Template:Archive box collapsible

Saw the discussion and posted a brief comment. What you outlined is pretty clear and accurate, so hopefully this will lead to some sort of resolution. Thanks. freshacconci talktalk 16:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. The main thing about your edits to the article is that the 1985 Shanghai release is a pirated record, and shouldn't really be part of the article at all, likewise the Varrick release. The Castle releases are, at best, dubious. All of the other releases of the Feb 1970 concerts are unofficial (Live in Boston, Cerulean, Boston Tea Party etc etc), and only the Snapper release is semi-official. In my opinion, it is the only notable release of this audio and the others should just be mentioned as a relative footnote. Similarly, all the various versions of the "London '68" concerts are pirated, like the majority of Fleetwood Mac's 1967-80 live material. Bootlegged and pirate recordings are not usually considered notable enough for Wikipedia articles, and now the article is based almost completely on a very hard-to-find, illegal, non-notable release. In fact, the 1985 release was not the first release of this concert audio anyway, there being a number of earlier (also illegal) vinyl releases. The fleetwoodmac.net discography (which I partially wrote myself) is not really a reliable source and includes bootlegs. I was not aware that review info is no longer included in the infobox, but it wouldn't have been too difficult to just create a "Reception" section rather than delete it and ask me to do it. Certainly, deleting reviews from more popular albums without relocating them just starts edit wars. I'll do that for the other album articles when I get time - I wrote most of them anyway. The album chronologies should always stick to either studio or live albums as far as I know, and not mix them, and never should they include unofficial or pirated releases. I agree with your edits for the date linking though. Thanks again, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I with you that I'm not a fan of including reviews at all - I never add them myself and I'm not convinced they're encyclopedic. I didn't mean to seem abrupt, by the way.

I didn't say that "Live in Boston" was a bootleg, but I still believe it to be a pirated release, in that the tapes were not intentionally released for the production of records in the 80s, because the identity of the true rights holder was under debate. This is why they're such appalling quality, and why a lot of the songs never appeared until the Snapper release - because not all the tapes were leaked. I know the band have no control over any Green-era live material, or archival releases bar the BBC stuff, and that the members receive no royalties, but even so, the early Boston records were even less officially sanctioned than most. They may have been legitimately available, but were not legitimately produced. In any case, I think the article is misleading now because it promotes an album that is very hard to find, and information on the full version produced from properly-licensed master recordings has been removed, and it's this version which is more relevant. I propose at least to reintroduce all the info on the 3CD version. I realise that there is no doubt some over-strict infobox guidelines that prohibits this information being put in the infobox, but it should be somewhere. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds like a good idea. We definitely don't need any other track listings, but we could probably mention some of the other releases. There are a lot of different covers, but I think maybe adding a scan of the Snapper cover might be an idea, in the "alternate cover" field of the infobox, since this is the cover many people will be familiar with today, and it's a legitimate use of that field as far as I understand. If the guidelines want the original version's timing / label info in the infobox, I guess that means the 1985 release in this case, although I'm not ecstatic about it.

The earlier versions are certainly pirated - for example I have one somewhere called "Boston Live" dated 1978 with eight tracks on it (if memory serves). I have another 70s LP of part of one of the gigs, clearly recorded from the crowd, an obvious bootleg, though it's better quality than some of the later versions. There's no reason why Dopson would have known about these, since there were certainly not legitimately available. I agree that the 1985 version was the first release available in shops, even if its provenance was shaky.

I'll have a think about what could be said about the earlier versions, though reliably sourcing it might be hard. About the only freely available info about those amounts to little more than the fact that they exist. A lot of what I know came directly from Mac's sound engineer at the time, also from Jeremy Spencer (who's still mad about it), and an interview with Mike Vernon which I'll be lucky to find again, to be honest - but I'll have a look for it anyway. There could certainly be extended prose on the Snapper release though, and it might be easier to say that's an officially licensed version, being careful not to imply too strongly that the previous versions were improperly licensed, if I can't find a good reference for that. Technically, that might lay us open to a complaint from someone, if Shanghai Records still exist. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good, I'll add the Snapper cover to the infobox - I have it scanned though I don't have the CD with me at the moment. It's interesting about the current cover in the infobox, because I'm not actually sure what cover that is - it might well be the European one. I don't have an album with that cover, but the British cover is much like the Snapper cover but with "Fleetwood Mac: Live in Boston" in small print at top left and the Native American is more in the centre of the sleeve. Most of the sleeves are much like that, or with a live photo, like the "Looking Back on Fleetwood Mac" album, for example - another Boston show LP. I agree about careful referencing and using the Snapper notes as much as is useful.

The Snapper release is not official in as much as it's not an "official Fleetwood Mac-controlled release" - in fact there are no Fleetwood Mac-controlled archival releases. But it's at least with the permission and assistance of whoever owns the rights to the audio these days. It may well be that Mick Fleetwood was either aware of the Snapper release or OK'd it, but I don't know for sure. He was party to the release of Live at the BBC so it may be a similar thing. Clifford Davis was supposed to have owned the audio for a long time, but he either didn't care enough to control its use, colluded in its "release", or sold it without the permission of the band he had managed. I'm not sure who owns it now. I think that's how a lot of this stuff left the control of the band, amid the court case in 1974, and also Green, Kirwan and Spencer being elsewhere (not least mentally elsewhere) in the 70s and 80s, and Fleetwood & McVie being busy with superstardom. I'll expand the info on the Snapper release when I get home and dig out the CDs, or you can do it if you want to and have time. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree about that - we may have had to wait a lot longer for the tapes to be released officially, or even semi-officially. As it was, fans had years of enjoyment out of them, despite it being a bit shady. At the time, it was the only Green-era live stuff available, apart from the bootleg tapes floating around. I'd also agree that whoever decided which songs would be on the 1985 album, they made a good choice. About the Snapper discs, they are excellent, but I find they're best taken one disc at a time, basically as if you were present at the gig - unless you're really in the mood for all three discs of course :)

Yes, I'd agree that the cover that someone put in the infobox is probably the European/American cover, and therefore is likely to be the most common. It might also explain why I've never found that cover in my record shop-trawling days - when record shops were more common :( - and yes, Castle albums covers were usually pretty awful! Let's be glad that's not in the infobox ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and I've seen you're a learned person and also an enthusiastic reader of comic books, so I think you have an acute vision of what is right or wrong and know that with (great) power comes (great) responsibility. My name is Claudi Balaguer and I've come here asking you to help a minorized language and culture and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. The X-Men, Spider-man and the Fantastic Four would support our cause if they could, actually the only ones who wouldn't are the Green Goblin and Galactus. Don't let Lord Sauron win the battle, please! Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Capsot (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see the talk page on The Yellow Princess re: the release date. Join in. I don't know why the Fahey files (official site?) shows 1969 on the album page but the song notes state 1968. Thanks. Airproofing (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is I sigh with you. I'm powerless to interfere after our earlier run-in over at Alan Vega. You'll note there at the end of the discussion she promised to add extensively to the article. I'm still waiting. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For improving articles with others within the Dylan project. Richhoncho (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the change and will eventually get around to adding reception sections to all of Mellencamp's articles. However, I think that the reviews should stay, in some form or another, until that time.BillyJack193 (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edition I use is the first, ISBN 1-84353-139-9, so this is p. 268 of the first edition. I only own the first edition, so if you see me citing this book again, assume it is the first edition. Thanks.BootleggerWill (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, I recently created the article telling about the band Dantalian's Chariot. And, today the notability tag was added on top of the article. I'm not sure which steps to follow, but I sure know that the article fits the at least one of the criteria, "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." Would you mind taking a look at the article and help me deal with the situation? Thanks in advance. Elitropia (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the fast reply, Paul. While creating the article I did dig all over the internet and couldn't find much but the individuals' blog entries which wouldn't be the reliable sources. Please feel free to edit the article and add references (especially books if you know any). Elitropia (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easily passes WP BAND #6 "contains two or more independently notable musicians". I've removed the tag. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, thank you for your edits on the article! Feel free to do it again, anytime. Also, thank you Wwwhatsup, for your contribution. Elitropia (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, when you have time would you also look at the references that I used in the article July to avoid the same happening? I have no music related books. Thanks in advance. Elitropia (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Dandelion seeds" and "You missed it all" are great tracks, too. But again, unfortunately there is not much information available on the internet about them. They were a short term band. Thank you once more, Paul. Elitropia (talk) 05:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- Cirt (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For your significant and helpful contributions to the music articles, without seeking recognition for your work. Elitropia (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, I noticed that earlier, too. But, in the Jade Warrior page it is actually unclear, after returning to England in 1966, the Tomcats were re-named July, it doesn't state they were re-named as July exactly in 1966. And, no I don't have the CD. Elitropia (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Paul. Please, don't hesitate to ask more. Elitropia (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Paul! If I must say, when I read articles I mostly prefer to read few lines of lead then the history. If I'm really interested in the topic, I go read the whole. So, it'll be useful to keep the few lines of lead, methinks. Having a short history section shouldn't be a problem with all those references. Also, I was looking up more about the band, and stumbled into this page [1] which isn't a reliable source, but you might want to see. Elitropia (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, Paul. the article in your sandbox looks great but one line there puzzled me, "the Playboys .. changed their name to The Thoughts and then The Tomcats".Well, here is the inlay I figured, The Thoughts were formed via the merge of the The Second of Thoughts and The Tomcats;

The Second of Thoughts - P.Campbell-Lyons, T.Duhig, J.Field, ..

The Playboys - T. Newman, A.James, P.Cook, C.Jackson >> changed their name to The Tomcats

The Second of Thoughts and The Tomcats merged >> The Thoughts - T. Newman, J.Field, T.Duhig..

The Thoughts merged with other members of The Second of Thoughts >> went to Spain with the name Los Tomcats - A.James, C.Jackson, T.Duhig, T. Newman, J.Field, .. >> the five members I wrote the names were the remaining members and they changed their name to July.

In the Facebook page Peter Cook is the current member, it never tells that he was in July back then. If you look at one of the posts in their wall, they posted a photo telling that it was the original July and there is no Peter Cook listed. But, I'm not sure if that page is official. Also, the citation needed part of the article, I looked it up all over and couldn't find anything. Elitropia (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, my mistake, it's the Second Thoughts. I've been looking, reading more about it. About the inlay I wrote earlier (please correct me if I'm wrong);

Jon Field and Tony Duhig formed the band called Second Thoughts with Patrick Lyons.[2][3]

>>The Second Thoughts - P.Campbell-Lyons, T.Duhig, J.Field, ..

You say "the Playboys were Tom Newman's skiffle band which formed in the late 50s, and which evolved into an R&B group called The Thoughts (see the Newman biography on Allmusic), and then finally became The Tomcats," but according to Jade Warrior it's like this; Tom Newman Alan James, Pete Cook and Chris Jackson had formed the first incarnation of the "Tomcats".[4]

>>The Playboys - T. Newman, A.James, P.Cook, C.Jackson >> changed their name to The Tomcats

According to this article "Jon Field and Tony Duhig put together in their first bands The Thoughts and The Second Thoughts." [5] Which means Jon Field and Tony Duhig went onto the Thoughts. So, that the Second Thoughts and the Tomcats formed the band The Thoughts.

>>The Second Thoughts and The Tomcats merged >> The Thoughts - T. Newman, J.Field, T.Duhig.

Later, T. Duhig (again from the Second Thoughts) joined to the Thoughts to create a re-formed line-up of The Tomcats (Los Tomcats).[6]

>>The Thoughts merged with other members of The Second of Thoughts >> went to Spain with the name Los Tomcats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elitropia (talk • contribs) 18:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Elitropia (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Paul. Facebook page lines up the first incarnation of the Tomcats.[7] with Pete Cook in it. We know Playboys came before the Tomcats, but you're right, this doesn't make it sure that the exact members were also in the Playboys. On the other hand, we sure then have to use the reliable references as you mentioned, which tells us that the Thoughts came between the Playboys and the first incarnation of The Tomcats until I come up with a reliable reference that shows the first incarnation of the Tomcats came in between the Playboys and the Thoughts. Meanwhile looking out there more, I also figured John Speedy Keen was also in the Tomcats at some point as a drummer [8] that we can use in the article. Elitropia (talk) 06:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still think that there was the early Tomcats in between The Playboys and the Thoughts, I will look it up more when I have enough time for that but I don't think proving this is important now especially where all the other sources we use wouldn't mention about it all. By the way, I just found another fact that July were managed by Spencer Davis.[9]. This page shows the The Tapestry of Delights as a source. Maybe you might want to see. Elitropia (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you make a google image search for the CD, it gives some results and even you can see the two pages of booklet. And, thank you for your contributions, Paul. Have a nice day. Elitropia (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But, then Epic Records should be deleted from the infobox? Elitropia (talk) 09:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I'm guessing, we are done with the article for now(?). Thank you, Paul. Elitropia (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Kohoutek1138 - Just to let you know I've just removed an item you tweaked at List of songs banned by the BBC. I realise you were just wikifying the reference, but it's a primary source, so out it goes. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Paul. I've been trying to improve the Tintern Abbey article. For the EP Do What You Must, Disocgs and Rate Your Music pages gives so different years. And, Allmusic doesn't even give the correct album. I for now used the Discogs page as a reference. How to make sure? Are there any other reliable sources that you know? Thank in advance. ~ Elitropia (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And, I didn't know about 45cat. Bookmarked. ~ Elitropia (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for the additional info, then. But when I create the discography sections, I don't get stuck with one page anyway, check them all, in any page I can find. Recently I created the discography for the Dutch band The Outsiders, but it was really not easy since any source available was telling different dates, and labels (which is mostly the same story with any other '60s). If you like take a look at it? ~ Elitropia (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I placed a warning on the IP's talk page and further reverted Cher's albums and singles discographies, as it appears the vandalism has been going on for some time. Eric444 (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they keep it up, I would suggest taking it to WP:AIV. Eric444 (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your contributions !

in February I had added the story of the EDP, I do not know why I was not identified. I only realized now that my text was gone, beause Kim Flint died.

being the developer of the EDP, I am biased and being swiss, my english is not so nice, but still, I think my text contained deeper information than the one Sean added recently (thank you Sean!):

"1994 Gibson released the Echoplex Digital Pro, a digital live looping tool, not intended to be similar to the tape Echoplex. The design was licensed from Matthias Grob who had created the LOOP delay in 1992 and without his consent, Gibson placed their brand Echoplex on his invention in order to achieve bigger sales. While the tape Echoplex was made to create short delays and echo, the Echoplex Digital Pro, also called EDP, was the first design dedicated to the use of live recording for instant composition and sound layering. Its Record function finally allowed to define the delay time while recording the phrase to be repeated and Multiply made rhythmically precise changes of this delay time possible, all while playing. another 25 functions made the EDP a standard and its interface was imitated by many other looping tools. Since Gibson resisted to create a more modern model as proposed by Matthias and his partner Kim Flint at Aurisis Research, the EDP was built without changes until 2008. Although its 68000 processor (same as in the Macintosh Plus) was completely driven to its limits with the 2002 software upgrade LOOP IV and the hardware was mono and slightly noisy, the EDP keeps on being sold for over 500 US$ on eBay due to its musical user interface and some unique functions due to its tape like memory structure. All newer LiveLooping tools and even the EDP imitations like Mobius and SooperLooper use a Sample oriented memory structure which is easier to program but make the intuitive flow over the loop start point more difficult."

the relevance of the EDP is hard to question, if you search on Ebay, you will probably find that, by making live looping popular, it has a bigger influence on music history than the tape machine had. We could consider starting a new page for it though. I find especially important that its the only digital looping tool that maintained the memory characteristic of tape

I would really appreciate to see your fix for this situation! Thank you Matthias Grob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matigrob (talk • contribs) 05:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your interest in improving this article. I believe a primary source was Warburton, but please give me a day or so to get my mind back to this article. I have the Valley of The Moon album, but believe that I was using other sources--would have to be, in terms of referencing the second album, which I do not own.

Again, many thanks for your concern with respect to this page and the H.P. Lovecraft page.

Dreadarthur (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some references in support of later band membership and also the background of Marty Grebb. I should have referenced better at the outset; many thanks for pointing this out. The Fabulous Rhinestones merit a separate page, in my view, if you have an interest here and are inclined to develop this; it skipped my mind, despite original intentions. I am currently caught in Bill Bentley (producer) and, in terms of the usual constraints of competing life obligations, won't be out of that page for awhile.

The H.P. Lovecraft page is very, very nice and complete, blending both bands as I now see, thanks to your efforts. I believe that the successor Lovecraft band was better than credited. Thought Dolinger-Been was going to become a major songwriting team, based on Valley of the Moon.

Dreadarthur (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just noticed your articles on H. P. Lovecraft and H. P. Lovecraft II. Great stuff!! Have a cookie... Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, don't know if you've noticed but I've suggested a slight amendment to your suggested hook at DYK. Happy to discuss it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kohoutek1138 I recently added some info to the HP Lovecraft article based on my experience as vocalist with Tegza, Capek et al in the band's final version (about 2 1/2 years). These edits were removed without supporting docs which I understand. If you're interested I have back stage passes, band pics, articles, clippings, contracts etc. that document what I wrote. I'm not very web savy, but you can reach me through my website: www.schererjewels.com Capek is still in Chicago as is Mark Gardner and Joe Jammer (Although Joe will be in England in two weeks for about 3 months of acoustic pub gigs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.82.153 (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I'm replying here because you don't have a Wikipedia account with its own talk page. Hopefully you'll check back and see my response.

My problem with your additions, aside from them being a little non-neutral sounding, is that this line up of the band is mostly non-notable by Wikipedia standards. That is to say that because this line-up never released any records or made any high-profile appearances, they don't really meet the Wikipedia notability criteria (see here). As a result of this relative obscurity, nothing has ever been written about this group by any reliable third party publication (at least not that I can find). The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, rather than truth, and therefore this latter-day line-up shouldn't really be covered (see here for a detailed explanation of the Wikipedia verifiability guidelines).

Having said all that, I'm inclined to include at least some of your additions because you’ve made it clear that you were actually in the band, rather than just a fan or someone on the periphery. I also feel it's worth mentioning this line-up, at least in passing, because there is obviously a connection with the earlier Love Craft and, by proxy, with H. P. Lovecraft (the subject of the article). Therefore, I will re-add a couple of sentences about this 1980s LoveCraft line-up for completeness sake and take your word on good faith. By the way, if you can point me towards any reliable info on the web about this version of the group I'd be very grateful. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, you mind joining to the discussion in List of psychedelic rock artists' talk page? What you think matters. Thanks. ~ Elitropia (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been quiet for a while, but I had a favor to ask. I have been working on "Love Minus Zero/No Limit" trying to get it into GAN shape. I think it is in good shape, but it would probably help to have a sample clip of the music, and I have no idea how to do that. Could you add a musical example to the article? Of course, any suggestions/edits would be appreciated as well.

On other Dylan topics, I finally started the article on "Lay Down Your Weary Tune" that I promised you - probably about a year ago. I borrowed a couple of lines from the Turn! Turn! Turn! article to cover The Byrds' version, but you may know more. I can wait a couple of days before making a DYK nom in case there is some good Byrds material to use there.

I have also done some work on a couple of song articles you have worked on - "It's Alright Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)" and "All I Really Want to Do". The former in particular may be getting close to having enough material for a GAN, although there is still some work to be done, particularly the lede and the list of recordings at the end. Anyway, I look forward to continue working with you on these and others. Rlendog (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the talk page of the redirect.
Here's the Youtube video:
Galaxy - 06 - Day Without the Sun [1 of 2]
I understand that they were from Jacksonville. If so, then at least another great band came out of that city.  ;-)  70.54.181.70 (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:POUND you're not supposed to use number signs that way. So "peaked at number six" is correct. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your offer of editing help here. I honestly didn't see what I was doing as involving substantially unsourced material. I was the one who added the "refimprove" tag in the first place, as you will note from the page history.

If I can't contribute in manners that are viewed more consistently as constructive, I will have to address how to better use my time as a volunteer.

You may want to review my challenges to some of the harsher remarks on my Talk page. Please do not assume that there is a substantiated history of inadequacy here or deliberate contravention.

I look forward to your help and thank you again for your offer.

Dreadarthur (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps have another editor take a look at what was excised? The German/Danish band histories, particularly of Firebyrds, is relevant, in my view, as illustrating the consistency of his active musical involvement and how this relationship with Clark then turned into the contentious "20th anniversary celebration". Is the site that has been excised any more or less authoritative than the "Byrd Watcher" site, which seems frozen as of 1997 or so? I honestly don't know. The latter has some references, but I don't know if it is regarded as a generally authoritative text.

I agree that referencing Crosby's later liver transplant, while perhaps interesting in terms of comparative life histories of Crosby and Clarke, is essentially irrelevant to a page on the life of Clarke.

Please appreciate that I didn't originate the page, but was trying to improve on what was there, as well as to correct such inaccuracies as I might find. Perhaps compare what was there before I chose to volunteer my time to try to make it better. I believe I succeeded, to an extent. The external links taken out weren't put there by me; I suspect placed by a Clarke family member.

On another note, things got much better with your involvement with the H.P. Lovecraft (band) page (as above), so I believe that things will likely get better here as well.

Dreadarthur (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many thanks for your thoughtful and constructive comments here, including your detailed justification for why the Byrd Watcher site is regarded as an authoritative source. (What happened to its originator? It's like the site suddenly stopped, without succession arrangements, and despite having a discussion forum ["Ask Dr. Byrds']) Unlike you, I am not an expert on The Byrds and so very much look forward to seeing how this page gets better through you. The H.P. Lovecraft (band) page is now an particularly good page through your input.

Many thanks again.

Dreadarthur (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am reluctant to do much more directly on this page, based on deficiencies in my previous edits. Instead, over the next while, I propose to raise on the Talk Page potential issues to address or points to include. I've already raised one point in relation to his age. Perhaps then you or others with comparable expertise could address adding to or editing in a substantiated manner the page itself. I have reviewed your Kevin Kelley page and agree that this is the level to aspire towards. I don't have the Byrd biographies referenced, and so believe that others like you, in possession of similar information, are better able to get the Michael Clarke page up to the superior Kevin Kelley level. Does this seem reasonable?

The more I read about him, the more fascinating I find Clarke, in that he was consistently a musician for his entire life, while at the same time developing his painting abilities, going back to his time in Hawaii after the fractured Notorious Byrd Brothers sessions. In addition, despite various conflicts, he seemed to remain on good terms with all of the original members (and remained on good terms with Gene Clark throughout, including when the others were suing Clarke) until he and Gene Clark started the various "other Byrds" bands, and, in particular, when Clarke went out alone as The Byrds. His performance impairment through drinking appears to have first become evident in Firefall, when he started missing shows, yet others, such as Jerry Jeff Walker, continued to want him as their drummer.

Dreadarthur (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your comments on the Talk page and thank you for taking the time to provide such detail. In terms of the "fired or left, or both" dimension to the Notorious Byrd Brothers sessions, I suggest that some of what you have written should be in the main text or in a footnote, with the text sources referenced. I haven't read these works, while you have; hence the great difference in the quality of perspectives here. This is perhaps where I have a problem in terms of Wikipedia expectations, in that I prefer to see qualifications or supplementary detail in footnotes.

I note that the Notorious Byrd Brothers page is largely yours. It is superb, in my view, adding much to music history.

Dreadarthur (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your additions to the page in relation to The Notorious Byrd Brothers sessions. Better than many/most could have done, including yours truly. I will continue to add queries to the Talk page, as issues come up. Also to The Byrds talk page. Far better for me, at least, to be contributing to page improvements in this area through the "Talk Page" approach. Similar to what I have encountered with Van Morrison-related pages, such as Them, there is a very select group with superior knowledge (and superior sources) here.

Dreadarthur (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to add material as you have suggested.

Dreadarthur (talk) 06:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the event that this might be of interest, I have favourably discussed the foregoing debate/editorial review and direction, in the context of criticisms of Wikipedia:

http://brucelarochelle.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/wikipedia-serious-editors-serious-criticism/

Dreadarthur (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have read, Gene Clark returned to The Byrds for no more than a couple of weeks following the firing of David Crosby in 1967. Yet I found this YouTube video that shows him on a television program (Cavett? Smothers Brothers?) singing "Going Back":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olqvPg3GL1M&feature=related

I don't see this referenced on the Gene Clark page. Also can't figure out who the drummer is on this, or whether any of this should be referenced on the Gene Clark or Byrds pages.

Dreadarthur (talk) 06:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at the video more closely. This is quite historic (at least for the less informed, like me)--proof that Michael Clarke and Gene Clark returned to The Byrds in 1967 at roughly the same time. This would tie into your page comments that Clarke in particular returned to fulfill contractual obligations. Amazing to see them coming together to do this song that Crosby hated so much.

Dreadarthur (talk) 06:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to your suggestion, I have added some material that will need better referencing (I don't believe YouTube is to be cited, based on copyright breaches?). In reviewing the Gene Clark article, it appears that it will benefit from a lot more citations, as your time permits.

Dreadarthur (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the references and revisions to Gene Clark during the fall of 1967. It is evident that the article needs much more of the type of referencing you are capable of adding.

Dreadarthur (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a small bit concerning Clark's contribution to the Notorious Byrds Brothers album, leaving citations as a matter of your choice. There is so much important material that is coming out here through the input of you and others with such detailed knowledge of Byrds history.

I am wondering if it might be worthwhile for you to seek a direct or indirect interview with McGuinn, Crosby and/or Hillman, to the extent that this has not already been considered. I used e-mail exchanges to address missing facts on the John Witmer page, as a more minor example.

Dreadarthur (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your cautions and explanations in relation to the above. Still much for me to learn.

Dreadarthur (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following the constructive interchange in relation to Michael Clarke (musician) and related, I am wondering if you know of an editor who could take a look at Le Hibou Coffee House and authoritatively assist. It is in the midst of a mess due to disputes between former owners as to its "true" history. I know this as referenced to my own background and current events among the principals of which I have become aware:

http://brucelarochelle.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/van-morrison-le-hibou-1970/

Any assistance in an editorial referral here would be appreciated.

Dreadarthur (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been slowly working on a couple more Dylan songs: "Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues" and "It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)" in hopes of getting them to GA. I think they are getting close, although they would both benefit from a musical sample and any other edits/suggestions you may have. Do you think you could take a look at them and provide the musical samples? Thanks. Rlendog (talk) 02:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kohoutek1138. You have new messages at Courcelles's talk page.
Message added 04:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hi Kohoutek. I've just been reading The Flying Burrito Brothers while listening to The Gilded Palace of Sin. Both articles are very poor, and should be much better. I've popped in a few crude unformated cites to The Flying Burrito Brothers, just to quickly record some sources. As I was looking at the article I remembered the excellent work you and Cbben did on Sweetheart of the Rodeo, and wondered if you'd be interested in working up either or both articles? There is a cheap book on The Gilded Palace of Sin that would be a helpful source. Regards - SilkTork *^YES! 16:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]