User talk:Cowardly Lion

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia. This account was created for you. We hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions or place  on this page, and someone will be around to help. Again, welcome! --AccReqBot (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Wikisource image
No problem. I had to upload it previously because other people at Wikisource requested proof that the book was PD. The page photographed contained the copyright notice stating that. It's not needed for anything else. -- LGagnon 03:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Cowardly Lion (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!
Ah, so you're a Shakespeare fan too, huh? :) Angie Y. (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am indeed, and thanks for the welcome. Cowardly Lion (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Angie Y. (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The Two Gentlemen of Verona
Good work at The Two Gentlemen of Verona. Very impressive. AndyJones (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's very kind. Cowardly Lion (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

About rollback
You're welcome. A quick review of some of your edits, plus a check of your block log showed no concerns. :) If you're interested in reading about rollback, you can see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. Good luck. Acalamari 23:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've added both to my watchlist. I am familiar with Rollback, though; I've used it at Wikisource. Cowardly Lion (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) Acalamari 02:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...
For correcting the recent MfD. This is not my day for even moderately complex actions. Sorry about my initial mistake. John Carter (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. You're welcome. Cowardly Lion (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Disambiguation has a lot of information, covering many different scenarios.

The simple answer for that case, as there are only two, is to put for at the top of each page, in the form of:

John Vandenberg (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I've added the template to the two pages, and have read some of Disambiguation. Cowardly Lion (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking good! Note that there are a number of pages which might need to link to your Younge article. John Vandenberg (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for your message. I'm just sorry that I missed it second time around! Bobo. 02:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Volumnia (Shakespeare)
I just created this page. Have a look. Wrad (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Actually, I found it a couple of minutes before you told me, because I followed a link from Virgilia. Perhaps a little more sourcing for claims about what scholars say? Cowardly Lion (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've been trying to find some feminist info, but the scholarship I've found so far is overwhelmingly pschoanalytic. By the way, it's nice to have someone else around who edits Shakespeare character articles. Wrad (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I've seen much criticism about Volumnia, but I'll have a look. And yes, the Shakespeare character articles are fun, and there's a lot of room for expansion. Cowardly Lion (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking a long while about writing a Shakespeare's characters article. One that covered his characters as a whole. Trends that have been found between them... Innovations he introduced to characterization... Anyway, I don't know when I'll start writing it, but would you be interested in taking part whenever that is? Wrad (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure. I'm not as well up as I should be on the more modern criticism. I just don't like it very much. But I have a lot of the old scholars, who really went in for writing about the characters - Hazlitt, Coleridge, Schlegel, Johnson, Dowden, Bradley, and dip into them quite a lot. Also, two very interesting nineteenth-century books specifically about his heroines - one by Mrs Jameson, and one by the Shakespearean actress Helena Faucit. Cowardly Lion (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

IP
IP numbers are needed with Laurence Boyce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your message. It may have been the edit I was looking at was not constructive, and when rolled back, rolled them all back. I see that the user means well, although substantial content had been removed. I'll drop a note on the users talk page. Thanks for letting me know :) Tiddly  -  Tom  18:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * After looking even more carefully, it was more of a jiggerypokery of content rather than removal. My apologies! Tiddly  -  Tom  18:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanking you
Thanks, I just noticed your very quick revert of the vandalism on my User page. Polly (Parrot) 04:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship
 Dear Cowardly Lion, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your concerns about my candidacy. Unfortunately very few of the opposes gave me advice on points I should improve upon (bar the examples of incivility), and I ask you now, very humbly, to visit my talkpage, should you have any concerns about any of my actions here. I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Great Lear Page
Dear Cowardly Lion, I Presume it's you who created the new History of King Lear site (and indeed, I just traced it to you!) Most excellent. I will eventually propose a "history of productions" addition, as I am a big fan of Tate, despite the fact that he couldn't write a line that scanned! Weimar03 (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words - to compensate for the shock of learning that there's actually someone who likes Tate!!!
 * Mean while, the Stars shall dart their kindest Beams,
 * And Angels Visit my Cordelia's Dreams.


 * (Ouch!)


 * Seriously, though, I'm delighted you like the article, and look forward to your collaboration. Other editors are already turning up, since I started spamming links to it wherever I could think of. And it appeared in the DYK section of the Main Page last night, so I'm feeling very chuffed. Cowardly Lion (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Photos
Dear Cowardly Lion, while I agree with your pulling Elizabeth Barry's image, it would be great to have a painting of Garrick on the heath, or Cordelia in the Dungeon, if you can locate one or two, to give a flavor of the 18th century productions. Weimar03 (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels - 1st Coordinators Election
An election has been proposed and has been set up for this project. Description of the roles etc., can be found at WikiProject Novels/Coordinators. If you wish to stand, enter your candidacy before the end of March and ask your questions of anyone already standing at WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008. Voting will start on the 1st April and close at the end of April. The intention is for the appointments to last from May - November 2008. For other details check out the pages or ask. KevinalewisBot (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Merchant
Great minds...?

Tate's Image
Merry Christmas! Here is that image of Tate you were looking for:

http://www.mala.bc.ca/~lanes/english/laureate/tate.htm

I imagine it's in public domain, but that is not my specialty so I'll let you sort it out. Best Regards.Smatprt (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The role of Arante in Tate's Lear is significant; don't cut it!
Dear Cowardly Lion, after again praising you for creating the site for Tate's Lear, I want to argue the value of Arante in that text, the reference to which you recently deleted. You argue that Arante only speaks 10 lines. But in staging the play, you'll find that she is present on the stage at key moments in Cordelia's story, even when not speaking. Tate may write bad verse, and we scold him today because we live in a much darker world than his (and the 18th century world that prefered his Lear to that of Shakespeare's), with no Sam Johnson as our moral compass, but Tate's theater is still very stageworthy, and he knew the importance of adding a confidant for the central woman's role in his play, Cordelia. One might also argue that in Shakespeare's original text, Gonderil and Regan are, in balance, more dominant than Cordelia - they're usually who we remember; whereas in Tate's play, Cordelia moves (should we say, "is restored to her historical role at") center stage, as in the original legend of Lear. Cordelia is more dominant in Tate's Lear - she has more to do - and therefore needs a confidant, and therefore Arante's addition by Tate is an invaluable addition, and sound theatrical choice. One could also see in the addition of a confidant the French influence coming through Charles II's tastes from his sojourn in France. And, Arante presence for Cordelia to debate and confide in shifts the dramatic style of the piece from an Elizabethan world of soloquies to the French theatre's use of a confidant. Finally, having seen Tate's Lear on the stage, I can also assure you that that fourth woman on the stage (in an otherwise man's world) is not insignificant, but it can, and should be, quite astonishing. Don't forget, Shakespeare's Lear was played by men, with, quite possibly, the role of Cordelia played by the same young lad who played the Fool!) In the theatre that Tate wrote for, women played women's roles: hence, Arante was a 33% increase in the number of women on the stage!  I'd therefore argue that you restore what you cut, but perhaps add a phrase, "in a minor, but important supporting role."

I'd like to hear your response before I make the change myself, as this is a sight that you very excellently and lovingly created.

Hey, what say we create a section including contemporary debating points, documented in the style of Wikipedia, of course, to present such points as this. For, trust me, Tate's Lear will be revived again, and soon; yes, it may read badly and appear somewhat inept on the page, but, wow!, it makes excellent theatre.

Weimar03 (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

On second thought...about Arante
Dear Cowardly Lion, on second thought, I agree with you editing out Arante in the "head" or lead paragraph about King Lear. I would, however, like to propose adding a section discussing, in a scholarly way, Tates additions and deletions, their dramaturgical and theatrical value, etc. as I have in the above section of yesterday. Because you inaugurated this lovely site, I was open to your thoughts on this. Weimar03 (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome
Glad to help. King Lear has always been one of my favorites. :) María ( habla con migo ) 16:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Work, Cowardly Lion!
You continue to do nice clean-up work on this article. And, though the script is seldom staged, the time you're spending is well-spent, because theatre folk will someday again discover that Tate's Lear - with all its blemishes - indeed plays excellently well on the stage. It's not Shakespeare's Lear, it's something else, with a vitality unto itself, and with a message that suits particular audiences in particular times surprisingly well. Weimar03 (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXIII - April 2008
John Carter (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXIV - May 2008
The May 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. SteveCrossinBot (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXV - June 2008
The June 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. SteveBot (owner) 23:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet collaboration
Greetings! The current Shakespeare Project Collaboration is Romeo and Juliet. This project is currently going a thorough peer review and copyedit before moving on to FAC. The link to the peer review is Peer review/Romeo and Juliet/archive1. Have a look! «  Diligent Terrier  Bot    (talk)   20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling all active WP:NOVELS members
 WikiProject Novels Roll Call WikiProject Novels is currently holding a roll call, which we hope to have annually. Your username is listed on the members list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active within the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:Novels editor, please add your name back to the Active Members list. Also feel free to join any of our task forces and take a look at the project's Job Centre to get involved!

Next month we will begin the coordinator election selection process. We hope to have more involvement and input this time around! More news will be forthcoming. Thanks, everyone! María ( habla con migo ) 14:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels Newsletter - September 2008
This newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Shakespeare notice
There is currently a discussion going on regarding the project's policy on how information on characters should be represented in articles on Shakespeare's plays. Please take part by clicking Talk:Romeo and Juliet. Further context, if needed, can be found by scanning the two previous talk sections on the page as well. Sent by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 04:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC) per request of Wrad (talk)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 13:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You have been pruned from a list
Hi Cowardly Lion! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting WikiProject Biography/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 18:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)