User talk:MusicMaker5376/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:MusicMaker5376. 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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Magic Show.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Magic Show.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 03:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Milk and honey.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Milk and honey.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 05:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Schwartz

Thanks for the message. I looked at it too quickly and did not realize that he did both for Prince of Egypt, but I think it is clear enough, so I reverted my own edit. I don't think it needs even more divisions, as I think that, overall, that makes it harder for a reader to follow. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 17:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Villanova University

67.142.130.44 20:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Andrew Jonathan Fine67.142.130.44 20:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Leave my link ALONE in the Villanova Page. You have absolutely NO IDEA how much hell I have had to endure from my classmates before graduating. I at least deserve the honor of a mention. And BTW, a former notable student is also known as notable alumni"

No, no, a former notable student does not a notable alumnus make. If you haven't done anything notable as an alumnus, then you're not a notable alumnus. You were a notable student. I don't really care how much hell you had to endure; it has no bearing as to whether or not you're encyclopedic. You do not deserve the honor of a mention. You are not notable. Sorry. — Music Maker 5376 21:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

VU

You've done more than I have in contributing to the VU article by far. Did anything in particular bring you to this article, or was it more of a random project? nf utvol 16:28, 10 October 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! — Music Maker 5376 04:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dracula musical.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dracula musical.gif. 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 '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Musicals infobox / welcome

No offense intended, so none taken. And thanks for the welcome. Who knows, maybe you'll see me around WPMT in the future. — Hiplibrarianship 15:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

p.s. Your Charo pic/diffusion-strategy is priceless! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiplibrarianship (talk • contribs) 15:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

question

Hi Music Maker. I have a request/question. You changed the name of an article from "Impossible and Theoretical Keys" into simply "impossible keys". But of the two words, "theoretical" is the more common and appropriate. Just google the two terms if you doubt. Could the name of the article be changed to "theoretical keys" ? I don't know how to do it, though. Thanks for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.139.54 (talk • contribs)

I'm on that. I don't know why I didn't call it "Theoretical key" to begin with.... — Music Maker 5376 02:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

maude theme song

not sure why you removed my edits i put them back and removed the stub. reply to me some other way because i am not smart enough yet on using this site so maybe reply on my talk page? thanks Wikibina 14:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ruthless the musical.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ruthless the musical.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 23:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ruthless the musical.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ruthless the musical.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 23:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Do i hear a waltz.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Do i hear a waltz.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 04:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

WPMT Sidebar

Fixed it. It may need some aesthetic tweaking, but at least now it's functional again. Don't know what the problem was so started from scratch. If ya have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask! :-D --omtay 38 01:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Milk and honey.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Milk and honey.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 23:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Out of this world.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Out of this world.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 12:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Phish covers page?

Hey you were listed on the discussion page as contributors to contact regarding the Phish page. I am considering starting a page of "List of Phish covers" but wanted to get the community consensus on whether this is necessary or not. I have the data....I would just hate to create it and then have it removed. What are your thoughts? Thanks, KC KevinPharmers 01:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. It would be a list of notable songs played by a notable band; if it ever goes up for AfD, I don't think it would get deleted.

BTW -- good work, lately. Keep it up! — Music Maker 5376 04:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, just got a message that High Neighbors: Dub Tribute To Phish is being set for AfD because a banned sock created the original. I think this page should stay. Vote if you'd like. Thanks. KevinPharmers 02:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for the update. — Music Maker 5376 15:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Pageant FAC

I went ahead and made a correction based on your comment at the FAC. Thank you. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC).

Anytime. This show just seems like the funniest thing ever. — Music Maker 5376 20:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:PeterPanCD.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PeterPanCD.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) 20:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oliver!

Hello there, wonder if you can help, as I see musicals are your 'forte'. I up-dated an image that I created when I was new (Image:Oliver222.jpg) in the above article and now see that someone has up-loaded the same image under a different name in Oliver! (film). Anyway, I decided to up-date "my" image to another image showing the Broadway version, but in the article it's still showing the old image (does that make sense)??? Do you know what I've done wrong? I updated the infobox image ok. Any help is gratefully appreciated. Sue Wallace (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sue -- sometimes it helps to bypass your cache. Your browser saves the page for awhile, and you're still not seeing the new page -- even if you reload. You uploaded the image fine -- and it's a nice one! That's a very cool poster; thank you! — Music Maker 5376 03:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(Ooops), thanks for that, glad you like the images. Sue Wallace (talk) 07:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Villanova

On what basis did you revert my removal of Villanova from a category of schools in Philadelphia? Villanova is very distinctly not in Philadelphia, and there are numerous schools closer to Philadelphia that aren't in the category. If we don't draw the line at the city limits, where exactly do we draw it? Should the University of Delaware be in the category? If not, why should Villanova be included but not Delaware? I just don't see how it's tenable, and I don't see why it's desirable to have the broader category. john k (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Because Villanova is considered a Philadelphia school. It's a member of the Big 5, a decidedly Philadelphia institution. I don't really think that UD has any bearing in the determination. It's not like Villanova is in Delaware -- it's 10 miles outside the city limits. — Music Maker 5376 22:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

But then there's at least a dozen schools that would have to be included - Bryn Mawr, Swarthmore, Widener, Haverford, Penn State-Abington, Arcadia, etc. etc. etc. And Rutgers-Camden is considerably closer to the city, for instance, and just as much in the Philadelphia area. Being a member of the Big 5 should put it in a Big 5 category. Otherwise, where do we draw the line? Wy not the University of Delaware? I know Villanova is closer, but New Castle County Delaware is just as much in the Philadelphia metro area as Delaware COunty is. We have to have consistent principles. Note also Category:Universities and colleges in Boston, Massachusetts. For the most part, schools in the area but not in the city itself are not included in this category, as for instance Harvard (as a whole; the individual Harvard schools located in Boston are listed), MIT, Tufts, Brandeis, Wellesley. BC was an exception until I changed it just now, but again, it's an exception made based on no clear principles at all - Harvard is as close to Boston as BC is, it just doesn't have "Boston" in its name. See also Category:Universities and colleges in New York City - no Stony Brook, no Sarah Lawrence, no Rutgers or Seton Hall. On the other hand, Category:Universities and colleges in Chicago does include Northwestern. Anyway, the current category is indefensible. Either all the colleges in the metro area (or at least the urban area) should be included, or Villanova (and Westminster School of Theology) should be excluded. Including Villanova but not Widener or Swarthmore is totally indefensible. john k (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read your response because it's entirely too long and I have a life. Do what you want -- Villanova is now and always has been considered a Philly school. Not placing it in the category is moronic. — Music Maker 5376 16:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Villanova University

Try this "Green" source at Father Donohue throws the Switch to Officially Unveil the New Solar Electric System. When I added the info, I did not include this explicit reference because it's a page off one of the External links. If you think it should be cited, we can do that. Truthanado (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, just about every citation we have is off of villanova.edu in some form or another. It should definitely be cited. I'd like to get this article, you know, good, so citing everything should be a priority. (Not that I should be telling you what your priorities should be.... Just saying....) If you don't get to it, I can do it later tonight. — Music Maker 5376 00:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the citation. Truthanado (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Anytime. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. — Music Maker 5376 14:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Musical Theatre

Thanks for the welcome! i'll start working on some of the to-do thinghs this afternoon. Are you guys still doing the "collaboration of the month" thing? everything that starts with an A seems kind of broad, is the project not active enough to resucitate that part of the project? thanks again for the warm welcome! -Yamanbaiia (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the COTM is a little dormant -- I think the "everything that starts with A" was from August. We usually see our greatest activity in the summer months when people are off from school. August to May is really only a couple of people hanging around trying to keep things in order.

If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask. You can hit me up personally here, or on our talk page over there.

Welcome again! — Music Maker 5376 14:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rent (albums)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Rent (albums), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rent (albums). Thank you.

This is a trial of the AfD notification bot. If you found this message helpful, annoying or have anything else to say about it please leave a message at User_talk:BJBot, thanks! --BJBot (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That was a bad call. I've re-reviewed it, determining consensus to be to keep. I had intended it to be a compromise (to keep the content in the history) but it really was unnecessary. Thanks. Keilana^talk_(recall) 06:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've put the notice, I forgot. Doing a whole bunch of AFDs is kinda mind-numbing; thanks for bringing that to my attention, I really appreciate it. Regards, Keilana^talk_(recall) 21:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The Twelve Days of Christmas (song)

Please don't continue the edit war here, or I'll have to block you, as I already have the anonymous user. Nothing personal, just have to be fair. Also, it's considered poor form to use automated rollbacks in content disputes rather than reverting manually and providing an edit summary. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that I was not in the wrong, here. The anon had been reverted by others beside myself; I was working on the side of consensus. — Music Maker 5376 20:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If so, it won't be necessary for you to revert excessively, I assume, because others will be able to do it instead. Note that even edits against consensus deserve an explanation from someone reverting, so please don't use a rollback. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)