User talk:Ssilvers

Fringe views: If you have an article about the moon which treats equally the idea that the moon is made of rocks, and the idea that the moon is made of cheese, you don't have neutrality, you have extreme POV pushing for a radical minority view! How, in practice, to sort out a proper sense of proportion and balance is always going to be tricky and involve thoughtful consultation and dialog.... There is no magic formula. But a recognition that some views are widely held and grounded in a reasonable analysis of evidence, and that some views are extreme fringe views and not based in evidence, is pretty important to achieving neutrality. — Jimbo Wales, 18 May 2008
Opinions and Attribution: [We] feel about strong views the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem. — User:William Pietri

Hello, Ssilvers, and welcome to Wikipedia! I am CTSWyneken. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Archives

Archive 1

User talk:Ssilvers/Archive DYKs and stars‎

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial; Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions; Manual of Style

...If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page. Take a look at Consensus of standards. It is always wise to read the talk page of an existing article before making major changes on it. Even then, I typically ask if anyone minds that I make a change. Very often they do! ;-)

Again, welcome! And if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. --CTSWyneken 19:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)^(talk)[reply]

See: Help:Archiving a talk page.

Hi, Ssilvers, I am Ron Kert from Tampa, FL (wikipedia user-name "ronkert"). Thank You for your additions to the "Piano bar" article that I submitted. I also am an amateur singer, and a "piano bar junkie". Although I enjoyed "La Boheme" and love most types of music, I sing songs from these genres: "Standards" from the 1920's to 1950's, 50's and 60's Rock'n'Roll, some 70's and 80's light Rock and Rock ballads, Blues, a couple of show tunes, a few Country tunes. I'm currently on one of my bi-annual out-of-state "piano bar" vacations in the DC / northern Virginia area. -- User:Ronkert

Saw your additions and copy edits to Golden Legend. Thanks. I had considered adding specific information about the Hyperion release (it is the first full length recording), but wasn't sure it was appropriate. I'll probably be doing some similar work on other compositions by Sullivan. Shsilver 19:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention to Hot Mikado - it helps to have another perspective, particularly one from the musicals / G&S point of view, and not the "HEY MY HIGH SCHOOL DID THAT!" point of view.... Thanks again. QBKooky 18:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Song list in The Mountebanks! Added in character names whilst I was at it. Also, I've done a tweak to Template:Gilbert and Sullivan - That look good to you? Vanished user 23:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Malcolm Sargent turned out very well. I didn't know about that 1936 interview. Did you ever hear the old joke about Sargent? Supposedly he gets into a cab. The driver says, "Where to?" Sargent says, "It doesn't matter; they want me everywhere." Marc Shepherd 13:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being helpful. My English music books used Mazeppa, Maria, Andrei, Kochubey (Kochubey is not a Russian, but Tatar name). (meladina 16:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for slicing up some of my more grotesquely long sentences in Opera the other day. I'm on a bit of drive to get the article up to GA standard, so thanks for all the help. Cheers, Moreschi 16:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kashchey the Immortal (opera) - Thanks for the help; I've just finished off the copy-editing. Cheers, Moreschi 19:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the messages re: Early British Musicals. I had only the briefest look after your first, but it all looked like great stuff.... --GuillaumeTell 07:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Savoy opera (and curtain raisers): Nice work! [Shoemaker's Holiday] 10:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the kind words.... I'm very tempted to help out at Opera. In fact my next plan was to rework the French Opera section, which has been chopped off that article. Cheers. --Folantin 08:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for all the info you added to The Magic Show! - Brian Kendig 13:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boyd Neel - Thank you for your kind words (and the corroborative detail).... Tim riley 21:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camelot (musical) thanks you! Wow, Ssilvers, you are awesome! Thanks so much for such a quick fix on the Camelot article! I will add to it as I can. :) Thanks! Estreya 18:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Eyen - Thank you for cleaning up my mess! I'm speechless - it's so well done! --Eric Eyen 02:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your kind note and for your careful reviews and help at Encyclopædia Britannica; I think it's an article we all can be proud of.... I'm grateful that you corrected that comma error that had been peppering my writing for ages. Looking forward to working with you again in Wikipedia, Willow 10:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nice welcoming note! I was going to see an amateur production of Princess Ida at MIT last night, so I wanted to learn a little about it. The article was very helpful! I love G&S, but I probably will just do little typo edits here and there as I find them. Thanks again! Purkowitz 14:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your effort and added info with Malfitano. She is a great singer and it was sad to notice that the existing writings about her were too brief. It would be great if we could get some photos of her. I will write to her agent, hopefully they could provide us with photos to be published (with written permission, of course). - Jay 02:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the Buddy - The Buddy Holly Story yesterday/today. Concerning the expanded synopisis version that was severely edited a while back - IT WAS MUCH BETTER. Sorry it kept getting cut. It should simply have been re-written to avoid verbatim website quotes. It should not of been deleted, though. I will support you in defending against any attempts to ruin this article again. Smatprt 14:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! :-)Nrswanson 07:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your work on Michael Mayer (director) - WOW. Thank you! I knew that once people realized this major theatrical figure had no article at all, it'd get fixed quickly, but the early version was so disorganized, and it's lovely to see what you've done with it overnight.

Diana Fortuna Photo - Thanks for cleaning up the summary :) DraxusD 05:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help cleaning up my edits on Parade - I honestly thought I was alone on this one! Docta247 13:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome :) I'm Chris Angelico, Savoynetter and fairly active but with no particular qualifications or special skills in G&S. A newbie in editing, which is probably obvious to all, unfortunately. -- Rosuav (talk • contribs) 05:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Several of these performers are familiar to me because of the film Topsy Turvy, wihch I've seen at least half a dozen times. They needed to be included in Wikipedia. Charivari 02:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! You took this a lot farther than I ever imagined it would go. Marc Shepherd 19:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much - I'm actually planning on writing up a few articles about some of the lesser Savoyards, as well as a couple of early G&S creators that really ought to be here (Frank Thornton, Fred Sullivan, and Selina Dolaro spring to mind). --AlbertHerring 17:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on getting W. S. Gilbert featured. Your hard work was impressive. Best, Moreschi 12:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ditto --Bofuses (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Awarded to Ssilvers for his work on actors and actresses, minor operas, and everything else related to Gilbert and Sullivan and Victorian Theatre. You have single-handedly filled in many huge gaps in Wikipedia coverage. Vanished user 13:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

... and that goes from me too, his recent work on filling in the gaps and eliminating stubs in London theatre is only matched by his patience with my lack of knowledge and his ability to collaborate. Kbthompson 18:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Illustration - Many thanks for your modest but spot-on improvements to the initial entry on the Royal Gallery of Illustration!! Rapotter 03:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Globe, Royalty and St James's Theatres - Gracious me! How much you have improved the presentation. As suggested, I have run up a piece on the Globe, which would benefit from the Ssilvers treatment, had you but world enough and time. Tim riley 10:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your work on this article. The images make a big difference as well as noting the stars and the plays. David Lauder 08:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for making the Haymarket Theatre piece look good. ...Tim Riley 10:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't thank you for the addn info on the Empire Theatre. I added a testimonial to your barnstar! But I don't know how these things get decided on, so left it as barnstar + bar. The London theatres have been a joy... Kbthompson 18:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Georges Theatre - Belated thanks for that, it almost looks like an article now. I took the liberty of adding a gee-gaw to your front page (a case of I saw this and thought of you, I have to wait another month!). I saw the recent comments at G&S, tough crowd. I think that's a bit harsh for GA, but something that definitely needs fixing for FA. Kbthompson 15:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Court Theatre - Congratulations on your reworking of the Royal Court Theatre. David Lauder 08:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her Majesty's Theatre: Congrats ... to you both. It was a collaborative effort and without sane people around, I was beginning to chew my leg off... as it was, I got off with a limp. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 09:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once more for giving my text a wash and brush up. I feel rather guilty: I have all the fun and you do all the work. Tim riley 22:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice rewrite! I was hoping that someone would: Previously it seemed to be saying that Sullivan went to Leipzig twice which looked dubious :-D  uriel8  (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on, I'd say.... This was quite a serious gap in the coverage of Sullivan - now, happily, filled. Tim Riley 08:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me to take a look at the work that had been done on this, while I was away. I did look when I came back and thought it excellent - then forgot to let you know! (I probably remember more when I make negative comments). Kbthompson 09:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great article. I added two photos (with fair use rationales, so there will be no problem)...egde 10:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have done a lovely job on the article. Jack1956 18:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. -- Kleinzach 23:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read over, looks good! Much applause! You deserve a cookie - here's one!

Heck, take two! --omtay38 19:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'nuff said! --omtay38 00:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again a fantastic contribution. Many thanks. Regarding David Russell Hulme, I have a photo somewhere that I took when I sang with him in the 1970s. If I can find it I'll scan it and upload it to the article. Jack1956 21:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love this... I write 4 sentences on an article Terence Rees‎ and go to bed and as if by magic the next day it's finished! And it's another brilliant article, much better than I could have created. Many thanks. I'll have a look at those articles you mentioned! Jack1956 17:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. You have done another great job by polishing up the Scott Fishe article to such a good standard. I wish I had your expertise. Jack1956 23:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Imperial Majesty, even if these regalia are just stage props, it's nice to be able to hand them to you. May you wear them well. Durova^Charge! 05:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for great job on Oudin.... Jack1956 (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help on Francoeur. Melbrooksfan101 talk 04:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on pursuing this. I have just finished reading the Elliott book which answers all the questions and I aspire to finding some time to work on all the articles but ... Cutler (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found a photo of Nancy McIntosh and uploaded it. The others weren't really of the show. I will search further and upload as appropriate Thanks. Broadwaygal (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just started an article on the Boer War Te Deum this morning. It's a rough stub, and I am currently looking for more references. If you have time, could you take a look? Thanks Broadwaygal (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input! Typos will be the death of me, just so you know. I absolutely hate the one image available of Marshall, and I'm positive that he'd hate it too; it's the monkey suit. I contacted the Adirondack Museum to see if they can release an image or two under GFDL for me to use. I would love to get a similar pic to what I've seen in my book sources, with him grinning goofily while posing on mountaintops with grimy, exhausted looking guides. So we'll see. :) María (habla conmigo) 20:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't fault it- another brilliant piece of research and well-written. Jack1956 (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ss, I am very pleased to know about Sig. Brocolini, of whom I have never previously heard, but I think I have read somewhere that he was especially admired in a trio from La finta giardiniera with Mme Spinaci and the basso cantante Bruschetta, under the baton of the great Vermicelli. Keep up the good work, Eebahgum (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back and hello again. Nice job of discovery, and very thorough. And yes, he's a credit to my name, maybe. (Perhaps I need to change mine too. . .) JohnClarknew (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The star is totally deserved. I have a programme for the 1975 performance of 'Utopia' somewhere, and will check it out, but presume that, as he is on the recording he must have been in the performance. GD I am less sure about. Jack1956 (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your help. I think the article looks great now! - certainly better than any other musicals in 2008.... Anyway, thanks again. -- Dave S Light Defender (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I could figure out how to give you a Barnstar (or a bouquet of flowers) I would. Thanks for the help on Bernadette Peters, she's looking good. I'll look at the article again next week, with fresh eyes, to see what other bits and pieces it might need. JeanColumbia (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the splendid overhaul.... -- Drhoehl (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got more stamina than I! Article looks great, I made a few very minor edits, and added external links to articles on a few of his lesser known works.JeanColumbia (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for editing my Hello, Dolly! Act One synopsis. It's so much more concise and well-written now! MarianKroy (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Just wanted to say thanks for all the great work! Love all the new stuff you added. Talk to you soon - User:Mblaxill 20:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gilbert_and_Sullivan/Marc_Shepherd's_Gilbert_and_Sullivan_Discography.

I wonder if it would ever be worth doing an article on G&S scholarship? You know, cover the major discoveries, describe the evolution of the field... or is that too likely to hit problems? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I have suggested this before. I think it would be great. It is a difficult job and requires library access. For journals, you may even have to write to the various different G&S societies to get back issues or whatever. I'll help if I can, but I can't go to the library on it. I think that some of the journals have online indexes to their old articles. Maybe Stephen Turnbull and Andrew Crowther can help you. Mitch Gillett might be able to help with GASBAG, and Angie Arnall might be able to help with The Gilbert and Sullivan News. Even more important, is the old Gilbert and Sullivan Journal, which is no longer published. Books are easier, and Ainger's list of references is a good place to start. Also, see this. Crowther's site lists various useful resources. Good luck! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It gives me great joy to award this Imperial Napoleonic triple crown for exceptional mainspace contributions on Gilbert and Sullivan and otherwise. Thank you very much for your generous time and diligence on behalf of the project. You are the model of a modern major Napoleon among editors. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers, the article will appear on DYK tomorrow [Tuesday]. This is entirely due to your contribution. Jack1956 (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summer's almost over so back to work-or whatever it is that we all do! Welcome back, I've missed the conversations (so to speak....)JeanColumbia (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh! A splendid article. I had no idea the Royal Aquarium ever existed. Tim riley (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely job, as usual. Many thanks. Jack1956 (talk) 07:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another fantastic job on Foggerty's Fairy. Absolutely brilliant! Jack1956 (talk) 07:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff there. The Land Surveyor (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiProject Musical Theatre Barnstar
		For your kind efforts to reach a common ground on musical article content, I award you my Musical Theatre Barnstar. Enjoy! Mizu onna sango15Hello! 20:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Barnstar...it is much appreciated. I had a look at Dick Whittingon (and his cat!) but you had done your usual excellent and comprehensive job so that there was little I could find to add. I wish you and yours a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Prosperous New Year. Jack1956 (talk) 08:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mars celebrations.jpg

Gosh! I'd never heard of her - and what a lot you've unearthed.... Tim riley (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That really is very interesting and genuinely helpful. Many thanksOrdyg (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work; I'm particularly fond of musical theatre too and see you’ve contributed greatly to various articles on the subject! -- Vegan4Life (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out. I know that he did a lot of G & S towards the end of his career... -- kosboot (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! What an article! What could I possibly add? Instead, I've started a new one as an off-shoot of yours, Richard Corney Grain. Jack1956 (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely job on Richard Corney Grain. Many thanks for your excellent input. Jack1956 (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some top notch stuff there - thank you so much! I've piled Pelion on Ossa by rummaging in the archives of The Observer Tim riley (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The 50 DYK Medal
		Thank you for your invaluable contributions to the encyclopedia by creating so much great new content. Let this small token remind you that all of your hard work is appreciated by both readers and your fellow editors. Dravecky (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment - it was you who challenged me to create an article on her (I didn't think there would be that much). I look at your work for inspiration on format, organization, etc. Thanks! -- kosboot (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you've never run for admin? I realize the process is appalling, but you seem eminently qualified and the pain only lasts a week.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I prefer to spend all of my Wiki time contributing and refining content. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk)

This is a very good article. The only suggestion is to move the Analysis section after the synopsis. This isn't a play most readers will be familiar with, and the analysis is difficult to follow unless you already know what happens in the story. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is so much improved after your changes. Tim riley (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very impressed with the additional info - real improvement, so thanks. Incidentally, a small note - I hope you don't mind, but I corrected back a couple of references to the daughter's name - it's definitely "Paulise" with a S. See "The Art of Dress" by Jane Ashelford and National Trust publications regarding the Paulise de Bush costume collection at Killerton House. (probably easier to get hold of than journals for the Costume Society!) Best regards, Mabalu (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article has passed GA review. I need hardly say – but nonetheless do – how grateful I am for the Ssilvers magic touch passim. Tim riley (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's so much better - bless you! Shall look out the additional info you suggest. Have sent a separate communication about a possible NC photograph. Tim riley (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you for showing me that the poster is for another use. Is it possible to get that first press photo of Coward, in dressing gown, on a bed, smoking a cigarette? <snip> Thank you for your patience with me on the image issues as well. Jappalang (talk) 06:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on a successful nomination and on your efforts to get the article's excellent qualities recognised by the powers that be. Jack1956 (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. I was pleased to work on the article at PR, and am delighted to see its deserved promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So awfully fine ... Kbthompson (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to see the desired conclusion. Wonderful article. Finetooth (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Tony (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This is awarded in recognition of your excellent work on Noël Coward. Congratulations on achieving Featured Article status! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats from me, as well! You both did a terrific job. It's always a pleasure working with you, so don't hesitate to let me in on your next project. :) María (habla conmigo) 16:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for showing all of us how good FAs can be. Please return to FAC. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent additions and edits. May your shadow never grow less. Tim riley (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've rummaged in the archives and put a lot of stuff in the article, which consequently looks a bit slablike, and would benefit from the Ssilvers touch if you have a few minutes. Tim riley (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lovely new article on Fanny Ronalds. And informative: I'd always assumed (wrongly, it seems) she was in some sense a professional singer because of her association with "The Lost Chord." -- Arxiloxos (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this would replace the second image in Arthur Sullivan, File:Young_Arthur_Sullivan.jpg. As I said, I know I need to work on Pinafore, but this is at least somewhat productive, and I felt up to it, so, better it than nothing. - Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hearty thanks as always for your sprucing up of the article. I have also been tinkering with the article on Neville Cardus which if you have a moment, pray peruse. Tim riley (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get a chance to thank you for your outstanding peer review of OWH, so please accept this as a tardy (but still heartfelt!) note of appreciation:

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For Ssilvers, who went above and beyond the typical reviewing standards to help Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. achieve FA-status before his bicentennial. Your thorough dissection and willingness to leave no stone unturned is much appreciated. As the Autocrat himself would say, "People who honestly mean to be true contradict themselves much more rarely than those who try to be 'consistent'." With many thanks, María (habla conmigo) 21:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll happily second this as well. My experience with the Holmes article has revived my faith in the collaborative spirit of this project (which, by the way, was sorely needed). People, like you, who are willing to join the "team mentality" make it all worthwhile. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a fantastic picture! Jack1956 (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great timing! I've been feeling abandoned, alone, taken for granted, deserted, and undesserted. LilHelpa (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Cohen (conductor) thanks you for buffing up his article. Tim riley (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC) (per pro)[reply]

Hey, thank you. I'm glad there's someone on Wikipedia encouraging other people. I do not think I want to write articles though, maybe just be an editor. Thanks again! Tweedle20 (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Tweedle20[reply]

• Thaanks =) from me as well . –xeno^talk 18:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the visit and helpful comments.... By the way, I've just listened to 3 savoy operas so far and am a bit surprised at knowing of the enthusiastic and well organized WP:G&S project. It looks interesting to me. You're a coordinator of the project? If so, keep up the good work. Best regards.--Caspian blue 01:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on promotion of this article to FA! Well deserved. Xandar 17:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, well done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Is it two down, 12 to go now? --Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually 3 down, 11 to go Thespis (opera), Trial by Jury and Pinafore. But I have a new strategy: I'm planning to bring a bunch of them to GA before doing another FA. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, congrats to you, as well! I'm also giving FA a long break with the hope of creating and expanding sorely overlooked nature-related articles. Variety is good. See you around GAC. :) María (habla conmigo) 19:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, congratulations on all that work. You dropped in to my talk page and invited me to participate in the FAC since I had done the GAN. Thanks, and I did keep an eye on progress, but it seemed to have enough contributors that I just let it be. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really do deserve them all. Well done! Stikko (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User:DGG/NYPL -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For an impressive and tireless and extensive 6-day period of major research and writing on Stephen Moorer, way over and above the call of duty. Well done! Softlavender (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had set the stage to create the article for Earl Wrightson in the wake of the Lois Hunt article I had just created after her recent death. I click on the link and lo and behold you've already created the article. Keep up the great work! Alansohn (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Pinafore, scheduled for the main page August 11. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on H.M.S. Pinafore making Featured Article for the Day. It's really nice to see more classical music articles being recognized and gettting such exposure. Jonyungk (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was just stopping by to say the same thing! Congrats! — MusicMaker5376 15:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is above and beyond the call of duty that you should amend the punctuation etc of such an obscure English article. Wikipedia would be the poorer without your eagle eye. Tim riley (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another fantastic job on a G&S related article. I go to bed and as if by magic in the morning this amazing article has sprung up out of all your hard work. Can you think of a DYK? Jack1956 (talk) 09:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Gilbert and Sullivan Barnstar
		For your significant contribution in expanding The Ne'er-do-Weel I award you this barnstar. Jack1956 (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grazie (that's what is taking my time--studying for my trip); I thought EVERYONE knew what the Flea Market & Gypsy of the Year were! Anyway, I'll be totally gone in mid-October for 16 days, will let you know when I waddle back (pasta! gelato!).JeanColumbia (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words and further improvements.<snip>. Drhoehl (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're both very welcome. I enjoy a good read, especially when it keeps me from worrying about my master's thesis. :) María (habla conmigo) 13:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Gilbert and Sullivan Barnstar
		For your amazing contribution in expanding The Fortune Hunter I award you this G&S barnstar. Jack1956 (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ss, that and your kind words are much appreciated. It is always a pleasure to work with you. Jack1956 (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on Walter H. Fisher. I suspected he was married to Venne thinking it unlikely there were two Fishers and that she'd married the one in D'Oyly Carte but was trying to find something to substantiate it. Nice work. Jack1956 (talk) 07:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you totally, Ssilvers. Always a pleasure to work with you and Tim on these. What amazes me is when I've given up having exhausted all the avenues open to me you find loads more interesting facts! And great to think we are giving them the belated recognition (and dare I say immortality) that they deserve. Maybe I'm just sentimental, but I look at Walter Fisher and Lottie Venne who we have reunited here on Wiki having made the connection between them! Jack1956 (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On November 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Black Mikado, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations on your 100th DYK! Jack1956 (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The 100 DYK Medal
		It is my pleasure to award you, Ssilvers, this medal, and I hope this is not the last one you'll receive from the project. Materialscientist (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you could spare a few minutes (which you will not, I fear, find very interesting) a swift once-over of this article would be esteemed a favour. - Tim riley (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at my talk page is, naturally, much appreciated. Just to show that no good deed goes unpunished, could you find a few minutes to look at Elizabeth Harwood, which I have just been beefing up? - Tim riley (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Awadewit (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing a spot of work on Colin Davis. Grateful if you would have a look at it. - Tim riley (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet another article on an English musician that I'd be grateful if you'd run your unblinking editorial eye over, viz. John Barbirolli. - Tim riley (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your taking the extra trouble to expertly edit Themes in Avatar towards improvement. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your comments re: "The Open Boat"! I greatly appreciate the feedback, and agree with all of your points on the talk page. I'll try to get to Rupert today or tomorrow. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 14:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. I appreciate the notice. LilHelpa (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making this a much better article! 4meter4 (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt Island rag on the separation of the organizations.

• http://www.nyc10044.com/wire/3007/wire3007.pdf (start with page 3)
• http://www.nyc10044.com/wire/3009/wire3009.pdf (start with page 2)
• OIA executive director: Starlenejohnson (talk)

Hi SSilvers. I have left a note of gratitude on Talk:Themes in Avatar for your tremendous input there. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the rationale and for ce of images and captions. The felling of the hometree is a very good image. Would it be too much to ask of you to help expand the lead as per discussion with DrNegative on Peer review page? You seem to have a very clear idea on how to do it. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was suprised to find our that Daniel Breaker did not have an article despite being nominated for a Tony and having been in several Bordway shows. I have since created an article for him, but it is very empty. I was hoping you will help me fill it up.--JDDJS (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, I do all I can in an evening and the next morning wake up to a brilliant article. Excellent job! I'll have a look at it today Ss and think of a joint DYK. All the best. Jack1956 (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Barnstar
		As a token of deep gratitude for your state-of-the-art editing of Themes in Avatar that helped it rise to GA status, I present you with this barnstar. Thanks and regards, Cinosaur (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For Ssilvers, whose diligence in advising, supporting, and even (if you please) correcting me, has helped me in more articles than I can name – and today I am in his debt for helping me get Adrian Boult to FA. – Tim riley (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, shucks, guys. Thanks for all the bling! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a book that is a collection of theatre reviews for Broadway shows. It's called 'Opening Night on Broadway: A Critical Quotebook of the Golden Era of the Musical Theatre...." Since a lot of the critical reception sections are pretty bare, I thought I might add quotations of the reviews from the book. Does such a book constitute a reliable source? I know it can be difficult to track down newspaper reviews in their original form, and it seems to me that indirect quotes are better than no quotes at all. However, I'd like your opinion since you're a more experienced editor than I. MarianKroy (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this book is most certainly a WP:RS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I was wondering if you can help me add Categories and fix the refernces and the over all make up of the Loretta Ables Sayre article I created.--JDDJS (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Guidance Barnstar
		This is for helping me fix the pages I create. JDDJS (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Ssilvers. You are off to such a great start on the article Straight Up (book).... -- Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 07:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Could you take a look at Oklahoma! for me? I've added a critical reception section and done some other miscellaneous edits, and I think it could be moved from C-class to B-class. I'd like to know what you think about it. MarianKroy (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greatly obliged for your copy editing of this very long article, on a subject not conspicuously part of the Ssilvers curriculum. I am grateful for your colleaguely help on this. - Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any interest in being an administrator? I will nominate you because I think you will be a great one. JDDJS (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer. That's very kind of you, but I do not want to be an administrator. I am interested in content, and so I am happy to let other responsible editors deal with administration. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delayed, as usual, but I've finally reviewed (and passed) the article. Great work, as usual, the lot of you. María (habla conmigo) 16:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers, ... Loving your work on the article. ... This could easily be a potential GA in the future. All the best Mark E (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I need sources. I've had limited library access the past few months, but I did check out some more scholarly musical theatre books, notably Mark N. Grant's The Rise and Fall of the Broadway Musical and Ethan Mordden's examinations of each decade of American musical theatre. Both authors concluded that yes, there was a lot of fluffy stuff on Broadway for the first few decades, but there were signs of development in various directions:

On Your Toes (1936) at least placed ballet alongside musical theatre, featuring two lengthy ballets. Kurt Weill's pre-Oklahoma American work included One Touch of Venus, which again utilized a couple ballets that actually illustrated Venus's character and inner conflict (the "Venus in Ozone Heights" ballet). Weill and Moss Hart collaborated on Lady in the Dark, which used psychoanalysis as a means of delving into the mind of successful but indecisive and romantically uncertain Liza Elliot; almost all the music in the show occurs in three extensive dreams that reveal Liza's fears and past experiences. The man for her turns out to be the one who can complete the leitmotif she cannot finish herself (the song is "My Ship", the only song that occurs in "real life"). "Peggy Ann" (1926) was an even earlier use of dreams as a revelation of character, though musical comedy conventions were still included. "Of Thee I Sing" (1931) had a satirical plot tied to an equally biting, yet humorous, score by the Gershwins. Though the characters may be considered caricatures, the score is integrated in a manner not unlike Gilbert and Sullivan. Pal Joey portrayed hard, immoral central characters without sentiment; the non-nightclub numbers do function within the plot.

The authors basically concluded that though Show Boat and Oklahoma! are significant milestones in musical theatre, they didn't spring out of nowhere.... MarianKroy (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I really appreciate your diligence in monitoring the Gilbert and Sullivan information for WP. I wonder if you would reconsider removing the external link connecting Yale's collection to the page. The Sidney Rose Collection of Gilbert and Sullivan contains not only materials such as scores and libretti (which are indeed widely available), but also an unusually extensive collection of ephemera, most of it focusing on performances of G & S in the United States. These performances are documented by posters, programs, production photographs, reviews, and a wide variety of other items. Many of these items—especially those having to do with the more obscure performances—may be difficult or impossible to find elsewhere. -- Best Wishes from Tjr36 (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We don't have links to any of the great G&S collections in the world: the British Library, the Theatre Museum, the Royal Academy of Music, the DOC archives and the Morgan Library, so it would not make sense to link to Yale or other collections. There are too many of them, and Wikipedia is not a collection of links. I would love to see an article about G&S research that describes the major research collections, though! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking your time to assess the Kerry Ellis article. I truly appreciate the notes you've given me, it'll definitely help! I can't thank you enough. A LOT NEEDS DOING!!!!!! :) -- Stephenjamesx (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with John Faithfull Fleet and Namadhari naik ... may i request you to help me counting on you as a friend? -- Tej smiles (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is noble of you – above and beyond the call of duty – to plough through my prose on an English composer of (I suspect) no interest to you whatever. I didn't have the cheek to ask you to proof-read this one, and I am most grateful for you for undertaking it unbidden. Bless you! – Tim riley (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of expansion of the synopsis of ’u’ do you want to see? The entire plot in detail? ... I still must have an A4 handout of the scenes which I got at the performance. If I can still find it I could enhance the section. SpeakFree (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saw you did some work way back on Flower Drum Song. Am reading a book about the play and it seems an article worth improving.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What language is Baron Golosh in, if you know? I've been cleaning up Category:Operettas by giving all the entries subcategories of their own, by language. Baron Galosh is the only one left, because I can't tell what language it's in. Softlavender (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The study of controversial content that you found looks very useful and I have assigned it to the Lehigh students in that sections of the course page. But I don't seem to have got the formmating right; could you explain? Also, while I have "watch this page" checked for both the course and discussion pages, I do not seem to actually get notices of changes. Any idea why? Thanks.--Ck07 (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		Wikipedia Ambassador Barnstar
		For outstanding efforts helping a student, which will soon have led to the first successful DYK from a student working with the ambassadors program, I award Ssilvers the Wikipedia Ambassador Barnstar.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome 'first' there, congratulations!--Pharos (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help with my footnote! IR393.sae211 (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deme - IR393DEME (talk • contribs)

Hello, I am IR393DEME from Lehigh University and I hope you will be my mentor this semester! I will be working on Indonesian occupation of East Timor . IR393DEME (talk • contribs) 18:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sae211 - IR393.sae211 (talk • contribs)

Hi, I'm IR393.sae211 and I'm also participating in a Wikipedia project for the Seminar in Intervention. Would you be my mentor this semester? I am studying the Sierra Leone Civil War. Thanks. -- IR393.sae211 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gsrogers (talk • contribs)

Hello! I'm a student in the Wikipedia Public Policy class at Syracuse University. I saw that you have expertise in law, and I am planning on contributing to the Fair Sentencing Act article, which is currently a stub on Wikipedia. I should have begun to add content by 11:00 PM tonight (EST). Hopefully you can give me some feedback as I'm new to this and can use all the help I can get! Thanks! Gsrogers (talk • contribs) 17:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FruitForAll (talk • contribs)

Hi Ssilvers, Would you be willing to be my mentor? I'm working on the public policy initiative with Indiana University. Thank you. -- FruitForAll (talk • contribs) 00:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)FruitForAll[reply]

Klcai (talk • contribs)

UC Berkeley's Politics of Piracy class ... the Secure Federal File Sharing Act, 02:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional cleanup, particularly the irrelevant musicals. I also vote to remove the ending Bernstein bit about musicals vs. operettas. As much as I love the guy, this opinion/paragraph is not only completely silly and idiosyncractic, but it also muddies the waters of an already muddy article. Besides, there's no easy way to check and see if that's really what he said (somehow I doubt it's entirely accurate). Not to mention, Bernstein is not a critical authority on the subject, and he was probably just babbling off the cuff. I vote you or I remove it. OK? Softlavender (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added to the article on Clifford Odets the assertion that his play "Till the Day I Die" was banned on account of its anti-Nazi message. I have just found that it was banned in Australia and now unsure whether it was just Oz or US as well. Would it be any trouble to check your sources? Here's the second link http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/17298671 (Disturbing how highly regarded they were before Poland.) --Doug butler (talk) 09:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		Prince of Proofreaders Barnstar
		For constantly rescuing me and my prose, reading articles that must have bored you to sobs, and helping me get them up to GA/FA I gratefully present you with this special barnstar. – Tim riley (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.... means "keep up the good work". I admit that it is one of the lesser-used and perhaps passe' acronyms.... Ling.Nut (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just saw your "WikiPen" on Gsrogers' talk page. Great idea! Your contribution to the Public Policy Initiative is making a difference. --Fschulenburg (Public Policy) (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very very sad news, but thank you very much for thinking of letting people know and for making that section on his talk page. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! If you don't celebrate Christmas ... Happy (belated) Hanukkah! Happy Eid al-Adha! Happy Kwanzaa! And of course, Happy Festivus! May this holiday season bring you the music of laughter, the warmth of friendship, and the steadying hand of love. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input/help so far! It's been instrumental and I have really enjoyed seeing the page improve over the past couple of days. --IR393.sae211 (talk) 05:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry I missed all the fun! Congrats on getting such a great article to FA-status, and to the mainpage. I read part of it on my iPhone while traveling yesterday, and then of course I had to watch clips from the show on YouTube! Hope you have a happy holiday. :) María (habla conmigo) 13:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ssilvers. It's a pleasure to have an excuse to contact you again. I have created the Mantra-Rock Dance article, and it seems to be poised for its DYK exposure due 11 January 12:00 AM (UTS). If the subject is at all of any interest to you, would you mind giving it a stern editorial look before that, at least for major blunders? I apologize for this very short notice, and am almost expecting you to turn the request down, but... PS: I am still working on a couple of last minor sections there, but they will be mostly quotes. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Ssilvers. Much obliged. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keegan would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Keegan to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ssilvers. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

I admire your work. Thank you for not accepting a nomination that you are not inclined to take. Keegan (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for smartening up the article on Billie Carleton, it certainly looks a lot better. I've tried to add page numbers to references as asked, but sometimes I'm quoting from the DNB article and it doesn't cite a page reference, e.g. for the argument by Kohn that Carleton died due to taking depressants (but it does call the argument 'convincing', which I should perhaps have copied?) I've based my article on the DNB, but I also skim-read some contemporary reports in The Times. There was some arguing in court as to whether Carleton died due to 'veronal', whether she was suicidal etc: I haven't mentioned this. Also I'm not sure De Veulle was a transvestite. I'd imagine he was, it would fit in well with his interests but from what I recall from The Times he was just accused in court of having shown someone a book on the subject. I'll check this. Lastly there are some exterior sites which explore the case from its different aspects, looking at contemporary attitudes to drug taking, gender preference, racial anxieties etc - should I link to these? Sometimes the facts as cited on them are slightly at variance with the DNB, which I've preferred as a source.RLamb (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was a very nice support. One thing--BB has raised a question at the FAC about musicals101.com Do you think you could explain why it is a high quality reliable source? I could attempt it but I suspect you'll do a better job, if I could prevail on you.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That was very helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the actors i added to carousel are in the productions i listed in the 'reasons for editing.... all you need to do is look on th cast recordings and you will see them. you have other actors from those productions on your list...not sure how you missed redi shelton and fisher stevens. i was not edit warring i was adding useful info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.195.77.144 (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed The King and I at GAN. It is a little skimpy in a few places, like it could use a few reviews for later production. Any help would be appreciated.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on Allegro (musical) which is a bit difficult as I've never seen the piece (who has?) or listened to the score. Your comments would be very welcome. After this I think I am going to step back from this topic and benefit from the comments as these pass through at least part of the process, while uneasily eyeing South Pacific.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I added my input and another resource to the discussion. MarnetteD | Talk 01:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ssilvers, for your helpful contributions to The Mystery of a Hansom Cab. Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I voted for Victorian burlesque. The article looks fine. <snip> Best. --GuillaumeTell 11:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers

Please accept this star as a token of thanks for your help in getting Frederick Delius to FA standard. This was truly the work of many hands, and your particular contribution was much valued. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the updates and your kind offer. I really love musicals but I don't know how much I could contribute. When I have enough time I'll check the project out. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Talk:Finale, if you haven't already. I was thinking of starting a Finale (stage works) article and contributing a section on opera (based on Grove). An operetta and a musical theatre section would be needed as well - it's not my province, but would you be interested? If not, any suggestions? --GuillaumeTell 16:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from here:

Note The dust seems to have settled while I was asleep, but I feel I should point out that I specifically warned Ronz [1] to stop edit warring and he simply removed the warning and seemed to be saying that I don't understand the situation and need not be concerned. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz it seems does not like such evidence left on his talk page. His modus operandi is to spread the discussion around or to insist on placing the conversation on an opposing editor's talk page so people investigating have a harder time piecing things together and to shift blame onto the editor he is in dispute with by making it appear he is reasonably conversing with them on their talk page while simultaneously baiting them and planting diffs that support his view and disparage his opponent. It is surprising how effective his tactics are in bamboozling admins. The sophistication of it when one realizes what is really going on is troubling. I suggest admins wise up to it to avoid mistakes like the one committed in this case. Lambanog (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop posting to my talk page. I do not want to receive any more messages from you for any reason. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC) -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your question on Cirt's talk page (which I'm temporarily watching as a result of my own comment there) about the {{Oz}} template. It looks like "collapsed" was misspelled in it. I corrected that and things seem okay now. If I messed anything up, feel free to undo my edit. TJRC (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, looks great! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - As I'm a real newbie in Wikipedia, your kind offer is very much appreciated. Cheers Bluedelta25Bluedelta25 (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now closed the (very thorough) PR and nominated the article at FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thomas Beecham/archive1). You have been marvellously generous with your time in copy-editing it over the weeks and years, but I don't think you are thereby ineligible to add any comments you may care to make at the FAC page. Tim riley (talk) 10:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concerns into adressing the Midway Games summary issue. Even though, you and I may not share same definition of a summary, I appreciate your efforts trying to make the Midway summary page a bit shorter. Regards Farine (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have heavily edited the paragraph on "Shaw musicals" - ... in case you are interested, or wish to make further changes. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration of the Month. This time it's the Theatre article.

• Truelight234 had done some great work on the 19th century section of history of theatre, so I've been trying to clean that article up in preparation for summarising into the theatre article.

Ah! I came across that site only yesterday. ... Didn't think to investigate it further. Many thanks. • DP •  ^{huh?} 01:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi can I just say a big thanks to you for your excellent work on improving the above article. In retrospect I can now see the mistakes the previous article had when comparing it to the newly laid out article ... and will not be so quick to condemn others for trying to improve material which I have added in future. I can now see the excellent work you all do so am somewhat eating humble pie as I write. Again many thanks Cassianto (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 23#Operatic singer cats.4meter4 (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ambassador. We are at a pivotal point in the development of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. Your feedback will help shape the program and role of Ambassadors in the future. Please take this 10 minute survey to help inform and improve the Wikipedia Ambassadors. WMF will de-identify results and make them available to you. According to KwikSurveys' privacy policy: "Data and email addresses will not be sold, rented, leased or disclosed to 3rd parties." This link takes you to the online survey: http://kwiksurveys.com?u=WPAmbassador_talk Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, Thank You! Amy Roth (Research Analyst, Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your input at Talk:Marinka would be helpful.4meter4 (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What actually amazes me is that the guy did not change "soccer team" to "football club", which is the usual complaint by the Brits. But yes, you were quite right, I wrote that paragraph very deliberately in US English! Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. This is clear from WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English.. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ssilvers ... Thanks for your invaluable help in enhancing the Calthrop page. Regards, John Thaxter (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ssilvers, for the copyediting help at The Kid (musical). Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with this article. Thanks also for including me on the DYK for Patricia Preece; my input into the article was minimal and that was very generous of you. Jack1956 (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. Re Preece: Nonsense, my good sir! You added all the images and did some of the research and writing. Plus, you inspired the article with your expansion of Grim's Dyke. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with the article!--Mamma Rose (Sing out, Louise!) 17:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cartoon on page 387 of this source is a satire on Patience. The article looks fairly stuffed with images, so I felt it better just to bring it to your attention and leave it to you to decide if it is worth uploading and using. There are a couple in there satirizing Pinafore, but I felt too much exposition would be needed. On an image hunt for John A. Macdonald likely TFA on July 1, and thought you might want to make use of these, if you think them worthwhile.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, your revert got reverted. Started a section at Talk:The Book of Mormon (musical) that you might want to put your opinion forward for.Mark E (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are a Theatre expert and thought you might want to take a look at Love, Loss, and What I Wore. How am I suppose to handle the international and national tours in the infobox? Advice/help appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help arranging the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You helped me out so much with my last piece of theatre (Love, Loss, and What I Wore) so much that I thought I would ask if you might be interested in helping me tidy up Celebrity Autobiography: In Their Own Words (play) and Edward Scissorhands (ballet). I have a bit more to do on the latter, but you could start without interference on the former.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also started Christine Jorgensen Reveals.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. Thanks for cleaning up Celebrity Autobiography: In Their Own Words (play).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for that. Yeah fully agree with the streamlining, I put the info on expecting you to streamline it anyway. I like the way it works; I do some research and put the info on and your excellent copy editing and streamlining cuts out all the unessential stuff! With any luck this way of working may one day increase this article to GA standard or possible higher! Thanks again Cassianto (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not just include you to be nice. You are essential to the high quality presentation of the subject matter. I am holding off on doing the 2011 winner until after you have time to get through your list and do Edward Scissorhands (dance). I can't really do these well without you.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to be of help. Keep up the good work, and happy editing! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a little bit of work on the above subject and would like you to have a glance, when you can at what I have added.... [snip] Cassianto (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the barnstar - I am glad to know that my efforts are appreciated. Thanks again for the unexpected surprise, it was very kind of you, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to drop back at the PR and let me know what you think of the revisions. I have not been able to figure out how to include the comments about religions and minorities in the lede and am reluctant to as I'm not convinced his private views affected public policy, although the comments are quoted in the body, however I think I've done the rest of what you wanted.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harold Pinter/archive1 which helped in the process of getting this article to FA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for that. I didn't see it from that point of view and can see exactly what you mean. ... [snip] This is what is so great about Wikipedia. All the best Cassianto (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the image you added to the Oscar Wilde article, it's not one I've seen before....[snip] Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the revised development section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SSilvers. ... It seems c.1899 there was a saucy French farce about a dressmaker called ‘Coralie et Cie’, co-written by Hennequin and Valabrégue.... RLamb (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the fix on the link to the article on "The Emerald Isle." I'm working on an article on Arthur Collins, Equerry, and I wanted to do some editing before pushing too fast with the article, following WP's suggestion. So this would be a good example. Scogdill (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Sharon[reply]

And thanks for the suggestions about biography, I really appreciate your patience as i learn the ropes. Scogdill (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently started improving on the above article and have started to do quite a bit of research into the subject. Obviously it's no where near complete and I intend to add a few bits of research surrounding marriages, children etc and expand on the sections already within the article. Seeing as it involves a person from within a subject I know you find interesting, I would really appreciate it if you could take a look with a view to giving it a quick ce. I would love to know if, what I have done so far, is any good. Best Wishes Cassianto (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the copy edit on Mr. Champion. Still very much to do I'm sure you'll agree Cassianto (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/BL/Image_requests -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say "Thanks!". (I'll be away from my computer in the last 2 weeks of September, and then, will be at school--well really lifelong learning-- until mid-December, so I'm just doing odds and ends for the next few weeks, will be back full time in the Winter).JeanColumbia (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of 11 articles the students will be working on.

In my opinion, infoboxes are redundant, and the same information is better given in narrative format in the WP:LEAD or other sections of the article instead of the choppy format in the box. The boxes make articles more difficult to edit, and daunting to even attempt to edit, for newbies. They are also the frequent targets of vandalism, and they almost invariably contain various errors. They take up valuable space near the top of an article and limit the size and layout of images near the top of the article. Finally, they distract editors from focusing on the content of the article; instead of improving the article, they spend lots of time working on this cosmetic feature and its extensive coding and formatting. Just my 2 cents. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• For bio articles, the person's dates and occupation are mentioned very clearly in the first sentence of the article.
• Information about the person's family members or cause of death are not so important that they should be the first thing that readers see
• The box does not emphasize the most important information, as the narrative LEAD section does so well.

See this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The planning page for the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts event is Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/WLL. Add your plans there on teaching and editathon-ing, and hopefully Kosboot will chime in too.--Pharos (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Ssilvers, I want to thank you for all your time and patience in helping me make Stanley Holloway a Good Article. Without your help and guidance it would not have been possible. I would also like to thank you for correcting my many mistakes and for giving me some valuable and respected advice along the way. I would therefore feel honoured if you would accept this barnstar as a token of my thanks. Cassianto (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for the message. I would be more than happy to contribute in some way. I'll get started straight away! Cassianto (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Nomination. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a bad setting! I would very much like to speak with you, my email is vgrigas@wikimedia.org -- Posted by User:Victorgrigas.

		The Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period Jul-Sept 2011, the Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Buggie111 (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ssilvers, thank you very much for your suggestions on the Arthur Collins page. Since he ended his career as a courtier as a Gentleman Usher, I was thinking maybe I'd say Arthur Collins (courtier) for the disambiguation page. I represented him as a courtier on the Old Marlburians page, and while it would I think be traditional to call somebody by their highest title, I've gone with the more general one. [snip] Anyhow, thanks again! Scogdill (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for chipping in with your thoughts. I've taken the liberty of moving your comment down to the appropriate section of the RfC (so-called "Uninvolved editors"). Cheers.--MistyMorn (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[snip] Have a great spring yourself! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've been deputized and you didn't even know it. DGG and Pharos suggested that the 3 of you could give introductions to Wikipedia around 1 pm, followed by 3 NYPL staff talking about collections. Then the 3 of you could repeat at 3 or 4, depending on demand. Though I brough up the idea of the training room, Pharos thought any training would be better done in the room reserved for the day. -- kosboot (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	Most-patient-Wiki-teacher & Far-above-and-beyond Award
	You definitely deserve an award for being the most patient teacher I have ever seen! Bravo! kosboot (talk) 07:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] Kosboot gives me a tacit shout-out here. [Ssilvers]

It was great to see you again, and I second Bob about your awesome wiki-teachering on Saturday :) I definitely also agree there is something to women being more cautious about making a potential "mistake" on Wikipedia, and that this is something we can help remedy through library-type training sessions.--Pharos (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[snip] I went to a concert at the New School for Social Research, and sure enough, the pianist Jay Gottlieb wasn't in WP ... Feel free to look at my page, User:Nbauman/Jay gottlieb, and tell me what you think. When I first started to create a page, I got a message that Malcolmxl5 had already deleted a page "Jay gottlieb" and to contact him first. I did leave a message http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malcolmxl5#Jay_Gottlieb but I couldn't find any reference to the deletion, any reason for the deletion, or even any way to find out whether it's the same Jay Gottlieb. I'll give Malcolmxl5 a day or two and then submit the page. --Nbauman (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have had a go at extending the lead section for Henson. See what you think and feel free to reduce if needs be.... All the best Cassianto (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for that! I will start on the refs shortly... See what you think. All the best Cassianto (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great start to the article. I've gone ahead and moved the track listing down from the lead to its more conventional position (it should never be in the lead, always its own section), and made Charts a section as well (you merely bolded it as a title). I think I corrected a couple of other little things and changed the album time to what MP3 versions of the tracks tell me. I didn't add writer info (some are simply "Traditional" NEway) as they didn't appear on the Allmusic listing, but I may fart around other holiday albums and look these up later ("Believe", for instance, is located on The Polar Express soundtrack). [snip]

Just a quick note: the article is now at Heavenly Christmas, where it shall now stay until the day a DAB is needed, if ever. I'll update in other articles the location to prevent double redirects; you may do the same as we both may miss different occurrences. =) CycloneGU (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re above, I have had a go at an extension of the lead and jiggled the images around due to displacement. One of those famous Ssilvers copy edit's needed I think Cassianto (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, could you take a look at the above re my new edits and give them a quick ce. All the best Cassianto (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent thank you for that! Cassianto (talk) 10:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers, I'm sorry i'm going to bother you again. I have had a go at improving Dan Leno using ODNB. I have a question. At the end of the article I have used a Quotebox to give a quote from Max Beerbohm. I have read WP:MOS backwards and cannot find anywhere which says I can't do this. I deliberated over putting it in a block quote so I am torn between the two. Is the Quote box reserved for newspapers only or is it for all written works? Or is a block quote better suited? ... Best regards. Cassianto (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There'ss a interesting discussion about the future and the growth of the US education program along with the future of the Wikipedia Ambassador Project here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn 2011 course: Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Theatre Script Analysis (Leigh Clemons). -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look at this edit? Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback I feel so much better knowing your behind the scenes on this one. I don't really know what to put when it asks about the reliability of the four sources. I just know that BMD is reliable as its an alternative to ancestry.com and other genealogy sites of the similar theme, the only difference being is its free. BMd was also recommended to me when SH was going through it's GAN which is why I used it. I don't remember adding the music hall ref of the show picture, or if I did then it must be a long time ago. I will post Tim a message about the Gaye citation as it may have been him who added it. Incidentally the festive rush started a few weeks ago over here, so now seems like a good time to sit in and edit! All the best -- Cassianto (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance on some fairly recent GA promotions:

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd put it back the way we had it. I don't think the other awards are terribly helpful to the reader in this particular case.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thx for 2011...to be continued ! Gozor136 (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am a professor of dance and dance history at Franklin & Marshall College in Pennsylvania. I am considering having my Dance History students, in the spring 2012 term, contribute somehow to Wikipedia's entries on dance and dance history. There is no one from our school who is a campus ambassador, and among the online ambassadors, no one has a dance specialty. I see that you do a lot of work in theatre, including the musical stage. Of course, theater and dance are sister arts. In fact, at my college, I am part of a department of Theatre, Dance, and Film. I wonder if you would be interested in working with my class (about 14 students) as our online ambassador? Looking forward to hearing from you!

Best regards, Lynn Brooks - Professor of Dance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynndance (talk • contribs) 12:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

S, see above for lede which I did (in rather a hurry)... Your thoughts? -- Cassianto (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, would you be willing to return to the article talk page to discuss this issue? I've partially reverted the referencing changes. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your post at Alarbus's talk page, since I recently posted there, and thought I might point you at WP:CITEVAR, which explicitly says that citation and referencing styles should defer to the style of the first major contributor. I recently went through a similar discussion at Talk:Ancient Roman pottery, so I understand how frustrating it is to be in the situation you're in. I don't know if you want to make a fuss about it, but if you'd like to return the article to the old referencing style I'd suggest pointing at CITEVAR on the talk page, and if necessary calling an RfC to get other editors' opinions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, this is NOT an article you have ever edited, or have any particular interest in (although it does, naturally, mention Sir Arthur Sullivan). Some one wants to hijack it for academic musical theory as opposed to general interest (at least that is my impression) and s/he and I have a dispute going. I would especially appreciate your opinion, as I can honestly say that we tend to differ rather than agree, all other things being equal. Perhaps you will see in his argument something I am missing. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just started Helen Barry who is a rare woman associated with the Monmouthpedia project. I can't find find much more about her. Do you have any stuff that could add to her biography? If not intrigued - don't worry. It was just a thought. Victuallers (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Well I'm very happy with what you've done. It looks much much better ... thanks Victuallers (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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: List of awards and nominations for the musical South Pacific. 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: Fiddler on the Roof#Awards. When you get back, let me know if you would mind helping to do some of these? Hope your break is fun. Best regards! -- Ssilvers (talk) 6:10 pm, 21 July 2011, Thursday (5 months, 11 days ago) (UTC−4)

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 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? ... Flami72 (talk) 7:32 am, 26 July 2011, Tuesday (5 months, 6 days ago) (UTC−4)

How would you feel about working with Adrianne Wadewitz's course at IUPUI? She is a Wikipedian, has been a Campus Ambassador, and is still searching for an Online Ambassador because she's extremely concerned about making sure her students have enough support. This seems like a very communicative person with whom you may enjoy working. JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked over the article, and reverted the changes that were the result of vandalism. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 00:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you will join me in wishing Frederic the best on his 39th birthday!--Wehwalt (talk) 09:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's good luck to Frederic's ventures! He'd better hurry, because in 4 years, he'll be middle-aged! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! Happy Birthday to Frederic! MarianWilde (talk) 16:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my citations and for your copyedits on No, No, Nanette! I appreciate your editing experience and willingness to clean up my well-intentioned (but less-than-perfect) edits. -- MarianWilde (talk)

Ooooh. A title :) Thank you. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 22:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My students are starting to edit their articles - please watch out for them and help them! Thanks! Wadewitz (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Goldnpuppy (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with the article; especially what you did with the monument photo and inscription. The lead looks better as well. I've added to the critical response section, and I think it's good enough to stand as is in regard to what might be required for GA. Emily Dickenson is so different that I can't see using her FA article as an example. She's a much greater poet, is widely read, and has the attention of more scholars than can be counted. I'd rather compare Crabbe's article to another forgotten poet Jones Very, whose article is GA, and a bit less than what Crabbe's is. Can you take a look at the critical section as it now is and let me know what you think of a GAN? INeverCry 19:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your help. If I hadn't seen your changes I probably would've moved on to something else. I have a few new pictures of Crabbe to add, and then on to GAN. INeverCry 20:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While editing, I stumbled upon Category:Great Depression musicals and Category:Musicals set in the Roaring Twenties. They contain one and two musicals respectively (Great Depression musicals originally included Chicago (musical), but I removed it). I started a discussion on the project page on whether to keep or remove the categories, and if you have the free time, I'd like your opinion. Though I was originally fairly certain that I wanted to delete the categories, I'm now not sure if they have the potential to be helpful navigational tools or not. MarianWilde (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you improvements to this article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paste a Google Books url into here and it will make the full refs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK. Thanks for the edits. I can't figure out if his script is mistaken or if he's misreading it; certainly the R&H O has gotten loose with the canon in recent years, as we both know from Flower Drum Song, but it's starting to annoy me.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your idea of putting the other title in parentheses would be a reasonable compromise, if he wants to compromise on the issue. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's worked well in other disputes. And I suspect that Stonecutters ... is often thought of as the title. And I've changed it back from IP edits several times ... it's worth thinking about. Kaiserkarl doesn't seem to edit that often, but I suspect we'll hear from him again.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Dan Leno know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 21, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 21, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Dan Leno (1860–1904) was a leading English music hall comedian and musical theatre actor during the late Victorian era. He was perhaps best known, aside from his music hall act, for his dame roles in the annual pantomimes that were popular at London's Theatre Royal, Drury Lane from 1888 to 1904. As a youth, he was famous for his clog dancing, and in his teen years, he became the star of his family's act. As a solo artist, he became increasingly popular during the late 1880s and 1890s, when he was one of the highest-paid comedians in the world. He developed a music hall act of talking about life's mundane subjects, mixed with comic songs and surreal observations, and created a host of mostly working-class characters to illustrate his stories. In 1901, still at the peak of his career, he performed his "Huntsman" sketch for Edward VII at Sandringham. The monarch was so impressed that Leno became publicly known as "the king's jester". Leno continued to appear in musical comedies and his own music hall routines until 1902, although he suffered increasingly from alcoholism. This, together with his long association with dame and low comedy roles, prevented him from being taken seriously as a dramatic actor. He suffered a mental breakdown in early 1903 and was committed to a mental asylum, but was discharged later that year. After one more show, his health declined, and he died aged 43. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And warmest congrats to you too. I wonder who nominated it? Or are they just picked at random? Still no matter, never has the main page looked more interesting!  :-) -- Cassianto^Talk 06:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for editorial efforts that helped Georg Solti become a WP:FA.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was my pleasure. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to get this article beyond Start-Class status... I'm more used to tinkering around the edges of articles on Wikipedia rather than doing major work (and don't have any experience of the WP:WPMT), but I'll give it a go. It won't be in any great hurry though as I don't get a lot of computer time and have other calls upon it when I do.... I always have trouble with Wikipedia as I'm accustomed to the IMDB where the prevailing principle is that information, however trivial, should never be edited out if provided -- so I'm never clear how much of the material available to me ought to be excised for encyclopedic purposes! Not sure what's happened to User:MarianWilde :( Igenlode (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ssilvers, <snip> I think what may have happened here is that I did not quote references at the end of each sentence or after each statement as I would now (this being one of my earlier articles). So people have been unable to tell which reference book is associated with which facts in the main body of the article and so added more references! I intend to fix this now in the next few weeks and make sure that every statement has its own ref. Richard J Myers (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Stanley Holloway know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on August 18, 2012.... UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I came across the Cole Porter article and saw you were a major contributor. Just want to say nice work. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, thought it was about time I did some more G&S. Just received my copy of the Broude Pinafore vocal score. Sharkli (talk - contribs) 16:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Finally! Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention to the William Nordhaus article. 99.109.127.145 (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers! Just a friendly hello! Let me know if you're interested in working with any classes as an Online Ambassador this term (although I haven't seen any that jump out at me and say, this one's for Ssilvers). Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kitten! There is another project that I must get to, so unfortunately, I cannot take on any new projects currently. If a professor wanted a one-time one-on-one training, I'd be happy to do that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I currently have the above listed at peer review as a result of a lot of work and research which I have conducted over the last couple of months. I would be extremely greatful for any comments you may have and would welcome any feedback or suggestions. Many thanks in advance. -- Cassianto^Talk 02:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am very impressed with the Evancho article. Evancho and a few other ladies from BGT, especially Hollie Steel, have impressed me very much both as artists and personalities. I appreciate your review and improvement of my most recent contributions to both the bio article and Silver Screen. I find it very challenging to make most of my contributions; I am amazed at the quantity of your contributions. Looking over the Evancho articles' talk pages it would seem that you have impressive skills at callaborating without being offensive and stubborn as a few other editors I have worked with have been.1archie99 (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only official Asian charts are these:

http://www.g-music.com.tw/GMusicBillboard0.aspx (Taiwan)

http://www.gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/album/list.gaon (Korea)

http://www.oricon.co.jp/rank/w/ (Japan) ... <snip> --Simone Jackson (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only one thing. I read on your page that you are a native speaker of English. Can you see if there are errors in the introduction of this page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbie_Hancock_discography I worked hardly and for many months to it and now i feel that it is ready for a FL Star. Thanks in advance. Simone Jackson (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done! -- Ssilvers (talk)

<snip>Thank you very very very much for all the help. For anything, I am at your disposal [:-) Simone Jackson (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I nominate Gabriel Fauré for TFAR(Today's feautured article) on requests. ... Please say yes!--Lucky102 (talk) 08:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...I have co-nominated Pierre Monteux at FAC. ... Any comments will be welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have another enthusiastic newbie there who has some questions and suggestions that your counsel would be welcome on. Hope you are not being hit too badly by the hurricane.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About Katherine Jenkins, I'll try to balance my commitments, but i think that there should be no problems [:-) Simone Jackson (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the hard work to get the Jackie Evancho article to GA status. Great job! Cresix (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see if we can get this one done. I see you've been maintaining it, thank you for that. Do you recall what needed to be done?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This may amuse you. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C'est Magnifique! (shades of Cole Porter). I stress I am alluding to your work and the great (relatively speaking) improvement to what was a very poor article indeed, rather than the finished quality of the result, which obviously still "needs work". Not sure we really want any more "synopsis", mind you - it seems to me a pretty fair summary of an especially inane plot. Anyway, for this relief much thanks. Doubt if I'll be returning to it soon, but I will keep it on my watchlist, and if I have a spare moment or two... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads-up. That's great news! <snip> Well done for all your work in getting this article up to standard, and ensuring we have a picture to adorn DYK! AlexTiefling (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on its promotion to FA. Well done! Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations to you and Wehwalt on the FA! Hardly a surprise with such a team behind it, but a matter for rejoicing nonetheless. Tim riley (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loud applause to you both, well done! -- Cassianto^Talk 20:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heartiest congratulations on the promotion of another top-notch list! All the best - SchroCat (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	With the Featured Topic now passed, congratulations on the Leno body of work: only "Vegetables grown by Dan Leno" to go before you've truly achieved the full set! - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Of course, Cassianto did the hard work on the Leno articles, but I was pleased with the results. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What ho! Please accept this baboon from Tim riley, sent to brighten your day.

Thank you very much for this magnificent award! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your helpful and kind reply. ... Richard J Myers (talk)

Well, that would make it an out-of-copyright photo (in America, anyway - we can use {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} to prevent it from being marked for transfer over to commons ... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. In this version of article The Golden Legend (cantata) you introduced the phrase "proof score" (which is still being used in the current version of the article). But what is a proof score? Thanks. Contact Basemetal here 16:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Contact Basemetal here 19:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers, as someone who has commented in the past on whether The Rite of Spring article should have an infobox or not, I wanted to let you know that the discussion has been reopened on the article's talk page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit summary and this talk page comment are calls for your expertise. Could you take a look.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The heading was ok, and the commenter is correct that a plot summary is essential. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you made to the layout of this article are a great improvement. Would you be interested in jointly submitting it to DYK? NinaGreen (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, ssilvers! Looks like we meet each other on here again. I've left my comments there, but there aren't that many - it's just three points that need dealt with. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of the article Songs, sketches and monologues of Dan Leno know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on July 8, 2013. You can view the TFL blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/July 8, 2013. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) or Giants2008 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 08:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have expanded the Roses of Picardy page into a full article and put a lot of work into this. However there are a couple of editors who are doing edits that either mess it up or are of poor quality. I suppose this could be an issue with the visual editor causing corruption? Or maybe they are not previewing anything that they do before they save? Can you help? I am trying to tidy them as best I can - or revert them where they are seriously bad. I hope as a senior editor you can help. I have left a message on one talk-page, but the editor appears not to have read a report from a "bot" that has already pointed out that their edit is causing a problem. Regards Richard J Myers (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for your help in this matterRichard J Myers (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

Buster Seven Talk 07:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I would like to thank my mother and father, who made this award possible. :D -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - many thanks for letting me know about the Ian Wallace link. I've put a correct link there now. Helical gear (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers, Well, you make a hell of a lot more sense to me than 87Graham does. You also refer to specific WP guidelines, which s/he doesn't. Turns out s/he went through and reversed all my removals since 2011! ... Greetings,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, I just discovered a welcome message from you on my user talk page. Being a relatively infrequent visitor to Wikipedia, and even less frequent contributor, I'm still fairly inexperienced, and I appreciate your pointers and links to info. You seem a very interesting, accomplished person and Wikipediast, with many areas of interest that I share. I hope this is the correct way to respond to your communication. Thanks!--Toscaskiss32Toscaskiss32 (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm currently trying to create the above page on this obscure but influential British theatrical song. I'd be grateful for some guidance, if you have the time. If you're able to visit it it's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Villikins_and_his_Dinah. Thanks in advance RLamb (talk) 10:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt response. Glad you seem not to dislike the layout - I pretty much copied it from other entries on well-known songs. I know parts are still sketchy, but when I've tidied up the refs I think I'll try it. So I may pick your brains again for categories...RLamb (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I seemed to notice that you reverted all the changes I made for Music Theatre International. I apologize if I did anything wrong. I just work for MTI and we were wondering if there was a way we could link the Wikipedia page to the show page on the MTI site. If there's a better/easier way to do it, please let me know! Mikebloom819 (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's okay with you, I'm just going to go back through the pages I already edited and edit the external links so they all follow the sentence you just gave me. Mikebloom819 (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We really need your opinion on which of these photos would make the best Infobox portrait for the Rick Remender article. Could you please offer your opinion in that discussion? The most recent subsection of that discussion is here, so you can just chime in there if you don't want to read the whole thread. I really appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know I've nominated this at FAC, having delayed in the hopes that the backlog there would diminish. But it hasn't, so I've gone ahead. Thanks for your past help. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will go ahead and start removing them tomorrow, based on the criteria you listed. Thanks. Mikebloom819 (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you want me to look for another one to represent Act 2? I realize the "Small House of Uncle Thomas" one is a bit small and rather wide. I wanted one that wasn't of Brynner and Lawrence.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm running out of time, and I see you worked on Ivan Caryll. Would you like to expand his The Pink Lady (musical) for a DYK? The sources have more material that could be added. Djembayz (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers, remembering how you improved an article on Billie Carleton, any chance you could take a look at a new one I started on Frederick Robson? He probably predates the theatrical period which interest you, but I would welcome any comments on where the article falls short. I haven't yet entered much on his family life, I was thinking of adding it as a separate section as it was a bit complicated.RLamb (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking time to do this, it's very helpful and gives me plenty to go at!RLamb (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Hair (musical) is quite a standard for WP:GA. It looks to me to be close to WP:FA level. Admittedly, all of my nominees fall short of that standard, but many have several features that Hair should aspire to. The multi-run cast lists (see Trip to Bountiful) and cited awards tables. Of course, I will need the help of patient reviewers and or editors to get any of these to GA. I understand that your time might be spent better elsewhere, but 4 of these six have won Tony Best Play, Tony Best Musical, Pulitzer for Drama or Olivier Best Play. It is not like I am looking for help on run of the mill stuff.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It already says that Ephron started on the subject as a screenplay and then made it into a play (does that answer how it came to be written). Set design is also mentioned as basic and shifting.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn The Trip to Bountiful (play) and I have agreed to allow Lucky Guy (play) 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.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Kudos. Do you have advice for finding plot details for this work and in general?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ssilvers -- thank you so much for your willingness to support the Wikipedia project in my Theater History to 1642 class this semester! Especially given your interest in theater, the students and I are looking forward to working with you. Amy E Hughes (talk) 11:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, as a student of Professor Hughes I would also like to thank you in advance for being our Online Ambassador. Brian Kafel (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ive posted a large range of reliable sources at the wiki project which should be able to give a more varied outlook on the reception. Also some more reliable ones that state specifically the level of reviews. I hope you can find the time to do this as Beyond My Ken wont and cant see anyone else doing.Blethering Scot 19:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I Would like to really thank you for your help with this as I know it took a lot of your time up. The Critical reception section is something I struggle with as I find it difficult to write a balanced section and picking out quotes. I've started pages on most of the new London shows and had to leave this section out. Thanks again. Blethering Scot 13:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Applause (Bonnie Franklin song) well I added some critical comment as you requested. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I had a quick question from the Brooklyn College Theatre History class... I am having trouble with the course tag on my chosen article (Love's Labour's Lost). I put the code in, but the template is not showing up on the article. Would you mind letting me know what I'm doing wrong? Thanks so much! Ashleybirdsell (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ashley. You had the banner code correct, but you put it on the wrong page. It goes on the article's Talk page, rather than the article's front page. I moved it over there for you, and you can see that the code works properly there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I appreciate your help! Ashleybirdsell (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I'm working now on "sprucing up" the Music Theatre International page on behalf of the company. I thought I would try to start by making a list of MTI's most recognizable titles, with links to their Wikipedia pages. The symbols next to them would refer to whether they have a School Edition publishable (but there would be no link to any MTI page at all). Is this feasible? Just want to make sure I'm not violating anything, thanks! Mikebloom819 (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Apologies for the inconvenience, we're probably going to be doing some more cosmetic updates to the page (no additional content, don't worry) in the next coming weeks. Thanks again! Mikebloom819 (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! thanks for your suggestions on my first improvement. I decided to add the details to the facts box on the right where there was already a list of characters. I wanted to ask you something: Salvador Dali made a series of paintings about this play in 1975. That's probably too recent to add it freely to Wikimedia commons, right? As for the plot summary, I'll be working on it to make it better. Thanks! CataVillamarin111 (talk) 05:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question. If a musical was first performed in 2007, then again in 2013, am i correct in saying it should only have the category 2007 musicals and not both. Ive seen articles having both a few times like this one for example but was never very sure.Blethering Scot 20:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up.Blethering Scot 20:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thats pretty much how i thought it would be, but still learning a little bit when it comes to that so thought better clarifying. Thanks again.Blethering Scot 22:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On an entirely different note have you any idea if we have an article on the Playhouse Theatre, 357 West 48th Street, that would of been active in 1981 per this article. I found Playhouse Theatre (New York City) but that was demolished in 1968 and was at 137 West 48th Street. Any ideas or do you know someone who might.Blethering Scot 18:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to write an article about it (which is a good idea), you ought to name the new article Jack Lawrence Theatre. Then, in the article, note that it was previously called the Playhouse Theatre. See this IBDB entry. -- Ssilvers (talk) 5:12 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Oops, sorry, you appear to be right. I just thought you'd removed it by accident. Graham87 05:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Thanks for your help with the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think you're right about the capitalization of De Cou at the beginning of a reference . . . reverts to sentence case, probably. Thanks for catching it. I tried looking for it in the MOS but haven't found it yet. (I did learn, while looking for examples, that the De in Thomas De Quincey always seems to be capitalized, lol, just for your own information). What occurred to me was: how many editors (assuming we're correct) remember to capitalize the De when using a cite template that includes the author's name, especially if the editor is an old francophone like me? --71.163.153.146 (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I'd rather not use the templates, and add in words like "vol." "issue" and "p." anyway. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Herbert Fletcher De Cou! Look at the 4th paragraph of this article: Federico Halbherr. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! BTW, you might want to register an account, which would make editing easier.. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you watching Kinky Boots (musical)? Don't let me mess it up. Can you strike the talk page issues that you feel are resolved?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to tinker with the synopsis. Could you address Kinky_Boots_(musical)/archive1#Comments_from_Wehwalt about the synopsis.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My main goal right now is to try to keep this in my main plate and your main plate. If we let it slip with WP being what it is, it could be a few seasons before we give this one the attention it deserves. The momentum we have going right now is good. We should be able to get this renominated in the next few weeks at this pace. I confess to just sort of trolling the internet for articles to read and tacking things onto the article. I will have a look at which PR issues I have addressed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good progress! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You were absolutely right about the synopsis. It was a mess. However, the first paragraph wasn't the first act, but more like an overview. I rewrote that whole Synopsis section... <snip> I then saw that you added the "citation needed" note, and have been looking for sources that can back up those statements. <snip> Now that I've made some big changes, I'd love to read your opinion on the article as it is, and hear about further changes you would recommend. Thanks for your help! -- CataVillamarin111 (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cata. See the article's talk page, where I will answer your questions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your alphab. arrangement of the "Further reading" section of Choregos looks good. Thanks! (Why didn't I see it first?) --71.163.153.146 (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for all of your help and guidance with my project for my Brooklyn College Theater History class! You and Tim riley have provided invaluable guidance and I have been working to incorporate your suggestions. Kfurano1129 (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alicewond.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created the nomination for you. You can add alternative hooks if original hook is not the only interesting fact. --George Ho (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find Jones's recordings of Welsh songs? --George Ho (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Joseph Grimaldi know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 18, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 18, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Joseph Grimaldi (1778–1837) was an English actor, comedian, dancer, and the Regency era's most successful entertainer. He popularised the role of Clown in the harlequinade that formed part of British pantomimes during the 1800s, and became a key pantomime performer at the Drury Lane, Sadler's Wells and Covent Garden theatres. He first appeared on stage at Drury Lane as "Little Clown" in the pantomime The Triumph of Mirth; or, Harlequin's Wedding, while still a boy. Other successful roles at the theatre followed, but he left in 1806 and took up theatrical residencies at the Covent Garden and Sadler's Wells theatres. As he matured, he began performing as "Clown", for which he created the whiteface make-up design still in use today. The numerous injuries he received as a result of his energetic performances led to a rapid decline in his health, and his early retirement in 1823. He rarely appeared on stage thereafter, and struggled to recapture his earlier success. Living in obscurity during his final years he became an impoverished alcoholic. Grimaldi died at home in Islington, aged 59, having outlived his wife and his actor son Joseph Samuel. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Ssilvers, this is Jim856796. In late 2011, I edited the Savoy Hotel article, but the pre-conjunction commas were omitted because British English generally omits it. March 2013, I edited the Bernadette Peters article -- which is an US/American subject, but the commas were omitted again, as well as the English-style posessives, though I didn't want her surname to look like a plural form. The MOS says that, "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." Sometimes the first major contributor can be persuaded by the legal reasoning about clarity, or probably not. Anyway, Ssilvers, I would like to apologize for making the edits which you had to revert, because I didn't realize that in certain articles, the pre-conjunction comma can only be used sparingly, or not be used at all, so I am sorry for acting like it was mandatory, when in actuality, I don't think it shouldn't be. Jim856796 (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary. In both the UK and the US, if a conjunction is part of an independent clause or a parenthetical clause, then a comma must precede it - otherwise not. Also, I generally prefer not to use the Oxford (serial) comma. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, this means all is forgiven? Jim856796 (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Also, if you have any suggestions for these articles, I'm happy to discuss them on the article's Talk page and try to explain any choices that I have made. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a pretty helpful IP who is beefing up Kinky Boots (musical). I think he has added too much to the lead and he has reverted my reversion of this. Also, he seems to point to reviews once the show started as the reason for ticket sale increases, while we had sourced that it was the Tonys. Please take a look.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fleshing out the article, good job! Regards, John F. Barlow (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ssilvers, Is this the appropriate place to ask you a question about my article. If not apologies. The Oberammergau Passion Play has many, many authors and revisers. In my [2] citation in my sandbox it's indicating I've done something wrong. I filled in the template under co-authors with all the authors listed. Is there an appropriate way to list them in the citation without the error message? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianKafel (talk • contribs) 20:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is fine. I responded on your talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Holidays!
	Hi, Ssilvers! Have a happy and safe season, and a blessed new year! Holiday cheers, --Discographer (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Happy holidays to you and all Wikipedians. The encyclopedia is a worthy endeavor, and I am honored to be involved with it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I've added an article on Marie Jansen, an American musical actress who found some success over the 1880s and 90s. Anyway if you have the time I would appreciate if you could check it out for any errors or need of additions. Regards and Happy New Year. John F. Barlow (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. According to Francis Wilson, Jansen never knew her true birthday. When he first met her in 1884 as a member of the Emily Barton Company, he was eighteen and she claimed to be twenty. It’s probable she shaved a few years off her true age, but erasing fifteen years from the tally would, as Wilson put it, “make her the most perennial youthful woman who ever lived.’’ Carleton wrote in his letter to The Times that it was his recollection that Jansen was around twenty when she played Iolanthe. Regards, John F. Barlow (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See this DYK nomination. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the assistance with the DYK for Jansen. If you're interested I've added an article on the British actress, Jennie Lee (c. 1854-1930); though I'm not sure if she falls into the area of your specialty. Regards John F. Barlow (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect G&S project. Since you had some involvement with the G&S project redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	A Tesla Roadster for you!
	Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Vrooooooooooooooooooooooooooom (silently). -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just saw your comment on the Judith Newman talk page re: Pamela Paul, and I'm so glad you wrote it. PAMELA PAUL is the EDITOR of the New York Times Sunday Book Review! She's not a co-worker! She's Pamela Paul! (Wait. Did I say that yesterday?)

I started editing the article after I read Judith's essay on Wednesday -- I just added refs, removed hype, did some copy fixes -- but stopped (pretty much) after the community took it over. She interviewed me for a story about 10 years ago, and was kind enough to accept my Friend request on Facebook a few years ago. So even though I don't know her, I felt like I should refrain from any substantive changes. Anyway - I'm really proud of the article as it now stands - I think it reflects so well on all of us - thank you so much for the work you've done. You and Moncrief are killing it! Julie JSFarman (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Moncrief did the hard work. I just added some odds and ends. But it's obvious that Newman is notable, so I was happy to contribute. BTW, I thought that Newman's article in the NYT was poorly researched, particularly with regard to her statements about paid editors - she obviously did not talk to any really experienced editors here, or they could have explained to her why paid editing is a very bad idea. And, I find it very annoying that journalists like Newman, who have some understanding of our editorial process, and who use Wikipedia constantly, think it's fun to criticize us so broadly, when we get so much right and are putting together one of the greatest free resources in the world. I guess it wouldn't be much fun to write an article saying "Wikipedia is really great, and if you find a mistake, you can point it out, giving a citation to a reliable source, and let editors here fix it." -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... given we have a notable Gently, Gently image, and a much better photograph with Oldham in the article (which we don't currently identify the people in, but easily could), I don't think it's particularly worth keeping, particularly given it cuts off the top of the head. I say it should go; we don't need to use every photograph, and I've been working hard to get a number of Ida illustrations, not just the Flint. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disagree, but I prefer the photo of the three boys. It is much more dynamic, it has a better aspect ratio, and it shows their faces much better. Also, neither of the two women are notable. so if we need to lose one of these, lets lose the quintet. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The images in an article should, in my opinion:

• Be varied. We don't want all photographs, for example, and nor do we want no photographs.
• Illustrate as many major scenes in the opera as possible. We don't want to have a dozen "Gently, gently" scenes, and leave out other ones. This is probably where Flint is going to be strongest.
• Emphasize content from the original productions.

At the moment, we have 4 images from the 1920s, which I think is too much - they're taking focus away from the original production photos. I'd like to trim them down a bit, and Gently, Gently seems the obvious one to go. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we want the images to be varied. That's why we don't need more than one or two illustrations by the same illustrator. I disagree that we want to illustrate "as many scenes in the opera" as possible. On the contrary, we want to illustrate as many "important things about the opera" as possible. I also am not sure about your third bullet point. Certainly we want to represent the original production. As I said above, if you think it will help the balance, we could lose the image of the quintet, I think. Or, if you really love Flint's "Gently, Gently"/invasion image, use it instead of one of the other Flints you already have, and I'll yield on the Oldham photo. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need to find some good sources. The trouble is there aren't standard sources (that I know of) on art related to Gilbert and Sullivan, so I think it'll be a library trip and contemporary newspaper binge. Checking some 1908/1909 newspapers should, at least in theory, find reviews. I know Walbrook and Gayden Wren briefly mention the book, but not in enough detail. Offhand, I don't remember it in Stedman. I don't have Crowther's latest book, if you do, could you do a quick check for me? The drawings were finished by 1908, and the book published 1909. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I think the best ones are 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8, with 1, 5, and 6 likely being the most useable. 3, 4 and 7, while not bad by any means, just don't showcase the opera's plot as well. 4 in particular - while a gorgeous painting - is a painting of insignificant background characters. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To save myself typing it up: https://archive.org/details/savoyoperaswithi00gilbuoft has the foreword, by the way. I think you'll agree it's a good source for the four operas discussed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am skeptical of things that authors say about their own works, especially years after the fact. Although they may contain insights, they are often either self-serving or dulled and confused by the passage of the years. Here, you can see Gilbert lying about the reason that Russell did not play Ida. In any event, we certainly don't care about what Gilbert says about Mattie Reinhardt, although this might be of interest in The Princess (play). The rest of what Gilbert writes here seems to be more or less filler. What do you see of interest in it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say his statements about it suffering from lack of Sullivan were at least worth quoting, don't you think? And his description of casting everyone as women wouldn't hurt. I think that the author's own statements - when not wildly against common opinion - add a bit of weight. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. I think his statements about The Princess suffering from a lack of Sullivan's music are a) stating the obvious, and b) merely an attempt to say something gracious about his former collaborator. The fact that Gilbert's burlesques, including The Princess (play), had trouser roles, should be described in more detail in The Princess (that is a fairly bare bones article at present). While it is of interest that G&S no longer used trouser roles after Thespis, I do not think that Gilbert's preface explains that adequately. We do explain this in some of our articles on the Gilbert burlesques. See, e.g., La Vivandière (Gilbert). I do think that it is marginally interesting that in The Princess Gilbert says (if you believe him) that he chose "slight" ladies to play the 3 hulking brothers. But, again, that belongs in The Princess, if anywhere. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of The King and I know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 25, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 25, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this finds you well. The end of last semester was pretty chaotic, and now, finally, I have an opportunity to write and say thank you -- wholeheartedly -– for all of the help, support, and advice you offered my students on the Wikipedia project last semester!

In their reflection papers at the end of the term, my students cited YOU as the key reason why they accomplished what they did. You made all the difference to them, and since I myself am a new member of the Wikipedia community, I am extremely grateful to you as well. I know you provide this guidance out of the goodness of your heart and your intense belief in the value of free knowledge, and so gratitude is (probably) the only renumeration you receive for your vast investments of time and energy. Please know that you have my deep gratitude!

I have the same eight students as in the fall, and many are quite excited to have another opportunity to work on a Wikipedia article. Of course, we would be thrilled if you are interested in serving as the Online Ambassador for the course again – but I understand if you need to share your talents with others in the next few months. Whatever you decide, I thank you sincerely for everything you offered us last fall! All best wishes, Amy E Hughes (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ssilvers, here is the blog posting in which you are mentioned as an awesome mentor on Wikipedia: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/02/19/wikipedias-art-feminism-edit-a-thon/. Kudos to you! And thank you for all your help! Scogdill (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, and Happy Editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing your attention to this. A similar edit was made to Pipe Dream (musical). Hoping all is well.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nommed. here.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts on Blethering Scot's proposal? Someone would still have to take 150 or so articles out of the category. Almost simpler to delete and start over.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send me the editing links we discussed. Rumayor1 (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers. Just catching-up with messages. Thanks for the tip. I actually only added one reference to the list - the Van Stratten web page link. The other references were already in the article, I tidied them up for consistent style. I too was wondering where in the article they were used... the original author's work may have been edited out (not by me!) so there is no obvious reference connection. If I get a chance I'll work through earlier versions of the page to see if any links can be established. Roger Garland (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You suggested a new article for the Tony-winning production of Big Fish, Little Fish, and I've run one up. I'd be glad if you'd cast an eye over it. ... Grateful for your thoughts. Tim riley (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment on my page. I just did a training at the Guggenheim Museum with people from the library and archives, external affairs, and curatorial. They are getting a GLAM project started and members of these 3 departments will probably be editing more seriously starting now. They will be assembling their own list of articles to be added. Your recommendations for the GLAM page are appreciated. I would recommend contacting the users contributing to that page if you want to help with their project as they are planning to use the GLAM page to organize their staff editing project. Email me at dhoward@metro.org if you want as well. OR drohowa (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and your edit here. I don't see anything wrong with that info. It has been reported in a reliable secondary source: Guadalajara (which also has its own article) and Abu Dhabi. Was there another issue you had with the content? Happy to revisit it, but I think the content should be in the article. Thanks! StarM 03:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a paragraph called "cancelled projects" begs the question: Why do we care about this cancelled project? The institution had a project and did not proceed with it; this is par for the course of any large institution – they do not proceed with all of their proposed projects. It seems doubtful that this content is of encyclopedic interest (Note that the article already says: "" Other projects in Rio de Janeiro, Vilnius, Salzburg, Guadalajara and Taichung were considered but not completed."). On the face of it, it seems gratuitous to bring up this old issue, unless it has an important bearing on the institution as it exists. For example, if the project caused the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars and caused the museum to have a financial crisis, or if it caused huge turmoil at the institution, like the resignation of multiple Board members, or something like that, perhaps our readers need to know about it. But just to say that they had a proposal, they had designs drawn up, they delayed the start of the project and ultimately abandoned it, and the project "would have been" a big deal ... so what? It wasn't built, and it isn't a big deal. If the point of the edit is to put forward some kind of legitimate and important criticism of the institution, what is that criticism? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I think I was confused by your cititng of WP:V when it isn't a question of verifiability. I think it begs a different question about whether this article should be about the Foundation or the NYC museum(s) or both. I'd missed the other reference to Guadalajara, so I think that's fine. I think the Abu Dhabi project is notable for the challenges a major museum (or two if you count the Louvre) are going through in a major new market. The Louvre and Guggenheim are having interesting issues there. There's significant coverage that makes it notable and large enough for an article (Guggenheim Abu Dhabi). Would you have an objection to a see also that includes these two? Maybe move the Other projects.... content there? StarM 01:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand your last two questions. Could you clarify? which two? move where? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe near the bottom, similar to a see also, a list of "current and former planned museum sites" and include Guadalajara (with link if it survives AfD), Abu Dhabi, Taichung, etc. that you referenced above? Seems a way of recognizing them without giving them undue attention? StarM 03:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the narrative sentence that is already there is good the way it is. I would not want to add a list. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers. Say, regarding this, my take on stuff like this is:

1. It's very likely to be true. It would be very unsurprising if there was a statue of Jenny Lind in Stockholm; in fact, it might be more surprising if there isn't.
2. It's not the sort of thing that a vandal would write, probably.
3. It's possible the person got it wrong, but of all the things that people are likely to just be mistaken about, this doesn't seem to be to be the the sort of thing a person is particularly more likely to be mistaken about than anything else.
4. If there is a statue of Jenny Lind in Stockholm it ought be fairly easy to demonstrate this, since statues are large and people notice them. So it's not a really esoteric piece of information that it might be very hard to find find refs for and we'll probably never find out if it's true or not.

As a matter of fact, there is a statue of Jenny Lind in Stockholm, so I restored the material with refs. However, of all the things that need to be ref'd here, I didn't see that as particularly pressing. That section is quite peppered with refs, but even so these assertions are unref'd: "The 1996 and 2006 issues of the Swedish 50-krona banknote bear a portrait of Lind on the front" and "In 1941 Ilse Werner starred as Lind in the German-language film Schwedische Nachtigall" and "objects... named for Lind [include] the USS Nightingale" and "She has been honoured since 1948 by the Barnum Festival, which takes place each June and July in Bridgeport, Connecticut" and some others.

Certainly if we were to take the approach "All things that are not ref'd, that are less likely to be true than 'there is a statue of Jenny Lind in Stockholm', must be removed" we would certainly have to remove a lot of our material, more than 75% I'd guess. So my approach to stuff like this which is probably true and not contentious and not really especially important to get right (and if I don't want to get the refs myself) is to at most tag it and wait a few years and see if someone ref's it. I don't see the advantage of deleting stuff like this. Herostratus (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hero. I am not sure that this piece of trivia is really of encyclopedic interest in the article. I take the approach that if you want to ADD stuff, it should be referenced, although I also agree with your approach to tag new material that is likely true, and I would have done so if I had been convinced by the original edit that this factoid was of importance. Nevertheless, thanks for doing the research -- since the information is now referenced, I have less of an objection to it, although your referencing style is inconsistent with the referencing style used throughout the article (see WP:CITEVAR). -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, if it's trivial that's a different kettle of fish. OK, I get it, if something is (borderline) trivial and it's unref'd that's a fair reason to dump it. That's reasonable.

Huh, had never heard of WP:CITEVAR. I had always thought that using the {{cite}} templates was the correct way and other ways were just wrong, rather than just an equally valid alternative. WP:CITEVAR specifically says that putting the body of the refs inline in the article is as valid as using <ref> tags, and implies that bare URLs are as valid as providing information about the ref (publication, date, title, etc). Hmmm. Using parenthetical style on the first two paras of the section gives us:

Under the name "Jenny Lind-Goldschmidt", she is commemorated in Poets' Corner, Westminster Abbey, London. Among those present at the memorial's unveiling ceremony on 20 April 1894 were Goldschmidt, members of the Royal Family, Sullivan, Sir George Grove and representatives of some of the charities supported by Lind.("Jenny Lind Memorial", The Times, 21 April 1894, p. 14) There is also a plaque commemorating Lind in The Boltons, Kensington, London(The plaque can be seen here) and a Blue Plaque at 189 Old Brompton Road, London, SW7, which was erected in 1909.("Blue Plaques". English Heritage, accessed 16 June 2011)

Lind has been commemorated in music, on screen, and even on banknotes. Both the 1996 and 2006 issues of the Swedish 50-krona banknote bear a portrait of Lind on the front. Many artistic works have honoured or featured her. Anton Wallerstein composed the "Jenny Lind Polka" around 1850.("Jenny Lind Polka", British Library integrated catalogue, accessed 16 June 2011) In the 1930 Hollywood film A Lady's Morals, Grace Moore starred as Lind, with Wallace Beery as Barnum.(The New York Times, "A Lady's Morals a.k.a Jenny Lind" and Mordant Hall, "The Swedish Nightingale," The New York Times, 8 November 1930.) In 1941 Ilse Werner starred as Lind in the German-language film Schwedische Nachtigall, with Joachim Gottschalk as Hans Christian Andersen. In 2001, a semi-biographical film about Andersen featured Flora Montgomery as Lind. In January 2005, Elvis Costello announced that he was writing an opera about her, called The Secret Arias with some lyrics by Andersen.(Watson, Joanne. "The Secret Arias, Opera House, Copenhagen", The Independent, 11 October 2005) A 2010 BBC television documentary "Chopin – The Women Behind the Music" includes discussion of Chopin's last years, during which Lind "so affected" the composer.(Rhodes, James. "Chopin – The Women Behind The Music", BBC Four, BBC Programme info, 15 October 2010)

Nah. That doesn't work for me, since it makes the article very difficult to read, and if I find that sort of thing, I'm going to change it and I can't do that but I'm adding a ref I'm certainly not going to put it inline like that. So it's a silly rule. Herostratus (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments raise a couple of points. First, you seem to be confusing "inline" citations with parenthetical cites (WP:PAREN), which neither you nor I use. You and I both use ref tags, as do most experienced editors here. Secondly, it is clear that the {{cite}} templates are not required. Some editors like them, because they provide a checklist for what information might go in a citation. Note that, for book sources, the article does use the {{cite books}} template in the Sources and Further Reading sections at the bottom, and uses short-form references to books in the text above, as is done in many, if not most WP:Featured Articles. But the other refs do not use the templates, and simply provide the relevant information per WP:CITE, using the following format: Author, Title (linked to url where available), Publisher, Date, Accessdate. Thirdly, WP:CITEVAR says simply that: Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference ... or without first seeking consensus for the change. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page ... [U]nless there is consensus to change, defer to the style used by the first major contributor....

To be avoided:

• ... Adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. Hunh. Was not familiar with all that stuff. I'd always figured that the {{cite}} templates were useful for machine-parsing the data in the ref which has various virtues including error-catching (won't let you accidentally omit a title, use an illegal ISBN number, and so forth), and for that reason superior. Reading thru it's clear that that that's not true, and pretty much any format you like is OK as long as you include the needed info.

Since it's a lot easier to just write a text string and we don't have a preference, I might stop using the {{cite}} templates in new articles. I'm used to doing it though so maybe not.

There is a problem in that if you're adding the same citation to several articles you'd have to check the format used in each article and format them differently, depending. It's not clear to me why citations in an article have to use the same format. I don't see much gain and it sort of looks to me like pettifogging hobgoblinery (which you do see from time to time), so I'm not going to worry about it too much. I will avoid changing existing refs I come across though, and thanks for the heads-up on that. Herostratus (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the research and for your patience with this discussion, and happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both the article and infobox list lots of regional productions. Not sure what to do -- am alerting you, MarnetteD, and maybe another. Please take any necessary action, if you would. Thanks. :) Softlavender (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes!! Thanks for putting in time for that. I think one problem with the cast album infobox is that it's pushing down the subsequent header and creating a lot of white space (at least on my screen). I don't know what the Musical Theatre style guide policy is on album infoboxes within musical articles. One solution I came up with on the film The Departed was to nix the image of the album cover (which by the way in Tarzan's case is exactly the same as the poster, so it's redundant already!). Might you try that? Or I can do it later when I have a moment. Thanks again, good to see you. :) Softlavender (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Cast Album infobox: There are a few issues/options. Also, we might want to move this discussion to the article's Talk page so others can opine. Feel free to move all of my comments there. Anyway, one issue is that the album is (a charting!) part of a succession list of Phil Collins' albums. For that reason it could be nice to keep the box; or to create and article solely about the album and move all the info and text there, retaining some brief mention of it (that it debuted as #3 or whatever). Another option is to remove the redundant cover image as I mentioned. If we do that, we should move the infobox below to the cast album section. The last issue I want to mention is that the article is fairly long and could possibly do with retaining the graphic of the infobox, even without the cover image. Softlavender (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	To dear Ss, once again, thank you for the wonderful copy editing on George Robey on the eve of his PR. Your efforts are very much appreciated. Cassiantotalk 17:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that Lowell Mason's tune BETHANY has yet to make such serious inroads into the British repertoire as to threaten the indigenous British tunes? Compare, in reverse, the way in which—on "Guide Me, O Thou Great Jehovah/Redeemer"—CWM RHONDDA has virtually driven ZION out of American churches. Rammer (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is supported by a source from 1898 (a long time ago):

In the United Kingdom, the hymn is usually associated with the 1861 hymn tune "Horbury" by John Bacchus Dykes, named for a village near Wakefield, England, where Dykes had found "peace and comfort". -- Rammer (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a more recent source that states which tune is the most popular in Britain in recent decades? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Bradley in the Daily Telegraph Book of Hymns as of 2006 indicates HORBURY as the dominant tune in the U.K. (with the others in the WP article as alternatives) and BETHANY as the sole tune in the U.S., but I will try to do more checking on the British situation with an informed source on the scene. Rammer (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What page does he say that on? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley, Ian (2006). Daily Telegraph book of hymns. London: Bloomsbury Academic. p. 294. ISBN-10 = 0826482821, ISBN-13 = 978-0826482822. That's the paperback edition. The hardbound edition was published in 2005. Here's a quotation from Bradley on p. 294:

Perhaps the best-known tune for the hymn, at least in Britain, is Horbury, which John Bacchus Dykes (1823-76) wrote for the first edition of Hymns Ancient and Modern in 1861. He named it after the town in Yorkshire which he had visited two years earlier to make his first confession. In the USA the tune most often used has been Bethany, which was composed in 1856 by Dr Lowell Mason (1792-1872), a bank clerk from Savannah who founded the Boston Academy of Music.

Rammer (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I added the ref to the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your editorial contributions to Kinky Boots (musical).

.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite following your deletion of of the songs "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" and "Serenade in Blue" from the lead in the Harry Warren bio along with the comment "These don't belong here." Why not? While the lead shouldn't list everything that Warren wrote, I don't it was "out of control" as I left it. By the way, The New York Times listed both of those songs, among others, in its lead of Warren's obituary: [3]. (Posted by User:Badmintonhist on April 17, 2014)

Keeping lists short, especially in WP:LEADs, by listing only the most prominent examples, increases their effectiveness. If you disagree with the edit I made, begin a discussion on the article's Talk page, so that other readers can join in. See WP:BRD for more information. Also, please remember to sign your Talk page messages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re Mary Potter (painter) Thank you so much, your encouragement and work on the page is much appreciated! I did think earlier that it would be my first and last attempt to make a new page, but the support I have received helps.... I care because she has become neglected and I admire her work very much. Jasmine 51 (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC) 18.22 19 April — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasmine 51 (talk • contribs)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your eight years of superb research, top-notch writing and staunch comradeship I have great pleasure in awarding you this gong. – Tim riley (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time flies when you're having fun! Thank you very much, TR, and thanks to Wikipedia for providing free information, in such a useful format, to curious people worldwide. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Especially for your recent work saving Mary Potter (painter). Bearian (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this kind message and the shiny barnstar! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time and are so-inclined, I would appreciate any help that you are willing to offer at Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ssilvers: I have added back my changes to the article on Nellie Melba with references. I hadn't originally added them in the first place as they were so minor. I had thought the difference in value of the two offers was a useful nugget of information. -- John — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Prattley (talk • contribs) 22:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The group adopted an experimental approach to composition with songs such as "With a Little Help from My Friends", "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" and "A Day in the Life". Is a comma needed after with? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that it should be "in" instead of "with": "The group adopted an experimental approach to composition, IN songs such as..." -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I've adopted your suggested language. I know that you are busy with other projects, but it would be really nice if you could find the time to at least do a punctuation review at the Sgt. Pepper article. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice job on this article! Tim riley talk 20:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When it's all said and done that's more than likely the scenario. When creating the Robert Loraine on wikipedia, sources kept mentioning 'Mabel Love'. There was no proof he was married to her but he was obviously 'involved' with her. Since the Wikipedia mentioned Love had a daughter called 'Mary Loraine'(even the surname spelling is the same as Robert's) but did not mention the father, then it's only logical, though, speculative that she had had a child by Loraine but wasn't married to him. It's not the kind thing that's bandied about with Victorian/Edwardian actresses trying to make a living. But out-of-wedlock births were common amongst actresses in the Victorian era; ie Lillie Langtry, Sarah Bernhardt. But since you've mentioned it I want to look into it. Can't promise I'll find more of an answer, but I'll let you know. Koplimek (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, this in-depth facebook bio on Robert Loraine reveals he was not the father of Mabel's daughter. Mabel gave birth to Mary in 1914 and when Mary married in 1948, it was to a man named Anthony Loraine. A coincidence in names but they were not related. You can read the info that was uncovered by the online writer at the bottom of the page[written in italics].

Flying With the Larks , - Koplimek (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers: I think the Facebook poster did his/her research accurately but you're correct, it is a blog of sorts. While I think its a reliable source, a WP:RS notice would be helpful but still a definite old theatre book like Burns Mantle or John Parker type publication would prove the issue. Its such a coincidence that Mabel would be involved with Robert Loraine then her daughter would marry a man named Loraine. Going over WW1 military death and records Loraine was a common name in the UK. But thanks for alerting me and Ill continue to look into Mabel, Robert and her daughter. Koplimek (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help on the Ridge Bond article! Here's a Copy of Billboard from 1946 with a review of Oklahoma! that lists Bond as Curly: http://books.google.com/books?id=FxoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT54&lpg=PT54&dq=%22Ridge+bond%22+1946&source=bl&ots=TlbOtK-I7a&sig=rjK9Xbn2YY4oKqMzeDBnksunpE0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xoLeU9jaDfOM8gGx9IDwBw&ved=0CGYQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22Ridge%20bond%22%201946&f=false

Here is an article from the Oklahoman in 1993 w/ an interview with Bond that mentions that he was Keel's understudy, which would be why he was not billed in some cases during that time - http://newsok.com/oklahoma-actor-recalls-golden-moments/article/2425666

Here's a picture from 1948 with Ridge as Curly - http://digitalcollections.lib.washington.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/sayre/id/8977/rec/39

Let me know if you need more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redwulf82 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to Oxford University Press's humanities materials through the TWL partnership described at WP:OUP . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email from User:Nikkimaria several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are receiving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved.[reply]

Once you're fully back in the Wikipedian swing, pray look in at User talk:SchroCat#This and that. I spoke to you of this briefly the other day and you were, I think, doubtful that the page was yet up to scratch. We can just leave it as it is or do some more work on at some point it with a view to upgrading it. Glad of your thoughts in due course – no hurry. – Tim riley talk 17:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evening squire,

After the son came the father is all very much in the cart-before-the-horse territory, but the little clean up of the Formby Snr article got a little out of hand and turned into an overhaul. For better or worse, the Wigan Nightingale is now at PR for comments, criticism and complaints. If you have the time or the will I'd be delighted to hear your views, but I appreciate that your Wiki time may be limited. Pip pip – SchroCat (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cleaning up the Forte Tenors article. Kdammers (talk) 11:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from The Film Foundation. The Film Foundation (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time, help me get The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time updated. I could use some help with the tables I just added.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message. I am going to be going to bed in the next hour. So I won't be ecing you for some time. Thanks for helping out.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a few hours on it and have done as much work on it as I can stand. Frustratingly, I cannot find a number of performances for either RNT or Apollo. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another timely article to spruce up is Disgraced.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you updated the Philip Michael Faraday wikipage [16:25, 27 August 2010 (Family)] with regard to his family. I am the grandchild of Thelma Faraday (one of Philip's children) and noticed with interest mention of Katharine Miriam as a Philip Michale Faraday child, of whom I and the remaining family were unaware. Would you have any sugestions about how we could verify this and perhaps establish contact? You cite a weblink [^ Fuller, Stephen Alan. "Family of Philip Michael Faraday and Elizabeth Mary Gale. The Family History of Stephen Alan Fuller, accessed 27 August 2010] but unfortunately the link seems to be down. Any help you could provide would be much appreciated. -- 216.255.125.226 (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)james baird (jamesmbaird@gmail.com)[reply]

[This https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carousel_(musical)&curid=7566&diff=629758722&oldid=629019221]. I admit it has been several years since I watched the movie in its entirety and I don't remember, nor is IMDB that helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HelloJulia324457 (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I need your advice on what performances to include in Vanya and Sonia and Masha and Spike. Now, every theatre that does the play is getting added and I am not sure what to exclude.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at this edit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is this unencyclopedic and full of WP:PEACOCK words, but I'll bet that it is a cut and paste from the show's website or other copyrighted promotional material. -- 20:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for 'A belated welcome'. Not all edits on this ip address are mine, but your kind words appreciated. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.32.51.236 (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please adopt me! -- StarsCrying (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is my Watchlist? -- StarsCrying (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now what about my sandbox? I clicked on the link and edited it, but I can't figure out how to edit it after the first edit. What happened??????

StarsCrying (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ssilvers, Would you adopt me please? I saw your interest in the Theater and thought perhaps you would be able to help me write an article. I am a total beginner. I hope to hear from you. Thank-you for your consideration. -- Reelperson (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will. Thank-you! -- Reelperson (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For all your work on John Barrymore, which really was above and beyond the call of duty, I am extremely grateful! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to your sterling efforts, I've now opened a peer review for further comment. Thanks again! - SchroCat (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SchroCat, for this shiny barnstar! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers ~ thanks for your kind invitation to work on articles for various Warren songs. In gathering lists and reviewing all that is on Wikipedia presently I have compiled a shortened list of standard songs that are in the Great American Songbook repertoire; songs which have unique, notable stories behind their creations and are considered his "Classics". Please find the list below. I would love to hear your take on these titles. Also, I noticed that the piano vignettes of Warren are not included in the Article. He wrote dozens throughout his lifetime and can be found on several recordings. I think I will add a short one-line contribution stating such in the section: Last Years if that is okay.

• Beside a Waterfall, Coffee Time, Dames, Don’t Give Up the Ship, Getting Out of Town, I Know Now, I Wanna Be a Dancin’ Man, I’m Going Shoppin’ With You, I’ve Got to Sing a Torch Song, If You Feel Like Singing Sing, Keep Young and Beautiful, Go, Into Your Dance, Lulu's Back In Town, No Love, No Nothing, Remember My Forgotten Man, Song of the Marine, There's a Sunny Side to Every Situation, You're My Everything, Young and Healthy Maineartists (talk) 9:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the Peer Review alert.Koplimek (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK to use external links in your sandbox/user page if they are .edu, .gov, etc? StarsCrying (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this question at the Teahouse and thought you might have some good advice to offer since you have lots of experience in editing theatre articles. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers, As always, many thanks for your work on the Barrymore PR; the article is now at FAC, should you wish to comment further. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your welcome! I've seen your edits everywhere, you rock. I did have a question, which is really quite a minor semantics issue that's actually less Wikipedia related and more Broadway related, but it bothered me a lot: how would you phrase the situation where the producers of the production receive the Tony for Best Musical/Play/Revival on behalf of the show? (or is it on behalf of themselves? I don't really know... does that replace the Best Producer award or does that concept just not exist anymore since the producers' roles have shifted?)

I ran into this problem while trying to flesh out and format the page I recently added to WP:MT, Brandon Victor Dixon, for whom his Tony win is one of his most notable attributes. I checked Hal Prince, Robert Fryer, and George Abbott (my idol) because they were the first producers of Tony Award winning shows I could think of, and none of their articles reference it in the same way. Also, they all have more notable content and have Tonys for directing and whatnot. So I just wrote what sounded best to me, but I'm not sure if my phrasing is accurate. Also, does that denote that I should put his page into the Tony Award winners category? Which category would be appropriate in this case, if any? On a side not, should the term "co-producer" be used to add specificity or does that just make the meaning ambiguous? Don't feel like you have to answer all of these, I just want to make sure there isn't some precedent determined by the Musical Theatre WikiProject that I was unaware of.

Sorry to be so long winded, but I am nothing if not thorough and obsessed with uniformity in semantics and formatting! Thanks in advance! ElfLady64 (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid your change was incorrect, or at least premature "Polin" was added by the museum itself in Septemeber 2014 for marketing and historical reasons, but from legal point of view the name of the Museum has been the same since it was founded – Museum of the History of the Polish Jews. Nothing has changed in the official register, which you can check yourself on the website of the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage (see #2, last udate 15th December, 2014), responsible for the Register of Cultural Institutions in Poland, also a museum's co-founder. Also the name in the postal address remained the same for the time being. We could expect that this change will take place in the future, but this the the legal status now. Boston9 (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree – the "legal" name does not control the article name. In English, the museum now calls itself POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews. So, that is the correct name of the article in the English Wikipedia, per WP:NAME. In the Polish Wikipedia, it can use the official Polish name on the register if you prefer. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2014 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! All the best Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 09:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SchroCat! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks once again for your thoughts on the John Barrymore article. Could I ask you to make one further visit to comment on the question of the inclusion of a family tree. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you effectively reverted my edit to the Clifford Grey article. I added my comment of "[sic?]" to indicate that the spelling "sub-genre" was likely in the original, though due to the paywall of the source, I am unable to confirm that. The correct spelling is "subgenre", without a hyphen, space, or accent on the "E" (all of which I've seen used). Would you please be so kind as to revert your edit?—DocWatson42 (talk) 07:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that the hyphen is an error that justifies the use of "sic". Some mainstream newspapers use it. See, for example this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Holidays!
	Hi, Ssilvers! Have a happy and safe season, and a blessed new year! Holiday cheers, --Discographer (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, and very happy holidays to you, too! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help ! I certainly need it ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NancyPants (talk • contribs) 06:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For helping to edit and clean Brandi Glanville. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I think you definitely deserve one of these for your tireless contribution to pruning the John Barrymore article and helping promote it to FA! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding mention by User:Paul Barlow. The thread is Abuse of Talk Page ownership. Thank you. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you had bothered to read my comments, you would have read the fact that I did not leave the "exact sane reference" on the footnote. I explained in detail that it was NOT the exact same reference, You wrote "I deleted his message from my Talk page with the edit summary "rm old message"". Yes, you did. This was a lie. You LIED. You have lied repeatedly. I've no doubt that your reponse will be simply to deletec this message too. But it will not alter the fact you you are a serial liar, and that I cannot trust anything you say. I raised the matter at ANI primarily to make public your lies. Paul B (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop harassing me on my Talk page. I completely disagree. You *did* use the exact same reference, though you seem unable to grasp reality. Also, I did not lie: I had read the message, so it was old. You are just looking to pick fights with people. You admitted that your edit was OR, and now you admit that you initiated an ANI simply to harass me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, please drop the stick and focus on the encyclopedia content. We've established that even if it wasn't helpful towards you, Ssilvers was perfectly within their rights to remove your message from their talk page. Further debate on this will accomplish very little. Sam Walton (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sam Walton. I have deleted, and reserve the right to continue to delete, attacks against me made by Paul Barlow on my Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Same to you! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was wondering if you could give this a read and copyedit. I'd normally ask User:Eric Corbett, but seeing the great job you did with Barrymore. It's really been researched as well as possible I think, it's comprehensive enough for FA but I think the prose needs a fair bit of work before it's ready for FAC. The history was quite difficult given that the book on Althorp itself lacks a detailed history in order and most other bits were gleaned from various sources. The history section I think might be the weakest because of this, there was a fair bit of material in the book on its collection/rooms etc. The lede needs a trim I think, feel free to edit it! I definitely think it would be worth promoting, it sort of represents the heart of British aristocracy doesn't it? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll add "The current building dates to 1688" to the lede. I do cover that in the architecture section, but there's not really many sources I can find which really discuss Althorp externally architecturally. Even Charles Spencer admitted it is bland and unremarkable and chose to focus on the interior. I can only go with the sources which exist. Presumably an original house was built around 1508 and replaced in 1688 but I can't find any mention of the original house in sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There must be architectural records. Perhaps info is available at, say, the county historical society or local library. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Re: Duke of Marlboro and split of family prior to John Spencer]: Thanks, good point, I'll have to look into that one. A pity you can't continue though as the coverage of its rooms and pieces is its strongest asset I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, don't want it to look like OR but until there's proof of an earlier house and demolition then it'll have to do, or should I just not say anything to avoid it looking like original research for the time being? It was something actually which struck me as odd when reading the Spencer book and researching it, very little on the 16th century background except that some trees were planted during the Elizabethan years for security purposes! I'd imagine Northampton library or the British Library might have records, perhaps Tim could find something next time he's there. My feeling was that even the current building needs a bit more on its exterior structure, even if bland, but most sources gush about its possessions and tend to exclude its architecture.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[left] Under "Etymology" you have: "A manor existed at Althorp in medieval times." So, you start with the proposition that there was a house there in 1086. Then:

• We have a missing period of six centuries from 1086 until 1688 regarding what sort of buildings were there. Maybe there was NO manor house for part of the time, or more likely there was a series of manor houses over the centuries. Without any sources about them, speculating is entirely OR, and I wouldn't do it.
• The plot thickens in the 15th century: "In 1469 John Spencer's uncle – also named John Spencer – had become feoffee (feudal lord) of Wormleighton in Warwickshire and a tenant at Althorp in Northamptonshire in 1486." What do you mean that he was a "tenant" at Althorp -- do you mean that he rented it from the Catesby family? Was he renting a house, or farmland, or what?
• Next, the Spencers BUY the property in 1508. We (readers) really would like to know what they bought, and what kind of house (or buildings) were there at that time, if any.
• Next, you say: "Charles I of England is documented to have visited Althorp during his reign. The drawing room was built and the main hall enlarged for the occasion...." So CLEARLY, there was a substantial house there in the early 17th century.
• Finally, something happened in 1688: Either the old house was completely demolished and a new one built, or a new house was built that incorporated elements of the old one.

Get thee to the historical society and/or local library (or at least call them)! :D -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well spotted, but remember that Althorp was more than just a country house, it was a village too, so when the Spencers bought the property in 1508 it would have been the land I think and then would have built a house. Obviously they didn't go 180 years year living in a tent :-) But something on the original house would be good of course!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answering your edit summary at The Merry Widow: adding the parameter |colwidth= when using the template {{reflist}} doesn't make any difference to any browser. It's just a gnomish, nerdy practice of avoiding unnamed parameters in favour of readable wiki text. Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In the case of reflist, no other parameters are generally used, so there is no confusion. Since, as you note, the parameter has no purpose other than clarity, for reflist it seems to me to be unhelpful and should not be added. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look this over please?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We now have Laurence Olivier up for comments and suggestions at PR. Any thoughts you have would be greatly appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm quite interested to hear why the infobox is redundant in this article. Perhaps you'd like to elucidate? Surely as a biography it should have an infobox, no? This is Paul (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wikipedia articles, including biographies, do not need infoboxes. Infoboxes should only be included where they are helpful, for example in sports or political bios. See WP:INFOBOXUSE and WP:DISINFOBOX. If the infobox contains only information that is more clearly or precisely stated in the Lead and elsewhere in the article, it is often harmful, because it often emphasizes material that is not the most important information about the person, and yet it is shoved in the reader's face at the top of the article as if it were more important than other information. Plus, the boxes tend to accumulate unnoticed errors and interfere with Lead images, among other problems. Obviously, there are WP editors who love infoboxes, but I would argue that they have grown used to them and have not really thought about what impact they have on the effectiveness of the article for the vast majority of readers who are not Wikipedians. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Must confess I hadn't thought of the impact on non-WP readers looking at the page, but if I decide to work on this i'll definitely bear it in mind. This is Paul (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers, I'm not good at this, however, Bernadette Peters was nominated for the 2012 Best Actress in a Musical by Drama Desk Award for her role as Sally Plummer in Follies (2011). I had just completed a revised edit summary when you rightly revised my edit after reading my silly first summary. I'll be more careful (and less impulsive) when summarizing my edits in the future. Can you please restore the addition of Follies to her "noted roles" or allow me to edit it again with the updated edit summary referencing her nomination? The nomination is listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Follies#Awards_and_nominations Thanks for your patience, and for your help or reply, Mikebreakrun3 Mikebreakrun3 (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mike. I disagree that Sally should be included in this list of roles for which Peters was "particularly noted" for the following reasons:

• The revival of Follies was a limited run of five months.
• For the other Broadway shows listed in the sentence, she *created* the first four roles, *won* a Tony and the DD award for Annie Get Your Gun and, for Gypsy, she was nominated for both the Tony and the DD, the album won the Grammy, and she performed in the role for more than a year.
• Peters was nominated for 7 Tonys and 9 DD awards, so the nomination alone is not dispositive -- We don't list On the Town or The Goodbye Girl, for each of which she got a Tony nomination.
• The shorter the list of roles for which she is "particularly noted", the more powerful the list is. The longer a list gets, the less likely people will read it and take it in. It is always a judgment call to draw that line, but I'd rather delete Gypsy than add Follies.

But if you are not persuaded, I suggest that you open a discussion on the article's Talk page, and solicit comments by other editors. It may be that other people will agree with you. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mikebreakrun3 (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just wondering if you still open to adoption request? I can really use the help. Thank you Sonflower0210 (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sorry to bother you again. I would like to ask your advise on something. Is it better to talk on my talkpage or here. Thank you :) Sonflower0210 (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers! I am working on the musical theatre Wikiproject for a class and wanted to reach out to some users also a part of the project. If there are any specific articles you can point me to that need some attention, please let me know! And if you have any advice for me as a new contributor to Wikipedia and general, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! - Nap173 (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, on your Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the material on various productions of this musical are massively spammy and most are unnecessary to mention, or at least not in such (often redlinked) detail. Care to give a measured look at it and trim where appropriate, or provide some guidelines for inclusion on its Talk page? (BTW, I'm talking about the body text, not the infobox.) If so, thanks! Softlavender (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the trim. Makes life easier. I may at some point look more closely at the legitimate pre-Broadway production and see if it merits some mention. But for now, vast improvement, thanks. It also encouraged some further good edits. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Miner1212 would like to request for a "adoption" I am new at this. Help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miner1212 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HI, can I get adopted by you? :) Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedBullMil (talk • contribs) 14:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case you fancy: Test your theatre knowledge: Musical by songs. Short -- just 10 Qs. If you don't fancy, no worries, just a lark. :-) Softlavender (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the info. I was not aware of the anti-infobox sentiments. I had been adding infoboxes, since finding large articles were especially difficult to handle on small screen devices without an infobox. It would be good if a flag could be included in infoboxes to make them optionally vanish similar to the way Person data doesn't show when you aren't logged in. regards Richard Bruce Bradford (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your work on this article, it means a lot to me, you are very kind! So sad article will be deleted! :( --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 16:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ssilvers, I am new to Wiki but experienced as an editor/writer/researcher, and interested in the arts. (I've made all of two minor correx, to date.) Do you have time to help guide a newbie? I will be respectful of your time, as I can see you have been a prolific contributor. Mismanagingeditor (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert of a revert. You may be interested in Template talk:Inglis family tree#Unreferenced section -- PBS (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your brilliant work on the article. I go to bed and when I wake up it's finished and is great. Jack1956 (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent Chicago production of Carousel is a limited-run production that stars Laura Osnes and Steven Pasquale. Most media professionals in theatre consider this as a major production. Source

I ask that this material be restored to the article without question, hesitation, or doubt.  dXterminator017 | (discuss)  20:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the article's Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits look fine. I've bought a ticket for the Saturday matinee on June 13. I'll be in the area and so I won't have to spend for a NYC hotel. It will be the first time I've seen it live since Brynner's last show.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers and Wehwalt: I have responded to the WP:Edit war accusation at The King and I's Talk page. -- Osnapitzjv (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given your recent contribution to the discussion regarding James Bond, I'm letting you know about a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles § Italics for series titles seeking clarification of the MOS to avoid further confusion. Please feel free to comment there. —sroc 💬 19:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Hey Ssilvers! I am currently looking for any adopters willing to teach me on how to be a good Wikipedian! If you're willing to not adopt me, It's okay! But can you? I am having troubles with the rules, it seems I can't really understand them, but can you make them much more simplified? Thanks again. CryOceD (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for the adoption and the help! I couldn't really understand what anything means without you! -- CryOceD (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Happy to help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help at Studio Museum! Heathart (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers, you asked why, in the Michael William Balfe article, the PersonData have been removed. These data are considered deprecated, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29/Archive_122#RfC:_Should_Persondata_template_be_deprecated_and_methodically_removed_from_articles.3F Aklein62 (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your comments at the recent PR for P.G. Wodehouse. The article is now at FAC should you wish to comment further. Many thanks once again. – SchroCat (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hello, explain why not to link Dame to the Article , some people might not know what it means, so that is why it is highlighted, to take to explanation page also you can put MBE next to someone if they are order of British empire, Doris Hare — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.26.231 (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for the welcome. Maybe you can help me out: the American Antiquarian Society keeps getting referenced as a "notable case" of copyfraud. The current citation is out-of-date and misquoted. If people want to try to make the case that this small library is engaging in a notable case of copyfraud, that's fine, but they should at least use correct references that match the source, no? You want to help me out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.111.225.29 (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll undo it. But he's been categorized as a "singer-songwriter", which is not correct - that's how he made it into my CatScan. I'll undo that one, too. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this. It could use some help or attention, if you and/or Flami72 etc. wish to. I did a few things. Softlavender (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, great work as always. <snip> Softlavender (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to learn under you, if you're still adopting. Thanks. GoldenPeacock (talk)

Thank you for your message about the image I had inserted that got reverted. I wasn't thinking about the fact that the article was already quite full, I just thought this image would be of interest. I appreciate the reminder to use the talk page for the article: I hadn't considered that. Best wishes, Uncommon fritillary (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried fixing what I could at Commons-also left a note on the editor's talk page here with a link & suggestion to use the Commons Village Pump-copyright, when in doubt about what license to use. We hope (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ssilvers. I'm just posting to let you know that Theatre productions of Dan Leno – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for September 4. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello co-nom; per my talk, Giants2008 has just scheduled Dan for the main page on 4 September. --Cassianto^Talk 21:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Ssilvers, This was a stage name. Her real name was Mary McNulty, and she was from the U.S. I have been long researching for dates of birth and death, but have not located this info yet. As soon as I find some well sourced material on subject, I shall forward it to you. Thanks for all your help with the article. Best regards,Albiet (talk)Albiet

Thanks. I'll be happy to help with formatting, etc. when you find the sources. If you have access to a library, try the archive for The Times of London and also Lexis/Nexis. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to suggest changes to this article on the talk page and there is no such requirement, per Wikipedia policy, that I do so. It is recommended but it is not LAW. I will edit articles as I choose unless you can provide a valid reason why I should not. You have not done so. The reasons you have given for reverting my edits, in the "reasons for reverting" box, are nonsense in my opinion and you have said nothing to persuade me otherwise. Mike Hayes (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be posting on the wrong Talk page. I have not reverted any of your edits yet, although I see that at least two other experienced Wikipedians have, and I agree with them. Anyhow, I suggest that it would be better for all discussion to go on the article's Talk page, rather than user Talk pages. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for adoption I am a new editor and love to edit and want to learn from a pro. Ben7cullimore (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers, I can see that you have done a lot of good additional work on the Jennie McNulty article. I haven’t been able to locate a date of birth or death for Mrs. Paulet either. I am forwarding my other research below in the hopes you may find it of some use during any of your future efforts to improve the Jennie McNulty article. I am curious, however, why you undid the interloping edit adding “(fl.c. 1895)” (flourished circa 1895)? The edit seems appropriate here. As I’m sure you are already aware, “fl. c.” is used standardly when both a biographical subject’s date of birth and a date of death are unknown. See Wikipedia articles Tadhg Olltach Ó an Cháinte, “fl. c. 1601”, Atticus (philosopher) “fl. c. 175)”, Samuel Watson (horologist), “fl. c. 1687 …”, Khakheperresenb “(fl. c. 1900 BC)”, Jeff Howell "… (fl. c. 1990)” and etc. I have used the abbreviation myself in one of my articles. Of course, unlike with the edit which you undid, there should be a space between “fl.” and “c.” Just curious.Albiet (talk)Albiet

Hi. I'm moving the info to the Jennie McNulty talk page. I am not persuaded that "fl. c." is appropriate on Wikipedia articles. All of the ones you mention are obscure, so I suspect that they have simply been overlooked, and none are WP:Featured Articles. Have you seen any guideline that says that this is appropriate on WP articles? It seems strange and unhelpful to me, and also is redundant, since we state, in the Lead, that her performances were around the end of the 19th century. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers, I thought that you might have considered "fl. c." redundant. I was just curious. I don't know about its acceptance in Wikipedia articles, but the abbreviated L. floruit (E. flourished) has been used standardly in print references, such as biographical dictionaries, for centuries. There is a Wikipedia article on subject. See article Floruit in Category:Latin words and phrases. Your best judgement. Again, I was just curious about your reasoning because you seem to be a very knowledgeable editor. Thanks for the answer. Best regardsAlbiet (talk)Albiet

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you for all your extraordinary efforts at improving the Jenny McNulty article and for the inordinate amount of your valuable time spent bettering this minor article. Albiet (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	You deserve 2 Barnstars at least. Albiet (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this edit appropriate? You can answer here, I have your TP watchlisted. Or you can revert the edit with an explanation, if you disagree with it. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not. Reverted! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• User talk:Pgallert for nominations.

http://www.billboard.com/biz/search/charts?f[0]=ts_chart_artistname%3A*Jackie%20Evancho*&f[1]=itm_field_chart_id%3A1094&f[2]=ss_bb_type%3Achart_item&type=2&artist=Jackie%20Evancho -- SJ (talk)

Hey, Ssilvers,
I was wondering if you had seen this article. You'll have to go to the bottom third to find your mention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Liz! I was glad to help with Judith Newman's article, and it was fairly easy, because there were plenty of mainstream media articles about her. It's nice to get a great shout-out like this. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers, I have updated the Gema Switzerland GmbH page. Can you please have a look and let me know if the message at the top can be removed? Thank you in advance. --PowderExperts (talk) 09:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your patience during the recent incident, and your civility in pointing out my errors. I do appreciate them. loupgarous (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers, In June 2013, you asked me to review South Pacific. I declined, citing a general weariness with reviewing. If you asked today for something similar, I'd probably say "yes". I've always enjoyed your work. Finetooth (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for editing the article about my grandmother Eileen Sharp kindly started by Jack1956 :) I have a few excellent images from the Victoria&Albert Museum (playing the Fairy Queen in Iolanthe) would you be happy for me to try and post these or I could send them along to you if you advise how best I should do it. I love to use Wikipedia as a resource but am very unfamiliar with contributing so apologies if I am not getting the method quite right. There were also some fascinating illustrations of her which may be of interest, by the Swedish satirist Einar Nerman (best known for his portraits of Mae West and Ivor Novello). I'm not sure how you would source those but again I do have copies. Thank you Ilovevinyl (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for your help with my grandmother Eileen Sharp Ilovevinyl (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Love your work on here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.72.32 (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for taking a look at The Oolah. I started Broadway Theatre (41st Street) earlier this week, it was a long overdue article (a rabbit hole that started with Browne's Chop House); wasn't sure if every first reference to it should say "demolished," but I can see that otherwise there will be confusion with the current one. Cheers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2016 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! All the best Gavin / – SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Ssilvers as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk 04:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you'd edited the Chandelier article so the view count was to the nearest 100m, and I'm wondering about doing a similar thing more generally.

I have probably been the most active updater of YouTube view counts across Wikipedia over the past twelve months. At the beginning of that time, only two videos had over a billion views and most counts (including these two videos) were rounded to the nearest 10 million. E.g. for Chandelier: 'the music video has received over 770 million views on YouTube, making it the twenty-first most viewed video of all time'. I have standardised it across all articles and usually kept it so that the top thirty music videos (i.e. the ones in List of most viewed YouTube videos) have a similarly phrased line in it, and updated it whenever the next 10 million views or change in ranking is reached. For an video like Chandelier, that corresponds to roughly a weekly update, though some would be every couple of days and some more like annually.

Now, fourteen videos have over a billion views with more to come, and I'm wondering if it's best to start rounding to two significant figures (e.g. 'over 1.2 billion views') rather than to the ten million. Or even to round to the hundred million generally. I agree that 'over 1.01 billion views' looks a little desperate, but think 'over 1.43 billion views' is a little less so.

The downside to rolling this out across all the articles is that lots of edits will be reversed by those who had got used to the old way. Or I can just keep it as 10m - when Chandelier reaches about 1.08 billion it won't look so weird.

Wikipedia's rounding policy has nothing specific to say on this - seems like it's a matter of taste. What do you think?

Tcamfield (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Over at Wikipedia:GLAM/Pritzker, we are working on articles on World War I music as the Museum and Library recently received the World War I Hunter Collection which contains numerous sheet music scores. The Girl Behind the Gun (musical) currently redirects to Kissing Time which is an expanded version of the American musical from 1918. Please feel free to help us out by working on the article for The Girl Behind the Gun (musical) or its component songs which were also issued as popular sheet music, including The Girl Behind the Man Behind the Gun and Some Day Waiting Will End. TeriEmbrey (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Holidays!
	Hi, Ssilvers! Have a happy and safe season, and a blessed new year! Holiday cheers, --Discographer (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time and inclination, can you help out on "Moon River"? It contains a random spammy coatrack of 110 people who have either sung or recorded the song, a coatrack which is only going to continue to be spammily added to over the years. I tried to remove it but was reverted. I just now posted a rationale on the talk page. Any assistance appreciated, thanks. Softlavender (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remember this discussion (about the reliability of the IBDB)?-->[4]

And a belated Happy 2016 to you! Flami72 (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks! Happy New Year! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers,

As the Lord Protector of this article (its a real title, I promise you), I was thinking of pushing this for GA status as part of the upcoming competition Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon. It means adding, but would you be happy to support my efforts. Cheers FruitMonkey (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a biography or two, plus other sources, I was just looking for a little support. Just point me in the right direction when I go off piste. Yours FruitMonkey (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You always do your best, you are an inspirational WPidean. Just be harsh if I stray. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! See you at the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did not know how to write them properly, which is why I always left the link. Thank you for demonstrating. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to continue to clean up the article. FYI, I have nominated it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Misty Copeland/archive1. Please stay involved and consider adding yourself as a co-nominator. The article will have a much better chance to achieve the proper level of stylistic excellence for promotion with your involvement and commitment.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the article. I don't think it's anywhere near FA quality, but if you do the research, perhaps you can whip it into shape with the help of the FA commenters. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• How should we address the fact that A Ballerina's Tale is an 85-minute production and what aired on PBS fit into a 55-minute window?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it's worth mentioning in Copeland's article. It is blue-linked, and that sort of detail should be mentioned in the film's own article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Her book just arrived at my local branch. I just picked it up.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember if you did or didn't express interest when I mentioned the overhaul of GBS's article, but if you happen to have both the inclination and the time, Brian B and I will be very glad of any comments you like to make at the peer review, opened today. Absolutely no obligation, and quite understand if you can't make it. Tim riley talk 17:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers, I have recently been working on Walt Disney, which is now up for PR. Any thoughts or comments on his huge figure would be much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers. I bow in your general direction for being a contributor without peer to Wikipedia. I note that you deleted an addition I made yesterday to the Hair (Musical) page pertaining to a recent run of Hair at Pace U in NYC. While I agree in principle that there have been thousands of productions staged, this was notable in that James Rado was directly involved in the production. Saheem Ali, the director, is also a recognized up and coming director with an impressive resume. The actors are pre-professionals and embarking on their careers. Having their names in a recognized source helps give them some "digital cred" when they are Googled. I have no interest in getting into an edit war, but on balance, I think the inclusion has merit and is interesting, if only to highlight Rado's continued contributions to the show, as well as the other reasons cited. Please re-consider your deletion. Thanks! 151.145.142.14 (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Martin[reply]

Hello, User:151.145.142.14. There have been thousands of long-running professional productions of Hair in dozens of countries with major productions employing numerous blue-linked creatives, actors and designers. Sorry, but I am not at all persuaded that Rado's dropping in on this short-lived semi-pro production makes it notable. See WP:BALASPS. Wikipedia is not a place to promote or advertise things; it is an encyclopedia that describes the most notable things that have happened in the world. See WP:PROMO. If you still disagree, you need to open a discussion on the article's Talk page, so that other users can participate in the discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit here, could I ask that you consider rewriting it so it is clearer? As someone who is not intimate with the topic, it does not communicate a clear meaning to me. Also, I don't believe TorrentFreak qualifies as a WP:RS. Thanks for looking at it! Scr★pIron^IV 14:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I also added more refs, although I do believe that TorrentFreak would qualify as a WP:RS as a music news site. You should read their article that I cited. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It does help. Scr★pIron^IV 17:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ssilvers, I ran into your welcome message and like the wording, especially in the past paragraph. The fortune cookies are a nice touch. May I co-opt this for my own use? Airplaneman ✈ 22:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you may, and thank you for the kind words! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your help - it is hard for me to find information around, for instance I do not know if this is the best way to contact someone - I'd like help with the following: the reason I "tried" to include his [Terriss] first remunerated engagement was because of the following anecdote that I found interesting:

"In 1868 he obtained at the Prince of Wales Theatre, Birmingham, his first remunerated engagement (not a very lucrative one, I8j. per week) as "Chouser" in The Flying Scud.

In this he had a most important speech to deliver, which, in his nervousness, he forgot. He managed to blurt out, "Lady Woodbee has come to town"; and when told by a fellow-actor to go on with his part, he said, "and the rest," and retreated. From that day he was known among his comrades by the sobriquet, "The Rest." As you can see I am so new and still navigating the help pages - please help me if you can. 21:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GinnevraDubois (talk • contribs) GinnevraDubois (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add the source because my question was about adding quotes - I already posted the reference book (the Life of William Terriss by Smythe, page 31) - I am still not sure where should I post my questions. And I used the ~ signs before but apparently they did not show my signature. Thanks again. GinnevraDubois (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, GinnevraDubois. You could say: According to Terriss's biographer Arthur Smythe, Terriss was so nervous that he forgot an important speech. "He managed to blurt out, 'Lady Woodbee has come to town'; and when told by a fellow-actor to go on with his part, he said, 'and the rest'". He was henceforth nicknamed "The Rest". But: (1) I am doubtful that Smythe is correct. All the sources I have seen say that Terriss was known as "Breezy Bill". (2) All actors have a story very much like this. I would leave it out. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for your information, Philip potter was my grandfather so the information I had provided was in fact correct! He did sadly pass away last night 7/11/2016 Jack.waite (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for your loss! As soon as there is a published report in a reliable source, we will add the info. I met Philip several times in Buxton, England, and of course I have heard many of his recordings and seen him on film. He was a lovely man, as well as a wonderful performer! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I want to inform you that Daniel Preda is a notable partner as they have been dating for over 2 years. Moreover, Preda has a considerable following on social media and has appeared in numerous videos which have garnered millions of views. His omission from Gratceffa's inbox is unnecessary. Wizardofoz30 —Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wizardofoz30, he is not a Notable person under Wikipedia guidelines. He can be mentioned down in the article, but it is not helpful to mention him in the Infobox. If they got married, that would be a better case for including him in the infobox. It is better to keep infoboxes a concise as possible. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you deleted my comment about the use of this music in the Soviet cinema. I am not sure what links I should provide, as all possible links will be in Russian, not in English. The best proof would be probably the film itself: you can hear the song at the 32nd minute. Regards, --Dmitri Lytov (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dmitri Lytov, you wrote: "In 1964 the melody was used in a Soviet feature movie The Chairman, where it is performed by paupers feigning blindness. Although anti-religious propaganda was quite common for the whole Soviet period, the use of a modern foreign religious melody translated for this occasion was an act of bravery of the film director." You have raised at least three issues. 1: If the whole song, or a very substantial part of it is sung (and not just a brief snippet), and there is a Russian-language review that states clearly that the song is sung in the film, then you may cite the Russian review. 2: You imply that the *purpose* for the use of the song in the film is pro-religious. What is your source to support that implication -- or, if that is not what you mean, then what do you mean? 3: You state that including the song is an act of bravery by the film's director (in 1964). What is your source for that assertion? Every fact that you allege must be supported. Please read our two relevant policies: WP:OR and WP:V. Thank you! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings, Ssilvers! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 02:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings to all, and to all a good edit! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Wishing you the best this holiday season. Quis separabit? 05:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm not sure what I did to deserve this, but Happy Holidays! -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Holidays!
	Hi, Ssilvers! Have a happy and safe season, and a blessed new year! Holiday cheers, --Discographer (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Copied from HesioneHushabye's Talk page: The information about this does not belong in the WP:LEAD sections of these actresses' articles. Please move it down to the Legacy or reputation sections, or somewhere near the end of the person's article. Also, the information should look like this: ____ is a member of the American Theater Hall of Fame.<ref>[http://www.theaterhalloffame.org/members.html#A Members], www.theaterhalloffame.org, accessed December 26, 2016</ref> Thank you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree, you will find honors and awards in almost every prominent actresses lede. Cheers! HesioneHushabye (talk) 03:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an important honor like an Oscar. In fact it is trivia and hardly worth noting. Don't worry, I've fixed it now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC) It actually is an important honor, your opinion is not important. HesioneHushabye (talk)[reply]

Hope you are having fun reverting all of my edits. If you have that much time on your hands, you could edit the information yourself. This is an important and prestigious honor that you are erasing from their articles. I will report you for vandalism. HesioneHushabye (talk)

Your adding this trivia to articles' WP:LEAD sections is inappropriate. I gave you a good alternative, which you rejected. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well since you think the American Theater Hall of Fame is so un-important, you better nominate its page for deletion and remove it from everyone elses' pages as well. Wikipedia has a category just for its members, so you should probably delete that also. HesioneHushabye (talk)

You should read WP:LEAD. Also, check out WP:UNDUE. Tony and Olivier Awards, Oscars, Emmys, Grammys, Pulitzers, and Nobel Prizes are "important and prestigious". This "award" is not. I am not sure if this organization is really of encyclopedic notability. It might be. But that does not mean that the fact that it has "inducted" someone is of note on their article. For a barely notable person it might be, and also possibly for the original inductees, but for major names, it is not. One should not have an "all or nothing at all" attitude here on Wikipedia. Judgment and balance are needed. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the semi-protection on this article ran out 3 or 4 days ago, and since then there have been a noticeable uptick in vandalism / unconstructive editing on the article. Could I ask you to take a look at the recent edit history and see if you think semi-protection should be requested again. Thanks Sgcosh (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you removed my edits to Jackie Evancho's page about her sister Juliet. As you requested, I have started a discussion on her talk page. Feel free to add your thoughts. Thanks! Jgera5 (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have done so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for your kindness and patience during the editing process for the Trenyce article Aoba47 (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on my Park Theatre link error in the Julia Stewart (actress) article. The only other option would be a theatre known as 'The Park' (Broadway & 59th St.); however, it was known as 'Majestic' until 1911. [5] Unfortunately, the source I added to the article was published too soon (1880). I only ventured down this rabbit hole attempting to track down the "Julia Stuart" in Saved from the Titanic. I've already spent more time on this than available to me; hopefully, you can do something (or not). 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:51F3:8BF2:45BE:D2A4 (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC) -P.s.: this is a dynamic IP, which will change on next logon; please don't bother responding on that talk page[reply]

It can't be that Park Theatre, which was built later. I wouldn't worry about it. Theatres were named and renamed frequently, and the theatre district was still moving uptown at that point. It is likely that that theatre no longer exists. Someday, someone will do an article on Brother Sam, and then they might track down the theatre. Thanks for working on the Julias. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck to you, (or whoever attempts to fill this hole in the historical record). --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:51F3:8BF2:45BE:D2A4 (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers, hope you're doing well. I think you may have misunderstood the spirit of my edit on Frankie Grande which you reverted. The see also edit was not to indicate that Grande was somehow active in the NYC gay scene (I don't know how many notable people are), but rather that he is an openly gay New Yorker (a prominent fact) who has contributed notably to the overall NYC scene (Style Code Live originates in NYC) and to overall U.S. culture. Would it be more acceptable to you to section-direct the see also link to LGBT culture in New York City#Self-identifying LGBTQ New Yorkers (piping it of course, for cosmetic appearance, i.e., LGBT culture in New York City)? Best, Castncoot (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I really don't think it's of encyclopedic value; in fact, I think it is detrimental. Probably 90% of male Broadway actors identify as gay. There must be thousands of notable people who are LGBTQ New Yorkers, but what makes them particularly relevant to LGBTQ "culture" in NYC? The fact that his style show is in NY and that he is an actor/host are all facts that are already amply covered in the article and categories. Adding a "see also" notation to the list article seems pointless and just added clutter. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for your thoughts on this. I'm sure you won't mind me adding the Category: LGBT people from New York then, as it is conspicuously missing. Best, Castncoot (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for requesting page protection. I tried to do the same with Twinkle, but in the flurry of activity earlier I must have hit the back button before it was finished or something. Thanks again! EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping with the page! -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of Ariana Grande, I have now found the link to the article on the Manchester Arena explosion, and I just wished to say that I thank you for guiding me about where it could now be found. Many thanks for that. I could see that on this article's talkpage, a lot of discussion might go on for quite some time now - I know that Wikipedia is not Wikinews, but I find it is in some ways more comprehensive in its news coverage than is Wikinews. I think that it is probably because Wikipedia has a much higher Google search than wikinews. Once again, thnaks for your help with finding the wikilink. All the best, Vorbee (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for teaching the class today in the NYPL library on how to use and edit Wikipedia articles. The information was very helpful! 65.88.88.45 (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

dittos I really loved it and HOPE you will teach another class here, or somewhere else, please let me know where. Nasreddin2 (talk) 21

41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I am just wondering about a photo on Wikimedia. I am looking on adding a photo of "Terry Gillespie" to wikimedia. My friends took the photograph, and the person who the photograph is a encyclopedic subject, though he is a friend of mine (i'm working on his page right now). Would it be "out of place" to add that photo to the commons sincerely, CanadianWikilover — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanadianWikilover (talk • contribs) 03:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The photographer should either add the photo to Wikipedia him or herself, or they could sign this consent letter and you can follow the process describe at WP:CONSENT. This is a complicated process, and you must follow it exactly. The simplest thing is for the photographer to upload it him or herself. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help with contested copyright of image on Toby Price page, where someone wants to keep deleting the photo I took of the subject. -- GSmyth (talk) 21 June 2017

I followed your advice, and contested the deletion, but it seems my claim was ignored. It is frustrating that I am accused of copyright violation for photos that I have taken. As if I cannot give myself permission to use my own work! Do people get their jollies by removing other people's work from Wikipedia? Anyway, thanks again for trying to help. I just thought I would let you know what happened. -- GSmyth (talk) 21 June 2017

This is becoming a decent article with your work!; always have admired your great efforts in this area.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:BeautyofBath1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the citations came from a news database, so it's not possible to provide the page numbers, but that doesn't make the citations any less acceptable — while page numbers should be provided when possible, they are not mandatory conditions that a citation has to meet to be valid in the first place: the mandatory conditions are title, publication name and date, and while additional information is encouraged whenever possible those three pieces of information are all that must be provided for a citation to be acceptable. And Wikipedia has no requirement to provide a direct URL to a web-published version of the content, either — that usually isn't even possible for sources that are over ten years old. Secondly, although it was mounted by real producers, the mere fact that notable newspapers deemed it newsworthy automatically means its notability is not up for any debate. Bearcat (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If you got this from the internet, you need to disclose the url so that people can verify it. Also, the fact that two newspapers mentioned the production does not make it noteworthy. Newspapers often mention high school productions! -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have a requirement that all sources require URLs by which readers can directly verify the content. We are allowed to cite print-only sources, such as books, paper or microfilm or OCR database copies of magazines or newspapers, and other sources which do not have web URLs to provide. We require that a source be reliable, but we are not restricted to web-published sources. And secondly, while it's true that local newspapers mention high school productions, the National Post is not a local newspaper — it's a national newspaper, which only covers news deemed to be of national interest and does not cover purely local-interest news in any community, such as high school theatre or high school sports or high school anything. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IF a source does have, a url, however, you should provide it. You said that you found these sources on the web, so please tell us where. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I said; I said I retrieved the sources from a subscription news database at the library. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, at the library. I've sent a message to retired user Tim riley, who is a Noel Coward expert and asked him whether he thinks to production was of encyclopedic importance. My main problem is that I don't know how many performances were given at the Gravenhurst Opera House. BTW, did the library database give author name or page number information from the newspapers? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A voice from the tomb: we usually include West End and Broadway productions in lists of revivals, but unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary we don't single out any of the innumerable out-of-town, provincial or repertory productions. The family revival in question may be of encyclopaedic importance to the family article, if there is one, but is neither here nor there in relation to the Hay Fever article, me judice. Tim riley talk 18:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers, I went through all the links you gave in Ballerina. Unfortunately they are all just about the topic, very little in terms of production and even there no talk about original language. People here want it English-language. I gave a link that says its original language was French, but it was removed. I guess people think it should be English, so Wikipedia states it's English and everyone else reflects this. The Tweet of Laurent Zeitoun clearly says it was both languages at the same time, so they worked it all in parallel, with parallel voice casts. Then in the Frech speaking world the French language was released (first) and in the English language world the English-language version was released soon thereafter. So there is the original French version and the original English version, bith produced in parallel. I won't argue any further on the article. If editors here feel it's a blemish to say it was produced in two languages, they might as well hide the information. Cheers. Hoverfish Talk 22:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked also at the French Wikipedia article. They have both casts, as it should be. I think the article here is just about the English version of the film, with a little note at the bottom of the Cast section that there is also a French version of the film that, well, came first. Why only under Cast this information? Go figure. Hoverfish Talk 23:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is just wrong. Please don't give up. Eventually, we will be able to get it corrected, when other editors join us. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by "I won't argue" is that I'm not going to indulge in reverts. When I give a citation and it is removed, the local bias is only too obvious and I'm only one editor. If other editors care to interfere I will surely support them. I fail completely to understand the zeal of not wanting to state the French side, but hey, I have been working for a couple of months on the Cannes Festival series and I've seen plenty of disdain for the French way of looking at things in many American news citations and even in some comments in talk pages. I guess it's a cultural thing. And the French also share a good part in it, as far as I know. Hoverfish Talk 10:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: our toing and froing in The Mikado

I agree that you have reverted "to the MUCH better version". Nanki-Poo does indeed first appear simply as a minstrel and we only learn about his role as Second Trombone at his second entrance. -- Jmc (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I had tried to add accurate information regarding the Frozen Developmental Lab and Staged Reading on Broadway, which you deleted. I can provide proof if that is needed for the cast in question. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:2000:32A:4887:EE1E:78CB:6285 (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the Dan Leno article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 18 October 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 18, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you edited the NRG Energy wiki page. I am trying to write a page about Reliant, and I am wondering if I could get some feedback from you. Any help will be appreciated. Here is the Reliant draft page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Reliant_Energy Thanks Adapt16 (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief... Words fail me, particularly given the subsequent gibbering nonsense. The inability to understand basic policies and guidelines shown by the misguided editor is never a good basis on which to try and throw ones weight around! - SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! What amazes me the most is that editors who have never contributed anything useful to a page show up and insist that the IB, formatting, etc. must be done their way. And, generally, those are the ones who have never worked on any high-quality articles, don't write well and may never have read an actual book. This happens over and over again and wastes the time of productive editors. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect an age/maturity issue: all too often they seem to be major factors in cases of questionable ability. - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless!  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year to you! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Happy holidays, and Happy New Year to you! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas, and a very happy New Year to you, too! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 23:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Happy Holidays to you! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warmest congratulations to Ssilvers and Tim riley for the well-deserved promotion of Arthur Sullivan! Best wishes for 2018, DBaK (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have thanked DBaK for his message on my talk page. What a nice message to get as the Old Year slips out. Here's to happy and productive editing in 2018, for all three of us and every other editor. Tim riley talk 13:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and seasonal felicitations, to you both! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May all your endeavours have a fruitful beginning and prosperous ending!  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and the same to you! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers, long time no see! I've been working on creating the Make Me a Song (musical) page, and I had a couple questions I couldn't find answers to, and I remember you as being very in the know in regards to both musicals and appropriate sources. There are some things regarding song listings, credits, production history, etc. that I can only find in the playbill (which I have though I didn't see the show), a playbill insert with song notes written by Finn, and the liner notes in my copy of the cast recording. Can I use those as sources? And any advice on the page would be appreciated if you have a moment, I've never created a musical article from nothing before. Thanks so much! ElfLady64 (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, User:ElfLady64, you can cite a playbill and liner notes, although reviews by reputable critics in major newspapers and magazines are even better. I'll go look at the page now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia needs more people like you. Kindest regards, RatherReadABook (talk)

	The Original Barnstar
	But... but... If I could just say it in a clear and understandable manner, they might get it! Thanks for the intervention! Jim1138 (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you taking the time to look at the article and clean it up to remove the cruft and make it much more encyclopedic. The article looks and flows much better now, so hopefully this will put an end to the edit warring. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A video of the entire awards ceremony is here: https://www.facebook.com/gsfestivals.org/videos/240118506693224

Festival champions are announced around the 38 minute mark, just a minute before the end. For previous years from 2017 back to 1999, you can see all the festival champions and runners up here: http://www.gsfestivals.org/product-category/dvds/festival-winners/: -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello Ssilvers, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 21:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
	Hi Ssilvers, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,    –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 15:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Davey, for the thoughtful season's greetings. Have a lovely Christmas and a very happy, healthy and prosperous 2019! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome Ssilvers and thanks so much, Take care, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 15:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings to you, and happy editing in 2019! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history service award
		For your work on Arthur Sullivan, whose work has occasionally been featured in military history related settings, you are hereby granted with WikiProject Military history Service 1 stripe award. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Half Barnstar
		For your work on Arthur Sullivan, whose work has occasionally been featured in military history related settings, you are hereby awarded The Left Half of the Half Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That I always appreciate and marvel at your work when you descend upon an article Ssilvers. Currently you are working your magic on The Slipper and the Rose . Many thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 21:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Thanks. I just tweaked it. The (musical) version is probably not notable by itself and should not have an article of its own, and sure enough, when you look at it, The Slipper and the Rose (musical) is a ghastly little stub that should be deleted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right S. Anything of use there could be merged. Even your tweaking improves an article :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 23:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone starts a merge discussion, I'll certainly vote for it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just created a new article for this show. I would really value your input and corrections. Bob

Thanks for your help. I think we need a disambiguation page because anyone searching "Rumple" will get John N.W. Rumple! Can you add one? Bob

Done and done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - I added a paragaph on the plot. Feel free to have at it. Rjstern (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but it needs a few more sentences about what happens in the script.

I'm not sure what to think about this one. Your thoughts would be appreciated.4meter4 (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2019

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well S. MarnetteD|Talk 21:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MarnetteD, thanks for the holiday cheer, and thanks for all your good work, too! Season's greetings and Happy New Year! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment S :-) MarnetteD|Talk 01:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	Merry Christmas Ssilvers
	Hi Ssilvers, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia this past year,    –Davey2010talk 00:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Davey! Merry Christmas to you, and a very happy New Year ahead! --Ssilvers (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		Faithful friends who are dear to us
		... gather near to us once more. May your heart be light and your troubles out of sight, now and in the New Year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'SandyGeorgia!! I'm so happy to see your name! Happy holidays! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Season's greetings to you, too, FWiW Bzuk! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year - I just posted a new article entitled Battling Buttler. Do you have time to vet it? Bob

I gave it a once over. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your copyedit of the lead - I agree that linking composer is also unnecessary - I just wanted to say that I am [very] slowly rewriting the article to try to get it up to FA by the time of LvB's 250th, and was leaving the lead till last. Currently held up at the music section, trying to decide how best to treat it. And then there will be a big legacy section. Any and all comments gratefully received --Smerus (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! In the past couple days I have made many updates to Falsettos. Let me know what you think when you get the chance! Basilisk4u (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally good. I made some edits. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback and edits. I have been looking for the past week for in newspapers, magazines, and books for a source explaining why Finn decided to combine the two acts to create Falsettos and found nothing. I can only assume he wanted to make a full-length musical and didn't include In Trousers because it was poorly received. Of course, my assumptions have no place in the article. I am going to keep looking for sources to back up dates for openings/closings of different tours, and then I plan to nominate for GA. Thanks again! Basilisk4u (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving that a review and sprucing it up! When I run across an old play like that and see how popular it once was, and that it doesn't have an article yet, and how MUCH could be written about it, it can be quite a fun but daunting challenge. It still needs a plot summary and a summary of the differences from the Sardou original, but I'd say it a good start now!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I wonder how popular Dora was. Maybe it has an article in French that someone will translate eventually. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dora was a definitely a success in Paris, but there's no indication it stood out among his many plays to the French. There's no French wikipedia article on that one yet. Plays adapted into English often took on a life of their own, I wonder if Sardou ever saw any of them. There were definitely English critics who saw both Dora and Diplomacy and wrote about the differences, that is another area for expansion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Merry Christmas Ssilvers
	Hi Ssilvers, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and healthy New Year, Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia,    –Davey2010Talk 20:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Davey!. Wishing you a very Merry Christmas, too! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Half-Sick of Shadows, Said the Lady of Shalott		Happy holidays
		Dear Ssilvers, For you and all your loved ones, "Let there be mercy". Wishing you health, peace and happiness this holiday season and in the coming year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sandy! I hope that you and your family have a very healthy, safe and festive holiday season and New Year! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Ssilvers, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Mollifiednow (talk) 14:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Mollifiednow (talk) 14:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mollifiednow! The same to you! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look over the recent edits to the article? Someone keeps adding info about a production at the Paper Mill Playhouse that seems brief and regional to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at Something Rotten!? A cast list was added for a non-notable production and was readded after I removed it. BOVINEBOY2008 23:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I'll watch the page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Order of the Hawk-eye
	Thanks for swooping in to correct my mistakes! Tyrone Madera (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are very kind. Not mistakes, just a matter of consistent style in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this. Thanks, I try :) Tyrone Madera (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	A full plate armor
	As a knight of Wikipedia, you deserve this. V. E. (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I need a suit of armor around here! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers! I'm using this Trove bio, written in 1890, to write an article on Phil Goatcher, who did a lot of stage scenery painting, and I've hit a roadblock on this paragraph, which sounds important but I can find no other reference to it or anything like it:

Subsequently (1886), Mr. Goatcher joined the staff of scenic artists attached to Theodor Thomas' Great American Opera Company, the most colossal musical organisation that the world has ever seen. The scenic artists, including the subject of this sketch, were nine in number, several of them being well-known in the English literary world through their clever illustrations of American books and magazines. Unfortunately the Great American Opera Company came to a disastrous termination, and resolved itself into a never-ending string of law-suits.

Does this ring any bells ? It sounds like something up your street. Cheers, Doug butler (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doug butler, I think you mean Theodore Thomas (conductor), the music director of the American Opera Company#Jeannette Thurber's American Opera Company. It survived only a year before declaring bankruptcy, and the above description is, to paraphrase Mark Twain, greatly exaggerated. The Australians (and, really, all the Victorians), were prone to such flights of fancy. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes I saw that article of course, and must assume you're right. What a letdown! The rest of the article was just standard chest-thumping and trumpet blowing, but that was OTT. Thanks for the prompt reply. Doug butler (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I noticed you as being a editor at Wicked (Musical) which is currently at GA level. After looking at the Russian Interwiki version of it, they look like they have translated the English version into Russian and received an FA article for doing that. Should the English version be brought up to FA level. Any interest in doing a co-nomination for it to get it to FA level? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Happy New Year! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford or serial comma is optional. Editors may use or not use it "so long as each article is internally consistent." MOS:SERIAL If an article is already established and does not use the convention, then do not add it. See MOS:VAR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my confusion of of IMDb and IBDB. What is really funny is that I am the one who originally added IBDB as a source for this article. Well, at least I knew what it was at one point... LOL. Rublamb (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks for the new research on the article, Rublamb. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Would it be appropriate to add a photo from Wild Side Story to the section of West Side Story where the former is mentioned, perhaps one from Manhattan or Los Angeles? Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SergeWoodzing. It feels spammy to me. I have to think that there must be hundreds of free images more directly relevant to West Side Story. Also, the parody is getting older and older, without any new major productions reported, and so it becomes less and less important. I wouldn't do it, personally. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Think you could have a look at this? I've moved the Play Pictoral images to a gallery, which helped quite a bit (the Act II Napoleon image did not look right before), but the images are rather badly spaced and you're good at that. If I'm being annoying, let me know and I'll pull back. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.1% of all FPs} 08:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is that better? Can you center the whole block? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, you're right, there's a lot of pictures, but not quite enough to justify a gallery. On the other, I do kind of like the idea of including his signature on the page. Maybe we could just add a link to the commons category? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs} 02:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC) Just going to link the Commons Category. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs} 02:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that works for now. I suspect that there is more to say about Parry. If you were to expand the article, of course, there would be more room for images. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you reverted my edit to the Project Gutenberg template on Arthur Sullivan, saying that it wasn't the same link. When the template is given a name instead of a number id, the template links to a Project Gutenberg disambiguation page. The old link, which you reverted to, is https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/authors/search/?query=Sullivan,+Arthur, which shows two authors by the name of Arthur Sullivan. My edit links directly to the correct one, https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/author/422. So no, its not the same link, but it is a more correct one. --Mikaka (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Mikaka, thank you! I have reinstated your edit. I did not understand your original edit summary, as the Gutenberg page for Sullivan looks weirdly vacant: Since he wasn't a book author, I wonder whether this External Link is significant? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reinstating it. Though he's not an author, I suspect that users looking for the transcript of the plays will appreciate a link to Project Gutenberg on the article; it's a known and trusted resource. Besides, if you remove it you'll probably have to deal with people adding it back in. --Mikaka (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The full text of the G&S operas (is that what you mean by "plays"?) is contained at the Gilbert and Sullivan Archive, among other sources cited in the article, so I don't think that is a convincing reason to leave it in. Also the idea that I might have to fight vandalism and edit warring doesn't concern me; it's par for the course. I had hoped that there was a better reason to leave the EL in the article. Still, the EL section is not too much of a WP:LINKFARM at this time, so I'm not in a hurry to remove it. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found a high-resolution copy of the Elliott & Fry photograph of Gilbert. Slightly different colours - to me the old one looks too faded, and this one maybe slightly too dark, but I'll fix that as I restore it. This version includes the cabinet card mount; I think that's a good thing, but we could crop it for some usages pretty easily. (I'd suggest {{CSS image crop}} - let me know and I'll set it up. I'm rather pleased. I've wanted to get a high-resolution photograph of Gilbert for ages. No sign of one for Sullivan at present, though.

To note, I can't find where the attribution to "about 1878" comes from. Certainly, he looks younger than photos from the 1890s, but that's the only evidence I can find for dates. As such, I've made it the more approximate sounding "about 1880" Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs} 04:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, still too dark. He looks younger than his 1886 painting, and much older than his 1867 photo with his wife. I don't know where we got 1878, but the NYPL file says no later than 1879. I wouldn't be surprised if 1878 turns out to be right. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we're presuming the "1979" is a typo for 1879, I think you're right, just I wish that typo wasn't there. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs} 21:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! I didn't even notice the typo. Well, let's leave your c. 1880 for now, but please keep an eye out. User:Kosboot or User:Epicgenius, can you advise re the date in the NYPL file, or otherwise figure out the exact year? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping @Ssilvers. I did a little digging into this matter and, unfortunately, the entire collection contains the same vague 1860-1979 range. This lines up with what the collection's description page says, although that page also notes that "Most of the photographs date from the end of the 19th-century, and the sitters are largely European, by European photographers".

As for the exact year of publication, I'm not too sure either, although I suspect this was published and copyrighted in the UK, so maybe the UK government has a record of when these images were published/copyrighted. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the good news is File:H.J. Whitlock - Photograph of Arthur Sullivan.jpg is easy. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.1% of all FPs} 06:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MasterMatt12 (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MasterMatt12! Have a very happy holiday season, and happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You "strongly objected" to headings within Kristin Chenoweth's personal life. Why is that? It makes it much more coherent and information easier to locate. Originally I looked at this article, not as editor, but as a reader interested in an aspect of Chenoweth's personal life. I had to read through a lot of bulky text before finding it. Not every reader wants to go through every aspect of her medical history, dating history, her memoir, her appearance at the 700 club, to find something which could be easily located with headings. Before editing, I found her original Wikipedia article had similar subheadings within her personal life and someone removed it. This is a restoration of headings which someone had deleted years back. Beth Timken (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Beth Timken. I do not object to headings unless they are unnecessary and covered by the existing headings. Headings should cover up to one screen of text. If you want to break sections down with additional headings, it must be because the current heading does not cover the content -- you clearly knew that this information would be in the "personal life" section. Readers should be patient enough to read through a short section like that to find all the information that belongs in it without needing to see a new heading for each paragraph. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is an encyclopedia, and so the writing style is different. I also object to Talk page notes that are in multiple paragraphs. Why? They clutter up the talk page. "Personal life" is one of the least important sections of an encyclopedia biography, especially for a living person, and people like to add unencylopedic rumors and gossip to it. It should be kept short enough not to need subheadings. The Heading "medical" is profoundly unencyclopedic in Chenoweth's case. -- all we find when we go there is that Chenoweth claims to have Menier's disease, despite famously starring in a show that required her to stand suspended above the stage for long periods of time. If you wanted to know specifically about her Menier's you could have just searched the text (but you won't find much substantive about it, just that she has sometimes said she suffer from it. If you are looking for other medical information, the heading will be disappointing. I don't see why breaking this short section down into stubby little sections would be helpful at all. And breaking up paragraphs into stubby smaller paragraphs is journalistic, not encyclopedic. In addition, you should not add the language parameter to citations from English-language sources. You only need this parameter for foreign language sources. Finally, please note that I routinely delete conversations like this from my Talk page. If you want to have a conversation about an article that will be retained, I suggest having that conversation at an article's Talk page, not an editor's. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am researching my family tree, and discover a family connection with the above. However, I see no reference to his marriage to Annie Mae Piemonte, whom he married in Liverpool. I believe she was his only wife and the couple had only one child, as you state. Annie May was, I believe, a singer with a vocal troupe and originated in Italy. I could be persuaded to believe she sang for G&S in some capacity. I would love to hear thoughts on this. 86.172.244.120 (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know any more about her than what is written in his Wikipedia bio. Do you have his memoir? Perhaps it says more about his wife and daughter. Good luck! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
Have a great Christmas, and may 2023 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! Cheers SchroCat (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...And a very merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and successful 2023 to you, SchroCat! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Moops! A very happy, healthy and successful 2023 to you, too! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please note the US Patent and Trademark Office article (currently reference #27) which provides detailed information on Adams extensive stage design responsibilities, and cites her work at G.E. to create a new type of light bulb for stage lighting, for which she is named as inventor on three patents. Quite a legacy! Blainster (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Blainster, I do not see what you are talking about. The US Patent and Trademark Office article does not mention Adams at all. What is the cite? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently submitting the below draft, and since you are both an expert on opera, as well as being in the US, I thought I would ask for your editing expertise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:George_Jackson_(conductor) Jacksogh1987 (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jacksogh1987, I gave it a copy edit. The main problems were lack of dates, and that the bio should be in roughly chronological order. I did not read or check the sources. It would improve the article to cite, and if helpful, quote, newspaper reviews of his work that mention his conducting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much - you are a hero, and I will continue to update. Thanks for your input! Jacksogh1987 (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Good luck, and happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers. I'm not a frequent editor and I'm always happy to be corrected on matters of style, but I'm confused by the placement of Gielgud's memoirs below the inline references in Violet Vanbrugh. When I moved it up, I was following the model of Harold Acton's memoirs, which are currently cited inline in footnote 7 of the same article. Each is a book with only a passing mention of Vanbrugh, and each is quoted just once in the text. So why are they treated differently in the citations, with Acton listed in full in the inline notes but Gielgud listed below? This is not a complaint, just an honest question. My understanding was that an article should have either a consolidated list of references below the notes with sfn or harvnb short refs in the notes themselves, or it should have each work cited in full in the inline refs at first appearance and refnames used for subsequent citations -- but not a mixture of the two. When I moved Gielgud, I was trying to make the citations consistent. To help me avoid making the same mistake again, could you briefly explain why that is wrong, and why the two books should be cited differently? Thanks, Crawdad Blues (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Crawdad Blues: Thanks for noting this. All the book cites should be at the bottom under "Sources", with "short cites" (author name and page number) in line (I prefer not to use the Harv or sfn templates, as manual is easier to modify and just as correct). I've moved Acton down now. But we need the page number where this info came from. Can you find it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help with the page number in Acton, I'm afraid. (I didn't add that quotation, and when I did a quick check yesterday I could only find online copies of the second volume, which is not the one cited here.) But I was planning to add a couple of refs to the memoirs of Ellen Terry and Irene Vanbrugh, which I held off doing after I saw your reversion of the Gielgud. I will now put them at the bottom with the others rather than inline.

I have to say though, I don't really understand the sense of separating out the books just because they are books. A source is a source, whether it's a journal article or a book or an online encyclopedia entry. To my eyes, listing the books under their own heading separate from the other sources gives readers a misleading impression of their importance, especially since, in this case at least, they are not very important at all, and each of them is cited only once, as compared to, say, the ODNB articles, which are tucked away in the inline references in a smaller font, even though they are far more useful and cited more frequently. It's the inconsistency of using two different systems of citation in the same article that baffles me. Still, I understand that expecting Wikipedia to be consistent is like expecting my dog to play the piano, and since I have no personal investment in any of this I can roll with just about any wacky style of referencing that a given article chooses to use. Thanks for the response; I will follow your lead in any other edits I make to Violet Vanbrugh. Cheers, Crawdad Blues (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at WP:Featured Articles, they usually do it that way. I'm not sure why, historically, but it does provide a bibliography of a subject handily at the bottom. Books are different from things like ODNB, which is a tertiary source. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've used several of the articles you made contributions to as inspiration/guidance on how to clean up and improve some of the musical theatre articles that I've worked on or are currently working on. I noticed that the Six article appears to be consistently vandalized by multiple users. These contributors are adding tons of unnecessary content to the page, such that it reads to me like a fan page. I've noticed in the past weeks that some other editors try to revert some of the unconstructive edits but they get reverted and remain on the article. A lot of the unconstructive edits appear to be done by users who are new or done by IP addresses.

I want to clean up the article but am leery about getting into an edit war. I'm not sure what to do here. Do you have any suggestions or advice? Thanks in advance! ChrisWilliam1995 (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed another contributor caught on as well and has been cleaning it up, shortly after I posted this. I'm going to also begin helping clean it up. ChrisWilliam1995 (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I am still trying to publish the article on conductor George Jackson:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:George_Jackson_(conductor)

This has been declined for autobiographical reasons, although I am not the subject of the article! Can you help with resubmitting and tidying up? Thank you! Jacksogh1987 (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was not declined because of the apparent WP:COI: it was declined for lack of a sufficient number of independent WP:Reliable sources that give Jackson significant coverage. I added a newspaper article to his entry that is clearly an independent WP:RS that gives him significant coverage. You need to add at least a couple more independent newspaper articles that are specifically devoted to Jackson. Also, you should add several more news articles reviewing his performances. Not social media: Actual mainstream news sources. Also, you should add more information about his career, including some of the engagements mentioned in the source I added and in the Violin Channel article. Finally, if you are not connected in any way to Jackson, you should change your Wikipedia username; however if you have a personal or professional relationship with him, you should disclose it per WP:COI. Good luck! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I know you and I had some disagreements months ago on a theatre page but I do agree with you about not placing casts on theatre pages until they have officially opened to the public. However, I have been dealing with one person on another musical page who keeps adding future casting before the production opens and they won't seem to stop. I have given them good reasons but they don't seem to think it's enough. I could really use some imput. What is your reasoning behind waiting on casting to be placed on a page until it officially opens? Thanks! Smitty1999 (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Off the top of my head: 1. The production could be cancelled. This happened to numerous productions at the beginning of the Covid pandemic, and it routinely happens when producers don't come up with the funds for a production. It can happen for a variety of other reasons, like last-minute damage to the theatre, a stage-hand, actor or orchestra strike, or even bad press/word-of-mouth that causes a production to fizzle even before previews begin. 2. An actor can have an injury or other medical problem shortly before the show opens. This happened in the recent B'way revival of West Side Story and to several actors during rehearsals of Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark. 3. An actor can be fired or just quit during rehearsals. 4. The source can be mistaken, so it is best not to jump on the first source. 5. Casting is an over-written part of musical theatre articles anyhow, which give cast information often three times -- especially bad are the bloated cast tables that take up far more real estate in an article than they really deserve, and this is made worse by prematurely adding more columns. 6. The production doesn't really "exist" until it at least begins public performances. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers Thank you! Smitty1999 (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't talked in a while, but I really need your help. I just added a new article but I mistyped the title. I typed "Along Fith Avenue" when it should have been, of course, "Along Fifth Avenue". can you fix it? Thanks, Bob Rjstern (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Your synopsis is way much better than mine. I take it we don't have to have a citation for the synopsis? 71.162.218.158 (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right. See MOS:PLOTSOURCE. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. What do you mean by "Publicity Photo"? (posted by User:Iruka13 on July 29, 2023)

I meant that it appears to have been taken for the purpose of publicizing one or another of the operas in which he appeared. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To use the {{PD-US-1923-Abroad}} template, we need to know more than just the publication date - its source. — Ирука¹³ 03:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iruka13, the image was published 150 years ago. Which template would you use? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If no other information is available, {{PD-old-assumed}}. — Ирука¹³ 05:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted the file for discussion. — Ирука¹³ 04:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I have this one person who is reverting edits on multiple pages I work on. They keep adding a table for the creative team of a show and I keep telling them that it does not belong there. Only casting belongs on the tables correct? I'll put the links below for two of the pages, but I just do not know how to deal with this person. I just do not want a WP:EDITWAR on these pages. Thanks! Pages: Patriots (play), Brokeback Mountain (play) Smitty1999 (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A K-Pop fan called User:Nkon21 has simply reverted and edition I made to clarify BTS is many things besides a boy band, and in addition has reinforced the page security. It's like claiming that a determined color belongs to them. Can I receive some help, please? Fidulario (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His revert was proper per the usual WP:BRD procedure. Plus, you should not change article names without first raising a consensus on an article Talk page to do so. You can now open a discussion on the Talk page about it. But this is a Featured Article, which means that it has been reviewed by multiple experienced editors. I doubt very much that you will succeed in changing the name. Please see WP:DR for more information about how to pursue this disagreement if you wish to do so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have stuck my oar in here. If you have any views on the matter, do pray add them. Ever thine, Tim riley talk 13:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the beetlejuice musical page, i added the korean cast, why did you delete it? Sermint (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The table and infobox should only list major-market productions (Broadway, West End, or long running US or UK national tours). Plus, things only go in tables and infoboxes *after* they open. All the information about other major productions goes in the Productions section. So you can name notable cast members there, along with a WP:RS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The korea tour already opened 2 years ago Sermint (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, add any Notable cast members to the Productions section, citing a WP:RS that states what roles they performed. Whether Notable or not, you can give the name of the person who played the title character. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good day. Can you help me change the page name of the article Jona Viray to Jona (Filipino singer). She already changed her screen name in 2016, following her network transfer. Thank you. Loibird90 (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't think we can change the page name to Jona, because there are other important articles with the same name, including a place name and an article about at least one other person who uses the name mononomously. See MOS:PRIMARYTOPIC. Note that she is already linked on the current Jona page. I think her current article's name is probably the best one. However, if you wish, you can start a discussion about it on her article's Talk page, and if you get a strong WP:CONSENSUS to move the page, then you will need to get an administrator and convince them to help move the pages -- they would have to move the current Jona page also, and they might require that a broader discussion take place on another page. Best of luck! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me change the title of a recent article I created. There seems to be a slight typographical error. Its supposed to be Five Breakups and a Romance instead of Five Break-Ups and a Romance. Thank you! Loibird90 (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You just use the "More" tab at the top of the article and click on "move". If that doesn't work, it means that the target name is already in use or frozen, and you need help from an admin. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks <3 Loibird90 (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your improvements to Dwayne Cooper. I've been promoting entries about Drag Race contestants to GA status. I'm less familiar with bios of stage actors, so let me know if you have any interest in co-nominating this article with me, otherwise I'll take the plunge solo when ready. Either way, thanks again for your help. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No interest. He's not notable for his theatre acting work, as he has never had a leading role in a major production (as far as I can see). If he is notable, it is for his drag performances, though as a 9th place finisher on a reality show, I don't think he is notable. But I'll be happy to give the article another proofread. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, re: finishing in 9th place, almost all RuPaul's Drag Race contestants have Wikipedia entries, regardless of placement.) Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But why are they notable? My guess is that many of them will eventually be AfD'd. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
	Have a great Christmas, and may 2024 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! Cheers SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SchroCat! A very merry Christmas and wishes to you for a wonderful year ahead! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers. I figured you might be interested in this: I have uploaded some recordings of The Gondoliers.

The first recordings are historical public-domain ones: the more-or-less complete 1919 HMV recording of the opera. The quality of the recording is not great, owing to the usual limitations of those early recordings. Nevertheless, they are public domain and clips can be freely taken.

• File:The Gondoliers (HMV 1919) - Act I.flac
• File:The Gondoliers (HMV 1919) - Act II.flac

Then, I've also added a much newer recording — this one is a recording of a live performance (in which I am Giuseppe). I also was the videographer and audio engineer (I will admit to winging it in the latter capacity). Nowhere near the historical notability, but certainly recording technology has come a long way in the past century!

• File:The Gondoliers (Lakeshore Light Opera 2023).webm

We have a few other recordings, including the famous 1927 recording, on IMSLP, but they are not in the public domain in the US yet (although they are in the public domain in Canada, where IMSLP is hosted, as well as the UK). The 1927 recording will be in the US public domain in 2028, at which point it can be added to Commons. It is far better than the 1919 recording (in no small part due to the technological jump made in the eight intervening years). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 10:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:D. Benjamin Miller, I enjoyed listening to your singing in the Lakeshore Gondoliers very much, but it is an amateur production with no special historical importance and should not be included in any of WP's general G&S pages. However, I suggest that you add the file of the 2023 recording to the article on Lakeshore Light Opera (and also update that article and, if possible, add more citations to verify the existing text). I am not inclined to add the 1919 files at this time (I'd wait until 1928 and add the better one), but you should add External Links to The Gondoliers and other G&S articles linking to the best IMSLP files. Sounds good? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that it's not particularly historically important to G&S. (Actually, I'm not sure I am supposed to edit the Lakeshore Light Opera page, due to COI rules - as I was affiliated with the group - but you could add the video.)

The Gondoliers page already links (I believe) to the IMSLP page, which has the 1927 recordings (as well as the newer ones).

Relatedly, a complete set of recordings of Iolanthe will enter the US public domain on January 1, at which point I'll upload them to Commons as well.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There will not be a problem with you editing the Lakeshore article, as you don't have a financial interest in the company (unless, you are its producer or a paid employee), unless you were to write about yourself. If something about you personally should go in the article, you could tell me about it, and I'll be happy to add it if I agree. But there will not be any problem with you adding WP:Reliable sources to the article that merely verify assertions that are already there. But if you don't feel comfortable, give me the cites, and I'd be happy to review and add them. BTW, I have never added a sound/video file like this to an article and don't actually know how to do it. It it the same process as for an .ogg file? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, not sure, because WP:COI seems to be broader. (Otherwise, there could be issues — such as with non-profits as is the case here.) I'm also definitely the producer of the video in question. I don't really have any information to add beyond what is on LLO.org, in any case.

For sound/video files, it's the same with any supported file type (so, same for FLAC or WEBM as for OGG). Template:Listen gives good examples of how to insert a sound or video clip. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As I said, if you can find cites for the uncited material in the article, and referenced updates, put them on the article's Talk page, and I will gladly review and insert them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, I was able to get most of the old HMV recordings, which I'm now uploading (in decent quality, for the source material). Some of these were already uploaded.

• The Mikado (1917)
• The Gondoliers (1919)
• Yeomen of the Guard (1920)
• The Pirates of Penzance (1920)
• Iolanthe (1922)
• H.M.S. Pinafore (1922)
• Ruddigore (1924)
• Princess Ida (1925)

Many of these are already PD-US, or will be PD-US on January 1 (based on publication in 1923 or earlier). I'm adding clips to some pages. These are especially useful for articles for some of the singers of that era: Peter Dawson and Bessie Jones, for example.

Maybe I should work on categorizing these recordings with more granularity (and work to put them all in Category:Audio files of music by Arthur Sullivan on Commons). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the files to those articles. Like the vast majority WP readers, I don't pay much attention to categories. Happy New Year! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm not sure why you removed the Wiki Info Box and picture that I put up for Doreen Lang. Just curious, Thanks.Entercontainment (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, as a Signpost report notes: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". As several Arbcom cases have said, unless you are creating a new article, you should not add an infobox to an existing article unless there is first a WP:CONSENSUS to do so on the Talk page. All the best, and happy new year! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I wasn't trying to do anything wrong, I just thought I was helping. Thanks again. Entercontainment (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, but please do not add infoboxes to existing article unless the editors who regularly edit the article agree that one would be helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Same to you, Abishe! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on why you continue to delete references to Anything & Everything, apparently because there is no reference to the work in anything 'standard musical theatre book.' According to Wikipedia,=== Definition of a source[edit] === Shortcut

• WP:SOURCEDEF

A source is where the material comes from. For example, a source could be a book or a webpage. A source can be reliable or unreliable for the material it is meant to support.

Why do you think the references I provided are 'unreliable?' (And according to Wikipedia, so what?) My apologies if any snark is conveyed here. It's frustrating and completely unclear why you keep blocking this update. Dickie323 (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS. If the musical is not discussed in such sources, it is not encyclopedically WP:NOTEWORTY. Also, only blue-linked items go on the list page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ssilvers, Could you please explain how to add a reference in the alumni section of this article? I do have a reference for Clara Ross: http://www.claraross.co.uk/Bio/index.html but I am unable to format it to include it in the list, and I would appreciate your help. Thank you, T. E. Meeks (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, User:T. E. Meeks. Go to the article to see how I did it. It is possible that someone will still delete it if they believe that the ref is not a WP:RS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope you're well! Just wondering about Sia... earlier sections of her career are much more detailed than the current one (2017–present), with not only months listed for dates but also specific collaborations mentioned etc. I appreciate she has been doing less recently but is it not worth having a bit more detail (e.g. months of release or Miley Cyrus / Diljit Dosanjh / Ozuna collaborations)? — Peterpie123rww (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Peterpie123rww. Yes, collaborations with notable people should be mentioned, especially if they charted in the top 10 or something important like that. But I don't see where we mention months of singles releases. We should and do give full dates of album releases, but I think years is enough for singles releases, unless we are making a point about the sequence of events around the time of the release. Indeed, except for early milestone developments in her career, I was thinking that we really don't need to mention individual singles unless they charted very significantly. That's what the discography is for, and I would not mind if you thinned out the chaff from the wheat in the earlier periods. After all, the article is going to keep getting longer and longer.... BTW, I only have limited computer time for the next couple of months. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again @Ssilvers. I have a user on a musical page who believes understudies and ensembles "DESERVE" to be on casting tables. I know this is not something we see on casting tables as they are reserved for principal actors only. Just want to confirm this as they seem to be taking a stance on it. Could they be listed in narrative form in the production history section by any chance? Thanks! Smitty1999 (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia. Such trivia does not belong here. It can be published in a book about the musical, or the person's own social media. Let me know which musical, and I'll happily comment there about it. See WP:BALASP and WP:NOTEWORTHY in general. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers Thank you! The page is Operation Mincemeat. The new musical in London about a World War II operation of the same name. Great show! Saw it last year and it was funny! Anyway, the thing that started this conversation was because it is a small cast of five who alternate roles throughout the show and they also have understudies who perform every so often, kinda like Six. The page could use some spring cleaning/organizing. Smitty1999 (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, there's probably a few cases of notable understudies who took over the role and became famous thereby, but that's... not the standard, is it? I think in the cases where understudies should be mentioned, it will be very obvious. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 17:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. We often say (in the Productions section) that the production marked the Broadway or WE debut of such-and-such-very-famous actor in the ensemble or whatever. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am having similar issues that you are having with an editor and look forward to learning from you how you resolve the difference of opinion. OneMoreByte (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:OneMoreByte, I suggest that you pay close attention to the advice of User:Nikkimaria, one of the best Wikipedians I know of. What you added to the U of P Lead was poorly referenced (See WP:RS), including links to the school's own marketing puffery, and included stuff like the names of supreme court justices, and in other ways it did not comply with the requirements of WP:LEAD, which you will see if you read it carefully. Your argument that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not helpful at all. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and WP:CONSENSUS for discussions of how to proceed when your edits have been opposed by another editor. Before you start making major changes to the leads of mature articles, I suggest that you work on the bodies of articles and learn how to add high-quality references (again, WP:RS is the guideline there). Good luck! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we overlapped at User talk:PleeUK; I was starting a new section as you were giving them some thoughtful pointers. Thank you for that. Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I am hopeful that User:PleeUK will read WP:V and WP:RS and do the research necessary to find good sources to cite that verify the assertions in the article and that would show WP:SIGCOV. Even if they do not succeed, they may learn from the exercise and become a good contributor. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I just read through the MJ the Musical page and it is looking more like a fan page. I am trying to find a template/label to place on it until it can look like a proper encyclopedia page but don't know what to search for. Thanks again for all of your help recently. Smitty1999 (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of putting a tag on the page, why don't you revise the prose to make it more encyclopedic? After you do so, give me a shout, and I'll be happy to give it a once over too. I just looked over the Lead section, and that does not have a problem with fancruft or tone. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made some necessary revisions to make it look more encyclopedic. The one thing I have a concern with is the cast table. With the amount of alternating actors for the young Michael Jackson, it makes it look very bloated for future productions being added. Smitty1999 (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I have a problem with it. We have the same problem with shows like Matilda (musical) and Billy Elliot the Musical. The main thing is to keep short-running productions out of the table. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Always remove audience/fan awards. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used the source editing feature to condense the table better and not look as bloated. Looks much better. Also, will do with removing the audience awards section. Thanks again for your help. Smitty1999 (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already removed the audience award sections in this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ssilvers:, we are making the article for actor Robert Strange, can you help us construct the filmography please? CheAjlt (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, CheAjlt. Before you do a filmography, you should write about his most noteworthy performances in a Career section. You also need a Reputation section, discussing what the critics and later commentators have said about his acting, technique and reputation. Once those are in good shape, with citations, you can start on the much less important stage credits and filmography tables (people can already more or less see his filmography at IMDB). Be careful not to WP:CITEKILL -- you should not need more than two good cites for any assertion, and I see a couple places in the article bristling unnecessarily with 3 cites -- choose the best two. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Am I right or wrong here? I know you will be frank. Best wishes. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:SergeWoodzing. Having taken an especially rough beating on talk pages in the past few days, I am not eager to jump into this. Even though the quick deletion was aggressive, I don't think this one is worth fighting. I see that, while most of the Opera article is over-illustrated, that part of the article is under-illustrated. But the image itself is underwhelming, and the fact that you needed such a long caption for it shows that it is not immediately apparent to a reader what it is showing. Maybe an image of a programme for a famous opera fundraiser. Would this be PD as basically text-only? Or cut and paste from this? There are lots of images online about opera fundraisers. Maybe you could even find an old PD one, which would show that this has been going on for a long time. Good luck! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Rescue Barnstar
		This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your sterling work in helping Wicked (musical) retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know there are some rules about using Forbes articles here on this website, but this confirms that the screenings happened in cinemas worldwide. Is it all right to use it in the Kiss Me Kate article? [6]

User:And1987: Yes. It's not a controversial fact. But this ref is not very useful, because it does not say that it was actually aired, only that it was filmed. It would be better if there were a ref that confirmed that the broadcast took place. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a page for it at Box Office Mojo even though no grosses were reported. [7] And1987 (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that indicates that something was scheduled, not that it aired. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Doctor! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I didn't see the previous edits regarding the casting table on The Producers page, so that's why I added the London revival cast to the table. I didn't know it did not qualify as a "major market production." I thought Off-West End is equivalent to Off-Broadway, so that was another reason I added it at first. Thanks for the clarification. Hope you have a wonderful holiday! Smitty1999 (talk) 10:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Smitty. Off-Broadway should also generally not go in these tables unless, again, it is a very, very long-running, starry production (or if it was the original production). -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
	Have a great Christmas, and may 2025 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! Cheers SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, SC!! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please check out this section:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_about_women#Girls,_ladies

While I recognize that "chorus girl" might fall under "common expressions," it is certainly not one of the "titles that cannot be avoided," as there are other ways of referring to chorus-line performers. If "chorus girl" had its own Wikipedia article under that title, I would have used a wikilink rather than scare quotes (cf. "girl group"). It didn't, so I went with the scare quotes. True, I could have revised to "chorus-line performers," but I appreciated the historical importance of the term "chorus girl" as a go-to. But, as the guidelines I've linked to above suggest, it is a demeaning term for adult women who sing and dance professionally, and thus it's important to Wikipedia tone not to reproduce its usage unawarely. Jcejhay (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it cannot be avoided in this case, as it was not only common but universal for this usage. I have added a link for those unfamiliar with theatre of the era. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you, that's a decent compromise. But I've made the link specific to the "history" section, where the term "chorus girl" is featured. Jcejhay (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a joyous festive season! MSincccc (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @MSincccc! Very best Christmas wishes to you also, and a wish for a very successful and productive Wikipedia year ahead, and much happiness in the new year! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers "Wishing you a Happy New Year as well. Apologies for the early wish—consider it a head start to a fantastic year ahead! Looking forward to our collaborations in 2025 (and thanks for all your advice this year). MSincccc (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ssilvers, this is overdue, but I just wanted to send a message of appreciation for your edits and corrections on Maude Adams. I am embarrassed to have made such mistakes and leave behind such work to be fixed, but it is a good push to brush up on my writing and edit more diligently. Genuinely, thank you. Have a safe and happy Christmas! Sentimental Boulevard ✿ 08:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sentimental Boulevard, don't worry about mistakes -- it is easy to make changes here. When I make a mistake, I learn something and have a better chance of getting it right the next time. Besides, an advantage of collaboration is that we can proofread each other's work -- it's always harder to proofread one's own work. A very merry Christmas to you, and best wishes in the New Year. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Dictionary of National Biography published a January 2025 update on the theme of "Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Opera and Musical Theatre Singers". -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]