User talk:Smatprt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rick 2.0 18:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)== Edward de Vere ==

You recently rated the bio of Edward de Vere as a "B" article. Can I ask for recommendations for making it better and/or a summary of the basis for your rating. Thanks! Smatprt 06:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. "B" is essentially the highest rating that can be applied to an article by a "passer-by" like me. The ratings beyond it, like GA (good article), A, and FA (featured), involve some formal process. I rated it "B" based primarily on length/comprehensiveness (which is what the ratings up to "B" boil down to). Here are some observations about the article:

  • References for quotations are needed in one or more places.
  • Reference formatting, especially of the web links using Template:Cite web (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), is desirable. A couple of the links are overwriting other text in my browser.
  • There is no need to link years unless they are part of a date.
  • Generally avoid editorial phrases such as "it is interesting to note", "surprisingly", etc.
  • Sectioning: one more subdivision for "Life" would be nice, IMO, and moving "authorship question" above "sample poems" advised.

–Outriggr § 03:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(I meant to put this on your talk page of course, but you can't blame me for the mistake! –Outriggr § 03:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

Contents

[edit] Spoilers

I saw your comments on reversion (The "please develop a consensus on the Shakespeare project page, as this affects all the Shakespeare pages. Til then, stop the mass deletions of spoilers.")

In fact, they are not limiting themselves to Shakespearean plays but engaging in far more massive deletions. You may want to comment here: Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler_warning#Spoiler_removal Especially as several editors are working in concert, apparently to avoid the 3 revert rule. Goldfritha 03:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare

Thank you for your kind words and efforts. About the Bacon theory (which I had not even in mind at the time i did those editings) it is, from what i could grasp, a misconception of things that historians and literary critics can't currently understand, as in Shakespeare's Hamlet "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" :) In fact both authors existed and both had their missions and works under the same heavenly auspice :). Please allow me to suggest this simple reading [1]. Thank you once again! --Lusitanian 02:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter how much context and sources you provide when one is facing such a fundamentalist ideology as i have tried to explain here, and others already better than me. Anyway, thank you very much for your efforts, i'm confident they will bring their fruits in due time. See you ;) --Lusitanian 12:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare project collaboration

The Shakespeare Project has begun a collaboration to bring its main article, William Shakespeare, to FA status. If you wish to contribute, please review the to-do list on its talk page. Let's make this article an FA! Wrad 15:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare in chronological order

I'm sorry, but it seems like I misread the source. You can see that chronological order was mentioned in [2] as being the conventional grouping at the time. However, I thought that what the site meant was that Shakespeare's works were put in the same way. Sorry for the misunderstanding.--Romeo in love 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karmichael Hunt

Could you review this article. It would be much appreciated.

Article:Karmichael Hunt
Peer review:Wikipedia:Peer review/Karmichael Hunt

Thanks, very much SpecialWindler 11:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buddy Holly musical

Hello. You added info about awards and nominations for a San Francisco production. This is not usually done for articles on musicals. Usually just Tony/Olivier/Drama Desk and sometimes Outer Critics. More important, however, there is no discussion in the article of a San Francisco production, so it makes no sense to note awards for that production. If the production was particularly notable, can you please add a description? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 18:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Yeah. I argued with the same editor on several dozen different musicals' articles. He just wanted to cut synopses, cast/character info and headings. He is less active now, so it is easier to expand articles. Since you have the script, you should be able to put in the missing info in a way that does not just repeat what the official website says. By the way, I still think we should remove the info on the Bay awards. You can mention them up in the paragraph about the West Coast production if you like. But it is not good to have long lists of thinks in Wikipedia articles. The awards section throughout the musicals on wikipedia usually just lists Tony/Olivier/DD, and that is enough already. Remember, each of the Buddy Holly productions in all those countries won some local award, and to list them all is just not of interest to most readers. If you put in a WP:RS cite to the place were the awards are shown on the internet, that would be better. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 14:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Shakespeare

Smatprt, please don't start an edit war on the article over that authorship section. A large number of us have worked really hard on the article and doing an edit war at this point would doom the FAC. Please do not make any more edits to that section. Also, Awadewit and qp10qp have said the authorship section won't be a deal breaker, so please don't start that discussion again on the FAC page. Most everyone has signed onto a compromise I brokered to leave the final decision on whether that section should or should not be in the article until after the FAC is finished. I am also e-mailing you something, so please check your in-box.--Alabamaboy 19:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, please don't simply revert edits back and forth on the article. First discuss any controversial changes on the article's talk page. --Alabamaboy 16:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What was controversial about today's edits? Please explain. I am trying to hold to the compromise, but others are not.Smatprt 16:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you join the discussion at Talk:William Shakespeare#Opening? We all recognise there are issues to be hammered out, but I want them hammered out at that discussion rather than on the article page. I propose leaving RedRabbit's removal in place until we've discussed further. AndyJones 16:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see my new comments at Talk:William_Shakespeare#True_consensus_needed. There's a possible consensus which I've worked out and I hope you'll support it.--Alabamaboy 22:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the (maybe) final consensus version is at Talk:William_Shakespeare#Final_consensus_versions.3F--Alabamaboy 23:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The authorship section version that's now up on the article (see here) has the widest consensus and satisfies almost everyone (except for one editor who still wants the section deleted). I'm hoping that no one else will edit the section and that we can now move on from here.--Alabamaboy 13:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Re:SuckPipette

He's already blocked for vandalism and sockpuppeting. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Shakespearean authorship question

Dear Smatprt, I have received a complaint about your edits to the article Shakespearean authorship question. I am an independent party in this dispute (I don't know any of the editors involved and am not an expert on the subject) so I hope we can work together to sort it out. I will read the article later tonight, but I thought it would be useful for you to first provide your own "version of events", and let me know your thoughts about the article. In the interests of full disclosure, I should point out that I am an admin, but I don't think (at the moment) that there is any question me using my powers against anyone involved. Looking forward to hearing from you, Soo 19:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford

I haven't taken a solid look into the article dispute your having now (I plan to soon), but I thought I'd mention the book "Shakespeare by another name" by Mark Anderson. It's a fabulous book, and there are so many similarities that I'm almost convinced that Oxford was Shakespeare, except I've read poems known to be by de Vere, and they're completely dismal and unimaginative! AdamBiswanger1 21:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize- when you analyze something like this you have to painstakingly examine every edit to see what exactly is going on, and I was too lazy and paid the price. Sorry for the block warning, but all this reverting really needs to cool down. I'll keep an eye on it : ) AdamBiswanger1 03:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, after my numerous embarassing gaffes and misinterpretations tonight, I'm afraid to take another stance here. I would suggest to you the same thing that I suggested to User:Felsommerfeld, which is that you set up a section for a formal discussion (an oppose, support type of thing), and I would also suggest that you appeal for help at request for comment so that we can resolve this democratically. AdamBiswanger1 03:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you could also message those in the Shakespeare wikiproject and ask for a word? Be careful though, because calling on only people that agree with you can get you in trouble. AdamBiswanger1 03:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Just two suggestions: firstly, you should break it up into paragraphs or no one will read it, and I've always found it much more effective to approach people with a neutral tone and simply invite them to look at what you're saying; let the facts do the talking. Good luck, AdamBiswanger1 04:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Shakespeare Collaboration

The Shakespeare Wikiproject is starting another collaboration to bring Romeo and Juliet to GA status. Our last collaboration on William Shakespeare is still in progress, but in the copyedit stage. If you have strong copyedit skills, you may wish to continue the work on that article. Members with skills in other areas are now moving on. Improving Romeo and Juliet article will set a standard for all other Shakespeare plays, so we look forward to seeing everyone there. Thanks for all your help with the project. Wrad 20:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Removing personal attack"

Please be extremely cautious in applying this principle: wholesale deletion of comments that are critical of yourself is rarely a good idea, and even less so when you're at the same time apparently engaged in being similarly critical of others. It would be a good idea if all concerned (yourself included) were to 'dial it down a notch' (or indeed several), but comment-blanking is unlikely to help. Alai 23:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're on WP:AN

Hi, Smatprt. You're mentioned here, in case you'd like to respond. Bishonen | talk 22:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Admin Noticeboard Discussion

Don't want to expand that discussion which is already too big. Let me be straight with you here. Whatever you think, when I consider an argument I look at the facts. There are some reasonable arguments for all candidates. For The Tempest, The Eden/Erasmus sources are as good as Strachey's letter (although as you know I think the play is topical 1610). I don't approach an argument thinking "Does this support Bacon? If not I'll oppose it." Also, in my first period at this forum I got a rough ride hence my positive reintroduction congratulating all editors. I don't think you'll succeed in slanting the article (or any other) towards Oxford. Sooner or later someone will initiate a process to throw you out (it's close now) and I would support it. I feel like you're not weighing the arguments, like you're not listening, like you're not applying your critical faculty, that it's personal for you. It's incredibly frustrating trying to find the truth against someone like that and especially if they put up a good defence as you do. No doubt you feel you're not being heard either (and it might be true to some extent). Your best course is to back away for a while. Stop defending these accusations and they'll die off. Admit errors, get on people's good side, and then they might make concessions. But in general, unless someone finds some Shakespeare manuscripts in Bacon's, Oxford's, Marlowe's hand then I think this dispute will go round in circles into the coming centuries. (Puzzle Master 16:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

[edit] Welcome back!

I'd wondered where you were. For awhile you weren't around much. I wondered if the sockpuppet accusation had got to you. Wrad 16:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it would take steam roller to get to ME! - And I feel like I successfully defended myself on that bit of silliness, as well as that badly mounted attempt to get me banned (Ha!). As it happens, for the last month, I have been in solid rehearsal for Macbeth, and am producing a giant produciton of Peter Pan, as well as a 3-show Shakespeare rep. My July-Sept workload is immense. But I have been watching and throwing in my 2 cents every once and a while. Thanks for the welcome back, though. You are a scholar and a gentleman!Smatprt 17:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare project - New collaboration debate

The Shakespeare project's first collaboration has ended in success, with William Shakespeare reaching FA status! Congrats to all who chipped in! We also had success in our second collaboration Romeo and Juliet, which is now a GA. Our next step is deciding which article to collaborate on next. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare#Next Collaboration to help us choose. Thanks. Wrad 03:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamlet

The Shakespeare Project's new collaboration is now to bring Hamlet to GA status. Wrad 00:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baconian Theory article

Well done with your revision of the Criticisms section of the Baconian Theory article - it needed attention. I have purposely avoided touching that section allowing others to develop their own counter arguments. The Shakespeare authorship debate is now gathering momentum. Here in Oxford, UK, the play "I Am Shakespeare" with Mark Rylance is touring examining the case for each authorship candidate. There is now an MA degree starting at Brunel University (London) on Shakespeare Authorship Studies run by Dr. William Leahy! I think our efforts (even though at times we have disagreed) have contributed to raising the profile of this issue. (Puzzle Master 15:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Sonnets

What would you think about adding a section regarding the sonnets? I'd say that Joseph Sobran's Oxfordian position on them is a great starting point. However, on the one hand, I'm hesitant to copy his core 4 paragraphs to Wiki even with citations. But, on the other, paraphrasing them or ignoring him seems hardly better.

[edit] Ellen Terry

Hello again. I recently did some work on Ellen Terry, a noted Shakespearean actress, but her article deserves a look from a real Shakespeare person. If you have time, please take the article further. I think we are still giving Terry (and her Victorian era Shakespeare colleages) short shrift. Sorry for intruding on the world of real theatre; I'll get back to musical theatre now.  :-) --Ssilvers 21:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamlet sources

Hello. I've been taking a closer look at the Hamlet article and trying to make sense of the citations everyone is using for the different arguments. I think you put the section into the sources bit about Peter Alexander's argument and Bloom and Sams? Its missing from the article at present because I got too entangled while editing and have moved it to a sandbox. I wanted to make the citations for this clearer. Am I right in thinking that there wasn't a citation for the claim that Sams supports the idea? When you get a moment, could you leave me the biblio details of where he does. It's not that I don't believe--truly--its just I'm trying to make the citations clearer. Thanks, DionysosProteus 23:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

oops... Also, there are two Bloom books given. And then pp. xiii, 383. Which book is which page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DionysosProteus (talk • contribs) 23:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Aha, it didn't even occur to me to go check the Ur-Hamlet article. Thanks for the ref. DionysosProteus 01:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the other ref., but it seems incomplete. SSurvey is a journal - you give 2002, so is that volume 55 (amazon)? I;m not sure, as that says Holland is the ed. Is it an article by Wells within that? If so, what's the title and page numbers? If it's a different volume that Wells edits, is it Sams article within that or is Sam being quoted/referred to? Article & pp. for that one? Sorry, I suddenly realised how demanding that all sounds! It's just my anally-retentive desire to be precise expressing itself once more. DionysosProteus 16:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the info. From what I can tell from the Cambridge site, Well's article in that volume is "Shakespeare Production in England in 1989" (as well as being the editor). Is this the right article? Do you happen to have its page numbers start-end, so I can provide a proper citation. Sorry to trouble you again. DionysosProteus 22:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. Just noticed your comment in the edit history, re: hope other sections get this attention, and it occurred to me it might seem like i was focusing on that bit unfairly, so I wanted to reassure you that I'm not; I copy-edited the sources section in some detail a couple of weeks ago, which is why that bit stands out to me. I'm working my way through the rest of the article, but I work pretty slowly. Anyhow, just wanted to let you know that. DionysosProteus 22:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I see we're not going to agree right away about that section, so I've moved it to the talk page to ask for a consensus process. Please detail your feelings on the matter so everyone else follows the debate.
Regardless of how that debate turns out, we still need to cite it properly, and I've hit another snag, I'm afraid. I was just adding the bibliographic info for the Wells SSurvey you mentioned, and worked out that amazon have a table of contents in their image collection (although the UK one has a mis-link to SS44). The US one is okay, though, and is here. That very usefully provides the start/end page numbers, but as you can see, it means that the citation can't be p.267. Well's article is p.183-204. Do you have the actual thing with you to clear up the confusion? DionysosProteus 00:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Having explored further, I find that Google book search reproduce most of the index. Not for Sams, but the Alexander IS there, as you say on p.267. So that means it's not Wells at all, but MacDonald P Jackson, "Editions and Textual Studies Reviewed" p.255-270. I'm going to put this in the citations, unless you know better. DionysosProteus 00:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kathman website

Yea, I'm a bit worried about that site, but also for the reason that citing what is essentially an example, a particular scholar assumed be representative of the entire Stratfordian viewpoint is a bit worrisome. I made that comment on the talk page.. Cheers, AdamBiswanger1 15:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] High fives

High fives for fixing Shakespeare's sonnets!! —ScouterSig 15:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian

An editor has nominated Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Adaircairell (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)==The Seagull/King Lear==

Hey, I was just wondering why you requested "no cast lists" on these two articles? Also, I would say that the RSC production was definately notable, so perhaps I should start a recent production history sub-article; what do you think? Adaircairell (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Seagull cont.d

Ok, I'll put them in a performance history sub-article - am sure will be neater. v good idea! Adaircairell (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dating of Romeo and Juliet

Not that I necessarily disagree with your reasoning in this edit, but I think the dates we use there have to be the dates given in the two works cited just below, or the whole run will need to be re-sourced. If the cited works (I don't have either to hand) do not actively contradict those dates we can live with it "[citation needed]" for now, but then we probably run into WP:NOR.--Xover (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree. I thought the same thing. I do have a copy of Gibbons at home so I can check out what he says, this evening. AndyJones (talk) 08:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • No problem - I wasn't sure which sentence to change - since they are in direct conflict. Can someone fix one of them so that section does not contradict itself as it does now? Thanks Smatprt (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Authorship name calling

Well, I must admit I do consider the Authorship debate a monster that tends to rear its ugly head and gobble up otherwise productive Wikipedians in endless flamewars (for all practical intents and purposes). The Authorship issue I'm much more neutral about, although little of the evidence or reasoning any of the “non-Stratfordian” factions have presented so far serves to do much beyond bias me against their cause (and the Authorship question was even one of the main reasons I became interested in Shakespeare to begin with!).

I do agree, though, that the title of the thread may have needlessly negative connotations, and my sincerest apologies for that!

Finally; thanks for all your good work on the Shakespeare articles. While things do get a little heated some times — yes, often on the topic of Authorship — I find you to be a remarkably level headed and constructive editor, in spite of my acquired prejudices against those most vocal of Authorship supporters; and since I do love my prejudices, that's saying something! :-)

In any case; the thread topic was clumsy of me. I'll try to do better next time. --Xover (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About Shakespeare

Related to your recent note on Romeo & Juliet: I can assure you that the recent additions/notations related to Riverside Shakespeare are not spam. Just from a diligent Shakespeare lover, producer, and sometimes scholar. If any material I write can't be backed up, in any way, I'll soon correct it. Weimar03 (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Follow up on R&J performances

Perhaps you're right about the Shakespeare Festivals you mention, but I'm following up on my assertion, which I had heard years ago, while on a theatre-going trip to Stratford, England. This should be fairly easy to document, and if not, I will most certainly delete the assertion that R&J has opened so many companies. Thanks for your diligence. Weimar03 (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Follow up to Follow Up about Riverside Shakespeare

By the way, rereading your last note, I thought I'd add that the Riverside Shakespeare Company no longer exists, having produced Shakeespeare, etc., for a little over two decades as a professional theatre company in NYC; so any mention I or others might make is certainly not in any way advertising - just documenting, I hope, the company's work during that period. Thanks again for all your good work. Weimar03 (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About Riverside Shakespeare

It's my understanding that the RSC of NYC, as they were called, moved to the Upper East Side, to the former theatre where LOOM was in the East 90's. They had several different Artistic Directors, and tried to maintain an Off Broadway status, which is tough for an Equity theatre with such large casts as Shakespeare's. They did some excellent shows in their second decade, but which I have no documenation about, my knowledge of them is from their first decade, when they were an Upper West Side theatre company. Some time a little after the year 2000, they finally disbanded, a little over two decades after their founding in 1977. Weimar03 (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From one to another

So you were Artistic/Exectutive Director for a number of years. We should talk. Kindred spirits. Weimar03 (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PS

Ps., you say "now" meaning you're still at the helm of a theatre, presumably regional. I totally emphasize. Weimar03 (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] So...

So I take it, you're an Executive Director (ah the wonders of google). Should we correspond by emails? Are these talk pages totally public?

[edit] Romeo Opens Booth's Theatre

I found one of the references I was referring to yesterday - about R&J opening theatres and festivals - and put it in the R&J section in the 19th century. Still searching for others.

[edit] Deleted heading

I believe it was you who deleted the heading I added about Booth opening his theatre with R&J. I just thought it was significant that Booth, perhaps the greatest Hamlet, opened not with that play, but with R&J.

[edit] You sure? Next time look better

If you look at the page, see the video? They state their names so don't revert/edit anything before you're 100 % sure about it. --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if you felt it that way, take care! --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 06:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with links

I noticed you have been placing links to the discussion on character lists on other peoples talk pages. Unfortunately, the way you structured that link it opens to an old version of the talk page and when people edit it acts like a reversion to that old version of the article and all recent comments/editions are erased. be careful in the future that you give people links to the current version of an article and not an old one.Broadweighbabe (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. If you have the time you may want to go back and fix the links so that no more reversions take place. Just send them to the talk page. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre Thanks.Broadweighbabe (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] When reverting

Please take care when reverting another user's edits - when I removed Lady Montague from the list, I also corrected the spelling of patriarch. I've placed a {{list fact}} tag on Lady M as I still don't believe she's big enough of a supporting character in the play to be mentioned in the main list per WP:SS. -Malkinann (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Or if a guideline is warranted at all. I've placed list fact tags on all the characters I initially removed as I also dispute that they need to be on the main list per WP:SS. -Malkinann (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Character Lists in Play articles

Regarding this request: I've copied your posting over to Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard. Dorftrottel (talk) 03:19, May 5, 2008


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Country Wife in 1936.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Country Wife in 1936.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Country Wife in 1936.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Country Wife in 1936.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)