User talk:Flami72/Archive 10

4964:, nearly every single play of the season had a nominee for the League's Distinguished Performance Award, making these nominations nearly meaningless. Similarly 8 plays (and five revivals) were nominated for best non-musical play, so the nomination is not very exclusive. I really think that including the Drama League Awards does not add much to the articles, and that is why we did not include it in the list of awards that might be included in the WP:MUSICALS article structure page. I think that TonytheTiger has done a great disservice to us by pushing to have the lesser awards included, as it just makes the articles cruftier. In the meantime, I moved the information into the "Awards" section, as you had put it in the reception section. Actually, the "awards" section, should really be part of the reception section. Just my opinion. -- 7878:

people who ever worked on the Tesla production line, for example. The Broadway and touring crews have to be every bit as professional and talented as the cast to insure a safe and viable production. A touring crew is a small group of people chosen for very specific skills and abilities, much like the cast. Except we bring technical and procedural knowledge to the job instead of singing and acting ability. So, while we may not be 'notable' to the general public, any discussion of what a Broadway touring show IS must include all the people vital to it. Further, if notability were the only criteria, why would we all be listed in the Playbill and why would every movie run a 10 minute list of everybody who helped?

1832:, that a particular character is a "very blue" Na'vi. What the user who made the edit is trying to say, I think, is that Tevye spends a lot of time in the musical speaking directly to God: "Dear God, why did you make my horse lame?" Often, Tevye's little monologues or asides directed at God are humorous, but sometimes they are sad or angry or express other emotions. Maybe the editor is on to something, in that the description of Tevye might note that he has this habit of speaking directly to God. As I said, I'm on the fence about it. After you take a look, I'll be interested in your assessment. All the best, until then! -- 3199:). I do see a (probable) new editor who does not know (or has not read/absorbed/cared about) the many Knowledge guidelines. I suspect this is probably the situation with many new editors, and there may even be some studies or literature on new editors and their sucess (good edits) and failure (bad/vandal/misguided edits). But, this is not my area of expertise and not my interest at present. As I have been saying, I am on a school wikibreak and so must close out for now. (Note to ssilvers: you know I am always around if you need me!) 607:

page; more discussion on this entire area (that is, how to show awards) is needed before ANY changes are made. It would be helpful if the editor who is making these changes (to tabular format) join the discussion; also, could this editor be asked to make the separate article-list awards articles, rather than having others do this work? Whatever the case, I will not be avialable to help any further on this issue, I am too busy at this time. I will be editing on a strictly limited basis until sometime in late September/early October.

146: 118: 3894: 6258: 3741: 2624: 7213: 6629:"neither a new musical, a revival, nor a standard songbook revue; it is rather, a staged and sung chamber jazz rendition of a string of songs" . (Place it where you will, you are the primary here (gosh, I read too many mysteries).) I really do not care (and, to be perfectly honest, I think that it simply does not matter at this point, it is a very good up-to-date article and well referenced). But, whereever you put it, I'm thinking of adding a review quote. 7681: 7432: 7360: 7288: 2059: 1915: 1641: 1400: 2879: 2724: 2139: 3526: 383: 6917: 2818: 867:

performances, so 1,190 tickets per performance. Not remarkable at all. Wicked, which has been running for 8 years at a bigger theatre has sold well over 5 million tickets, and Phantom, which has been running for over 20 years has sold well over twice that. So, this statistic sounds impressive, but it does not actually add any information to the number of performances, which is already given, and just clutters up the article. --

281:. Then you would get comments from outside commentators that would help you to improve the article and decide whether it is ready. After a peer review, many articles are ready for GA. BTW, I do like the GA system, because, unlike the lower ratings, GA gives the reader the assurance that an independent reviewer has cast a criticial eye on the article and decided that it meets some fairly rigorous criteria. Good luck! -- 4856: 4774: 4684: 4594: 6807: 7139:. I think it is important because it was his first play to appear at a legitimate theater and in some sense was his "break out" work. I am not satisfied with the article and hope that some other editors add to it. Among other things, the plot summery needs work. Do you think any of the remaining red linked plays are notable enough to deserve an article? IAC keep up your excellent work.-- 6613:

not sure if it even had much of a script. Did you see it? The review says: "Director John Doyle ... and choreographer Parker Esse emphasize body language in crafting a narrative that entangles a young man and woman (Jordan and Aimée) with an older couple (Lewis and Peters). Jordan and Aimee lie happily entwined as their shadow dancers simulate making love". So, I can't tell. --

7739: 6849: 8404:

thought article could be improved, a perfectly reasonable and civil request. You couldn't let that lie though and wanted to push your attitude on someone else. And you knew fine well that Wehwalt worked heavily with me to get that article promoted. Your an embarrassment of an editor. My only intention with this article was to make it worthy of having an article. The

1859: 5689: 7700:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 7451:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 7379:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 7307:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 2078:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 1934:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 1660:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 1419:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 928:

sort? "As of , it had sold 1,047,826 tickets in its two-year run." I'd assume that basic math and extrapolation would allow the average reader to figure out that 1) a million tickets is more than any play I've ever written or been a part of, and 2) in two years, that represents a fairly steady stream of audiences, but it's had a lot of shows?

2972: 2683: 847:

commenting on whether the sales were astronomical, very high, somewhat high, about average, disappointing, very low, or abysmal? Or possibly both: "The revival sold an astronomical twelve trillion tickets, more than any show since Barney & Friends" or some such language. Or more like, "The revival sold just over a million tickets --

3181:-- moved lead character description (in character list) from first position to later in the list with no explanation; also added character. I am not able to tell whether this is vandalism (that is, moving character description); there is no edit summary to explain the IP's edits. I have moved the descripton back to first position. 886:

matter what it was. The number is just that to me, a number: not a point of reference, which is why I'd add some value statement like "has sold 1,000,000 tickets, about average for a two-year run." It's not all that important to me, which is why I haven't edited the article, but I'd just think that that ought to be the case.

762: 7877:

Firstly, the notability test here is somewhat inapplicable. Yes, it's true the production team is not in the limelight, however, people in the entertainment industry, especially on Broadway and in the touring world, are not cases of clock in/clock out assembly workers. It is not akin to listing all

6612:

I am wondering whether the Encores! production should be under the "Theatre roles" section or the "Concerts" section? Encores! are are usually pretty thoroughly staged, full shows, but from reading the USA Today review (which has a great photo of Peters), it seems that this one was just a revue. I'm

8016:

Thanks! Please take a look at the article now -- all the revivals were "hidden" by a code, and I have restored them so that they can now be seen. But I streamlined them to remove a lot of repetition and to focus on notable people. Please take a look and see if you can refine further. In general, I

7266:

resisted doing it for some time. Also, when a redirect already exists with the correct name, you should just write over the redirect instead of starting a new article. The redirect was only a temporary placeholder. But don't worry, I've requested an admin to move the article over the redirect. --

6696:

Yes, I agree that it is a nice article, good work! No, I will not be nominating it for FA, I have not/will not become involved in the FA process. Since you are the primary editor, why don't you do it? (But, again, I will not become involved in helping out with any possible comments that might result

6628:

No, I did not see it. I read every review that I could. (And, the pictures are divine!) I have no idea what to call this; or where, for that matter, to place it. I do think that Encores productions are in that funny place between theatre and concert. I think Suskin probably summed it up very well --

5908:

on the basis that this does not seem to be very interesting information. If the critics thought it was important and said so in their reviews, I would then think it was worth mentioning. What do you think? (Did they even do the full dream ballet?) There is a discussion about it on the talk page.

5373:

Noted, but I do not think that I will be writing new articles for any of the above red-linked. (I plan on spending my summer at the pool, at the movies, gardening, having lunch out, walking, reading for my book club, and most importantly, preparing for 2 trips, which I will not further announce over

4280:

Although my school (OSHER-type) is over as of May 8, I do not plan to be very active on Knowledge this Spring/Summer/Fall (for a variety of social, travel, education and private reasons). I do like to help out during award season, which is why I did some work on some articles, but I simply must take

3708:

I didn't doubt the Korean claim (I myself took a show with its off-Broadway stars to Seoul), but London is a different matter. The US-UK exchanges are carefully controlled for non-stars, and I cannot find any evidence that Blake performed the part in London. I may have missed it, but my search was

2366: 2256:

I could have rewritten the synop but I wanted the official copyvio folks to have a look and also to formally warn the IP! (In other words, I did not want to solve the problem right away but to let the official wiki action take its course.) I will look at the synop now, you will see my edits (if any)

2114:

Hi. I see that this new user has uploaded some images for Peters and Merman to Wikimedia Commons, but does not understand that the images are under copyright, so they will not be accepted by Commons and will be deleted in a few days. They also have added unreferenced trivia. I left them a Welcome

606:

I think a major change to the strucure of Musical theatre articles such as this (tabular format) should have been/should be discussed with the project participants and other interested editors before making such changes. As this was not done, at least you have started the conversation at the project

8041:

I'll take a look, but not for a day or so. I am not a fan of this show, although I did see it in London years ago. I am still having trouble with referencing because I have a new laptop MAC , using an unfamiliar (to me) web browser. (I have been experimenting with adding links to articles, but have

5488:

As I think I may have mentioned previously, I do not know anything about the DYK process/policies/guidelines. I have nothing futher to add on the Valisia LeKae article; I did the edits to bring the article to some minimum standards (I cannot articulate those standards, they are just my own personal

3873:

to spell the word "theatre", in part because theatre professionals prefer this spelling throughout the English-speaking world, and because this spelling is not wrong anywhere, while "theater" is wrong in many places,such as the UK. BTW, I am an American from New York City. Note that nearly all of

2015:

Well, I really don't know the guidelines for listing singles, or for that matter, the guidelines for tv articles. I say let's leave it for now, I think the season is over or should be in a few weeks; how much more singing can there be? I'll read up on some guidelines over the summer and think about

958:

Hi. I think it would be misleading to simply state the number out of context. Also it would not add anything: the average reader already knows that he or she has not written or been a part of a Broadway production that ran for two years. Also, I never said that a contexted number would be "good

5948:

Stroman revised the DeMille choreography in Oklahoma, and this article discusses this at length. The Nunn production did do the Dream Ballet (although I'm not clear on whether it lasted for the 15 minutes of the DeMille) and Jackman did dance the Dream Curly. I think it is important to discuss the

295:

Well, since he has admitted to it, all of the thanks for the GA for Bernadette goes to Ssilvers. I must say, a GA article makes me confident, but..too often subsequent edits/events traspire to make the once-GA not especially "good" (see Wicked). Do look very carefully at other GAs. Be very careful

58:

A table with one item? Just plain wasting space; a table is only useful to me when there are a significant number of items that can be better seen/read/understood in table format. "Often a list is best left as a list. Before you format a list in table form, consider whether the information will be

7815:

Interesting discussion, quite thought-provoking. I have no comments right now. I am still getting over my dental surgeries. I am happily starting my mid-term film class tomorrow but am having trouble with energy level and, probably will not comment on the R&H talk page discussion. (Thanks, as

5034:

No the issue is not childish nonsense. Yes, tell TT, your eloquence speaks volumes in this debate (but I do not wish to be further involved). I do have better things to do and, I really do need a break, will start now. (But will make several exceptions, namely: the Drama Desk awards on May 19 and

3665:

like any new IP, not familiar with Knowledge, determined to make his points, uninterested or unable to communicate. I would not want to dilute the wonderful work that you (and others) have done to identify and stop the real New York BH by adding others who are not so clear. Perhaps a new category

3042:

Hi there! Thanks for helping with this article. I'm almost certain the user you're dealing with is a member of the production staff for the musical and I'm cautiously aware that they may be indadvertedly promoting the show with his edits. I've got an eye on the situation but would appreciate your

2479: 2451:

I never thought I'd say this, but I actually enjoyed the process and learned some good things. I have no desire to go further with the article, nor do I have any others in mind which are even approaching this level. Now for a brief summer-time partial break. And, for the record, many thanks, etc,

2433:

Congratulations, Flami. Your work on this article has been excellent, and it deserved to be recognized with the GA promotion. I personally think that to bring this article to FA level, it needs some expansion - more reviews and statements about her by directors and peers, for instance. But who

2292: 1812:

Tevye is Jewish but that doesn't necessarily mean that he is "religious"; until I see the script (which I don't have), or read the stories that the musical comes from, I couldn't really say whether he is a "religious" man. What do the reviews/books on the musical or stories say?? Someone needs to

8293:

I got From Here to Eternity to GA and I was advised that as long as style of referencing is consistent throughout then it doesn't matter. There was a bit of debate initially if I remember rightly though. I really need a good quote about style of music for the music section. Struggling a wee bit,

7265:

Good start on the article. I added a little bit on the music and plot and linked the songs to the articles about them, where such articles exist. It would be nice to have a background section on how and why Allen came to adapt the film into a musical. If I recall correctly something I read, he

927:

Then that doesn't make sense to me. If adding a contexted number would be "good for the article," how is adding a lone number "clutter"? It may well be OR to write the context for ourselves, but then, shouldn't you allow the reader then to do the research, without making a value statement of any

908:

Hi, Jsharp. I agree that it would be a different matter if the person trying to add the information had a source that stated that the ticket sales were "about average for a two-year run", or otherwise put the number in context, but I don't think that this is what was proposed. If someone has a

8403:

Sorry but who tried pinging an editor who I was trying to ask advice for an an article that needed massive improvement. That was you. I don't go anywhere near you, unless you try and go after me. Thats exactly what you did here. I asked Flami72 to have a read over and make suggestions to how he

6526:

Personally I would divide his remaining career into events at Shakespeare Theatre Company, and events at other theatres. I do believe it is incongruous to include his recent directions at Studio&Signature before the section on Shakespeare Theatre Company and to include just his most recent

1827:

OK. Let me know then. Of course, all the Jews in the musical are "religious" - the whole village is religious. I doubt that Tevye is "more" religious than many of the other characters - after all, there is a rabbi and the rabbi's son in the village, and nearly all of the Jewish characters are

885:

This is true. But here's the one point that I believe is missed by Flami and other WikiProject Musicals personnel: I don't know a single thing about Broadway. It is interesting that it's sold over a million tickets: perhaps not impressive, but interesting. I would be interested in the number no

235:

I'll answer here: to be honest, I pay almost no attention to article ratings, they seem to be a bit (!) arbitrary and seem to depend on who is doing the rating. (I was dragged, kicking and screaming, into working on one article which did get to GA, but that was a one and only time.) I think the

5544:

My notes, so minor that I am embarrased to even commit them to writing (and I will not post at the Peer Review page, I am not a "Peer Reviewer", and regardless, have very little time left in June). This is a splendid article, first-rate, no comments other than a great big thanks for making the

4572:

As I have been writing, I mean to take a break from writing on Knowledge until mid-September, but I do enjoy the awards season here! So, I suppose the answer is, sorry, I am now really, really on my break and even later I prefer to stick with what I can do best, which is stay with the US-based

3337:

In my opinion, the edits you question are not the problem. The problem is that the character descriptions are almst direct copies from the MTI site. I have rewritten them somewhat. The other larger question is whether there should be character descriptions at all, or in such detail. I will not

866:

Jsharp, I can't speak for Flami, but I agree with her deletion of the information. It is redundant information, because we already discuss the length of the run. Every production of a Broadway musical in a big house that runs over two years will sell over a million tickets. That's about 830

846:

Granted, I don't edit theatre articles much -- or at all, really -- but seems to me that, whether the number is remarkable or not, it may well be of interest to some. That is to say, it would be of interest to know how well (or poorly) the tickets sold. Perhaps, instead of the number, a source

705:

Despite our efforts (and against the majority opinion), two of the three images were deleted. Any ideas about how to illustrate the big patches of the article without any photos? Can we get a sound file made? Or, do you have any connections that might help us to get an "authorized" image of

506:

review, a piece by Walter Kerr (NY Times, Oct 22, 1967, p.117) Kerr wrote that "...she is plainly talented, she is already capable of a blunt and crackling speech that insists upon being listened to...To compound the disaster, the production was superior at every level: director Joseph Hardy

266:

If I may add my 2 cents: I have done a lot of GAs (and I accompanied Flami in her kicking and screaming adventure). This article is pretty close, but here are a few thoughts: (i) the Lead is not very good - it must give a better overview of the whole article; (ii) the "Themes" section could

4565:

Wow! Thanks for noticing! To be perfectly honest, I generally do not write about London theatre or British performers/creatives. I added to Howell's article because he is nominated for the Tony Award, and I wanted to make sure he had a nice article. I work almost exclusively with US theatre,

3356:

Thanks. At some point we should try to raise a consensus about the character descriptions since they affect the Musicals project generally. I think that separate character descriptions are unnecessary: If a character is not important enough to describe in the plot summary, than a separate

1550:

goes from article to article changing proper nouns into pronouns, so that readers may not be sure who is being referred to. Plus, he/she makes various other changes that I often think are worse than what was there. On the other hand, he/she seems to be doing his/her best. See, for example

7982:

Would you please review your recent changes here? I think you made a mistake when you added back a large amount of info, and that now there are essentially two of everything in the article. I think that the deletion of the huge amount of text was a correct attempt to cut out a bad earlier

5794:

Sorry I did not respond to this, I just now saw it on my user page, which I do not regularly monitor. I will try to look at it, but--I am extremely busy for the next few weeks, then I will be without internet access for a few weeks, then I will be attending to personal (tedious and somewhat

7641:

OK. Probably will add the "Girlfriends Guide" Bravo tv series, when she appears--in episode 5, I think. Also will need to add that and Mozart in the Jungle to the TV list. (I am recuperating quite well from my 3 dental surgeries, but it will take many months to get used to the "new me". My

5949:

revised choreography, and a brief mention of Jackman dancing would then fit. (OK, OK, I'm a huge fan of Mr. Jackman, I'll just say it out loud!) I have a tape of the show from when it was on tv, but I will not be able to watch until later, I'll try for second or third week in October.

5618:

I am so much more than just a fan, I grew up wanting to be her. When I was in Florida in the late 1990s I was at the site of one her movies (?) (in Cypress Gardens) and almost jumped into the pool! I am feeling sad this afternoon, I hope her long life was as happy as she made her

7602:

Sorry, I have no time right now. (Not to get too personal, but I am in school 4 days per week. I am also undergoing some extensive, time-consuming, and a bit uncomfortable dental procedures. All should be over -- school and dental -- by mid-December). Thanks for asking, I am

3056:

Timing is everything. I am about to go on a wikibreak (school) which will last until mid-December, and while I may be able to do some odds and ends of editing, I simply do not have the time (or, frankly, the energy) to devote anything like what I think is required for the

3153:--added statement in lead re Ben Wright's performance (the "brought acclaim" sentence). I had already deleted that as being unsubstantiated. Is this vandalism or overly enthusiastic fan or some other motive? I cannot read into the IP's motivation. Again, no edit summary. 355:

seems to have helped you to make that into a very nice article. I would not call that a "fail" at all, but rather a success. You got the article up to a standard that was pretty close to GA, and it looks like you learned more about referencing, etc. Happy editing! --

7130:

Hello again Flami72, I notice that you have been adding stuff associated with the great playwright Terrence McNally. I would like to see all of his plays covered in Knowledge. I notice that, thanks partly to you, that there are only a couple of Red links left in his

2384:. Day in and day out you strive to improve Knowledge through referencing and generally cleaning up articles that have needed attention for a long time. Many of these important contributions are easily overlooked, but fear not, for your efforts are truly appreciated. — 3646:. Although it's a domain that the BH has never used, the edit certainly seems similar, as is ignoring my post om their talk page. The IP geolocates to South Korea, I think I remember reading something about socks using an anonymizer from there. What do you think? 6131:

I did not see this play -- Vanya..-- and just do not have anything to add. And, as noted below, I will not be editing on Knowledge until later this year and so cannot help out with the others. (Thanks so much for thinking of me and the "expert", that is very nice!)

7885:; Knowledge is intended to be the largest, most comprehensive, and most widely-available encyclopedia ever written. It would read to me, that the exclusion of information is not the stated goal. Especially information that furthers the understanding of a topic. 2797:

where Chenoweth discussed some of the problems caused by Ménière's disease, and she talked about how she would occasionally literally have to lean on other performers to keep from falling over onstage. However, there wasn't anything in her interview -- or in the

7625:

Hi Flami. I moved the paragraph around so that we mention Charlie first, and then the earlier dogs, and clarified the referencing on their adoptions. I also did a couple other minor streamlining edits. Anything else new? I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving! --

497:

I am not able to add anything to this discussion. I have questions myself: 1)Should all plays and musicals that had only one performance on Broadway (or, for that matter, closed out-of-town) be deleted? 2) Is significant coverage enough to establish notability?

7183:

I found myself with some spare time and have started looking at some of the existing articles on McNally's works. Mainly I'm simply referencing, some rearranging, etc, nothing very significant. Will look at the plays that may need an article later in May-June.

2310:

articles. Day in and day out, you quietly research, expand and edit articles on Knowledge applying common sense, a collaborative spirit and thoughtful judgment. The continually improving coverage of musical theatre on Knowledge owes much to you. Thanks! --

555:

I think that the fact that it played on Broadway, got plenty of coverage, involved notable stars and provided Peters' Broadway debut, and was later revived all make it clearly notable. The person who PROD-ded it has not renewed the subject. All the best! --

7692: 7491:

should have character names for all nominees. I think the character names are an important part of the list and should be there. The creator of the list refuses to add them because it is a "Featured List" of his. Let us know your thoughts on this. Thanks!

5489:

standards). I do not wish to be involved with editing for the sake of a DYK, that is simply not why I edit on Knowledge. So, to make this long story a lot shorter, and I hope I have made myself perfectly clear -- I will not be adding to the LeKae article.

8183:

Hi. I streamlined the new info. While it was well written, it seemed to be too much info about a single award, in the context of her entire life and career. If you disagree strongly, feel free to restore some or all of what you wrote. All the best! --

582: 8408:

in the article is night and day. Im not interested in shiny badges for FA and GA like you are, only decent content. If article end up as GA great, but i couldn't really care for it. There are way to many piss poor articles to work on one article for too

580:

Many musicals have a huge "Awards" section. An editor has now made these sections in dozens of articles even bigger and fatter by changing the format to a tabular format. I suggest moving these big Awards sections to a separate article, like this one:

6647:

That would be helpful! I think I'll go ahead and move it to the theatre section, since it was "a show" with some kind of connecting narrative, while all the other "concerts" listed are, y'know, stand with a microphone and sing kinds of concerts. --

4880: 4798: 4708: 4618: 8425:

Flami72 I'm sorry that you ended up involved in this, but frankly I wasn't letting that veiled comment go unchecked. I would still value your opinion greatly, I certainly have found your help useful so far. Maybe you could post come feedback on

8088:

Someone replaced the old album covers in the infoboxes of all the R&H musicals with B'way theatre posters. Just checking: Does this seem like a good idea? It looks OK to me, but I thought I'd check with you just to get a 2nd opinion. --

4354:

Settle: I added some review quotes and minor details. There is one really good recent interview in Playbill, I may get to it later today. (Tony Tiger--I will let you worry about word count, as I am not/do not intend to be involved with DYK).

7673: 3423:

Who says that Rio is the 3rd biggest market? How does its size compare with NY and London and the 4th biggest market? User 189.122.139.201, how can we take this comment seriously, and make new policies based on it, without references to

1089:]); there is a song titled "Fathers and Daughters" but I do not know if it has been released as a single (that is, independent of the album); there is another song titled "Lessons Learned" which was released as a single per this article: 1996:. I'm not certain about this, because I rarely edit anything related to TV, but I thought that, in general, only significant singles should be listed - probably only ones that chart. Otherwise, everytime she sings a hymn in church in 310:

Ha ha! Flami is the real expert on modern musicals, I'm just a wikignome who likes musicals and punctuation. :-) My area of "expertise" is really just G&S, since I have the main reference books about it. All the best! --

5057:

No apology necessary. You do more good work on musicals than anyone else, and I am always happy when you pop up on my watchlist, because I know that there will be some useful new information there and a good reference to a RS. --

296:

and meticulous about meeting MOS and referencing standards. I found that I spent a fair amount of time standardizing references and looking at commas, quotation marks and such (not really my strength). Peer review is a great idea.

6727:

Saying that I am the primary editor of the Bernadette Peters article is like saying that Dr. Watson is the primary detective in a Sherlock Holmes story. You are, as far as I know, the world's foremost authority on BP. So there!

1828:

portrayed as very religious, or struggling with the clash between the traditional religious ways and the temptations of secular/modern life. To describe Tevye as "very religious" is like saying, in a character list for the movie

6518:

While in general I believe they are constructive, I would like to suggest that there should be a split in his career sections. Specifically I would restore "Early Career" as being events before his becoming Artistic Director of

7844:

Senex: (Latin for "old man") A henpecked, sardonic Roman senator living in a less fashionable suburb of Rome. Domina: (Latin for "mistress") The wife of Senex. A manipulative, shrewish woman who is loathed by even her husband.

507:

displayed a fresh sensibilty that coaxed an altogether unfamiliar reality-at once supple and hardheaded-out of a familiar kind of domestic crisis...There was ample treasure worth finding." Also, there are sections in the books

164:

Great work on Lavin. The lists of films and stage work should show the oldest ones at the top and the most recent ones at the bottom, so they're backwards (unfortunately, IMDB an IBDB make it hard for us!). All the best! --

1092:. I'd say let's err on the side of caution in terms of what is listed as a separate single. (FYI-this may be my last edit/post until some time after Sept 29; I will be completely out-of-touch from Sept 14 until late Sept 29.) 1580:

21, which will last until (roughly) mid-May. I MAY have some time (to say nothing of brain energy) to take a look at Annie and the other articles, but today & tomorrow I need to finish up some personal things and shovel

7156:

Hi, Foobarnix. I'll take a look at the list of McNally's works to see if I can either make a new article or add to an existing article. I am still in school until May 8, so will have more time later on. (I did some work on

4377:

Actually, with the exception of 2 more events (Tony host on May 9 & Drama League Special award on May 19 ) I am essentially finished with editing until mid-September, for personal, travel, recreational, and educational

2115:

message, but if you can figure out a good way to explain to them on their talk page about the images and/or the unreferenced trivia, maybe the person will be able to become a helpful contributor. Thanks for any help! :-)

8348:

No you decided to make a sly comment about a highly experienced and respected editor, you should be embarrassed. And for the record I watch your talk page and a lot of your edits, so its pretty obvious it was going to be

5554:"The production, with most of the original principals, was taped and broadcast live in HD on August 18, 2010 on the PBS television show Live from Lincoln Center." (under 21st Century) -- does everyone know what "HD" is? 5511:

I looked over the Valisia LeKae article again and I have added to it; not for the DYK reason but because it needed something to show why this relative newcomer received the Tony nomination--that is why I added 2 review

2434:

knows, I leave it to you whether you want to go further at this time. Do you have any other articles that you think are close to GA level? If so, I'd be happy to look at them and see if I can help. All the best, --

8466:

Blah! I am not interested in who said what to who (m). I am too old for this stuff. I hereby quit my looking at Waitress, and I will not INSIST on anything! “Farewell, sweet playfellow.” And, boys, take it elsewhere.

1968:

I moved the image to Peters, and clarified that it is used for commentary there. If you can add any refs to the text of Peters about her performance in this show, that would help retain the image. All the best! --

59:

more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. If so, then a table is probably a good choice. If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice." (

5705:

That is all that I can do today, I will return to Knowledge sometime in the middle of July. (I will not have internet access for a few weeks, and for the rest of today & tomorrow I am very busy trying to get

1290:

Oops, you are right, that's what I get for thinking I could edit quickly! I will certainly remove what I wrote so as not to duplcate, but perhaps add the ref to the existing Background section. Thanks for being

7508: 7033:

says that she played "Dorine". I dont have time to do any research on this, I am in school 4 days a week (Osher Lifelong Learning) and I am planning on shoveling snow tomorrow and sigh, on and on, it seems!

2650:

I've seen you pop up at CP a couple of times, and I just wanted to let you know that your attention to these has been noticed and appreciated. :) And if you prefer "theatre", feel free to alter my usage. :D

686:, you will see my efforts to save the three challenged Peters images, and your participation in the discussion would be most helpful. Just a few words - it should only take you a minute. All the best! -- 8318:

is Wehwalt, which is an utterly embarrassing comment. Frankly he needs to learn a thing or to about content building. Either way I'm not interested in this pettiness but I was not letting that comment lye.

3139:, added character descriptions, this is not vandalism. Used inappropriate bolding (see above), which I corrected. The IP did not use the edit summary feature, but that is not vandalism. More in a few days. 3121:(?). I do not like the somewhat arbitrary separaion of "Lead" and "Supporting" character". He would be a lot better off--and so would we-- if he used the "preview" function and, of course, "edit summary". 4151:

Thanks so much for asking for my comments. However, I am unable to comment since I am not familiar with the policies/guidelines/politics of the DYK process. All I can offer is to write a new article for

2832:

and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

8481:

Are you sure I can't persuade you to keep looking at it. Im not interested in anything but honest feedback. And you edited the article long before I did, which was partly why i was keen to consult you.

2016:

it. (I am promising all kinds of things for this summer, I'll be surprised if I get to half of them!)(By the way, I have a total wikibreak starting the morning of April 30, ending late evening May 13.).

8334:

Well, since you've pinged me, let me say that it is beyond obvious that author names need to be included in references. No referencing system in the world says that it is ok to omit author names. --

6392:

Ah, well. If it turns out that half an hour of your time frees up, feel free to look in, even if just to comment about one thing that you think ought to go in/out of the article. All the best! --

729:

I am leaving this open, good as a reminder. I do not want to get involved with sound files. I have no contacts "to get an "authorized" image of earlier stage or TV productions that will satisfy the

240:, maybe ask around (someone who has the expertise-and heart- for this kind of thing). Sorry I can't help, but something in my nature simply does not want to be involved in these ratings situations. 6558:

I have some time this morning, I'll try to follow your thoughts in re-aranging his career section (s). However, please go ahead and edit as you see fit, as I said, your reasoning is logical to me.

7075:

Both the article and the infobox list lots of regional productions. Not sure what to do -- am alerting you, Ssilvers, and MarnetteD. Please take any necessary action, if you would. Thanks. :)

3224:. He made a mess of it and broke the image link, but also added (unreferenced) content. It is not vandalism - I think you're right: just an enthusiastic newbie. I had reverted his edits to 3106:

I do not think this is THE "Broadway Hoaxer" because he geolocates to Rhode Island, City: Middletown, just too far removed from Brooklyn; and, the BH simply does not vandalize something like

1238:

Oh, I'll be happy to take a look; the first time that I'll have some time will be late afternoon or early evening on December 11, and after that I'll have time from Dec 16 until mid-February.

277:

carefully and see if you think each criterion is clearly met. You have several ways to go. You could go ahead an nominate at GA and see what the reviewer says; or you could put it up for a

6233:

I am deeply flatered to be asked, but I will not be editing Wikpedia until later, possibly mid-December. In any event, I did not see this play and do not feel competent to work on the plot.

2697:

I award you this Barnstar for always being there to correct my edits and do all the nitty-gritty work with my references that I wouldn't know what to do with otherwise! Thank You very much

95: 8385:

I have no idea why you stalk my edits, when you are the user who has been the most unpleasant to me on Knowledge. I guess it's flattering somehow. I have no idea what was said regarding

5181: 4614: 8017:

think the article is over-written, with a good deal of repetition (do we really need three complete song lists, as well as a chart comparing differences?). If you agree, and if you're a

2253:

I am having a lovely summer, just got back from the pool, and am enjoying having no particular plans, unlike the school year when everything is pretty well planned and squashed together!

4876: 4794: 3666:

within the list? "Suspected" or "Not clear but suspicious" ??. (I will not be very active on Knowledge until May 2013 but will certainly try to follow this situation -- that is the BH.)

7724: 7443: 7424: 7371: 1652: 1392: 527: 5880:

I took a look at the edits to the plot you referred to. I am not familiar with this play, and I do not have the time right now to research. I'll keep this in mind for my Winter recess.

5177: 3195:

I am ending my analysis/investgation of IP 98.179.160.135. I do not see a pattern of vandalism; actually, I do not see clear and obvious vandalism on any article (I have not looked at

2537: 2238:

Hi, Flami. Please see if you think I have solved the Copyvio, and if you can, see if you can cut the length of the synopsis down a little more. Hope you're having a nice summer! --

1278:, because the article now repeats essentially identical information about the first Shevelove adaptation in two sections that immediately follow each other (Background and History). - 512: 4704: 7352: 1633: 7556: 533:

was produced at the Cleveland Playhouse in 1972, the Equity Library Theater in 1970 and the Iglesia's Theater Club (New York) in 1975--are other productions enough for notablity?

4447: 8294:

however I think once Broadway reviews are in I will find something. I will admit I'm good at building the basis of articles, but am rubbish at synopsis's and critical reception.

7551: 3262: 983:, but no one here is trying to write anything along the lines of "an impressive amount of over a million tickets has been sold during an amazingly short time period" – this is 6016:

So do I, although I must say that I was not blown away by Jackman's Curley. Anyhow, I'll let you make the changes when you can get to them. Hope you had a nice summer! --

4443: 3820: 3816: 2554: 5633:

She said in her book that she considered movie stardom to be a consolation prize for losing the chance to compete in the cancelled 1940 Olympics. I often watch this clip:

3258: 8064:

I did look at the article, it needs more work--and thought--than I am able to give to it. I made an easy update today but that is it (at least for the foreseeable future).

63:)--and you can quote that! (Oh, sure add it in prose somewhere.) (By the way, enjoying some nice time seeing shows, etc prior to my wikibreak, which will start on July 7.) 8528:

Ok. Well I want it noted that I'm sorry you feel that way. I will still work on improving the article, its one of the most fascinating shows I've looked into in a whilst.

3991: 3394: 4961: 1447: 1157:

you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.

909:

source that puts the number in context of other Broadway productions, that would be worth discussing. But we can't just "add a value statement" without a source. See

7594: 5573:

Thanks for these comments. I added two links accordingly. Let us know if you think of anything else. You will be pleased to hear that Wehwalt is planning to tackle

851:" -- or again, I'm far from the expert on the subject, but it seems like the info would be relevant and useful for perspective. Also see my comments on the talk page. 652: 332:

Thanks to both of you! I'm more of just a casual editor but when I like a show I wanna try and make the article as strong as possible (I failed big time trying to get

3987: 1688: 7475: 7015:

Peters' article now says that she played "the maid", but the name of the character in the Moliere play is Dorine. In this production, did they change the name? --

4218:(musical) written. I'd like to add a few things, but I am off to school in a bit, will look at the article (and some of the links for the creators and such) tonight. 3244: 1223:

has been . If you can fit it in, it would be great if you would kindly review the article and comment . All the best, and a very happy holiday season to you! --

7563: 7403: 6087: 3445: 1090: 101:

I started a very crude version (refs are there) but I would appreciate it if you could help me build it until it becomes good enough to become an actual article.--

7983:

duplication of everything, but perhaps the article needs to go back to an earlier state. After you take a look, let me know if you need help. All the best! --

4171: 3661:

Oh boy...I just have no idea how someone uses another ISP. I wonder if the New York BH has the abilities/knowledge required to do this? Personally, I would treat

6409: 6291: 1763: 774:

For your relentless additions to the theatre articles of Knowledge, and just about every theatre article I've contributed to, you have as well. A job well done.

638: 624: 1490: 8389:, and I have no interest in looking at the article, but if the refs do not have author names, the article is not GA quality, regardless of who promoted it. -- 6154:

to fail without the full plot. If you know how to find a plot for Lucky Guy, I think I have added enough that it would be seriously considered for promotion.--

1115: 1022: 8239:

My pleasure! I like what you've done as of yesterday, haven't looked today. Be there after I start something personal (called dinner, speaking of ... pies.).

6503: 6468: 3927: 3639: 585:. Then, we can leave just a paragraph or two in the article itself, describing the major awards, with a cross-reference to the new list article, like this: 8279:, but I would not object if that information is not included. I wonder, though, if this reaches GA/FA review, that a reviewer there might ask for that item. 6670:

Boy, that's a really nice article. You might want to nominate it for FA if you are willing to endure the FAC. I'd be happy to help deal with comments. --

1486: 7642:

Thanksgiving was spent taking it easy from the 3rd surgery, but I was able to do an easy water exercise class and have a coffee overlooking our lakefront.

5430:

I added some details and more references to Valisia LeKae and formatted the existing references, as well as adding the standard templates on the Talk page.

4566:

performers, etc, and also with US awards. I live in the US (I guess that's obvious by now), so it's easy for me to keep up-to-date on what's going on here.

3383:

Maybe you don´t know, but Rio is the third largest market for Musical Theatre, behind New York and London. Why does the Brazilian cast shouldnt be cited?

3292: 2070: 2051: 1926: 8441: 8380: 8329: 6592:

I also agree that this is a good idea, Ed. I also added some references, expanded the article a bit and left a suggestion on the article's talk page. --

5109: 3493: 719: 7961:

There is a discussion on the Talk page about an assertion regarding the origin of the character Harold Hill. Would you please take a look? Thanks! --

7280: 6575:

Thank you very much, and also for your kind comment about DC theatre articles. Unfortunately there is always more to edit than there is time to edit :(

6457: 6343: 5077: 4429: 2102: 43:? Do we need yet another table in this article? If not, should the info be presented in the article somehow, or just deleted? Thanks for any help. -- 1767: 733:

Permissions requirements?" I do not know what OTRS is but do not want to become involved. As previously mentioned, I am too busy for serious Wikiwork.)

669: 4048: 4023: 1962: 1907: 1759: 1748: 6586: 6538: 6427: 5696: 5105: 4074: 3463: 336:

to be a GA) but a peer review seems like the next step forward! Will try find some more stuff RE the Parody things first but if not should PR is soon.

7331: 5209: 4477: 996: 799: 643:

to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

4104: 3922: 8420: 8398: 8360: 8343: 5330: 1042: 8539: 8523: 8493: 8476: 8305: 8248: 6423: 4070: 3612: 3459: 3414: 470: 1547: 987:. Whether it might look misleading or not is not up to us to judge, since, as Jsharpminor put it, not every WP reader is a musical theater buff. 8172: 7783: 6893: 3720: 3675: 2306:

I am awarding you this Original Barnstar to recognize your consistently excellent contributions to Knowledge — especially your contributions to

1337: 151: 7612: 7488: 7117: 7099: 6242: 6181: 6141: 5498: 5475: 5439: 5383: 4338: 4302: 4259: 4227: 4201: 4165: 3887: 3514: 2443: 2189: 972: 959:

for the article". I only said that it would be worth discussing. I agree with Flami's original thought here that the information comes under

937: 922: 895: 876: 488: 6313: 2000:

it'll be listed with a bunch of dashes. What do you think? I don't feel strongly, so if you don't think it's too crufty, I'll leave it. --

1978: 1782: 6776:

Yes, I'm certainly proud of it and was very pleased to collaborate with you, but I wouldn't dare to go to FA without your participation. --

5326: 5244: 5240: 4947: 4766: 4676: 3907: 3878:

are called "X Theatre". I have re-opened the discussion on the talk page to see if we can get a wider consensus on this issue. Thanks! --

3627: 1899: 1464: 7252: 7170: 6679: 5133: 3847: 1520: 1367: 1333: 1180: 8208: 8127: 8113: 8030: 8007: 7825: 7665: 7651: 7060: 7042: 6922: 6706: 6657: 6638: 6401: 6383: 6025: 5935: 5867: 5822: 5804: 5737: 5715: 5646: 5628: 5590: 5067: 5044: 5019: 3853: 3437: 3370: 3347: 3130: 3022: 2594: 2461: 2424: 2266: 2043: 2025: 1841: 1822: 1740: 1726: 1590: 1311: 1300: 1261: 1247: 1142: 1101: 828: 742: 695: 616: 565: 542: 371: 320: 305: 290: 203: 189: 86: 72: 40: 8288: 8262: 8073: 8051: 7948: 7934: 7418: 7346: 7193: 6760: 6601: 6567: 6309: 5989: 5889: 5521: 5226: 5157: 4492: 4419: 4387: 4040: 3793: 3703: 3508: 3307: 3208: 3190: 1758:

Don't worry about whether the IP can locate a reliable source, because none exists; "Wouldn't It Be Loverly" is a song from My Fair Lady!

1627: 1535: 1384: 1208: 365: 77:

Thanks. Check out how I moved the info, and kindly make any changes you think helpful. Glad you're enjoying culture and stuff! :-) --

8405: 7090:

Many thanks, will take a look either late tonight or Friday (April 4), if noone else gets to it. (I am having a busy school day today...)

6553: 4504: 257: 8157: 5581:

some time in the next year. We would love to have you on the team if you have time, or at least stop by and chime in when you can. --

5129: 3959: 3338:

address that, I have no further interest in this article, as my time (and mental energies) are very limited. Oh, and thanks for asking!

2783: 1176: 7809: 7503: 4115: 3070: 1472: 1319: 5153: 8366: 7863: 6991:. I wrote a plot summary as best I could but I feel it could be better. Feel free to modify anything you think could be improved.-- 6785: 6622: 6437: 6323: 5093: 4457: 4084: 3943: 3473: 3398: 3357:

description of that character is not encyclopedic. If people want more detail, they can click on the MTI link, but Knowledge should

3272: 2957: 2327: 1500: 1347: 1164: 819:

I have no time right now and I do not want to give a rush response. Either Sunday Aug 7 or sometime next week I'll take a close look.

683: 8233: 7888:

I understand you were following guidelines, it's those guidelines I have issue with. I believe we should set about to change them.

3955: 1794: 6969: 5765: 4156:(which is essentially written now, just needs a new article for the musical portion, plus standard links, categories, basic items). 3832: 2315: 1148: 7712: 7463: 7391: 7319: 6094:

some of them may need some expert assistance in getting promoted. E.g., you might be able to help with the tagged plot section at

2393: 2351: 2124: 2090: 1946: 1672: 1431: 598: 7234: 6832: 6125: 5567: 5082:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

3932:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

7764: 7656:

Glad you're on the mend! I hope you have an excellent recovery. I've had some dental surgery myself, and it's not much fun! --

7275: 6368: 4534: 3655: 3110:. That said, I will investigate his edits but not before Sept 22. (I am on a school break, even more so today, I must run now.) 2655: 2419: 2247: 123: 7521: 7084: 5334: 3589: 2747:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 2344:! If I knew how to give you a star I would, but that's beyond my meager skills in coding-land. In any case, congratulations! -- 783: 450: 6874: 6430:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 6316:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 4973: 4450:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 4077:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3466:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3265:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2642: 2563: 2546: 1493:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1340:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 7024: 6433: 6319: 5850: 5089: 5086:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 5004: 4453: 4145: 4080: 3939: 3936:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3469: 3390: 3268: 2934:

if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the

2759:

if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the

2226: 2208:

if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the

1496: 1343: 1160: 860: 589:. When you get back, let me know if you would mind helping to do some of these? Hope your break is fun. Best regards! -- 8098: 7148: 7855: 7789: 7136: 7000: 5287: 2861: 1232: 1046: 8222:

Hi. Could you have a read over the changes I've made to the article. I plan on expanding further but would value feedback.

7992: 7925:

Ok, Gypsy was in "Main list", so I just changed to the current title of the article. (And hello, thanks for the message!).

6498: 5918: 5612: 1568: 1118:

While it's true, it seems like unnecessary detail and could attract more cruft. I don't feel strongly. Any opinion? --

8275:

I think the citations should have the name of the author (for Web page, Newspaper articles, Book, Journal articles), per

8253:

Minor edits right now, article looks really good. More later. (Will need someone to write a good synopsis at some point.)

6927: 6905: 6095: 6083: 6010: 5173: 1411: 7970: 7797: 6227: 4364: 2730: 811: 7577: 6952: 6607: 6481: 6210: 6164: 6108: 5838: 5674: 5458: 5404: 5347: 5303: 5261: 4517: 4321: 4242: 4184: 4128: 3331: 2885: 7696:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 7447:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 7375:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 7303:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 6523:. In his timeline, he has now been there over 25 years, and it is while there he has received the bulk of his awards. 4995:

I will now retire from Knowledge, this stuff is childish nonsense, I have better things to do.22:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

4557: 4311:. Do you have any content to fill it in. It is barely 900 characters of readable prose and needs to be 1500 for DYK.-_ 2380:

I hereby award you The Invisible Barnstar for your tireless contributions to Knowledge — especially those relating to

2074:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 2009: 1930:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 1656:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 1415:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 1127: 1077: 174: 6053: 6044:) 11:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC) (There are also some personal things to attend to, which will take my time and energy.) 6036:

I will not be editing much from mid-Sept 2013 to mid-Dec 2013, as I once again return to my classes (as a student!).

4930: 4849: 4751: 4661: 4573:

theatre. (Oh, yes, I have been to London perhaps 6 times and have gone to much West End theatre, wonderful memories!)

3900: 3893: 3050: 2609: 2579: 2520: 1603:

Thanks for the correction. Cast members: if they have articles, by all means mention them, otherwise probably not.--

7533: 5788: 2145: 1612: 1284: 1085:

Well, here is what I know, based on some very quick googling: The title of the album is "Some Lessons Learned" (see

1054: 52: 8193: 8135: 5747: 5462: 5408: 5351: 5307: 5265: 5248: 4521: 4325: 4246: 4188: 4132: 3799: 3774: 3319: 3167:

edits. I have no comment on the IP edits on this article, I am simply not able (or qualified) to analyze his edits.

2282: 1878: 1870: 1711: 5421: 5364: 5320: 5278: 4582: 3239: 3100: 2706: 1993: 1576:

Oh my, sorry that I entirely missed this! In any event, I will be going on a Spring Semester mini-break as of Feb

1065: 7796:

When you have a moment, please take a look at the R&H Talk page, as there is a discussion going on about the

7635: 6515: 6505: 5539: 3862: 3593: 3002: 2869: 2714: 2107: 1797:

What do you think? Tevye talks to God a lot, but most of the characters could be described the same way.... --

984: 648: 575: 454: 8144:

I've done some digging and the Illinois production is a community theatre production with no one notable in it (

3865:

was closed without alerting editors at the relevant Wikiprojects to join in. It has long been the consensus at

3405:

Oops, just noticed this. Will respond after my wikibreak (either in Dec 2012-Feb 2013 or in May 2013-September).

1699: 7919: 6286: 4435: 2356: 1275: 345: 229: 7701: 7452: 7380: 7308: 5978: 2079: 1935: 1806: 1661: 1455:

Thanks, fixed format in infobox so that the image now appears. Also corrected text to reflect name of article.

1420: 7480: 7258: 7203: 6414:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

6348: 6296:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

5662: 4434:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

4053:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

3450:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

3250: 3249:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

2793:

Regarding Kristin Chenoweth and headaches caused by flash photography...I seem to recall an episode of NPR's

2401: 2332: 2231: 4879:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

4797:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

4707:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

4617:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

4170:

Yes we need a separate article for the musical. I hope to see you create it soon. See the new discussion at

7839: 7790: 6899: 6147: 6075: 4402: 3711:

I am also coming to the belief that this is not the Broadway Hoaxer, thanks pointing me in that direction.

2129: 634: 217: 5905: 5776: 6801: 6520: 4955: 3581: 3537: 3515: 3378: 3043:

help in making the plot section and so on more encyclopedic (read: shorter and more concise!). Thanks! —

1018: 992: 752: 630: 442: 394: 372: 94: 7874:

I disagree with your decision to delete my addition of the Newsies Crew. I find fault on two levels.

3819:. It would be great if you could take a brief unbreak and take a look at the article and give comments 8217: 7005: 6058: 5830: 4548:

stub. Are you also interested in London theatre apart from Broadway? I sure could do with some help! --

3983: 3855: 3585: 3425: 3220: 3163: 2935: 2921: 2760: 2750: 2209: 2195: 644: 446: 2841:}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ 8534: 8488: 8436: 8415: 8375: 8369:

that contained the disparaging comment. Not impressed. Have a go at me but dont have a go at Wehwalt.

8355: 8324: 8300: 8228: 8083: 7729: 7499: 7225:

For your consistently professional edits of Terrence McNally plays and to Broadway plays in general.

4498: 3780:

I had some spare time this week, but will be extremely busy now, altho' school is out soon, and will

3761:

It looks like everything at wikiland is moving along swimmingly and so I will now take a real break,

2788: 1002: 5977:

Added at 10:58am, EDT: Also see the summaries of he reviews for the Nunn-Stroman London production:

5753: 1133:

I've never seen Little Shop; I'll take a look at this later today, may need to do a little research.

8141: 7859: 7525: 7510: 7132: 7125: 7108:

No problem, looks like our friend Ssilvers has fixed the situation. Have fun with school and TTYL,

7068: 5083: 3933: 3662: 3633: 2776: 2511:! I didn't expect for the citations to be found within hours of me tagging them! Excellent work. 1213: 1154: 1050: 479:

I objected to the PROD. Please weigh in on the article talk page when you can. All the best! --

333: 6356: 5665:

The fact that the editor deleted the reference prompted me to revert. Thanks for any advice. --

8427: 8153: 7975: 6982: 6932: 6839: 5899: 5596: 4906:

latimes.com/1994-12-11/entertainment/ca-7736_1_founder-berry-gordy "Talk! In the Name of Love:..

3918: 3716: 3651: 3083: 2799: 2108: 1541: 960: 836: 4174:. I understand that you may not want to comment if you are unfamiliar with some of the issues.-- 1773:

Thanks, I must admit to adding a bit of facetiousness to that edit summary, just amusing myself.

586: 351:

Hi, sorry to clutter up Flami's page, but let me just say that the peer review and GA review at

7760: 7573: 7113: 7080: 6988: 6948: 6870: 6477: 6206: 6160: 6104: 5454: 5400: 5343: 5299: 5257: 5140: 4513: 4317: 4238: 4180: 4124: 4109: 3568: 3035: 1086: 1014: 988: 26:

Archive 10, talk page starting June 2011 and ending July 2012 add: new archivals in 2015, etc.

7674:

Orphaned non-free image File:Sleeping Beauty (Faerie Tale Theatre episode - DVD cover art).jpg

2878: 2723: 2138: 8021:

fan, perhaps we can work to streamline it further and add some more refs? All the best! --

7954: 7031: 6825: 6349: 6079: 4606: 4553: 2952: 2890: 2735: 2614: 2407: 2232: 2150: 1478: 933: 891: 856: 791: 466: 278: 1813:

research this further, but I can't until May; this intrigues me, and I'll look into it then.

8529: 8483: 8431: 8410: 8370: 8350: 8319: 8295: 8223: 7851: 7495: 6751:

Oh, ok... but YOU helped turn the article into a proper GA article we can both be proud of.

5841:

is correct. Please take a look when you get back. Hope you're having a great summer! --

5654: 4926: 4845: 4747: 4657: 3386: 3313: 2638:

For your diligence in looking out for and addressing copyright issues in theater articles.

2516: 2348: 2098: 1956: 1874: 1682: 1441: 429: 136: 108: 4960:

I must say that I am sad to see these lesser awards touted in our articles. According to

8: 8519: 8472: 8284: 8258: 8244: 8204: 8168: 8109: 8069: 8047: 8003: 7944: 7930: 7821: 7647: 7608: 7414: 7342: 7337:

Image restored to article (Annie 1982 film), deleted possibly in error by another editor.

7299: 7248: 7230: 7189: 7166: 7144: 7095: 7038: 6996: 6756: 6702: 6634: 6563: 6549: 6462: 6379: 6282: 6268: 6238: 6137: 6049: 6041: 6031: 6006: 5985: 5931: 5885: 5863: 5800: 5711: 5663:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Maury_Yeston&diff=561278025&oldid=547048764

5624: 5563: 5517: 5494: 5435: 5379: 5222: 5040: 5000: 4943: 4868: 4786: 4762: 4672: 4578: 4488: 4415: 4383: 4360: 4298: 4290: 4223: 4161: 4036: 3789: 3770: 3751: 3699: 3671: 3606: 3597: 3504: 3410: 3343: 3303: 3204: 3186: 3172: 3158: 3144: 3126: 3066: 3018: 2857: 2769: 2666: 2652: 2639: 2590: 2457: 2389: 2262: 2021: 1987: 1895: 1818: 1778: 1722: 1586: 1531: 1460: 1380: 1296: 1243: 1138: 1109: 1097: 1059: 824: 779: 738: 665: 612: 538: 458: 301: 253: 245: 185: 157: 68: 5374:

these airwaves but may post pics. Then its back to school (Osher-style) until December.)

8394: 8339: 8189: 8149: 8123: 8094: 8026: 7988: 7966: 7805: 7779: 7661: 7631: 7271: 7056: 7020: 6889: 6781: 6675: 6653: 6618: 6597: 6397: 6364: 6021: 5914: 5846: 5831: 5818: 5784: 5761: 5733: 5670: 5642: 5608: 5586: 5444:

O.K. but it is still only 1124 characters. If you want a this to be eligible for a DYK

5101: 5063: 5015: 4969: 3914: 3883: 3870: 3843: 3828: 3712: 3647: 3623: 3433: 3366: 3327: 3235: 3177: 3096: 2998: 2931: 2829: 2756: 2605: 2600:

You get to switch to the Bronze star when you pass 2.5 years and 12,000 edits. :) --

2575: 2528: 2439: 2415: 2307: 2243: 2205: 2120: 2039: 2005: 1974: 1837: 1802: 1736: 1707: 1598: 1564: 1257: 1228: 1123: 1073: 968: 918: 872: 807: 715: 691: 594: 561: 484: 361: 316: 286: 199: 170: 82: 48: 7915: 7882: 7756: 7720: 7585: 7568: 7514: 7471: 7399: 7327: 7109: 7076: 6960: 6943: 6866: 6489: 6472: 6453: 6444: