User talk:Wencer

Welcome!
Hello , and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some good places to get you started! I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please be sure to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes to produce your name and the current date, or just three tildes ( ~   ) to produce your name only. If you have any questions, or are worried/confused about anything at all, please either visit the help desk, or leave a new message on my talk page at any time. Happy editing, good luck, and remember: Be Bold!   Fir  e  Fo  x  17:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * Template messages
 * Sandbox

Lya De Putti
Wencer, just wanted to say thank you for your addition to Lya De Putti! I had been meaning to get around to her for a while, but had so little personal info on her for a bio. It's always so great to see others who are interested in silent film! Keep up the good work! ExRat 04:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

AFD entries
Hello, Wencer. I just fixed the 2 entries you just made in AFD. Remember to sign your nominations by using four tildes (PJM 22:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)). Happy editing. PJM 22:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada
Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 15:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Silent films
Thanks for the thoughtful encouragement. As suggested, for a start here are a few names needing bios.


 * Kate Bruce
 * Henry B. Walthall
 * George Kleine
 * Philip Van Zandt

I appreciate your interest and generous offer to cooperate. - Ted Wilkes 19:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wencer, I have made a short list of notable silent film actors that I have been meaning to get around to as well, but either haven't had time or just couldn't find enough information for biographies:


 * Louise Fazenda
 * Dorothy Revier
 * Charles Farrell
 * Marguerite De La Motte
 * Nils Asther

Thanks! Hopefully, between the few of us that are focusing somewhat on silent film, we can get many covered. If you can think of a few that you'd like to see focused on for the time being, feel free to post them on my talk page. Cheers! ExRat 04:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Corey...
Hi Wencer. I dont have a wide variety of pictures to chose from for most people. For people who are not extremely famous they do not have a lot of pictures and the ones they do have out there are usually copyrighted. This is very frustrating and difficult.

I think the picture looks fine. If you want me to add the other pictures I can just as long as they are copyright friendly. But if you'd like I would recommend for you to donwload irfanview (Which is completely free) and you can resize images, crop, etc which is really convienient for wikipedia. It can really enrich the content quality of your articles. Its very easy to use as well. I usually prefer 155 for the width in pixels. I hate reading articles without pictures so I try to do the wiki community a favor.

With regard to the copyright problems most of the images I had problems with was when I was new to wikipedia and I have resolved those issues. Most of the images the copyrights are fine but editors need to verify the status. (Most of the times its their mistake)

As for the copyright for the Jeff Corey picture the site doesnt list one so it's in the public domain. Also is Jeff Corey Jewish? Get back to me if you can. Thanks,

JJstroker 06:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

pre-Code
What about my edit (sourced and cited from the University of Virginia) was vandalism in the pre-Code page??

Don't allow yourself to be manipulated by Irish censors and Catholic apologists, who, regrettably, ARE part of the Wikipedia community, whether or not you like to acknowledge it. 70.19.67.28 00:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for your concern. It looks like the Pre-Code page is essentially degenerating into an edit war (or whatever the term is; I'm not plugged into Wikipedia culture enough to know). If you note my edit on Pre-Code from Feb. 19th, I actually edited the pre-Code article in the past and am responsible for the article even mentioning the Catholic decency leagues and Daniel Lord and such.

Regarding my recent edit, I simply added the page into my watchlist the other day and noticed the restoration of "vandalized" edits. In instances in which two parties feud over the content of a page, my personal policy is, however, to keep disputed information OUT rather than IN, as I feel it is better for a resource such as Wikipedia to be lacking in information rather than run the risk of presenting the risk of false information.

Much of my editing, of course, pertains to silent film, a subject quite fraught with misleading information, revisionist history and conflicting resources. A particular pet peeve of mine are the 1970s-era trashy books which sought to out every single Hollywood celebrity ever, regardless of the truth.

Upon regarding the subject more closely, it seems that the debate has nothing to do with the CONTENT of your edit (as you suggest by referring to Catholic apologists), particularly given that no one has seen fit to remove my February 19th edit, which is essentially a paraphrasing of information provided on the most popular and reputed websites dedicated to early film. The issue is more that you're providing an awkward, lengthy quotation which isn't really relevant. For one thing, you've taken out the paragraph on why many fans today like early '30s risque film (which is undeniable, really), and for the other, more important part, it's describing a world in which a private industry code, properly enforced, censors films effectively. This did happen... AFTER PRE-CODE FILM. Given that this article is about PRE-code film, this quotation is out of place. Furthermore, your quotation doesn't condemn Catholic or the Irish, as you suggest (I'm not sure what the Irish have to do with this, other than a lot of Irish people are Catholic), so much as it codemns the specific censors involved, and suggest that their sole motivation was religious. Maybe it was. Back then, a lot of interest was simply social, and I'm sure a lot of the head honchos wanted stuff censored because they simply found it deplorable, regardless of Church pressure. Indicating that religious pressure was a factor is important, as I sought to do in my February edit.

Anyway, as I say, I don't want to get involved with an edit war and will not re-edit the page regarding this matter again, however, I would suggest that if there's any particular part of the quotation that you feel is essential to the layperson's understanding of this era of film, that you paraphrase in an academic-sounding voice, and acknowledging the delicateness of the subject without sacrificing info. For example: "It has been suggested that a private industry code may have been utilized as a means of enforcing religious dogma," or "there may have been other agendas behind the industry's championing of its own code over government regulations, as the Catholic League of Decency may have..." and so forth.

In any event, you quotation seems more relevant to the article on the code itself, and not on "pre-Code." The pre-Code article is designed to explain what transpired before the code went into effect, rather than the harshness that came about after its enforecement. But this is a cavil. In summary: Upon closer inspection, your edit was NOT vandalism, but it's neither relevant nor "neutral" unless its qualified with an acknowledgement that this was merely ONE factor in the later decision to enfore the code.

Also, I will not edit the page again regarding this matter, but encourage you and the parties you are feuding with to determine, what precisely is the information you want present, and to find a way to present pleasing all parties.

Yours, etc.,

-David Wencer 04:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Peggy Nash
I'm not certain the Lebanon trip is worth mentioning at all. MPs go on overseas travels all the time, and there isn't anything especially notable about Nash representing her party. CJCurrie 07:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT!!!!
I see you have edited Queen's University before. Queen's University has been nominated for Collaboration of the week and the Article improvement drive. Please vote and help out!!!!!! --Speedystickd 19:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Buddy Killen
I was going to write and say thank you for improving the stub I wrote. I despise red links. Looking at your userpage, I laughed out loud at the bit about women your father has mistaken for men, He must not be terribly observant. ;-) Thanks for making me laugh :) -FateSmiled&amp;DestinyLaughed 01:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles I have had nothing to do with but which are nonetheless unintentionally hilarious
Shit
 * I believe that this would make a good addition to your collection. Pete Peters 01:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Theodor August Heintzman.png
Hi,

I have updated the tags on the image.

--YUL89YYZ (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth missing should be placed in the talk page
Please note that Category:Date of birth missing should be placed in the talk page. So this edit is not correct. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Wencer! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) James M. Stayer -

Nomination of D. W. Clendenan for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article D. W. Clendenan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/D. W. Clendenan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)