User talk:GretDrabba

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

File permission problem with File:Canadian 2001 silver dollar.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Canadian 2001 silver dollar.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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}} 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. Stefan2 (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Memory play, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Da (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) 09:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Unseen Characters[edit]

I am not particularly interested in resuming the discussion you were having at Talk:Unseen character but I thought I might usefully be able to offer some helpful advice.

In that discussion you made some important points about proper sourcing, the very first and most important criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, and it is a shame that your confusion over the meaning of directly and indirectly overshadowed the more useful contribution you had to make. I hope that your experience there has not put you off being a Wikipedian.

In discussion of literature, and in literary criticism, which includes plays, poetry, tv shows, films as well as novels and non-fiction works, the terms direct and indirect have quite specific meanings.

When a character speaks, that is direct speech. When a character says, "Bob told me to come," then Bob is speaking indirectly, we are told what he said but he does not say it himself. In a novel, when the narrator says, "Emma thought him a wise man and praised his gentlemanly manners," so that Emma's words were not spoken by her but the narrator has told us what she would have said or what she meant to say, that is called free indirect discourse.

In a more visual medium, a tv show or film, for example, a character that the reader or viewer observes, that they can see with their own eyes, or hear over a telephone or intercom, is said to have been observed, directly. Indirectly refers to those few cases when they are spoken of, when they are talked about, but never observed.

For example, if the postman puts his hand through the letter box and all you can see of him is the tips of his fingers, the viewer has directly observed the postman. It does not matter that the postman was played by the production assistant, or that you never saw his face, or that he didn't speak and is not listed on the script. If you saw his hand, that is a directly observed character and for the purposes of that article he is not an unseen character. A similarly obscure but directly observed character would be the woman glimpsed through a shower curtain. The viewer might glimspe only her silhouette, but she is nevertheless seen directly by the viewer.

However, if a character walks into the room carrying a letter and says, "the postman brought me a letter," the postman is known to the audience only indirectly, through the words spoken about him rather than through his physical appearance. The postman would then be an unseen character.

The example in your discussion of a character who is seen with a pie over her face is directly observed, she is seen by the audience, and it does not matter that she cannot be identified, she is observed, directly, although incompletely, and is therefore not an unseen character.

In this context, the ongoing discussion in the article about whether Godot should be included is very instructive. One of the reasons that writers include unseen characters is to raise the possibility of whether they actually exist or are simply imagined by other characters. In Emma, a novel by Jane Austen, there is an unseen character called Mr. Perry. To start with only Emma refers to him and the reader wonders whether Emma is mad and only imagines him. Gradually, other characters refer to Mr. Perry, they mention having been to his shop, they agree with his opinions on things, they refer to his children, the little Perry's, and we start to wonder whether these characters are merely humouring Emma in her madness or have they really seen this Mr. Perry. Eventually, enough people refer to him for us to believe he exists and that whilst Emma is certainly deluded about some things she has not imagined Mr. Perry.

In the play Waiting for Godot, the two characters spend the entire play waiting for Godot to arrive and the whole point of the play, the entire reason the play was written, was to invite the audience to consider whether Godot exists. For ten years, Wikipedia editors have been debating whether to include Godot in their article about unseen characters; he should go in because he defines the genre; no, no, no, you can't put him in because no one knows whether he exists or not. And, ironically, not one of these editors has spotted that this whole discussion is the very reason Waiting for Godot was written in the first place.

This existence issue helps clarify what an unseen character is. The postman who pokes his fingers through the letter box, the woman glimpsed through the shower curtain and the woman with the pie on her face clearly exist. If the viewer or reader knows, directly, from seeing or hearing them, however indistinctly, vaguely or briefly, that the character actually exists, they are not an unseen character. Once their existence is proven they are not unseen.

Finally, you asked the not completely unreasonable meta-question of whether or not the trope of unseen character exists. Should there even be an article on this? For answer, I offer an article from The Guardian, discussing them, and whilst I don't normally recommend reading the comments below the line, in this case I think you might find them useful: Guardian.com Unseen Characters. Cottonshirtτ 08:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)