User talk:MearsMan/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hairspray film

Congratulations on your excellent work on the article. I agree that the article would be stronger if you deleted the least important of the awards. When people see such a long list, their eyes glaze over, and they don't see any of it. So if you just list the half dozen or so most notable awards, then I think they will have more impact. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Lately I've been talking to myself on the talk page to that article, so it's nice to discuss it with someone. I've gone ahead and removed some of what I thought to be the least notable of the awards, and I've moved that content to the article's talk page. If you'd like to look over what I've done and see what you think of it, that would be greatly appreciated. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much about these awards, so I've always been a bit afraid to mess with them out of fear I'd be removing something important. —MearsMan ^talk 00:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What you did certainly improves the readability of the article. I am no expert on movie awards, but from a quick glance, it seems like your choices were reasonable ones. Maybe someone more knowledgeable will comment. You could leave a request for review at the Film project talk page if you like. That's usually a pretty active project. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

it says my ip posted some comment that was removed in feb 08 for your hairspray article. i think another user posted that post as there are multiple users on this computer. do you know what could fix or remove my problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.191.237 (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Noooo

Say it ain't so! APK ^{yada yada} 14:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, yes, it's true. This semester has really flown by for me, and I'll be heading home for summer vacation tomorrow assuming everything goes as planned. I just wanted to let everyone know what was going on, and that I won't have regular internet access when I'm home, so I might be pretty inactive over the next couple of months. Still, I'll try to get on whenever I have the chance (I'm seriously considering moving in with my grandmother for a while just because I don't see her too often and she's one of the few people in my hometown with something better than dial-up). Hopefully things won't get too crazy around here while I'm gone. —MearsMan ^talk 14:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you'll be missed. I hope you're able to get online soon. Have a fun summer! APK ^{yada yada} 21:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Have a good break, Mears! Aleta ^Sing 22:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Editing WP with dial-up isn't too bad. That's what I do all the time. Aleta ^Sing 22:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? I haven't tried before, so I'll keep that in mind. We used to have dial-up at home but my mother canceled it, so now I have to go to my family's church, the library, the local dairy queen, or my grandmother's house if I want to get on the Internet. —MearsMan ^talk 22:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm, Dairy Queen. Editing WP while eating a chocolate chip cookie dough Blizzard sounds nice. APK ^{yada yada} 22:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Voice of the Turtle (play)

On 2 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Voice of the Turtle (play), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wooo, my first DYK! Thanks a ton! —MearsMan ^talk 15:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Biology and Sexual Orientation

Thank you for your interest in the Biology and Sexual Orientation article. Rather than simply saying that you believe the article reads better the other way, it might be better to explain why you think it reads better the other way. The version of the article you restored includes at least three unnecessary words, and I've never liked unnecessarily long sentences. I've left some comments on MickMackNee's talk page about this. Skoojal (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know how to be any clearer on the matter than to say that I believe the article reads better the other way. I find the wording I reverted it to to be much easier to understand and a more accurate representation of the article's contents. "Biology and sexual orientation is research into possible biological influences..." is confusing, whereas "Biology and sexual orientation describes the research into the possible existence of biological influences..." makes more sense to me. Biology and sexual orientation is not research, although the article does describe research dealing with biology and sexual orientation. Also, I disagree with your use of the word "may" instead of "appear to". To me, "may" seems to say that these things might have something to do with sexual orientation or they might not; we don't really know. "Appear to", on the other hand, says to me that we're not absolutely certain, but we have reason to believe that these factors influence a person's sexual orientation, which I consider to be more accurate. I'm certainly not opposed to making some changes to the text I reverted to, such as removing the word "ultimate" or even changing "a specific sexual orientation in humans" to "human sexual orientation" as you suggested, but overall I considered it to be a better lead for the article than the text that you were replacing it with. —MearsMan ^talk 08:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of John Mark McMillan

An article that you have been involved in editing, John Mark McMillan, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Mark McMillan. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi MearsMan, as the closing admin for the discussion I'd just like to say thanks for your contribution to it. It's very easy to want to WP:OWN the first few articles you created and defend them no matter what, so well done for resisting that temptation. Waggers (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:HopeAnthologyVolumeOne.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:TSITSoBD.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Musical Categories

It might be a good idea to mark the edit minor, if all you're doing is adding a cat or two. You're blowing up my watchlist! — Music Maker 5376 14:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I'll try to mark them as minor from now on unless I'm not 100% sure that I've added the most appropriate category. —MearsMan ^talk 21:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thou Shalt Not

Regarding this edit, apparently different groups number the Commandments differently. See Ten Commandments#Division of the Commandments. I personally don't care which numbers are used in the article, as it doesn't really matter. If someone comes along and reverts you, though, I just wanted you to know why. — Music Maker 5376 15:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that MM, I really do learn something new every day. =) I had no idea that the commandments were numbered differently according to different traditions, I just remembered what I had always been taught growing up and thought something looked a bit off when I was looking at that article. Yeah, I'll let it slide if someone reverts me, like you said it doesn't really matter. —MearsMan ^talk 15:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I did the very same thing somewhere along the line, or was about to, then didn't trust my memory and checked the Ten Commandments article. You'd think that the various sects could agree on something as basic as the Ten Commandments! — Music Maker 5376 15:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruth Brown

Im not sure if this is how you talk on this thing but anyway. I'm 100% sure that Ruth Brown is in the movie in the final seen. Im sure you know the movie well and when Inez is named winner over Amber you see Motormouth *Queen Latifah* hug a black woman beside her and thats Ruth Brown. I watched the movie today and I automatically recognized her as the original Motormouth since I have the original movie but I dont have any actually sources they have her down as making a cameo even though its obvious its her. I understand if you have to remove it though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammy2 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, I know the scene you're talking about quite well, and I must say that the woman does bear a striking resemblance to Ruth Brown. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it is Ruth Brown herself. Unfortunately, I still haven't been able to locate a source stating that she's in the film. I watched through the director's commentary and the producer's commentary earlier in hopes that they might mention her name as they do with several of the other actors, and I even searched through the end credits to see if I could pick her name out, but it was all to no avail. Because of this, I feel it would be best to leave the information out of the article at this point in time (WP:OR and all that jazz...). Still, I'll remain on the lookout for a reliable source stating that she's in the film. Hopefully one day we'll be able to include it, but if not I guess it'll just remain one of those little known snippets of trivia that we happen to be aware of. :-) —MearsMan ^talk 20:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:LSoH West End Audrey II.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:LSoH West End Audrey II.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah thanks, I was providing it as you attacked my talk page and edit conflicted me, silly bot. =) —MearsMan ^talk 15:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Pokémon Live! edits

Hi! I was waiting for one of you Musical project people to get around to doing Pokémon Live!. I'm reasonably new to Wikipedia, and so thankyou for your useful edits. My main query is why you got rid of the rest of the original cast in the Cast section. I saw that your edit summary was that you erased them because you'd got them from when you went to see the show. Is it that you don't trust your memory? I'm not sure how the list could be inaccurate, and I liked having it there!

Cheers, Franklint (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Franklint, thanks for asking! I believe you're referring to this edit that I made to the Pokémon Live! article. The reason I removed those names was not because I was unsure of their accuracy (although they were unsourced), but rather to try and help bring the article up to code with WikiProject Musical Theatre's style guidelines. According to these guidelines, "The names of non-notable (i.e., non-bluelinked) ensemble and chorus members, understudies and non-notable production team members (other than directors and choreographers) should be deleted. Only the actors playing principal (significant speaking and singing) roles should be mentioned." This helps to cut back on lengthy lists of non-notable actors from appearing in the articles. In my edit, I removed what I believed to be the names of ensemble and chorus members, leaving only the principal roles in accordance with the structure guidelines. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask. =) —MearsMan ^talk 13:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey MearsMan. Awesome, thanks for justifying. I suppose, grudgingly, that that guideline is useful :-). Do you mind if I add a link to the Bulbapedia article (which contains the full cast list) for anyone interested, as an external link? Franklint (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, to be completely honest I'm sure what standard policy is about including links to Bulbapedia, so if you want to play it safe it might be a good idea to ask over at WikiProject Pokémon. I do know that Bulbapedia shouldn't be used as a source in articles, seeing as it's an open Wiki that can be edited by anyone. Still, my gut instinct says that there's nothing wrong with including a link to the article in the External links section in a "for further information, you might want to check out the Bulbapedia article on Pokémon Live!" sort of way, and if you were to add such a link I certainly wouldn't remove it unless I come across a policy of sorts stating that the site shouldn't be linked. Happy editing! :) —MearsMan ^talk 02:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you added the link! :) I've gone ahead and tweaked the link a bit so that it links to the main article itself and not just the cast section. I think the link is just a bit more "friendly" to the average reader this way, so that it's appealing to the average reader who's interested in any sort of additional information on the show, not just those readers who are looking for an extended cast list. I've also updated the language in the link accordingly. Hopefully you're okay with the changes I've made, but if not I suppose we could discuss them. —MearsMan ^talk 13:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha, this is more than 18 months old and I've only just seen your response. I agree that the link is more generally appealing if it links to the entire article, and not just the cast list. Is there some way we can add in a mention somewhere that the Bulbapedia article actually contains a full cast list? Because, otherwise, people may not know where to go to obtain a full list. Overall, the changes are great!

I'm slightly less new now than I was a year and a half ago. Yay. 210.50.33.140 (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Nikki Blonsky

Nikki IS an assailant now. She has been charged with assault. Why can't I add this to her page? Why is it considered vandalism? Tootie Banks (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem isn't so much the information you added as it is the manner in which you added it. Your edits here and later here introduced information in an inappropriate manner, giving the matter undue weight. While it may technically be true that Nikki Blonsky is an assailant, it is certainly not the most notable or important thing about her, and as such it should not be the first thing discussed in the article. Plus, it didn't help that your additions were more than a little POV-ish. Just let me know if you have any further questions. —MearsMan ^talk 02:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:HOTCAT

Seeing all the work you're doing with categories, you might want to add HotCat in your preferences. It makes the addition and deletion of categories much easier! — Music Maker 5376 20:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that with me, I'm sure it'll be a big help in the future! I'm still experimenting with it a bit, trying to figure out exactly how it works, but I think I've almost got the hang of it. :) —MearsMan ^talk 21:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

i'll just tack on another thanks here....thanks! --emerson7 21:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Categorizing operettas as musicals

Hi. I see you are categorizing quite a number of operettas as musicals. I'm a bit puzzled as to the logic of this. Can you explain what your intention is? Thanks. --Klein zach 03:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been using Category:Musicals by year to go through and list musicals in Category:Broadway musicals and Category:London West End musicals where appropriate and to list them by their source material where I can discern what served as the source material. If the articles were in a "musicals by year" category and had a WikiProject Musical Theatre banner on their talk page I added the applicable categories, regardless of whether the article described the show as a musical, operetta, or something else (WPMT's project page states that operettas sometimes fall under the scope of the project, although I personally don't know when an operetta should or should not be covered by our project). I'll freely admit that I know little about most of the shows I've edited so far (I've worked my way from the 1850's to 1930 today), and seeing as I've edited such a large number of pages in such a short period of time it is entirely possible that I've made a few mistakes along the way. I'm going to take a bit of a break from this for the night (and possibly the next day or so), but hopefully when I come back to it I'll be well rested and better focused. I'm quite tired at the moment, so I'm not sure if I've adequately answered your question, but feel free to respond and I'll do my best to answer any remaining questions at a later point in time. —MearsMan ^talk 04:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand. There are a number of operettas which are not ideally categorized, also some which are under the WikiProject Musical Theatre banner rather than Opera (by agreement). If you can avoid operettas that will be a good idea. I'll go ahead and revert any problematic ones I see. Regards. --Klein zach 06:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, and thanks for understanding. In the future I'll do my best to avoid adding the categories to articles on operettas where there's a bit of ambiguity unless there's some sort of conclusive decision that they should be covered by WikiProject Musical Theatre in the future (why such a decision would be reached, I can't quite say). —MearsMan ^talk 12:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Help

Since you're part of a Wiki Project, How do I become part of A WikiProject I am really confused. Please reply on my page. --RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210 14:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Done I've left a message on your talk page. Hopefully that clears everything up for you. :) —MearsMan ^talk 15:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookies xD

One question, please, i'm searching in Babel an userbox what say in it, VA (This code is from Valencian Speakers, in this wikipedia doesn't exists or what, excuse me for my poor English. --Ravave (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome, glad you enjoyed them! =) I've left a response to your question on your talk page, so hopefully that answers your questions. —MearsMan ^talk 16:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for answer me. i send to you a great hello! from Spain xD --Ravave (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you MearsMan!

Thank you for the nice warm welcome and the nice warm plate of cookies. --HeavyMetalStar (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome! I hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia, and feel free to contact me if you ever have any questions.

—MearsMan ^talk 19:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi MearsMan. Just a friendly reminder to take a look at the edits of people you're welcoming. This guy's edits were not really to be encouraged as they stood. -- SiobhanHansa 21:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder SiobhanHansa. Actually, I did check KoolKat's contributions before welcoming him/her, but at the time they had only made one edit (which I reverted). To me it looked like an enthusiastic new editor trying to contribute to the article about their favorite pitcher, albeit in an inappropriate manner. I guess I was assuming good faith at that point and trying not to come across as bite-y, so I posted the welcome message, trying to introduce them to a few of Wikipedia's policies and hopefully curb their unconstructive edits. Still, I do see how my welcome message could be seen as encouraging the disruptive edits, and I'll try to be more careful in the future. Cheers! —MearsMan ^talk 21:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

AGF is a good reason for something like that. I guess it's easier to read things as poor editing in context with the benefit of hindsight. -- SiobhanHansa 21:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Phantom of the Opera (1986)

Hi. Can you please check out the new edit to the Lloyd Webber musical, removing reference to the 1976 musical. Do you agree or disagree with it? If you disagree and want to put 1976 back in the LEAD, it would seem that we ought to also mention it in the body of the article with a reference. I don't know enough about the background. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:HairspraySeaweed&Inez.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:GardnerHairsprayFatSuit.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Musicals category tree

Hi. I see that you updated the category tree. Where you changed a category name using a hyphen, don't you need to move or redirect all the old links to the new category? Please advise. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't change the category names. When I was adding to the category tree I noticed the "Musicals by century" categories were redlinked, so I fixed them along with the rest of my edit. I just checked the logs for the non-hyphenated names, and apparently a bot moved them back in February of this year after someone listed them over at WP:CFDS (who listed them there, I couldn't say). I'm assuming the bot did the job of repopulating the "Musicals by decade" lists under the new names, as they all appear to be in the proper place. The only things I could find linking to the old category names were an editor's subpage and a WikiProject Anime archive, so I think we're in good shape. —MearsMan ^talk 21:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Super, thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Addams Family (musical)

On August 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Addams Family (musical), 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.

WP:DYK 02:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, glad to see it went through. Thanks! —MearsMan ^talk 02:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Tale

Well, looks like the editor is slightly stacking the deck, or, spinning. He is just asking for the article to be loaded with exact quotes from some of the prestgious papers, like the NY Times, in which case he will not be happy! Just as a general thought, I'd take down the synthesis and original research theory he propounds on the market stuff using WP:NOR & WP:SYN. Or else, I'd add quotes from the best papers/magazines, for "balance" under WP:DUE & WP:UNDUE. I don't have time in the next few days, but I can do it early next week if you'd prefer (or don't have the access) to do the research needed. (Interesting Summer project, eh?) JeanColumbia (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Tim Hatley

Hello MearsMan,

I take it that you're on a wiki break. Wish you all the best. This is just a courtesy visit to apprise you that I took the liberty to slightly expand your article, cited references to support it and also added wikilinks. Hope, you'd like my little effort. Best regards, (MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC))

Orphaned non-free image File:Next to Normal.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)