User talk:Noday16

Welcome!

Hello, Noday16, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:56, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Adam Pascal

What does "originating the role" mean? I take it that he didn't write it, so doesn't it just mean (in plain English) being the first person to play it? If it doesn't just mean that, could what it does mean be explained in the article? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I suspect that it's U.S. theatre terminology, as I don't recall coming across it (at least, not in the straight theatre; it might be used in the musical theatre here, I suppose). In any case, the version that I wrote is surely clearer and less clumsy than using a slang term and then having to gloss it? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that I'm struggling to understand your aversion to the plain English "being the first to play the role of Roger Davis"; it's not only clear and understandable to any reader, it's also more accurate than your latest attempt to avoid it, "being the original Roger Davis". When an actor plays a role, he isn't being the character, he's... well, playing the role. Is there something here that I'm missing? Are you trying to convey the thought that Pascal is a method actor? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've moved rather rapidly from apparent reasonableness to an aggressive petulance. The tone and attitude aren't appreciated on Wikipedia. Nor is the implication that, unless something is corrected everywhere, you're going to insist on it in one article. Unless you have a genuine reason for retaining an obscure bit of parochial theatrical jargon in preference to clear English, my edit needs to remain. If you continue to revert good English to bad, you may end up being blocked from editing for a period for disruption.

When I see the jargon phrase elsewhere, I'll change it; unless you're really making the unreasonable (to put it mildly) demand that all changes have to be made simultaneously (and even if you are), I suggest that you find something better to do than interfer with those corrections. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]