Hey there, I left you a comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_European_Union, I was on holiday when you posted your first one and must've missed it when checking through my watchlist when I came back. Regards, Joolz 18:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly times when having the TOC floating left is useful, but many times it seems to be done simply because users disagree with the standard Wikipedia formatting. Having the TOC located where it is was a conscious decision. The TOC and white space is deliberately designed to break the article into two sections. This was much debated when the TOCs were first introduced, but it is now a standard. Users who disagree with this standard are free to raise the issue on the village pump, or the can alter their style sheet to display all TOCs to their liking. - SimonP 01:13, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

In reply to your comment on my talk page, I have no specific areas of the updating of which I am overly desirous. I'm happy to do whatever needs doing! Just point me in the right direction, and I'll see what I can do. Thanks! Jdhowens90 20:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I care about Ann Bidwell I lack the time to work on her mcuh.

question: is copying info from other parts of wikipedia a copyvio?

Thank you for notifying me of that image. I usually put copyrights on my pictures, but I guess on that one I forgot to. Thanks again! -- RattleMan 04:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LiniShu, this is just a note telling you that I have created the European Union collaboration (the first collaboration is Eurobarometer). I'm looking forward to your contributions! Talrias (t | e | c) 12:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Talrias, thanks for getting that started! I will take a look at it and see what I might be able to contribute. Cheers, LiniShu 23:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote for European Research Area has helped bring about the article's selection as this week's EU Collaboration of the week. Please join in trying to make the article a feature. --Wikiacc (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. European Research Area will not be an EUC until 6 November. Wikiacc (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

from User talk:Wikiacc Hi, Wikiacc! Thanks for your note about European Research Area and the EUC. Having seen your discussion with Talrias, I understand the confusion that occurred about the dates. If the ERA article is the next EUC (Nov 6), that's great; if another article is listed and has more support by that time, then that's OK too. Thanks again, LiniShu 03:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Wikiacc (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Adam 14:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sending me the note. Sure. You are welcome to merge these into English Ballet Dancers. Wallie 07:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, LiniShu. I recently removed Category:Variety entertainment from minstrel show, and I wanted to explain why so you wouldn't think you had done something wrong. Basically, it boils down to the fact that an article is not supposed to be placed in a category and a subcategory of that same category. In other words, if someone is categorized under Category:Canadian guitarists, he or she should not also be placed under Category:Guitarists. Likewise, since Category:Blackface minstrelsy is a subcategory of Category:Variety entertainment, and because minstrel show is in Category:Blackface minstrelsy, it should not also be in C:BF's parent category. I hope this makes sense. :) — BrianSmithson 22:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brian for your very polite note! Your change does make sense, and in fact, I had logged in this evening with the intention of making the change myself. I understand about articles not being placed both in a category and in a subcategory of the same category; however I had done that temporarily with the Minstrel show article and the Blackface minstrelsy category because I was trying to sort out the terms blackface, blackface minstrelsy, and minstrel show, and which of these actually encompasses the others. The conclusion that I had come to is that minstrel show and blackface minstrelsy are pretty nearly synonomous, and both are encompassed within blackface. Hence I have also just "swapped" the Main article: and See also: additions that I had made earlier today to Category:Blackface minstrelsy. Incidentally, my interest in the categorization of these articles related to doing some research on both 1930's Broadway musicals, and jazz artists (e.g. Count Basie), and tracing their antecedents back to Vaudeville, and then tracing some vaudeville antecedents back to minstrel shows. It is all very interesting! Thanks again, LiniShu 00:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly fascinating to uncover the roots of so much of our popular culture, isn't it? If you can find Dan Emmett and the Rise of Early Negro Minstrelsy by Hans Nathan, he covers blackface minstrel dance in much detail. Of course, modern histories of dance might as well; I haven't read any.

As for whether "blackface" or "minstrel show" is the parent, it's a difficult call. Our blackface article largely concerns itself with the concept of black theatre makeup and the "darky iconography" that it created. Our minstrel show article covers the genre of blackface minstrelsy, with information on the music, dance, and dramatic pieces that worked to make it. I've been tending to include them on equal grounds within Category:Blackface minstrelsy (that is why each of these articles uses a blank space for sorting purposes; the blank space makes them float to the top of the category). — BrianSmithson 04:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- thanks for your comments - PLUS your editing which, I agree, gives it a little more emphasis.

I'm trying to go through a lot of these articles to provide focus where needed, especially in the case of an opera HOUSE versus a COMPANY.

Vivaverdi 04:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC), Santa Fe, New Mexico......[reply]

Hi, Since you are an experienced editor who has edited articles about acting in the past, I'm asking if you could take a look at this AfD regarding Jason Bennett. This article was posted by an editor who claims that he is one of the great acting teachers, but to me it sounds like an advertisement. since I am not an actor I am only able to judge based on the claims the article makes - I cannot find ANY third-party sources regarding his notability, only listings in commercial directories of acting schools. If you have the time, your vote and comment would be appreciated. Thank you, Marcuse 16:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in a discussion going on at Category talk:Film actors. The proposition is to retain general categorization parallel to subcategorization. NickelShoe 22:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I would be incredibly annoyed and disaffected if parent categories were repopulated. I have spent hours placing articles into their correct subcats (film, TV directors and producers), and removing the parent cats. Parent cats obviously provide a useful navigational tool (Film directors --> British film directors, for example). The parent cat would become far too large that it would be unuseable. The JPS 12:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I wasn't aware of the discussion. I must say I'm worried about over-categorisation, which is already a problem with some articles (more categories than text...). I'll look in on the discussion when I can, and see what the arguments are on the other side. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the discussion, which is taking place between two editors and hasn't yet reached a conclusion (though another has indicated his dsagreement with the change, and I've just argued against it too — so the current consensus is three to one against). I think in any case that it would be wrong to act on one side of that discussion rather than sticking to normal Wikipedia practice. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love Renault. I think she makes an excellent case for the ability of fiction to make a real contribution to the study of history through imaginative reconstruction of a past society.

Far and away the most unpleasant interaction I've had on Wikipedia was with a character named Aldux who kept removing my references to Renault in the article for Quintus Curtius Rufus, a Roman who wrote about Alexander the Great whom Renault criticizes quite harshly. Aldux's position was that Renault was not a professional historian and therefore her opinion was irrelevant--he basically refused to discuss the question, since he was so obviously right. So un-WP. Luckily I haven't run into too many like him. Nareek 05:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. -- Samuel Wantman 06:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a previous contributor to the Roland Bainton article, I was happy to see someone making a new contribution. Your new paragraphs provided some needed additional biographical content, and the changes in wording help the text to sound more polished. Thanks for your work! --Lini 04:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. I'm an admirer of Bainton's writing, and there's more that could be said.--John Foxe 11:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]