Mblaxill

Good idea to update the tenses. Can you find a review of the event? That would support the information about people joining the cast onstage. See also WP:OR. By the way, it appears that no one has given you a "Welcome" message, so see above. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 21:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for keeping an eye on it. The message board post is not a WP:RS, but maybe an actual press report will surface. In the meantime, the statement made in the article is not controversial, so it's fine to leave it in, I think. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 18:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

My review of Hair in AfterElton.com talks about going up on stage after the show at the Delacorte a couple of weeks ago, does that help? http://www.afterelton.com/theater/2008/8/hair?page=0%2C2 It's tradition that the cast goes into the audience and brings people up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.219.112 (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey thanks for the link .. great review!! This note is actually from last years' concert when Hair alumni went up onstage afterwards (the audience stayed in their seats for that particular three night run) .. I was there and saw it but since no one really reviewed it I couldn't find an official source. Hey I was there the same night you were (Jane Krakowski..) - she was talking to Rado and Jim had no idea who she was :) - Mblaxill (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that. I should have realized it would be controversial and looked up the discussion. Namaste, -- SkyCaptain (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

This article is undergoing an FA review. Check it out. Do you think that Hair is close to ready for a Good Article review? Let me know if you want to push it forward, and what still needs to be done for that. It's certainly one of the better musicals articles at this point. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

In formatting the refs, I see that you've cited the script a couple of times. I'm wondering if it was a published version, something that you were able to get your hands on, or what. Does it have an ISBN? I would assume not. What year is it from? How can you tell? Sorry for the third degree; I just want to get the ref right. Any information you might have on it would help tremendously. —  MusicMaker5376 15:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Also, I added a ^{[citation needed]} for the claim that they consulted astrologers. I'm sure it's true; it just needs a citation. If you have one, or can point me in the right direction, much appreciated. —  MusicMaker5376 17:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks much! I just found a cite for the astrologers, so I'm good there. Thanks! —  MusicMaker5376 17:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hope you like today's edits. Feel free to disagree with anything I did, of course. This article should sail through GA. FA is another story, and we'll see what happens when it gets nominated there. FA is quite an interesting process. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

We got GA review comments. Would you please take a look? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wondering if you have any ideas on sources for the music for Hair. I got the Miller book, and it touches on things, but I don't know if any of the other books might have more to say. I've got some stuff from searching the web, but I'm wondering if you know of anything more specific. I can probably get my hands on just about any book thru my local library. It may take awhile, but, at least I'll know where to look. —  MusicMaker5376 20:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hair is now rated GA. Well done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

And a second "Well Met!" I hope that when you're "done" with Hair, you decide to stick around WP. Your fact-checking prowess is an overwhelming asset to the project.... —  MusicMaker5376 20:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The edits today made me think: Can we list the notable members in the section above, where the original off-Broadway production is discussed? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nice! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Check out your buddy Castelli's article. I worked on it some.  :) -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You just added that the Boston opening date was controversial, but you didn't say why. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just the fact that it was shut down by the local gov't .. looking for a concise way to say it - Mblaxill (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Happy New Year. Why do you believe the website over the book? Normally a published book would be considered a more reliable source than a website, because people often write websites based on their recollections (without much fact checking), while historical books usually try to check their facts. Is there a contemporaneous source? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

the difference is minor (late '64 vs early '65) - Since this change comes directly from Rado on his website, I think it trumps Horn, whose source is probably Jim anyway .. either Jim or Gerry - Mblaxill (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Right, but when Horn asked, years ago, maybe Jim's recollection was fresher? Or, he may have interviewed both authors together. I'm not saying that the website is wrong, I'm just saying that, from a WP point of view, Horn is a stronger ref than the website. But I am dropping the issue and leaving it in your hands. If you feel more comfortable with the website, stay with the current ref. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK. Thanks for thinking it over. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Have fun at your gig tonight. Do any of the Hair folks deserve an article, or are they young newbies? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is it worth saying anything about the boxes or the lottery? See: http://www.broadwayworld.com/article/HAIR_Announces_Lottery_for_BEIN_BOXES_Beginning_36_20090305 All the best, -- Ssilvers

Musicmaker hasn't been around for awhile, so I guess I'll leave it to you to decide. I think it's borderline: In some other articles, like Rent, we note the discount lottery. I'll leave it to you whether to say anything. Maybe we should just wait for a review and see if they mention it. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Mb. Have you been checking all the minor changes made by anonymous editors over the past weeks? Please make sure theyre OK. I added the Brantley review, but could you check the other reviews? I seem to remember that you get some kind of report about them. I also updated the Lead section and streamlined the central park productions into one paragraph. If Brantley's rave doesn't bring in the crowds, I don't know what would! All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Mike. I would remove the stuff about the finances. The article is too long already, and the new material is too newsy and topical. Unless the difficulty raising the funds caused a substantial delay, I'm not sure that the information is encyclopedic - it seems more like what a newspaper should say. Later, we can report the actual box office figures for the revival if they are interesting. Let me know what you think. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the message. I think a good way to look at it is to think about what will be important about this revival after it closes. I made an edit. Check it out and see if you think it's ok - if not, go ahead and edit further or we can bat suggestions back and forth here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Me too! I forgot to tell you. I'll be there on the 26th and at the party with my ex-girlfriend Christine (a former Sheila). I think our seats are E-6 and E-8. Looking forward to seeing you! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

We don't say what dates it played at the Cheetah. Can you find the info? Hope your gig went well! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I added some stuff from the program. Please take a look at my changes and change anything that you disagree with. I also did a minor reorganization of a few sections, because I thought I could better coordinate the sections on race, the tribe, love and nudity, which I think all relate thematically. Check out my reference to La boheme, which I got from the program, and see if you agree/disagree. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Someone added some info about the new cast album. Can you check it and add a reference? Let me know if you need help, but I don't know anything about albums, and where to find reliable sources for them. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

See Jerzy's talk page.

Note, I removed the code that was messing up your talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, but this phrase had to do with both director and chor. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

It looks like she's mentioned again in the "Worldwide Reactions" section, with another reference to Horn. When you get a moment, could you check that ref, as well? — MusicMaker5376 20:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thats all Horn p103-10 .. all info about foreign reactions is in that section, including Arenal's anecdote - Mblaxill (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

See User talk:MusicMaker5376 where I question a recent edit. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Bremers, etc. - I think the list should be alpabetical? I hope you had a fun new year's! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, MB. Is this non-notable cruft, or is it OK?: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hair_%28musical%29&action=historysubmit&diff=350038299&oldid=349430854 I leave it to you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yay! If you see any negative reviews by major media, though, we should mention it for balance. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

on the lookout .. haven't see any yet - not even the Rupert Murdoch daily - Mblaxill (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't bother to say how many stars a critic gives something, since each paper's star system may be slightly different. We can rely on their descriptions. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I kind of liked the "verve and energy ... is irresistible", because otherwise it just looks like he is commenting on the musical itself, rather than the particular production. Up to you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wow! Nice work! You've been a busy beaver, I see. Go you! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you clarify this? It's a little confusing. Also, if you can find WP:RS that says that this tune(s) is sampled, that would be very helpful. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I can't find the original ref for the MF Doom and Oh No samples - Mblaxill (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Much better, thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Would you please check the recent changes to the James Rado article for accuracy? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I followed the link you posted and noticed this: http://www.michaelbutler.com/hair/holding/articles/HairArticles/LATimes6-7-01.html I don't know if I noticed it before. We do not cite it in the article, but it seems like a really good one, and it is from a major media source. Do you have time to go through it and see what info from it ought to be included in the article? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

that article is sourced a few times (it's Note #2) - pretty sure we took all the best parts of it and incorporated it in Wiki - will read again tho Mblaxill (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I was fooled by the dead link. I'll fix that. Thanks for checking it again, since it is such a nice article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is this correct? Someone added it without a reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galt_MacDermot&action=historysubmit&diff=388903911&oldid=378802385 If so, do you have a reference for it? Hope you're doing well. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

not sure. The track listing on Amazon doesn't have it - Somebody put the chess scene up on You Tube with the song in the background but it sounds sorta like a DIY type deal and not the original score - Mblaxill (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'd suggest deleting it if there's no ref within another week. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Someone has created these articles:

1. Hair The Original Soundtrack Recording
2. Hair The Original Broadway Recording ‎
3. Hair (Original Off-Broadway Cast Recording)

Aside from the copyright violation issues, do you think these articles ought to exist? If so, can you help? Hope you're doing well! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

yeah they should definitely exist, no question - Mblaxill (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I made some additions to the cast albums. Are the article names correct? I rarely work on albums. See WP:NAME. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

article names aren't right tho i have no idea how to change them - movie should be Hair: Original Soundtrack Recording - Bway should be Hair (Original Broadway Cast Recording) - Off Bway should be Hair (Original Off-Broadway Cast Recording) Mblaxill (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

FYI I have the original LP at home so I can do a proper sourcing for the track list - Mblaxill (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I renamed all the articles as you suggested. Please check them and let me know if there any further corrections that we should make. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

We say: "The Off-Broadway book, already light on plot, was loosened even further". Can we give a more specific idea of the changes that were made to the plot? BTW, I sent you an e-mail with more questions. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please check my change in the Hair (musical) article, and kindly add anything else important about the evolution of the script from Off-Broadway to Broadway. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

See what you think about this. I think you're going to have to watchlist the recordings' pages. Hope you're doing well! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

i won't argue over pop/rock, r&b is kind of a stretch - Mblaxill (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm leaving it to you as to whether you want to change this. I have no idea about these genres - I sing G&S and show tunes.  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. In the new ref to Good Hair Days, I think the format should be: <ref>Johnson, pp. ___ (recollections of Corinne Briskette)</ref>. Do you have the page numbers? Or am I misinterpreting what you are doing? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am worried that this new stuff is too much about the Mexican production. But, if you disagree, there are some items that need to be clarified:

• Members of the cast were routinely harassed in Acupulco

By whom? Was this before or after the one performance that happened? Is it related to the show?

This was all taken from Corinne's recollections in Good Hair Days - it was in the lead up to opening night - she doesn't specify who did the harassing .. assuming Egypt-style police - Mblaxill (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Several band members were accosted on the beach and had their heads shaved, after which the cast bought them wigs.

Frankly, this is pretty far afield from the article. I really would delete it, unless it was a cause celebre. If you disagree, who accosted them and shaved their heads? Was this before or after the production? If after, why did they need wigs?

again, Corrinne's recollections of the lead up to opening night - she doesn't say who did it - Mblaxill (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

• The cast members were forced to go into hiding and eventually leave Mexico...

For how long were they in hiding? Did they hide *after* the performance and padlocking? If so, why didn't they leave immediately?

here's what Corrine wrote: "After the performance, in the dark of night the Government padlocked the theater ... Surprised they had not been detained, the cast partied the next night. At about 4 AM they were rudely awakened, arrested and taken to Immigration for deportation. After hours of negotiation the cast signed a document saying they would leave the country within 24 hours or be sent to prison. Unfortunately those documents were dated the day before and they were forced to go into hiding until the producers could arrange air transortaion for them ... Ragni and Rado had come to Acupulco for the opening ... Luckily they had hidden under the bed in [musical director] Danny Hurd's apartment and were not included in the round up ... Both Gerry and Jim went into hiding with the rest of the cast. Three mini buses were driven to a closed resort in the mountains near Mexico City where the cast stayed for three days ... Finally they left Mexico City on January 10, 1969."

This is all rather breathless, and I don't think it tells us much of encyclopedic interest beyond what was there before. As the article is plenty long, please reconsider and either trim or clarify.

When someone added Corinne's recollections a few days ago i went back and read the Mexico story in Good Hair Days and wanted to include it - I think its as encyclopedic as anything else in the article - Mblaxill (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Hope all is well and that you are enjoying the Spring weather this weekend. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK. I moved the stuff about Acapulco to a footnote, as it is rather vague and seems less important. You can put it back in the main text if you feel it is important, but I really think it doesn't add anything to what is now in the text. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the new edits. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've seen you edit a lot in Hair. I've added a topic about the brazilian version (the first one in 1969) in "Early international productions". As I'm not all that good writing in english language, could you please check if the writtings are ok? Thanks. MachoCarioca (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I think we need another source for the info so i trimmed and will check the Horn book for a reference - Since the article is long already other Wiki writers who contribute to the article might weight in on notability - Mblaxill (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Mb. How are you doing? Does Horn verify the three-year run? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

nothing about Brazil in Horn .. just a paragraph on Argentina - Mblaxill (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Someone made a lot of changes, including to direct quotes. Is it right? If I don't make it down to your 9/11 gig, I'll be thinking of you and hope you're doing well. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

thanks! yah i did a RV (there was something about a Happy Days episode that made me think vandalism) - Mblaxill (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, assuming good faith, I left a note on his talk page. Some of his edits marginally improved the writing, but some did not, and as I worked through them I realized that he was changing so many quotes, I just gave up. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Here is a dubious change. Does this link add much of interest? It looks like trivia to me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

dunno - seems encyclopedic but not sure it meets Wiki notability - do other Wiki shows articles go into lighting design detail? Link title definitely too long - Mblaxill (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, they don't usually go into detail: if the designer is notable, we name him/her, but we don't usually say more unless there is something historically interesting. And if there is something historically interesting, it should go in the text, IMO, not in an External link. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

sounds good Mblaxill (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Happy New Year, Mike. Would you please check out the most recent change on Hair that I reverted? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hair_%28musical%29&action=historysubmit&diff=469826477&oldid=469753269

Then look at this exchange: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEvenmadderjon&action=historysubmit&diff=469873931&oldid=464743801 Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Three-Five-Zero-Zero. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Cresix (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is Cresix who is edit warring and failing to build consensus for his proposed change. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Failing to build consensus?? I started the discussion. There are three opinions on the talk page, which is not enough for consensus. It is Ssilvers who has edited disputed material during an ongoing discussion. Cresix (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Cresix, use the article talk page. Using warning messages to make your point is tantamount to a personal attack. Who wants this garbage on their personal talk pages? If you behave more reasonably, so will everyone else. Blaxill, I suggest that you delete this thread from your talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ssilvers, I started the discussion on the article's talk page. And I believe Blaxill is not so stupid that he doesn't know whether he wants to delete material on his talk page without your guidance. Or, is it more than a coincidence that you stepped in just in time so that Blaxill doesn't have to violate 3rr? Hmmm ... Cresix (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Mb, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Rado&diff=568895574&oldid=542518269

Are the LGBT categories appropriate for this page? Also, do you have any updates for this article? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply