Timerrill

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Winnebago-man.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Winnebago-man.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither the image nor the video from which is was taken is copyrighted, so how can there be any fair use violation?

Tim Merrill Timerrill (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article Superunknown, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ridernyc (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

February 2011

Your recent edit to the page Dave Duerson appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hair at the Hollywood Bowl

The references that I have read do not indicate that this concert had anything to do with the 2010 Broadway revival. If you have references that make it clear that it was the same production, please let me know. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw the touring version of the Broadway revival production (which in fact opened in March 2009) twice, in L.A. and San Diego, as well as the Hollywood Bowl performance. I assure you that the Bowl production was the exact same production, same set design, same musical arrangements, same song list and order -- which has changed and adjusted over the decades, but not since the 2009 revival became the standard, as endorsed by both lyricist James Rado and composer Galt MacDermot. Even the same artwork and fonts from the Broadway advertising materials was used to tout the Bowl performances. All of this is verifiable online:

http://thesource.metro.net/2014/07/23/peace-love-and-the-hollywood-bowl-at-grand-park-on-national-dance-day/peace/

http://images.bwwstatic.com/upload2/98003/tn-500_hair%20%2820%29.jpg

Broadway musical performances at the Hollywood Bowl, which are done annually during the summer, are indeed special because they are usually directed by a Hollywood director (i.e. Adam Shankman in this case) and are cast with TV and movie stars rather than stage veterans. These are unusual and therefore special productions, and I have attended many of them. Since the 2009 revival of "Hair," directed by Diane Paulus, has been extremely successful including winning the Tony Award for Best Musical Revival and touring the U.S. for several years following its Broadway run, it makes sense that this recent staging was also put on at the Hollywood Bowl. (In addition to which, Bowl musical productions are only allotted 10 days' rehearsal time, so the likelihood that given this tight schedule Shankman would decide to completely re-conceive an even newer version of "Hair," despite the 2009 revival's recent success, is vanishingly slim.)

I hope all of this is clear. Timerrill (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Timerrill

I believe you, but you have not satisfied Wikipedia's policies for adding this assertion to the article. See WP:V, which is one of our key policies. You have failed to give a reference that states that the concert was based on the Paulus production. Please stop WP:edit warring, and instead give a reference, on the article's Talk page, that clearly states that the concert was based on the Paulus production. The fact that they used artwork from the production is not helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the Hollywood Bowl's press releases are fairly clear on this point...

http://www.hollywoodbowl.com/press/casting-news-hair-hollywood-bowl http://www.hollywoodbowl.com/press/emmy-nominated-director-adam-shankman-to-helm-hair-hollywood-bowl

...but somehow I doubt you'll agree, as the production didn't receive much press beyond some reviews and casting blurbs (owing to the "all-star" cast), and none of the writers and critics specifically pointed out the obvious fact that this was simply a large-scale re-staging of the otherwise intact 2009 revival. Pity, since everything I asserted is 100% true based on the efforts of someone who attended both productions, and as the advertising materials make plain as day. But since Wikipedia's exalted standards (I say that with a wink, having read about 3,000 grammatical/spelling errors on the site over the past few weeks) apparently supersede this contribution, I hereby give up. You win! Yay for you!

A pity too, since speaking of contributions I had actually been planning on donating $100 to Wikipedia, but thanks to this supercilious and petty treatment, forget it.

Timerrill (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Timerrill

Understood! You think that because you can't write whatever you want here without having to cite sources, and can't upload images without taking responsibility for proving that they are copyright-free, we are unfair to you. You've been editing here since 2007, so I don't think our content policies are a surprise to you. But if, after all this time, you don't buy in to our goals and editorial policies, then I doubt I can persuade you. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)