User talk:Flami72/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! ViridaeTalk 12:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Avenue Q

Hello, Jean. Would you mind switching the infobox at this article to the new one? Thanks for any help! Best regards, -- Ssilvers 12:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. JeanColumbia 12:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Looks good. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 13:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, WP:User page#Removal of warnings indicates that you can remove or archive the warning from your talk page if you wish. Be well, -- Ssilvers 13:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Coram Boy (play)

If you can't beat 'em, leave 'em! -- Ssilvers 14:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

laughs, applaudsJeanColumbia 15:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Please take a look at the synopsis. Someone came and expanded it (which is good, since I thought it was a bit too brief), and I copy edited what they wrote, but I don't have a recent enough recollection of the script to be sure I got it exactly right. Can you please check it? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 22:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Musicals 2

I noticed that you updated Song and Dance (one of my faves!). If you could, just watch the formatting. Productions should consist of a year and a city (and country, if there's confusion). About a year ago, we decided against using theatre names because there are a lot of theatres with the same name (Winter Garden, NY, Winter Garden, Toronto, etc....), and then having to qualify it with a city just creates more stuff in the infobox. AND the same production of a show can change theatres even tho it's the same production in the same city. The names of the individual theatres should be somewhere in the article, so if someone really wants the information, they can look there. Thanks! —  MusicMaker 20:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah ha! I changed as many of the info boxes that I've recently done that I could, will do others later.JeanColumbia 20:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks much! Once all of the infoboxes have been switched over, the old ones deleted, etc., I'm probably going to go through all of them to get them standardized. I'm sure there are others besides the one's you've done that will need attention. —  MusicMaker 21:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Jean. Please take a look at WP:MUSICALS. Some of the old editors have returned (I guess for the summer, at least), and a lot of progress was made on article structure and the "to do" list. Please add any comments/suggestions you have at the project page. This is great news for us, because it seems that a few editors will join us in working actively on musicals. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 21:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

West End

I see you changed a West End show reference at Mame. I think we mean West End theatre productions, *not* West End of London productions, just like we mean Broadway theatre, not Broadway (New York City). Best regards, -- Ssilvers 22:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


Sorry! I see you did a million of them today. Thanks. It will be great when all the musicals have this simpler infobox without all the redlinks! Best regards, -- Ssilvers 23:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Oklahoma 1943 broadway.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Oklahoma 1943 broadway.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is one of 2 that I uploaded--the image used in the article on the muscal Oklahoma! is larger and more clear than this--ok to delete this image.JeanColumbia 09:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


Jean, as I said on another page, you are a very important editor of musical theatre on Wikipedia. I encourage you to join in the new discussions at WP:MUSICALS about article structure and our new projects. You have been working very hard on all these articles, and your input there is important, now that there are several editors working with an aggressive agenda to work on musicals articles. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 14:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Aw...ok, when I get the chance...(looks like you folks are doing fine, though!)JeanColumbia 15:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

External links you deleted

You have deleted external links I added to a resource that is of value to members of the theatre community. You cited the links as advertising which is completely invalid. The resource in question provides theatre people with a way to get more information about a show including upcoming auditions (not something that can reasonably be posted on wikipedia), longer lists of show reviews, sometimes even of local productions, which provides value when producing a show to see what reviewed well and what got criticised in other productions, and to learn more about characters for shows with character descriptions. The latter is similar to the value brings for musicals in providing vocal ranges, and that is a site with links from wikipedia pages to the relevant show pages. There is no single resource on the internet for people auditioning for shows or producing them to learn all they want to to audition well or put on the best show they can. Wikipedia is a good one, but the more dynamic content like auditions, reviews, etc is beyond wikipedia.

I also point out resources like IMDB, and IBDB that are linked from pages in wikipedia. These are all resources that add value to researching a show. To exclude the links I was adding is not reasonable and removes a potential resource from theatre people interested in a particular show.

Please contact me on this as I do not intend to waste time adding links you will delete until we resolve this, but it needs to be resolved, either between us as suggested by the wikipedia dispute resolution policy as the first step or by escalating per the subsequent steps in that policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edfhinton (talkcontribs)

((This is a copy of the note I left on (unsigned) posters talk page: "Feel free to put them all back. I do not want to get into a dispute with you, although there may be others who will take exception. I have already stated my case, and it is my policy and personality not to get into disputes with anyone, especially when it doesn't matter to me. I was just doing what I thought was "right", and you certainly have a well-reasoned rationale. (It helps to sign your posts, use 4 tildes).JeanColumbia 15:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""))

Hello. I think you wrongly got the blame for this. It was, in fact, me that removed the link. I've left a note at Edfhinton's talk page explaining all, in case you're interested. Thank you for taking this mix-up in such good grace --h2g2bob (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
(Fixed typo talking → taking. Apologies for that: most of my bad spelling is caught by the spellchecker :-) --h2g2bob (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)