User talk:Stevensaylor

Hello, Stevensaylor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Tanvir 19:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Symbols in text

Welcome to Wikipedia. I see that you have recently added "®" symbols to a number of articles. May I draw your attention to a section in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks):

• Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs).

Preferably, these symbols should be removed. If you have strong feelings about the matter, it can be discussed on an appropriate talk page.

Incidentally, I am a big fan of Roma Sub Rosa series. Are you a fan or even the author himself? Gaius Cornelius (talk) 10:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Response: Thanks for pointing this out. I have removed the ® and have included trademark info in the text instead. (Yes, I'm the author, Steven Saylor.) Stevensaylor (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. I look forward to reading more Roma Sub Rosa in the future, despite having many questions I will leave you peace in that regard because this is not a fan site. Happy editing. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Aesop

Hi, Stevensaylor! I think you and I need to talk methodology here about the changes I made recently to the Aesop article. I'm not sure if you saw my note on the discussion page apologising for any inadvertent stepping on toes. There's also a much more detailed discussion on the Aesop's Fables page about the need to make a clear distinction between the articles and on guidelines for writing and curating such articles. That's where I'm coming from: my interest is mainly in fables although I'm happy to pass on anything of a 'biographical' nature coming my way that might be helpful.

Your reverts raise several issues, but I'll stick to a couple for the time being and see if we can reach agreement. Firstly, I disagree very strongly that the 1971 Aesop's Fables film is 'color-blind'. Firstly, this was made at a time when the watchword was 'Black is beautiful' and there were assertive organisations like the Black Panthers around. (I was once present at a meeting of a UK branch back then). I see the film as being a would-be liberal attempt at easing the tension with a not so subtle subtext of 'it's OK being black but keep your place'. In the first place, not just the story-teller but the children are black. In the second, there are the morals of the two fables presented: "The tortoise that wanted to fly" is said to be about keeping your ambitions real, and being yourself; "the tortoise and the hare" is about aiming high and taking advantage of the incompetence (and over-confidence) of your rivals. Have you actually looked at this feature? I left a link which seems to have been lost in the reversion. It would be interesting to know who played Aesop in Peter Terson's original production(s) (1981, 1986) and whether the player was black. However, the all-black South African production is definitely making a political statement along the lines of 'the [black] slave is free now but needs to have a sense of responsibility'. I think both these items, in which Aesop is portrayed as black (though with different political undertones) belong much more naturally where I put them and I'd like to make a plea for their restoration.

I'd back that with a different methodological consideration. The Depictions of Aesop section is simply an uninterpreted list and this is unencyclopaedic. It also gives license to every bonehead to add that the word 'Aesop' occurs in the lyric of some sub-standard heavy-metal band whose fans have added an article about them to WP (so they must be notable, mustn't they?) That's why I tried to group some of the items so as to make it look less bitty. I'd like to suggest that you make something more of these items and give a sense of why mention of them is significant.

Finally, you were generous in thinking that I'd 'inadvertently' deleted mention of the fable literature that rode on the back of the Vanbrugh play. It's worse than you think! I gobbled the lot and shifted them over to the fable article, where they really belong...and found a stack more while I was at it. I was also fortunate in finding the text of Thomas Yalden's "Aesop at Court" (1702) and need to analyse it more closely. A quick glance suggests that most of the fables there are in fact Aesop's, slightly adapted to fit the political situation. I've deleted mention of them again in the Aesop article as being off-topic.

I hope this is enough to establish a basis of understanding between us. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Response: Hello, Mzilikazi1939. A misunderstanding: I did not say the 1971 Bill Cosby portrayal of Aesop was color-blind, nor did I remove it from the "Question of African Origin" section. The color-blind comment referred to the recent South African production of the Peter Terson play, and that was what I removed from the "African origin" section; in all references to this production, Aesop is identified as a Greek slave, never cited as Ethiopian or Nubian; while a black actor may have played the role, there is no indication that Terson's play is an any way part of the distinct tradition identifying Aesop as a black African. So we do NOT disagree about including mention of the 1971 Bill Cosby Aesop in the "African origin" section.

The YouTube link to the Cosby TV show is still there, in a footnote, where you placed it. But do not be surprised if someone removes it, because the gods of Wiki say that such links potentially violate copyright and routinely remove them.

I will mull over your argument re removing the "Aesop at..." pamphlets from the "Depictions in Popular Culture" section. Is Aesop himself portrayed as a character in these works? I will need to take another look.

I'm not sure I agree about removing the Bob Keeshan portrayal of Aesop from that section. By what criteria shall we determine whether this portrayal of Aesop is more or less significant than that of, say, Turhan Bey, or for that matter, Bill Cosby? It is yet another incarnation of Aesop, the most current, and will have made a strong (perhaps lifelong) impression on those who saw it.

I see the Charles Ruggles portrayal of Aesop (from "The Bullwinkle Show") has also been removed at some point, but there is an even stronger case to be made for its inclusion. For tens of millions of people, this remains the strongest image of Aesop, a benchmark of his ubiquity in American popular culture. It is hardly trivial and belongs here.

I also do not agree that the section is merely a list and thus not encyclopedic. All the portrayals of Aesop here are significant for various reasons. To explain the significance of each would indeed require considerable text, which might require this section to become its own article, something I had rather not see happen. (All depictions of Aesop are essentially from popular culture, since we have so little "factual" data about him.) If one reads the section as it stands, various motifs and trends are implicit.

Thoughts? Stevensaylor (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: I think I may do a bit of rewrite on the "Popular Culture" section to highlight some of the recurrent motifs and changes over time, which will make it more encyclopedic... Stevensaylor (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the very full reply. I appreciate your way of giving greater coherence to the final section. It might be a good idea if you divided it into two, with representation in the arts up to the end of the 19th century and then popular culture starting...well, in 1946 at the moment.

I'd recommend still keeping the early 18th century pamphlets out. They signal the start of the political fable and, so far as I know, don't feature Aesop as a character. The pamphlets are difficult to come by, but you can check up on the Yalden "Aesop at Court" here. If the others are like it, then they just consist of fables in poetry that verges on doggerel. Have you looked at the fables site, by the way, and taken a look at all the other titles I've identified?

It probably doesn't matter so much now, but I still maintain that the Fugard production of "Aesop's Fables" is a statement about Aesop's blackness. There are white actors in Cape Town who could have been used. It's true that Aesop is portrayed as Greek, he was even dressed in Greek robes in the 2010 production - but the music, dance routines, conventions (like the lion's mask for eg), are African. Take a look at these snippets from YouTube, and maybe link to them in the article. I also think you need to underline what is pointed out in the first of your refs that, though the play is Peter Terson's, it is 'adapted and directed by Mark Dornford-May’ and probably differs quite radically from the original Tyneside production.

On using YouTube refs, by the way, I've used them extensively in my articles and interventions and check them now and then. So far I have only had to change the direction once. It's at YouTube that the policing of copywright material happens (and that's why I had to change the direction), not on WP in my experience.

I've kept mention of Aesop & Son in the Aesop's Fables article. It's germane and, as you say, was one of the avenues through which US kids were kept in touch with the fables. It wasn't me who deleted it, I think. However, I really do object to the reinstatement of the Hercules and the Kids 'portrayal' of Aesop. Have you actually looked at the cartoon? It's a mere 50 seconds out of a 20-minute feature, portraying him as a storyteller helping out at a school. That's NOT biographical, it's Hollywood trivialisation. It's definitely not notable. I know you take your curating of this article seriously so I'll ask you to think again about this inclusion.

Finally, I googled other fable productions, most of which are shows for very young kids that are limited to one locality. However, you might want to include Brian Seward's Aesop's Fabulous Fables (2009) which first played in Singapore and has toured since. That's intriguing for mixing Chinese routines into a standard musical (small excerpt on YouTube). There are mixed ethnicities in the cast and I can't work out which of them played Aesop.

That just about covers everything. Minds are beginning to meet, I hope. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Aesop at Court. I will agree that this is not actually a depiction of Aesop, so agree with its removal from that section.

Also thanks for the Hercules cartoon link. I can't remember whether I had seen it previously, but will agree this constitutes no more than a cameo appearance. I still might want to briefly mention as addendum to the Bullwinkle paragraph, but agree that might be stretching it.

Will also mull over explication and linkage of 2010 Aesop production in light of its African "take" on the play...will check out Seward play...and also consider if there is a cogent way to further explicate motifs of depictions in popular culture, perhaps noting a chronological breakage, as you suggest; problematically, the various themes (ugly, slave, black, romance with Rhodopis, or none of the above or combinations of above) do not sort out into neatly divided categories.

Onward!Stevensaylor (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Stevensaylor, where did this 'Onward!' salutation come from? The only guy I know who uses it is a Buddhist monk called Bodhidhamma. Are you a disciple?

Great to see you applying your expertise to the Aesop article just now. I thought you'd abandoned it for one of your own books. You may have noticed there was an era controversy over on the Talk page on which a poll was started. I wonder which side you stand on. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Continuity of themes

I'm grateful that you've taken my feed-in seriously. Here are a couple of suggestions how you might handle the continuity of themes. One is to sum up the later developments of what we must think of as the fictional Aesop at the start of the popular depiction article and use it to illustrate how stereotypes are perpetuated. The cartoon cameo is stereotypical too, depicting Aesop as a bearded story-teller in skimpy Greek tunic. The same tunic turns up in the South African production, I notice and, if I'm not mistaken, in the Singapore play too.

Another suggestion is to do what I did, and move forward some of the examples of Aesop treated as black to the section dealing with that theme. I've been thinking more about this and it seems to me that there is a difference between Aesop being treated as black in a white context and what might be called acculturation where Aesop is treated as black in a black context. The same group, I notice, did an all-black Magic Flute: African clothing, the music played on African instruments. So context makes a difference. I came to this realisation when I remembered that Aesop was once portrayed as yellow in the early 17th century Isopo Monogatari. Here's the reference: Lawrence Marceau, From Aesop to Esopo to Isopo: Adapting the Fables in Late Medieval Japan (2009) - ‘in the 1659 Japanese edition, the character of Aesop himself is portrayed in a Japanese environment, dressed in Japanese costume, and those around him take on the attributes of medieval East Asian ethnic groups, in spite of the fact that personal and place names continue to ring strongly of their Mediterranean origins. This body of texts thus serves as a valuable case study into the translation and adaptation of a Western secular classic into the Japanese idiom.’ p.277 This is backed by yet another academic source: J.S.A. Elisonas: Fables and Imitations: Kirishitan literature in the forest of simple letters, Bulletin of Portugese Japanese Studies, Lisbon 2002, pp.13-17 (for consideration of Isoho Monogatari)

I've also downloaded a Japanese woodcut from the 1659 edition at Tsukuba University, where the fable of the fox and the crow is shown in the top half and Aesop appears below as a servant (in Japanese dress) in the daimyo's court. I haven't uploaded it yet to Wikicommons (there'd be no copyright problems, it's over 350 years old). I was thinking of doing so and then substituting it for one of the pics in the Aesop article. It would complement the point about acculturation, if you felt like making it....I can't give you the link, WP doesn't like the site.

What do you think? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 07:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

PS. I had some time free this morning so, rather than obliging you to construct something out of my ramble above, I decided to make coherent what was in my mind.

I've left edited-down versions of the information on which I built my argument in the following section. Given the new introduction you have given that, I don't see a way to dividing it between ancient and modern, but you may. It still looks like a list, and perhaps one way to approach it would be to divide it into thematic blocks: illustrations, drama, fiction. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited Mandingo (novel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lyceum Theater (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) 04:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Angelic Conversation (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Mackay (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) 11:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aelius Aristides, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oratory. 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) 09:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

April 2015: Bicycle Safety

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Bicycle safety‎‎, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Bicycle safety. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Your boilerplate objection to the text I added is not relevant. Is the subject of "no hands" cycling as a bicycle safety issue unacceptable to you? Stevensaylor (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Bicycle safety, you may be blocked from editing. Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this text constitutes "disruptive editing"; rather, I think your repeated removal is tendentious. But if you would like to report this so as to have it adjudicated, that's fine with me. Alternatively, can you tell me exactly which statement(s) or cited source(s) in this addition is/are objectionable to you? Stevensaylor (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You're fabricating the claim that riding without hands is an issue. Riding with a chicken on your head is also unsafe, but must we dwell on it (see WP:BEANS)? Even if WikiHow were a reliable source, that citation in no way "encourages" anyone to ride without hands. Even if it did, it is one source, not "some", as you misleadingly wrote. You have no idea why Colorado has a law about this; you're falsely implying the law exists to combat a hands free riding craze. You suggest multiple jurisdictions have the same law with no evidence. The bike manual you cite is a bike manufacturer publication written by lawyers to absolve Trek of liability, not written by bicycle riding experts who have the rider's interest at heart. Your previous edit that riding hands free is increasing in the US, in connection with texting or calling, is an utter fabrication. The truth is that riding with no hands is a stunt, and like all stunts it's risky, and, like all stunts, it can be learned and perhaps even mastered by some. You're trying to insert your own opinions and selective observations of your surroundings into Wikipedia using weak sources, and even then you're not accurately representing what your sources say. I am confident you will be blocked from editing if you persist.

The wisest course, if you don't wish to drop it, is to suggest your addition at Talk:Bicycle safety or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling and see if you can gain the consensus of other editors. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Just hoping to save some lives here.Stevensaylor (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Bicycle safety. Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No violation of original research policy here. Peace. Stevensaylor (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  5 albert square (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

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) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Stevensaylor. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Stevensaylor. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Stevensaylor. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Legion of Honor (museum), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Hadley (check to confirm | 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) 07:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crocker Art Museum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Simon Vouet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page François Perrier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Simon Vouet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page François Perrier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tanagra (Gérôme sculpture) has been accepted

Tanagra (Gérôme sculpture), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-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. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• 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 .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pollice Verso (Gérôme), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Symmachus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harry Watrous, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vibert (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Iris & B. Gerald Cantor Center for Visual Arts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zoé Goyet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Umlaut (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mark di Suvero, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kenneth Baker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles-Louis Clérisseau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Auteuil.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles-Louis Clérisseau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Cameron.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eugène Lepoittevin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Auteuil.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gustave Boulanger, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Charles Garnier and New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gustave Boulanger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Garnier.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Xavier Leprince, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montmorency.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Xavier Leprince, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page André Giroux.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Paul Conte for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paul Conte 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Conte until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Vexations (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alfred Dehodencq, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fez.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nancy Astor, Viscountess Astor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Sims.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antoine Chintreuil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boves.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft article

Thank you for editing my draft article on Jean Vigoureux. You addressed all the concerns I had about redundancy (from the newspaper clippings) and readability. Even the introduction reads in a more accessible fashion. I had wanted to keep the explanation about French Indochina in the Indochina section, since I figured many people have no idea about Vietnam’s history, but you actually put the link in the introduction - and I think that’s much better. At first I was alarmed by the re-arranging of the photos, because I was trying to align photos with text, but because you “trimmed the fat” and inserted the lists into those div html boxes (never heard of it but thanks!) I realized that the “galleries” look much neater. And I am very, very grateful that you added info about Fanny and a couple of other things I knew nothing about. Overall, I’m delighted and very grateful for what you’ve done. Thank you very much!!! Vigartjam (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles Sims (painter), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arran.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

GERTUDE HALL

Hello Stevensaylor I hope I'm on the right page here! It looks as though you are the creator of the page for Gertrude Hall, author, poet, translator. If so may I congratulate you on it. It is a lucid and scholarly piece of work, which fills a gap in Wikipedia, which I have long perceived. Foiled circuitous wanderer (talk) 10:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for the good words. I discovered Gertrude Hall only recently, when at an auction site I spotted the Oliver Herford poster for Foam of the Sea and thought, "A fantasy writer from the 1890s whom I've never heard of?" I tracked down that book and Far from To-day at HathiTrust, and was astonished by her stories. "Who the heck was this Gertude Hall?" I thought, heading for wikipedia where I found very little, and felt compelled to rectify the lack. These days I mostly do this sort of research/writing on certain French Academic painters of the 1800s who catch my fancy and whose work I collect in a small way. Onward! Stevensaylor (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gustave Boulanger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Garnier.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles Edouard Frère, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orientalist.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing your edits

Hi, Stevensaylor, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've undone your changes to Gay bathhouse, Finnish art, and Finland because they lacked a source. You're a long-time editor here, and you already know about the requirements of WP:Verifiability, so I won't belabor the point; just please follow the policy going forward, and if you've missed any sourcing in any of your edits before those three, please take a moment to update the articles concerned. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Duly noted. Onward! Stevensaylor (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Stevensaylor. Thank you for your work on Ben Abril. User:Netherzone, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating this article on a California artist.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Netherzone}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Netherzone (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Louis Héctor Leroux, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vesta.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)