User talk:Mark E/Archive 1

Welcome to the Musicals project
Welcome, and thanks for the help! -- Ssilvers 18:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on adding all the assessments. Good work!  -- Ssilvers 16:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Old Shiz et al
I would say that just about every song article that's been created for Wicked should just be redirected to the main article. I've only seen the nom for Dear Old Shiz, so I'm not sure if you've nominated more, but, in my opinion, they don't need to be AfD'd -- you can just set up a redirect yourself. (Or myself. Or whomeverself.)  I think a redirect is the best move so, that way, when someone searches for the song, they'll just be taken to the main article, AND it would probably stop someone from creating an article where there shouldn't be one. Oh! And btw: if I nominate something for deletion, I usually let everyone know on the project talk page, that way, interested parties know about it.... &mdash; Music Maker  21:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Congradumalations!
All I can say is wow!

Noticed you added "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" back to Project Musical Theatre
Can you tell me if there was any particular reason for this. It is not a big deal yet....but could be if project members attempt to change article style to match the Projects style guidelines as they differ considerably from Project film. I only ask as you did not add to the discussion on the talk page when this was done.--Amadscientist 10:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you notice that the film was removed from the project recently. It was noted on the discussion page. Could you see the discussion page and add to it if possible. I will not remove the film from the project unless you do not object however, yes the style guidelines of Project Musical theatre have been applied to this article before with some conflict. That is why it was removed.--Amadscientist 10:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Rambutan (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Harry Potter roll-call
Hi there. Your username is listed on the WikiProject Harry Potter participants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. Your name has therefore been moved to a "potentially inactive" list. If you still consider yourself an active WikiProject Harry Potter editor, please move your name from the Potentially inactive list to the Active Contributors list. You may also wish to add  to your userpage, if you haven't done so already. Conversely, if you do not wish to be considered a member of the WikiProject, leave your name where it is and it will be moved to the Inactive Contributors section. If you wish to make a clean break with the Project you may move your name to the Known to have left section. Many thanks.

August 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Starlight Express. Please be careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tiptoety 19:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 12:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Musicals assessments
Just my 2 cents: I don't think the stubs should be upgraded to "start", generally, until they have a reasonably substantial "synopsis" section set out in the article (as well as a reasonable start at production history, etc). Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Ok, I see what you mean Mark E 19:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

WPMT Roll Call and COTM
 WPMT Roll Call and Collaboration of the Month! You're receiving this message because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Musical Theatre. Please post at the talk page to let us know if you're still with the project. Feel free to post on the talk page about what musical theatre-related work you're doing or to weigh in on the current discussions on the talk page.

Nominations for our Collaboration of the Month are currently being accepted. What should we focus on for the month of November? Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks much, folks! Happy editing! &mdash;  Music  Maker  5376  04:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Little Shop of Horrors (musical)
Hello Mark E! I' ve recently nominated Little Shop of Horrors (musical) for the WikiProject Musical Theatre next collaboration of the month, and I noticed that you had previously shown support for a collaboration on this article. If you'd like to support it this time around, please feel free to stop by the collaboration page and add your name to the list. Thanks! —Mears man (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Andy Abraham.JPG
File:Andy Abraham.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Andy Abraham.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Too Close to the Sun
FYI, the upcoming West End production is listed as open-ended at. I removed the closing date from the article you created, adjusted the image size, and added a brief synopsis and two references. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK)
Please read the comment that I have left in reply to your vote. Thanks, DJ 22:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Musicals assessments
Hi, Mark. I'm enjoying all the good work that you're doing on musical theatre articles. Obviously, assessments are subjective, but I would like to argue against grade inflation. In my opinion, merely pulling the information that one can see in the IMDB and listing information about the who/what/where of major productions is only "stub" information. A musical needs a good plot summary and information about the background of the musical to move up to "Start class", in my opinion. To get to C-class, I think a musicals article needs a very good plot summary, substantial background information, a good section on critical response, and perhaps a start at musical and textual analysis. This is just my opinion, but I think that if we grade the articles "strictly", then it shows editors that there is much room for improvement and encourages people to focus on working on our articles. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. Yes, length can be deceptive.  Often there is a long list of "awards" (and especially nominations) at the bottom, many of which are, IMO, not very notable, e.g. outer critics' circle, Theatre World, etc.  I'd stick with just Tony's, Drama Desk, Oliviers, and, if the musical has never been in NY or London, then the most prestigious local/national awards, and I'd consider ignoring nominations (except to say, the show "was nominated for 12 Tonys"), but I think I'm in the minority.  There is a tendency to listify these articles, but I try to resist it and get the important information into narrative sections.  BTW, we're working towards bringing Hair (musical) to FA later this year.  On a separate but related topic, if you know much about rock musicals, the rock musical article needs more research.  It constantly raises arguments because it is not very rigorous; a discussion drawn from some well-regarded musical theatre books would really help the project.  All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Have a great time. Nothing wrong with copying similar refs for format, but don't worry too much about ref format. If you get all the information in there (author, title, date, publisher, and url or page number) then I'd be happy to help you format your refs any time. The important thing is the information. One thing that's easy to remember: the punctuation always goes before the ref tag. I'm away for two weeks but will be back after August 16. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

2009 in theatre
Good morning Mark: I am hopeless when it comes to formatting (except on a very simple-low-level). I've pretty much stopped updating the article because I find most of the tables hard to work with. I have no ideas, frankly...how about asking user Bib User_talk:Bib who set the tables up (by the way, Bib is very nice and easy to work with, and must be some kind of computer genius!). Let me know if I can help (within my limits).JeanColumbia (talk) 10:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Mark, first, ditto to JeanColumbia, who is nice and has done great work on the article. I'm not a genius, but the table was copied from 2008 in film. It looked nice, but I can see how it would be better to use a table similar to how it is in the West End theatre article. Much easier to find a show in that table, and easier to find both the closing date and which theatre it's in. I definitely vote in favor for that one. Bib (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Changed the table. Bib (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Iron mask.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Iron mask.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 'file' 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 "File" 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. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Done!Mark E (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Title of Show
Please read the link I provided, WP:MOSTM. This explains why in an encyclopedia, the correct English formatting is used (ie. Title of Show) and not the stylistic preferences of advertising material. Specifically, see: "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration" Thus, the square brackets are eliminated (except in the first line to indicate the styling of the text in promotional material). For example Yellow Tail (wine) (styled as [ yellow tail ]. "Trademarks rendered without any capitals are always capitalized" For example Thirtysomething (styled as thirtysomething). I trust that explains my changes. As this is an encyclopedia, we use standard English formatting rather than the stylistic preferences of trademark holders. Title of Show follows these standard English rules, whereas [title of show] does not. Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Manual_of_Style_(trademarks)
 * Manual_of_Style_(trademarks)
 * You disagree? Even though I have provided similar situations where the guideline is adhered to. Ignore all Rules only ever gets quoted when people have no other argument against the use of standard guidelines and policies. To the invoke ignore all rules policy you must demonstrate how ignoring WP:MOSTM benefits wikipedia, and thus how implementing standard English capitalisation somehow damages the project. May I direct you to What IAR does not mean. Being a fan of the show is meaningless. I am a fan of correct English usage. Standard English capitalisation that follows conventional rules rather than some stylistic preference is important to me. Please explain why you feel it is necessary to improperly style the name throughout the article? Why is it not sufficient to make note of the non-standard capitalisation in the lead and subsequently use correct English? This is afterall an encyclopedia and not a fansite for the show. Regards Nouse4aname (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Further, people often say "but it's the actual name" or "but it's the official name" etc. No. It is how the name is styled. There is no difference in how Title of Show and [title of show] are read or pronounced. The non-standard formatting is thus redundant and is one reason why it is not rendered in this way in wikipedia. As a title, standard English requires the name to be capitalised. Just because promotional material does not do this, does not mean that wikipedia should follow suit. This sort of situation is exactly why WP:MOSTM exists - to create a consistent and accurate encyclopedia. As I stated above, the non-standard formatting is mentioned once in the lead, but is subsequently rendered according to standard English rules. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Tooclose.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Tooclose.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 'file' 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 "File" 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. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:110 in the shade.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:110 in the shade.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

image question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:110_in_the_shade.jpg

It was brought up that this image should not be in the article because it is not about the magazine in question. However many musical theatre articles use playbill covers to illustrate the shows logo as it is often the only one avaliable. Can you suggest what rationale i could use for this image please.Mark E (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question is answered in my FAQs. They're linked at the top of my talk page and in the editnotice. Why not check them out next time?
 * I don't think there is a rationale that would be valid for this image. Nothing in Wikipedia requires that an article have an image, and this particular image doesn't do anything to improve readers' understanding of the article. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok sorry. I disagree though that an article about a musical shouldn't have some artwork from the show. I will find another fair use image (most likely cd cover) that I can put into the article.Mark E (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, don't. Unless your image is a free image, or would actually help people to understand the article, it's not permitted, per the Wikipedia policy WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But surely having a logo for a musical in the article info box is the same as having, for arguements sake, having the dvd cover/logo of a film in the respective article about that film.Mark E (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have such a logo, it would be reasonable to use it. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Legally Blonde (musical)
I have been away from Wikipedia since 19th December (I posted a note to this effect on my talkpage) so I am a bit behind in meeting my review commitments, but will try and look at the above during the next few days. Brianboulton (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Really Old, Like Forty Five


The article Really Old, Like Forty Five has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ironholds (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Legally Blonde references
Hi Mark, happy new year! Here are a few references you might want to look at for LB. I got them via a Lexis-Nexis connection with a University, I think any library or your own school probably has access. I'll just give the dates, source & subject (and a bit of the text):

"The whole you-go-girl plot may seem a tad retro (see the bootylicious bend and snap move vs. oh, say, Mary Tyler Moore tossing her cap in the air), but Bundy actually sees Elle as a role model in her own right. She may start out clueless, but she ends up kicking butt.
 * Inside Bay Area (California), January 26, 2007 Friday, 'Blonde' easy to root for, Karen D'Souza, BAY AREA LIVING; Stage; Musical,:

She proves it to Huntington," says the beyond bubbly Bundy, 25, "but she also proves it to herself, and through that journey she realizes that loving herself is more important than loving him, and she doesn't need anyone else to be happy and fulfilled and have a future."

Director/choreographer Jerry Mitchell thinks the show's be-yourself theme couldn't be more relevant in the age of Britney crotch shots and Bratz dolls. This here is feminism as feel-good fairy tale. Elle may be tres trendy, but she's no airhead. This girl knows her Gloria Steinem from her "Girls Gone Wild."

"I don't know about you, but when I look around at the world today, it seems to me this is still a message that girls need to hear," Mitchell says. "I always like to have someone to root for. I like to walk out of a musical with a little bit of hope.""

`Blonde' is easy to root for;TALE OF WOMAN WHO CONQUERS HARVARD IS NOW A MUSICAL, BYLINE: Karen D'Souza
 * San Jose Mercury News (California), January 21, 2007 Sunday,

Review: "Here, here. Certainly with Laurence O'Keefe, of the vampire musical ``Bat Boy fame, as a co-writer, ``Legally Blonde has some serious alt-theater chops. O'Keefe admits that his fringe theaters pals have accused him of selling out for taking on ``Blonde. He thinks not.``There's fluffiness, but there's also a strong moral core to the story, O'Keefe says. ``The theme of the show is really that you need to define yourself, or other people are going to do it for you.Lest that sound a tad high-minded, the writer quickly adds: ``Our show is not trying to save the world. Our show is trying to delight the audience.Still, O'Keefe says that suffusing the more superficial aspects of Elle's character with a sense of vulnerability was quite the challenge. ``For me, writing a show like this was darker and scarier and weirder than `Bat Boy,' '' O'Keefe says, joking that his next project will tap back into a bloodier vein. Actually, there is some carnage in ``Legally Blonde.'' Let's just say that the women of Delta Nu are capable of drawing blood if someone messes with their core values, i.e, don't be dissing the highlights! In the musical, the sorority is re-imagined as a Greek chorus (wink!) that lives in Elle's head.``It's kind of, like, genius, that concept,'' giggles Bundy, who has the perky cute pop princess thing seriously down. ``They're sort of like Elle's internal conflict.''"

Broadway, Hollywood clean up by offering relief from raunch BYLINE: David Hinckley,SECTION: WIRE - ENTERTAINMENT; Pg. d1
 * Chattanooga Times Free Press (Tennessee),January 15, 2007 Monday

"But teenagers still "find" certain shows, and become a crucial part of their success. Teenage girls are a big reason for the success of "Wicked" now, just as teens of all genders propelled "Rent" a few years ago. It could happen again with "Legally Blonde," which opens in April."

LIGHTS! ACTION! SHOW TUNES! FEEDING BROADWAY'S VORACIOUS APPETITE FOR HOT HOLLYWOOD CONCEPTS BYLINE: REED TUCKER SECTION: All Editions; Pg. 77
 * The New York Post, January 7, 2007 Sunday

"But it doesn't end there. More shows ripped from the cineplex are in the works - many of them already working out the kinks in far-flung cities - including "Legally Blonde" (opening here, April 2007), "Billy Elliot" (opening here, 2008), "Shrek" (opening here, 2008), "Lord of the Rings" (hits this stage this spring) and many more. With the recent closings of "The Wedding Singer" after its eight-month run and "High Fidelity" after only 10 performances, you may be wondering if the trend is on its last legs. After all, hasn't every slightly decent movie already been strip-mined and funneled through the show-tune grinder?"

FIVE STAR EDITION BROADWAY MUSICALS ARE BENDING THE GENRES BYLINE: Sharon Eberson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette SECTION: ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT; Pg. F-1
 * Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania), January 7, 2007 Sunday

"In fact, these days, one has to wonder: What would musical theater do without the film industry?Disney is king of turning its animated films into stage adaptations, with "Tarzan" the latest to hit a New York stage, but its certainly not alone.The latest trend is taking movies and reworking them as screen musicals with original songs -- with some rebounding back onto film in their new musical form, as Mel Brooks did with "The Producers" and will have the opportunity to do with "Young Frankenstein," his next film-to-stage musical adaptation. "Hairspray," with John Travolta assailing the Divine gender-bending role that won Harvey Fierstein a Tony, is due in a movie theaters in July."

Well, you get the idea: emphasize the feminist angle, and the movies to stage concepts. I do not have time right now to continue, but there may be more. One more thing, there is a nice article about the dogs and the animal trainer Bill Berloni at "Contra Costa Times (California), January 29, 2007 Monday "Woof! Grooming stars is no walk in the park", BYLINE: Pat Craig, CONTRA COSTA TIMES SECTION: FEATURES; Pg. F4." I personally would use some of this if you have the space. By the way there are a large number of people signed up for the MT workgroup, why not just put out a call for assistance from one and all? JeanColumbia (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Really Old, Like Forty Five
I have nominated Really Old, Like Forty Five, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Really Old, Like Forty Five. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Joe Chill (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Images in your User Space
Hey there Mark E, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User:Mark E/Sandbox 2. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Legally Blonde (musical) GAN
Hey Mark. I've reviewed the Legally Blonde (musical) GAN, but found some sourcing problems that will have to be addressed before this can pass as a GA. Please look over and respond to my comments at the review page. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  19:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Mark. The artcle has been on hold for more than a week. I usually fail it after a week if I don't get a response. Are you still interested in following through on these improvements? Let me know right away. If I don't hear anything after a few days, I'll probably fail the GAN, and encourage you to nominate them again after you've addressed those concerns down the road. Let me know either way! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  03:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. If you ever nominate it again, please feel free to let me know and I'll review it! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  19:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Carries-warlondon.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Carries-warlondon.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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Big Brother 2009 (UK) GA nomination
I've amended this page and I now hope that it fits your expectations. I would, and I'm sure the other editors would also, appreciate it if you reviewed the article against the good article criteria and posted your findings here. Thanks, KingOfTheMedia (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cagelles original london palladium.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Cagelles original london palladium.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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cage poster.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Cage poster.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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Fancruft
Hi! I know the Wicked and Avenue Q fans are particularly rabid, but I don't think that the problems we have with just a few articles should dictate our policy with respect to the whole project. My feeling about it is that this is a temporary problem: After the show closes, the fans will move on. This is true of Rent, for instance. The RENTheads used to block most attempts to edit that article, but once it closed, no problem. Plus, feel free to use the musicals project talk page to gain support for what you are doing. If you ask for support in reverting crufters, etc. I'm always happy to help out. Thanks, BTW, for keeping an eye on cruft. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome!
I was wondering why there was a table for Wicked anyway; now I know it's fishy! Also, the reason I put the minor characters in was because on the Oz/wikia site that had all principal cast lists (Wicked (cast lists) link on page), all of those minor characters were liisted under the title "Principal Cast." Just to be safe, I put them in the character list. As for the plot "shrinking," I'm not too good at that. I was never good at summarizing :-) lol. However, I can remove the table and the vocal ranges and list the minor characters as minor. Thanks for the tips!--The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire 15:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingdude88 (talk • contribs)

Oh, sorry about that mixup. Like I said, I'm not too good at summarizing, so I'll leave that job to a professional.--The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire 19:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingdude88 (talk • contribs)

Billy Elliot London cast list
Why did you remove/delete/vandalise the cast list for Billy Elliot London? It was regularly updated and accurately depicted the publicly available names of cast of the musical over the last 5 years including all the principal cast in particular the young actors who play Billy. Is it because they are not members of equity? In which case, that seems grossly unfair. It's usefulness as a historical resource for those who are fans of the musical is unquestioned, and yet you seek to unilaterally deny, not just this information to those who want to know, but further to deny the cast the recognition on wikipedia that they deserve.

There was no formal challenge to the veracity and accuracy of aforementioned information. In fact had you bothered to contact the production company, they would have told you those exact details (with perhaps even less accuracy). The vast majority of that information was first hand and publicly verifiable.

Unless the intent was to reduce information, in which case that seems very short sighted. Surely the more accurate information on Wikipedia the better. The fact that the cast lists for Billy Elliot NY, Chicago, and Australia were left unaltered is also confusing in this respect.

You are welcome to clarify your issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.211.108 (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I did not 'Vandalize' the article. The list had become full of non-notable names. Wikipedia is not a place for a list of every cast member who has ever been in a show. WP:MT guidelines are that only the original London/Broadway/High profile casts should be included, and also be included is notable replacements (notable as in they fit the Wikipedia crieteria for a biography article). Not every actor to have ever played the role is useful in an encyclopedia, and is better suited to a billy elliot fan site. See WP:NOTNEWS. I have no qualms about original casts lists (albeit in a different form to how they currently are, the tables are far too long. There is just too much "Fancruft" in the article. When I find the time, ill be taking out the other non-notable informationMark E (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark E, I've noticed your edits to the Billy Elliot the Musical Casts and I wanted to address your consistent linking to WP:NOTNEWS. While the Billy Elliot the Musical Casts page does violate WP:MT guidelines the list apart from the "notes" section was well within the WP:NOTNEWS guidelines. The Billy Elliot the Musical Casts page was well within WP:NOTNEWS guidelines on notability because it was an article about a specific topic and as per WP:NOTNEWS guidelines "coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." I applaud your efforts to remove fancruft such as was in the notes section of the article. However, I do have a qualm with your removal of actors because they are "non-notable". The article in question is the very place on wikipedia where a list of "non-notable" actors is appropriate. The WP:MT project guidelines have gone well beyond WP:NOTNEWS.GregAB (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Scope of WP:MUSICALS (Books)
Would you kindly weigh in either way on the question I raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Billy
I totally ignore these stupid, bloated list articles. This one is totally impossible to read! My advice is to abandon the hopelessly crufty list article and let the crufters do what they want with it. It will keep them quiet, and if anyone tries to mess with the one in the main article, you can just say, "Hey, dude, you can add your information to the list article". Instead, keep the nice compact table in the main article up to date. I moved it there for you. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Love Never Dies (musical)
Hi, Mark. I already commented on the talk page there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the analysis. I gave the article a once-over, streamlined a few things and deleted the offending EL.  I think the Recordings should go under the Reception section, but I don't feel strongly.  We need some info about the box-office results so far.  All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Phantom
Hi -- Hoping to take advantage of your editing experience with the musicals. I recently rewrote the Phantom of the Opera synopsis, and the rest of the article clearly needs work. For starters, would it be appropriate for me to remove the various cast lists and replace them with an original cast table, as you did for Avenue Q? Listing every actor who ever played each role seems unnecessary to me, but I hesitate to incur the wrath of whoever went to all the trouble of assembling those lists in the first place. Any guidance will be appreciated. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Little Shop of Horrors (musical)
An editor keeps trying to delete rock musical and add tragicomedy, which is just wrong. Would you kindly revert him if he does it again. I tried to explain it to him once already: It's a mock-horror rock musical, like Rocky Horror; not a tragicomedy. Thanks for any help. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please comment on the Little Shop talk page. Thanks!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Mark. I waited two days for you to revert this guy, but I had to do it myself. I hope you'll watch the article? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry its on my watch list never thought to check :(.Mark E (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

London Wikimedia Fundraiser
Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Wiz
Hi. I disagree with your comment over at Oz. Plot summaries must be based on reliable sources - normally, the script. The only reason that we don't actually put in the reference to the script is because it is obvious that it is a summary of the script. In this case, the show has not been seen yet, and who knows what changes are being made to the movie plot. I am sad that you encouraged this edit-warring new editor. It should be explained to this person that we need reliable sources for everything. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Julieathertonalbum.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Julieathertonalbum.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Courcelles 05:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Oz
Hi. I hope your Christmas was nice. Happy New Year. Just in case you think I put that tag there, it was not me! SmackBot did it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Wizard_of_Oz_%282011_musical%29&diff=404876468&oldid=404876098  All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, now we're all curious about it, and I look forward to your summary of what new plot points and songs are introduced by Lloyd Webber and his collaborators.  Can you get the list of musical numbers from a theatre programme?  It's not very sporting of Lloyd Webber to say that The Wizard of Oz "has never worked on stage", when the perfectly good 1987 version (and the dated 1945 version) has played in numerous productions throughout the English-speaking world.  However, the older versions never caught on in the West End or on Broadway, so if the new version is any good, Lloyd Webber will have succeeded where others did not.  I can't help thinking that this production will, in fact, compete for the tourist audience with Wicked:  If you are going to take your children to one play about Oz, do you take them to this piece or to Wicked?  It will be interesting to see if this new piece is the beginning of the end of the remarkable run of Wicked....  -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, hope it's fun! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Any update on the Plot or Production sections for the 2011 musical article? All the best!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated. I'll keep an eye out for it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The Contribution Team cordially invites you to Imperial College London All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 14:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In class every day during the week, good luck though!Mark E (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Dreamboatsandpetticoats.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Dreamboatsandpetticoats.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Musical theatre
As you are a frequent contributor to the Musicals articles, I would value your comments at Talk:Musical theatre, where an editor wishes to delete all of the ELs to the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Idol: The Musical


The article Idol: The Musical has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Off-Broadway show with no evidence of notability per WP:GNG. Majority of content is unencyclopedic and unsourced plot summary. Little third party sourcing, appears to have closed after one regular performance per .

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kinu t /c  16:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Adams family musical.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Adams family musical.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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Book of Mormon hatnotes
Please visit Talk:Book of Mormon to help resolve this edit-dispute. DMacks (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Shade1.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Shade1.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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Probable false positive block template left by Anti Vandal bot
Hi Mark. You might want to take a look at |this edit which leaves an indef-block template on an IP talk page which at the time was not blocked. The IP was blocked shortly after this by an admin, but you might want to take a look at the algorithm. Best, Sparthorse (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.
Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis, currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.

I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.

'''Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone!''' :-)

To take part in the survey please follow the link: tsikerdekis.wuwcorp.com/pr/survey/?user=47417351 (HTTPS).

Best Regards, --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal.

UPDATE: This is the second and final notification for participating in this study. Your help is essential for having concrete results and knowledge that we all can share. I would like to thank you for your time and as always for any questions, comments or ideas do not hesitate to contact me. PS: As a thank you for your efforts and participation in Wikipedia Research you will receive a Research Participation Barnstar after the end of the study. --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Omigod u guys.ogg)
Thanks for uploading File:Omigod u guys.ogg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Notification of Bye Bye Birdie (musical) move discussion per WP:CANVASS
Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Bye Bye Birdie (musical) to change the title of the article, Bye Bye Birdie (musical) to Bye Bye Birdie. This notification is provided to you per Canvassing, because you have previously participated in a discussion on this subject. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=623159693 your edit] to List of musicals: A to L 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * | [West End Theatre|West End]
 * | I Don 3 u ne Mor

Disambiguation link notification for August 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of musicals: A to L, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page London Road. 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) 09:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

5000000th article
You might not remember but your prediction for the 5000000th article looks like being pretty close....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It didn't happen on October 3, 2015. :-( Anyway, belated happy 25th birthday! :-)  But still you are the closest yet. We currently have 4,993,153 articles.  Perhaps, it will hit 5 million on November 2015 or December 2015. --Jojit (talk) 06:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It now looks pretty certain it will happen during the first few days of November. J I P &#124; Talk 07:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Pre-emptive congratulations! Brianhe (talk) 04:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

You are officially the winner now!!! Congratulations!!! --User101010 (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia suddenly needs a 'like' button Tsop (talk) 13:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Congratulations from me too! J I P &#124; Talk 14:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also came to just say congrats. Gtwy (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, many congratulations! KConWiki (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Congrats! 8 years and to hit the mark so close, very impressive. Brightgalrs ( /braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ )<sup style="color:#0645AD;">[1] 05:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:George hearn la cage.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:George hearn la cage.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The above-mentioned non-free usage concerns also apply to File:Cagelles london.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Carries-warlondon.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Carries-warlondon.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Julieathertonalbum.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Julieathertonalbum.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sister act pasenda.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Sister act pasenda.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sunset Boulevardlondonrevival.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Sunset Boulevardlondonrevival.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The Girls (musical) copyright concern
Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Girls (musical), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Billington. 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) 09:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Jon Jon Briones
 * added a link pointing to Broadway Theatre


 * Kinky Boots (musical)
 * added a link pointing to Matt Henry

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Privacy (play), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. 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) 09:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)