent happenings at OmbCom, here. Would very much enjoy to hear your opinions. Bstone (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators prepared to answer a few questions

Re: <noinclude> in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee/Arbitrators prepared to answer a few questions: You took out the <noinclude> but left the </noinclude> in. I fixed that for you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee/Motions to close or extend this RFC

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee/Motions to close or extend this RFC. Yeah, I noticed that, the mechanism to conditionally include items doesn't like |'s. Right before you reverted, I fixed the pipe that was in one user's signature. However, the underlying mechanism is still a failure. Too bad <noinclude> won't work inside {{#if...}}. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OmbCom at the Village Pump

Hi, Shoemaker's Holiday. Per your request, I am letting you know that the formal proposal for the Ombudsmen Committee is up for discussion at the Village Pump here. I hope you'll read it over and leave your opinion. Thanks! Bstone (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Community consensus

You write:

There have been numerous proposals that got a majority of support, and no other Wikipedia process or vote attempts to judge based on total number of people looking at the page. [1]

To pick an example out of the air, WP:AFD discussions do that. As there aren't any other reasons to edit the page except to express support or opposition to proposals, I don't see the problem.

In this instance, if 150 people have chosen to look at the proposals and make at least one edit, and only 20 or so of those have supported a given proposal, it's not possble to say that there is community consensus for that proposal (those 20 people obviously cannot be more representative of the community than the 130 who have not supported it and possibly didn't even read it).

The solution is to wait longer and see if things change. Another way of interpreting it, which I think is more helpful, is to examine the proposals with most aggregate support, and take them as indicators of areas of greatest concern. This is what I did in selecting the two proposals with more than 30 net endorsements. --Jenny 03:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ocean currents, 1943

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Ocean currents 1943 (borderless)3.png, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 05:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Doris (opera)

Hi I'm a bit surprised you reverted the stub! An article only needs one. Did you realize that I didn't change the cats? On the Opera Project we try not to revert each other's edits without some explanation. When we discussed this on the project page I don't think we were in disagreement! --Kleinzach 04:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/JFK inaugural address

Would you mind elaborating on your comment at the above discussion? I am not sure I understand it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sullivan Peer Review

Thanks for the link. I never know how to find those special pages. I've "watched" it now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I like your new material in the Sullivan article. I trimmed it a tiny bit, but I don't think it's too much. Obviously, anything that you added and that is not already in the G&S article should be added there too. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Marc added back in the Topsy-Turvy reference. I don't feel strongly, since we have the other refs. Why don't you discuss it with Marc, and point out that it is hard to find a good ref. for it plot points in the film. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Apollo 13 message to Houston

I have clarified on the nom page that I support the second recording. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 18:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha, yeah its all good. They all are good recordings, but I liked #2 the best. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. The better the file, the better off we are. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Shoemaker's Holiday. You have new messages at Zginder's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Featured Sounds

Thanks for keeping me updated. I will include it in next Features & Admins. I also updated the tally for you.[2] OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And if you need help in determining consensus, don't hesitate to find me. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured content is all listed at WP:GO. We did a Featured sounds dispatch less than two months ago: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-26/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

PS, you can find past dispatches at Template:FCDW. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Adminship

Mitch32^(UP) 23:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey ... I'm glad to see you came back. Once the idiotic arbcom-mandated six months is up, you will have my support (not that it really means much of anything) if you try another RFA. --B (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't bear grudges; you are a net benefit to the project. One glitch should not shut you out forever, in my view, but I believe your RfA, however well-merited otherwise, was a touch premature. Sadly, people have long memories here and it takes a long time for the water to flow under the bridge. That's unfortunate, and I look forward to supporting your next RfA. --Rodhullandemu 01:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification filed

WJBscribe filed a clarification , Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FMatthew_Hoffman, listing you as a party. I'm merely notifying you. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)