User talk:Beebuk

Your signature
Hello. I noticed your recent question to SineBot's operator. Your signature does not contain any links back to your user or talk pages, so the bot doesn't recognize it as a signature. It may not have been your intention to omit the links, but I will point out that our guideline requires signatures to include at least one. If you would like to use a customized signature, help can be found here, or feel free to ask me. Thanks. —DoRD (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Per your message here, your signature does appear to have been corrected. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I just want to be sure
I just want to be sure, so I'm checking here-- SPhilbrick  T  02:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Article creation
I noticed that you have been creating articles as your userpage and have a suggestion for you. You can create an article as a subpage of your user such as User:Beebuk/Paul Legrand and then move it to mainspace when you are ready. There are several advantages to this method: Most importantly, it keeps the history of the edits to the article intact, but it also allows you to keep whatever other personal information on your userpage such as I have on mine. —DoRD (talk) 04:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the helpful suggestion. Beebuk 06:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

An ignorant question
In Pantomime, it notes one should not confuse pantomime with mime artist. Yet Jean-Gaspard Deburau is one of the most famous mime artists, and noted as the predecessor of Legrand. The Legrand article calls him a mime, but the discussion is primarily about pantomime.

Can you help me understand the difference?

Is it that the use of mime artist refers to a solo performer, while pantomime includes mimes, but as part of a troupe? Are the characters played by Legrand silent?

I also wanted to see if you know about WP:DYK. It only applies to recently created articles (or recent major expansions) and you seem to be adding high quality articles. A DYK appears on the front page of WP, and often creates a short spike of readership. It does require a hook, an interesting anecdote that can be explained in 200 characters. I'm looking for a suitable one in Legrand, but you may be better able to find one. If you have a suggestion, but aren't sure of the creation process, let me know and I'll help. I'm hardly an expert, with only four DYKs to my credit, but I can try.-- SPhilbrick  T  13:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and proposed a DYK here-- SPhilbrick  T  21:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A mime is a performer: Marcel Marceau was a mime. A pantomime is a (silent) play: Satan, or The Infernal Pact, which Deburau performed in in 1842, is a pantomime.  Less strictly, it can be used to designate a  silent performance ("he acted out the scene in pantomime").  (Yes, Legrand performed wordlessly.)  Many thanks for the nomination for the DYK; it seems to me that your hook is about the best that could be devised.  (But my only real desire is to bring this information to the world.  I appreciate, as a neophyte, all the help I'm getting from fellow Wikipedians.)  Beebuk 22:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I spend a fair amount of time monitoring submissions to the Feedback forum, and I can assure you, I see a lot of proposed articles, and many are quite terrible. It is a joy to see someone who can write well. You seem to have managed referencing very well, that trips up a number of new editors. If there’s anything I can do to help you, please do not hesitate to ask. Oh, by the way, I saw Marcel Marceau perform in Hartford Ct quite a few years ago, and it was a memorable experience. SPhilbrick  T  13:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm very grateful to have your generous support. I'm new at all this, and nervous about sending things out for all the world to see.  It's heartening to know that someone likes it.  (Yes, I once met Marceau&mdash;very briefly&mdash;backstage one night in Philadelphia.  Very memorable: such a slight, deferential man; it was like meeting some sprite from fairyland.) Beebuk 13:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Legrand DYK is in the queue. I don't know where you live, so I can't tell you for sure when it will be viewable, but it will be 7 PM today London time. You should get a message on your talk page shortly after it appears. Thanks again for the work you are doing—bringing interesting information out for the world to see is exactly the mission.-- SPhilbrick  T  12:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey! Thank you!  I'll look for it.  A toast to your kind support! Beebuk 13:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, looks I misread the queue, I have section numbers enabled, so it reads "4 Queue" which I mistakenly read as "Queue 4" It's actually in Queue 1, which should go 18 June at 1 pm London time.-- SPhilbrick  T  00:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be 7:00 p.m. Bangkok time; I'll be on the alert. Many thanks.  Beebuk 11:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Paul Legrand
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Storey, Robert F.
I used a citation tool to look up the citation for the Storey books. I replaced the original citations with the revised. However, I note that it generated a name of "Storey, Robert Lindsay", while other sources say "Storey, Robert F.". I'm about to edit the cites to change "Lindsay" to "F.". If you have any light to shed on this, please do, otherwise, don't worry about it.-- SPhilbrick  T  14:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be "F." There's a travel writer who's confused with me on the web, and I think his middle name is Lindsay.  And many thanks again for the DYK citation: "Legrand" got 3000 hits because of it!  Also, thanks for the references corrections in "Legrand" and my other pages; the humanities (at least in the U.S., but maybe I'm behind-hand in this) place dates at the end of entries, the sciences after the entry names.  I intend to revise all the entries to conform to your changes when I have a minute.
 * Princeton UP, by the way, has never answered my e-mail about fair use in block quotations. I think I'll also shorten the longish ones in "Legrand" when I get the chance; I'm keeping them to four lines or less in the page I'm working on now, on Deburau's son, Charles.  Beebuk 01:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I just came to mention the page stats, but looks like you have already seen it. That's great! I've had a couple other DYKs, but they tended to be around 100 1000 hits, so 3k is very nice.
 * I see that you are working on some other pieces, keep up the good work. Did you see that the article was rated a B? Now you may be thinking that's not so great, but fewer than one per cent of articles in the Arts have better ratings. At some point, you might want to look into getting it rated as a GA - not my area of expertise, and maybe not the best thing to work on at the moment, but I'll be happy to get you started if and when you are interested.
 * Sorry if I created any issues with copyright, but I trust you can understand that we take it very seriously.-- SPhilbrick  T  02:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, and especially for your thoughts about the GA rating. Yes, I'm immersed in another new page at the moment, but I may get back to that sometime soon.  No: no issues with the copyright; I certainly don't want to be a violator.  I got an e-mail from Princeton today, just to say they're processing my request, so I should know something definite soon.  Beebuk 12:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment s re Charles Deburau
Comments

First and foremost, excellent. First-rate. I'm honored to be able to boast that I had some involvement.

Now let's get picky, as there are no major points to make.

I made several tiny edits. While I fancy that I have a decent grasp of punctuation, it is clear you do as well. Please examine my removal of a comma, the addition of another, and a couple changes to create what I presumed you intended as an ellipsis. If you think I'm wrong, stet.

The following are questions, not necessarily errors, and may well be correct as is


 * Is the title "The Three Planets, or The Life of a Rose" or are these two alternative titles for the same work? I think it is the former, but if the latter, I would not put "or" in italics.
 * Similarly for "Poor Pierrot, or After the Ball"
 * Third footnote - I would have said "title page" but if you tell me that "titlepage" is the intended word, I'll accept it
 * Second reference "Champfleury (Jules-François-Félix Husson, known as Fleury, known as)" Is the second "known as" redundant?
 * Finally, Wikipedia discourages wikilinking inside quotes, and you have a few examples. I will have to search to find the rule, it may be that it applies only to formal quotes, not simply anything inside quotes. It may take me some time to find it, so I'll come back when I've found the rule

My most substantive concern is that sometimes there's evidence that this is being written by an expert, as opposed to someone who simply decided to research the subject. Normally, being accused of being an expert is a good thing, but as I trust you know, the goal of Wikipedia is to write a secondary work, not a primary work. One unfortunate outcome is that sometimes you use a colorful phrase that improves the reading of the article, in other words, creates a positive experience for the reader, but that same phrase raises the Wikipedia editor red flag - is this verifiable, or the editors own opinion? I'll list a few examples:


 * Charles, rather than Legrand, as the Pierrot-lover in the Pantomime of the Attorney calls up unfocused, unsettling visions—say, of Jerry Lewis as a winsome romantic lead. [note lack for reference for the Lewis observation.]
 * To secure that work, he had to travel light, and to make do with the theaters that were offered him. And there were few opportunities for spectacular effects on the stages of Dôle or Mâcon or Châlons.
 * As a consequence, he watered down a repertoire that was already overly familiar, at least to Parisian audiences. (To the provincials, he must have seemed a welcome, even marvelous, diversion.) He also, as a consequence, thrust himself into dramatic territory for which his talents were not altogether suited. Typical of his post-Funambules pantomimes is Champfleury's Pantomime of the Attorney, which takes last (pride of?) place in the Goby collection. Here we are in that "commonplace setting," an attorney's office, that Despot describes above, confronting a "light, small-scale" adventure. Pierrot is the clerk of Cassander, an attorney, and is in love with Columbine, the office assistant. Since Cassander is away for most of the piece, the lovers do what all lovers do (at least chaste nineteenth-century lovers) in unchaperoned intimacy: the pantomime is little more than a vehicle for comically arch and sweet amorous dalliance.[25] [If all this is attributed to footnote 25, then everything is fine, but I got the sense you were writing from your position as expert]

Your sourcing is impressive; the average Wikipedia article does not come close to your standard, but I trust you are not trying to write an average article.

Addendum I found the rule regarding quotations, wasn't as hard to find as I thought. MOSQUOTE.


 * As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader.

It is also less rigorous than I remembered. "As much as possible", rather than "always".

My sense is that trhe wikilink in "grand pantomime-harlequinade-fairy play" is fine, while the one in "Shakspeare [sic] at the Funambules," may not. But others may differ. -- SPhilbrick  T  00:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, you are fast! First, many thanks just for taking the time to read it.  That you should have given such close attention to it is a bonus I feel honored to have won.  I'm glad you raised all the points you did, and I'll revise, where necessary, to answer them.  (Yes, the long quotation [beginning "As a consequence . . ."] is supposed to be "covered" by the footnote, but I'll make this more explicit; and, yes, the title "The Three Planets, or The Life of a Rose" is indeed one title; etc.)  Even I was bothered by the "Shakspeare" wikilink; I'll remove it.  In fact, I'll go over all your points with a fine-toothed comb.  I'm very grateful to have such an alert and intelligent reader before I go public with the piece.  (I'm also waiting for a photo from the U.S., to be handed over tomorrow night by my sister, when she arrives for a visit to the mysterious East.)
 * Yes, my wife is also the tennis expert: she was once, long ago, on the Thai national team. Thanks again!  Many thanks!  Beebuk 02:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding where to respond - responding on your talk page is fine, as I've watch listed it. I try not to assume that relatively new editors do that, so if a relatively ne editor leaves a note on my talkpage, I'll use a Talkback template, in case they don't know to check my page.
 * As for being fast, thanks, but not usually—it was fortuitous timing. I had a rather busy workday, but had just completed it and was going to spend some Wiki time when I got your message, so the timing was perfect.
 * Yes, a picture would be a great addition.
 * Regarding footnote 25, I don't think you have to do anything, given your answer. On the assumption you might someday propose this for a GA or FA, I would expect some grilling, and I didn't want you, at that time, to realize you had synthesized some of your knowledge, and would have to scramble to find the original source. AS long as you are comfortable that someone reading the reference would find it supports the paragraph, I'm fine.
 * As for tennis, my wife's team made it to the USTA nationals, but despite being able to use the word "national", there is a world of difference. That's quite impressive.-- SPhilbrick  T  11:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've gone over all your remarks and found them to be extremely helpful. I know now exactly what you mean about the apparent "unverifiability" of some of my assertions, and I've changed them accordingly.  Jerry Lewis has been tossed.  I've made other changes that link the text to sound sources (including footnote 25).  By the way, I just heard from Princeton, who (which?) approves of the quotations in "Legrand."  I'll add a note to that page re: PUP's permission.  Should I forward the e-mail to anyone at Wikipedia?  (I'll also leave a note on the copyright page.)
 * Well, a world in the past: my wife hasn't played for several decades. Moi, I seemed to her (even in the blush of early acquaintance) too clumsy to tutor.  Beebuk 22:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe you need to forward the email to permissions-en[[Image:At sign.svg|15px|@]]wikimedia.org. (Note that the "@" symbol is an image, and should be replaced by the character when sending the email.)-- SPhilbrick  T  22:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the info. Beebuk 15:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright info for Legrand pix

 * OK. In French law, proprietory rights in anonymous works last for 70 years from the date of publication, so it would appear to be pd in its own country. If the photo is not credited in the book, then it does not comply with the somewhat onerous US requirements for publication, so (provided the book was not also published in the US at any time) the work falls into the category Solely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996 In which case, it is copyright in the US until 95 years after the date of publication.  Could you provide the title and author of the book? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The book (and hence the photograph) would have been PD in France on 1 January 1996, as the French copyright term was not extended to 70 years (from 50 years) until 1997. My line would be that the image seems to be PD in both France and the U.S. Physchim62 (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, EOTR's proviso ("the book was not also published in the US at any time") is too strict: the book would have had to have been published in the U.S. with all formalities (including copyright renewal) complied with for it still to be under U.S. copyright. If the book was published in the U.S. but without renewal, we are back onto the hypothesis of copyright restoration, which fails because of the French copyright term on the relevant date. Physchim62 (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Charles Deburau
Hello! Your submission of Charles Deburau at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Deburau
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Re Pierrot
I've taken a quick look, and I understand your reaction. First, take a deep breath. Nothing is lost. Anything that was removed that belongs in the article can easily be returned. Having said that, I don't want to over-promise—I'm up to my eyeballs in a Wikipedia Arbitration Decision, which was just released as preliminary this week. Plus there are some real life issues quite pressing. I will help, but it will have to be over time.

I quickly checked out the situation, and have mixed comments - the changes aren't the work of some misguided newbies, but very established editors. Changes that are wrought without edit summaries and without talk page discussion are easily rectified, but there is extensive discussion on the page. While that does mean that I'm not in a position to simply undo changes, it does mean the editors are thinking through what they are doing, and open to discussion. I think some of the comments have merit, while I disagree with some. The most important thing to do is not to over-react. You haven't, and while I don't know you well, I don't think that's in your nature, but I can tell you that on many occasions an editor who has contributed a substantial portion of an article becomes to think, incorrectly, like an owner. That attitude can be manifested in a negative way, and if that happens, all is lost.

Two other things you can do easily, which will be helpful. Always use edit summaries. I know you have, almost all the time. The odd thing is, edit summaries are often useless, but the main time they are useful is when there are disagreements. I think you've only failed to do so once or twice recently, but it was noticed. I see that it may have been due to worries about edit conflicts. There is a way to deal with them, see Help:Edit conflict, but if I don't give you specific advice on how to resolve them, it's because I haven't figured it out. I've given up. Whenever I run into an edit conflict, I back up and try again. However, one thing that I do to avoid losing anything - I compose anything over a sentence in a separate editor. Then I copy and paste, so if I lose it in an edit conflict, it isn't lost. I even write my edit summaries in the editor, so I can copy and paste them as well. Third, I see you posted on user pages, instead of user talk pages. I'm sure it was inadvertent, and maybe due to stress, not sure. I noticed you did to Nandesuka - I rolled it back, but want you to know, as you were notifying him/her about a comment on the Pierrot talk page, so I want you to know it is gone.

I'll try to read the talk page discussion and review the history of the page over the next couple days, then decide how next to proceed. Just so there's no confusion - my goal isn't simply to revert to your version, it is to talk through how best to structure the article for WP. -- SPhilbrick  T  12:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Because you asked for it...
First of all, my apologies for the amount of criticism I brought down on you concerning the length of your article on Pierrot. I didn't intend for it to reach the proportions it did. Considering, for instance, that every single Pokeman character has his own article on Wikipedia I should have just let it go.

Now, since you asked for it:

SPACE AGE LOVE

My sonnet is a throbbing, singing thing/ That rises over mountain, wood and stream/ To soar aloft on jet propellant wing/ In emulation of the poet's dream!/ What lure of far-flung shores of Zanzibar/ Or whim of sylvan dancing girls from Spain/ Could orient the course from where you are,/ Or countermand the destination plain?/

My sonnet is a space ship orbiting/ In the magnetic field of your true soul;/ Directly it will be re-entering/ The domain that has been its only goal,/ As sonnets jet their way to heaven's blue,/ My thoughts go singing, winging straight to you!

...and so much for my grandfather's poetry. Hope it hasn't scarred you for life.Ormewood (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Pierrot lunaire (book)
Regarding your DYK nomination of Pierrot lunaire (book), I've remarked about some possible problems with this article: you can find them in the "Pierrot lunaire (book)" section of T:TDYK. I left a note there about a day ago — I'm sorry for the delay, which is due simply to my forgetfulness. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Pierrot lunaire (book)
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to say hello.
Just a note to say hello. I deal with a lot of new editors, and most of the interactions are depressing. When I find myself discouraged about yet another editor who doesn't seem to have a clue, I pick myself up by saying, maybe the next one will be another Beebuk.-- SPhilbrick  T  14:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you are still active.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  15:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments on Pedrolino
It has been some time since I last looked at articles you’ve worked on, and that is presenting a challenge. Early on, there was plenty of low hanging fruit, so I could identify some possible improvements without too much work. Now, you’ve taken those observations to heart, and I have to dig deeper.

First, it looks very good. I see a lot of articles in Wikipedia, and very few reach this level of skill. However, you asked for feedback, so I am going to scratch for a few items worth a comment.

I’m struggling with the introduction, and struggling to explain my concern precisely. The audience of Wikipedia is varied, and that always presents a challenge as to the level at which an article should be written. Use of jargon is allowed, as the occasional use, with a wikilink to the explanation, works for both the expert and the neophyte. I think it is a plus to include a new term on occasion; when done well, and in context, the reader can either learn a new term (and surely we hope the reader of an encyclopedia is interested in learning) or move on without losing the flow. With that as introduction, I found the opening sentence a challenge. I don’t know the term “Pedrolino”, but that’s OK, as this article will explain the term. I next run into “zanni” a term I do not know. It is helpfully wikilinked, and, in addition, you have given an alternative label “comic servant”. Unfortunately, my limited theater expertise (if this is even the right genre, read on ) intervenes, and the term “comic servant” doesn’t fully register. Then I run into “Commedia dell'arte” which is also helpfully wikilinked, but without going to the link, I don’t yet know the context of this article. Then I run into new word hypocorism, again, helpfully wikilinked. However, at this poitn I have four new words, and not a sense of the context, without visiting the wikilinks. I think this is a little too much. I’m going to see if I can get a real expert to look at this. In the meantime one initial thought is to add a parenthetical explanation of  Commedia dell'arte (although after looking at the description, I don’t have a suitable candidate. Another possibility is to replace “hypocorism” with “diminutive”.

You use a device that I haven’t seen often in Wikipedia articles, including the name of a commenter as part of the article. It may be that is it more common in better articles, in which case my comments should be ignored. Again, I’m looking for review by another. Examples include:
 * Robert Storey calls
 * in Storey's words
 * K.M. Lea convincingly argues
 * Scala, in compiling them, drew upon
 * "Dominique" Biancolelli, …contended
 * as Mic notes above

One final note, in the last phrase (as Mic notes above) I assume Mic refers to "Dominique" Biancolelli. This sounds a little to inside baseball. Probably well know to experts, but may not be quickly picked up by the casual reader. Oops, my bad. I now think Mic is Constant Mic, but shouldn't there be a reference?-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  15:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Gilles (stock character), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Gilles (stock character) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Gilles (stock character), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Maisons, Auteuil and Choisy (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) 10:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Gilles correction
It's done. Let me guess ... you were trying to fix it by clicking the edit link at T:TDYK? Since we started using the separate nomination templates, that only gets you the list of templates. You have to actually edit the template itself, either by opening it up and clicking edit as you normally would or by clicking the "review or comment" link from T:TDYK.

Also, I went to the trouble of adding the article to the appropriate WikiProjects. But I am wondering, recalling the article: would it be a good idea to add it to WP:BELGIUM's worklist as well? Daniel Case (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Gilles (stock character)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. The main issue I take is with the editorial voice and the OR, in fact superfluous, claim about why others who bother to discuss the matter of Watteau's painting are quibbling (read WP:SYNTH). That entire pronouncement needs to be removed from the article: at best, it adds nothing; at worst, it undermines the article's otherwise erudite prose. I have a problem with the other comments made by the editorial voice, in that section and (more mildly) in others, but to at least remove/rephrase the parts I highlighted in my quote would be enough for me to remove the tags I added in the article.
 * I also wish I had noticed the matter before it was so far advanced in the queue. I first opened the link and read through the article because another user had brought up the issue of "poignant". My original intention was to verify whether the article itself uses "poignant" to describe the painting, and whether or not this is derivative from a quoted source - in that case, we would have added quotation marks to the adjective in the hook, and problem solved. It is what I then discovered that got me worried, because the reviewers of the DYK entry did a very poor job at fixing it. I naturally assume yours was a good faith mistake, but the rest of us who are more familiar with wikipedia requirements should have worked with you on these issues much earlier. I also apologize if my replies were severe: I was at the end of a rather long editing "shift", and pretty annoyed that I was the only one who seemed to care about this slip-up. Dahn (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Cool. Thanks for the quick response. Dahn (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Cercle Funambulesque, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! hmssolent \Let's convene My patrols 04:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Jean-Gaspard Deburau
Hi,

I'm the chief architect of the English Jean-Gaspard Deburau page, and recently (while watching Les Enfants du Paradis again) I noticed an important error in the last paragraph of the "Tragic Pierrot" section of that page. The first parenthesis in that paragraph has now been revised, and the second parenthesis eliminated. I thought you may want to check out the changes and incorporate them into your French version. (I started to do it myself, but, for several reasons, including the fact that I'm very unused to writing in French, I gave up.) Thanks.

--Beebuk (discuter) 17 août 2013 à 13:55 (CEST)


 * Thank you very much. I will do it next month (I'm far from my computer now).
 * Best Regards Chaoborus (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Question about Jung Young-moon
Yes... that French title (since I assume Pierrot is the clown is) 달 에 홀린 광대 Or "The Clown Possessed by the Moon" or "Moon Possessed Clown" Korean info here: http://books.google.co.kr/books/about/%EB%8B%AC_%EC%97%90_%ED%99%80%EB%A6%B0_%EA%B4%91%EB%8C%80.html?id=Y7wUAQAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y Ccmontgom (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi
A has mentioned to  me that you might be in Bangkok. It's an hour's flight from where I live and I don't get down there too often nowadays but if you are in  BKK maybe we should consider meeting up. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Problems with fr:Pierrot (commedia dell'arte)
Bonjour!

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&mdash;Pedrolino&mdash;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&mdash;or maybe just tertiary&mdash;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&mdash;Bertoldo, Pagliaccio, etc.&mdash;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&mdash;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)
 * Argh ! Our article is, at least, a very poor stub, written mainly in 2007 by an editor who left the following year. The first step to improve wp:fr could be to translate en:Pedrolino (fr:Pedrolino is a redirect), and then to translate en:Pierrot. I will put a copy of your message on our fr:Discussion Projet:Théâtre to seek a little help.
 * Best Regards
 * Chaoborus (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you know about this?
World Mime Day Wiki edit-a-thon -- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Pierrot
I will have more to say later but I wanted to start with a nit. I just made an edit, adding a footnote to Guitry, Sacha: Deburau (1918) — at the moment it is footnote 103. The parenthetical date is 1918 but the reference seems to suggest 1921. I don’t know whether this means it was originally written in 1918 but eventually published in 1921, or if the 1918 is an error, or the reference is wrong or something else but you are in the best position to know.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Play first performed 1918; first published in an English translation (which I assume readers of Eng. Wiki will want to see) 1921. You're a Christian martyr to commit yourself to this.  Beebuk 00:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. More tomorrow-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

In a minor sidenote, I wanted to make a comment about Edna St. Vincent Millay, so I went to the article to check something, and while there noticed a photo of her home which look familiar. I clicked on it and realized why—it is my photo. Small world-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I feel very guilty embroiling you in this mess. Very guilty but infinitely grateful.  From the looks of your new footnotes, I wouldn't have figured out how to link any of these entries properly in a million years.  Whatever you can salvage will be much much appreciated.


 * Your picture? Who would have thought.  Beebuk 13:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not feel guilty at all. For one thing, it has given me the opportunity to think through some fundamental issues regarding Wikipedia. For that I am grateful.
 * On a more practical note, I do want to demonstrate to you that creating the footnotes is easy. When the visual editor first came out, it did not handle footnotes well at all. Actually worse than that, it didn’t handle footnotes. I tried it and largely abandoned it for that reason. More recently, I tried again, and I am impressed at how well it can handle footnotes. (As a minor note, I was interested in working on this because I thought there might be a way to convert directly from embedded link to footnote. I tried that and failed, but like Edison, I try not to view failure in a negative sense.) On a more positive note, if you use the visual editor, and click on “cite” you can drop a URL into the box that’s created, click on generate and in many cases, a proper footnote will be created. Some will fail but if it successfully creates it, click on insert. I hope you’ll try it, it literally will change your life at least as respects the way you edit Wikipedia.


 * One caution—unlike edit source where you can edit a section, clicking on edit to invoke the visual editor requires opening the whole article. This is no big deal in a small article but in Pierrot it takes some time. It isn’t snappy but it works. You might test in a sandbox or on a smaller article 1st, but the edits I’ve made so far have been easy (not counting the discussion :). I opened an earlier version of the article which still had the embedded links, clicked on the embedded link to open it and get the URL, then go to the latest version of the article open in visual editor, click “cite” add the URL, click generate, and click insert. Very easy.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, great. This makes me feel better.  Let me take over and see how well I do.  Unfortunately my wife and I are headed for Ireland for a holiday in a matter of days, so things will be in limbo until we return.  May I beg your attention if I run into rough spots once I buckle down to it?  I'm not a very confident techie.  Merci mille fois for all you've done so far&mdash;and for this recent info.  Beebuk 00:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Back a little later with a question. You speak in your summaries of drawing from the "internet archive".  What exactly is that and how do I ensure that I'm tapping it and not simply fishing up something illegitimate?  (Is this a stupid question?  Is the "internet archive" simply what I think of as the "internet"?)  Oh, and another question: according to the Wikipage on Visual editing, individual sections of a page CAN be edited using the visual editor.  Is this false information?  Beebuk 03:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Wanted to catch you before you replied: I think I can get out of your hair now. I found the internet archive (Hey! I thought: Why not Google "internet archive"!)  And I think I can maneuver with the visual editor; I vaguely recall having used it on French Wiki.  So here goes my solo flight.  Many thanks again for all the help.  Beebuk 07:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pierrot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Manuel Machado. 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) 09:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pierrot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aleksey Tolstoy ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Pierrot check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Pierrot?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)