Soupy123456789

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Soupy123456789! I am Calaka and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Calaka (talk) 03:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mundo Overloadus

The article Mundo Overloadus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Cited sources do not support notability of subject, and web search reveals nothing further to support it

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JohnInDC (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nothing Lasts Forever Anymore

The article Nothing Lasts Forever Anymore has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject fails to meet the notability requirements set forth at Wikipedia:Notability (books)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JohnInDC (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest?

Both you and Michael Lederer are described as American-born writers living in Berlin. I am sure there is more than one such person in Berlin, but the commonality raises the question, are you Michael Lederer? And if not, do you have any association with him? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Michael Lederer

The article Michael Lederer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject fails to meet the notability requirements set forth at Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JohnInDC (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Michael Lederer

An article that you have been involved in editing, Michael Lederer, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Lederer. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

And if you have questions about how to comment on that page, please let me know. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Your sources on Michael Lederer

Amy - you appear to have a collection of materials about Lederer that don't appear in any other places, like old newspaper reviews from far flung places - and it seems to be growing as well, for example that list of plays in which he appeared and his roles in them. Is this all coming from Michael Lederer himself? How much of it is documented, and how much is simple recollection? You probably should go review the Wikipedia pages on reliable sources and original research to figure out how much of what you're wanting to include in these articles is appropriate. JohnInDC (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

JohninDC - The deletion notice seen above asks one to "Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised." That is what I have done. Should I have not responded to that by adding additional info? In my earlier comments I asked for your help as to how to submit reliable, secondary source material to this discussion that is not available online (precisely such as newspaper articles from the 80s that are not yet archived digitally). If you are interested in helping me verify the facts I've given (and obviously you know a lot more about Wikipedia than I do - I am only a newcomer) then please, you or someone else tell me how I can submit the material to which I have referred (e.g., The Evening Standard from London 1989, other articles from Hong Kong that same year, still other articles from San Francisco and San Jose throughout the 80s, and so on. Or are we now so ensconced in our Cyberworld that only online verification is deemed valid, and published sources are irrelevant? If that's true, maybe it's time we put libraries to other uses, or wait until Google gets every relevant scrap digitalized before we resort to citing old fashioned archives, though that seemed to work for years.) Instead of trying to help me, JohninDC, you question the existence of articles I cite while at the same time denigrating them as being "from far flung places," a fact I believe demonstrates Lederer is of broad interest not only in one place but in many: San Francisco, Hong Kong, London, New York. I don't know what your motivation is. As one commencing a Ph.D. thesis on comparative media studies, in the last year I have indeed been compiling material on a group of expatriate writers and artists who live and work in Berlin (American, Russian, Italian, Turkish). Like Paris in the years after the first World War, Berlin after the Cold War is at a critical juncture, not only politically but also aesthetically and philosophically. While Wikipedia guidelines state no original research, it is virtually impossible for any writer of any article to do so without an interest in their subject(s), and without some knowledge that they themselves have acquired. Otherwise experts are to be discouraged, rather than encouraged, to contribute. I am not relying on my opinions, or on original research, but on reliable, secondary documents my research has produced, and I would greatly appreciate your help in telling me how I can submit that evidence to this discussion. Thank you. - Soupy123456789, 8 August 2010.

My principal concern is that you seem determined to shoehorn Lederer into Wikipedia based on your own personal assessment of his importance in the fields of literature, acting and playwriting rather than on any reliable third party sources. You cite to articles that can't be located, and - to my eyes - you substantially overstate their coverage when you describe them, for example characterizing coverage of his staged reading as "one of the literary highlights of 2010" when all I can find is a simple scheduling notice, or asserting that Lederer was instrumental in saving the Rose Theater when the article (as you describe it) says nothing of the kind and merely quotes him as someone who happened to be on site. A person is notable for Wikipedia purposes when reliable, third party sources *begin to treat him as such*, not when someone who (admittedly perhaps ahead of the pack), comes to the conclusion that one day the world will sit up and take notice of him. What you need to find are articles that feature Lederer as a *subject*, not an afterthought or in passing; or that review his works directly, and in depth. You may be entirely right that Lederer represents a new kind of artist, one for the 3d millennium, and that his book and play will one day be recognized for the seminal works that they are - but from everything you've written down, that day has not come yet, and your determination to convince me and others of the fact when no one else seems to have noticed it yet pretty well undermines the claim. Wikipedia is not a place for you to contribute what you have learned but instead a place for you to summarize what *others* have learned. (Have a look at WP:NOT.) Until you find third party sources that treat Lederer and his work in the manner that the notability guidelines require, I'm afraid you will be fighing a losing battle. (Or, as I've said before, I may be dead wrong about this - though I think not.)

As for citing these various articles - you can't scan them (copyright issues) but you could, I think, fairly describe what they purport to do, or what kind of coverage they give to the subject at hand (be it book, play or person). Maybe summarize them (length, conclusions, context) on the Talk page of the relevant article or something. It sounds like it's easy enough for you to lay hands on them. JohnInDC (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem - in my view - with off-line sources in this case is that you're having to rely on a whole series of them, incrementally, them to establish notability in the first place. It would be different if either there were one or two blockbuster items of coverage (cover of "Playwright Monthly" or some such) even if it were offline; or a series of lesser articles that were on line and available for review and evaluation. Here you have neither. If Wikipedia is to represent a credible source of things other people have already figured out, it can rely on some, but not a lot, of unreachable, unreviewable sources for its articles. JohnInDC (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• SOMEONE PLEASE HELP A NEWCOMER:

I'm sorry, but you are using language that sounds reasoned, at the same time as you are not only claiming, but doing, things that are not reasonable. For instance, today you took it on yourself to make such radical edits to the article about Lederer, that it now reads "Lederer co-founded of [sic] Safe Haven museum." And as you've rewritten it, you now have it say that Ivo Lederer was Michael Lederer's grandfather, not father. You are acting swiftly, and with a passion, even vehemence, that I cannot understand. You may have a great deal more experience at Wikipedia than I have, but unless I missunderstand the systerm that does not make you a Wikigod. It is you who proposed this article for deletion, which is fair enough. But you are not waiting for the process to unfold, so that others, not you, not me, can judge it for themselve,s objectively on its merits. What is the point of submitting it for arbitration if you are taking the chain saw to it before the powers-that-be weigh in? I ask you also, Wikipedia guidelines state "Please do not bite the newcomer." But you are biting indeed, and rather savagely. We have exchanged comments for nearly a week, and I believed that the article would stand until an objective review. Could you not wait for the arbitration that you yourself requested? In your rush to judgement, you are deleting and rewriting whole portions, and you are making many mistakes. By not conducting our back and forth on the discussion page, but by taking it live (and with that chainsaw) to the article itself, you do not allow me the polite chance to respond thoughtfully, and carefully. As I write this, for example, I am in transit responding from an airport lounge. The discussion page would allow this back and forth without such urgency. I will provide reliable documentary evidence to support every single word I have written, but I literally cannot do it "on the fly" like this.

As well as making errors in both grammar and facts as noted above, here are just two of other examples of the missclaims you have made. You write that: "I [JohninDC] removed, as implausible, the claim that he [Lederer] was an original member of of TheatreWorks (Silicon Valley), which was founded in 1970, when Lederer was 14." That is a polite way of calling it a lie, or at the least a mistake, on my part. The very first production by TheatreWorks in 1970 was Brecht's The Trial of Lucullus. Michael Lederer played Lucullus. TheatreWorks began that year as a youth workshop, then swiftly grew over the years into one of the most successful theatres in California. Again, this catches me in an airport lounge and I can't submit documents from here, but I can easily document ThearteWorks' leading position, and Lederer's leading role there over the years, once I get back to my home office. But however awkwardly, from this airport, just to prove how far TheatreWorks came from that earliest day with Lederer on its houthful stage, and through his many leading adult roles throughout the 80s as that theatre grew, here is a YouTube video of this year's Tony Award ceremony with the winner for Best Musical thanking TheatreWorks directly, since it is where the show Memphis began: http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1452266302571&ref=share . Long after his role, as described, as "an origianl member of TheatreWorks", Lederer went on to play Cyrano in Cyrano de Bergerac there in 1983, and so many other leading roles - but now to find any mention of those others will have to look at an earlier version of the article, because rather than wait for supporting evidence (see my note above), you just took it on yourself to cut out mention of them.

You also state, with a full voice, that you removed from the article about Lederer any reference to the 2001 film Haven, "finding no mention of it." This is another example of why, JohninDC, you should let others cross-check facts in the article rather than taking it on yourself to single handedly decide what should stay in (nothing, according to you) and what should be jettisoned (everything, according to you, starting now and not later after some inconcenient review): Here are several reliable, documented, indisputable references to the fact that the 2001 film Haven indeed chronicles the story of a band of 982 Jewish refugees that included Michael Lederer's father and grandparents, and the fact that that same film told the story of the only such group of Jews admitted into the US from Europe during WW II. Michael Lederer later co-founded the Safe Haven museum and helps guide it as a member of their board, and it is not for you, but for an objective review to decide whether that is to be considered "notable." Here are just a few citations to dispute your claim that the film Haven is not to be found, and / or has nothing to do with the museum Lederer co-founded:

Here is the New York Times obituary for Michael Lederer's father, confirming that he was a member of that small group of refugees intgerred at Oswego: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/25/world/ivo-john-lederer-a-scholar-of-eastern-europe-is-dead-at-68.html Please read the article, JohninDC, and see the mention of Michael Lederer as writer and editor. You might believe such a mention in such a context is not notable, but why not leave it to others at Wikipedia to decide that for themselves?

Here is the website for the museum:http://www.oswegohaven.org/ (Go ahead and click on the Voices link on that site, and listen to the interview with Lederer's father, that might interest you since you seem so intrigued by the subject.)

Here is the Wikipedia article for Ruth Gruber, the woman who led those refugees from Europe to Oswego, and who is the basis for the main character in the film Haven, played by Natasha Richardson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Gruber (I had no hand in writing this article, so please, JohninDC, don't brutalize it. That fine woman deserves every word written by others.

Here is a Charlie Rose interview with Ruth Gruber about the film Haven:http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/3262

Here is the Amazon.com description of the DVD of the film Haven that they sell:

Here is the IMDB site describing the movie, and the fact that it is about the story told by Safe Haven museum: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0250862/

And finally (my flight will board soon, and this is all I can manage from here) here is the Barnes and Noble site where the film is sold, with an accompanying description of the film (just click here and read it for yourself, lest you might believe I'm inventing the description): http://video.barnesandnoble.com/DVD/Haven/Natasha-Richardson/e/786936301267

The Barnes & Noble description (please read it yourself on their website, I won't ask you to take one word I say as worthy):

"Editorial Reviews

An American journalist takes on the dangerous responsibility of rescuing nearly a thousand refugees from a Nazi concentration camp in this two-part made-for-TV movie based on a true story. In the early days of America's involvement in World War II, Ruth Gruber (Natasha Richardson) is a reporter who has been giving particular attention to a recent story: President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in violation of United States policies of the day, has announced he will grant asylum in America to 982 European refugees from Nazi labor camps. But someone needs to escort the prisoners to the U.S.; Gruber, of European ancestry and Jewish faith, volunteers for the assignment over the objections of her parents (Anne Bancroft and Martin Landau). Gruber travels to Italy on behalf of Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes (Hal Holbrook), where she helps the refugees board the U.S.S. Henry Gibbins. But Gruber discovers that the American sailors manning the ship regard their passengers as little better than their Nazi jailers, and the State Department declares, upon their arrival in the United States, that all the refugees are to be housed in a camp in Oswego, NY -- even those who have families willing to sponsor them in America. Gruber realizes her work with the refugees is far from done, and she bravely battles against both bureaucracy and prejudice to win both dignity and fair treatment for the new settlers. Haven was originally broadcast on the CBS television network on February 11 and 14, 2001. Mark Deming, All Movie Guide"

If experience instructs me, I think it is more likely that you will now question how or why I provide the above proofs, rather than admit that you made a mistake in writing that you "could find no mention" of this film. There are many other sources to be found that you have missed. I will also add, as soon as I can, other details of Lederer's biography. The discussion page is the place for such Q&A, and not after-the-fact arguments when serious edits have already been made in haste. I will be be willing and (now) happy to seek and provide ample evidence of Lederer's connection to Haven / Safe Haven museum, but I simply cannot do it now from this airport lounge. It is not fair of you to force me do this, by taking it off the more polite venue of the discussion page. This began as a civil exchange, but on your side this is really not a discussion now, it is an attack. This newcomer wants to ask whoever reads this: is Wikipedia a one man operation, and that man's name is JohninDC ??

In the next day or so I will reinstate parts of this and other articles that you have cut away, and offer what evidence I can while traveling as I am. In the meantime, why don't you please wait and let the process that you yourself intitiated unfold? Let others decide. You accuse me of "personal assessments" and - what did you write (I'm too blearly eyed to find it now) something about "bloviating" or something along those lines? You have made rash judgements, executed swift cuts carelessly, and without due regard for the process. Your own personal assessments you take to be fact. My next step, other than to do as I write above, will be to make an appeal to wiser Wikipedians than I (or you) regarding a process I see as far from reasoned. - Soupy123456789, 8 August 2010

Thanks for pointing out the copyedit errors in my edits to Michael Lederer. I've fixed them. I'm sorry too to have missed the references to Haven. I searched several sources for it but didn't find it, and remain a bit surprised that the movie isn't mentioned in the Hal Holbrook page - I see it now for Anne Bancroft under "television movies". Editing Wikipedia is of course an iterative process and pointing out errors like that (because even the most well-intentioned can make errors) is part of the process. I am happy to admit that I made a mistake in finding references to the film, but I am still not certain what the movie - which is about Lederer's father's experiences - has to do with Michael Lederer's own life or notability or that it is appropriately included in an article about the son. Notability is not inherited or transitive, and the Lederer's reasons for founding the museum are well enough covered in the article as it now stands.

I asked you at the outset not to take my comments and edits personally, and I'm sorry that you have. I will admit that these exchanges are becoming a bit frustrating, as I try to explain - without much success - basic Wikipedia concepts of, e.g., notability, reliable sourcing, original research. I would simply reiterate my suggestion that you review those pertinent pages, WP:notability, WP:reliable sources, and WP:original research, to try to learn how the encyclopedia works. Your arguments in favor of the article will meet with greater success if they are made within those frameworks. In the meantime you are welcome to reinstate parts of the article that I removed which are pertinent and reasonably sourced, but if they are not they remain at risk of being removed again. JohnInDC (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Also - I suppose I should make the implicit explicit - when you add material to an article that is already too thinly sourced, pin down the source *before* you add the information. It does not improve the article, or persuade any other editor of the article's merit, to add facts that come in without any sort of sourcing. And if you can't supply a source (e.g. for any of the reasons we've been discussing) then at the very least acknowledge the issue on the article's talk page, explaining why what you are doing makes sense. It won't conform the edits to policy, but at least it will indicate that you are aware of the policies, and other editors may be more likely to let the material stand while you set out to shore it up with the necessary sourcing. Maybe you can't find a source for your precise point but you can find one that is at least in the right general area - for example, Theaterworks has a web page showing all the productions it ever put on, right here. There's also a Wikipedia article on the subject, List_of_TheatreWorks_(Silicon_Valley)_Productions. Both those articles are at least consistent with your claims about Lederer's roles - at least, the right plays were playing in the years you identified. (Except The Trial of Lucullus, which entirely escapes mention.) Citing to something like that on the article Talk page would *help*, even if the sources don't support the specific claim you're setting forth. Likewise, explaining, *first*, how Lederer could be an original member of a theater group at age 14 (which you must admit seems a bit of a stretch without anything explanatory offered in support of it) would likewise be helpful.

Do you see the problem? When this article suddenly presents, for example, a list of very specific roles played by Michael Lederer in particular productions, without even a nod to the problem presented by the addition of such specific material without any source, the begins to look dangerously like original research. This is particularly so when the subject at hand involves one's own PhD thesis, an undertaking which typically involves original research! It is not up to others to find sources for material you are adding, particularly to an article that's the subject of dispute such as this one is. That task is up to you. Experienced editors, me included, will be only happy to help you put articles together, in keeping with pertinent guidelines, etc., but you need to appear as though you're trying to learn the ropes. Again I'm sorry that we're off on the wrong foot and I hope you take these comments in the spirit in which they're offered. JohnInDC (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've asked some other editors to help

Amy - since we seem to be talking past each other, I've asked some other experienced editors to come and have a look at our conversation. You can see my request at this link. JohnInDC (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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 (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Thank you! --Soupy123456789 (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Nothing Lasts Forever Anymore

I have nominated Nothing Lasts Forever Anymore, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nothing Lasts Forever Anymore. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JohnInDC (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Mundo Overloadus

I have nominated Mundo Overloadus, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nothing Lasts Forever Anymore. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JohnInDC (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The latest proposed deletions

Amy - I know it is frustrating for you to see articles you've spent time on being deleted, and recommended for deletion, so I just wanted to drop you a note to try to explain, a little bit, why all of this is happening. The very bottom line is that Wikipedia is not a place for new information or knowledge to be described or set out. It is instead intended as a useful compendium, a rephrasing, of all that is already known or described. (You may find the material at What Wikipedia is not to be helpful in that regard.) Because of this basic philosophical limitation, Wikipedia articles are, by policy, limited to subjects that have already been significantly researched, described or analyzed by others, and specifically, by others who are qualified in some fashion to undertake such reporting or thought. These are the essential underpinnings of the notability and reliable source requirements. Someone or something is, broadly, "notable" if he or she or it has been the subject of significant relialbe, third-party, independent analysis, reporting, etc. Conversely if a subject has escaped the notice of all reliable sources, then he, she or it is virtually by definition, "not notable". It is not up to any one or two, or 30 or 300 Wikipedia editors to deem a subject notable - they can't. Only attention from reliable sources can do it. And if that attention is lacking then no amount of discussion or debate is going to make a difference.

That was the essential problem with the Michael Lederer article, and it is the essential problem with his two works that I've nominated for deletion today. Michael Lederer will be notable when (multiple) reliable sources without a stake in his future begin to take notice of him and report on him. Likewise his book and play. So far all the reporting on those specific subjects is thin and collateral - simply too attenuated to do the trick. If you are right about him, then there is a good chance that others will notice him, or his works (they are different by the way for notability purposes) and he will achieve (if that is the right word) Wikipedia notability. In the meantime he and his work are not there yet.

I'm sorry, again, that we've butted heads on this and I hope that this explanation will do a little bit toward helping you see why I'm proceeding the way I am. Good luck and I hope you stick around Wikipedia. JohnInDC (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

John - I appreciate very much your comments above. Thank you both for the tone, and the explanation. I do not propose to question at this point your plan to delete the articles about Lederer's play Mundo Overloadus and also his book. As you know his play is on the verge of appearing in New York, and if it does garner meaningful attention I will re-propose it as an article. I contributed all three articles because I believed (and still do) that an encyclopedia is stronger, not weaker, for including as much well-written information as possible about as many subjects as possible, hence serving as a go-to place for info not always easily found elsewhere. I thought the key there was that it be "interesting," but apparantly missunderstood the mission. By the notablility standard you cite, I'm afraid Wikipedia will serve as a catalogue of info that is indeed easily found elsewhere. I was trying to make accessible info to be found in such disparate and hard-to-locate sources (i.e., that have not yet been digitalized) as Hong Kong's South China Morning Post, London's Evening Standard, a wide variety of SF Bay Area papers that chronicle the theatre scene there - also throughout the 80s - a French literary review, etc. This experience has taught me that Wikipedia is more main stream than that, which again I missunderstood. --Soupy123456789 (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it is conservative. It's an obvious adjective to apply but I hadn't done it before and will remember it the next time I'm explaining the place. You wouldn't suppose it, right off, would you? A new medium, a new way of compiling information - cutting edge *implies* edgy! But, no, it isn't. It's a very staid place. I am not sure why - I mean, I haven't looked much beyond the policies - but my sense is that the founders wanted Wikipedia to be reliable (within the limits of open editing), something that people could turn to, rather than a collection of opinions, predictions, anecdotes that it would be without clear rules. I dunno. But anyway this is where we find ourselves.

If the play is well-received then you should consider re-submitting it. Be - well, conservative in your effort. Wait a bit beyond one or two initial favorable reviews to ensure that attention it gets isn't just a flash-in-the-pan sort of thing. Plays come, plays go - and a few stay. I think the focus here would be on the ones that stay, and that's not going to be obvious right away. In the meantime, if you want to sharpen your skills and learn your way around the place, go have a look at Wikipedia:Requested articles. I've never undertaken to write an article off that list but if you find a subject that you can write about (with sources!) then the fact that someone has asked for it, and presumably vetted it initially for notability, will get you a good start. I bet there's something in there that you'd find interesting to write about. And if you do, let me know, and I'll help you put it together nicely (real life permitting!). JohnInDC (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Michael Lederer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Catalan, Princeton, Players Club, Oswego and Sir George Downing

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

BLP reminder

I've deleted some information you just (re)added to Michael Lederer because it's not supported by a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)