User talk:MusicMaker5376/Archive 6

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1
2
3
4
5
Archive 6
7
8

User boxes

How did you get that user box where they drop down like that?Melbrooksfan101 (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2008

If you need to know how something is coded, you can just click "edit this page" at the top and see how it's done. — Music Maker 5376 20:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

....not sure what to do about this...

...but you should go over and take a look at User:Melbrooksfan101's page. He/She doesn't have much coding experience so I doubt the user page will ever look good, but more importantly, your name is still all over his user and talk page. Not sure what to do about it, but I thought you should know. --omtay 38 02:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! It looked like it was just the icons in the toolbar that were still pointing my way, so I just fixed them. I don't think that was overstepping my bounds.... — Music Maker 5376 15:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No prob. It was much worse when I left you the first message, he/she changed many things before you got there (I almost left the message on that talk page by accident :-P) --omtay 38 20:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dean Pitchford

I created this article today after running across a redlink. It still needs a lot, such as info on his growing up in Hawai'i and on his writing a children's novel, as well as screenplays and books for the musicals with which he's been involved. I saved some newspaper articles today that I found online; if you opt to work on the article, I certainly could send them. Lawikitejana (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, my home computer is down (I'm at work right now). I would love to lend a hand once I get it up and running, tho.... — Music Maker 5376 15:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW -- Thanks for catching the diffuse/defuse confusion! — Music Maker 5376 04:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wicked

Please s<script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>ee comments at Talk:Wicked_(musical)#Chicago_Template.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It is the longest running musical in Chicago history. Why shouldn't it fall under our project. Please discuss at talk page before removing again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 00:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussing. — Music Maker 5376 02:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Help

I'm trying to figure out how to edit my left-hand menus. Is there a page anywhere that says how? — Music Maker 5376 19:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Navigation shortcuts. It's a javascript thing. The page is pretty self explanatory but if you have any questions, drop me a line. --omtay 38 19:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, I was just going to go to your talk page and ask you because I figured you'd know. Thanks! — Music Maker 5376 19:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help. Give me a list of what you want to be in your menu and i'll whittle out the code for you. I'll get in trouble if I post to your monobook (it's a big no-no) and you'll only know if it works anyway, but I sure can customize the code for you. --omtay 38 20:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I had this:

 // [[User:Jsimlo/shortcuts.js]]
 document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jsimlo/shortcuts.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
 
 function shortcutsInit ()
 {
 
  shortcutsStartSection ( 'Navigation Box' );

  shortcutsAddLink ('My Desktop', 'User:MusicMaker5376/desk);
  shortcutsAddLink ('My Toolbox', 'User:MusicMaker5376/Tools');
  shortcutsAddLink ('WikiProject Musical Theatre', 'Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre');
  shortcutsAddLink ('Articles for Deletion', 'User:MusicMaker5376/Articles for deletion');
  shortcutsAddLink ('Table Help', 'Help:Table');
 
 }

Which didn't seem to work. — Music Maker 5376 20:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it, you were just missing one line. It should work now, you were just missing the line that titles the box (on the left, where "toolbox, search, interaction" and so on are). Feel free to change "Navigation Box" to whatever suits you. Lemmie know if it works. --omtay 38 20:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not working. Popups not working. Twinkle not working. — Music Maker 5376 21:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Tried the following on my own monobook (started from scratch). I didn't test twinkie, but popups and the sidebar worked.

// [[User:Lupin/popups.js]]
 
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
 
importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkle.js');
 


 // [[User:Jsimlo/shortcuts.js]]
 document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jsimlo/shortcuts.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
 
 function shortcutsInit ()
 {
  shortcutsStartSection ( 'Navigation Box' );

  shortcutsAddLink ('My Desktop', 'User:MusicMaker5376/desk');
  shortcutsAddLink ('My Toolbox', 'User:MusicMaker5376/Tools');
  shortcutsAddLink ('WikiProject Musical Theatre', 'Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre');
  shortcutsAddLink ('Articles for Deletion', 'User:MusicMaker5376/Articles for celetion');
  shortcutsAddLink ('Help:Table', 'Help:Table');
 
 }

--omtay 38 21:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. And now it works. THANKS!! — Music Maker 5376 21:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Except i noticed i misspelled deletion in the second to last line as "celetion". But fix that and it should work. You were probably just missing an apostrophe (') somewhere. --omtay 38 21:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol. All good. I want to make WPMT a little shorter, anyway.... — Music Maker 5376 21:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

SatyrBot

Wicked (musical)/Jon Corzine/WikiProject Chicago

Please do not allow the bot to re-tag the article for Wicked with the WPChi tag. I understand that, while the article is in Category:Chicago musicals, the bot will tag the article. Several editors at the article object to this action. Editors shouldn't have to do anything to counteract the actions of a bot. It is the bot owner's responsibility to ensure that the bot edits along the lines of consensus. Consensus has shown that the article does not belong under that particular WikiProject's purview.
I've seen your responses to some of the editors at Jon Corzine: basically, "Talk to the WikiProject and have them remove the category from the bot's run." The WikiProject can, in turn, say, "We want to tag the articles in this category; talk to the guy who runs the bot," passing the buck ad infinitum.
It is YOUR responsibility to ensure that the bot no longer tags either of these articles. I'm STUNNED that the WPChi tag is still on Corzine's article -- four months later! Strong objections to the tag have been raised at both articles.
I think the bot does a lot of good for the project, but if the bot can't edit with consensus, I'll have it blocked. — Music Maker 5376 02:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, MusicMaker! Thanks for your comments on the bot's page!

There are three ways to get the bot to stop adding the WP:WPChi tag to the article:

Add {{bot}} to the talk page, or even {{bot|deny=SatyrBot}}
Remove the category Category:Chicago musicals from the article
Remove Category:Chicago musicals from the WikiProject page Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Bot Category List.

As I'm sure you understand, the bot reviews literally thousands of articles for various WikiProjects. I've done everything I can to not only do work for the project but to respect various editors as well. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, it is not the responsibility of other editors to ensure that your bot edits according to consensus. I shouldn't have to recategorize the article. I shouldn't have to place a tag that will repel all bots.

Find a way to exclude single articles. — Music Maker 5376 13:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, MusicMaker!

I'm not sure I know what to do here. I've given you *THREE* different ways to accomplish what you're asking.

The "bot" tag, in the form {{bot|deny=SatyrBot}}, doesn't repel *ALL* bots, just SatyrBot. Just like you asked. It simply excludes the single article.

Perhaps you could WP:AGF? I've programmed the bot to be as agile as possible to deal with different project's quirks. If you have further suggestions, I'll be glad to hear about them. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I understand the concerns. However, what if WikiProject Musical Theatre chooses to utalize SatyrBot in the future? Like I said, I think the bot does a bit of good for the project, and I can see its utility. Can the no bots tag be modified to spurn the bot's actions for a single WP? Something like {{bot|deny=SatyrBot|project=Chicago}}? Or, perhaps, a tag recognized only by SatyrBot? — Music Maker 5376 14:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we *could* have the deny=SatyrBot|project=Chicago. That's probably the most elegant. But really - isn't that a bit of overkill? What's the possible overlap between WP:WPChi and WP:WPMT (or any two WikiProjects the bot might work with)? Perhaps in the dozens? And the likelihood that the editors of any of those dozens are going to *want* the bot to work with one project and *not* with another project? Personally I think that's beyond the scope of effort necessary for anyone involved. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue that it's not a lot of work for a small percentage of articles. It is. But it will circumvent the type of vitriol that we've just seen at Wicked (musical) and was seen at Jon Corzine. (I'm using these two examples as they are the ones I've seen. I'm sure there've been others.) Isn't the amount of work required commensurate with the amount of anger and bad feelings it will ultimately save? I mean, if the editors of an article are dead-set against having it tagged by a certain WikiProject, they should have some recourse instead of being told to suck it up because it's too difficult to acomplish. Just with the insanity I've just gone through at Wicked (musical)... please, please consider doing this. Other editors shouldn't have to go through it. — Music Maker 5376 22:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the only articles I've seen this reaction to are articles that, for some reason, don't want WP:WPChi on their talk page - Corzine and Wicked. I truly don't see the reason for not wanting the banner there. And that's all it amounts to - having the project banner on the talk page or not. Having the banner confers no other rights, responsibilities, or duties. I'm sorry that the situation on those two articles has caused any anger. I've done what I can to minimize any future issues. I'd really rather not spend any more time coding for specific articles when the bot works on thousands of others without any problems and when I've already provided the way out of any anger-causing situations. BTW - I had no clue about the Wicked article situation until you mentioned it. Perhaps I should ask Tony to suggest the "nobots" tag right off the bat :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Then would you be willing to publish the bot's code to let someone else work on it?

The problem is arising with WPChi because they're tagging an OBSCENE number of articles. (How is it even beneficial to tag .6% of the articles on WP as being part of a specific project?) When the article got tagged, I removed the tag and left a good-natured message as to why I removed it. He responded with a message that read to me like "We want the tag here, so tough crap," which, to me, is not only rude, but very much against policy.

It's an ego trip. That's all it is. It's pathetic. — Music Maker 5376 02:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do plan on releasing it public domain. I don't feel it's quite ready for me to publish, but I've been working on it quite a while and am pretty sure it's getting close.

Regarding particular pages, my question is "does it actually hurt the encyclopedia?" I'm not sure how tagging an article could be against policy, though I understand people's ways of responding to the situation could have been WP:ATTACK (though I haven't read any of this particular interchange), which *would* be against policy. But does it hurt the encyclopedia to have a project's banner on the talk page? WP:WPBIO has their banner on ~20% and that doesn't seem to bother anyone. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't really think that anyone questions whether or not an article on a person falls under WPBio. It is definitely too large a WikiProject to be useful, but when your stated purview is "all biographies", it makes sense. (And, actually, it does bother some people....)

We've spent a lot of time at WikiProject Musical Theatre trying to find ways to emphasize the global nature of musical theatre. Having WPChi come in and "claim" the article simply because the show ran there seemed to undercut all of that. I don't understand their need to put a tag on everything that has even the most tenuous ties to Chicago. Why on earth should the governor of New Jersey be under their purview? Because he went to UChi? That's megalomania. — Music Maker 5376 03:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Musicals

Go right ahead and enlighten me as to how The Drowsy Chaperone, Billy Bishop Goes to War, Anne of Green Gables - The Musical and Starmania can be in any way considered not essential topics within Category:Theatre in Canada. Bearcat (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

First, don't be a dick. Second, I never said they weren't. — Music Maker 5376 13:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which which passed nem. con. with 45 support, 0 oppose, and 0 neutral. Thank you for your support and all the kind words that were expressed. I will try to live up to the trust placed in me by the community. I now have my homework to do and then pass the Marigolds.

Thank you for your support. much appreciated. Hopefully, there'll be another opportunity for transatlantic co-operation. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Schwartz

Good catch. Howzzat? Also, there is a bunch of redlinked stuff in his article under "major works". Is all of it "major"? Does the narrative in his article cover pretty much everything? I'm not a Schwartz person, but the article obviously needed attention, so I gave it some, but it seems to need more research - there are hardly any refs, and it seems to rely very heavily on Schwartz's own site or fan sites. But I bet there is quite a bit out there about his career so far. Oh well, there's only so much we can do, and I've got a big list of stuff I can't even get to. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

New Jersey

Over 75 percent of its population lives within the New York metropolitan area.

What’s wrong with that? It’s a valid fact significant to the character of the state to warrant it being mentioned in the introduction. --J intela (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source? — Music Maker 5376 02:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Voice parts

Good idea, I brought it up. Cheers! --omtay 38 20:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Baker's Wife.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Baker's Wife.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

68.175.106.228

Done. Let me know if they come back, and I'll give them {{uw-spam3}} or {{uw-spam4}}. Happy‑melon 16:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Her Majesty's Theatre

Going back to theatres, this one's in for FAC. I think it's largely there, but I'd appreciate your comments. cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll give it a look-see when I get a moment.... — Music Maker 5376 15:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Man Who Stepped into Yesterday

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Man Who Stepped into Yesterday, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Man Who Stepped into Yesterday. Thank you. Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Guys_and_dolls.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Guys_and_dolls.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ Superstar reverts

Hi,

On Jesus Christ Superstar, I made a good faith, non-vandal edit with a detailed edit summary, and you reverted it without an edit summary. I restored my edit, requesting an explanation in the edit summary, you reverted again without an edit summary. The way I see it, you are refusing to discuss and intentionally being arrogant (presumably you think that's OK because I'm an IP). I just wanted to make sure I interpret your position correctly before posting on the WP:ANI. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Then I would have to say that you need a lesson in assuming good faith. As far as I can tell by the history, I only reverted once. However, I am going to remove that edit for the simple reason that the films have their own section. This has been the subject of extensive discussion at WikiProject Musical Theatre -- films are to be considered separately from stage productions. You didn't add any information -- you simply created a redundancy -- therefore, I didn't need to supply an edit summary. And, please bear in mind that calling someone a dick is equally as dickish. Feel free to take it up with ANI. — Music Maker 5376 16:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The page exists for a reason, and I couldn't think of a more relevant one covering arrogance. However, I wouldn't have worded it like this if I hadn't thought I saw two reverts by you without summary or discussion. Was I seeing double? Sorry for that. Anyway - from the start, I explained in the edit summary why I thought my edit was not redundant (in the sense of "unnecessary" at the given place). If you felt my argument was somehow faulty, that was no excuse for not addressing it. Like this, you seemed to be basically saying "you are a vandal" or "your argument is so stupid that I don't even want to discuss it". See also WP:revert#Explain reverts.

Concerning my reason to add the mention, I'll repeat my argument more expressly. In the 1970's section, you never learn anything about Ted Neeley playing Jesus, or Carl Anderson playing Judas. Then you reach the 1990's and suddenly read that "the AD Anniversary Tour starred Ted Neeley and Carl Anderson reprising their roles as Jesus and Judas". Huh? Reprising their roles from when? Neeley and Anderson are mentioned several more times, and you still don't know who these people actually "are" until you finally reach the Films section. This could also be fixed by mentioning the movie in the 1990s section, but it certainly needs to be fixed in some way. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Where it says that they reprised their roles, I clarified that they reprised their roles from the 1973 film (I know that Anderson played the role on stage earlier, but he was better known from his golden globe-nominated film performance). I hope this solves the problem in a way that you can both live with. I also took out some peacock words from the article, but many of the claims in it still need referencing. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize that that section didn't explain who Neely and Anderson were. SSilver's solution is probably the most acceptable. — Music Maker 5376 01:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's OK with me, too. Best,--91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Dante Cunningham (Villanova)

Thought I'd better explain the reason for changing the flag on Cunningham. Dante has always had dual GB/US citizenship. It seems reasonable that if he's elected to play for the British national basketball team we should put the British flag there. He hasn't suddenly become British, he's always had this option. I can't think of a better way to decide a person's nationality than the country he plays for. Regards - Topcardi (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that sort of makes sense -- I didn't realize he had dual citizenship. However, since he does, I think it would make more sense to include both flags, right? I'm sure there's some sort of guideline governing such things, but I don't know what it says. Perhaps we should look into it. — Music Maker 5376 18:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:ProseTimeline

Template:ProseTimeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

please look at this?

could you please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Les_Mis%C3%A9rables_%28musical%29#Why_deleted.3F_if_its_becouse_of_wrong_enlish.2C_please_make_it_good.2C_and_not_delete.3F about a change you have made undone?

Edit summaries

Thanks for the message, but I have no idea what you mean. Could you please give me a step-by-step "how to" on what you want me to do? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I never realized before that the little arrow is linked. Interesting. I always go to history first to see what changes have been made. Of course, what you are saying only happens if you are editing a section rather than the whole article. But I'll try to remember not to delete the linked arrow and section name in the future if I am making a section edit. I think that the only times I have been deleting it are when I want to leave a long edit summary and have been worried that I wouldn't have enough room in the box. Happy editing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hair script

It's TAMS "Copyright 1966, 1969". If anyone has the most recent TAMS version it should list the various years that it was revised (the latest is 1994 i think). This is the first copyright version after it opened on Bway in 1968 and is the version for all the regional prods and the basis for international translations. I got it from a friend who is very close to the show. Can't get too specific .. just that I know a lot of people who were involved in the orig Bway run and other early regional prods and asked around, etc -- Mblaxill (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have permission to use the Red Bank photo .. the director's email is <email redacted>. Not sure what the protocol is for getting the jpeg file so I figured you could take it from here .. he says the Butler quote was from the Hair blog - i'll add the ref - Mblaxill (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I'll write him later today to let him know what's involved. — Music Maker 5376 20:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Album musical

Rereading my reponse to you, I think I did come off a little sarcastic and I didn't mean to. I appreciate your input in trying to clarify the need (or lack of need) for a name to describe a unique type of concept album. Because it is so unique, it's hard to find written sources but I will continue to look. It seems to me the value of a reference work like Wiki is to point out the similarities between related items. Anyway, thanks again for trying to keep me on the right path.Rarmin (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for that. I just posted my apology to you over at WP:WPMT....

The thing you have to keep in mind is that, as an encyclopedia, we're not here to create knowledge; we're here to reflect it. We can't come up with some way to handle the problem until the musical theatre/concept album/rock opera/whatever community finds a way to define it. Until then, we just have to keep bashing our heads against walls.... — Music Maker 5376 15:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Thanks Music Maker. I will try to keep with that policy for now on. The link was bad too on the earlier comment which was really the main reason why I wanted it gone. I don't like changing other people's comments (i.e. fix link) And I didn't want to have people confused by the bad link.Broadweighbabe (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Mystery of Edwin Drood: Huh?

Somebody moved the article to Drood. Is that right? I'll rely on your article naming expertise. What a crazy couple of days here on Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a big fan of the article being titled that way. While they may have changed how the show was billed ("Drood" definitely fits better on a marquee!), I know it as "The Mystery...". That's what we called it when I was in the pit in college. The OBCR says "The Mystery...". I don't think it really matters, truthfully -- if someone searches the full title, it'll bring them to the page for the novel, and they'll be able to find what they're looking for with the dab link at the top. If someone just searches "Drood", they'll find what they're looking for. I'd rather leave it. There's been a lot of good work done on that article, and I'd rather not ruffle any feathers.

You da boss, but the guy that moved it is new to the article.

I've seen him around, though. Not sure where, to be honest. -- MM

The guy that did the work on the article was User:ChrisStansfield, with help, of course, from Jean (Throw a party for Jean if you want to fete someone who is really in the trenches improving the whole project), me, you and a smattering of other folks.

User:ChrisStansfield brought it up on the talk page in September in favor of moving it to the new title. There seemed to be consensus for the move. (And agree re:Jean!)-- MM

So whether you want to undo the move should be purely up to your notion of what is the right way to do it, which I have never known you to be shy about expressing! :)

Lol. Nope. Not shy. -- MM

Cool. I had forgotten that it was discussed on the talk page, sorry! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hair

But, yeah, what a week! Hair (musical) is turning out AWESOME! I wanna throw a party for Mblaxill! — Music Maker 5376 22:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is great, but let's wait until we finally get an article into FA to celebrate. It is about time that a project with almost 2,000 pages get a real FA. I don't count "Pageant", which sneaked in somehow - Sandy Georgia must have been sleepy that day. -- Ssilvers

Haha.... I like Pageant. Definitely makes me laugh. It was nice to see on the Main Page, even if I don't necessarily claim it as ours, either. -- MM

Don't get me wrong: I like the article OK. I helped the Pageant guy with a lot of copy editing and pushed him to add references. Hell, I'll even take credit for it finally having a synopsis that wasn't a disjointed list of plot points. But I don't think that the article is a structural gem. -- Ssilvers

Plus, as I said before, Hair is an important musical, and it will be very, very helpful if we can get a major, well-known musical improved to the FA level to serve as a model. Here we have a great chance because Mblaxill is so cooperative and knowledgeable about it, you are knowledgeable, Maria is willing to help out, and, since the musical is fairly old, there is a good amount published on it, and we don't have to contend with too much fancruft. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. You know, once the article had the synopsis, it all came together. Mblaxill really is great -- and I just love this show. I agree that, with some work, this could definitely be an FA. It should sail thru GA -- I'd say it's close to an A. (Once we get those images....) — Music Maker 5376 23:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the bull by the horn on referencing. I find it very tedious that the FA people concentrate on the formatting of references rather than on whether they are likely to be accurate as to the information cited. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

An effective channel for my OCD side.... — Music Maker 5376 00:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of the Hair "Media" section? Please take a look and see if you are satisfied with the organization and flow of the prose. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Needed a little streamlining, but not bad. It needs some work -- it jumps from 1969 to 1992; I'm sure someone did something stupid with the music in the 80s... -- but I think the information it has is presented okay. — Music Maker 5376 15:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Good - I think your cleanup/streamlining helped its readability quite a bit. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. — Music Maker 5376 16:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I saw your note in your edit summary re: the links in "History" to Rado and Ragni; typically interwiki links are used both when something/someone is mentioned in the lead and also when it first appears in the body of the article. Besides, Rado and Ragni are so intregal, they deserve to be linked twice! This article is looking great, btw. You guys are doing an awesome job. Will this be the first musical FA? María (habla conmigo) 18:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree -- I don't think two links (actually, counting the infobox, four) is too many for the creators.

Thanks for the props. I just love this show so much.... So important -- brought us out of the Rodgers and Hammerstein dark ages of musical theatre.... User:Mblaxill is a font of knowledge, sources, etc., and is extremely willing and cooperative. After dealing with years of edit wars, it's nice to come across someone so receptive.

We actually have one other, that, only by fortune of it being onstage and including singing, is part of our project. It's an interesting article, it cracks me up, but we didn't have much to do with it. (A friend of mine runs a theatre camp and I was trying -- unsuccessfully -- to get her to do it with the kids....)

Thank you for all of your help -- it's truly been priceless. — Music Maker 5376 18:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mockingbirdfoundation.jpg

I have tagged Image:Mockingbirdfoundation.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion, please?

I would like your opinion as to the debate going on here: [[1]] at the Wiki Project Theatre. Smatprt (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Category cleanup

Hiya Musicmaker. We're doing category cleanup, and your userpage was showing up as (among other things) a Wikipedia editing guide because you templated-in WP:WIAFA. I changed that and two other style guidelines to links instead of templates. Hope that's okay. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Photo date

Was the Red Bank photo taken in 2008? It made me smile when I realized that you share your name with a certain NYC opera producer. DYK that you are the first person "acknowledged" in the 40th reunion program? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, not MB, I meant it for you, but I could be confused by the info in the image summary. The name I mean is the one that it says is the person who had the copyright on the Red Bank photo (sorry, I'm being deliberately vague because I don't want to give anyone's RL name away). In any case, the key question is, what is the date that the Red Bank photo was taken? Was it in 2008? Or was it just uploaded in 2008. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OH! Okay.... I see what you're saying.... No, that's not me -- I uploaded it, but the copyright was owned by the director of the Red Bank prod. Who is not me. I would imagine that he would have been acknowledged in the reunion program....

But I did fix the date. It was a 2006 production (as it says in the graf next to the pic...). It looks like a good, prod, too. So many directors go overboard with peace signs and tie dye that it looks like Abbie Hoffman exploded onstage.... It looks like this guy knew what he was doing.

(And I'm not saying that because it was me and I'm trying to obsfucate my identity.... Definitely not me. I'd be the first one on the bus to take credit for that....) — Music Maker 5376 16:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The Red Bank production is featured prominently in the documentary that we got at the 40th aniv. reunion, showing some rehearsals from it, and scenes of the cast singing some of the songs while walking in, I think, Wash. Square Park. Can you add the 2006 date to the Image summary to clarify that, although the photo was uploaded in 2008, it was taken in 2006? BTW, the reunion was a surprisingly low key affair, just some singing along with the cast recording, a few nice welcoming/thanking speeches, including a good speech by Rado, who was in good spirits, and a plea by Ben Vereen for people to write to the Tony Awards folks to urge them to recognize O'Horgan for his work. O'Horgan got a big 84th birthday cake, but he didn't seem to be very mobile any more. He didn't speak at all. Broadwaygal got invited to sing into the microphone surrounded by lots of the orig. B'way cast members, who complimented her on her voice (she's got an awesome contemporary musicals sound and is thinking about doing her own cabaret this winter) and sorta got invited to play Sheila again. She was in "Be-In heaven". LOL. MB knew everyone and sang into the microphone too. He's got a really good rock sound - he has a band. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Done.

The reunion sounds like it was an incredible amount of fun. Sad I missed it.... — Music Maker 5376 16:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Phish reply

Good day MusicMaker5376. First, my apologies for disturbing anything at the Phish article with my recent edits. I was not aware that the particular words I attempted to correct had any nation-specific spelling. I do however, maintain a rather lengthily list of words that fall into such a category, and normally make every attempt possible to avoid changing them unless there is obvious reasons to do so. The specific words you've questioned, are not on my list... but I'll take your word for it nonetheless. My edit was in no way an attempt to vandalise or disrupt, in fact, I thought it was a rather productive contribution at the time. Have a nice day -- WikHead (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

categories