Jump to content

User talk:Gropen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gropen (talk | contribs) at 04:46, 23 October 2012 (←Created page with ' <!-- Template from Template:Welcomeg --> {| style="background-color:#ddcef2; padding:0;" cellpadding="0" |style="border:1px solid #000000; background-color:#ddc...'). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Hello, Gropen! Welcome to Wikipedia! We're so glad you're here! If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills, the sandbox is for you. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous
Welcome!

Hello, WickerGuy, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.

Frankenstein

Thanks for keeping an eye on those pesky student essays. I have left a couple of messages for the students asking them to identify their class -- this is an ongoing problem, and this is at least the third or fourth time it's happened, so I would really like to identify the school involved so we can contact the instructor and let him know this is an inappropriate way to use Wikipedia in the classroom. If you see more students pasting in their essays, how about adding requests to their talk pages too? Eventually one of them might respond. If anyone posts as an IP we might be able to figure it out from that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a couple of warnings on two student pages. There have already been a couple of IP postings in recent weeks. More details later. You're welcome.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Hamlet

Though I appreciate the length to which you went to accommodate the anonymous editor who is pleading for an Oxfordian section, which you then wrote, I felt, having spent/wasted a year of my life, like some others, reading through the literature, and editing with Oxfordians, that even a compromise there, unless it receives a consensus on the talk page, sets a very dangerous precedent which many agree might destabilize all Shakespearean articles, and render the whole field unworkable. As written, the paras did not touch on the extensive Oxfordian theorizing on Hamlet, but tended to simply highlight the names associated with them. Promotion by celebrity lists is part and parcel of Oxfordian advocacy, and, as written, looked very much like an advertisement, though I'm convinced this was certainly not what you had in mind. Shakespeare has a vast technical scholarship updated virtually daily, and even in wellworked articles, little of this is on show. They offer huge pleasure for editors, but, unfortunately, when this kind of material edges in, invariably deteriorate in POV wars, fringe theorizing, and huge talk page blogs that lead nowhere. Whatever, I admire your patience, and empathy with the anon, but suggest that as a rule, that this and other Shakespearean pages only accommodate what is one of a huge body of unorthodox and often far-fetched wildtheorizing when a consensus is reached after substantial discussion on the talk page, where anons and I/Ps etc, who usually push for this material's inclusion, should be invited to make their proposals. Apologies if this seems somewhat highhanded. I didn't intend it to be. Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Nishidani's suggestions, with the dissension that it wasn't time wasted that resulted in an article that achieved feature status and has been critically acclaimed in the media by academics knowledgeable on the subject (although at times it certainly felt like it). As in spiritual matters, going it alone in dealing with anti-Stratfordist advocates often leads to dangerous threats to one's sanity. Cheers, WickerGuy! Tom Reedy (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you do want Tom Reedy and Nishidani want you to do, you'll be fine! Just remember that many intelligent people do not agree with these two and they like to have their voices heard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Greedy (talk • contribs) 15:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reply here since I have messages from two editors rather than on your individual talk pages, though I'll alert you over there. I agree with everything both of you say wholeheartedly. My edit mainly was motivated by two things:
1) An actual inoculation against crazy Oxfordians. To inoculate against smallpox, you contract a minuscule amount of smallpox, which then wards it off. (Heavens, I always thought that was spelled "miniscule". Guess not.)
2) Since arguments specifically focused on Hamlet are a focus of Oxfordian thinking- I felt a brief sop within the article on the Dane might be justifiable.
Finally, some of the celebrities that Oxfordians claim for their side are bogus. It's actually debatable whether Orson Welles really was an Oxfordian. I had him in there, but then switched over to Gielgud. But Sigmund Freud definitely was an Oxfordian, and I think certainly the most interesting Oxfordian of them all, and again he focused on Hamlet!!! And I was very careful to note that Kenneth Branagh who has frequently directed and worked with Oxfordian Derek Jacobi is most assuredly NOT an Oxfordian, although you won't see that in their literature.
As an afterthought, you may have already noted in my posts on Talk:Hamlet that I watched over 4 years a series of productions by Carmel's PacRep (Pacific Repertory- Carmel, California) from 2001 to 2004 of the complete History cycle that were co-sponsored (i.e. funded) by the Edward DeVere Society. In return for the cash to fund all the plays, PacRep was required to distribute DeVere lit at all the performances. I've never been convinced, but got kind of intrigued by it all back then.
I had no idea there was an ongoing pattern of these folks were such pests on Wikipedia. The fact that they openly flout the rules, and openly declare WP's rules to be a front for an effort to "suppress truth" seems to weigh against them. I wonder if after dealing with our crowd, Sigmund Freud would change his mind :) !!--WickerGuy (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How did you like the Pacific Rep plays? I've heard they have a talented director (no irony intended). Tom Reedy (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite good, although the H6:1-3 plays were relegated to their smallest of their 3 theaters, which necessarily employs minimalist sets. I liked the way that R3 was played by someone who looked like Charles Laughton's Notre Dame hunchback- slightly unconventional. In other venues, just as the H4:1-2 have been condensed into a single evening, just so sometimes H6:1-3 are sometimes condensed into 2 evenings, but this didn't happen at Carmel. All the plays, pretty much in full.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the off chance that you haven't heard of it I wanted to make you both aware of the Canadian series Slings and Arrows. Although it is marketed as a comedy I found it to be a love letter to all those, on stage and off, who strive to bring us the bards works. It is available on DVD and is currently being rerun on Ovation (TV channel) on cable. It is probably available on the net somewhere as well. Of course, it may turn out that you dislike it in which case many apologies for taking up your time with it. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 22:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further to our interchange re the philosophy in Hamlet I am very curious to know your basis for thinking, as I wholeheartedly agree, that "Hamlet is in some ways reflective of the tension between Pico's point of view and Montaigne's" since I don't know of any literature to that effect.Pertin1x (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tis the season

MarnetteD | Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec11}} to your friends' talk pages.

Many thanks for all your work here at WikiP. May you have a superb 2012. MarnetteD | Talk 22:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the strawberries! I like the connection in my learning of having read almost everything that Richard Dawkins has written while having watched every episode of Dr Who that his wife, Lalla Ward, has been in - more than once to be honest. The fact that she has illustrated so many of his books is just another delight. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 23:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More thanks for the note about her doing the readings of his works. That is wonderful that you got to see the original broadcast but what a wait to find out what happened. It was made even longer as that story and The Dalek Masterplan were among the last novelizations written - they do have the benefit of not being limited word count wise the way most of the Target novels of the mid 80's were. I too own the book and remember that final chapter. I also own all the "missing episodes" on CD. They are like listening to a radio serial from the 40's or 50's and it is fun to add the use of my imagination in that fashion while listening to them. I remember Tom and Lalla getting married briefly as his time as the Doctor came to an end. As I listen to them discuss it on DVD commentaries it feels like it was a sort of psycho-drama that they couldn't stop but knew wouldn't work long term. Of course this is just my pop analysis and could be wide of the mark. I remember thinking, as I watched them in the story State of Decay, that I could see their affection spilling onto the screen - yet Lalla's DVD commentary intimates that they were at loggerheads during the filming. Ah well I've been hooked on the Dr since 1981 and was lucky enough to be involved with the Doctor Who Fan Club of America which was based here in Denver. They get a nice mention in Elisabeth Sladen's autobiography as they arranged the US tour that she and Jon Pertwee took in 1983. The new series is fascinating in how much more they are able to do with their storylines. Another wikieditor had a great line about Stephen Moffat "He does creepy better than just about anyone." It is nice that the wait to see new episodes has been reduced from years to months to days to hours and I am looking forward to the CS Lewis riff that we are getting on Sunday. Thanks again for sharing your experience. MarnetteD | Talk 23:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shows like Jekyll and Holmes are part of the reason I bought a region free DVD player so I wouldn't have to wait to see such interesting programs. Many of these shows wind up being cheaper to buy from Amazon UK, even with shipping, then they are from our Amazon. All of the missing Dr Who episodes have had their audio recovered from tapes that families made when they set up their reel to reel tape players and recorded then from the original broadcasts. The Beeb has added voiceover narration to fill in the action and it is usually done by an actor who performed in the series like Peter Purves, Anneke Wills and Frazier Hines. I think that is as close as we will get to experiencing the episodes (barring any more discoveries like this recent one Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Recovered episodes - hoax.3F) until someone invents a spaceship that can travel faster than television waves and speed out there in front of them and record them for all of us avid fans. It is also worth noting the involvement of Mark Gatiss in some of these projects. He is as big a Dr Who fan as anyone and his thin as a rake Mycroft is a hoot. He has come along way from the wonderfully warped "League of Gentlemen". MarnetteD | Talk 01:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops forgot to mention that the fun payoff - for me - in the "Curse of FD" is the fact that Joanna Lumley is the final regeneration which pays off the Tom Baker joke from his press conference announcing his leaving the series when he stated that he wished the actor who took over for him well "whoever he or she might be". That "Comic Relief" story came out on a VHS tape with a Dr Who skit by Lenny Henry and another one by French and Saunders. They are probably on YouTube somewhere if you are interested. MarnetteD | Talk 01:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All that info is great sadly my ignorance of DVD and computer workings still reigns supreme. I do appreciate the time you took to pass it on. I got my region free player three or four years ago and it cost about $70 bucks. It has allowed me to add more than a hundred programs to my Brit TV collection which aren't available over here. Some like "Tenko" and "When the Boat comes In" I had seen years ago and some like "The Beiderbecke Trilogy" I hadn't. The recent "Whitechapel" was interesting - though not quite as good as Jekyll or Holmes. MarnetteD | Talk 01:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time in adding all that info. I'll get a chance to look at it better next week as the next few days are busy ones! Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong

Stephen King knows better than to steal Bloch's old line, which he was using when Steve was still a fanboy writing LoCs to Forry Ackerman's Famous Monsters of Filmland. Read this 1994 essay by Peter David, among many others: "But I Digress" column by Peter David. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And from King's own website: "Steve doesn't take credit for that one although he's often mistaken for having been the author. He borrowed it from Robert Bloch". --Orange Mike | Talk 15:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bloch was a local boy who lived, went to school and worked in some of the same Milwaukee neighborhoods I haunt myself; and of course I've been reading him since I was a little shambler myself. I had the honor of talking to him a few times when he came back to town as guest of honor at our local science fiction convention some years back. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PB jr

Thanks. BTW, I'm not the only one. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppet_getting_waaay_out_of_hand. This is the second variant on my name. Tom Reedy has also been mutated into Tom Greedy and Tom Ready. Paul B (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's amusing in a way. If this editor could just restrain himself a little bit we might have a useful discussion, but unfortunately he knows next to nothing about the topic, but is absolutely fundamentalist in his beliefs. I've offered to discuss points on his talk page, be he wont take up the offer, and now he can't keep a talk page open for long enough! p.s. thanks for labelling me "the adamant Stratfordian". Paul B (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realised I never replied to your question about why so many lawyers are anti-Strats. I think there are several reasons for it. Initially I think, it was linked to the fact that Francis Bacon was the main alternative candidate - and Bacon was a lawyer. There were several attempts to prove that Shakespeare had specialist legal knowledge. However, it was a lawyer who first proposed Marlowe in 1895, and it's lawyers (and journalists) who have been most assiduous in promoting Oxford. I think it has to do with the practice for creating "alternative theories of the crime" in the Anglo-American adversarial system - a tendency to try to pick holes in evidence to undermine an apparently established case and to create a new model by weaving together evidence to overturn "convictions" as it were. My guess is that lawyers derive pleasure from undermining traditional accepted ideas about cultural tradition in the same way as they enjoy overturning convictions, or slipping evidence in or getting it excluded. I'm sure that many of them genuinely believe that these kinds of legal methods are applicable to cultural history and they can genuinely use their skills to overturn established ideas. It happens within the 'mainstream' too. Eric Sams wasn't a lawyer, but he had similar beliefs: that his forensic logic coming from outside literary academe would cut through tired old established ideas and create new paradigms. Paul B (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sams wasn't an anti-Strat, he was just an outsider (a code expert) who tried to change conventional ideas about what Shakespeare wrote - generally trying to add stuff to the canon - most notoriously arguing that the so-called Bad Quarto of Hamlet was actually a correctly printed alternate version of the play by Shakespeare. He was hated by many other Shakespeare scholars for his method of unrelenting argument. Adding Ed III was typical of him, but it's now quite a common view that it was an early play of which Shakespeare probably wrote at least some scenes. He was keen on Edmund Ironside too, but no one else is, as far as I know! Paul B (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your IMDb work

I just wanted to drop a note here about the little I know about IMDb. First off good work on getting those names straightened out. Don't despair about the one from a few days ago. I have had some entries there take weeks before they showed up. To me it feels like some of their checkers are conscientious and do there best and others just type at the keyboard - I guess that the same could be said about WikiP. I've got a couple other notes that I need to leave when I have more time. Things are a bit on the stressful off wiki at the moment but I will get back to you when I get a chance. MarnetteD | Talk 03:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At last I have a moment to catch up.
  1. Thanks for the info on getting to region free settings. It seems to have worked fine and I can now, among other things, access PDF files that are included on the Doctor Who DVD releases.
  2. Here is an item from Lis Sladen's auotbio that I thought you might like. In the summers of 1962 and 63 she was enrolled with the London Youth Theatre. Other members included Simon Ward, Kenneth Cranham, Diana Quick, Michael Cadman, Hywel Bennett and Helen Mirren. What must it have been like to be in the audience with all that budding talen onstage. Sladen writes that there was a secret poll among the company about who was most likely to succeed and they chose Lis. She goes on to say that "I don't remember how well Helen took it at the time, but as she polishes here Oscar every now and then, I'm sure she doesn't let it trouble her."
  3. I just had the pleasure of watching the next three episodes of Sherlock and I think you will find them of interest. There is something that I was just about to write about one of them but then I realized that it isn't fair to take away your pleasure of discovering it for yourself so I'll save it until after you have viewed the stories.
Well we have had about two feet of snow here so I think I'll get back to work on writing my novel. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Dictator

Thanks. I won't argue about the Wagner material, but obviously, we need a source. I'm willing to have it reintroduced into the article with a fact tag at the end of it, and if no one finds a source that directly supports it after a month, then I would propose moving it to the article's talk page until someone does. Nightscream (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lunch tomorrow!

Hi, thanks for signing up for the meetup/lunch at the Wikimedia Foundation. Just a reminder that this is happening at noon tomorrow, Saturday the 4th. Our office is located at 149 New Montgomery Street in San Francisco, a short walk from the Montgomery Station BART stop – please see the meetup page for more details. Looking forward to seeing you there! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early Narnia

Is it Ann, Martin, Rose and Peter -- or Lucy, Edmund, Susan and Peter as you have left it? I don't have the ref, so can't check. -- Elphion (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy your new sandbox!

It's here. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 04:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Dictator

Hi. Thanks for trying to improve the Great Dictator article. However, please do not add unsourced material or original research to articles, as you did with your additions to The Great Dictator, as this violates WP:V and WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH. While the authors of the first book note the similarities of the two men's mustaches, there is nothing in that book on cartoonists or comedians "widely" commenting on this. This doesn't mean that this isn't true, but we need a source that specifically supports it. As for both men's love of Wagner, you did not include a cite for this at all. This would only be permissable if the source already cited at the end of the passage to which you added that information supports it, but in fact, that book makes no mention of this either. As for Peter Conrad's book, it does mention Chaplin's use of Lohengrin, but makes no mention at all that one of the film's two uses of it is "often noted", and the other "less frequently so". Lastly, you also neglected to include a citation for your the balloon popping. Without such a source, this is synthesis, which is not permitted, as it is a form of original research. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my research was inadequate, but I assure I made no jumping to conclusions, and did indeed peruse the book on Google Books, which made no mention of the several key words I searched for, such as "cartoonists", for example. I now see that some pages indicate "No preview available for this page". Perhaps that is what happened. Thank you for your patience, and for agreeing to research his autobio. :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Dickens' article.

Hi WickerGuy. I've noticed you have made an invaluable contribution to literary works on the site, and im contacting you as the Charles Dickens article has been of a low standard for a long period and edits unvetted. The one issue that needs to be dealt with above all in Talk:Charles_Dickens was one editors sweeping allegations. This subject in particular, has been in dire need of a collaboration and discussion among editors, and not one editors POV, so that consensus on the material is reached on talkpage, and crucially that the addition and wording scholarly. Thanks. Harrison 1979 (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WickerGuy, i took on board your point "Dickens' racism is a secondary characteristic that he happens to have, but hardly the main driving force of his literary output." This is the consensus, and using the Jefferson page as an example and his section on slavery (which similarly was in proportion), i put forward this on Dickens;

==Allegations of prejudice== (prejudice covers all)

  • 3 sentences - Franklin Incident
  • 3 sentences - Fagin
  • 3 sentences - Blacks
  • 3 sentences - India

This meets proportional emphasis, that is the consensus on talk. Thoughts on wording??Harrison 1979 (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MistyMorn has already come up with this.... sub article, Dickens social opinions and influence, that way, the biography stays encyclopedic, and the sub article covers the issue in depth. Harrison 1979 (talk) 22:37, 23 February (UTC)
Misty, could you direct me to the discussion tag (and weight) to place above the allegations section, to show this section is under discussion and is being worked on? Harrison 1979 (talk) 08:21, 25 February (UTC)

YK

"WG please, we shouldn't be judging Dickens, we faithfully quote from the available critiques dealing with him. See how easy it is to find critiques dealing with his racism, on the other hand when the subject is not notable, it is next to impossible to find its mention." The second sentence means that whereas for Dickens racism it is easy to find a multitude of reliable sources, for another subject that may not be notable it is very difficult to find them Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of hard work, admirable. However Bartlinger's comment which I summarise as "spawning a genre is absent", we need to have it back in the other article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you supply a full citation for that please??--WickerGuy (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Epic film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ben-Hur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yogesh's accusations of OR

Do some research on Yogesh, including archives at WP:ANI, WT:INB, User talk:Jimmy Wales etc. You will probably soon realise what it is that you are dealing with, including the policy obfuscations. It is not naivety. - Sitush (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. No need for you to respond, but the reading of it might be worth your time. - Sitush (talk)

Orphaned non-free image File:KubrickLolita2.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:KubrickLolita2.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Epic film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Planet of the Apes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Charles Dickens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Rae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Thought I would let you know about this [1] since it is going to be in your neck of the woods - well sort of. Of course it might not be of interest or the showings might not fit your schedule but I thought I'd make you aware of it anyway. I got to see it during its big 1980s release at one of Denver's old film palaces now, sadly, long gone. I was interested to learn that 30+ minutes more has been unearthed. Hope you are doing well and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is good news. I'm glad (and jealous) to know someone who will be enjoying this event. I believe that I've read that one of the things that has prevented a DVD release is the whole Coppola v Carl Davis film score problem. My Criterion Collection newsletter states that they hope to be releasing it one day. I'm not sure that it is possible to heap enough accolades on Kevin Brownlow (and David Gill before he passed) for what they have done for film history and restoration. I've just finished perusing the theaters website and it looks wonderful. French wine, a baguette, cheese and fruit at the dinner break? Have a great time. MarnetteD | Talk 20:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, I forgot to way thanks for the fun story about your name almost leading to cheaper tickets. While I've never experienced a film with a dinner break I did get a delicious one when I attended a performance of the play cycle Tantalus [2] at the Denver Center Theatre back in 2000. The whole meal was Greek recipes. I have also attempted to recreate what it would have been like to be in the audience for The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby (play) a couple times with its dinner break between acts two and three. 1900 is such an interesting film. My first viewing was on a Saturday night when it aired uncut on Bravo (remember when it was an Arts and Film cable station?) The next night they showed the uncut version of Once Upon a Time in America. I tell friends that I felt like DeNiro had been my houseguest for the weekend:-) The lack of a Napoleon DVD release has always been frustrating. Its been too long since I read about the controversy but the rights problems went beyond just the music scores. Criterion managed to get beyond the rights entanglements for Tati's PlayTime so I have hopes for them in this case. I was lucky enough to see a live performance of the Philip Glass version of La Belle et la Bête at Mackey Auditorium on the CU campus back in the 90's. It was fascinating to watch as the film was projected above the musicians and singers. Having it on the Criterion DVD is a real treat. It was also the first time that I saw it with the subtitles updated from the ones that had been with the film since the 50's. Several sections made much more sense with the fuller translation of what the actors were saying. I've also enjoyed this updating for films like Seven Samurai and Jules and Jim. It takes films that I have seen many times and breaths new life into them. Thanks again for sharing all those experiences. MarnetteD | Talk 21:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The section of the play you described is hilarious and was where I first learned that the Victorians did that "happy ending" alteration with most of Will's plays. On the DVDs John Woodvine's performance during Ralph Nickleby's death scene always leaves me breathless with admiration. For several years I had correspondence with User:John Thaxter who, sadly, passed away in January. You may be interested to read his thoughts about and experiences with the play here User:MarnetteD/Sandbox#Highlights of my correspondence with John Thaxter. I had copied these for a couple other wikipedians who had edited with him. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WhooWee I wish I had included that line. It fits the situation perfectly. I think the smile it gives me is gonna last the rest of the weekend. I just realized that I forgot to mention that the subtitles at the Glass BatB performance were at the top of the screen so that the performers would not be blocking them. It turned out that meant much less head bobbing then with their traditional spot at the bottom. I hope that you have a wonderful cinema experience at your viewing of Napoleon next weekend or the one after. MarnetteD | Talk 20:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for having the weekends mixed up in my last message. Considering that your ticket is for April 1st I hope that they don't pull a prank and screen this version instead. On the other hand I found the actors performance as Nappy in this one and this one quite interesting. Quick, without looking it up, do you know the other two times that the actor in the last one played Napoleon? I hope that the rest of your week leading up to Sunday is a good one. MarnetteD | Talk 04:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I figured remembering Time Bandits would be a snap. The Napoleon and Love is more obscure. I was house sitting for some friends back in 76 or 77 and got to see 2 episodes of it on Hearst/ABC Arts (which eventually became A&E) but my cable in Greeley didn't carry that station so the rest of the series had to wait until I got it from Amazon UK a few years ago. It was released in the US last year. It is very interesting to watch that series and then view The Emperor's New Clothes. Seeing and comparing the young energetic Ian Holm's performance with the older actors take on things in the film is quite fascinating. I also found that the films take on how the Napoleon mythos surpassed the man himself (and its fun riff on Twain's The Prince and the Pauper) left me with lots to think about. Even though I was a tween at the time I remember being struck by Steiger's performance and I have had one Napoleon scholar tell me that he was impressed with it after I recommended the film to him. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love and Death is also one of my faves. James Tolkan who plays Nappy has had an interesting career. Thanks so much for the link to the review. Green indeed!! I was glad that Carl Davis got a mention. He is one of the reasons that The World at War is still the best documentary about WWII. His music graces several of my Brit TV serials and Winston Churchill: The Wilderness Years is another fave. Just another 48 hours or so to wait. I'm kinda excited and I'm not even going to be in the audience! MarnetteD | Talk 17:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got your email just fine. Thank you very much for taking the time to share your thoughts and observations. I've been lucky enough to see some silent films with live piano and organ accompaniment but it must have been a treat to hear a full orchestra. On a different note I watched Bullitt for the first time in several decades this weekend due to the fact that the TV series Alcatraz had an homage to the car chase in its last episode. I had forgotten that said chase continued out of the city for several minutes. I said to myself "I bet the city has expanded to overtake all of those locations". Funny how a film can also become a semi-documentary of how a city looked at the time it was filmed. Kurosawa's Stray Dog (film) showing post war Tokyo comes to mind. Back in the 70's a big chunk of Eastwood's Every Which Way but Loose (film) was filmed in Denver - today there is only one building left that can be seen the way it was in the film. Thanks again for your "dispatches from the front" :) MarnetteD | Talk 20:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:KubrickStare1.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:KubrickStare1.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. If you have questions, please post them here.
  • I will automatically 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 ask an admin to turn it off here.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for your lead, diligence and civility in pulling the Charles Dickens article together. Span (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Dickens nominated for a FA

Hello, I am Dipankan001. This is to notify you that I have nominated Charles Dickens for a FA. Your input is welcome. Dipankan says.. ("Be bold and edit!") 06:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great job!

Love the fact your fixing up all the quotes at Stanley Kubrick ‎ - JUST FYI all the quote can be put into there refs with the | quote= parameter.Moxy (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{citebook}}
  • {{cite book|author=Vincent LoBrutto|title=Stanley Kubrick: A Biography|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=fU78LdDClHUC&pg=PA229|accessdate=26 March 2012|date=6 May 1999|publisher=Da Capo Press|isbn=978-0-306-80906-4|page=229|quote=I said to myself, 'I leave him alone for ten minutes and he's going to blow his whole career. I was actually convinced he was out of control to do this as a comedy — as it turns out, it's my favorite Kubrick picture}}
  • Vincent LoBrutto (6 May 1999). Stanley Kubrick: A Biography. Da Capo Press. p. 229. ISBN 978-0-306-80906-4. I said to myself, 'I leave him alone for ten minutes and he's going to blow his whole career. I was actually convinced he was out of control to do this as a comedy — as it turns out, it's my favorite Kubrick picture
  • In the book find the page then insert the link that you get from the symbol beside "Add to my library" at the top of the book
  • Note because its all the same book your ref name will have to change like <ref name="LoBrutto1999"> <ref name="LoBrutto1999a"> <ref name="LoBrutto1999b"> and so on.
  1. ^ Vincent LoBrutto (6 May 1999). Stanley Kubrick: A Biography. Da Capo Press. p. 9. ISBN 978-0-306-80906-4. quote 1
  2. ^ Vincent LoBrutto (6 May 1999). Stanley Kubrick: A Biography. Da Capo Press. p. 33. ISBN 978-0-306-80906-4. quote 2
  3. ^ Vincent LoBrutto (6 May 1999). Stanley Kubrick: A Biography. Da Capo Press. p. 229. ISBN 978-0-306-80906-4. quote 3

For your amusement

Due to our long involvement - on wiki and off - with a certain film I thought that you might get a chuckle from this [3]. Knowing what you are doing for the rest of this Sunday you will have to use their calendar function just above the right corner of the strip and go to the one for April 1st. If you haven't seen this comic before it has a nice macabre tinge to it a la Charles Addams and Edward Gorey. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pics. The resemblance is striking. Of course, that leads to the question did Gance and/or Dieudonné ever met Jed Harris and base their makeup on him - like Olivier did? Highly unlikely I know but that would be some hot WP:OR if they did :) MarnetteD | Talk 21:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for the links to more pics! Nice coincidence as after taking a look at my checklist now I was going to do a search on Harris as I realized that, although I had learned of his connection to Oilvier's performance yonks ago, I had never seen any pictures of him. The opening speech of Richard the Third was the first Shakespeare I ever committed to memory (way back in Jr High) so I have always had a soft spot for it and any of the performances of it that I've seen. Again thanks for saving me some time. MarnetteD | Talk 02:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just remembered that we have left out one important R3 performance. Of course, I'm kidding although whenever I watch it I do think that Cook is having a lot of fun. I can still recall (69 to 71 possibly but after I had done my memorization) sitting down to watch the Olivier film the first time. I had my Folger Library edition in my hands but soon found that I had to put it down due to the fact that LO had altered the things so much. Today I am quite used to that and I have found that it can bring a fresh perspective on to a play but back them I had not encountered that kind of reworking of things. Ah learning new things - hard to beat the experience. Enjoy your upcoming weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 17:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

100px I am sorry...
...for possibly demeaning your work. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary, but thanks. I think you just misattributed it.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because this image is only on Wikipedia with a claim of fair use, it's not allowed to appear on talk pages, so I've had to change it so that it's just a link to the image. Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of record.

(1) My edit at the AN/I reads: "The Charles Dickens' article is refered here - the result of my edits on that page was that we have a wonderfully sourced new article, whose major contributor has been user:WickerGuy." I have no doubts about who the major contributor is. (2) It is unkind of you to have quoted a private comment on a talk page (I think that is how it is), on a page where I am about to be impaled. I have repeatedly said that the statement "spawned..." is my interpretation of Brantlinger, which will not find place in the article in that form. Please check and confirm. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to thank WG for letting me know about the ANI (thank you!), where I've contributed, I hope in a constructive gf way. Then I saw YK's post here, and I had to smile... Only he knows why he feels the need to call -- albeit probably just in passing :-) -- "unkind" the guy who, it seems to me, has been most helpful to him. As I've said on the ANI page, I think the present article is good. I support YK's contention that the material is genuinely noteworthy and encyclopedic, and I note that User:JN466 has also commented favourably along the same lines. Best, —MistyMorn (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was about to strike the unkind off with something less offensive. However I felt that way and I will not strike it out and replace it with something else, as I would simply be polite and not truthful. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's funny -- I came back to edit my earlier comment to try to prevent possible misunderstandings and offence. —MistyMorn (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding the AN/I will WG or MM explain the rules, you see the flag has been raised many times, but though I am 43, I think I have to learn, WG says I have a "character fault" (like some Shakespearean character) and then says I indulge in personal attacks. Will you (plural you) explain like you would to someone who has an IQ of 50, what I did was wrong, wrong enough for the AN/I to be legitimate, wrong enough for folks who (grudgingly???) accept my edits but when it comes to the firing squad taking position, sit on the fence? There is something for sure, something that is expected, that I have not been able to fulfill. What is it? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see MM's edit (22:48 UTC), I didn't call WG unkind, I called his bringing the private comment at the AN/I unkind. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I came here in the first instance to let WG know that I have attributed him as the major contributor to the said article. That is why I came here, not to complain. The complaint happened at the spur of the moment. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
YK, I'll be happy to talk another time (I need to sleep). Let me just just say now that the spirit of my remark was friendly towards you. I realized that you meant that bringing +the private comment at the AN/I was "unkind". Still, it just made me smile... no drama here (though I guess I'd feel some drama myself if I was under scrutiny at ANI, I can understand that). —MistyMorn (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sleepy, me too, 'tis 4.45 am here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Goodnight. —MistyMorn (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GN.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To all, YK and MM, The "spawned" comment was first made on the Talk page of the Charles Dickens article, though without the attribution to Brantlinger (though in quotes) and is still there, and regardless User Talk pages aren't really private. The discussion on Brantlinger and "spawned" was with regard to a proposed future edit. In general, discussing problems with previous edits is more appropriate to a User talk page, while proposed future edits belong on the Talk page of an article!!! (This is fairly explicitly stated in Talk page guidelines.) That is the main reason I moved the comments from YK's personal talk page to the Dickens fork article to begin with (and I did at the suggestion of another editor). I was fairly careful in saying that the comparison to Metapedia can be easily interpreted as an personal attack and appears to me in a very indirect way to look like one. I don't think it is appropriate to engage in a separate conversation here about the "legitimacy of the ANI" dispute here. But it is possible to make even good points in a sufficiently brusque way as to alienate your audience.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Remarkably, YK too made the same "Mom" misreading. The only other person who has mentioned it to me, though I fear it may be considerably more common. Best, —MistyMorn (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Bart D. Ehrman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mythicist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re Apologies

Just an extra point. I'm technically on strike, and making just a few edits to a few articles, that's why, plus time limitations, I resist the temptation to go to the Racism and CD article. It's got substance and we could revise it quickly I think at the proper time. I do hope you can assist us in getting some technical community, close focus on the CD article, which should by rights emerge as a core wiki article this year, volendi. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hello WG. I just came across this [4] soon to be released DVD set today. It looks very interesting. Mr Cousins also wrote a book covering the same subject. A little pricey so I have added a section to my budget to save up for it. This is exactly the kind of thing that I got my region free player for. Hopefully it will show on PBS someday or maybe, if it interests you, you will be able to track a streaming version of it on the net somewhere - if not now maybe someday in the future. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Christ myth theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Wells (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Your GA nomination of 2001: A Space Odyssey (film)

The article 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey (film) for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? ASHUIND 09:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited: San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2!

San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2! You are invited!
The San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2 will be held on Saturday, June 16, 2012 at the Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco. Wikipedians of all experience levels are welcome to join us! This event will be specifically geared around encouraging women to learn how to edit and contribute to Wikipedia. Workshops on copy-editing, article creation, and sourcing will be hosted. Bring a friend! Come one, come all!

San Francisco Wiknic 2012

San Francisco Wiknic at Golden Gate Park
You are invited to the second Great American Wikinic taking place in Golden Gate Park, in San Francisco, on Saturday, June 23, 2012. We're still looking for input on planning activities, and thematic overtones. List your add yourself to the attendees list, and edit the picnic as you like. —Max Klein {chat} 18:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/Invite.

Input request

Hi WG. I hope that you are well. I am wondering if you have any thoughts to add to this thread that I started today Talk:Barry Lyndon#Der Hohenfriedberger composer. I suspect that you will have seen it on your watchlist but I thought I would give you a direct link here. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 00:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I mentioned a discussion that happened on your talk page[5] at ANI.[6] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Lolita, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Born to Die (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since I knew you were away I fixed this one. Hope the camping was a ton o' fun. MarnetteD | Talk 14:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

I want to say thanks again for what you said and all the problems that you fixed that I might have caused while trying to fix things. I appreciate it when I have guys like you around. Because I am not always perfect with grammar. :) Jhenderson 777 21:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

haha interesting story about the number 777. I've been thinking about joining WikiProject Star Trek. Are you a member? Jhenderson 777 22:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chimes at Midnight

Alright big man, I'll bite. What exactly do you imagine is wrong with some simple copy editing? I am sorry if I mistakenly implied that you were an infantile person who views wikipedia as a place to play silly, pointless games and I would now like it if you would clarify what on earth is wrong with any of the edits that you reverted so that I can better understand the legitimate reasons behind them. I am sure that your reasons are far more detrimental than WikiRule:I don't like and would like to hear them. --206.188.36.191 (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the changes strike me as harmless, but not giving improvement. A small number seem to be bad, and they are amongst the ones at the very top of the article. Why would you want to change "directed by and starring Orson Welles" to "directed by Orson Welles". It does indeed star him although Gielgud and Baxter are arguably equally important. Why not say "directed by Orson Welles starring Welles, John Gielgud and Keith Baxter". The fact that the opening line contains the phrase "chimes a midnight" is surely worth mentioning? Why cut that? Re Para 2, line 1 of the plot, The king has already been identified as Henry IV in the preceding paragraph, and down the line surely then you would also want to identify Hal as having become Henry V. Also the "the" you added before "betrayal of friendship" I think is clunky.
Addendum
You could say "about THE betrayal of A friendship" or leave it at "about betrayal of friendship" but "about the betrayal of friendship" is worst of two worlds, specific with one noun and general with the other.
Other changes you have made are pretty OK actually. Indeed the further and further down the article, the better and better your edits get!!! Perhaps a series of edits, separate for each section is a better way to edit. Admittedly, I could have just reverted the fewer that I had a problem with, and left the others alone, but the edits I had the most problems with were at the top, and the others struck me as somewhat inconsequential or only a mild improvement.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I thought that "betrayal of friendship" sounded off, which is why I changed it. However I should point out that I double checked and, although its not used as a quote, the actual Welles' quote is "the betrayal of friendship", which I still think sounds better. As far as cutting "and starring", I was simply trying to make the lead more concise since its mentioned again a few sentences later. I was attempting to cut the plot section down a bit. I cut the "chimes at midnight" part because i had added that part to the plot and someone else added it later on in the article. Since the plot is already a bit long I cut it there, otherwise the article repeats the same info. As far as identifying Hal as Henry V, perhaps you're right but again i was just trying to tidy the plot section up. Otherwise i think all the other edits are improvements and am flattered by your choice of three entire exclamation marks. Truly flattered. So I'm going to revert the edits again but change the edits mentioned above. --206.188.36.191 (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited! - Wiki Loves Monuments - San Francisco Events

Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco

Hi! As part of Wiki Loves Monuments, we're organizing two photo events in the San Francisco Bay Area and one in Yosemite National Park. We hope you can come out and participate! Feel free to contact User:Almonroth with questions or concerns.

There are three events planned:

We look forward to seeing you there!

You are receiving this message because you signed up on the SF Bay Area event listing, or have attended an event in the Bay Area. To remove yourself, please go here. EdwardsBot (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:William Chace at Emory University.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:William Chace at Emory University.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually got all the release stuff last June and forgot about it. I have e-mailed it all to the permissions address now.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eye of the Cat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Outer Limits (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited! Ada Lovelace Day San Francisco

You're invited! Ada Lovelace Day San Francisco

October 16 - Ada Lovelace Day Celebration - You are invited!
Come celebrate Ada Lovelace Day at the Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco on October 16! This event, hosted by the Ada Initiative, the Mozilla Foundation, and the Wikimedia Foundation. It'll be a meet up style event, though you are welcome to bring a laptop and edit about women in STEM if you wish. Come mix, mingle and celebrate the legacy of the world's first computer programmer.

The event is October 16, 5:00 pm - 8:00 pm, everyone is welcome!

You must RSVP here - see you there!
SarahStierch (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gropen&oldid=519331539"