User talk:AndyJones: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 00:23, 28 November 2023

Previous Talk is archived at:

Barnstars From Archive

		The Original Barnstar
		For truly awesome and inspirational work on List of Shakespearean characters I award you the original barnstar SilkTork 00:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Outlaw Halo Award
		To Andy Jones, for salvaging great works on pop culture for later use....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] (about the award)

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		I commend your hard work on William Shakespeare. Choosing to edit such a high-profile, controversial and research-intensive article is a mark of patience, perseverance and dedication to Wikipedia that is rarely seen. We clearly need more editors, such as yourself, who are willing to dedicate their time and energy to writing articles about their areas of expertise. Awadewit \| talk 04:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humour
		In small recognition of your consistently witty edit-summaries, which are a joy to read, please accept this Barnstar of Good Humour. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Half Barnstar
		For your very fine work on Hamlet with Wrad --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I award you this Barnstar for your tireless and fine work on Hamlet, while at the same time staying in good spirits. I haven't had the chance to work with you directly much, but your contributions deserve some recognition (though it looks like you've already got lots of it.) Happy Editing! Bardofcornish (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		…for your amazing rewrite of the Romeo and Juliet Screen adaptations section. It was good but your rewrite is magnificent. If we can achieve that quality for the rest of the article it'll be FA in no time! --Xover (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Invisible Barnstar
		As per always, you've snuck in and done a massive and spectacular job on King Lear, without getting yourself embroiled in the seemingly inevitable dramaz! For this you get The Invisible Barnstar, since I couldn't find the Ultimate Barnstar of Epic Awsomeness that you really deserve (if you keep this up may have to create one, just for you). Xover (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AndyJones (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 155.190.0.0/16. I don't know whether the IP ought to be blocked but my experience in the past was that if I actually logged in from a blocked IP - and since I was never personally blocked - Wikipedia editing would work. This time it hasn't - I've logged in as myself and I remain blocked. Do you know why this is happening? If you refuse the unblock is there a workaround? AndyJones (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Decline reason:

Glad you asked, because yes there is. This decline is purely procedural, as your account is not blocked so, one workaround would be editing from another IP not on the blocked range. But the better option is to go to WP:IPECPROXY and follow the instructions there to request IP block exemption, which would make any proxy blocks you might get caught in into proxy blocks other users get caught in. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

AndyJones (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Daniel Case. I will check that out! AndyJones (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy

Andy! As I live and breathe...

Great to see you're still around (in general), and great to see you around (here) again. The place is still a dump, but it tends to get magically better whenever you spend time here. :)

For my own part I spend most of my time over on Wikisource these days, transcribing old public domain books (well, and helping with the nerdy bits), but I sometimes pop back over. Pure dumb luck it should be the same day you did.

In any case… Good to see you! Xover (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!!! Yes, I'm probably only dropping in. Back in the late noughties I found being a Wikipedian was interfering with my career a bit, so I tried to roll it back. A couple of years ago I read all the subsequent drama regarding the authorship question (no really, all of it, it took months) and I was pleased to see that yours was always a voice of calm and common sense amidst a sea of anger! It does seem to me that although there is much less aggravation than there was a decade ago, there's also less by way of progress: WP:BARD seems to be dormant and there's not much drive to improve things. I see that in other areas too: I arrived here a few weeks ago to check-out an article on a legal topic which I had set a question on and had been sent a pile of papers to mark. I wanted to know to what extent Wikipedia would have helped the students and the answer was "not-at-all". The article was a mix of things that were wrong and things that were out of date - not because of bad editing, but because of a complete lack of editing. The last human being to have commented on its talk page had done so in 2013. Anyway, no individual can fix all of Wikipedia's issues. But I can take a look at Othello, to see what I can fix, shortly. AndyJones (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Short descriptions

For the long version, see WP:Short description and WP:HOWTOSD. For the reason that they are restricted to just 40 characters, see Wikipedia talk:Short description/Archive 9#Length – 40 or 90 characters??

As well as giving a capsule response to a search, they are also used by {{annotated link}} in wp:see also lists, as way to suggest to readers why they might want to explore further. As you know, some article names are terse and thus only meaningful to readers who already know about a topic. So in the case you raised, this is the effect:

Intestacy – Dying without leaving a will

The abbreviated form {{anli}} is more convenient. Welcome back to the time sink. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me! Thanks a lot for your help. AndyJones (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlet

Perhaps you already know this, but the actual Hamlet quote is "The apparel oft proclaims the man". One of those "Who wrote that? Eh, probably Shakespeare." things. Upstart Crow had fun with that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes. Polonius, if I recall correctly. AndyJones (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kate. Why then, Mr Shakespeare, call the watch, appeal to the Privy Council, cry foul and naughty tricks, for I fear you have been plagiarized.

Shakespeare. Plagiarized? By whom? Who’s stealing my biggies? Name this thieving barnstaple.

Kate. The apostle Matthew!

Shakespeare. The swine – and him a man of God!

Kate. Mr. Shakespeare, ‘He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword’ is in the Bible.

Shakespeare. Really? You’re sure?

Kate. Yes. Matthew, chapter 26 verse 52, although interestingly, he didn’t come up with it either. A form of the phrase first appears in the ancient Greek play Agamemnon by the immortal dramatist Aeschylus.

Shakespeare. Well, if the apostle Matthew can pinch it, then so can I. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! AndyJones (talk) 09:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I scrolled up a bit and saw you mentioned reading old SAQ discussions. You may enjoy this fairly recent one: Talk:List_of_Shakespeare_authorship_candidates#Recent_WP:SPS_additions. I have a spotty and shallow Shakespeare interest, but this is WP, so I can still create articles like Shakespeare coat of arms and Shakespeare and Star Trek. And Shakespeare's signet ring. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I've read all of that talk page conversation now too. (Although not feeling much wiser.) AndyJones (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some passion there, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boulton and Park

Hey Andy, I noticed after posting my own ANI complaint that you had taken an interest in the issue, and thought you might appreciate a bit more context. — Personman (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]