Template:Archive box collapsible

Hi! "We The People (band)" was my first article ever. And, I'm glad it didn't get deleted. Inline references have changed the look of the article. Thanks for the review to make it go live.

Elitropia (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the article is more informative with your contribution, now. And, I'll sure consider your suggestions for the next article(s).

Elitropia (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, do you think We The People (band) article should be listed in We the People (disambiguation)? I'm not sure since the band name has the capital T. If so, I could edit immediately. Thanks.

Elitropia (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the article. Thank you for the information.

Elitropia (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to congratulate you on the article passing GA. You put in an amazing amount of work into it and it payed off. Well done. Kitchen roll (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even think the editor reviewing it put up a tag on the wikipedia:Good article nominations page - it was done in about 10 minutes! Are you sure in letting me have some of he credit for getting it to GA? Thanks if you are. Kitchen roll (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Kohoutek :) Kitchen roll (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for getting the allusive chart info. on the Them single in Germany. Kitchen roll (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, love the story! Great that you've cleared that one up. It's really frustrating when you know something to be true on wiki but can't reference it because there's no reliable sources, so I'm glad there was something in the end. I'll see you around Kitchen roll (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just nominated Chimes of Freedom for GAN. We'll have to see how long it takes to move up the queue, since it is starting at #64. I think Tambourine Man started arounf #40, and Baby Blue was something like #52. Rlendog (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On January 24, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article History of The Byrds, 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, quick check ) 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) 00:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on this.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops ... I see I am late in a reply to you. Italics on "see" (and the like). I can't recall which style book this comes from, but am sure that in whichever one has guided me I've learned to use italics for "see", "see also", "but see", and the like. Rules apart, it works for me on a logical plane, as it is different in use than normal words, and the italics alert you to that fact.

Let me know if you want me to go searching for the genesis. But a quick google search yields this, this, this and this -- not all of them the best sources, just the fastest-found. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure, as always. Sorry I haven't had more time to focus on helping. Have been otherwise occupied, as you can perhaps tell from my talk page.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! This message has been sent courtesy of WikiProject Bob Dylan, which you are a member of. Our project now has two Featured Articles: Bob Dylan and Like a Rolling Stone, and three Good Articles: Mr. Tambourine Man, It's All Over Now, Baby Blue and Madhouse on Castle Street. Suggestions are now being canvassed for the next article to work on, as part of the WP Dylan collaboration team. Please voice your opinion here. Regards, --Richhoncho (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kohoutek. First off, thanks for your great effort on The Byrds articles. I can't say I'm a fan of the group beyond their big hits, but I appreciate the good work.

Coming to my recent edits on the above article, I think you were wrong to revert my changes to the above article wholesale. There was a lot of overlinking; our readers know what the words 'band', 'drummer', 'novelization', 'film', 'songwriter' and 'short story' mean. You had also linked 'country music' twice in the lead. By linking everything in sight, you merely dilute the occurence of high-value links in the article. Further, that album chronology in the article pertains only to studio albums, as NBB is a studio album. The '1968 in music' link is completely unnecessary as well, and barely article text should contain bare external links per MoS (like that Snopes link, which is there in the EL anyway). Also, on Wikipedia, if you name a single as "Goin' Back"/"Change Is Now", I've seen that it implies that it is a double A-side single.

As for the album-ratings template, I'm afraid I don't see a consensus in those links you posted. In particular, the whole point of removing the reviews from the infobox was because we figured that rating-less reviews cannot easily be summarised in terms like 'favourable', 'unfavourable' and 'mixed'. That would mean that reviewers such as The New York Times shouldn't be included, but far less important sites like Sputnikmusic would have a place on the template. That makes no sense, does it? In all the articles where I removed the reviews from the infobox, I made sure that the critical reception was covered in the prose.

Please elaborate what the "factual inaccuracies & poor syntax" I added to the article are. Thanks—indopug (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: review consensus. I've been a part of the review template discussion every part of the way, and the actual consensus is that the review template is optional. What's more important than linking to specific reviews is determining critical consensus, if possible. For example, quoting general reception as described in a book or article on the specific album. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental misunderstanding you have is one that a lot of editors often overlook, so don't worry that you aren't clear on it. Basically, citing material in the article prose is your main objective. The review template is a tool meant, like all templates and infoboxes, to enhance the prose. It doesn't replace it. Thus if something is cited in the template yet nonexistent in the article body, it's more important you work it into the article body than to spend your efforts filing out the template. Note the language in Wikipedia:Albums#Reception (emphasis added by me to certain key phrases): "The bulk of the information should be in prose format, though the text may be supplemented with the [Album ratings] template, as a summary of professional reviews in table form. The template is not to be a substitute for a section in paragraph form, since a review can not be accurately boiled down to a simple rating out of five stars, or a phrase like "unfavorable".

Re: the consensus on the use of the reviews template: keep in mind the discussion went through a number of article sections. The links you provided are essentially the beginning and end of the discussion; you missed out on everything in-between. The first link you provided was an attempt to track consensus on November 30; discussion continued for another month in various forms. Also, looking at a tally of who supported what doesn't provide a full picture of how consensus is developed; that sort of number-crunching is why voting is discouraged on Wikipedia.

You ask "why was DASHBot was tasked with relocation of the professional reviews by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums community if this wasn't the consensus that was reached?" You misunderstand the purpose of what DASHBot is doing. DASHBot is moving the reviews to the article body so we don't lose citations that might be useful before the review field in the album infobox is depreciated, thus rendering them invisible. Once the reviews are moved, it's up to the editors then to decide exactly what to do with those references. Also, if an article (say, a stub) does not have a critical reception section, the bot automatically creates one. However, when the bot does that, it will add an expansion tag that indicates the the section needs prose. That's because a template/infobox is not a substitute for prose, merely a supplement; that's why they're optional. Yeah, we might not use every review cited if the template is removed, but utilizing every review that used to be in the album infobox is not what you should be striving for. The simple reason for that is that it's realistically impossible to cite every album review ever published in notable publications unless the album is obscure; you're going to have to leave some out anyway. The true goal is to cover critical consensus on a album as related by secondary sources. Citing reviews can help do that, but it's not an end in of itself to achieveing that goal. For an example of how to cover critical consensus without citing a bunch of album reviews, see Be Here Now (album), where a book, a documentary, and a feature article in a magazine paint the picture of the album's developing critical reception in a way simply quoting reviews could never do, because those sorts of sources take the sort of macro view you should be seeking out.

At the end of the day, it comes down to this: if you find the template useful, go ahead and use it. If not, take it out. As I see it in The Notorious Byrd Brothers, it's redundant to the prose since it only holds scores to a handful of reviews that are duplicated in the article text. My advice is that it's useless in this instance, but that's what I think on the matter. Judge for yourself. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The review template as quick-summary: It doesn't always work as one, due to the fact that you can only include so many reviews, they don't include the finder details of the review prose, and because reviews that don't use rating systems aren't utilized. Ratings can also be arbitrary; Rolling Stone is notorious for this.

As for the mandate of DASHbot, that was a looooong discussion that I really can't give you quick links to except to recommend you read Archive 34 if you're relaly curious. Basically our descision to use a bot grew out of the question of what exactly to do once we removed reviews from the album infobox (since consensus was overwhelming to remove them, even if that point we hadn't agreed on what the next step would be), and was modified progressively as we ascertained what a bot could do. WesleyDodds (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! If there's anything I disagree with, I'll let you know - but hopefully not! Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello K - Great work thus far on folk rock. Still an issue, I think regarding the last line of the NYC paragraph, Unterberger notwithstanding. Aside from my edit summary point that Baez is a far better example of urban traditionalist/protest music than Collins - a) Collins is from Denver, CO and won fame at Newport RI in 1959; she played Greenwich Village coffee houses, but everyone else did as well. Baez actually lived in NYC following her appearance at Newport, 1959; b) of the people cited in the sentence as "many" later becoming involved in folk rock - maybe only Ochs in addition to Dylan. Paxton and PP&M never went beyond pop folk, which they were as surely as the KT was - and regarded as such by the actual urban traditionalists like Irwin Silber of Sing Out magazine and others. Silber put the Weavers squarely in the commercializer group as well, and their internal history was troubled by commercial vs. traditional disagreements, which is part of why Seeger left them in 1957. All of this is sourceable from Cantwell, Cohen, and others. Probably not necessary to go into in a section of the article on background. As much as I like and have quoted Unterberger, there are problems with the unsourced generalizations that he (and Weissman) make at places. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On March 21, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Never Before (album), 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, quick check ) 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) 09:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kohoutek1138. You have new messages at I.M.S.'s talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Redundant category Live at the Fillmore – February 1969 is in Category:Live at Fillmore, San Francisco albums, which is itself a subcategory of Category:Live albums. Please respond on my talk if you have more comments or questions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now reading it. It's quite good and very factual. At first I was worried that it was going to become another one of those bigoraphies where the author attempts to make himself a character. Luckily (from what I've gathered so far), it has turned out to be well-researched and interesting. I never knew that Parsons' father was so well known—he witnessed the attacks on Pearl Harbor, shot down countless enemy aircraft, was awarded an Air Medal, and became so feared by the Japanese that "more than once Tokyo Rose mentioned Coon Dog by his nickname ... She named the targets that Coon Dog hit and added, 'But now you had better watch yourself. We know who you are and we're going to get you.'" (p. 9). - I.M.S. (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kohoutek1138. You have new messages at I.M.S.'s talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The article The Notorious Byrd Brothers you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:The Notorious Byrd Brothers for things which need to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for putting so much work into the Folk rock article. Often too many of us get used to searching for specific words or adjectives (in this case, genres, that we do not notice how much is done to clarify those things ahead of us. I am also writing, hoping to recruit you to help editing the Rory Gallagher article. Amazingly, he has been almost totally bypassed, whether by Rolling Stone's Greatest Guitarists of All Time, as well as record promotion in North America, throughout his life and (to some degree), now. When I found the article, it was crammed with urban myths, trivia. Would you be willing to "rescue" this article with me? It still leaves cleaning up-- but please leave the quotes there that can be integrated into the article. I noticed that you, too, are a Wikifairy, too! And that of many other userboxes on your uaerpage, we have much more in common, too. HoW about it?! Feedback on where to begin first is greatly appreciated.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)== YES! ==[reply]

Sure! Anytime you have time, it's fine with me. Problem with being a Wikifairy (esp. one with ADD like me) is that it IS so easy to be sidetracked fixing one thing or another, so I admire your focus. I always end up with a half-dozen articles I edit at once. Unlike most Europeans, Americans often don't know Rory Gallagher's work and enormous influence (particularly on other famous musicians) in part b/c he had terrible fear of flying, so his tours to the Americas were not frequent, and he wasn't interested in commercial gain, so he fought the record companies who then didn't promote his music- Gallagher refused to put out a single! Only albums! Also, of course, he died in 1995.. we have editors who were barely born then..

I'm psyched that you'd take on this project not knowing Gallagher's music. I get turned on to the greatest music and knowledge of how the whole musical puzzle fits by doing this work, funny you mentioned that! Regarding photos, anytime you are looking for some, feel free to browse the list on my userpage. I think I've uploaded about 400 photos of musicians to Wikimedia Commons, which I've placed on the en.Wikipedia, pt.Wikipedia, and sp.Wikipedia mostly, and would be happy to explain photo stuff. I help with requests too. (I just got so fed up with no photos that it became a personal crusade, almost.) My main editing projects have been articles regarding:Cat Stevens, Derek Trucks, some work groups (Mick Taylor and The Rolling Stones), Eric Clapton, etc., but the Gallagher article is special. (If you haven't noticed, I favour blues rock, and specialise in slide guitarists and Rory Gallagher won contests for his abilities over Clapton while Clapton was with Blind Faith. Just let me know if you have any questions. If your email is activated here, mine is too, it would be easiest for you to email me when you're ready and talk about how you'd like to approach the article.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, works for me! I am also kind of tied up with some stuff, so the same goes for me re: Gallagher's article. Of slide players, I have found a lot of inspiration from Lowell George (whom I knew very briefly when I was a very underaged teen), Mick Taylor, Derek Trucks, and many others in addition to the ones you already mentioned. Jeff Beck and Eric Clapton both have had really shining moments- as you mentioned with Cream, for example, and of course, there's all those lovely Willie Dixon songs that were covered by everyone from Jimmy Page to Brian Jones of The Rolling Stones. I'm coming to believe that too often, musicians seem to have a "shelf life" of creativity, insofar as songwriting and inspiration, unfortunately. Ah, well. Anyway, glad to hear you will help. I left a whole lot of usable links for Rory Gallagher on his talk page. Talk to you later!--Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kohoutek1138 and Rlendog, how are you? I was wondering whether, as a side project to whatever individual projects we each happen to be working on, either or both of you would be interested in collaborating with me to try bringing some of your GA Dylan/Byrds articles up to FA. It could be a really relaxed collaboration that we tinker away at in between working on our other stuff. I'm probably going to be working on The Basement Tapes as my next project with Mick gold and I.M.S., but in any lulls in that I'd be really happy to have another side project to give my attention to. I think Mr. Tambourine Man would be the most obvious of your Dylan/Byrds GAs with potential to go to FA: it's got lots of info in it and is already well-referenced, and with just a little more combing through it, it might not be so hard to bring it up to FA. After that, It's All Over Now, Baby Blue may have some potential as well. I'm not sure whether there is enough to be said about Chimes of Freedom or My Back Pages (which I believe you are currently working on for GA) to bring them up to FA, but we could discuss that later. About what I could contribute to the collaboration, I admit I don't know so much about the Byrds, but I know a fair amount about Dylan, and have a certain number of books on him in my personal library. More than collecting and organizing information, however, I feel my strength is in having a critical eye for consistency and for the overall picture, as well a willingness to trudge away at the (to some) possibly tedious tasks of making the refs, punctuation, etc. all pretty and consistent. Anyway, let me know if you're interested, thanks! Moisejp (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moisejp! OK, here are some initial thoughts on your proposal...my immediate reaction is to say yes, let's collaborate—in a really relaxed manner—on getting an article up to FA status (and I agree that "Mr. Tambourine Man" would be a logical choice). However, I do have some reservations about FAs generally... Firstly, from what I've been able to discern, the difference between a GA and an FA is a lot of jumping through formatting hoops and other pedantic dotting of i's and crossing of t's. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of informative, well referenced content being added to articles, which is what Wikipedia is all about IMO. It just seems to me that the energy expended on bringing a GA up to FA could be better utilized in getting a Start-Class article up to GA.

My second reservation is that eventually an FA will appear on the front page of Wikipedia and when it does, the article will have to endure a 24 hour shit-storm of ill-informed, badly referenced, non-NPOV edits and outright vandalism, which serves to essentially tear the article to pieces. I've watched this happen to other music related FAs time and time again, with the Wikipedians responsible for getting said article up to FA standard having to undertake a round-the-clock vigil of reverting destructive and disruptive edits.

I'm sorry if this all sounds extremely negative, and I admit that these misgivings of mine may simply stem from a lack of understanding and experience on my part, but to a neophyte like me, getting an article to FA standard seems like a whole lot of work for not a lot of gain. I know that you've been involved in a few FAs yourself Moisejp, so I'd be very interested in your response to my comments. I repeat that I am definitely interested in collaborating to get "Mr. Tambourine Man" up to FA status; I just hope that you can respond with some positive aspects of the FA process that I'm perhaps overlooking. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to collaborate to get these up to FA, although I share some of Kohoutek1138's reservations about the time spent making sure all the proper types of dashes are used could be better spent improving start class articles to GA. I also have to say up front that work and family obligations have been sapping my spare time lately, leaving much less time available for Wikipedia, and that situation will probably last a while. Still, I am fine with spending some of that time making the formatting and content improvements to get some of these to FA. I am not as concerned as Kohoutek1138 about the damage that occurs when articles are on the main page - the key is not to nomniate them for the main page, and if someone does, just be ready to revert all the edits back to the prior day after noting the few positive contributions to be added back. Rlendog (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kohoutek1138 and Riendog, thank you for your replies. Riendog, like you, recent family commitments have given me a lot less time for Wikipedia, but I'm still on here when I can be, and I'm looking forward to collaborating with both of you. I'll tell you, I enjoy spending time trying to make an article's formatting and punctuation as perfect and consistent as possible (if I'm working towards a specific goal like an FA) and I'd be happy to take on the lion's share of that side of things. Kohoutek1138, your point about the difference between a GA and an FA being not a big addition of content but more the preciseness of the formatting is from my point of view a good thing—I mean by good thing, that the FA seems all the more attainable (and thus motivating) because the content is already more or less there, I just have to worry about cleaning it all up and making it nice and pretty, which I have confidence in myself at being able to do. But of course we will undoubtedly have to make some content changes, and although I'll try to be active in contributing to them, I'll need both of you to bounce ideas off of, and to get input about what we do or don't want to say in the article (especially since I know so little about the Byrds). So we're going to start with "Mr. Tambourine Man" then? OK, maybe this weekend I will have time to start looking at it—but, as we've said, there's no real hurry—I'm just excited to have another article to work on towards FA. I guess I'll be talking to you again soon on the "Tambourine Man" talk page and edit summaries. Cheers! Moisejp (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I take your point about "Mr. Tambourine Man" being almost there in terms of content, and I'm encouraged by Rlendog's suggestion of not nominating the article for the main page. I wasn't aware that this was possible - I just assumed that all FAs automatically ended up on the main page. Of course, this just goes to show my lack of experience with FAs, so I'm willing to follow both of you for guidance on this to a large extent. Moisejp, if you're happy to get stuck in with sorting out stuff like punctuation and correctly formatting dashes, then that's fine by me. Again, your prior experience with Dylan-related FAs makes you the ideal candidate for this job.

As for content, I'm certainly willing to bounce ideas and suggestions for improving the text around. However, I should warn you that this article is a tricky one because while it’s Dylan's song and his version is very famous, The Byrds' rendition is arguably more famous and was basically responsible for creating folk rock as we know it today, as well as initiating the mid-1960s folk rock boom—so it's a pretty influential song, to say the least. I know that during the article's GA review (see here), Rlendog, myself and Philcha struggled to cover all of the bases and impart all of the relevant info regarding Dylan and The Byrds' versions in a concise and easy to understand way. I think we did a pretty good job, although it could still be improved upon to some degree, but this is definitely a complex article. Myself, I'm pretty knowledgable about Dylan and I consider myself an expert on The Byrds, with a number of books about the band in my own personal library. So between us, we shouldn't have too much trouble with this article. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten how long your GA Review lasted—re-reading it now, yes, it seems like it was quite a challenge to find the right balance of all the different elements. Let's hope our eventual FA reviewers don't have a completely different idea about how the article should be organized! Just now I read the article a little more thoroughly than I had in the past, and was quite impressed. The information seems thorough, well organized and flows well. There were a few little things in the content I noticed that I thought it might be good to change, but I guess it'd be more appropriate to bring them up on the article's talk page rather than here. For the formatting I also noticed a few things, and will go ahead and clean them up, and then comb through the article line by line to see if there are any punctuation, etc. inconsistencies. I'll also check all the online references to make sure there are no dead links or sources that may have passed GA but might not pass FA. About the referencing, when we brought both Like a Rolling Stone and The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan to FA, we used the Harvard referencing style, which I like because it's very very "clean"-looking. I was slightly considering changing the referencing "Mr. Tambourine Man" to Harvard style as well, but then again it might not be worth the bother, since the article has so many references and your referencing seems solid and consistent in the style you have used. Still, I am a little bit mulling the possibility, and might give in to the temptation if I get bored or run out of other things to do—but, if you are partial to the current style or have another good reason you'd prefer I didn't, just let me know. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that the article's prose does a pretty good job of getting the info across but re-reading it recently, I did notice a few bits of text which could do with tightening up. Some parts of it just sound a bit disjointed and don't flow as well as other parts I felt. I'll try to have a go at copy editing it and improving things where I can over the coming days. As for the reference style, it's up to you. I think they're fine but you're the one who knows what FA reviewers like and don't like, so I'll leave it up to you. I agree that discussions of individual points about the article should, from now on, probably be raised on the article's talk page. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider myself a particular expert on FA and have only been through a few of them (I think Riendog has more experience than me). I just normally try to use common sense and learn what I'm supposed to do as I go along. Anyways, for the reference thing, I'm quite leaning towards not changing it, as it looks fine as it is. It was a more a case of own personal preference for Harvard rather than any supposed preference by FAC reviewers. Anyway, in the coming days I'll get started on the article and probably also leave a note on the Talk page about the few prose points that I'm thinking maybe should be changed. Talk again soon! Moisejp (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CUTC)

Hello

Per your recent advice to fiscuss this first, I hereby request my Howlin' Wolf photo site be re-added to the Howlin' Wolf page and at the very least in the last form in which it was seen, and as it had been in fact for years and for the following reasons (I include quotes from the biographers and Wolf's own estate and foundation (of which I am a member! Perhaps the only non-related member.) regarding the importance of my work in depicting the real person Wolf was, and advocacy to the legacy of this great and influential person. other such from diverse media is withheld in interests of this comment not being a book, but a "talk")

Are you planning to read this actually? Hopefully in my following your request and taking your advice to first discuss it on the page's talk area (here is only place I could find, please forward to page's talk site if such actually is there) ...so this is evaluated in the spirit of how it's intended, would be nice if even by your own self. Calling the addition of my Howlin' Wolf photo site spam is a travesty and no purported encyclopedic-oriented mind or system could accurately misconstrue such a term, especially in the case of my photo site and the purpose for which it is offered here.

From Wolf's own multi-generational estate (now also the "foundation")

>Laura, *brochure graphic artist*

>Please be advised don't delete the pictures after use >as we may revise/edit brochures and/or create scholarship applications brochure. Sandy is now a part of the Howlin' Wolf Foundation and our concerted efforts. As we determine future projects and usage, Sandy will be involved with determining use of photos (one of the collaborative responsibilities Sandy has in the organization).

>Thanks for all you do!!!

> Respectfully,

> Ellery L. Williams

                       and

> Sandy ... I believe that you are an asset to our mission as we are to yours. In the greater scheme of themes you were....and are a part of the Howlin' Wolf legacy. Hypothetically speaking, if there were 5 original components that made the Howlin' Wolf engine churn, it doesn't make sense to recreate and not use any of its original components. I will identify the resources that are available and get the engine churning better than before. It is my responsibility to ensure the success and continuity of the Howlin' Wolf legacy. On behalf of Howlin' Wolf, Inc. and the Howlin' Wolf Foundation, Inc. we welcome your thoughts and/or suggestions. I will make every effort and due diligence making decisions for these corporations. Every decision I make will be an informed decision with thorough research and analysis. I believe that you are passionate about Howlin' Wolf's legacy. Our collaborative efforts will allow us (...etc.)

-- Next, look at the West Point link... see the photo they have (blurry as it is) and see whose name is there next to it. http://www.wpnet.org/About_HWblues.htm

Then, per Wolf' biographers: (from where most of your page is built) See their site http://www.howlinwolf.com bottom of front page, and then these pages there: http://www.howlinwolf.com/articles/bio_1.htm http://www.howlinwolf.com/talkin.htm their THE BIOGRAPHERS LINKS SITE SAYS www.howlingwolfphotos.com

"More than 50 fantastic, newly available portraits of Wolf, including some of the best we've ever seen of Wolf in performance or in private!" (from 2002)

http://www.howlinwolf.com/images/playing/wolf_play.htm

and yet those hard-working and diligent and invaluable authors never met Wolf, while I was asked by him to stay with him. He taught me harmonica. We made two songs. We discussed things that only now are being revealed and he was prophetic about matters, or wise in ways few are and especially more so all things considered

It's not rocket science to one who studies and teaches how humans think and take in and assimilate or alter information and sensed matters (oh, maybe then it is rocket science, well anyway) -> Not everybody gets the essence or the total sense of a subject, especially a person with even part of the abilities and life of Howlin' Wolf, from reading. My site is the ONLY site that shows a) MANY and DIVERSE photos; b) deeply meaningful and sensitive PORTRAITS, FAMILY PHOTOS, ON THE ROAD CONDITIONS, WOLF WHEN HE WAS STILL VIBRANTLY POWERFUL, and not posed for some label as the old Sun stuff which is fine in its way but actually those of the man being himself with someone he had time and reason and interest to be himself, not just a stage/performance function.

Of course people want to SEE more deeply the genuine article of one of the most influential and charismatic and in fact, going by over a thousand emails I have received, life-changing, human beings in the world, a genuine wounded-healer as my STORY depicts so well. The story on my site is alone a degree of presentation of the man that Chester Burnett was and what his legacy genuinely conveys and that is the whole point of my wanting my site to go back on "yours". To be rejected in the face of some of those add-ons far more exploitative of the image and legacy of Howlin' Wolf bears reconsidering even if you yourself cant or don't see the true meaning and intent of my efforts to keep my link there.

Unless of course you don't value an open mind and heart and instead consider your views and attitude ever-perfect and never failing and needing no room to gain some wisdom beyond knowledge how about yourself kindly placing it back on there if you would.

Consider: who's photos do ALL media use when discussing his home life? Mine. Do they wish to talk about it and not have it shown? No. Views of his wife and him, usually mine as the photos I took are not just "great pics' but depict and show and transmit levels of character and dimensions of who he was in a number of levels and ways that none other can or have, as well as their relationship and that photo was used as the photo at her funeral.

I speak of the portraits, too. The world deserves to see these photos. ALL can see those elucidating and inspiring photos for free, to read the story there which is not fan trivia but speaks to how Howlin' Wolf REALLY was in contrast to the stupid, wrongful and ugly comments one sees (at times) on YouTube and blog comments and social sites and such, about him being a drunk a dope addict, etc. or low skilled etc... usually by racists or otherwise deranged or horribly misinformed commentators. There might indeed be less of them if my site were added. NONE of the other added links folks did that (confronted Wolf's detractors) nor did they work to support the national civil rights act and enforce it as did I (unless some there in just one add on site I haven't yet contacted ever had, but likely not regarding Howlin' Wolf, in any case, since the day we met (and in fact even before.)

My site has *** the only real documentary and artistic record of Wolf as the person he was beyond performances *** plus, it shows his cards (full photo-sided business cards years ahead of their time WE made... and all the rest I have already covered.

I knew and know this man and others on the music (and many other) pages of Wikipedia WELL and can depict and describe him and anyone I discuss VERIFIABLY *BY PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE* and more than my own references (AND CORRESPONDENCE AND TAPES/RECORDINGS MADE TOGETHER etc.) along with only a very few others I know of, in their own way, but nearly no other especially regarding Chester Burnett (Howlin' Wolf) of how he was in his day to day moments as well as the deeper issues of his childhood some (not all) which were a mystery until my interview was transcribe into the book (in this matter and a few others)

I'm not some lucky fan that got a chance to snap a few shots. LOOK at the photos , look INTO them ... you seem to have some interest in aspects of music... See the Wolf that is the real deal and try if you have it in you yet to sense what it took, read about what we shared and how we had come to a connection enabling us to create those photos.. and it takes seeing them to get a better GENUINE SENSE of who he was.. there is no GOOD reason to not add my site) Please find a good one to add it. There is an abundance of them.

With out much of this and the physical/visual evidence and information that is referred to by my photos and story of he and my special connection, the current overview is somewhat sterile and facile and of all people to lay that on it's not Howlin' Wolf

Other requests will be following if needed by Howlin' Wolf's biographers and/or estate and including major UK/USA music magazines etc.. request my site be placed back on the page in question, though I should not have to ask them to do so given what was just shown you, sir.

consider why my site should be added, the actual value and meaning, - for the sake of Wolf's legacy and accurate depiction .. and I would ask you to look into yourself some, if possible,. to ascertain why you would so wrongfully misjudge my site so vigorously

By the way, if I were adding content to the main section I would NOT leave out that Wolf confidently predicted a black U.S. President... almost 40 years ago or that he continued taking music lessons himself or that his generosity and compassion was evidenced by his keeping "rival" Muddy Waters going when Muddy went broke.

That will serve to offset the great misinformation that was part of the significant 'Hollywoodization' of the true Chess story, as seen on Cadillac Records

the Wiki article on Howlin' Wolf lacks a type of sense of the man my photos (as a link to see with the story available) will help correct. Also, you can grab #2 anywhere on the net and use it (for that page only) but if you use it I insist on the photo credit by name "with permission of ...etc.) at the very least if not directly linked BY the photo itself.

Best regards,

Sandy Guy Schoenfeld www.howlingwolfphotos.com Howlingsandy (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC) had just accidentally placed on wrong subject area so re-setting to this Howlingsandy (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Howlingsandy (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

originally just placed in Rogthorpes reply box... moments ago

Hello,

I am glad to hear who and why someone is being so destructive to what I have placed and while willing to be as neutral as possible as regards your recent comments:

... previous and according to your own words not read...

am not quite sure how to clearly and simply get a message to a wiki editor, but Kahoutek, you're very very wrong about many things. Please be so kind as to make sure both of you see this...whoever gets this and if it's posted in wrong place it's a personal a response to just transfer to an email if you wish and tell me how to reach you in a a simple way if need be but I wont keep putting this time into this venue at this level so please let's see if what i say makes at least SOME sense to you okay?

unless somehow self-righteous and envious maybe "nothing personal against your fine editing jurisprudence" but clearly there is SOME kind of arbitrary and capricious style of your abuse of power as follows.....

RE Mike Wilhelm: and you may ask him

Mike and I and his wife Ana (Ann) did Mean Ol' Frisco here in Marin Co. at first then in S.F. in 1985; for Patrick Mathe' of France who if you look into his background you will recognize .. maybe... New Rose/Last Call and etc.etc.

He (Mike) chose me for harmonica over, for example and surprisingly at the time though glad to have been told, Norton Buffalo... because not only did I write 3 of the songs on that album, in ways he liked, but I had also (besides from Howlin' Wolf, who I knew so MUCH better and in fact -at all - than any of those external link owners you allow... this is next subject.. for now Mike Wilhelm) I had also learned harp from Sonny Terry and he guitar from Brownie McGhee.... We had a very special musical rapport probably best he ever found so I understand... and I played harp (blues/rock/folk harmonica on 7 of the 11 tracks) in the way he liked best

I was asked to take the cover shot and others by co-producer and him because of my photographic abilities and background and close (photographic as well as musical and family style connection to Howlin' Wolf and Arthur Crudup, whom I played drums with whenever he was out west.

On Mean Ol Frisco, Cippolina (with one lung left) came out of hospital to do it, played on 2 tracks, former quicksilver drummer Greg Elmore was on all, bass man Bobby Vega on most... and clarinetist sax player Richie Olsen from orig. Charlatans.

This stuff is not secret but so artitrary how you publish, it would seem to one who was THERE... uh well that would be me... for example. My photos of John (Cippolina) and others are on the inside 10 of 12.

I was NOT an unknown musician even then. but did not ordinarily waste time with the derivative imitators when I was blessed enough to be making songs and being tight friends with Howlin' Wolf, Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup, Brownie McGhee/Sonny Terry, Mance Lipcomb, K.C. Douglass, and 5 or 6 other blues legends from the time I was a teenager, seeing them socially when possible and corresponding with most, otherwise.

I drove Mike and Ana Marie Rios his "co-producer" and partner, as well as most equipment to every (many) sessions in two studios. Tres Virgo in Sausalito (who's coked-out engineer lost two Tracks! so we left them) and the now-famous Hyde Street Studios.

I am mentioned on that album 12 times... few others got more than 2 mentions. And you omit my name in places that in essense harm truth and possible future sales of it for him and Last Call in doing so... Mike would not argue this I was NOT unknown in the white blues/rock circles too but the details of that can wait this typing is most unpleasantly painful to my basal joints... but plenty enough of references as to my music scene participation.

Within 2 years that Mean Ol' Frisco album was selling at collectors shops here USED for $40, and being at many to sell off my records to pay for a friends surgery, I three times heard customers buying it say they wanted it as much for the cover photo as the songs. What can I say? There are not many "clean-shaven" looks of Wilhelm and some liked it....But of course you don't have to say handsome, was trying to see who the hell was deleting FACTUAL stuff so added that.

And get a clue to your own self-righteous judgmental assumptions PLEASE... There is nothing "shameless" in my efforts. I would, as a trained therapist however, including Winnicott and Fairbairn UK via Guntrip and even Laing (object relations theorists) training (not to mention. yes, the "other Fairbairn" too, of "Get Tough" fame, though trained for many years via Col Rex Applegate not Fairbairn (as am not THAT old to have met either Fairbairne, wink) but that is neither here nor there, right? though some RM50 mates in UK did help me to collect (a matter of conversation sticking to facts of course, and all legal. juts helps to have some realize am not an easy and long distance mark for bootleggers) this was regards to two small-time professional / intentional thieves marketing my photos on amazon and on websites for their profits and who upon being questioned telling me to f.off (first when confronted in an actually rather kind way) so I supppose they got to find out I'd met some good UK mates in Moscow as from from all country' elite recondo forces cross-trained their sharing "secrets" with Spetznas etc. after Glasnost was in effect .. well shucks that was back in the day and I digress)

so the point is.. I know healthy shame and I know and have as counselor helped many to dredge out, view and overcome the other kind of shame (that Bradshaw calls The Shame That Binds, a k a self-hatred in some form) that most have, hold, hide and deny and then mis-treat others behind such, as I may be inspired to consider and refer to when getting such unquestioningly close-minded comments, as just found here.. toward me... well ahead of any fair hearing and as if such comments had truth and only truth... so my friends, if you have a conscience and deeper wisdom at least you may wish to look within... I hope you can, and nothing said is to disparage your various contributions but you really ought to think again about mine.

Also. Mike and I fact fact fact and documented re the Harmonic Convergence Concert and various gigs we did around town as a duo that I did not mention yet, and was well advertised etc etc etc. on radio and flyers etc.. it was sort of his come-back as a musician HERE in fact.. we fact fact fact played a NOTED concert at the band shell just before the summer of love re-do...I see you kept that which I added but NOT mentioning me and blocking the whole thing, even re-submitted toned down. now talk about shameless and wrongful .. you keep blocking that even in neutral text. The video is available and a priceless collector's item in fact which has not been made available though it could be and in fact three songs (the ones I wrote and sang)will be on YOUTUBE by end of year but am waiting for them to come out as having been wanted by other musicians for their upcoming CD's.

WHY would you block even some tamed down reference to THAT concert... it was so well-received by thousands and very much enjoyed by Its' a Beautiful Day members in particularly David as well as Zulu Spear and others on the venue.. it was for charity. and yes....

There WAS a world tour scheduled (all to use Harleys in fact) as much as possible) for Mean Ol' Frisco and the manager of it was former manager of The Animals whose name escapes me. What I said at first about WHY it was cancelled is so re the King Snakes - untalented French wannabe pet band of Mathe'...at the time and though I don't expect it to be part of the article of course actually .. Mathe's issues with who was to play backup to and with Wilhelm was in fact so... and as you may know from that film, Mike Wilhelm is not easily told what to do (and Mathe' did come here, we did have long talks about much. when he was not hitting on my girlfriend in what he thought was secret, lol) and issues of radiation from Chernobyl reaching Finland that was on the tour, which included Montreaux... put the kibosh on it.

and that short-lived film I added .. .1968 the movie .. not bragging guys but just saying...it was ME featured in the TV trailers for the pic (a producer was related to Forbes) it was ME playing drums in the trailer plus some documentary footage...and a few quick shots of the "stars." Was that by chance? I think not. You (nor would anyone) not know, as I changed my appearance each time quite well, I was a (featured) extra in that film in 4 other ways, and then as a SAG-credited actor/musician whose soundtrack contribution counted as lines. Music director Cipollina asked me to be in it, then Mike. Then I got Eric (Doc Maraque) an invite though in reality he was actually more of a hanger on who played maracas in one song so I gave him that nickname.

how you can leave out the harmonic convergence concert is beyond wrongful. how you can love to find reasons to diminish and invalidate to the extent you do my image in your minds is I suggest well-worth looking into and taking to whatever venue might be appropriate in the guidelines of wiki if this does not connect to a more human and reflectively objective side of your judgment

HOWLIN' WOLF The story alone on my site is enough to justify it being a link it is the ONLY story of actually KNOWING him and so much about him and things we shared. The biography (also has such stories of course) nevertheless REQUIRED "my" interview of Howlin' Wolf to clarify WHY he ran from his uncle and to essentially make the meat of ths first chapter, as I think the authors will also agree with... after all they built my site for me for the offering of this treasured interview which has a 2nd part of two songs unknown to any save Wolf and I and done partly as harmonica lessons but wonderful songs soon to be out on some compilation if I can find the proper CD producer.

NO ONE of other thousands could tell the authors what I had on tape with Wolf. and... in Wolf OWN WORDS and voice. the story of this is on my site and nowhere else TOO

My NAME is on the LOGO of the West Point HWBS and frankly besides a concert to make money for people who own half the county what do they actually do for Wolf???? I say this in relective neutrality... they never met him and are rather clueless about much that I personally experienced though I am fond of them for my reasons in that at least they exist to the point they do.. but in fact Wolf was NOT born in White Station/West Point but ABERDEEN as was made clear by the recent NEW blues trail marker THERE oh yeah and. Wolf's own words on this matter. These are all easily verifiable facts.

I am very glad the bio book came out, beyond that they used my interviews, and photos and other stories (some of them) of my knowing Wolf so well... they mention my site and in fact wanted my photo on the cover though Pantheon opted for that depressing gaunt end-stage sickly with cigarette photo, being clueless as to true blues meaning especially in relation to Wolf's dynamic vibrant style and peak appearance . No need to show sickness to show blues in ones eyes that I was able to capture and in fact only i if you really dig into my photos FREE for all to see and THE ONLY ... did i say ONLY ? ONLY ones of Wolf at HOME, of his FAMILY, my photo of Wolf and Wife Lillie was the photo used at her funeral.. it's inspirational... and telling.

Wolf chose me to be his photographer and wanted me to get credit. Yet (for chief but far from only)example your UK Pictorial Press's Tony Gale now has to be sued by Redfern and Getty for robbing me and thus mainly them of so many funds since 1976... The photos ARE ... IN FACT.. THE.. ICONIC PHOTOS... even Steven Lavere will say so... and in fact Wolf's current estate/foundation who wants them for free of course, as millionaires never have enough....and NONE of whom met Wolf! Or quite get who and how he was with (except perhaps the stepdaughters having at least some awareness having lived with him but from what I know, for years miles apart in understanding or interest) am happy if they and I and the rest come to some type of working relationship ... could be in the works.

The photo #1 and now #2 are (#1 on 25 or more CDs and in thousands of books and news articles never ONCE mentioning my name . #2 a recent infringement Top Target is more easily dealt with ... but is MINE and I don't see why you righteous editors would NOT want THE iconic photos to be ON this page as a link.... I never expect to sell one photo from such things as never have yet.... partly because I don't offer cheap digital prints

You are welcome to USE free one or two of my photos so empowering to those who see them to see such a view into the real Wolf, as my photos have levels of him none other do... and of course I want photocredits and a link to my site . think about it.

a) your invalidation of my connection to Mike Wilhelm and our own work shared is laughable and sad and much unpleasant to see such stuff from those who were not there in any way shape or form.. but that can be verified simply enough \

b) your exclusion of my (formerly long running link) on Wiki is in fact a diminishing of Wolf's image to those who can read far enough into the article to see the links... his grave site is one matter.. His bio... which is great is no more revealing in some ways (as author admits) than those of my story , the photos that could only have come from a very unique relationship rare and special... his business cards are another thing. they are shown and show Wolf as Way ahead of his time in creative PR... no other place shows them ...they are FREE to see... they pop up larger... hell, yes i ask fees for one to own some... or to get an image of copyable quality I need a contract. i have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars by thieves and bootleggers.... and live paycheck to paycheck n disability pension while supporting some people in great difficulty with every cent I can obtain. In fact this matter as to who and why may make international news at some point but cannot get into it here

my site is a better museum than west point's... go look... it's almost a token joke and sad to me , in fact am about to give them some photos just to make it better...but they put the last one I let them use for a poster/t-shirt in the news and it got out all over the net as it was electronically distributed with neither copyright or sanction to use only in assoc. with their festival so sadly then had to deal with educating them and blocking such publications back in '03

your post to me kahoutek (would much prefer your proper real name but is nearly midnight now, really bears some self-evaluation and a better look at how it does meet the guidelines you use to justify some pretty wrongful exclusion and in fact there should sure be a means of taking this to a higher venue if all I said is not making sense but to reinforce your wrongful opinion far too hastily and seems jubilantly rendered and I hope not as maybe you have time and funds to play with arguing and such but as for me, having been involved in the real struggles of major importance - in particularly helping educate and inform and enforce the National Civil Rights Act and having other matters to focus on hope this at least makes a few points clearly enough.. so am not challenging your power but appealing with more facts and consideration these matters I hope you can give another look into and decision that affords me a link and neutral mention in true documentable and, above all, meaningful and useful material and connections that will only be good for people to have at their viewing. and if ever what I say seems self trumpet blowing those things can be edited without an all-or-nothing wrongful dismissal not even knowing how things really were are and have been, to say the least, which is possibly unprofessional and contradictory to encyclopedic truth, but likely simply human error as we all can make , for that matter

Best regards

Sandy Guy Schoenfeld

I will at some point re-add how it ought to be in most neutral all true non-adjectivial terms if can stay awake long enough now but likely later after spending two whole days on this and forgoing essential matters to make truth be heard, or at least written :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howlingsandy (talk • contribs) 06:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your comment on my talk page. -- Starbois (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]