User talk:Wrad

Question

I have a question about your GA review here. Did you want me to create a section in the article about the use of Harry Potter in education, or to use more scholarly sources? Malinaccier (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just more scholarly sources. Basically a section on academic literary criticism of the novel. Wrad (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hey Wrad, sorry to ruin your day of joy, but I dont suppose you could point your editing guns towards The Lucy poems . Sorry for the unsolited request, but you know how it is. Dont worry if you are bogged down in other stuff, this is a no harm in asking post. Best. Ceoil (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Are you also the user Uurad from ANG? — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Wrad (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well where ya been man? We could still use some additional contributors! — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Not easy bein' green

Hey man, why you never took this one over the line..I thought you did a great job after I overcame my irritation at someone pinching my favourite colour (hehehe). We need to get one of these over the line so to confuse Raul voer which section to put it in on the FA page....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha. I'm really not sure where to start. Wrad (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

2042 United States census prediction notable?

Could you please vote whether you consider this information notable? Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review

Hey Wrad, I was wondering if you could review the Spokane, Washington article for the editors. After you read the article, I believe all you need to do is apply the A-Class criteria to the article and put whether you believe it is worthy of being A-class. Also, in addition to that, it would be helpful if you could include some points for improvement. If you are up to review it, notify me here or on my Talk so I can stop looking for reviewers. Thanks! Anon134 (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

ACID collaboration article from March 21 to...um...sometime in april

well, any input would be good - green is a good comparison. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: I figured you'd be happy to have a tinker and had access to some easy sources etc - I know you didn't participate in voting etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

LDS tabernacles?

Three weeks ago, you helped answer my question on the Reference Desk about why the LDS Church builds more temples. Could you help with another LDS question? As I go through National Register of Historic Places lists for the western USA, I'm constantly running across various LDS tabernacles. However, I'm confused: what makes a tabernacle a tabernacle? In what way is it unique? The relevant section of tabernacle says that it's a local gathering place and a worship center, but I'm unclear, for example, why locals couldn't gather at the meeting house for their ward. Thanks for your help! Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject interview?

Hey there. I've been doing interviews for the Signpost's WikiProject Report, and I've been trying to come up with a project that's sort of outside-the-box. I came up with WikiProject Color. Would you be interested in doing an interview? I realize that you haven't been active with the project lately, but you're the only editor to have made any kind of substantial progress with an article about a color. If you're not interested, don't worry about it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. I've set up an interview page here. After you answer each question, I'll usually post 1 or 2 more until we've got at least a good solid page of interviewage. Don't worry too much about formatting; I can touch it up and alter the layout before it goes out for publishing, which should happen on Sunday April 12. If you don't fully understand a question or don't really want to answer it for whatever reason, just leave a note here, my talk page, the interview page, or the interview's talk page, and I'll try to accomodate you. Alrighty, let's get to it! Thanks! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Year articles

I really like your resolve in improving year articles, your hard-slogging approach is a breath of fresh air. I share your concerns that some people would consider deleting year articles, but I think you've really proved a point with 1346. It shows a clear distinction between these and "date" articles (e.g. May 10), because year articles have some common reference points. Linking things by date, not year, is inherently a more trivial approach. However, I would like to see more work done on the year articles before we consider wide ranging links. Although, I think that as they improve in quality then they will instantly become more "relevant links". The problem may be completely bypassed here. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need a special rule just for years? Why can't it be treated just like any other link? That's all I'm asking for. Wrad (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking the consequentialist approach that, with Option #1, they will be treated like other links, just that they will have a guideline to aid transition. I think that the introduction of the links through autoformatting (e.g. all linked) messed things up in the first place: try to see it like a slow progression to a "date democracy" while we're coming out of an "all link regime" (if the analogy helps). Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Colours

I'm a biologist, and have some training in chemistry. Poke me if you need help on a colour article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Undisplayable colours

Hello, I've stumbled upon your recent interview at the signpost, and I was wondering if it'd be possible to make a category for known colours that aren't properly displayable on computer screens, like the International Klein Blue. I don't have much knowledge in the field but it's fascinating. I've seen a painting done with IKB in Cologne a few years ago and it was really stunning, and that's where this fascination stems from. Just random thoughts. Cheers and keep up the great work! --Ouro (blah blah) 17:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

1340s

Thanks for the suggestion, and I look forward to collaborating / pilfering from those articles. :-) I am however on a long wikibreak at the moment, but I hope to come back to it maybe at the end of June. By that time, I should have gathered some more sources and we should be able to put in enough work to move it into mainspace. --Grimhelm (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Poetry collaboration

--Midnightdreary (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded with 56 in support, 12 in opposition and 3 neutral votes. I am truly honored by the trust that the community has placed in me. Whether you supported me, opposed me, or if you only posted questions or commented om my RfA, I thank you for your input and I will be looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas :). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). All the Best, Mifter (talk)

Mifter (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankenstein GAR notice

Frankenstein has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring (and reliably sourced) contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC on Joseph Priestley lead image alignment

A RfC has been opened to discuss the issue of alignment of the lead image on the Joseph Priestley article. Because you have previously commented or been involved with this issue, your input is requested. Please stop by Talk:Joseph Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment and leave any feedback you may have. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Homeschooling Project

I'm interested in the Homeschooling project. Of the first three editors on the list of participants, you are the only one currently active, so I direct my questions to you. Please correct me if I should be addressing someone else.

I have recently worked on a stub-rated article in the Homeschooling Project, "Thomas Jefferson Education." It no longer refers to the book, but to the philosophy/methodology. I have some other tasks on it to complete before I'm satisfied that it's of high quality (which I've outlined on its talk page). What does one do to get it upgraded from stub? Also, I'd like to encourage some other homeschool friends to participate as editors. Whom should they contact regarding "featured" homeschooling articles to improve? Ibinthinkin (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Homeland Officers' Organization

Hi, I noticed that you created Homeland Officers' Organization, but listed no sources for the information contained in the article. According to Wikipedia's content policies, all information must be verifiable from reliable sources. Therefore, it's necessary to cite your sources so other editors can check that the information included in the article is correct and matches the sources used. Information not previously published in such sources is prohibited as original research, since other editors can't verify it. Unsourced information may be challenged and removed at any time, and articles that can't be verified are likely to be deleted. Guidance on how to cite your sources is available, and if you need any further help, feel free to leave a message on my talk page.

Jean Keene GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Jean Keene for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Rulers of Tunis in the latter 15th century?

Hi Wrad,

I think I've seen you mention you're involved in some kind of Middle-Eastern or Arabic studies? This is a bit peripheral, but you wouldn't happen to be able to suggest a good source for the various rulers of Tunis in the latter half of the 15th century (1442–96)? Particularly something which might tell us whether any of them married politically to a woman from Europe, or, similarly, whether there were any political alliances between Tunis and Europe in this period.

Any suggestions would be most appreciated. --Xover (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There's an article you might like, Hafsid dynasty. I kind of doubt that there were many alliances with Europe at the time. Wrad (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

[1] this seems to indicate indirect trade routes with Spain and Portugal through other parts of North Africa. Wrad (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Hafsid dynasty and a (google)book on the de Medici trade dynasty (which, incidentally, mentioned that English cloth was among the commodities traded), was about as far as I got. As you noticed, the individual rulers in the list on Hafsid dynasty were redlinks, so not much help there (apart from narrowing it down to Uthman or Muhammad III, or possibly Abd al-Aziz II). Anyways, thanks for the help; and I'd appreciate it if you'd keep an eye out and let me know if you should happen to stumble on something relevant. --Xover (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

.

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Macbethchar

Template:Macbethchar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. On all the pages where it was being used it was sitting right next to Template:Macbeth, which also includes all the characters, so I removed this from those articles and put the template up for deletion. Please do twap me about the head if I made a boo-boo anywhere. :-) --Xover (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Conflicts and frustrations

Hi Wrad. As mentioned elsewhere, I'm very sorry to see you leave the Shakespeare WikiProject. I've sung your praises elsewhere so I won't repeat them here, but know that I'll miss your participation in the project a lot!

That being as it may, let me also get a counterpoint off my chest. From where I'm sitting, you too are contributing to the conflicts that frustrate you so by letting past interactions on difficult and controversial topics color your interpretation of, and response to, Smatprt's comments. Maybe his tone was a little condescending on the Hamlet talk page, and perhaps he tends to get the bit between his teeth and argue harder and longer for his point of view than is constructive. But having worked with him quite a bit recently I've found that he's quite willing to be constructive and agree to disagree if he's just met with a little humility and respect (which, I've found, most editors, myself included, appreciate). In interacting with him you seem to let what he actually writes be colored by your past conflicts—which, I hasten to add, is perfectly understandable—but consider this: he's also dragging around the baggage of your past conflicts and letting his interactions with you be colored by those. Try to consider how what you write will be read if viewed through the lens of past conflicts, and whether your frustrations may not be the very same as those of your counterpart. Worse, by being fairly alone here in representing a minority view—one which tends to be dismissed out of hand and ridiculed by most editors—it would require almost super-human restraint for him to not fight tooth and nail for every inch of ground. When you had your big spats in the past he was quite new come to Wikipedia, and has learned about its mores and culture since then, but you (and others, by all means) keep holding that history over his head and just assume he's being unreasonable and disruptive even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Also keep in mind that some of those spats (and more recent ones) have been fueled by deliberate and malicious manipulation by a bunch of sockpuppets with the stated goal of sowing dissent and escalate minor disagreements into major conflicts. We were all victims of that manipulation.
Even though I'll dearly miss your contributions to the project I won't lay a guilt trip on you to come back: you really should try to find articles to work on that give you pleasure, and avoid the ones that you feel only frustrate you. But keep in mind that I'm quite certain you'd find Smatprt the first to compliment you on your contributions, and that you have yourself said you have a bit of a powder keg temper and tend to overreact to perceived slights. In other words, I hope you will reconsider; if not right away, then at least once your frustrations have abated somewhat.
Oh, and my making the argument above is not intended to imply that your frustrations are not valid! As mentioned elsewhere, I myself find these constant conflicts terribly frustrating; I just want to point out that there are things you can do to help prevent those conflicts (and hence your frustration) from occurring. Not everyone have compatible styles and personalities, and we can't all always be the bestest of buddies; but my personal experience is that if all parties are willing to make the effort, one can usually manage to get along well enough to get the job done.
Oh, and finally: if any of what I've written above, or elsewhere, makes you feel I've accused you or unfairly criticised you, in any way, then please do let me know! I'm sticking my big nose in here only because I think you and Smatprt misconstrue each other, and that if you both deliberately tried you'd both end up with far less frustration. I in no way mean to imply that anyone is at “fault” or have acted wrongly; I only see a potential for things to be better for everyone (i.e. a win–win situation), and want to make the case for trying. If I've failed to communicate that clearly, or through ineptitude have implied something else, I'll appreciate an opportunity to apologize and correct myself. --Xover (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that I sometimes lose it around him. But good grief! I tried this time! All I did was tell him to relax and he accused me of being condescending and an embarrassment to the project! What exactly did I do to deserve that? When the socks were trying to bait me to get rid of him because of our disagreements, I never took it. I always took Smatprt's side. I really, really tried to bite my tongue on this, but he kept lashing out on me and I just couldn't take it anymore. Wrad (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wrad. I wanted to apologize to you for our last exchange. I admit that I just snapped and I am sorry for that. And I wanted to assure you that I never called you "incompetent" or "an embarrassment". You are far, far, far to good an editor for anyone to ever say such a thing. I said the article (synopsis) had become an embarrassment. Not you. It just really bugged the hell out of me that all those corrections went unanswered for over a month. I was not a regular editor there so I never saw them until I happened on it by chance. Instead of making the corrections, I saw that the anon was simply attacked, causing him to attack back. It brought up memories of what happened to me when I first started editing and it just set me off. And I am sorry it was you who caught the brunt of it. And you are right - you are not one of the editors who regularly insults me simply because of my authorship interests. But the constant insults, personal attacks, and downright meanness have left me quite angry. I have seen every other authorship editor bullied off the main pages and I vowed not to let those tactics work on me. As a result, I have fought fire with fire. I will step back and examine my behavior and try to do better. Thanks for listening and again, my sincere apologies. Smatprt (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Smatprt. I didn't want to deal with those complaints because I was pretty sure they were from JeffJo and I didn't want to deal with that. Wrad (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For all the contributions and edits you make in reverting vandalism. I award you this barnstar. Thanks. South Bay (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Big 12 WikiProject

Hi, I've noticed you've been involved in editing Big 12 related articles. I'm trying to gauge the interested in created a Big 12 WikiProject and wondered if you'd like to be involved. There are already pages for WikiProject Big Ten and WikiProject ACC. A Big 12 project would cover the schools themselves and anything to do with conference sports including: events, rivalries, teams, seasons, championships and lore. There is already quite a bit of activity here on Wikipedia regarding the Big 12, and I think a project could help coordinate and unify are efforts. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Big 12, if you are interested and add your name to the list. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver

		WikiProject Vancouver
		You have been invited to participate in Operation Schadenfreude to restore the article Vancouver back to featured article status.

- Dear FA Team member, we could use your help if you're available. Mkdw^talk 06:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Superman catching plane.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Superman catching plane.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

First Doctorate degree west of the mississippi

Hey, I saw you replaced a sentence I removed about the first doctorate degree west of the Mississippi being Nebraska. It wasn't sourced when I removed it. [2] is the first source I could find claiming Saint Louis University awarded a Phd In 1880. The Nebraska sources says that degree was awarded in 1898. Thanks. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure we'll figure this out. Seems like all the schools are just bragging. Wrad (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't care that much, I just removed it because it was unreferenced and contradicted something I had read in the past. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

A noiseless patient spider, I mark'd where on a little promontory it stood isolated, Mark'd how to explore the vacant vast surrounding, It launch'd forth filament, filament, filament, out of itself, Ever unreeling them, ever tirelessly speeding them. And you O my soul where you stand, Surrounded, detached, in measureless oceans of space, Ceaselessly musing, venturing, throwing, seeking the spheres to connect them, Till the bridge you will need be form'd, till the ductile anchor hold, Till the gossamer thread you fling catch somewhere, O my soul." —"A Noiseless Patient Spider" by Walt Whitman Happy New Year Awadewit (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

Hello, Wrad! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 04:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

CE request

MSM is poised for a second FAC run. The last Peer Review suggested that the article undergo "a copyedit to smooth over a few rough / awkward places." Would you be interested in doing the deed? —Eustress ^talk 18:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Wrad (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For sharing your expertise with promptness and precision! —Eustress talk 22:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you still collect these things, but I really appreciate your help! Let me know if I can return the favor. —Eustress ^talk 22:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

BYU project request

If you can come offer your thoughts on this discussion, I would appreciate it. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question

If you have time could you stop by the Shakespeare authorship question page and compare the current page with that of four months ago and see if you notice any improvement? I've been working on that page at the request of a friend, and having to work with ant-Stratfordians who want to use it to promote their particular man is like herding cats, and if I'm just wasting my time I might as well abandon the project. Also if you have any structural suggestions I'd appreciate it, because I'm too close to the material.

Cheers! Tom Reedy (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Homeschooling Roll Call

Hello, Wrad! You are receiving this message because you are on WikiProject Homeschooling's list of members. WikiProject Homeschooling is holding a roll call to identify active members. All members will be listed under "Pending". Please move your name to "Active" or "Inactive" based on your ability or interest in contributing to the project. After two weeks all names still listed under "Pending" will be moved to "Inactive". If you are actively interested in participating, we are in the process of trying to revive the project and would welcome any help. Discussion can be found at the project talk page. Cheers! 21:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Passing on some kudos

Hi Wrad,

I just got some nice compliments about Banquo and Fleance elsewhere and just wanted to pass it along: «Very interesting article. I've at times been sceptical about creating articles about every minor character, but these articles clearly prove that it is appropriate, when done correctly.» A sentiment I can only agree with. Kudos! (and ditto to Scartol if you're stalking this page, IIRC you were also involved) --Xover (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ref formatting on Banquo

Hi,

Just FYI, I'm trying to fix up the refs on Banquo so they're more consistent, adding links, and doi etc. I'm using citation templates to do it because it ensures a consistent format and because I think it's much easier to do it that way. If you absolutely hate citation templates (as I know some people do), please do feel free to revert. --Xover (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hope you can help

Hi Wrad. Would you please take a look? Tom Reedy (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The failed FAC on Banquo

Hi,

My apologies for not being more help with the Banquo FAC; I was ill prepared, and Karanacs closed it a little sooner than I expected. I do however take solace in the fact that we now have a better idea of where the reviewers found it to fall short of the standard, and thus how to improve it. I intend to keep chipping away on a copy-edit of the entire article—and using that as a jumping-off point to read up more on the topic as I spot areas that could use recasting—so eventually we might, if you're willing, give it another go. --Xover (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: To be fair...

Thanks for the note. On Jimbo, do I need to change or recast anything? Did I misrepresent anything, do you feel?

On the other, well, cesspools—not to put too fine a point on it—I was planning on going through those too to illustrate how the topic keeps invading almost every Shakespeare-related article, but right now I am mostly despairing after the pain of suffering through the archives I did go through. We'll see if my intestinal fortitude reasserts itself later on. --Xover (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice

Excuse me Wrad, but I am trying to be nice, here. I am On YOUR side, if anything. I don't agree with what Derby is saying, I just don't believe he should remove all those elections. If I were to add for example Julia Gillard to the article, right now, I should either expect it to be removed now, or later. That is why I am saying that we should develop a list of all the elections removed, for example 1989-2010, and we should go case by case reviewing them and their importance step by step, instead of just adding them straight away. I am sure that there are many cases simmilar to Barack Obama over the last century on the years article. A whole list of Leaders elections etc. that have been removed by editors, and we can then re-add them all to the article's they belong to. Julia Gillard should be on the 2010 article, I may have a long way till we review her, but I am patient...as we will get to her, just like everyone else. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed that page from my watchlist, so I don't care anymore. I think your goal is overly optimistic, but whatever floats your boat. Recent year articles don't matter all that much anyway. They pretty much all have an awful quality by nature, and try as we might, I don't think it can be helped. Wrad (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There is know problem in trying to upper the quality standard even a little :) Anyway, Thank You for your time. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Translation

Hey are you currently still involved in English to Egyptian Arabic translations on Wikipedia? AJona1992 (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I am much better the other way around--Egyptian Arabic to English. Wrad (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I was looking for a translator to Egyptian Arabic, but thanks for responding and letting me know, have a nice day! AJona1992 (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Theatre Project collaboration

"Worldwide" template on Mormons article

A couple of months ago you placed a "worldwide" template on the Mormons article because it only devoted one sentence to international Mormons. (see here for the discussion). There is now a whole paragraph on them in a section devoted to Groups within Mormonism. Do you think that's sufficient to warrant removing the template? (It was also noted in the discussion that most of what is said in the article applies to international Mormons, even if it doesn't explicitly say that.) -- Adjwilley (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict - Virginia Earthquake

Hi... We had a conflict with editing. I reordered the information and lost your newest addition. I'm going to go and put it back in now. Just wanted you to know.  :) Wikipelli ^Talk 15:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Done... see if it's ok. I reordered the VA info because it was the center of the quake. It seemed to make sense to me to present the information geographically from the epicenter outward.Wikipelli ^Talk 15:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Input needed at RfC

If you are still interested in the Color project, would you mind looking at this RfC here? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The green barnstar
	I know you haven't worked on the page for a while, but this is for your good work on the page green. Thanks! pluma Ø 18:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Help with Gawain

Hi Wrad, I see you’re widely-read on my current favourite poem. Can you tell me if you ever came across any reference to the possibility of Galician lyrics as an influence on the Gawain-poet? When I was looking for stuff on the net about medieval symbolism + hinds it threw up a piece on Galician love poems (13th-14th c.) and apparently deer-imagery featured a lot:

‘In many of the Galician songs the hinds (cervas) are symbolically the confidantes of the girl in love, embodying all that is farouche and all that is ardent in her own nature.’ (P. Dronke, ‘The Medieval Lyric’)

The hind as a metaphor for female sexuality...could he have come across this? Unlikely on the face of it I know, as there’s a fair distance between Galicia and North Staffs. Still, John of Gaunt had Iberian connections so if the Gawain-poet had links to him and his court, it’s just possible. Just. Anyway I wondered if you recall seeing the suggestion made anywhere? RLamb (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall running into that one. Seems like it might be a good route to take to get some new insight into the poem. Wrad (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Damn. As you've probably guessed I was thinking along the lines of hind=sexual intrigue, boar=animal passion?, fox=deceit. Oh well, I shall mull it over while re-reading. Happy Christmas, and may neither of us be tested to destruction in the New Year.RLamb (talk) 09:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Closest thing to that would probably be ref 20 on J. D. Burnley. Wrad (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

What's the rush?

The items you have repeatedly added to 2011 are both under discussion on the talk page. If it is so obvious that they should included then consensus should be straightforward, depending on the level of input from other editors that may be only one or two days, a week is usually more than sufficient. There is no "violation" of WP:RY. WP:RY is a guideline, inclusion or exclusion can be overriden by consensus, and as there is no consensus yet for either entry those guidelines are still being followed. My understanding of wiki rules is that any item whose inclusion or exclusion is being discussed should not be included or included (i.e. the status quo should remain) until there is a clear consensus. Even though I disagree that either is worthy of inclusion that may be contradicted by the relevant articles, as you have pointed out BUT that is irrelevant and not the reason I reverted your edits. That is simply because they are under discussion and I would have done the same had they previously been included and an editor removed them while a discussion was being held which had yet to reach consensus. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is required if WP:RY is not met. That is not the case here. The entries follow guidelines, but you are reverting them anyway, even when, in the case of Occupy, there is a consensus for inclusion, with only you and one other person opposing in the face of several requests to add it, saying that it isn't internationally significant when clearly, as I have demonstrated, it is. Wrad (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

East Carolina Pirates future football schedules

Just wanted to let you know I am bowing out of the discussion there. I think we have all said our piece. No hard feelings. I admire your persistence for being willing to discuss your position there and trying to drive consensus. No hard feelings on my part.—Bagumba (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Your account has been updated to 'autopatrolled'. A random check of your creations shows that some are tagged for maintenance issue, while some are still completely unreferenced. I trust you will attend to these as soon as possible. Your new articles will still list in special:new pages but will not be highlighted in yellow. Thanks.

Yep, that was back in my early days. Wrad (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Years

Hi, since your name's down on this project, I'm just writing to let you know that there's a discussion going on at the moment on how to format events – and in particular, events that go on for multiple days – on year pages. Your input would be appreciated. — Smjg (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Wrad. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 00:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen Elijah lately? I have been away-health. ThomasHartman