This is an archive of past discussions about User:DionysosProteus. 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.
Welcome!
Hello, DionysosProteus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for presentational acting. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Ok, that was the generic "welcome" template, but on a more personal note, I wanted to say that I'm very glad you're here! I read the changes you made to presentational acting (led there by your removal of Vakhtangov from Method Acting) and I'm impressed. The majority of the theater articles on Wikipedia are in terrible shape, and I'm glad someone with the know-how to fix them has joined up. I've thrown my hands up, I'm afraid, and mostly limit my contributions to removing actors added to the list of Method Actors because they shaved their chest for a role. I refer you to the WikiProject on Theater, if you're interested. It's where editors with an interest in improving theater articles gather - not very active recently, unfortunately. I'm not a member myself, but I pop in from time to time with a question or a comment. Anyways, welcome once again, and I hope you stick around! --Brian Olsen19:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've replied on the Opera Project page. Please note this really is an opera not a play - there's a detailed article on it in Grove. And it should be under the German title. Thanks. -- Kleinzach18:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In case you still need to know - you can link to a category without adding that page to the category by putting a colon before the word "category": so, [[:Category:Theatre]] gives you Category:Theatre. There are probably a few ways to do this, but that's the one I use. (You can do it with templates, too, to link to a template without displaying it.) --Brian Olsen01:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
I saw you had a clear out of your talk page moments after I posted a message for you so here it is again in case you didn't see it first time around. If you did see it & just could bear to have my hapless prose cluttering your page then do accept my apologies!. N.
Hi there. I notice you have been removing PROD templates and commenting on talk pages that the articles are 'just stubs at the moment'. The problem is that they are not stubs, they are empty and consist only of links. At the very minimum a stub is "an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information" - see here for further definition of a stub. I hestitated to send them to speedy (which they did all qualify for) as I do believe that the topics have merit however at the moment they are merely placeholders, nothing more, and sooner or later someone else is going to come along and delete them, possibly via speedy. The best way to deal with this kind of situation where you have a 'work in progress' is to create, edit and expand the articles as sub-pages of your user page and then move them in to the mainspace when they have some content. If you need any help with how to do this etc please do ask - I would be only to glad to lend a hand. Alternatively perhaps you could add at least one introductory sentence to each of them? Hope this is of help & happy editing. Kind regards, • nancy • 20:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I cleared it as you hadn't seemed to have read the notes I had put on the talk pages - not the one left last week, but today. DionysosProteus20:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely had read the recent talk pages comments - about the content not appearing quickly enough and so on, hence my clumsy attempt to try and explain what a stub is & that as they stand at the moment the articles are not even stubs & therefore in order to prevent them being deleted (and let me assure you I'm not trying to get them deleted, if I was I would have speedied them) you really need to add at least some content, as I said, even one small intro sentence will do just to give some context. I would do it myself if I felt up to the topic. Kind regards, • nancy • 20:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Aha. Hmmm. Erm, no. :) I will try to put a brief sentence for each today. My apologies if I seemed a little curt; I have spent some considerable time today defending categorization work I'd done on Brecht to some fanatical opera enthusiasts, so the experience as a whole was becoming a little wearisome - particularly as they appeared to be objecting from ill-informed (i.e., no primary contact with the creative works discussed) positions. A sentence or two, though, is not an unreasonable request. (BTW, the problem with the penguin dict. definition is that it does not make the distinction between Brecht's theatrical innovations Epic Theatre and his dramatic ones Non-Aristotelian Drama; his subsequent influence diverges along these lines (British playwrights like Edgar, Brenton, Arden, Churchill, for example; very different from theatrical epic of Dario Fo, Augusto Boal), though they were united in his practice.) DionysosProteus21:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmn, I should have stuck with my first assessment of my abilities in this area & yes you are right about the dictionary, it doesn't even give non-AD an entry of its own. I see you have expanded the article now - probably enough to remove the stub tag too. Good luck with your editing; it looks like the theatre pages will be greatly improved and expanded by your involvement. Kind regards, • nancy • 06:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Shakespeare project - New collaboration debate
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for the help. I am working through the list of pages that just link to "Verse". Your help, and expertise, is greatly appreciated as my knowledge is more limited than I thought. The wikipedia list of pages with links that go nowhere is at: Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/2007-08-02 dump, if you want to contribute.Stellar05:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that recently you carried out a copy and paste page move from Non-Aristotelian Drama. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself using the move link at the top of the page, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. • nancy • 16:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The above is a template message. What you did was right in that the captialisation on the new page is correct however the way you went about it - via cut and paste - wasn't. To rename a page always use move as otherwise the page history gets splatted. If you ahve done cut and paste moves on other articles they will need to be fixed in the same way. There is so much to learn isn't there! Kind regards, • nancy • 16:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I will tag it for speedy deletion on the grounds of 'author blanked' and once it has gone you will be able to move the old article to the new one. • nancy • 16:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Brecht subcats
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Look. I really don't care whether the Lerstruche are in the plays subcat or not. You're the one who's been making noise throughout the AFD of how awful it would be to have them under "plays" instead of "dramatic works," so in the wake of the rename to "plays" I was merely trying to locate them in the category that, based on my understanding of your own statements, would be most appropriate. Your reversion with the petulant "if those are plays then these are too" comment is not condusive to any effort by anyone else to get the articles in the most appropriate categories. If you're satisfied with the L's living in the plays category then that's fine. Screenplays, however, are not plays and do not belong categorized under plays. They should be in the parent works category. Otto471116:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
If you disagree with the outcome of a CFD, take it to deletion review. There is no reason to be disruptive regarding the proper placement of other categories because you're mad about another category. Otto471117:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
{{helpme}}I want to use a template for a block text quotation, but I can't see one that enables multiple 'paragraphs' within the block quote. This is necessary for a quotation from a play, where each character's line needs to be on its own, erm, line. Which should I use and how to produce the new line? Thanks DionysosProteus00:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
You can use the <br> and <p> html tags like this:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Greetings. Sorry for bothering you but I have a couple of pages that list missing topics in areas I know only superficially and do not feel qualified to write about. I wonder if you could find time to have a brief look at this one. Thank you. - Skysmith13:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:JoeOrtonBiographyFilm.jpg)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:JoeOrtonBiographyFilm.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot13:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
template
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Definitely has its merits over my version (the picture's quite sharp, too). But it seems like it'd be hard to navigate (small text, zero space, no breaks). Perhaps consider a combination of the two (i.e. maintain chronology, but organize them into categories)? A good example of what I'm thinking of is the Tennessee Williams template (Template:Tennesseew). Not chronological, but it does provide some needed white space for such a massive number of plays. Anyway, food for thought. -- Yossarian10:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot13:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Template request
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. Maybe just a technical point, but a bilbliography is typically a list of additional, related materials that may shed light on the subject. References are cited because they specifically contributed to the body of the article. If your biblio cite is a source for the body of the article then it should probably be listed as such. The page has a very professional appearance so suspect the tag will be removed shortly. Altzinn01:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. The following guidelines address the subject. Wikipedia:Citing sources, Further reading/External links section advises that An ==External links== or ==Further reading== or ==Bibliography== section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader. The section "Further reading" may include both online material and material not available online. If all recommended material is online, the section may be titled "External links". All items used as sources in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section, and are usually not included in "Further reading" or "External links". Let me know if this helps. Altzinn00:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for the corrections in the article about Mani Madhava Chakyar. Hope you will cooperate with me to make the article a better one..M too is interested in old Sanskrit theatres...Thanks Sreekanthv14:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
And thankyou for your contributions! We share the same interests in drama, theatre and acting so I thought I'd give you a nice Wiki-welcome! Happy editing! Lradrama17:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Lradrama has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
You're welcome. Yes it looks like an interesting discussion and I've posted a comment, although I'll probably post more as things progress! I've joined the Wikiproject fully actually - it's one of three I'm involved in, so my time is getting increasingly divided! BTW, as yet I'm unsure about the Douglas school. I know Central kind of merged with the University of London, which means students can have accomodation and such like from that university, but I'm as yet unsure about the Douglas bit. It'll need research. I haven't found anything in Central's prospectus on that, but I'll probably need to have another thorough read through! Happy editing! Lradrama18:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Template:Brecht plays
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
What is it that you don't understand? I've explained my reasoning in some detail. The changes to make it collapsible were originated by Kleinach in each case. The template is present on theatre pages to which he has made no contributions. He's initiated a discussion on the project page and then solicited others to make the changes he wants. DionysosProteus00:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
all of the above may be true, yet it has no bearing on my question regarding what you find objectionable about the changes i made. --emerson7 | Talk00:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not understanding your question. The changes make the template collapsible. My reasoning for a non-collapsible box are given in some detail on the talk page. Please explain what you mean. DionysosProteus01:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
the changes i made to the template were specifically designed to accommodate you and the concerns you voiced. other than taking the attitude, i just like my version better, you have yet to offer a cogent argument for your position, or even a reasonable compromise. this is why the claim of ownership has been charged. --emerson7 | Talk14:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
DionysosProteus, just because some editors have no made edits on a page does not mean that they should not be allowed to make edits to templates transcluded on that page. I agree that the only argument you've made against the improvements of others is "I don't like it". I suggest you re-read WP:OWN. The templates you originally put together contain very good information that certainly should be in a navigation box and are much appreciated, but just because you created them does not give you authority to undo the good faith changes of others. Thanks, --CapitalR21:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
September 2007
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on template:Brecht plays. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. emerson7 | Talk13:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Undid (fiction) form
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
DionysosProteus - Thank you for taking the time to bring these concerns to my attention. I thought giving these articles a (fiction) tag was logical, but I now appreciate your concern. I don't necessarily agree with your views regarding the (fiction) vs. (narrative/literature/whatever) tags, but I've reversed/undid my changes in the interest of concensus.
Regarding original research/self-promotion/conflict of interest, I've reviewed the Wiki policies and will edit accordingly in the future. I've already made some revisions with that in mind.
Regarding citing references, I agree that there is way too much in many of these articles that appears to be original research. I've reviewed the guidelines, and I am beginning to work citations into my editing. I'm new to Wikipedia and have much to learn. I appreciate your patience. Mike Klaassen22:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Re spelling. Well, it's just like "Yeltsin" and "Eltsin" I guess. Consistency is welcome, although it's not all that clear-cut. Apparently both versions would be in line with WP:RUS. --Ghirla-трёп-20:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Unlike Bishonen, I'm not really into theatre, but if you need to look up something in a Russian source, just let me know. I'm always ready to help with such things. --Ghirla-трёп-20:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
W. S. Gilbert
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please do not re-categorize W. S. Gilbert works. If you have a category question, please post it on the WP:G&S talk page. Thanks. -- Ssilvers20:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Nietzsche Article
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
About the picture you put back... I now see that it is there; however, it is off to the side and leaving a huge block of blank space in the middle of the Biography section of the Nietzsche article. I have not experienced a problem like this before and I tend not to believe it is a problem soley with my browser or computer. Is there anyway we can move this picture so that the previously highlighted problem is no longer? PhilipDSullivan23:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Iambic pentameter and notation for scansion
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi ... yes, I certainly won't object to any rework/improvement you make to the iambic pentameter article. My chief thought about scansion notation is simply that it should be a commonly used notation that many readers will already be familiar with, and that we can provide references to other works that use the same notation. I don't think wikipedia should get into advocating a new or little used notation, regardless of its merits. On this count I think ictus and breve looks pretty good: Fussell, Turco, and Williams all use it. Am I right in thinking you prefer some version of the Bridges notation? I think Bridges is one of the finest thinkers about meter, and his work is unjustly neglected ... but I can't think of any other book that uses this notation. I'd rather not rely on Bridges as a source, I think his book on Milton may well be out of print. If you know of a couple of references I'd have absolutely no objection to using it, but in the absence of other references I'd be cautious about us adopting it. Stumps05:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi again ... I like what you have done with the lead section, and I have made a couple of minor changes. There are a couple of more adjustments I want to make, when I've had more of a chance to think it through. Please re-modify any of my changes which you think make things worse ... they were done quickly, and I prefer to think-aloud/collaborate-aloud ... I'll be looking some more at the intro over the next couple of days I hope. Stumps07:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Thanks for fixing the sources section up. I'm especially interested in your thoughts on the Analysis and Criticism bits as well. Most of what I do is research regurgitation, so my prose may not quite be there yet. Wrad22:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, usually I'm on my own with Analysis sections, and it certainly isn't an easy task! That is a good caption, too, I'll have to admit. Wrad22:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Bloom
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
Hi - the page ref (pp. xiii, 383), goes with Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human Bloom. Both books delve into his beliefs about the Ur-Hamlet. I'm not sure if Sams is in Blooms stuff or not. I didn't add the Sams mention - it was there when I got there. I moved most of it from the Ur Hamlet article, which I did some clean-up work on. I'll look for the Sams ref as well. Please restore it in the meantime. Thanks Smatprt01:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi - the Sams opinion can be referenced to: Shakespeare Survey By Stanley Wells, Cambridge University Press. 2002, pp267. Of all places! Smatprt04:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi again - it's Wells' "Shakespeare Survey 43, The Tempest and After" He disucces both Alexander and Sams.Smatprt19:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Survey 43 - page 267. I thought I had that in the original reference. I do now. I also put most of the info back into the article. Iam against overly long notes in the note section. IMHO, that should be for citations and references, not where we hide things that might be controversial. Why make readers look to a note box when it can be said right in the article (it takes the same amount of space and might actually get read!). ThanksSmatprt00:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Hamlet Date note
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
Usually wikipedians tend to frown on overlong footnotes because the general readership never reads them. It may be best to work that long footnote into the main body. I would prefer it that way, for one. No need to hide such good information. Wrad00:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
1599 was cited before. I'm the one who added it. I don't like the paragraph as it is now, it just seems watered down to me. Wrad00:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I tried to sort that out with my resources, but it was just too much of a job. My great love is analysis sections. Wrad00:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi Dionysos, you may have noticed that User: jc37 closed his own deletion discussion for Wikipedians by philosophy and subcats. It seems to me that an administrator who nominates something for deletion should let someone who does not have a vested interest in the subject close it. I’m not sure if this conflict of interest actually violates policy, but I suspect it does. His statement “since the majority of the comments which actually address the nom have been rename or delete,” also seems to me spectacularly wrong. Of the 111 votes (I know this doesn’t work by majority) 68 were keep or strong keep and many others were move. jc37 also claims there was widespread canvassing and personal attacks. Over all I believe that the “Closed to be relisted” decision was motivated by a wish to avoid a “keep” and set up a future deletion attempt. Anyway, I’m thinking of asking for a Wikipedia:Requests for comment and a Wikipedia:Deletion review. I wanted to ask you first though whether you think my concerns about this discussion are justified or just my own POV. Since you were also heavily involved in that deletion discussion I thought I’d ask you what you think. Thanks, --S.dedalus22:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi, "Wikipedia recognises Muller and Müller as synonymous" (your edit summary). Says who? Would you like to include allMüllers on the Muller page or just the two or three you readded? Next thing someone else would want to separate the two pages again (and for good reason). There is, after all, a disambiguation note at the top of the page. And, pray, who is Jeb Muller?
Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments1 person in discussion
I'm going to submit the new MAT to be featured in the Did You Know section of the main page. I'm just wondering if you could tell me what the most important bit you would like to emphasize is. It would start with something like: "Did you know that The MAT production of Hamlet etc. etc.... ?" Wrad21:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
That's a good question. I'm not sure. It's hard to tell from the text. Shakespeare isn't famous for being historically accurate. Denmark was Protestant in his day, but seems a bit Catholic in the play, but at the same time has Protestant elements. The philosophies in the play are very contemporary to Shakespeare, but the story and legend itself is taken from Beowulf days. Maybe we shouldn't make such a bold statement of time in the article. Wrad21:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
With Critical approaches, I guess you'd have to take it one step at a time. It's kind of a jumbled collection of the main page and other things. Several sections, though, are copies from the main page. GA status criteria is at WP:WIAGA. Wrad01:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Common sense might dictate that a synopses should fall under the same rules as a lead; that since it speaks in generalizations or the like it doesn't need inline citations. But there isn't really any clear guideline that makes it okay to disregard at least one inline ref at the end covering the section, so for work that's supposed to stick to even the most minute guidelines of the Manual of Style (i.e. the best of Wikipedia, FA) I don't think it's okay not to have at least one ref in the section. But if you want to know what parts I should generally think need a cite, I would say that anywhere the synopsis goes beyond simply recounting events. Example: Hamlet did this, which means that. Any interpretation of cause and effect or the like should need a ref. But if there isn't any of that, it's probably fine without the usual amount of refs in my opinion. I just hate to see an entire section in a GA or FA article go uncited based on a precedent that hasn't been cemented into guideline. But no big deal. VanTuckyTalk00:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Dionysos,
I am confused as to why you removed Norma from the list of Henrik Ibsen's works. He wrote a play by that name in 1851. Google it - it does indeed exist.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, DionysosProteus! I happened to find my way here through The MAT production of Hamlet, and just wanted to say it looks like you are doing some great work. Please accept these apples which are full of vitamins and are far more healthy than WikiCookies. Best, Dar-Ape17:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
About Sidney: the best source I have immediately at hand, Chambers' Elizabethan Stage (Vol. 4, p. 226), says that The Defence of Poesie was entered into the Stationers' Register on Nov. 29, 1594, and the first edition was published in 1595 by William Ponsonby. A second edition was issued by Henry Olney, also in 1595, under the title An Apologie for Poetrie. The work was next published in 1598 when it was included with the Arcadia. (For whatever it's worth to you, Internet sources agree.) So, apparently there was no 1593 edition; that date might be a simple misprint. There was an edition of the Arcadia in 1593 (the second edition; the "mixed Arcadia" as opposed to the "new Arcadia" of 1590), and that might also be a source of confusion; but as far as I can determine the Defence of Poesie was first printed in 1595, and first issued with the Arcadia in 1598. Ugajin21:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Came over to answer your question, but I see it's been well answered above. In any case, the Oxford edition of the Defense confirms that it was first published in 1595 in the two editions Ugajin mentioned. --Matthew 140.180.18.12316:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Literature proposal
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion
Hey. Thought you might be interested in my proposal to create a literature wikiproject. We would cover theory, forms, history, and just about everything. Right now this is supposedly covered by the Books WikiProject, but I feel that that is inadequate. It's about so much more than just books! Anyway, add your name here so we can get this project started! Thanks, Wrad23:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I wonder if you could chime in to the WP:BOOKS talk page about this, too. Eventually we're going to need to find our place in regards to them and I may need help doing that. Wrad23:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You wouldn't believe it, but I've had people tell me not to add literary criticism to articles because it was POV. Lots of people have no clue what literary criticism is. They think it's just people talking trash about a book. Gives me the shivers. Wrad16:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Tom Reedy and myself have been trying to replicate your excellent work on the sourcing of Hamlet at The Tempest. Now that it's complete (so far as I'm capable of doing so) I wonder if you'd mind taking a look to see if we've got it right? You'll see I've raised a few questions at the talk page. Specifically, I wondered how we should source that website: not that I think it's really an acceptable source in this particular case, but I do need to know how websites fit in to your sourcing method. AndyJones12:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Stanford Co-op
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I saw that you have a connection to Stanford University and was hoping that you (or someone you know) might have some information to add to the Chi Theta Chi article. I wanted to give it a chance before proposing it for deletion. Do you have any sources for it? —ScouterSig21:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over a Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A tag has been placed on Template:Hamlet new requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.
Hello and welcome to this, the first ever edition of the WikiProject Theatre Newsletter! If you haven't been over to the WikiProject page lately then you're missing out - the whole thing has undergone a complete makeover - see below for more info!
On top of this, we have brand spanking new templates (such as this one) and a completely revamped Collaboration of the Month - again, see below for more info on all of this.
Finally, a warning - the new-look WikiProject is still having the finishing touches put on it. If you find something that doesn't work, you don't agree with or is just plain missing, please don't hesitate to let us know on the WikiProject's talk page. We'll try our very best to fix ASAP!
New Look
As mentioned above, the WikiProject has recently undergone a spring-clean and we're dead excited about it! If you don't mind - we'd like to take this opportunity to explain some of the features and generally show off about it a little.
Colour scheme Those clashing colours have gone! All pages on the WikiProject now use two consistent shades of blue as part of the new streamlined interface (Those techies amongst us may wish to know that the precise names of the colours we use are: "lightsteelblue" for headings and "#c0e0e0" for backgrounds).
Navigation Menu Every page on the WikiProject now has the official WikiProject navigation menu so you can easily flick between pages and get back to the main project page. Say goodbye to clicking the back button several times!
To Do list/Open Tasks If you're stuck on what to do to help us then a list of the most important tasks is now available on the main page - no more excuses! At the moment, the list is looking a little short so if you have found something that you think ought to be added, then feel free to edit the list and let us know. Please refrain from linking to a specific article that generally needs an overall update. Single articles like this should be nominated for a future Collaboration of The Month - see below.
Article Structure This is a first for the WikiProject and is still under construction. What is the Article Structure page? Well, it's basically a rough guideline of sections to include when creating theatre-related articles - in particular, plays. As the scope of this WikiProject is so large, some sections of the Article Structure won't apply to all articles and other sections which will apply to a small cross-section of our article base have not been included in this Article Structure page. If you feel we have missed out something crucial which needs adding to most or all theatre-related articles then feel free to discuss it on either the Article Structure talk page or the main WikiProject talk page
Templates
All of the project's templates are now arranged in one handy page. Whilst we were going through we also noticed some that were missing. We have now added new templates in the form of:
{{WPTWelcome}} - a welcome tag to be placed on the talk page of a new user.
{{User WPTheatre}} - a userbox for members of the project.
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre/Sidebar}} - this template should be added to the side of any/all pages within the project to help navigate between project pages.
{{WPTheatre User}} - the template containing the latest edition of the WikiProject Newsletter (you're looking at it now!)
Collaboration of the Month
Ok, so this isn't exactly a new feature. It's always been there but has never really been updated on a, ahem, monthly basis (the clue is in the title!). The Collaboration of the Month (COTM) is now in template form to enable it to be streamlined across the Project, without having to be manually updated on each page. Don't worry if we've lost you at this point - the point is, it works! You can now nominate an article for COTM on the COTM page and we promise to adhere to it this time! It will be updated monthly!
The more sharp-eyed amongst you may well have noticed that the COTM at the moment is still that old fella, August Strindberg. That's because no-one has nominated a COTM for this month (being a new feature an' all...) so we've decided to leave it as it is for this month until a new one has been democratically voted for.
And finally...
Thanks very much for reading down this far - hopefully future newsletters won't be this long! Please, if you can, invite new members and drop us a line over at the talk page to let us know what you think of the new look/newsletter and any suggestions you may have.
You have received this newsletter because your name is on the list of Participants on the WikiProject page. If (like most of the old WikiProject) this information is out of date and you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name from the Participants list and also click here to stop receiving the newsletter.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. To view previous editions of the newsletter, click here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let us know on the talk page.
Welcome to the second edition of the WikiProject Theatre Newsletter. This month's newsletter is focused mainly on recruitment and generally upping the profile of the WikiProject. Read on to find out more...
Recruitment
Just in case you haven't had a chance to head on over to our new-look WikiProject yet, this is to let you know that on the Templates page there is now a new "Welcome banner" which is to be placed on any new members talk pages. However, it is yet to be used as we haven't had any new members join the WikiProject within the last month! If you know of a user which has been contributing to theatre-related articles recently then why not drop them a line on their talk page and invite them to come and join us? That way, we can finally use thour lovely shiny new Welcome banner template. We hope eventually to be able to use this newsletter to show off about the vast numbers of new members we have joining us each month, rather in the way that the newsletters of other WikiProjects do.
Collaboration of The Month
This month's COTM has remained unchanged as no-one has nominated any articles to become the new incumbent. Quick - get yourself down to the COTM page and nominate an article for next month!
Assessment
Just a note to say that there are two articles down at the Assessment page which have requested assessment. Please could a member of the project pop over and assess them for us? It's only a small task.
Whilst we're on the subject of assessment, an ongoing task is to assess every article within Category:Unassessed Theatre articles, feel free to make a start on a few when you have a moment.
We're currently looking for members to volunteer in the compiling of this newsletter each month - please drop us a line at the talk page if you're interested in helping - be it in the delivery or writing processes of it!
You have received this newsletter because your name is on the list of Participants on the WikiProject page. If this information is out of date and you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name from the Participants list and also click here to stop receiving the newsletter.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. To view previous editions of the newsletter, click here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let us know on the talk page.
Welcome to our third newsletter - we've got lots to get through this month so without further ado, let's crack on...
The Big Debate - Character Lists in Play Articles
For those of you who haven't headed over to our talk page recently - you've been missing out! Throughout the past month there's been great discussion about the issue of character lists in play articles. The aim is to form a standard presentation of character lists to be used on all play articles so if you'd like to make your voice heard on the issue then check out the talk page now.
Collaboration of The Month
Yet again this month's COTM has remained unchanged as no-one has nominated any articles to become the new incumbent. Quick - get yourself down to the COTM page and nominate an article for next month!
Assessment
The number of articles at the Assessment page are growing - if you're feeling a little lost and don't know where to begin to help us out, head on down to the Assessment page and give us a hand.
If you've been editing a theatre-related article recently and noticed another user helping you who also appears to have an interest for the subject of theatre, why not drop them a line and invite them over to the project?
HELP!
We're crying out for people to help us out wherever possible. We are currently looking for members to volunteer to give us a hand in several areas. If you can do any of the following, please drop us a line at the talk page:
Newsletter Editor(s) - Always fancied yourself as a bit of a journalist? Perhaps you could help us write this newsletter - it doesn't take long to compile. Maybe you'd like to help but can't commit on a regular basis? In that case, why not rally round a few other members of the project to help you out and take it in turns each month to compose the newsletter?
Mailmen/women - If writing the newsletter isn't your bag then maybe you could help in the distribution of this fine document? As our membership grows it becomes quite laborious to send it to everyone. It's only a quick task that needs doing once a month, and really is just a case of copying and pasting a template onto our members talk pages.
Portal editor(s) - It's come to our attention that the Theatre Portal hasn't been updated in a long time and we'd like to get someone, or a group of people to take charge of it and get it up to the standard of some of the great portals out there (e.g. the Comedy Portal, the Solar System Portal etc).
You have received this newsletter because your name is on the list of Participants on the WikiProject page. If this information is out of date and you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name from the Participants list and also click here to stop receiving the newsletter.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. To view previous editions of the newsletter, click here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let us know on the talk page.
Yet again this month's COTM has remained unchanged as no-one has nominated any articles to become the new incumbent. Please can someone get down to the COTM page and nominate an article for next month!
Assessment
The ongoing task of assesing the articles at the Assessment page continues - if you're feeling a little lost and don't know where to begin to help us out, head on down to the Assessment page and give us a hand.
If you've been editing a theatre-related article recently and noticed another user helping you who also appears to have an interest for the subject of theatre, why not drop them a line and invite them over to the project?
HELP!
As mentioned in previous newsletters, we're crying out for people to help us out wherever possible. We are currently looking for members to volunteer to give us a hand in several areas. If you can do any of the following, please drop us a line at the talk page:
Newsletter Editor(s) - Always fancied yourself as a bit of a journalist? Perhaps you could help us write this newsletter - it doesn't take long to compile. Maybe you'd like to help but can't commit on a regular basis? In that case, why not rally round a few other members of the project to help you out and take it in turns each month to compose the newsletter?
Mailmen/women - If writing the newsletter isn't your bag then maybe you could help in the distribution of this fine document? As our membership grows it becomes quite laborious to send it to everyone. It's only a quick task that needs doing once a month, and really is just a case of copying and pasting a template onto our members talk pages.
Portal editor(s) - It's come to our attention that the Theatre Portal hasn't been updated in a long time and we'd like to get someone, or a group of people to take charge of it and get it up to the standard of some of the great portals out there (e.g. the Comedy Portal, the Solar System Portal etc).
You have received this newsletter because your name is on the list of Participants on the WikiProject page. If this information is out of date and you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name from the Participants list and also click here to stop receiving the newsletter.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. To view previous editions of the newsletter, click here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let us know on the talk page.
Romeo and Juliet collaboration
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I noticed that you have listed yourself as a Wikipedian in London, so I thought you might like to come to one of our monthly social meetups. The next one is going to be on Sunday 10 August, which might well be rather short notice, but if you can't come this time, we try to have one every second Sunday of the month.
If you haven't been before, these meetups are mainly casual social events for Wikipedia enthusiasts in which we chat about Wikipedia and any other topics we fancy. It's a great way to meet some very keen Wikipedians, but we'd also love for you to come along if you're interested in finding out more about Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, or other collaborative wiki projects too.
The location is a pub that is quite quiet and family friendly on a Sunday lunchtime, so hopefully younger Wikipedians will also feel welcome and safe. Alcohol consumption is certainly not required!
Although the meetups are popular, many UK-based editors still don't know about them. It would be great to welcome some fresh faces, so I hope you can come along.
We're currently working through a peer review of Romeo and Juliet, where the image is used, and one of the issues flagged was the lack of source information for that image. Any chance you could update the info template on the image page with information on where you got the picture from? Or let me know and I could update the template? TIA, ---Xover (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi,
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It is not "disingenuous" to archive the old discussion. I archived it because it is potentially confusing to people to have two sections labeled "Move request" on the same talk page and because I thought it was interfering with the setup of the new discussion. Had you, instead of jumping to conclusions yet again, perhaps left a message on my talk page, this could have been cleared up. I have reverted your edit and restored the archive. There is a link to the archive at the top of the talk page and there is also a link to it in the new discussion itself. Please do not muddy things by restoring the old discussion as it is perfectly accessible to anyone who wants to read it. Otto4711 (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Please stop this disruptive and potentially confusing editing
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.
I introduced several necessary changes into the article on lyric poetry. I can understand that, knowing nothing of Aristotle and ancient lyric poetry, you prefer the Romantic definition, but why delete facts? And why delete all the information on medieval Galician-Portuguese lyric. Because you have never heard ot it? Don't let your ignorance and your prejudices deface necessary additions and revisions. I give up, though. Ignrorance plus arrogance is too nasty a brew. No use doing battle with someone who teaches in London, a city with more pedantry than books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.174.220 (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Multiplicity (mathematics), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Multiplicity. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleuze article
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
DionysosProteus: regarding your reversion of my edit to Gilles Deleuze, I've left a comment on the talk page explaining why I did that. I suggest you respond to it - you're not likely to accomplish anything simply by reverting me over and over. Skoojal (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your excellent edits on the Deleuze article. And sorry you had to endure the captious, axe-grinding edits of Skoojal. 271828182 (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Pulp fiction
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
I see now where I went wrong; it was the talk page redirect I was after. Page talk will be attached anyhow (unless I'm wrong), so redirecting the talk page isn't essential (is it...?) & it wants a {{WikiProject Redirect}} tag. TREKphilerhit me ♠ 13:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I should have thought of that, too... :( Best advice I can give you is, go into the page history, find the move, open that revision & look at the links for move/edit/&c. There should be a "what links here" among them, which should tell you which pages go to the page, or directly to the talk. (D*mn, those may need the redirect...)
A quick check of the talk page links shows no hangs, just a link from a vandal page. Will you do a more thorough survey & see if it needs fixing? Thanks. And apologies for jamming you up, if I have. TREKphilerhit me ♠ 14:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Courtesy notice
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I take exception to your characterization of my misspelling of eminent (as imminent, taken from the article), and your erroneous assumption that needing to log into a free website causes the source provided to be "unavailable". By that same logic, any source not online that one would need to go to a library to reference is also "unavailable." - CobaltBlueTony™talk18:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
If by 'divining' you mean that you would have had to correct a simple mistake, then by all means, choose to delete all mistakes instead of correcting them. This editing philosophy comes off as snide and prudish, even exclusive -- when the mission of Wikipedia is to provide knowledge freely to everyone. Incidentally, if you had bothered to review the material presented in the New York Times article, you would have seen both the incorrect spelling and the weasel words used by the reviewer himself.
'To many, the re-emergence of "Picnic," which is subtitled "A Summer Romance" and in a rewritten version called "Summer Brave," is imminent.'
I should really stick to my semihumorous mantra more closely: One should not edit Wikipedia while working. I apologize for causing unnecessary confusion. In my attempt to find some clearer statement as to the play's impact, I misread the sentence. In reviewing the entire article, the sentence conveys an entirely different meaning. The article outlines Inge's successes, and his subsequent downfall in popularity. It then notes how Inge's plays were later performed on Broadway, or adapted for film (Bus Stop and Sheba), garnering renewed appreciation.
The statement I quoted really infers that "Picnic" was destined to re-emerge for similar accolades and recognition. The article was written in 1993.
I've already recognized the notability of the play, but I do not have confidence in the basic reasoning skills of so many of the users that come across here. I grasp now that Inge's individual works are notable; one could infer the entire body of his works meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for books, point number 6. What does not quite read clear enough to me (in now attempting to edit 'for the enemy' as it were) is how this reworking is itself notable -- and this is something I would fear being challenged by someone less educated in theater than me (which would have to be less than next to nothing). I would really love to see some reference that indicates any notable impact of this play, positive or negative. I realize that this might be exceptionally hard to come by, so I'll leave it to you to consider locating something to this effect. - CobaltBlueTony™talk01:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I am the person who created this article. I'm new at Wikipedia, and I felt intimidated by CobaltBlueTony, since he is an administrator, although I also felt someone in his position wasn't providing the support and guidance a newcomer needs. I also felt I'm enough of a theatre buff to recognize the importance of this Inge work, something I thought Cobalt wasn't appreciating fully. Thank you for interceding. I appreciate your efforts. LiteraryMaven (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. Without discussion, you discarded my addition of C. A. Trypanis' work on Greek Poetry in the article on Tragedy. I've added it back in as "Further reading". It's a significant and respectable work and its section on Tragedy is notable. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
because they don't appear in tragedies, of course
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
so they can be a tragic hero just cos there not in tragedies?? your just being biast to your page cos its how you want it to be Dark spikey (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
hello. since i'm sure you are aware of the rules of grammar and punctuation and requiring the use of a period with abbreviations, and wpmos style guides for the same, i'm a bit taken back by the enthusiasm with which you have made changes to the contrary without consensus, discussion, or one solid source to buttress your argument. please advise. --emerson718:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The title of the play does not have a period. It was intentionally written and published that way. You wouldn't grammaticize E.E. Cumming's work, would you? No. 207.237.198.152 (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
WJLA
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Removing large sums of information and bolding (which are used on all TV station pages in DC, Baltimore and other areas) is, in my book, vandalism. I will revert your change for the sole reason to re-add that information but will correct the headers as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 26, 2008 @ 15:05
Whether someone is deceased or retired, where they are now, stuff like that....those were removed. That is annoying. Bolding...OK, you can say that isn't vandalism and I will probably agree with ya....but removing "where are they now" information is unnecessary. I revert stuff like that all the time (more that necessary on somepages. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 26, 2008 @ 15:13
It is incredibly hard to source a reporter's death or retirement. Most of the time we rely on AGF and take the editor's word for it, because unless it is recent, you probably won't find a source for it....hence where AGF and "I'll take your word for it" come into play. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 26, 2008 @ 15:27
I never intimidated anyone. To say I did is false and rude. I seen what I thought vandalism, called that user on it, and moved on. A Warn1 template isn't the worst thing in the world. I stand by my call on posting the warning. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 26, 2008 @ 15:38
Whoa whoa whoa. We can't just "assume good faith" when it comes to sources and verifiability, especially when it comes in relation to whether or not someone has died and other things related to people. If these aren't referenced, take them out. Metros (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
In most cases, I would agree with you. But when it comes to deaths in the 70s, 80s, or 90s (before the invent of the internet, where you can search for sources) sometimes you have to just assume good faith and take their word. I am probably in the minority in this. But ALOT of pages from California to Virginia have the same information, unsourced. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 26, 2008 @ 15:51
"Just what planet have you recently arrived from?"....no personal attacks. If you are going to continue this, I will leave you to talk to yourself. I haven't been rude to you, I ask the same in return. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 26, 2008 @ 15:52
So then "ALOT" [sic] of pages from California to Virginia need to be fixed either by adding references or taking away unsourced information. Metros (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
If you want to take that large undertaking, you are more than welcome. I am working on Virginia radio stations at the moment and don't have time. Please leave WP:TVS a note first. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 26, 2008 @ 15:55
The changes have been reverted by Metros and you are just trying to start an arguement. I won't be pulled into one. Take Care and Have a Good Sunday...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 26, 2008 @ 16:02
your edits
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
geez...i really hope this is not going to be one of those 'things'. be here goes. for information on entering data and formatting infoboxes, please refer to {{Infobox Play}}....tags go at the top. i really don't understand why you tend ignore style guides and go off on you own tangents. it's really frustrating. --emerson700:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Emerson is clearly not as experienced an editor as you, nor as educated in the theater...can you do something to block him? He's practically owning the Mr Sloane article and being very bullyish about it. 207.237.198.152 (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to The Seagull, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Or use a sandbox. 17 edits in a row where a couple could have done—have mercy! Btw, you're doing good work there. Regards, Alcmaeonid (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Theater stuff
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
To continue our discussion in a better place... I'm pretty sure that the R&J article covers way more than just Romeo and Juliet "as a play". I believe it covers it as a phenomenon as well as as a play. Saying that the text is one remove from the play is probably defensible, but not every scholar out there would agree. One could just as easily argue the other way around. I'm sure this is a hotly debated topic for the ages. In any case, I don't think an image has to be a theater image in order to be "legit" for the lead. Wrad (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
You were very nice to offer me guidance when I first start writing and editing, which is why I'm turning to you now. I added a great deal of information to Private Lives and User:Emerson7 keeps changing a lot of what I added, particularly the wikilinks in the Awards and nominations section. I started a discussion at [1] if you're interested in commenting. If I'm wrong in my understanding of how articles should be linked, please tell me! Thank you for your assistance. LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I was certain I was right re: the linking of award categories and appreciate your verifying that I was. Based on other messages I received, it appears Emerson7 has a history of starting edit wars. I hope I've crossed paths with him for the last time. Thanks again! LiteraryMaven (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There is currently a discussion going on regarding the project's policy on how information on characters should be represented in articles on Shakespeare's plays. Please take part by clicking Talk:Romeo and Juliet#Character Analysis. Further context, if needed, can be found by scanning the two previous talk sections on the page as well. Sent by §hepBot (Disable) at 04:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC) per request of Wrad (talk)
3RR
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Looks like Emerson7 is creating the same issues he created with the Entertaining Mr Sloane article, this time to the Same Time Next Year article. Please assist! Thanks207.237.228.71 (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
mis-translatation
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi DionysosProteus
I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so please forgive me if I'm not resolving a question/edit in the appropriate fashion. A few days ago, in reference to Verfremdungseffekt on the Brecht page, I changed the mis-translation to translation. The word translation already implies a bit of mediation. Translating the term as "alienation effect" may be contestable, but it is not plain wrong. It might be helpful to provide several translations, or say that the word is difficult to translate. However, the phrase "alienation effect," while questionable, still has currency. Why not let the page on Verfremdungseffekt disentangle this problem?
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. I've added Template:Book design back on to the Prologue page, and made an argument in favour of this at Talk:Prologue#Book_Design_template. The general gist of the argument is that I believe that the Prologue article is the right place for information about all prologues used in fiction, not drama alone. I've amended the page to reflect that, and given the Drama stuff its own section (and admittedly it takes most of the page). I was entirely unaware of its use in drama until I read the page; I was under the impression that it was one of those sections that you found at the start of some books, before the chapters started :).
Anyway, HTH. If you have any disagrements, please post them at Talk:Prologue#Book_Design_template; I'd also appreciate a message on my user page if you do this. :)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've been researching the Themes section of this article, and I have found that nearly all of the criticism centers on different aspects of theater. I'm not sure that I can do the section justice, since some of this is a bit over my head. If you could write a few sections about themes, that would be an important step in improving the article. Most of the stuff I've found centers around theater metaphor in the play and masques in Shakespeare's time. Wrad (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Ouch
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
What are you doing in my Sandbox? :) You caused an edit conflict on my Sandbox which nearly gave me a heart attack. Very sneaky...
I've been working on the global PageTabs template, which was working every time I sandboxed it, but wouldn't work in the live template. A right mess, with probably millions of people annoyed at me. But I think I've got the live one working properly now, with the ugly tall tabs issue fixed.
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
I thought the information regarding Theatre of the Oppressed in America was perfectly relevant. I have sources for each section. Why delete it?
Aaronprice23 (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Alright I'll put them in. I thought it was relevant because it was the first of his plays to make it to the U.S. Perhaps his lecturing at the Pedagogy isn't that notable, but would you agree that his play debuting in the states is?
Aaronprice23 (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I cited correctly but that is the link. If you see fit that it's a relevant accomplishment to include then keep it. Otherwise you can delete it. Thanks for the consideration. Regards!
Aaronprice23 (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Strindberg and Dionysos
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The picture you reverted is a rather unusual picture about Strindberg. We have it at the Swedish Wikipedia too. I think the same like User:Fastily, the image should stay.
There is room for that picture in the article. No, he is not a boy, but he is fairly young and is not identical to the next image, the next image is a dark portrait, while this one is a layed back bust. The standard picture about him is always the one with the hair pointing to the sky (the firts one). It is a bit boring to see always the same old picture everywhere. Why not a different one too?
Yes, I agree with Sólyomszem, that the image of Strindberg as a young adult should stay in the article, but, I also believe that you, DionysosProteus, also have a point. The image is certainly a bit redundant. So, to reach a medium, I have created a gallery for article: August Strindberg; it contains the 'redundant' image and keeps the image from being redundant in the text of the article itself. Hope this solves the problem! -Fastily (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Please explain your reasoning for reverting ASAD from the Drama School listing in the UK
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Dionysos Proteus
You removed the addition of "The Academy of The Science of Acting and Directing" to the British Schools Title under the heading of "Drama/Acting Schools" in the Wikipedia "Drama School" Section.
Please explain the reason for this or acknowledge that I may reinstate it.
The website (http://www.asad.org.uk/) was added just as every other entry (even though the section has yet to be created) and if you research ASAD you will find that it has been recognised as a Drama School in London since it was established in 1991.
The Academy of The Science of Acting and Directing (previously registered as The School of The Science of Acting) has many times been featured in "The Stage", several graduates who trained at ASAD are known in the proffesion, such as Eddie Marsan, Philip Bulcock and David Bark-Jones (listed on the IMDB website).
The founder and former principal "Sam Kogan" trained under Professor Maria Knebel at the Moscow Institute of Theatre Arts (1966 to 1971) who herself was a former student and colleague of Constantin Stanislavski.
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It is generally frowned on to use automated tools to carry on an edit war, and to mark edits as being vandalism when they're simply disputed. I would suggest you not do that again.
References belong close to the thing they're referring to. By moving the citation to the end of the sentence, you not only distance it from the actual item reffered to, you butt it up against another, completely unrelated reference. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c23:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Gas Heart
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. First of all, let me thank you for the expansion and the necessary corrections. I must say I disliked that you plowed through the existing text and replaced the entire reference system when the one used was clear enough; I also have to object to you removing the redlinks on people who are either notable or are alreadly redlinked in other articles (for the former category, I think you decided without having a clearwer perspective - while I started this article after expanding Tristan Tzara, and could make a good case for creating all those articles ("building the web", that is); for the latter, please talk it over in those relevant articles before you remove the links, otherwise you're hindering the "build the web" process). What I did as a consequence was to adapt both versions into a new one - the only tidbit I removed was an utterly superfluous and quite trivial reference for the Serin muet - it matters not to this article where and how it was published in some American edition or another.
Concerning the titles. I have a full understanding of how the titles should be rendered. I originally used the French title not because of some anti-Anglophone chauvinism or snobbery, but because, the last time I checked, works with several titles or no valid English translation should preferably point to the original title. In this case, it is also worthy noting (as you have consistently refused to or some mysterious reason) that English-language sources may themselves prefer the original title. It is the case of the quote we're discussing, which is not in French (did I emphasize this enough?). I may have been wrong and I may have been right about the title of the article - in either case, I did not and do not object to it being moved to one of the two working English titles. What I did object to was that this was done in intimacy, without the courtesy of asking for my input, and quite sloppy (I had to fix the redirects by hand, one by one, and the whole issue of the quote seems to indicate that you were not reading the text you were "correcting"). What's more, the "use English" rule refers primarily to article titles, not to quotes (which we should never paraphrase within the quote marks), and does not discourage us from indicating the original titles of concepts that are obscure or have not made it/will not make it/cannot make it into separate articles (as is the case of the "Bearded Heart").
Three more issues. The notability criterion, which you applied to newer productions of the play, is questionable. I do not edit wikipedia to promote Broadway or off-Broadway plays, I rely on sources to tell me about them and their [relative] importance. They are there because the sources mentioned them. Does it ultimately make sense to have them? I'd say yes, because The Gas Heart has had as few stage productions as for them to be all listed in the article without much trouble. I'm not saying we should list them all, but the ones dealt with by reliable sources can certainly make it in the article, and this would be the relative importance I was referring to. As for the Gas-Operated variant: the info is trivial. You may find references to this by typing the name on the google book search. It yields some 20 separate results, where it appears to be the only translation for that title. I find the "citation needed" tag rather counterproductive. That's because it would require a citation just for that, and because the sources that do mention it aren't used elsewhere in the text - they could, but they're only available to me as snippets of snippets - I for one discourage users from using sources that they haven't really read, especially when those sources mention the relevant subject in places other than those available for viewing (like using only one citation from the Gospel in the article about Jesus, and doing so to verify that he wore sandals). Also, in its context, asking a citation for such basic facts would create an absurd precedent. Ponder: "Washington, D.C. (/ˈwɒʃɪŋtənˌdiːˈsiː/; formally, the District of Columbia and commonly referred to as Washington, the District, or simply D.C.) is the capital of the United States[citation needed]". And, if anything, we don't add citation needed tags within a citation... Finally, concerning the main issue I take with your infobox version: Dada is not a genre, it is a movement; as such, it can tackle many genres, and, when it comes to The Gas Heart, those genres, sources say, are parody and musical theater (though I'll admit it takes liberties with any established genre, the infobox asks for them and I comply). Should the infobox be redesigned to include literary styles? Probably, but if you think I'm about to start taking an interest in such details, for a box I almost never used, and when this would affect thousands of articles I never read (some of them listed as FAs and GAs), I say don't hold your breath. But feel free to do so yourself.
Hope you see it would have done as a lot of good if, instead of lecturing me on things I already know and plowing through a text whose main fault was being mediocre, you were to engage me about my rationale. Dahn (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You do not know what you are talking about. I am a registered user and began that page and watch it closely to keep it from being vandalised, and edited in a malicious way as you seem to be doing.
The Administrators of Wikipedia are not idiots and can easily recognise someone trying to bully and threaten other editors just to have their way around Wikipedia guidelines for editing in good faith. You MUST gain consensus. Wikipedia defines silence as consensus. I was NOT silent. I reverted a portion of the lead that was added against consensus and without discussion, when you knew well how I felt about it's addition. My revert and the subsequent discussion I began may annoy you but it is how things are done on this site.
It is my opinion that you are attempting to further a blacklist against this theatre using wikipedia or in the very least trying to continue to label and define this theatre within the actions taken by a former employee that became controversial.
Further more your threat to have me banned for reverting and deleting a single section that you added without consensus and without discussing why you believe it to be important on the talk page while continuing to call me a vandal may be your own undoing.
Be advised that you take full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle. You must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies, or risk being blocked.
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. We don't use Easter egg links to film years in this way, so I removed them again. If you feel they serve an important purpose, maybe you can explain at Talk:Mike Leigh what that purpose is. Thanks. --John (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I've restored the links to the specific subject-area year articles, since such linking is considered appropriate when it offers relevant information--and the contextual cultural field within which a film or play was received is clearly a relevant context. The notion that a year link within a sentence about a film that goes to that year in film is an easter egg doesn't make any sense to me. DionysosProteus (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry you don't understand what an Easter egg is. Perhaps if you begin by reading our article on it and then the guideline which advises against this type of use, you will be in a better position to debate this. You might also follow my suggestion to raise this in talk; it is far from obvious to me what the benefit of these hidden links is, for example. --John (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Your splitting of this article into one for the play, and one for the film version, seems fine to me. I've gone ahead and updated the links from other articles (cf. Helen Levitt) that should now point to The Balcony (film). Cheers, Easchiff(talk) 22:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Hungry?
Jeffro77 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Disruptive behavior
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Because of our constant reverts of the article California Musical Theatre we have been edit warring over a single line of text. I added your contribution that I had previously reverted to the History section as a compromise. You may not have seen that as your last revert did not remove the line from that section. If this meets with your needs we could be down with this. If not, it has been suggested that the section on the Proposition 8 controversy may be to long for the article to begin with so, once protection ends I can edit that section down to a more reasonable space while still keeping the information intact.
I do not know you, so I cannot gauge how you will respond to a hand extended as a friendly gesture, but I do so by assuming good faith. I want to work with editors on articles that I watch. It is not my intention to own the article, but to be very careful about facts and how they are presented.
I want to give you some background about myself, I hope you will indulge me this much. As a gay man living in California I have participated in protests against Prop 8. I live near Sacramento so I am familiar with the theatre and the controversy. While it may seem that a person such as myself would be all for this article being defined in this manner....I am also aware of wikipedia's guidelines for editing information about a living person. This is a delicate thing. Sacramento, CMT and Wikipedia deserves an article about this company that is written fairly as well as acurately.
I dislike original research and have tried to keep all facts referenced on this article but, as you may know, finding articles about this theatre may be difficult online. However a quick trip to the Sacramento Library can locate several sources to expand this article. Something I have hesitated to do while we were at odds with each other. There are also a number of books that can be referenced as well that I am aware of but do not know their titles. As I gain more experience with wikipedia I have been returning to articles that I began to expand them. Unfortunately after November all hell broke out over this situation with both Eckern and the passing of Prop 8. In checking the article I was disgusted to see real vandalism by IP's just using it to get a good laugh and post rude comments. I dug my heels in and have tried my best to make sure the information was added correctly with proper citations.
I invited members from Project theatre to help expand the article about the theatre so that IP editors who may be angry over the controversy would know it was an actively edited article. Please understand that one thing is indisputable, these are the actions of one man, Scott Eckern, who did this on his own time and without the theatre companies knowledge. I find it inappropriate to add the information for that reason. The theatre company did not participate in the donation. That would be important and would warrant a mention in the lead. As Mr. Scott Eckern is no longer working with CMT is seems a stretch to me to mention it in the lead of an article about the theatre itself. I hope I have expressed myself well enough. Please feel free to reply on my talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I really want to work through this WITH you so...
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You are as stubborn as I am. I have to admire that. So I invite you personally to play in my sandbox. Until protection is lifted, lets work together to come to a compromise or.....even better, a true consensus among the two of us. I have begun working on the article in my sandbox and welcome you to participate in helping to find a way for us to work as a team on this article. I have to believe it is possible. Please see User:Amadscientist/sandbox1--Amadscientist (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
Dionysos, you have the British version of the OED, right? Do you mind scanning the relevant page so we could look at it? Do you mind stating which edition you are using, ISBN, year of publishing, etc.? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
EDIT: I just realized - it turns out my library has copies of both the 1989 Oxford English and 2001 New Oxford American dictionaries. (I didn't know the American library would carry a copy of the British version)
The usage guide of the American dictionary at the front of the page says that the preferred word is the first one listed. The same with the British one. The page number this is stated in the American one is xx and the text reads "The main form of each word given in the New Oxford American Dictionary is always the standard American spelling. If there is a standard variant, e.g., a standard British spelling variant, this is indicated at the top of the entry and is cross-referred if its alphabetical position is more than five entries distant from the main entry."
The American one lists theater first (on 1757). The word is defined as "a building or outdoor area in which plays and other dramatic performances are given." In page 1973 of the edition it also describes "theater" as American spelling and "theatre" as British. - The text states "American English often has more regular spellings, for example the user of -er and --re in words such as theater (Brit. theatre),"
The British one lists theatre first. It notes that the "theater" spelling was retained or reintroduced. Page 881 of Su-Thrivingly states "theater was dropped in Britain, but has been retained or (?) revived in U.S."
The Oxford English Dictionary Volume XVII Su-Thrivingly 1989 is ISBN0-19-861229-X - The whole set is ISBN 0-19-861186.
The New Oxford American Dictionary is ISBN0-19-511227-X - I have some photos too, so if you want some feel free to ask.
So, do you feel that I got the right documentation to say that theater is the preferred U.S. spelling? If not, what would I need to find?
WhisperToMe (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Minos Volanakis, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Minos Volanakis seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Minos Volanakis, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure, give me a second and I will remove it for you. I've seen your edits and feel comfortable doing this. Enjoy... ttonyb1 (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, DP. While copy-editing, I noticed the voluminous and largely irrelevant POV stuff on 'American racial melodrama'. Resolving to discuss its removal, I first checked the history and noted that you had reverted a previous (imho very intelligent) deletion edit, suggesting that improvement was preferable to deletion. That was on 6 December last, and I note that (a) you have not yet discussed your ideas with fellow editors on the talk page; and (b) you seem not to have contributed anything yourself to improve the article or develop any proper relevance for it. I can't agree that deletion of verbose and/or irrelevant matter is inappropriate merely because there are some source citations. So, what are your thoughts on this now? Do you favour an open discussion on this? Not being an American, I may be failing to see the purported mportance of 'black melodrama', so I won't die in a ditch over it. However, the content seems to me very unhelpful and a poor advert for Wikipedia. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 07:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
David Edgar
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I notice you altered the infobox in David Edgar, which is fine of course. I just thought that if you are interested in that sort of thing you might like to know I based his on the one I copied from Trevor Nunn. I will be adding more to Edgar in due course; something on his politics, critical response, a more complete bibliography, if you have any suggestions please don't hesitate to be bold because theatre is not my area of expertise. Cottonshirt (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your welcome and for your response! "loanword used to categorise words that have been adopted without translation into English" Yes I’d read it, before my latest additives about, but English-drama=Greek-drama, so for me, it seems that the term adopted without translation into English! Anyway, because I don’t apprehend totally... when a word is loanword or not, and because my English knowledge aren’t as yours, please if you have the time… please check my recent contributions and do your rectifications on my additives about the loanword category if aren’t right. And... "Dionysos-Proteus", awesome "name" ;) Kind regards and thanks again, 13alexander (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The Entertainer (disambiguation)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I just wanted to say thanks for your work here! Among other things you almost singlehandedly achieved complete coverage of all Brecht plays -- still lacking on German Wikipedia, BTW. --Pjacobi (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, Stub tags go at the end, after everything except possibly inter-wiki links - see WP:STUB. In Ian Brown (director) you seem to have moved them up the article with no explanation. I've moved them back to the end. PamD (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Vishnevsky
As per the WP:RUS recommendations, you are welcome to demonstrate on the article's talk page which variant is the most common in English and then move the article accordingly. I, however, wouldn't say that the "Alexander" form (which is the one anglicized, as opposed to "Aleksandr", which is romanized) is not used in English for this person at all—a simple catalog search would confirm the contrary.
In any case, if/when you move the article, please make sure that the disambiguation is done by the patronymic, not by the occupation, regardless of the spelling choice for the first name. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:26, April 27, 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Linguistics. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —Angr14:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, sorry to intrude here (I'm "Supriyya" from the linguistics talk page), but I don't know how to send private messages on wikipedia. Could you please e-mail me or leave your e-mail address for me here to get in touch with you? My e-mail id is supriyya AT gmail.com. Thanks! (Supriya) 122.162.169.39 (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Complaint on the Linguistics Problem
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I've registered a complaint against the specific admins on the community page to 1. Jimmy Wales, 2. the Help Desk, 3. the Arbitration Committee. Do participate in this if you feel there's anything you wish to contribute to resolve this issue. Thanks, Supriya. 122.162.199.27 (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dionysos, do you have a digital camera? Is Heathrow Airport convenient? If so, would you mind taking a photograph of the British Airways headquarters and putting it on Commons so it can be used on Wikipedia? Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Sophocles GAR notice
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, concerning the article about Brecht's Baal: In the introduction it says the play is set in Berlin's underground, later on that it's Augsburg and surroundings. The two places are quite distinct? Which one is it?
217.233.26.153 (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Re this, if you took a minute to figure out what disambiguation pages are, you would realize that it is proper to list, at the character disambiguation page, articles about items that may be referred to as "character". This is evidently the case in Persona, which is made clear not only in the article lead, but also if you consult the OED under the very meaning 1. of the entry persona, "An assumed character or role, esp. one adopted by an author in his or her writing, or by a performer."
As regard this edit summary, I have no comment other than that I marvel that I can still muster the patience to point out something as trivial to somebody who self-identifies as having university degrees in drama. --dab(𒁳)14:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Watch out for this guy-- he's either a troll or severely POV. He had some interesting ways of proving that Henry Louis Gates is not descended from some noble ancestor of his. I think the article needs more sources, but nothing is going to convince him or get him to lay off. Good luck, my friend. Arxack (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I was working from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books), which say differently. It's great that there are so many different conventions to choose from :) I think in this case since there are two plays, a book and a short story all with the same title, it is appropriate to put the type of work in the title for each, but feel free to move the plays back if you wish. The Stephen Fry novel I would prefer to stay at The Liar (novel) though. Cheers — sjorford++16:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Hmm, FYI, it seems that EraserGirl has taken it upon herself to recategorize all of the articles in the "Category:Plays for one performer" as "Category:Monodrama", a category which she herself created and which is unparented. She deleted the category "Plays for one performer" in all of them, and replaced it with the new category. I've just now replaced the original category in most all instances, but have not deleted the new category Monodrama in any of them. Any other action necessary or advisable? Softlavender (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I'll let those of you who want to hash out the definition of Monodrama decide on any future course of action. I have noticed in my recent efforts (at least) one infobox where a one-person play (Underneath the Lintel) was ascribed the genre "Monodrama." I do have one more question, though -- what category do we give plays which may have only been ever performed by one actor, and no others? I'm not sure, but I think Merely Players and Me And Bessie may fit into this category. Right now they have the cat "Monodrama", and I didn't re-add "Plays for one performer" because I'm not sure of the fit if it has only been a showcase for the originator. Should those be listed in the "Category:Plays for one performer"? I suppose something like Jackman's "The Boy from Oz" would fit this situation.Softlavender (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Alexander (sic!) Ostrovsky by Marjorie L. Hoover. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1981. 155 p. is the only book on him I know of. Btw, I've just created Without Dowry (That's how I came to notice typo), if you plan on creating article on play, I better move it to Without Dowry (film) right now. Henry Merrivale (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Russian is my parents' tongue, please don't hesitate to ask if you ever need any translation help. Таланты и поклонники (1881) is what you looking for. It has ru wiki page ru:Таланты и поклонники (пьеса) where the first performance date is given as 1881 and publication date as 1882.
Oddball -ks transliteration is annoying as Aleksandr Ostrovsky inevitably appears together with Alexander II and Alexander III not to mention Alexander Yuzhin. I'd recommend reverting to normal spelling. As for your question on Ostrovsky's titles and dates, see McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia v. 4 pp. 55-66 online - a full list of plays with original titles and timeline of premiere shows... and yet another instance of ks. NVO (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello DionysosProteus! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 400 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Welcome to the latest WikiProject Theatre newsletter (the first in quite a while!) bringing you news of what's going on in the project, what progress we're making, and how you can get involved.
Latest News
All theatre articles currently tagged with a project banner have now been assessed for quality. There are still plenty to assess for importance, though - see the article assessment page for details.
There is now a News section on the main project page, updated automatically to keep us informed of developments in theatre articles.
Collaboration of the Month
Theatre has been nominated as the next project collaboration. This could be an excellent opportunity to improve the quality of one of our most important articles - listed as one of Wikipedia's top 1000 most vital articles - but it needs a lot of work before it can be considered for even good article nomination!
Stop by the collaboration page for tips on how to improve an article, to add your support, or to suggest alternative or future collaborations.
Jobs you can do
Any and all improvements to theatre-related articles will help the project, but if you're looking for something to do, have a look at the to-do list. Some current areas of priority are:
If you are currently working on a particular topic or area of the project, and would like to muster some support from other editors, feel free to add tasks to the to-do list. Or even think about setting up an informal working group - create a project subpage to organise tasks in a central location. Remember you can always discuss ideas with others at the project talk page.
If you've been editing a theatre-related article recently and noticed another user helping you who also appears to have an interest for the subject of theatre, why not drop them a line and invite them over to the project?
And finally...
Don't forget to add the {{User WPTheatre}} userbox to your userpage, and {{WikiProject Theatre}} banner to article talk pages to spread the word about the project!
You have received this newsletter because your name is on the list of Members on the WikiProject page. If this information is out of date and you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name from the list, or click here to stop receiving it. If you have any news or announcements to be broadcast, do let us know on the talk page.
Saint Genet
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I and a couple of friends will be working on the Saint Genet Article over the next couple of months. I am reading the French version, another is reading the English version. We are going to get some solid cites directly from the book and from some accepted commentators on the work. Hopefully we can synthesize it into an objective, well-written article, but it will take some time and it should still be considered a stub.
I am the Botendaddy22:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
April 2010
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Julius Caesar (play), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Spitfire19 (Talk) 14:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:MachinalProgrammeLoRes.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).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There are no fixed guidelines on the maximum resolution fair use images can have. But the rules say, it should be of a lesser resolution than of the original, reduced to such an extend that it cannot be used for commercial purposes. Also, the image should only have sufficient resolution to describe the purpose of use and not any more. So the resolution depends on the content of the image, but for simple images like File:MachinalProgrammeLoRes.jpg, you only need images with the height and width not exceeding 350 pixels. You may refer to the Purpose of use section on the fair use template of your image and if the new image does not satisfy the criteria, you can revert the image back to the original giving the reason in the description field. --Sreejith K (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Rene Girard
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
I will continue to remove the unsourced contentious material from the Rene Girard article as often as neccesary. According to WP:GRAPEVINE such removals do not constitute 3RR violations. If you continue to reinsert the material in contravention of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:3RR, and WP:BLP, you will be blocked. Eugene (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:CatilineTragedy.jpg
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:CatilineTragedy.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Alas, this image from a 1692 folio edition would have been free public-domain content even if it had been published 230 years later, but no intelligent human eyes seem to have overseen the deletion process and caught on that it wasn't within 200 years of being copyrightable, so it is now gone. Wareh (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I've listed it at WP:UND. If you have any more 2D image contributions old enough to be PD (anything published by 1922), please use {{PD-art}} as the licensing information. Cheers, Wareh (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
DionysosProteus, Robertgreer, John Thaxter
I'm writing to three of you, selected from the list of members of the WikiProject Theatre
I'm fairly active at Requests for feedback, where brand-new editors often submit their first drafts of an article. We struggle to keep up with the requests, but our advice is usually rather basic - explain how to do references, and why their subject matter isn't notable. Every once in a while, we get someone who wants a quality assessment of an article. Frankly, that isn't something the regular participants tat that forum are equipped to do, plus most assessments, as I understand it, are done by Wikiprojects.
My request is two-fold, first, would one of you undertake an assessment of Charles Deburau (or help identify someone who can do such an assessment)?
Second, my impression is that the new editor user:Beebuk, is doing outstanding work, so I want to make you aware of his contributions, as the Wikiproject is in a far better position to nurture someone who I view as a positive contributor to the project. His current interests are rather specific, as you can see from his contributions, and while I can provide advice about Wikipedia related issues, it would be nice if someone more conversant with the subject matter could provide more insightful comments. I added a few suggestions at Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/2010_July_18#Charles_Deburau, but my lack of knowledge of the subject matter precludes me from helping beyond a superficial level.--SPhilbrickT01:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Dionysos, I will come to your defense on this one. You simply reverted the article back to what came out of consensus. While I totally agree that unsourced material be removed, the first step is to do a simple Google search to see if there is something to back it up. I see that Active Banana was granted "rollback rights" last week (July 26), and has been undoing lots of revisions since then, but he or she isn't yet an administrator, and has no power to block you. Let me know if you run into any trouble. Mandsford16:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Stub or start
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Good evening DP. I noticed the comment you left on User:Sadads talk page and I wanted to let you know I responded to your comments. I do not agree with your opinion that just cause an article has a couple of sources it is a start class. As I stated on his talk page all of the Medal of Honor recipients have at least 3 sources, links to portals, infoboxes and the persondata tempalte...but they are still stubs even though they meet 3 out of 5 of the B class assessment criteria. The stub assessment has more to do with the amount of content on the article not counting the presence of sources or templates. --Kumioko (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Duration
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. I have to point out two things about your recent move of Duration to Duration (music) and creation of a disambiguation page at the old title:
There was already a disambiguation page at Duration (disambiguation); we don't need two on the same term, so I have merged the two pages.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there ... I remember the really nice work you did on the Systems of scansion article a while back, and there is a new article Scansion which has been created recently by User:Phil wink, which I am about to start working through & would appreceiate any help you could offer. The article was worked om for a month or so in a user subpage and has been posted as a block. User:Phil wink has asked for assistance, and I feel that there is quite a lot of work to do in terms of adjusting the style / flow / voice of the piece. Hope you can help out a bit! Stumps (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Tragedy entry - collective nouns
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You are wrong to argue that it should not be 'has analysed.' The sentence reads: "A long line of philosophers—which includes Plato, Aristotle, Saint Augustine, Voltaire, Hume, Diderot, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Freud, Benjamin, Camus, Lacan and Deleuze—have analysed, speculated upon and criticised the tragic form." The subject of the sentence is the word 'line of philosophers,' which is singular - why else have you written: 'includes' instead of 'include'? The mistake that has been made is that by the end of the long line, you have forgotten what it is to which 'have analysed' refers. The sentence must read: 'has analysed' to agree in number with the subject and the singular verb 'includes.' Bossrat (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Jacques Derrida
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
DionysosProteus: as requested, please review WP:TALK. The following parts of it are especially relevant here:
"Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page."
"Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed."
"Never use headings to attack other users: While NPA and AGF apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. Since edit summaries and edit histories aren't normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period, even though edit histories are excluded from search engines."
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that recently you carried out a copy and paste page move from Non-Aristotelian Drama. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself using the move link at the top of the page, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. • nancy • 16:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:JoeOrtonBiographyFilm.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
10:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 13:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on template:Brecht plays. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. emerson7 | Talk 13:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
