Status: Offline My Talk Archives •1•

You realise its all been archived already, the content isn't actually being deleted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said there was nothing of value because its contains lots of WP:DRAMA. I'm sorry my edit summary was unclear about the archiving. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the user guilty of removing the grave accent from the word premiered in the article on Shakespeare's Twelfth Night. I ought to note that anything on my IP address's talk page--mostly vandalism--is not related to me; I use a public internet connection in my dorm. You reverted it back and I'm curious as to why. I see this as an opportunity to either learn something involving the use of that accent in the English language (I'm familiar with it in French, but I've hardly ever seen it in English) or to witness a serious caretaker of a wikipedia article. So yes, why? Pedantry or otherwise? I don't mean offend, I just don't see cause for its use other than pedantry. The word is used in wikipedia's article on The Taming of the Shrew without the accent, and I'm willing to assume it's present in many many many many other articles (films come to mind) without the accent.

(I've also searched for some esoteric use of the word... thinking perhaps there is a different definition for premièred, but to no avail. If so, tell. Then it hit me that, being that I am American, it could just be the English English spelling of the word, but then I remembered the Premiere League and how the accent is absent there as well.) --Chris Rogers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.255.6 (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to comment here. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For our first official recruitment drive! Starting on Wednesday the 9th of February at 12:30pm. We would love to have you!

All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 17:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in an edit war over this topic, but I'm unaware of any WP policy that mandates sticking to published translations. Deleuze's words are perfectly verifiable. 271828182 (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bulgakov translations are questionable at best. If there is a copyright violation, though, it would seem that the burden of infringement would be on Lib.ru.

The Kataev translations are taken from Soviet publications, and so only Russian copyright laws should be applicable. There are quite a few Soviet era texts from the same publishing companies available for free on Archive.org.

The Lib.ru website, which holds 10000+ text, audio and video resources, displays the following: With the support of the Federal Agency for Press and Mass Communications.

In the end, I'm really not sure what copyright laws apply to a Russian based website with Russian Federation support. There are quite a few other Russian author pages on Wikipedia with links to translations that are on Lib.ru, and these links provide rare texts, and, in the case of Kataev's novels, texts that are unavailable or extremely difficult to purchase.

The Bulgakov links are, in my opinion, the only really iffy ones, but whether or not Lib.ru is violating copyright or linking to them is a copyright violation in itself, I don't know.--I NEVER CRY 18:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since Mikhail Bulgakov died in 1940, most of his works are in public domain now. GreyHood ^Talk 14:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is only true for the Russian-language works. The copyright of English-language translations belongs to the translators. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Evening

I would like to know your rationale in demoting Arena Stage (Washington, D.C.) importance rating from 'high' to 'low'

It is one of the oldest resident theatre companies in the United States, predates the current outside New York theatre boom by decades, and was the driving force behind the formation of the League of Resident Theatres. It has just completed a major remodeling and is now the second largest theatre complex in Washington DC behind the Kennedy Center. Personally I would regard it as the epitome of a high importance theatre company article, although I would not strongly object to a "mid" importance rating. I cannot agree with a "low"

I look forward to hearing from you

ed

Ecragg (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. The Top/High/Mid/Low assessments refer not to the subject of the article's importance in general, but specifically its importance to the Theatre project. This is a way of prioritising work undertaken by the project members. If you look in each category at the kind of articles it includes, you'll get a good idea of how this assessment is being made. For example, the top importance articles refer to the fundamental concepts - theatre, drama, actor, etc. The high-level Theatre articles list the most important plays and institutions that your average theatre student will know about, regardless of geographical location (but with a strong bias towards the West, of course, this being the English-language wiki) - so, An Actor Prepares, Blood Wedding, Moscow Art Theatre. Note the last one - the MAT is known globally by every theatre student and it changed the history of theatre. So "high" means pretty high, you see. I haven't cleaned out the Mid-importance category, so it'll be full of a lot of articles that shouldn't be there, but in general this should still be populated by articles that one could reasonably expect most theatre students in the Western world to be familiar with, but at a step down from the "high" ones (note: Oedipus Rex and Hamlet are "high"). The Arena Stage (Washington, D.C.) just doesn't reach those levels. The assessment in no way suggests that the article's subject is unimportant, but only that, relative to all the other theatre articles out there, that it is a highly-specialised subject. Regards,  • DP •  ^{huh?} 02:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You are invited to participate in the Theatre Project's Collaboration of the Month. This time it's the Theatre article. In the last 30 days, this article received 52,500 hits, or roughly 2,000 every day. Hope you can help! Nominate an article that could be greatly improved.

Thanks for the message. Sure, I was just making a suggestion. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like you are working hard to get the project moving, so kudos to you. If I may make a tiny suggestion (and believe me, I could take my own advice sometimes!) you could be a little more solicitous to editors like the IP with whom you had the long discussion about the Lead. He/she seemed genuinely interested in helping out. I know it can be frustrating to deal with newbies sometimes, and sometimes people really are impossible to deal with, but some newbies can become good contributors later, even if they start out on the wrong foot. In any case, kindness focuses the discussion on the content rather than the editors. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The question always arises about what to do about non-Western traditions. Currently, the Lead of the Theatre article specifically discusses Western theatre and doesn't say anything one way or another about Eastern traditions. You'll have to either exclude them from the scope of the article, or else say something about them in the Lead. I recommend that you post something on the talk page about what your (at least initial) plan is regarding them, because they really are an elephant in the room, so to speak. I made a few changes to the Lead to try to explain the scope better (at least as relates to Western theatre), but I imagine you have plans to expand the Lead. I also added some more content re: musical theatre, but I don't want to make it too big a deal, per WP:UNDUE. If the article becomes much more comprehensive, we can consider then whether you still want more on musicals, which I'm happy to get you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: The Drama 100 online. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I received this notification from you although you did not sign it. I strongly object to receiving notifications from a wikiproject I am not a member of (I am not a member of any wikiproject). Kindly see to it that it does not recur.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Be like that. But you were asked. Undoubtedly a repetition plus your vulgarity would give you an interesting time at AN/I..--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a footnote. Edwardian musical comedy stretched beyond Edward's reign in both directions, from 1892 to about 1920. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kindly answering my note and researching the book. I will finally buy it online even though it's going to take much too long to arrive for my purposes (as I live in South America, Brazil - still, better late than never). I asked for a link b/c I presupposed the translation was already in PD - and probably is? I don't know, as I haven't seen the publication date of the translated piece.

Thank you once more.

Rafael

	WikiProject Theatre Barnstar
	For fine work on plays, on authors and playwrights, and for saving and updating a few articles of mine as well. Well done. Phaeton23 (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Anti-Oedipus Penguin Cover 2009.png. 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) 06:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Surrealist comic strips, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-- Otelemuyen (talk) 04:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stanford University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

--ralphamale (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tui (intellectual) since you started the article back in 2009.BigJim707 (talk) 08:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to be a principle editor for the Gerhart_Hauptmann article, please see this entry on the talk page. I have added a paragraph that you might want to review. I tried to be as concise as possible, since this is tangential to Hauptmann. Feel free to edit or modify, but if you decide to remove it entirely, please contact me via my talk page. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Adaptations by Bertolt Brecht, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, dear Greek deity! 81.68.255.36 (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you please tell me why this short story does come up in Chekhovs article, but not in his bibliography? Also, I've tried searching for it in Dutch, no results whatsoever. Is there something up with this story or not? 94.211.53.117 (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three years ago you inserted references to ‘Brockett & Hildy 2003’, but there is no such title in the bibliography. Could you supply the details?

—Lgfcd (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use ((Campaignbox)) in a general navigation boxes. Campaignbox template should be used in the battles in a campaign, theater (warfare), or war (or, more rarely, among several campaigns or wars), not theatre.--777sms (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TVoter has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating The Wise Woman of Hoxton, DionysosProteus!

Wikipedia editor KGirlTrucker81 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good job!

To reply, leave a comment on KGirlTrucker81's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Wise Woman of Hoxton, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Alchemist, Frontispiece and Thomas Dekker. 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) 10:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for your recent contributions to The Deceived Ones. I did have one note for you. I am working on a maintenance project to clean up Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks!! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I think you should be made aware of Wikipedia's policy on civility. According to this policy, "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions". I believe that several of your recent contributions at Talk:Ajax (play) § Sophocles' or Sophocles's?, such as making rude comments and bluntly refusing to respond to requests for information that you claimed to possess, could be seen as a violation of this policy. Please note that such behaviour, if continued, can result in an administrator block. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that editing other users' comments to change their meaning – even on one's own talk page – as was done here, goes against Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coconutporkpie, I don't know what on earth you imagine you're playing at, but you are violating WP guidelines when you rewrite messages you have sent to me hours after having left them. As stated in the history reverts, if you want to revise your opinion, then a new note is the appropriate way. If this utterly inappropriate behaviour continues, I will request that you are banned. You have been warned. Don't do it again. I trust that that is perfectly, transparently clear to you.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 20:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are in error there. It is "accepted and common practice" to edit one's own talk page comments for a short while if no one has responded, to correct mistakes or otherwise improve them. I think the gist of my earlier revision here comes through even in the reverted version, so I won't press the issue.

However, continuing to leave insulting comments at Talk:Ajax (play) § Sophocles' or Sophocles's?, plus unspecified accusations of impropriety, as was done at 18:40, 16 August 2016, is another form of incivility. If it continues, my next step will be at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, having responded to the first version of your message, that needed to stay as it was. Furthermore, there is nothing "unspecified" about your impropriety, nor "insulting" about calling you on it. It is given in some detail in my messages on the Ajax talk page and evidenced by your contributions to that page in the past. Your behaviour is and remains inappropriate. Kindly stop wasting my time.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 21:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to your lengthy message at Talk:Ajax (play) § Sophocles' or Sophocles's?, obviously I hadn't seen it when editing my remarks here. And it is another kind of practice discouraged by Wikipedia's guidelines, as it creates a fragmented discussion. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my many requests that you stop wasting my -- and everyone else's, from the looks of the Ajax talk page -- time. Typical of your approach is your decision to frame that last one as "If you are referring...", when it is perfectly apparent that I am refering to the post I made that you linked here. That response belonged on the talk page of the article, as I'm sure you know.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 21:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If by "having responded to the first version of your message", you are referring to the article talk page message, etc. Please see the relevant policy documentation at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution § Resolving user conduct disputes: "If the problem is with the editor's conduct, not their position on some matter of article content, then the first step is to discuss the issue with that editor, politely, simply, yet directly, on their Talk page. Try to avoid discussing conduct issues on article Talk pages." —Coconutporkpie (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was not referring to that, no. I was referring to your attempt to rewrite your messages here when I had already read and responded to them. I do not see any improvement in your manner. I recommend that you reconsider what it is that you are trying to acheive and how you have gone about pursuing that.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 00:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say that you "responded" to my message here by writing a message at Talk: Ajax (play) – both the Talk page guidelines and the dispute resolution policy I quoted above make clear how that isn't the way to go about communicating with other editors. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you demonstrate precisely the problem with your behaviour to date. Other editors have said the same to you. It looks like you are having difficulty accepting it. That is not something with which I can help you.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 00:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that virtually all articles on Wikipedia about fictional characters use the word fictional in the opening sentence, right? If you want to change that, start a discussion somewhere, rather than removing the word from a few articles. Your reasoning is flawed. A couple more notes, using "fictional character" in the lead of comics articles is WikiProject consensus, and there's a troll I know of who has been making these edits for years now, resulting in many page protections. —DangerousJXD (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain in what way my reasoning is flawed? I wrote most of the article on character many years ago, precisely to help Wikipedia avoid the stupidity of seeming to say "a dead corpse" or "a wet ocean". We do, indeed, qualify the word "character" with "fictional", but properly only when the fictionality is at stake -- say, in a philosophical or semiotic discussion of the ontological status of characters. That an error is widespread in Wikipedia articles doesn't demonstrate its correctness.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 12:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything to add to the above comments. I'd rather not waste hours writing something up more conclusive when I've been playing this game with a troll for over a year. I find it hard to take your comments seriously; "wet ocean" and "dead corpse" simply are not used by anybody with a brain, you removed the phrase from around eight random articles when thousands upon thousands more use the phrase, and you genuinely believe the phrase "fictional character" is an error, which is baffling to me. Again, if you want to abolish a perfectly acceptable phrase that is used in countless articles here, then go start a discussion somewhere before removing it from a handful of articles, although, I doubt you'll get enough support. If you do start a discussion, don't drag me into it. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't surprise me that you found it tricky to compose a response, since the issues involved are more complex than might appear at first glance. I appreciate, too, that you have little interest in pursuing it further. There are, of course, far more important things to be done here. However, I'd like to make a plea: if you have, as you said, been involved with a "troll" over the description "fictional character" vs. "character", there are two things to consider. More immediately, if the term is to be linked, the link should be to Character (arts), not a redirect, so "fictional" shouldn't be part of that link. If you're "correcting" that, your energy in that respect isn't well spent. In the longer term, I'd encourage you to consider this: if we look at the earliest versions of the articles of most 'major' subjects, they are terrible--embarassingly so. They make it clear that the contempt in which Wikipedia is held in the academic community is entirely deserved. But, as I'm sure you appreciate, Wikipedia is a project. Slowly and gradually, through our efforts, articles improve, are sourced, and subjected to our guidelines with increasing rigour. As the articles evolve in this manner, falsehoods, misapplications, biases, etc. are removed. The content of articles develops from snippets gleaned ecclectically from scouring Google Books towards a properly encyclopaedic treatment based on a good understanding of the relevant subject. As an expert in the field of drama, in which characters are our bread-and-butter, the "fictionality" of characters is something I have studied in great depth over a substantial period of time. I'm not making an argument based on authority for a change here-and-now, but rather simply offering a context that might give you pause to reflect and re-consider. There are contexts in which it's appropriate to say (when we write in a scholarly manner, as opposed to journalism) "fictional character". Say we're discussing Shakespeare's character Macbeth and comparing it with the historical person on whom it's based. We might want to talk about the latter's "character" in the sense of his personality and morality (the other dictionary definition). The qualification "fictional" might be appropriate in such a discussion to distinguish the senses involved. If we're talking about Hitler in the film Downfall, he is as much a "fictional" character as Oedipus or Hamlet, but we might, if comparing the portrayal with the historical person, wish to append the term to the "character" in the film. Or, as I said, if we're conducting a philosophical or semiotic inquiry into the ontological status of "characters", we might append "fictional", precisely because the reality/fiction distinction is what's at issue. However, the usage that you're pointing to, in the opening sentence of an article that usually takes the form of something like "Stilgar is a character in Frank Herber's novel Dune", no one is going to think that we're talking about a real person. The qualification is entirely redundant -- to which extent, the comparison with "The Atlantic is a wet ocean" isn't entirely inappropriate. I'm aware that Wikipedia articles use it widely. I'd suggest this is largly a result of one editor following the precedent of another editor, in a snowball effect. It doesn't, however, make it right--however widespread. I'm confident that sooner or later this misapplication will be corrected across the project. I appreciate there are more important things requiring attention, though. If there weren't more pressing issues that I'm interested in addressing myself, I'd do as you suggest and make the argument. I believe that such an argument is ill-founded at present, in lieu of a substantial development of the character article and those related to it. I'd hope to get around to that eventually. If Wikipedia remains true to its principles, though, sooner or later the ill-founded convention will be abolished. In the meantime, I'd hope that the explanation might encourage you not to make a widespread problem even worse. Regards,  • DP •  ^{huh?} 13:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your rant. All I can say is this: good luck and goodbye. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To characterise my careful, informed, and reasoned explanation as a "rant" says far more about you than me, I'm afraid.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 15:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

City comedy

added a link pointing to John Marston

Comedy of intrigue

added a link pointing to Anonymous

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hi, chekhov is ukrainian by father and I don't think a small notice will hurt. U ask for citations: 1. first of all it's in article itself "His father, Pavel Yegorovich Chekhov, the son of a former serf, was from a village Vilkhovatka near Kobeliaky (Poltava Region in modern-day Ukraine) and ran a grocery store." 2. here u got another one: -"Chekhov's paternal grandmother Efrosinia Emelianovna, whom her grandchildren saw even less, for she rarely left the farm, was Ukrainian. All the loud laughter and singing, the fury and joy that Chekhov associated with Ukrainians, had been beaten out of her. She was as surly as her husband, with whom she lived fifty-eight years before her death in 1878." -this from his father diary: "I remember my mother came from Kiev and I saw her" this is from the site https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/r/rayfield-chekhov.html looks pretty solid. here you go another one, from his personal letter : "Moreover, I imagine the journey will be six months of incessant hard work, physical and mental, and that is essential for me, for I am a Little Russian and have already begun to be lazy." (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/6408/6408-h/6408-h.htm) "Little Russians" (Maloross in rus.) is how Ukrainians were called back then, the Russians themselves were called "Great Russians" (Velikoross). U can read an article about it on wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Russia. 94.139.128.112 (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Johnston conducted a "farewell tour" of Canada and United States in 1914-1915; there are numerous contemporary references to it around the Internet . Mochaliz (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response -- it is always impressive to find Wikipedia able to correct the standard-work sources.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 00:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Konstantin Stanislavski, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Debut, Michael Kramer and Mozart and Salieri. 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) 10:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DionysosProteus, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On Talk:List of productions directed by Konstantin Stanislavski) I believe you said you didn’t know Stanislavski’s sister’s name — if it’s any help, the Russian Wikipedia says Stanislavski’s sister is an actress, Анна Сергеевна Алеева-Штекер (1866—1936), her name in English might be, Anna S. Aleeva-Plug. I think there’s a family resemblance in a photo of her at this link: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Файл:Анна_Сергеевна_Алеева.jpg Oxcross (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC) Actually I see that's not quite what you said, you do seem to have a name for her. Oxcross (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! But, yes, you may have confused me a little more... :) She would have been "Anna Alekseieva" before she got married (if she did, that is). My confusion was that a footnote in Benedetti's The Moscow Art Theatre Letters appears to have reversed the names, giving "Anna Schteker" as her real name and "Anna Alekseieva" as her stage name (1991, 51). I'm assuming that's an error. Would "Schteker" bear any relationship to the name listed on the Russian Wikipedia, do you know?  • DP •  ^{huh?} 14:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve tried to work this out (and conferred with family members) and found what might be an explanation: If you go to a hardware store in Russia and ask for a Штекер they will sell you a plug, the kind you plug into the wall. But people named Штекер seem to go by: Shteker. (Which I confirmed by a bit of “googling”.) It may be foolish to translate Shteker into “plug”. (as I did). (I don’t swear by my English spellings of the names.) From the photo caption (I sent you a link) this is what I get:

She was born: Anna Sergeevna Alekseeva (Анна Сергеевна Алексеева). She is known as Anna S. Aleeva, her real name is Alekseev - Shteker. With Shteker added in marriage. (Her real name: Алексеева-Штекер). She performed with the stage name Aleeva-Shteker (Алеева-Штекер)

Also, by the way, she appeared at the Moscow Art Theatre as Maria Godunov in "Death of Ivan the Terrible" by Tolstoy, as Hanna in "Gannele" by Hauptmann, as Elena the Fair in "The Snow Maiden" by Alexander Ostrovsky. Oxcross (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's wonderful, thank you enormously for your efforts.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 17:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few Russian language videos on Youtube that are of great interest regarding Stanislavsky and what he taught. etc. (I wish I spoke Russian, as some in my family do.) There is actually a video (in Russian) of Stanislavsky directing a scene from Tartuffe in 1938. It’s a “sit-down reading” at a table. The video is not long, and what is being said in the acting critique is interesting. (In the beginning Stanislavsky asks, “Were you focused? Or not?” He says that at the start of the scene there was talking, but not communicating to each other, and words should be used in the service of communication, and with what you want or desire. The actress says she has trouble when the character lies, because she sees acting as “being honest”, and speaking sincerely. Stanislavsky says, But you can lie. Everyone lies, it is in the nature of being a human, and of being an actress. You need to disconnect from “acting as an actress”, and connect to your own personal, human experiences of life itself. There you are strong. There you have much to draw on.) Here’s that link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9F0E02nN4k. There is also (in another video) an acting moment performed on stage in a play that may be an excellent demonstration of what they were “going for” (in my opinion). The actor shows a spontaneity, and a relaxed and lively head-to-toe physicality that is remarkable, and perhaps should be taught somehow. The moment is buried in a longer video (about Stanislavsky) — it occurs from 14:40 to 15:37. Here’s the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZo5V9pvLko The actor is wearing striped trousers, and he is the great Vasily Kachalov (Василий Иванович Качалов), who starred in Stanislavsky’s famous production of Hamlet in 1911. I just thought I’d share that in case you’re interested and for what it’s worth. Oxcross (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting and useful, thank you! I came across the Moscow Art Theatre feed a couple of days ago, which has some footage of him too, but it looks like those are far more substantial. Many thanks,  • DP •  ^{huh?} 18:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What an extraordinary work you've done! Very impressive, and yes, I'll try my best. So here's my proposed ToDo Top 10 (hopefully, in the order of appearances): Alexander Sanin, Nikolai Khmelyov, Vladimir Gribunin, The Green Ring by Zinaida Gippius, Light Without Heat by Alexander Ostrovsky, Men Above the Law by Aleksey Pisemsky, Aleksandr Kugel, The Life of Man by Leonid Andreyev, Serafim Sudbinin, Vasily Luzhsky and (not least, but last - simply because it might take a longer time) The Days of the Turbins by Mikhail Bulgakov. Thanks for the suggestion!) -- Evermore2 (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And great news to hear you're keen. I saw your messages last night and meant to reply properly this morning, but I got distracted... But, yes, that sounds great and would be very helpful. There's a nice picture of The Days of the Turbins available, which I used in the Konstantin Stanislavski article. I'd seen, too, that you'd contributed to the Zinaida Gippius article, so I hoped you might like that. I have a copy of Gauss' relatively obscure book Lear's Daughters, on the studios of the MAT, which has some material on her play (p.62-63), which I'll add when I get a chance. And yes, I agree, the Bulgakov will probably be the most popular article and the most challenging. For the plays, do feel free to paste in from List of productions directed by Konstantin Stanislavski for the production history sections (WP:CWW advises a particular form for the edit history in such imports, though I don't always remember to do it myself). If you find any errors in my sources, please do drop me a line/edit/talk page as you feel appropriate.

I noticed in your message last night you asked about the titles of Alexander Ostrovsky's plays in English translation. He's a writer I haven't got around to reading for myself yet, and it made me think that I really should. I'm not sure that there are all that many available. Many on Amazon seemed to be old public domain (so, probably available in the internet archive). I remember struggling to find Light without Heat. Thank you for the links to the ones already existing. It seems Talents and Admirers trans. Henley is also translated as Artists and Admirers trans. Mulrine, depending on the edition, so I'm not sure we could decide. I'll add in the alternative and a redirect. It looks like Without a Dowry is the standard trans.

Oh, and the translator Pyotr Veinberg was quite a surprise--I thought there was little hope of finding him! Many thanks again,  • DP •  ^{huh?} 18:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With Ostrovsky you will be much disappointed, I'm afraid, for his greatness lies mostly with his unique and versatile way of using Russian language, and that is exactly what tends to get lost in translation. The same goes for Gogol, Pisemsky and especially Leskov. On the other hand, I was quite shocked some time ago to discover (while listening to some readings on the BBC World Service) how much more interesting and alive Turgenev's prose sounds in English, than it does in Russian. And I suspect that is the reason why Dostoyevsky and Chekhov are so popular with the Western readership: their prose too looks exactly like it'd been written to be translated. That is not to say that Chekhov is a 'non-stylist' (as somebody - Nabokov? can't remember - called Dostoyevsky), it's just that his style could be described as - well, 'anglicized Russian', almost. While Ostrovsky's is ultra-Russian and is just impossible to 'tune', as it were, to English linguistic structures. On the flip-side of the same coin, Dickens, whose language is so lively and entertaining, makes for a very dull read in Russian translations. Right, then - back onto my tangent...

...in general and Alexander Sanin in particular. Could you have a look and perhaps right some wrongs, if any?.. And there's a couple of earlier points I'd like to clarify. The 'play' in question in Marina Ladynina was not exactly a play, but the production of a dramatized version of Gorky's autobiographical novel В Людях, usually translated as In the World (although there might be alternatives, like With the People, - would be almost literal). And for Nadezhda Medvedeva, the source says exactly this: "К.С. Станиславский считал Медведеву одной из своих учительниц." - meaning, of course, not literally. Apparently, he's just taken some important cues from her performances. My cumbersome phrasing has failed me, I'm afraid. Never mind. Cheers!) -- Evermore2 (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting, thank you. It looks like the source for Nadezhda Medvedeva was to blame for that--I've tried to offer something that makes the relation clearer, based on what the biographies say about his relation with the Maly generally. And thank you, yes, that explains the Gorky. I'll have a look at Sanin now, thanks  • DP •  ^{huh?} 22:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Sanin is lovely and very interesting, thank you enormously. I'll do a wee bit of copy editing, mostly just phrasing/word order for a slightly smoother read a certain moments. There were two things I thought it might be worth mentioning, though they're very minor. I think it's a good idea to make use of the old style/new style date templates for pre-17 dates, even though they are a little ugly aesthetically, in order to avoid any confusion (I'll add it to Sanin). Also, the word in English for someone who tells the actors what to do, guides them in their performances, makes decisions about blocking, etc. tends to be "director"/"directed" now. You'll find plenty of older sources that use the word "producer"/"produced", but these days we tend to use that to describe the person who raises the money, finds the theatre, hires the director and actors etc. Great work, and thank you once again,  • DP •  ^{huh?} 23:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(refactored from Talk:Ajax (play))

Coconutporkpie, while I can understand that your embarassment at having behaved inappropriately on this talk page in the last couple of months might motivate you to tuck it away where anyone passing by is less likely to stumble across it, it is, nevertheless and as a couple of other editors have already pointed out to you, a further instance of your pattern of inappropriate behaviour.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 14:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it was largely the off-topic, personal remarks (similar to the preceding) that had cluttered this talk page so much as to distract from its purpose – namely, finding ways to improve the article. The discussions regarding article content found at Talk:Ajax (play)/Archive 1 all seem to have run their course – nevertheless, if any user wishes to move one or more of them to this page in order to comment further, they are free to do so per Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal remarks? I haven't speculated about your personality--I'm quite sure your behaviour speaks for itself. The cluttered talk page was its result. Two other editors attempted to do precisely what you are now suggesting, and you reverted them. Kindly leave the talk page alone and restore its contents.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 17:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The key phrase here is "in order to comment further" – in other words, the discussion has ended unless someone has something else directly pertinent to that discussion to say. If questions of calling the play "not an immature work", possessive apostrophes, and citation clutter should need to be debated again (and I don't see why they should), then I think the existing consensus would be better communicated by way of a summary using the ((FAQ)) template, per Help:Archiving a talk page, than by long, rambling discussion threads rife with various petty conduct disputes.

"Personal remarks" means comments directed at other users' behavior. Per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, "Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct [...] Bringing up conduct during discussions about content creates a distraction to the discussion and may inflame the situation". Also please note that it is standard talk page formatting to use indentation via colons (::) to indicate a reply to a comment – see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Technical and format standards for more explanation. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly refrain from attempting to dictate how I respond to your remarks by citing guidelines. The talk page serves as a record of previous discussions concerning how the article may be improved, as well as offering an opportunity for further discussion. You have cited that record elsewhere in what you imagined was incivility and received many answers that you clearly didn't like. I appreciate that must be frustrating for you. If other editors feel that the dilated discussions you demanded have cluttered this talk page, as well as wasted our time, then they are perfectly able to say so or to archive it. What is self-evident from the immediate history of this talk page, however, is that others feel it belongs here. Two other editors reverted your decision to tuck that record away, and you reverted them. Once again, kindly restore it.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 20:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this discussion here from Talk:Ajax (play) on account of its focus on user conduct rather than the content of the article in question. Thank you for your suggestion, but I will respectfully decline. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, I will restore it myself and if you revert it, I will have you blocked. Your continuing inappropriate behaviour is clearly out of control. I recommend once again that you reassess your behaviour and make significant adjustments.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 20:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I won't keep responding to comments that blatantly ignore formatting guidelines regarding indentation, since that is a mild form of disruptive editing according to WP:TALK. If you must insist on pursuing drama rather than working collaboratively to improve articles, then I wish you the best of luck. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The pot calling the kettle black in a glass house the size of Crystal Palace.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 20:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Drama

added a link pointing to Play

List of productions directed by Konstantin Stanislavski

added a link pointing to Mozart and Salieri

Olga Gzovskaya

added a link pointing to The Stone Guest

Ray Harrison Graham

added a link pointing to Realistic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you to have look? Style, grammar, things crying for clarification, etc? Nothing urgent, of course, 'some time in the future' will be okay) -- Evermore2 (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should have received an email about Edinburgh access - if you're still interested, could you please complete the linked form? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three years ago, you were recipient no. 1482 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Konstantin Stanislavski you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Konstantin Stanislavski you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Konstantin Stanislavski for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Konstantin Stanislavski you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Konstantin Stanislavski for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on the article DP! And I hope you'll keep working on it when time allows. Stanislavski certainly can be, and, I think, deserves to be, a FA! --Xover (talk) 10:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Neil Bartlett - Night After Night lo res.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Template:Collab-Theatre-30days has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MaeterlinckOnHamlet has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Xover (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DionysosProteus. Just to let you know with something slightly less impersonal than an automated template notice. I've nominated this template for deletion simply because its function is to provide article content (the Maeterlinck quote) and article content should be editable directly in the article. It's important that all editors be able to edit it directly, and putting it in a transcluded template gets in the way of that. It's a good idea, of course, in general to avoid having to cut and past the same thing to many articles (hence the existence of templates to begin with), but in this case the ease of editing trumps the other concerns. I've moved the quote inline on the articles where it's been used, and nominated the template for deletion. You should of course feel free to argue against this in the discussion linked above if you disagree (I promise I shan't be offended! ;) ). In any case, that's the long version of the automatic notice above. Regards, --Xover (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Modern Theatre Is the Epic Theatre has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is an essay; with only one reference which isn't easily accessible, it's very difficult to see how it could be turned into an encyclopedic article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 16:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Medea Diana Rigg programme lo res.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 seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Hi there! I have recently made a request for an assessment of the article Puppetry of the Penis on WikiProject Theatre. I have been editing this article for over a month, adding almost 3000 words, new sections, an infobox, media and more references for verifiability. I noticed you were a very active (and helpful) editor of WikiProject Theatre, and was wondering if you had the time if you could have a look at the article and provide me any feedback. Any general feedback would be much appreciated and possibly an assessment of the article for importance and quality. Thank you very much. Rubyredgirl (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Template:Romeo and Juliet has been nominated for merging with Template:Romeo and Juliet film adaptations. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]