User talk:Chaoborus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Chaoborus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

--Pymouss44 Causer 04:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Kandawgyi National Gardens[edit]

Sorry about this very delayed response. I've been relatively inactive on Wikipedia lately due to schoolwork. I believe I got the information from the Ministry of Forestry website link, but the website now oddly appears to have been redesigned and the web pages are now gone. Sorry about not citing it beforehand. I'll keep searching for another citation to back this up. -Hintha (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Adequate paraphrasing[edit]

No, I stated the paraphrasing was adequate because I didn't think it was adequate. It was opposite day that day, you see. But my facetiousness aside, if you feel the paraphrasing is inadequate, I do more than respect that though. It's pretty darn subjective, and an AfD or PROD wouldn't be a move I'd at all find unreasonable if you wanted to get other input. Or, heck, ask another admin if you see fit. I'm by no means any sort of final authority, just somebody making a subjective judgement call. At any rate, the image is a moot point. There's no need to ask me to confirm my opinion on a picture I've never voiced an opinion on. - Vianello (Talk) 04:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I apologize if my way of speaking was confusing. My first comment in my reply was sarcasm, just to make sure I am being clearly understood. But I do quite mean the rest. No one person has the final ultimate say here, so it's okay to talk to somebody else for another opinion if you disagree. - Vianello (Talk) 03:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Type 59[edit]


Like in the Soviet T-54, T-54A and so on, the heavy anti-aircraft machine gun is mounted on the loader's hatch. As far as I know there's no such thing as the gunner's hatch in the T-54/T-55/Type 59/ Type 69/Type 79 family of vehicles. It's most probably the loader's hatch called "gunner's hatch" by mistake.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Western Satraps, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Broach and Castana (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) 10:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

RE: SUL[edit]

Thanks for the usurpation on fr, and thanks for being very fast! Wagner u t c 23:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Colossochelys atlas redirect[edit]

Does the redirect † Geochelone atlas have any purpose? Can it be deleted? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have requested deletion of the redirect. 18:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunCreator (talkcontribs)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Chaoborus. You have new messages at Faizan's talk page.
Message added 13:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Faizan 13:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 16Volt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carrie (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) 08:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Problems with fr:Pierrot (commedia dell'arte)[edit]


Please forgive me for writing in English; my written French is, quite frankly, crude. You and I corresponded briefly last year about a detail in the French Jean-Gaspard Deburau page. I wonder if you could help me out with another problem.

Over the last few days, I've been making small corrections of errors (of which I am, alas, the source) on the Charles Deburau and Paul Legrand pages in French Wikipedia. Yesterday, just out of curiosity, I took a look at the French fr:Pierrot (commedia dell'arte) page. I was, I regret to say, shocked and appalled. I immediately wrote the following paragraph, intending to post it on the corresponding "Discussion" page:

There are many false statements and inaccuracies in this article. The biggest mistake is the confusion of the French Pierrot with the Italian Pedrolino (see the English Wikipages on the two types), as well as the confusion of both with other zanni. (Such confusion stems from early and now out-dated 19th/20th-century scholarship on the Commedia dell'arte, especially that of P.-L. Duchartre.) Pedrolino does not appear in comedies by either Castelletti or Cecchi; the valet is "Pierro" in Castelletti's comedy, and "Pietro" in Cecchi's I Bernardi (not J. Bernardi). There is indeed a "Pedrolin" in Groto's La Alteria (not L'Altiera), which was published in 1587, several years after the actor Giovanni Pellesini (unmentioned in the article) had created the role—Pedrolino—and made it his own. Why Storey's two books (and no one else's) are listed in the Bibliography is a mystery, since, in the earlier of the two, he makes the distinction between Pedrolino and Pierrot very clear. Has this writer done nothing but jumble together some half-digested (and obsolete) secondary—or maybe just tertiary—sources?

Since writing this, I've had second thoughts. I don't want to alienate any of the editors of the page; I certainly don't want to come off as the typical arrogant American. How do you think this should be handled? At the very least, the crude errors should be corrected (J. Bernardi, L'Altiera, the implication that Pedrolino appears by name in the dramatis personae of the Castelletti and Cecchi comedies). But I think it's important that the "first" and "second" zanni distinction be drawn (see the English Pedrolino), even if the author still thinks a case can be made that Pierrot is a descendant of Pedrolino. As for the other zanni mentioned in the article—Bertoldo, Pagliaccio, etc.—I think they should be removed. Lumping all these types together is like saying that Jerry Lewis, Lou Costello, and Stan Laurel were all portraying the same character, since they can all be dumped into the category of the "stooge" who plays to the straight man.

I regard the character of Pierrot as an extremely important French contribution to art—a character that was pivotal, in fact, to the emergence of Modernism in literature, music, painting, and dance. (Jules Laforgue's Pierrots taught T.S. Eliot "how to speak," as he himself acknowledged. Without them, J. Alfred Prufrock may never have been born. And what would Rouault have done without Pierrot?) I think this Wikipage does a grave disservice to that contribution.

Thanks for whatever help you can give me. Beebuk 12:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks! I very much appreciate your time and help! Beebuk 01:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)