Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Mayor of awesometown! Thank you for your contributions. I am Way2veers and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Way2veers 02:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Animation timeline

I like the timeline section that has been added to the Golden age of American animation article. Just a couple of comments; as mentioned, Disney continued to produce a few shorts even after it closed its shorts department in 1956. After RKO Disney started to distribute the shorts on their own through Buena Vista, but the timeline simply says "other studios". And maybe one more studio could be added; International Film Service. It belongs in the silent era, not on the golden age, but since the other studios from the same era are included, not to mention that the studio has direct connection to later studios, maybe it could be worth mentioning. Some info: "The earliest Krazy Kat shorts were produced by Hearst in 1916. They were produced under Hearst-Vitagraph News Pictorial and later the International Film Service (IFS), though Herriman was not involved. In 1920, after a two-year hiatus, the John R. Bray studio began producing a second series of Krazy Kat shorts. These cartoons hewed close to the comic strips, including Ignatz, Pupp and other standard supporting characters. Krazy's ambiguous gender and feelings for Ignatz were usually preserved; bricks were occasionally thrown. In 1925, animation pioneer Bill Nolan decided to bring Krazy to the screen again. Nolan intended to produce the series under Associated Animators, but when it dissolved, he sought distribution from Margaret J. Winkler." Link: Krazy Kat "In 1914, William Randolph Hearst expanded his International News Service wire syndicate into the International Picture Service, a syndicate formed to create newsreels, when newsreels were an entirely new idea. The success of the Hearst Newsreel led the media magnate to create International Film Service (IFS) in 1915. The entire staff was laid off on July 6, 1918, a date referred to in animation history as "Black Monday". But Hearst still cared about his animated properties, so he licensed them to John C. Terry's studio. When that studio folded a year later, he licensed his former competitor, Bray Productions, to make the IFS cartoons." Link: International Film Service 84.210.44.152 (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I have added International Film Service at your suggestion, and modified the distributors for both Bray and the Barre/Barre-Bowers Studios. Yes, I do realize that Disney's cartoons were distributed by their own Buena Vista after RKO fell apart, but I lumped it in with "Other Studios" because only Disney ever used Buena Vista, and only for a short while insofar as regularly-released theatrical animated shorts go. The distributors that are explicitly cited in the timeline were used by multiple cartoon studios over the years and/or were in the business of regularly distributing theatrical cartoons for decades, and I didn't want the timeline to get too bogged down with too many obscure distributors, like Celebrity Pictures or Copley Pictures. Thanks again for the feedback! Mayor of awesometown (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to History of animation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

|| [[Technicolor#Process_3|Two-color Technicolor]] in a stand-alone cartoon|| ''[[Fiddlesticks (film|Fiddlesticks]]''|| Released in August 1930, this [[Ub Iwerks]]-produced short is the first

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Day in the Life

Both of the new citations at A Day in the Life refer to he same article. Not what you intended?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Different page numbers and articles in the same issue. Did I link them wrong? I think you fixed it. Thanks!

Here they are:

"Guinness heir babies stay with grandmother". The Daily Mail. No. 21994. 17 January 1967. p. 3. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

"Guinness heir babies stay with grandmother". The Daily Mail. No. 21994. 17 January 1967. p. 3.

Look the same to me which is why I asked.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're right! I fixed the second citation. Thanks!

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of shibboleths, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tillamook. 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) 09:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 8 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

your edit summary at Henry Clay...

"Put the photo back in the infobox - the latest one was some restored etching"?...Look at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Henry_Clay_restore.jpg ->Mathew Brady was the photographer and the source is impeccable - National Archives at College Park. Shearonink (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Shearonink, you got me to do a little more digging. The restored image comes from this page: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/528344. It comes from the series "Mathew Brady Photographs of Civil War-Era Personalities and Scenes, 1921 - 1940", in the record group "Records of the Office of the Chief Signal Officer, 1860 - 1985", and the page says the photograph was taken between 1860-1865. None of the photos from that series is date to before 1860.

There's one thing wrong with that, though: Henry Clay died back in 1852, so the original couldn't possibly date from 1860-65.

In the book The Papers of Henry Clay: Supplement 1793-1852, edited by Melba Porter Hay, the editor gives a history of photos taken of Henry Clay. On page 316 and page 317, it says that Henry Clay's most well-known photographs come from three different photographers. A few pages later, on page 319, the book even gives a calendar of artwork featuring Henry Clay, including all known photographs. The book describes the Brady photographs this way:

"The principal photographs of Clay were made by the [separate] studios of Edward Anthony, Mathew Brady, and Marcus A. Root. Many have been lost. Anthony's portrait of Henry and Lucretia Hart Clay is known in originals and copies...Brady's photographs are the best known and have survived in various forms, one a carte de visite from long after Clay's death, a memorial card. Brady's original portraits were known also through an edition of lithographs by D'Avignon in partnership with Brady, and through a painting by Henry F. Darby, made perhaps at the time of Clay's sitting for Brady."

In other words, Brady did take photos (actually, Daguerreotypes, according to that same book) of Henry Clay in c.1850, but not all of the original photos survived. Some only survived as lithographs. And that seems to be the case with this c.1860-65 photograph from Mathew Brady. It looks as though Brady took a photo in 1860-65 of one of the D'Avignon lithographs he possessed, which in turn was based on one of Brady's original c.1850 Daguerreotypes that he may no longer have possessed by the 1860s.

On page 29 of Mathew Brady: Portraits of a Nation by Robert Wilson, the author gives a little bit more information on Brady's Henry Clay Daguerreotypes, stating that Brady remembered taking about five Daguerreotypes of Clay that day. In the calendar of artwork in Hay's book, it lists three of the original Brady Daguerreotypes as still existing. The others exist from later prints--the D'Avignon lithographs, and the carte de visite. Wilson also describes in his book that after Brady moved his studio from New York to Washington, D.C., he took photos of many of the portrait paintings in his collection, including a painting he possessed depicting Henry Clay.

In any case, it seems that this retouched photo is almost certainly a photo of a lithograph of an original Daguerreotype. However, it is most likely based on an original Daguerreotype taken by Brady. In the image, he is wearing the same suit and has the same hairstyle as he has in the carte de visite as well is in this Brady image from the U.S. Senate's official website. In contrast, one of the Edward Anthony photos features Henry Clay with his wife Lucretia, and another survives as an engraving--in both, Clay has noticeably shorter hair than in the later Brady photos. In the Marcus Root photo, Henry Clay is photographed in near-profile. Yet another Daguerreotype was taken of Henry Clay by Southworth and Hawes, which Wilson's book mentions on page 58 that Mathew Brady may have owned a copy of. The photo I linked back to was credited to Julian Vannerson, though according to Facing the Light: Historic American Portrait Daguerreotypes by Harold Francis Pfister, which contains a reprint of the photo, there's evidence it was possibly taken by Montgomery P. Simons. Hay credits both Vannerson and Simons as Dagguerreotypists of Clay, but doesn't say which one produced the surviving portrait. (She equivocates by saying both are owned by the Smithsonian.)

Long story short: according to the available information, the date of Henry Clay's death, and, simply, the look of the restored photo, we can determine that the c.1860-65 photo isn't an original. It's in all likelihood a Brady photo of a D'Avignon lithograph based upon a Daguerreotype that Brady had taken many years earlier. Since we have digital images made from some actual original Daguerreotypes of Henry Clay, I think that it is best to use one of those in the info box, instead of the photo of the lithograph. But if you think we ought to use a Mathew Brady Daguerreotype instead of the Vannerson/Simons one, then I would suggest using the one from the U.S. Senate website since it looks to be the original. Wiki already has a couple other Brady originals of Henry Clay here and here that could also be used, though they may need to be restored before using them for that purpose. Wiki also already has the Brady image that survived through the carte de visite which is in better shape, and which could also be used in the info box as an alternative. Mayor of awesometown (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Spencer Leigh and Where It's At (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) 07:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]